Cities Index.
Agenda

Delano City Council
June 21, 2022

Document
Agenda
Meeting
June 21, 2022
Body
Delano City Council
Pages
20
Original file
20.9 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on www.cityofdelano.org. That file is the official record.

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Table 1
Detected Volatile Organic Compound in Groundwater
Well
Sample
Date Analyte
Concentration1
(µg/L) Flag2
Reporting
Limit1
(µg/L)
Method
Detection
Limit1
(µg/L)
MD1-33 06/10/20 Trichloroethene 1.2 -- 0.5 0.085
MD1-33 06/10/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 16 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-33 12/03/20 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.25 J,DX 0.5 0.11
MD1-33 12/03/20 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.25 J,DX 0.5 0.11
MD1-33 12/03/20 Chloroform 1 -- 0.5 0.12
MD1-33 12/03/20 Chloroform 1 -- 0.5 0.12
MD1-33 12/03/20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.37 U,PK 0.5 0.085 MD1-33 12/03/20 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.37 U 0.5 0.085 MD1-33 12/03/20 Dichlorodifluoromethane 3.7 U 0.5 0.099 MD1-33 12/03/20 Dichlorodifluoromethane 3.7 U 0.5 0.099 MD1-33 12/03/20 Tetrachloroethene 7.8 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-33 12/03/20 Tetrachloroethene 7.8 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-33 12/03/20 Trichloroethene 1 -- 0.5 0.085
MD1-33 12/03/20 Trichloroethene 1 -- 0.5 0.085
MD1-33 12/03/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 15 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-33 12/03/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 15 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-34 05/15/18 Tetrachloroethene 0.18 U 0.5 0.13
MD1-34 08/07/18 Tetrachloroethene 0.14 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-34 11/01/18 Tetrachloroethene 0.22 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-34 05/13/19 Tetrachloroethene 0.21 -- 0.5 0.13
MD1-34 12/02/20 Tetrachloroethene 0.46 J,DX 0.5 0.13
MD3-02 10/27/09 Chloromethane 0.32 -- 0.5 0.11
MD3-02 11/01/10 Chloroform 0.13 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-03 04/21/09 Tetrachloroethene 0.41 -- 0.5 0.28
MD3-03 04/21/09 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.24 -- 0.5 0.22 MD3-03 10/27/09 Tetrachloroethene 0.43 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-03 10/27/09 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.25 U 0.5 0.11
MD3-03 04/28/10 Tetrachloroethene 0.44 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-03 04/28/10 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.21 U 0.5 0.11
MD3-04 10/28/09 Chloromethane 0.76 U 0.5 0.11
MD3-04 11/01/10 Chloroform 0.13 U 0.5 0.12
MD3-05 05/17/06 Dichlorodifluoromethane 3.5 U 0.5 0.25
MD3-05 10/18/06 Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.6 U 0.5 0.25
MD3-05 04/24/07 Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.4 -- 0.5 0.25 MD3-05 10/31/07 Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.6 U 0.5 0.49
MD3-05 11/04/08 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.22 MD3-05 04/20/09 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.5 -- 0.5 0.22 MD3-05 10/27/09 Chloromethane 0.26 -- 0.5 0.11
MD3-05 10/27/09 Dibromochloromethane 0.16 U 0.5 0.077

Page 14 of 20 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Table 1
Detected Volatile Organic Compound in Groundwater
Well
Sample
Date Analyte
Concentration1
(µg/L) Flag2
Reporting
Limit1
(µg/L)
Method
Detection
Limit1
(µg/L)
MD3-05 10/27/09 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.8 -- 0.5 0.11 MD3-05 04/27/10 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.2 -- 0.5 0.11 MD3-05 04/27/10 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.2 U 0.5 0.11
MD3-05 11/01/10 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.8 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-05 04/19/11 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.1 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-05 11/02/11 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.2 U 0.5 0.099 MD3-06 05/30/12 Tetrachloroethene 0.32 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/30/12 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.39 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 06/20/12 Tetrachloroethene 0.28 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 06/20/12 Tetrachloroethene 0.31 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 06/20/12 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.37 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 06/20/12 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.34 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 08/02/12 Tetrachloroethene 0.4 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/02/12 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.58 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 10/22/12 Tetrachloroethene 0.36 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 10/22/12 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.63 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 02/14/13 Tetrachloroethene 0.32 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 02/14/13 Toluene 0.11 -- 0.5 0.093
MD3-06 02/14/13 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.56 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 05/01/13 Tetrachloroethene 0.39 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/01/13 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.66 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 08/19/13 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.1 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-06 08/19/13 Tetrachloroethene 0.46 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/19/13 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.88 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 10/14/13 Tetrachloroethene 0.46 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 10/14/13 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.91 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 02/10/14 Tetrachloroethene 0.53 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 02/10/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/21/14 Chloroform 0.12 U 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 05/21/14 Tetrachloroethene 0.63 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/21/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/06/14 Tetrachloroethene 0.62 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/06/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.3 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 10/08/14 Tetrachloroethene 0.78 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 10/08/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 01/13/15 Chloroform 0.13 U 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 01/13/15 Chloroform 0.13 U,PK 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 01/13/15 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.1 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-06 01/13/15 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.1 -- 0.5 0.099

Page 15 of 20 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Table 1
Detected Volatile Organic Compound in Groundwater
Well
Sample
Date Analyte
Concentration1
(µg/L) Flag2
Reporting
Limit1
(µg/L)
Method
Detection
Limit1
(µg/L)
MD3-06 01/13/15 Tetrachloroethene 1.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 01/13/15 Tetrachloroethene 1.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 01/13/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 01/13/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 04/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 0.83 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 04/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 0.83 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 04/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 04/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 07/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 0.85 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 07/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 0.85 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 07/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 0.85 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 07/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 07/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 07/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/09/15 Tetrachloroethene 0.63 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/09/15 Tetrachloroethene 0.63 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/09/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/09/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 04/20/16 Tetrachloroethene 0.79 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 04/20/16 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.5 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/09/16 Tetrachloroethene 0.69 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/09/16 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.6 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/10/16 Tetrachloroethene 1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/10/16 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.8 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 03/07/17 Tetrachloroethene 0.99 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 03/07/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.9 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/18/17 Tetrachloroethene 0.82 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/18/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.5 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/10/17 Tetrachloroethene 0.98 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/10/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/15/17 Chloroform 0.13 U 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 11/15/17 Tetrachloroethene 0.89 U 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 11/15/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.8 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/16/18 Chloroform 0.12 U 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 05/16/18 Tetrachloroethene 0.54 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/16/18 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.98 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 08/07/18 Tetrachloroethene 0.5 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 08/07/18 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.78 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 11/01/18 Tetrachloroethene 0.45 -- 0.5 0.13

Page 16 of 20 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Table 1
Detected Volatile Organic Compound in Groundwater
Well
Sample
Date Analyte
Concentration1
(µg/L) Flag2
Reporting
Limit1
(µg/L)
Method
Detection
Limit1
(µg/L)
MD3-06 11/01/18 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.83 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 05/13/19 Tetrachloroethene 0.47 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 05/13/19 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.97 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 06/09/20 Chloroform 0.14 U 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 06/09/20 Tetrachloroethene 0.56 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 06/09/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.5 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 12/03/20 Chloroform 0.15 J,DX 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 12/03/20 Chloroform 0.15 J,DX 0.5 0.12
MD3-06 12/03/20 Tetrachloroethene 0.49 J,DX 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 12/03/20 Tetrachloroethene 0.49 J,DX 0.5 0.13
MD3-06 12/03/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.97 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-06 12/03/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.97 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-07 11/14/17 Chloroform 0.17 J,DX 0.5 0.12
MD3-07 11/14/17 RN75-38-7 0.77 TI -- --
MD3-07 05/16/18 Chloroform 0.19 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-07 08/07/18 Chloroform 0.24 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-07 11/05/18 Chloroform 0.28 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-07 05/13/19 Chloroform 0.2 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-07 06/09/20 Chloroform 0.2 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-07 12/02/20 Chloroform 0.15 J,DX 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 06/20/13 Chloroform 0.12 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 06/20/13 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.16 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 06/20/13 Tetrachloroethene 1.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 06/20/13 Trichloroethene 0.13 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 06/20/13 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.7 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/19/13 Tetrachloroethene 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/19/13 Trichloroethene 0.18 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 08/19/13 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 10/14/13 Tetrachloroethene 2.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 10/14/13 Trichloroethene 0.28 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 10/14/13 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.8 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 02/10/14 Tetrachloroethene 1.8 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 02/10/14 Trichloroethene 0.2 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 02/10/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.8 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/20/14 Tetrachloroethene 0.61 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/20/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.76 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-08 08/06/14 Tetrachloroethene 0.46 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/06/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.73 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-08 10/08/14 Tetrachloroethene 0.48 -- 0.5 0.13

Page 17 of 20 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Table 1
Detected Volatile Organic Compound in Groundwater
Well
Sample
Date Analyte
Concentration1
(µg/L) Flag2
Reporting
Limit1
(µg/L)
Method
Detection
Limit1
(µg/L)
MD3-08 10/08/14 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.66 -- 0.5 0.13 MD3-08 01/13/15 Tetrachloroethene 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 01/13/15 Tetrachloroethene 1.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 01/13/15 Trichloroethene 0.14 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 01/13/15 Trichloroethene 0.14 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 01/13/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.5 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 01/13/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.5 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 04/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 1.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 04/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 1.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 04/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 04/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 07/21/15 Chloroform 0.32 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 07/21/15 Chloroform 0.32 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 07/21/15 Chloroform 0.32 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 07/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 2.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 07/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 2.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 07/21/15 Tetrachloroethene 2.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 07/21/15 Trichloroethene 0.25 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 07/21/15 Trichloroethene 0.25 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 07/21/15 Trichloroethene 0.25 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 07/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 4.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 07/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 4.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 07/21/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 4.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/09/15 Chloroform 0.8 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 11/09/15 Chloroform 0.8 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 11/09/15 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.36 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 11/09/15 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.36 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 11/09/15 Tetrachloroethene 2.9 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/09/15 Tetrachloroethene 2.9 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/09/15 Trichloroethene 0.28 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 11/09/15 Trichloroethene 0.28 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 11/09/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 7.3 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/09/15 Trichlorofluoromethane 7.3 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 04/20/16 Chloroform 1.3 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 04/20/16 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.59 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 04/20/16 Tetrachloroethene 3.3 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 04/20/16 Trichloroethene 0.28 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 04/20/16 Trichlorofluoromethane 9 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/09/16 Chloroform 1.6 -- 0.5 0.12

Page 18 of 20 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Table 1
Detected Volatile Organic Compound in Groundwater
Well
Sample
Date Analyte
Concentration1
(µg/L) Flag2
Reporting
Limit1
(µg/L)
Method
Detection
Limit1
(µg/L)
MD3-08 08/09/16 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.89 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 08/09/16 Tetrachloroethene 3.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/09/16 Trichloroethene 0.22 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 08/09/16 Trichlorofluoromethane 10 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/10/16 Chloroform 1.6 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 11/10/16 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.71 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 11/10/16 Tetrachloroethene 3.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/10/16 Trichloroethene 0.26 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 11/10/16 Trichlorofluoromethane 9.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 03/01/17 Chloroform 2.2 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 03/01/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.1 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 03/01/17 Tetrachloroethene 3.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 03/01/17 Trichloroethene 0.2 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 03/01/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 11 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/18/17 Chloroform 2.3 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 05/18/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.84 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 05/18/17 Tetrachloroethene 2.9 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/18/17 Trichloroethene 0.21 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 05/18/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 7 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/10/17 Chloroform 2.4 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 08/10/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.4 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 08/10/17 Tetrachloroethene 3.1 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/10/17 Trichloroethene 0.16 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 08/10/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 10 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/14/17 Chloroform 2 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 11/14/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.87 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 11/14/17 Tetrachloroethene 2.5 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/14/17 Trichloroethene 0.14 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 11/14/17 Trichlorofluoromethane 9.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/16/18 Chloroform 1.8 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 05/16/18 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1 -- 0.5 0.099
MD3-08 05/16/18 Tetrachloroethene 2.7 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/16/18 Trichloroethene 0.22 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 05/16/18 Trichlorofluoromethane 11 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/07/18 Chloroform 1.8 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 08/07/18 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.72 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 08/07/18 Tetrachloroethene 3 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 08/07/18 Trichloroethene 0.25 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 08/07/18 Trichlorofluoromethane 9.8 -- 0.5 0.13

Page 19 of 20 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Table 1
Detected Volatile Organic Compound in Groundwater
Well
Sample
Date Analyte
Concentration1
(µg/L) Flag2
Reporting
Limit1
(µg/L)
Method
Detection
Limit1
(µg/L)
MD3-08 11/01/18 Chloroform 1.6 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 11/01/18 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.44 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 11/01/18 Tetrachloroethene 3.2 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 11/01/18 Trichloroethene 0.26 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 11/01/18 Trichlorofluoromethane 8.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/15/19 Chloroform 0.99 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 05/15/19 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.34 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 05/15/19 Tetrachloroethene 3.3 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 05/15/19 Trichloroethene 0.31 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 05/15/19 Trichlorofluoromethane 7.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 06/09/20 Chloroform 1.3 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 06/09/20 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.4 -- 0.5 0.099 MD3-08 06/09/20 Tetrachloroethene 3.6 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 06/09/20 Trichloroethene 0.32 -- 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 06/09/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 10 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 12/02/20 Chloroform 0.99 -- 0.5 0.12
MD3-08 12/02/20 Tetrachloroethene 2.4 -- 0.5 0.13
MD3-08 12/02/20 Trichloroethene 0.22 J,DX 0.5 0.085
MD3-08 12/02/20 Trichlorofluoromethane 3.1 -- 0.5 0.13

1. µg/L = micrograms per liter.

2. DX = value is less than the practical quantitation limit but greater than the method detection limit, J = estimated value, PK = opening calibration verification standard outside acceptance criteria, TI = tentatively identified compound, and U = compound was analyzed for but was not detected (reported as trace).

3. "-" = information not known.

Page 20 of 20 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Figures
Basemap modified from USGS 7.5 minute Ontario,
California, topographic quadrangle.

N:\4000s\004034\gis\maps\2020\CSM\_fig01_SLM_2020.mxd
Site
SITE
California
Site Location Map
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill
Kern County, California
1 Project No.: 004034
Figure
By: EMC Date: 3/26/2021
0 500 1,000 2,000
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 150 300 600
Approximate Scale in Meters
Path: N:\4000s\004034\gis\maps\2020\CSM\_Fig02_Site Plan.mxd ")
")
") ")
")
")
") ")
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!? !?!? !? !? !?
:!U
!?
!?
!? !?
!?
") !?
!?
!?
A@
A@
A@
A@ A@
")
")
")
A@
A@
A@
MD1-09
MD1-10
MD1-16 MD1-17
MD1-18
MD1-19
MD1-21 MD1-20
MD1-01
MD3-01
MD3-03
MD3-04
MD3-05
MD1-11
MD1-26
MD1-27
MD1-13 MD1-02 MD1-06
MD1-04 MD1-12 MD1-05
MD-DOM
MD1-08
MD1-25
MD1-15 MD1-03
MD1-24
MD1-14 MD1-07
MD1-23
MD1-22
MD3-02
MD1-31
MD1-32
MD1-33
MD3-06
MD1-28
MD1-29
MD1-30
MD1-34
MD3-07
MD3-08
MD1-35
MD1-36 MD1-37
MD1-38
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Notes:

1. DMP = detection monitoring program.

2. CAP = corrective action program.

3. EMP = evaluation monitoring program.

4. MD1-14 to be converted into a landfill
gas monitoring well.

Explanation
DMP well location
CAP well location
Monitoring wells
decommissioned in May 11-14, 2020
Landfill gas monitoring well
Decommissioned landfill supply well
Dirt road
Paved road
Property line
Limit of landfill refuse
Site Plan
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill
Kern County, California.
2 Project No.: 004034
Figure
By: GLK Date: 5/14/2021
A@
A@
!?
")
!U:
0 250 500 1,000
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 50 100 200
Approximate Scale in Meters
Path: N:\4000s\004034\gis\maps\2020\CSM\_Fig03_Topo and Soils Map.mxd 138
156
156
156
211
156
243
138
156
156
174
174
174
192
192
243
Notes:

1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources
Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/Web
SoilSurvey.aspx , Retrieved 2021(USDA, 2021).

2. U.S. National Geologic Map database Project
(NGMDB), U. S. Geologic Survey 7.5 Minute
Topographic Maps: Delano West, CA; Delano
East, CA; McFarland, CA: Pond, CA:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/
#15/35.7426/-119.2569, Retrieved April 2021
(NGMDB, 2021).

Topographic and
Soil Classification Map
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill
Kern County, California.
3 Project No.: 004034
Figure
By: GLK Date: 5/14/2021 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 250 500 1,000
Approximate Scale in Meters
Explanation
parcel
landfill
Soil Classification
138: Delano sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
156: Garces silt loam
174: Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes MLRA 17
192: McFarland loam
211: Panoche clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
243: Wasco sandy loam
I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034‐081
180190200210220230240250
Jan-99
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-10
Jan-11
Jan-12
Jan-13
Jan-14
Jan-15
Jan-16
Jan-17
Jan-18
Jan-19
Jan-20
Groundwater Elevation (feet mean sea level)
Date
MD1-11 MD1-22 MD1-23 MD1-24 MD1-25 MD1-26 MD1-27 MD3-01 MD3-02MD3-03 MD3-04 MD3-05 MD1-31 MD1-32 MD1-33 MD1-34 MD3-06 MD3-08 GLK 03/31/2021 004034 Groundwater Hydrograph
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill
Kern County, California
4 By: Date: Project No.:

Figure
Path: N:\4000s\004034\gis\maps\2020\CSM\_Fig05_Site Plan_Potentio2020.mxd A@
A@
A@
A@
A@A@
A@
A@A@A@
A@
A@
A@
A@
A@
205
200
195
182
190
181 180
183
185
184
MD1-34
(207.31)
MD1-33
(197.53) MD3-08
(195.46)
MD3-02
(197.62)
MD1-31
(192.08)
MD1-32
(192.45)
MD3-06
(189.54)
MD3-07
(184.67)
MW-18
(182.31)
MW-24
(181.12) MW-15
(179.67)
MW-22
(181.48)
MW-20
(182.65)
MW-26
(181.34)
MW-10
(181.98)
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Notes:

1. DMP = detection monitoring program.

2. CAP = corrective action program.

3. EMP = evaluation monitoring program.

4. * = to be converted into a gas monitoring well.

Explanation
DMP well location
CAP well location
Nutrien Ag Solutions monitoring well
Dirt road
Paved road
Property line
Limit of landfill refuse
Line of equal groundwater elevation,
data from August 6, 2020 (KCPWD) and
September 21, 2020 (Nutrien Ag). Dashed
where approximate
Groundwater flow direction
Groundwater elevation in feet
Mean Sea Level
Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Map
August through September 2020
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill
Kern County, California.
5 Project No.: 004034
Figure
By: EMC Date: 3/30/2021 A@ 0 250 500 1,000
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 50 100 200
Approximate Scale in Meters
A@A@
204
MD1-34
(190.23)
Path: N:\4000s\004034\gis\maps\2020\CSM\_Fig06_Site Plan_VOCs.mxd A@
A@
A@
A@ A@
A@
A@
A@
Constitue nt Re sult
1,1- Dic hloroe tha ne 0 .2 2 J
c is- 1,2 - Dic hloroe the ne 0 .13 J
Dic hlorodifluorome tha ne 0 .4 4 J
Dic hlorofluorome tha ne 5 TI
Te tra c hloroe the ne (PCE) 5
Tric hloroe the ne (TCE) 1.5
Tric hlorofluorome tha ne 0 .8 6
MD1- 3 1
Constitue nt Re sult
Dic hlorofluorome tha ne 6 .3 TI
Te tra c hloroe the ne (PCE) 1
Tric hloroe the ne (TCE) 0 .7 3
Tric hlorofluorome tha ne 0 .8 1
MD1- 3 2
Constitue nt Re sult
1,1- Dic hloroe tha ne 0 .2 5 J
Chloroform 1
c is- 1,2 - Dic hloroe the ne 0 .4 2 J
Dic hlorodifluorome tha ne 3
Dic hlorofluorome tha ne 2 .3 TI
Te tra c hloroe the ne (PCE) 11
Tric hloroe the ne (TCE) 1.2
Tric hlorofluorome tha ne 16
MD1- 3 3
Constituent Result
Chloroform 0.14J
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 0.56
Trichlorofluoromethane 1.5
MD3- 06
Constituent Result
Chloroform 0.2J
MD3- 07
Constitue nt Re sult
Chloroform 1.3
Dic hlorodifluorome tha ne 0 .4 J
Te tra c hloroe the ne (PCE) 3 .6
Tric hloroe the ne (TCE) 0 .3 2 J
Tric hlorofluorome tha ne 10
MD3 - 0 8
MD1- 34
VOCs Not detected
MD3 - 0 2
We ll Dry Not Sa mple d
205
200
195
190
185
183
184
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Notes:

1. DMP = detection monitoring program.

2. CAP = corrective action program.

3. VOC concentrations reported in micrograms
per liter (ug/L)

4. J = estimated value

5. TI = tentatively identified compound
Explanation
DMP well location
CAP well location
Nutrien Ag Solutions monitoring well
Dirt road
Paved road
Property line
Limit of landfill refuse
Line of equal groundwater elevation,
data from August 6, 2020 (KCPWD) and
September 21, 2020 (Nutrien Ag). Dashed
where approximate
Groundwater flow direction
Approximate extent of volatile organics
compounds (VOCs) in groundwater
Distribution of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Groundwater (June 2020)
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill
Kern County, California.
6 Project No.: 004034
Figure
By: EMC Date: 4/13/2021
A@
0 250 500 1,000
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 50 100 200
Approximate Scale in Meters
A@
A@
204
Path: N:\4000s\004034\gis\maps\2020\CSM\_Fig07_Site Plan_Proposed_DMP_Replacement_Wells.mxd A@
A@
A@
A@ A@
A@
A@
A@
ED
ED ED
ED
MD3-02
MD1-31
MD1-32
MD1-33
MD3-06
MD1-34
MD3-07
MD3-08
MD1-35
MD1-36 MD1-37
MD1-38
205
200
195
190
185
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Notes:

1. DMP = detection monitoring program.

2. CAP = corrective action program.

Explanation
DMP well location
CAP well location
Proposed replacement DMP well
Dirt road
Paved road
Property line
Limit of landfill refuse
Revised Point of Compliance
Line of equal groundwater elevation,
data from August 6, 2020 (KCPWD) and
September 21, 2020 (Nutrien Ag). Dashed
where approximate
Groundwater flow direction
Proposed Replacement Detection
Monitoring Program Wells
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill
Kern County, California.
7 Project No.: 004034
Figure
By: EMC Date: 4/2/2021
A@
0 250 500 1,000
Approximate Scale in Feet
0 50 100 200
Approximate Scale in Meters
A@
ED
204
Appendix A
Geophysical Logs

Appendix B
Water Supply Well GeoTracker Data
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
9/25/1985 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.05 µg/L
4/14/1987 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.02 µg/L
4/14/1987 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.02 µg/L
4/18/1989 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 NAPHTHALENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
Kern County, California
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill

Page 1 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
4/18/1989 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 4/18/1989 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/18/1989 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
4/26/1989 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
4/26/1989 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
7/17/1989 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.02 µg/L
7/17/1989 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
8/1/1989 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 NAPHTHALENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L

Page 2 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/1/1989 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 8/1/1989 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/1/1989 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
10/17/1989 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.02 µg/L
10/17/1989 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
5/22/1991 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
5/22/1991 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.02 µg/L
6/2/1992 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 6/2/1992 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L

Page 3 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
6/2/1992 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/2/1992 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
6/3/1992 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
6/3/1992 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
5/21/1993 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
5/21/1993 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L

Page 4 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
6/22/1994 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 NAPHTHALENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 6/22/1994 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/22/1994 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L

Page 5 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
9/28/1994 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
9/28/1994 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
2/16/1996 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
2/16/1996 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
10/2/1997 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 10/2/1997 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 BROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 CHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
10/2/1997 BROMOBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L 10/2/1997 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0.5 µg/L 10/2/1997 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L

Page 6 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
10/2/1997 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 STYRENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 NAPHTHALENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/2/1997 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
2/15/2000 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 NAPHTHALENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L

Page 7 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
9/6/2000 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 9/6/2000 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/6/2000 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/17/2001 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
8/13/2002 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
2/18/2003 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
2/18/2003 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  0 µg/L
2/18/2003 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
2/18/2003 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
2/18/2003 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
2/18/2003 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L

Page 8 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/25/2003 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 NAPHTHALENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L

Page 9 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/25/2003 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 8/25/2003 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
8/25/2003 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
9/19/2005 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
9/19/2005 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE    0.006 µg/L
9/19/2005 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
9/7/2006 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 M,P-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  10 µg/L
9/7/2006 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 STYRENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 O-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  1 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L

Page 10 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
9/7/2006 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
9/7/2006 BROMOBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L 9/7/2006 TRICHLOROACETIC ACID (TCAA) <  1 µg/L
9/7/2006 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BROMOMETHANE <  1 µg/L
9/7/2006 CHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 9/7/2006 NAPHTHALENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
9/7/2006 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE <  1 µg/L
9/7/2006 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/24/2006 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/31/2007 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L

Page 11 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
7/28/2008 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
9/3/2008 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L 8/26/2009 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 M,P-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 8/26/2009 NAPHTHALENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
8/26/2009 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE <  1 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  10 µg/L
8/26/2009 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 STYRENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 O-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L

Page 12 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/26/2009 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0.5 µg/L 8/26/2009 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0.005 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
7/20/2011 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/4/2011 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/18/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
5/24/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/28/2012 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0.5 µg/L 8/28/2012 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  1 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L 8/28/2012 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 M,P-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L

Page 13 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/28/2012 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIISOPROPYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 8/28/2012 NAPHTHALENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
8/28/2012 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE <  1 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  10 µg/L
8/28/2012 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 STYRENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 O-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L

Page 14 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/28/2012 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
11/5/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
3/11/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
5/20/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/15/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/23/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/13/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/7/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 7/1/2014 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L

Page 15 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B1
City of Delano Supply Well No.14 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
10/20/2014 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
10/20/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/20/2014 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
1/21/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/21/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
1/21/2015 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
Notes:

1. Source: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/reports/well_quality.asp?global_id=W0601510005&assigned_name=1510005-013

Page 16 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
6/6/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 ACETONE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 METHYL ETHYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 6/6/2012 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 DIISOPROPYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 VINYL CHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 HEXACHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
Kern County, California
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill

Page 1 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
6/6/2012 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 MONOCHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
6/6/2012 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 HEXACHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L

Page 2 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
3/17/2015 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 ACETONE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 METHYL ETHYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 3/17/2015 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 DIISOPROPYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 MONOCHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L

Page 3 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
3/17/2015 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 VINYL CHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
3/17/2015 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 MONOCHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L

Page 4 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
7/21/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 VINYL CHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 HEXACHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA)    3.2 µg/L
7/21/2015 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 ACETONE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 METHYL ETHYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 7/21/2015 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
7/21/2015 DIISOPROPYL ETHER <  0 µg/L

Page 5 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
9/1/2015 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 VINYL CHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 MONOCHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 CHLOROMETHANE    0.88 µg/L
9/1/2015 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 ACETONE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 METHYL ETHYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L

Page 6 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
9/1/2015 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 DIISOPROPYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 HEXACHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
9/1/2015 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 ACETONE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 BROMOBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 METHYL ETHYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 10/27/2015 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 DIISOPROPYL ETHER <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 HEXACHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L

Page 7 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
10/27/2015 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0 µg/L 10/27/2015 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 VINYL CHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 MONOCHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 CHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L

Page 8 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
10/27/2015 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 BROMOMETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 CHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
10/27/2015 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/19/2016 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
7/19/2016 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
7/19/2016 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 12/5/2017 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 MONOCHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L

Page 9 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
12/5/2017 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 VINYL CHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
12/5/2017 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
2/6/2018 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/10/2018 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/17/2018 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
7/17/2018 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/17/2018 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
10/23/2018 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/8/2019 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/2/2019 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/16/2019 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/23/2019 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
7/23/2019 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
10/7/2019 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/7/2020 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/8/2020 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2020 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 VINYL CHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 7/21/2020 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 MONOCHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L

Page 10 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
7/21/2020 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/21/2020 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
10/2/2020 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/12/2021 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 9/7/2006 NAPHTHALENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
9/7/2006 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE <  1 µg/L
9/7/2006 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
9/7/2006 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
10/24/2006 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/31/2007 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L

Page 11 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
7/28/2008 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
9/3/2008 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L 8/26/2009 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 M,P-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 8/26/2009 NAPHTHALENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
8/26/2009 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE <  1 µg/L
8/26/2009 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  10 µg/L
8/26/2009 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 STYRENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 O-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L

Page 12 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/26/2009 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0.5 µg/L 8/26/2009 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0.005 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 BROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 CHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/26/2009 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
7/20/2011 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/4/2011 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/18/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
5/24/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/28/2012 ISOPROPYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 N-PROPYLBENZENE (1-PHENYLPROPANE) <  0.5 µg/L 8/28/2012 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 SEC-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TERT-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  1 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIBROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.01 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L 8/28/2012 N-BUTYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 P-ISOPROPYLTOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 M,P-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L

Page 13 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/28/2012 ETHYL-TERT-BUTYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TERT-AMYL-METHYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIISOPROPYL ETHER <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 8/28/2012 NAPHTHALENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
8/28/2012 DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE <  1 µg/L
8/28/2012 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL (TBA) <  10 µg/L
8/28/2012 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 STYRENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 O-XYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 2,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L

Page 14 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/28/2012 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/28/2012 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
11/5/2012 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
3/11/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
5/20/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/15/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/23/2013 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/13/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
4/7/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 METHYL-TERT-BUTYL-ETHER (MTBE) <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 STYRENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 O-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE <  0 µg/L 7/1/2014 M,P-XYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TOLUENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 BENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 ETHYLBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  0 µg/L
7/1/2014 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (TOTAL) <  0 µg/L

Page 15 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B2
City of Delano Supply Well No.34 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
10/20/2014 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
10/20/2014 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
10/20/2014 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
1/21/2015 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0 µg/L
1/21/2015 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0 µg/L
1/21/2015 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0 µg/L
Notes:

1. Source: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/reports/well_quality.asp?global_id=W0601510005&assigned_name=1510005-047 &allrecords=on&maxconc=&orderby=dateasc

Page 16 of 16 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B3
Flores Water Supply Well No.01 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/31/1987 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.2 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE <  5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BIS (2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE <  5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER <  5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER <  5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER <  5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BROMOFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 BROMOMETHANE <  2 µg/L
8/31/1987 BROMOMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 CHLOROETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 CHLOROFORM (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 CHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (THM) <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 DIBROMOCHLOROPROPANE (DBCP) <  0.01 µg/L
8/31/1987 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (FREON 12) <  0.5 µg/L 8/31/1987 DICHLOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 ETHYLBENZENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) <  0.02 µg/L
8/31/1987 HEXACHLOROBENZENE <  5 µg/L
8/31/1987 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE <  5 µg/L
8/31/1987 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE <  20 µg/L
8/31/1987 HEXACHLOROETHANE <  5 µg/L
Kern County, California
McFarland-Delano Sanitary Landfill

Page 1 of 2 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Appendix B3
Flores Water Supply Well No.01 - Volatile Organic Compounds1 Date Parameter Qualifier Result Units
8/31/1987 METHYL ETHYL KETONE <  1 µg/L
8/31/1987 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE <  1 µg/L
8/31/1987 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 TOLUENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANES <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 TRICHLOROETHYLENE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE <  0.5 µg/L
8/31/1987 VINYL CHLORIDE <  1 µg/L
8/31/1987 XYLENES (TOTAL) <  0.5 µg/L
Notes:

1. Source: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/reports/well_quality.asp?global_id=W0601502534&assigned_name=1502534-001

Page 2 of 2 ends

I:\4000s\4034\Archive\4034-081
Maps

CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV MOTORCYCLE MOTORCYCLE WOOLLOMES AVENUE SECTION S. ALBANY STREET SECTION S. BELMONT STREET SECTION LOCAL STREET TYPICAL SECTION FUTBOL DRIVE SECTION CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV

MOTORCYCLE MOTORCYCLE

TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 7407 DOVER DELANO, LLC WOOLLOMES AVE WOOLLOMES AVE SCHUSTER ROAD SCHUSTER ROAD STATE HIGHWAY 99DELANO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

GARZOLI AVE
DOVER
PKWY

S ALBANY ST MORSE AVEVICINITY MAP
I
O
E
S
O
AT
ST
E
F
CAL I F P.L.S. No. 7816
G.

SNR

E I C L
DE
I ED
WH
TT
L
A
N
D
A
RNI

OYE RVN
R
U
LL
JR. KEY MAP PHASING MAP
D
D
D

TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 7407 0'
DOVER DELANO, LLC GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 60' 30' 60'30' 1 inch = 60 ft.

I
O
E
S
O
AT
ST
E
F
CAL I F P.L.S. No. 7816
G.

SNRR

E I C L
DE
I ED
WH
TT
L
A
N
D
A
RNI

OYE RVN
R
U
LL
JR.

CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV

MOTORCYCLE MOTORCYCLE
D

TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 7407 DOVER DELANO, LLC 0' GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 60' 30' 60'30' 1 inch = 60 ft.

I
O
E
S
O
AT
ST
E
F
CAL I F P.L.S. No. 7816
G.

SNRR

E I C L
DE
I ED
WH
TT
L
A
N
D
A
RNI

OYE RVN
R
U
LL
JR.
295
300
291
292
293
294
296
297
298
299
301
301 295
291
291
292
293
294
296
295
291
291
292
293
294

STOP CLEAN AIR

VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV CLEAN AIR VANPOOL / EV

MOTORCYCLE MOTORCYCLE
D
D
D
D
D
STOP

TENTATIVE PARCEL
DELANO RETAIL CENTER WEST, LLC MAP NO. 12464 VICINITY MAP 0' GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 100' 50' 50' 100' 1 inch = 100 ft. PARCEL 1 PMW NO. 2021-002 DOC NO. 222031745 PARCEL 2 PMW NO. 2021-002 DOC NO. 222031745 Environmental Impact Report
and Mitigation Monitoring
Report

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT

GRAPEVINE PROJECT
SCH# 2013031078
City of Delano – June 13, 2014
City of Delano
Community Development Department
1015 Eleventh Avenue
Delano, CA 93215
Contact: Jerome Keene
Interim Community Development Director
Prepared by:

BSK Associates
3140 Gold Camp Drive, Suite 160
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
(916) 853-9293
www.bskassociates.com
BSK Project: E1300910S
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page i
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 EIR CERTIFICATION PROCESS AND PROJECT APPROVAL ..................................................................... 2

1.3 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................ 2

2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 FEDERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 STATE................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 LOCAL ................................................................................................................................................15

2.4 INDIVIDUAL AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATION COMMENTS ................................................................. 36

3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ...............................................................................................................37

3.1 REVISIONS TO DEIR VOLUME 1 (MAIN DOCUMENT)........................................................................37

3.2 REVISIONS TO DEIR VOLUME 2 (TECHNICAL APPENDICES) ..............................................................72

4.0 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................90

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ....................................................................91 Appendices
APPENDIX A Letter from Native American Heritage Commission: Sacred Lands File Search Results, May 6, 2014
APPENDIX B Letter from Caltrans to Omni-Means, Ltd., June 17, 2013 APPENDIX C Letter from Caltrans to City of Delano, March 27, 2007 APPENDIX D Letter from Caltrans to City of Delano, May 21, 2007 APPENDIX E Letter from Caltrans to City of Delano, July 23, 2007 APPENDIX F Transcript of Statement by Moses Stites of Caltrans at Delano City Council Meeting, July 23, 2007
APPENDIX G Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate in Part, Kern County Superior Court, March 24, 2009
APPENDIX H Study Location Identification Memorandum from Omni-Means, Ltd., May 21, 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared by the City of Delano (City) as lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations, the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the development of the Delano Grapevine project (hereinafter “project” or “proposed project”), a 328,500-square-foot community shopping center located at the northwest corner of Woollomes Avenue and Dover Parkway, near the intersection of State Route 99 and Woollomes Avenue in the southwest portion of the City. The proposed project would include a 12-screen theater; a lifestyle component to include retail shops and restaurants (sit-down and fast-food); mid-size retailers between 10,000 to 25,000 square feet and outparcels for fast food; and drive-through and sit-down restaurants, with proposed building sizes ranging from 2,500 to 10,000 square feet. The site plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-3, Site Plan. The height of the majority of the buildings at the project site would range between 20 and 40 feet with some buildings reaching a height of 50 feet for an architectural feature. On-site illuminated signs of up to 80 feet in height will also be used to publicize the proposed shopping center. This section summarizes the purpose and intended uses of this FEIR, the environmental procedures that are to be followed according to state and local law, and the FEIR’s scope and organization.

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This FEIR is an informational document prepared by the City of Delano to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Grapevine project and to inform the City, public agencies, and the public about the project’s potential significant environmental effects, as required by CEQA. This FEIR has been prepared with assistance from the City's consultant, BSK Associates, and reviewed by City staff for completeness and adequacy in accordance with the state CEQA statute (Public Resources Code (PRC) sections 21000- 21189.3) and the CEQA Guidelines.

Under CEQA, the purpose of an EIR is to identify a project's significant effects on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided (PRC section 21002.1, subd. (a)). State policy encourages comments from the public and public agencies during the environmental review process in order to identify potential significant project effects, alternatives, and mitigation measures that may substantially reduce environmental effects (PRC section 21003.1, subd. (a)).

This FEIR provides detailed responses to comments on the Draft EIR (DEIR) that were received by the City by the end of the public review period on May 12, 2014. Comments received after May 12, 2014 may be taken under consideration by the City, but the City is not required to provide a response.

This FEIR contains individual responses to each written and oral comment received by the City during the public review period for the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15088, subd. (b), the City’s responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised by the comments The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 2
(e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts). While CEQA requires the City to receive and respond to comments made during the public comment period, CEQA also places limits on the extent of the City’s response, requiring the City to focus the EIR’s discussion solely on significant environmental effects (PRC 21002.1, subd. (e)). CEQA specifies that the City’s responses address “significant environmental issues” (PRC section 21091, subd. (d)(2)(B) and Guidelines section 15088).

Comments on topics that are not significant environmental issues are not part of CEQA review. The City of Delano and its consultants have provided a good-faith effort to respond in detail to all significant environmental issues raised by the each comment.

This document, together with the DEIR, will comprise the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project.

1.2 EIR CERTIFICATION PROCESS AND PROJECT APPROVAL
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the procedures of the City of Delano, the FEIR must be certified as complete and adequate prior to taking action on the proposed project. Once the City considers the information contained in the EIR and certifies the FEIR, then the City, using its independent judgment, can take action to approve the proposed project, make changes, or select an alternative to the proposed project. The information in the EIR informs the City's ultimate decision, but the City is not bound by it. The City must respond to each significant effect and mitigation measure identified in the EIR by making findings supporting the City’s decision.

1.3 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT EIR
As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15132, subdivision (c), the FEIR includes below a “list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.” The list appears in Table 3-1 List of Persons and Organizations Commenting on the DEIR. Full comments and responses are provided in Section 2.0, Comments and Responses.

2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
As required by sections 15088 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, this FEIR contains the City’s evaluation of comments on environmental issues made by public agencies and other interested parties who reviewed the DEIR. This section contains all comment letters received on the DEIR. Following each comment letter is the City’s response to that letter. CEQA Guidelines section 15132, subdivision (c) requires the FEIR to include a “list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.” This FEIR contains a list of all commenters in Table 2-1, List of Persons and Organizations Commenting on the DEIR, below. Author codes have been assigned to each comment in order to crossreference comments and responses.

Following the list, each letter is reproduced in its entirety, with a vertical line and a corresponding number on the right margin designating each of the comments made in the letter. The response following each letter addresses each comment from the letter in numerical order. Text changes made to the DEIR in response to comments appear in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR.

TABLE 2-1

LIST OF PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DEIR Commenter Date Comment
Received Author Code

FEDERAL
Tejon Indian Tribe 4/21/2014 TEJON IT
STATE
California Department of Transportation, District 6 5/12/2014 CALTRANS LOCAL
Kern County Floodplain Management 4/8/2014 KCFM
Kern County Superintendent of Schools 4/8/2014 KCSS a
Kern County Public Health Services Department.

Environmental Health Division (KCEHD) 4/8/2014 KCEHD
Kern County Superintendent of Schools (Revised
letter) 4/10/2014 KCSS b
Kern County Roads Department 5/12/2014 KCRD
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 5/12/2014 SJVAPCD

INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
No individual or private organization comments were received.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 4

2.1 FEDERAL
Tejon Indian Tribe Author Code: TEJON IT
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 5
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 6
Response to Comments from Tejon Indian Tribe
Response to TEJON IT-1
Comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project (or any other aspects of the project), and so no response is necessary.

Response to TEJON IT-2
A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search (SLFS) for the project site was not performed for the DEIR and is not required under CEQA. CEQA outlines requirements for determining the significance of impacts to archeological and historical resources in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, which does not include a SLFS among its criteria. The City General Plan does not contain any requirement for a SLFS or additional cultural surveys (City of Delano, 2005). Nonetheless, in response to the Tribe’s comment, the City made a SLFS request to NAHC. NAHC’s reply stated that the record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory did not indicate the presence of Native American traditional cultural places at the project site. (See Appendix A, Letter from NAHC, May 6, 2014).

Response to TEJON IT-3
Please see response to Comment TEJON IT-2.

Response to TEJON IT-4
Please see response to comment TEJON IT-2.

Response to TEJON IT-5
Please see response to comment TEJON IT-2.

Also, please see Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-4 regarding discoveries of human remains and grave goods that provides “If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identification. Pursuant to section 5097.98 of the Public Resource Code, the Native American Heritage Commission will identify persons ‘most likely descended from the deceased’ to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods.” Response to TEJON IT-6
This comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project, and so no response is necessary.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 7

2.2 STATE
California Department of Transportation, District 6 Author Code: CALTRANS The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 8
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 9
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 10
Response to Comments from California Department of Transportation, District 6 Note: The June 17, 2013 Caltrans letter referred to in the first page of Caltrans’ comments appears in Appendix B of this FEIR.

Response to CALTRANS-1
Comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project (or any other aspects of the project), and so no response is necessary.

Response to CALTRANS-2
Intersections 7 and 8 are City roadway facilities that are operated and maintained in accordance with the City’s General Plan and the City’s Capital Improvement Program. As lead agency, the City has established significance thresholds according to its General Plan requirements. CEQA lead agencies have discretion to base significance standards on their own existing plans and policies. (National Parks & Conserv. Ass’n v. County of Riverside (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1358.) Although not legally required, the City’s significance standard for these facilities is consistent with the referenced Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans Guide). While the CalTrans Guide states that Caltrans “endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS ‘C’ and LOS ‘D’. . . on State highway facilities,” the Caltrans Guide further explains, “Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible.” (Caltrans, 2002; pg. 1).

Thus, the City’s existing significance standards for Intersection 7 and 8 are adequate.

Response to CALTRANS-3
The DEIR states in Impact 3.13-1b that the project-level impact on the State Route 99 (SR 99) southbound off-ramp at Woollomes Avenue is potentially significant. However, Mitigation Measure MM 3.13-1b provides mitigation that reduces this impact to less than significant. MM 3.13-1b requires that the existing southbound shared through and left turn lane shall be converted to a shared right, through, and left lane. Additionally, the westbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Woollomes Avenue and the SR 99 southbound ramp will be extended from 100 feet to 150 feet, adding 50 feet of additional turnout room. (Compare Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometrics and Control Types with TIAR Figure 14 Existing Plus Project Mitigated Lane Geometrics and Control Types (DEIR Figure 3.13-11).) These improvements would improve delay and 95th percentile accommodation conditions to a less than significant level by creating additional turn lanes to disperse traffic more rapidly and by adding turnout room in the westbound left turn pocket to avoid and reduce backups of cars waiting to make a left turn to the west. Thus, with mitigation, the LOS will remain the same as existing conditions, at D, which is an acceptable LOS under the City’s adopted standards, delays and queuing will be improved, and no further mitigation is required.

Response to CALTRANS-4
DEIR Table 3.13-13 indicates that under Cumulative Project Conditions, the daily roadway LOS would be F on the road segment of Woollomes Avenue between the SR 99 southbound ramps and the SR 99 The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 11
northbound ramps. (In the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), the same information is presented in Table 19 on pg. 36.) However, as the DEIR discusses, this roadway analysis was used only to identify possible future capacity issues. The information provided in Table 3.13-13 does not represent the conclusion of the DEIR’s analysis, but instead is merely a step in that analysis indicating possible capacity issues within the road segment.

The DEIR explains that intersection analysis supersedes roadway segment-level analysis and was used to identify mitigation and improvements (pg. 3.13-7). The TIAR states that mitigation of the adjacent intersections of the roadway segment will mitigate LOS deficiencies for the segment (DEIR, Appendix

3.13, pgs. 26 and 44). Table 3.13-12 of the DEIR presents the intersection LOS under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions before mitigation for cumulative conditions. This table shows that the intersection LOS for the southbound ramp is not projected to be lower than C and takes into account the projectlevel mitigation for the southbound SR 99 off-ramp contained in Mitigation Measure MM 3.13-1b (See Response to CALTRANS-3, above). Table 3.13-16 of the DEIR presents the intersection LOS under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions after mitigation for cumulative conditions. That table also demonstrates that the intersection LOS for the southbound ramp is not projected to be lower than C.

Thus, under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, LOS conditions at the SR 99 southbound off-ramp are projected to be at an acceptable level (not lower than LOS C), and no further mitigation is required.

Response to CALTRANS-5
The use of 95% traffic queuing is not used as a significance standard by the City and is provided as a statistical analysis tool to better understand modeled potential operating conditions. As described throughout the DEIR, the LOS is the significance standard for the interchanges. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15054; Clover Valley Found. V. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 243; Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 541 (lead agency has discretion to establish its standards of significance). While the City’s significance standard was not actually triggered, in an effort at full disclosure the DEIR identified significant project-level traffic impacts for the period of time between operation of project and reconfiguration of the Woollomes/SR 99 interchange as provided for in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, traffic impact fee program, and Capital Improvement Program (See DEIR Section 3.13.).

As mentioned above in Response to CALTRANS-2, as CEQA lead agency the City sets significance standards for its roadway facilities, including the Woollomes intersections identified in this comment, according to the City’s General Plan requirements. The referenced Caltrans Guide is not inconsistent with this standard. As mentioned in the DEIR, no measures may feasibly reduce queuing other than the ultimate reconfiguration of the SR 99/Woollomes interchange in accordance with the City’s General Plan and traffic impact fee program (see DEIR pg. 3.13-32).

Caltrans District 6 expressed support for the City’s impact fee program on multiple occasions. In a March 27, 2007 letter, Caltrans District 6 stated, “We support the use of impact fees as the basis of mitigating local development impacts. . . . A fully funded impact fee program allows the City to move The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 12
forward with significantly less Caltrans local involvement.” (Appendix C (letter from Caltrans to City dated March 27, 2007)).

When the City proposed a revision of the traffic impact fee program to raise fees and include state facilities, Caltrans wrote that it concurred with the changes: “A comprehensive Impact Fee Program meets [the] requirements of CEQA. It also ensures a “level playing field’; all development contributes according to its impacts. The proposed revision will ensure that all aspects of the general plan are internally consistent.” (Appendix D (letter from Caltrans to City dated May 21, 2007)).

The City’s existing impact fee program is specifically intended to address long-term cumulative impacts at the SR 99/Woollomes interchange resuting from development consistent with the City’s General Plan.

By letter dated July 23, 2007, Caltrans stated, “We would like to recognize the City’s effort in updating the impact fee program to include the SR 99/Woollomes Avenue interchange, which is adequate mitigation for the cumulative project impacts.” (Appendix E (letter from Caltrans to City dated July 23, 2007). Further, Caltrans staff provided oral comments regarding the City’s traffic impact fee program, stating in relevant part:

We would like to comment on the City’s recent approval of the impacts, the fee impact that you recently passed and you prioritized the Woollomes interchange. I can tell you right now that the City of Delano is very progressive in that regard.

I can tell you, only addressing the traffic from Caltrans’ standpoint, this project is very, very forthright in addressing the issues with regard to traffic, both for the interim and the cumulative impacts. And then with the City passing the fee program and prioritizing the Woollomes interchange, that sets the course for addressing the interchange improvements, not only by Wal-Mart, as they’re doing their fair share and their responsibility under CEQA, but also the City as the lead agency through the entitlement process for the ultimate buildup.
(Appendix F (transcript of statement by Moses Stites of Caltrans, pgs. 76, 77)).

Finally, Kern County Superior Court ruled that the City’s impact fee program constituted adequate mitigation to reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant. (Appendix G, pgs. 3-4).

In summary, pursuant to prior guidance from Caltrans, the City updated its impact fee program in order to address long-term impacts to the SR 99/Woollomes interchange. The City is now implementing that program by collecting impact fees from development projects consistent with the City’s General Plan and impact fee program. This mitigation is the only way to address the 95% queuing issue, and so the impact has been conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable for the temporary period of time between opening of the proposed project and reconfiguration of the SR 99/Woollomes interchange under cumulative conditions.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 13
The need for future redesign and re-configuration of the SR 99 bridge and associated ramp infrastructure and other traffic improvements as a result of cumulative impacts was identified in the 2007 Delano Marketplace EIR and was the subject of the City of Delano impact fee program. The details of that interchange redesign are conceptual only at the present. The reconstruction would be a separate project under CEQA and subject to its own environmental documentation and review. Caltrans of course would be asked to participate in that future process.

Response to CALTRANS-6
Please see the response to CALTRANS-5.

Response to CALTRANS-7
Caltrans’ requested 0.90 Peak Hour Factor (PHF) was used for the revised SR 99 ramp/mainline analysis revisions described in Response to CALTRANS-9. For the rest of the traffic analysis, the Peak Hour Factor observed in the field was used for intersection analysis based on traffic count data, and for some intersections the factor exceeded 0.90. This is consistent with Caltrans’ comment that a Peak Hour Factor higher than 0.90 may be justified by traffic count data.

Response to CALTRANS-8
The use of 95% traffic queuing is not used as a significance standard by the City and is provided as a supplemental and discretionary statistical analysis tool to better understand modeled potential operating conditions. As described throughout the DEIR, the LOS is used as the significance standard.

Caltrans District 6 local use practices support the use of SimTraffic, because the Caltrans District 6 traffic operations group requires use of SimTraffic for queuing analysis.

Furthermore, use of SimTraffic (which is bundled with Synchro software) was used in analysis of intersections 7 and 8 (SR 99 ramps at Woollomes) instead of Synchro because SimTraffic allows for a greater level of precision using micro-simulation analysis (see also DEIR, Appendix 3.13, pg. 10). If Synchro had been used for analysis of these particular intersections, it would have generated insufficient and inaccurate traffic modeling results, potentially leading to insufficient analysis in the DEIR and TIAR. The interactions between closely spaced intersections are not accurately reflected in Synchro’s isolated intersection analysis. SimTraffic is better suited to analyzing the interaction of closely spaced intersections and, consistent with the traffic consultant’s previous work in the area with District 6, was chosen on the SR 99 corridor for this reason.

The DEIR analyzed Intersections 7 and 8 (SR 99 ramps at Woollomes) for the Existing Condition and the Existing Plus Project Condition (see DEIR pgs. 3.13-4 to 3.13-5 (Figures 3.13-2 and 3.13-2), pg. 3.13-25, and pgs. 3.13-27 to 3.13-31. See also DEIR, Appendix 3.13, pgs. 5-7, 12, 22-24).

Electronic files will be provided to Caltrans for all intersection analyses.

Response to CALTRANS-9
Due to an oversight by the City’s traffic consultant, two lanes were incorrectly used in the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) analysis rather than three. The consultant has re-run the SR 99 ramp and The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 14
mainline analyses using all three freeway lanes. Please see Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, for revisions and updated tables relating to these analyses. Intersection turning movement volume figures that appeared in the DEIR have not been revised because in all cases LOS has improved or remained the same. This error resulted in overestimating rather than underestimating environmental impacts. After correction of this error, the LOS has improved at most intersections compared to the initial analysis. No new impacts have resulted from the revised analysis.

SR 99 freeway mainline volumes utilized PeMS 2012 Caltrans data rather than the 2009 published Caltrans data. The PeMS 2012 Caltrans data is collected more frequently and is more recent than the published Caltrans Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data. Furthermore, the Caltrans PeMS data provides hourly data so that accurate peak traffic flows for AM, PM, and Saturday can be obtained.

Caltrans AADT data only provides a single “peak” for the day and does not indicate what time of day the peak occurs.

Ramp input volumes stated in the DEIR are correct. The difference observed is acknowledged and intentionally produced to account for background and project traffic travelling northbound on High Street rather than to SR 99 northbound from the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 NB ramp intersection.

Response to CALTRANS-10
Truck percentages for intersection analysis were obtained from traffic counts. For the SR 99 ramps and mainline, Caltrans’ requested 28% truck average daily traffic figure was used in the revised HCS analysis.

The input value used for “Length of second Accel/Decel lane” was zero, as is reflected in the electronic files. Electronic HCS files will be provided to Caltrans for highway/freeway segments and merge/diverge analysis.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 15

2.3 LOCAL
Kern County Floodplain Management Author Code: KCFM
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 16
Response to Comments from Kern County Floodplain Management Response to KCFM-1
Kern County Floodplain Management states that it has no comments or recommendations regarding the Grapevine project DEIR. The City appreciates the agency’s review of the DEIR.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 17
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Author Code: KCSS a The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 18
Response to Comments from Kern County Superintendent of Schools Response to KCSS a-1
The City acknowledges that the Kern County Superintendent of Schools limits comments in this letter to effects of the project on the school facilities created by student population changes attributable to the project. This comment dos not address any significant environmental effects of the project, and so no response is necessary.

Response to KCSS a-2
The proposed project will be subject to development impact fees collected by the Delano Union Elementary School District and the Delano Union High School District, in accordance with the provisions of the state Education Code and the School Facilities Act of 1988, commonly refered to as Senate Bill (SB) 50. By statute, these fees are the exclusive means to mitigate all school facility impacts of the proposed project. Upon payment of the fee, all impacts are therefore mitigated. CEQA case law explains that no additional analysis is required in an EIR. (Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016.)
The City has added Impact 3.12-3 and Mitigation Measure MM 3.12-3 to the DEIR to address payment of school facility impact fees for the project. The revised text may be found in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response to KCSS a-3
This portion of the letter provides concluding remarks and does not comment on significant environmental effects of the project, and so no response is necessary. The comment is noted.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 19
Kern County Superintendent of Schools (Revised Letter) Author Code: KCSS b The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 20
Response to Comments from Kern County Superintendent of Schools (Revised Letter)
Response to KCSS b-1
Please see the response for KCSS a-1.

Response to KCSS b-2
Please see the response for KCSS a-2.

Response to KCSS b-3
Please see the response for KCSS a-3.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 21
Kern County Public Health Services Department Author Code: KCEHD The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 22
Response to Comments from Kern County Public Health Services Department Response to KCEHD-1
This comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project (or any other aspects of the project), and so no response is necessary.

Response to KCEHD-2
Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-2 requires that “Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall prepare a hazardous materials business plan and submit it to the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division/Hazardous Materials Section for review and approval.” Further, MM 3.7-2 requires the hazardous materials business plan to be submitted to KCEHD before grading or building permits are issued, which is earlier than requested by KCEHD. Thus, the existing MM 3.7-2 satisfies KCEHD.

Response to KCEHD-3
The KCEHD requests that prior to the issuance of building permits, all food facilities at the project be permitted by the KCEHD prior to beginning operation.

CEQA only requires detailed responses when a comment raises significant environmental issues as determined by the lead agency (see Public Resources Code, section 21091, subd. (d)(2)(B), and CEQA Guidelines, section 15088, subd. (c)). This comment relates to food safety issues, not to the environmental issues analyzed in the EIR. The KCEHD’s request is most appropriately addressed in the project’s conditions of approval, rather than the EIR and the project’s Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program. The comment is noted.

Response to KCEHD-4
The KCEHD requests that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant provide a current willserve letter from the City stating the City’s intent and ability to provide both potable water and sewer service to the proposed project.

Potable water: MM 3.14-3a requires that “Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupation, a willserve letter for water provision from the City shall be obtained by the applicant.” This mitigation measure requires the project applicant to obtain a City will-serve letter, but it does not require the applicant to provide a copy of the will-serve letter to KCEHD. The provision of a copy of the will-serve letter to a third party (the KCEHD, which does not have permitting jurisdiction over the project), is an administrative/procedural matter rather than a significant environmental issue related to the EIR. Thus, no changes to the EIR are necessary. As part of the project’s conditions of approval, the applicant will provide a copy of the will-serve letter to KCEHD.

Sewer service: The DEIR analyzed potential environmental impacts related to sewer service and wastewater treatment for the project in Impact 3.14-1 and Impact 3.14-4 in Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems and concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact relating to wastewater treatment capacity and relating to construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 23
expansion of existing facilities (City of Delano, 2014; pgs. 3.14-12 and 3.14-15 to 3.14-16). In the DEIR, the City states that sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project, and development of the project will not result in or require the construction of a new water or water treatment facility or expansion of the existing facility permit (City of Delano, 2014; pgs. 3.14-12 and

3.14-16; see also City of Delano, 2013a; pg. 1). The DEIR notes that the City General Plan requires that conditions of approval be implemented with the project to ensure that sufficient sewer capacity is available to serve the project prior to the issuance of a building permit (City of Delano, 2014; pg. 3.14- 16; and City of Delano, 2005; pg. 8-11, Policy 24). The General Plan also requires that before the City Council may approve a development, the Public Works Department must make a finding documenting that sewer collection and wastewater treatment can be provided to serve the project (City of Delano, 2014; pgs. 3.14-15 and 3.14-16). Additionally, the project would be responsible to construct the local collection lines, and sewer development impact fees would be assessed to cover the cost of infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the proposed project (City of Delano, 2014; pg. 3.14-16; and City of Delano, 2013c; pgs. 1, 3, and 6).

The provision of a copy of the will-serve letter to a third party (the KCEHD, which does not have permitting jurisdiction over the project), is an administrative/procedural matter rather than a significant environmental issue related to the EIR. Thus, no changes to the EIR are necessary. As part of the project’s conditions of approval, the applicant will provide a copy of the will-serve letter to KCHED.

Response to KCEHD-5
The KCEHD requests that the applicant be required to contact the KCEHD for proper destruction procedures if any abandoned water wells are found during the construction and grading process.

The DEIR analyzed the potential for abandoned wells. The City contacted the KCEHD and was informed that no abandoned wells existed on-site. The DEIR identified that no water wells were observed on the project site and that information supplied by the KCHED indicates that four wells previously existed in the vicinity but have been destroyed (City of Delano, 2014; pgs. 3.7-2 and 3.7-14; Kern County, 2013; pgs. 1 and 2). Environmental Health Division records do not indicate any abandoned or out-of-service wells at the project site (Kern County, 2013; pg. 1). Nevertheless, the City has modified Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-1 to address the issue of abandoned wells in the unlikely event that one is found. The text of the modified mitigation measure may be found in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 24
Kern County Roads Department Author Code: KCRD
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 25
Response to Comments from Kern County Roads Department
Response to KCRD-1
Study intersections within the City were selected through consultation between the City and its traffic consultant. Selections of intersections to be included in the transportation study area were based on proximity to the proposed project and on the amount of traffic the proposed project is projected to generate during AM and PM peak hours. Study intersections outside the City were evaluated for inclusion in the transportation study based on the same methodology, specifically using a 50-peak-hour trip threshold. For study location selection, if the project generated over 50 AM, PM, or Saturday peak hour trips through any intersection, the intersection was identified for potential inclusion in the transportation study. The only intersection outside the City limits that was eligible for inclusion based on this threshold was the Schuster Road/Stradley Avenue intersection, which is projected to carry 58 Saturday peak hour trips (28 southbound and 30 northbound). Given the remote location of the Schuster Road/ Stradley Avenue intersection and current and future low traffic volumes, it was not considered a critical study location despite being over the 50-peak-hour trip threshold. (See Appendix H, Study Location Identification Memorandum.) Furthermore, it is not clear that 58 trips would actually reach the next intersection south of Woollomes Avenue (Schuster Road), because there is potential for trip capture between the two locations, which are spaced a mile apart.

Response to KCRD-2
The proposed project does not include annexation of Woollomes Avenue. The City will consider such annexation along with any future development proposals along this segment of Woollomes as appropriate.

Response to KCRD-3
The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue. Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2d have been revised to reflect this requirement (see Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

Response to KCRD-4
Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-2a, MM 3.13-2b, MM 3.13-2c, and MM 3.13-2d require the construction of additional lanes to Woollomes Avenue. Implementation of these measures will convert Woolomes Avenue from a two-lane rural road to a four-lane street with a traffic signal at the Belmont Street intersection and with dedicated turn lanes. Improvements to Woollomes Avenue will be consistent with the City General Plan policy that lists Woollomes Avenue as a proposed arterial street within Delano’s urban area, to be developed with a minimum right-of-way of 110 feet including four travel lanes. (City of Delano, 2005; pg. 3-37, Policy 17.)
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 26
This expansion of Woollomes Avenue will include necessary improvements to the structural capacity of the road surface. Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-2a, MM 3.13-2b, MM 3.13-2c, and MM 3.13-2d require construction of the improvements to be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 27
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Author Code: SJVAPCD The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 28
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 29
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 30
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 31
Response to Comments from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Response to SJVAPCD-1
This comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project, and so no response is necessary.

Response to SJVAPCD-2
The DEIR provides in Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-3 that project-specific, operational emissions of certain ozone precursor pollutants, reactive organic gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), will remain above the SJVAPCD CEQA significance thresholds of 10 tons per year after mitigation and that this impact would be significant and unavoidable (DEIR pgs. 3.3-37 to 3.3-38). Operational emissions of PM10 after mitigation will be below the SJVAPCD CEQA significance threshold of 15 tons per year.

The SJVAPCD does not challenge the DEIR’s conclusion that project PM10 emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD CEQA significance threshold. The DEIR identified in Impact 3.3-1 and Impact 3.3-3 that project PM10 emissions would be below the SJVAPCD CEQA significance threshold of 15 tons per year and would be a less than significant impact (see DEIR pgs. 3.3-30 to 3.3-31; Table 3.3-8 on pg. 3.3-33; and pgs. 3.3-37 to 3.3-38).

Response to SJVAPCD-3
Potential implementation of a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) was not analyzed in the DEIR. A VERA must be negotiated with the project applicant on a voluntary basis, with the lead agency’s concurrence (SJVAPCD, 2012b; pg. 3). The City is unable to analyze the feasibility of the implementation of a VERA for the project, because the details of the agreement would be dependent on the outcome of future negotiations, which means the content of the VERA cannot be known at this time and so cannot be effectively described or analyzed in the EIR. Further, as a voluntary procedure, it is unknown how long it might take to approve and fully execute a voluntary VERA.

VERAs typically address impacts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in addition to ROG and NOx (see, e.g., SJVAPCD, 2012a; pg. 1; and SJVAPCD, 2010; pg. 1). However, the level of VOCs associated with the project is dependent on the mix of restaurants at the project, in addition to vehicle traffic. The mix of restaurants at the project is not yet known and cannot be determined until after project approval, since the mix of restaurants is dependent upon later agreements between the project applicant and restaurant tenants. This prevents negotiation of a VERA between the project applicant and the SJVAPCD at this time, which in turn prevents the City from analyzing a VERA for the project in the EIR.

It is also unclear whether a VERA constitutes legally-permissible “fair share” mitigation under CEQA.

Under CEQA, impact fees may constitute adequate mitigation if they “are part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing.” (Anderson First Coalition v.

City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173.) The Anderson First decision identified the information that is required in an EIR to establish an adequate and enforceable “fair share” impact fee mitigation The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 32
measure. The required elements from the Anderson First decision include: (i) an identification of the required improvement; (ii) an estimate of the cost of the required improvement; (iii) sufficient information to determine how much the project would pay towards the improvement; (iv) the fees must be part of a reasonable, enforceable plan or program. (Anderson First, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at 1188-

89.) Here, however, the SJVAPDC comment does not provide this necessary information, and it is reasonable to conclude that considerable additional time would be required to develop this information.

CEQA case law provides that a fee program is not adequate mitiation when a program setting fee requirements and committing to specific mitigation measures has not been adopted. (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1122; see also San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79 (requirement that a project sponsor pay unspecified amount of money at unspecified time and in compliance with unspecified transit funding mechanism was inadequate mitigation measure because it was impossible to evaluate its effectiveness).) Delaying review and certification of this EIR pending development of future details of a possible future voluntary agreement is inconsistent with CEQA’s mandates. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15203, 15204; Gray, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1125).

In light of the uncertainty associated with a possible future VERA and its effectiveness in reducing ozone precursor pollutants, its questionable enforceability, and the delay associated with obtaining necessary information, analysis of any possible future VERA is not required in this EIR. This EIR conservatively identifies the impact as significant and unavoidable. To the extent that a possible future VERA is executed, the effect would be to reduce the proposed project’s significant impacts.

Response to SJVAPCD-4
Mitigation Measures MM 3.3-2 and MM 3.3-3 require the project to comply with SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review (ISR) District Rule 9510, inclucing preparation of detailed air impact assessment (AIA) and selection of emission reduction methods by SJVAPCD and payment of offset fees by the project applicant according to the AIA process. MM 3.3-2 specifically requires: “The project will demonstrate compliance with ISR Rule 9510, including payment of all applicable fees, before issuance of first building permit.” These mitigation measures are fully enforceable and are included in the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Section 5.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).

Additionally, the DEIR notes that the project will be required to comply with ISR Rule 9510 PM10 percentage reduction requirements as a Condition of Approval for the project (pg. 3.3-29). The SJVAPCD’s comment is noted.

Response to SJVAPCD-5
The DEIR explains in Impact 3.3-5 that, pursuant to SJVAPCD Rule 2010, all stationary sources having a significant potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from the SJVAPCD, and that food venues at the proposed project have the potential to emit TACs, such as through the use of charbroilers to cook meat (pg. 3.3-39; see also pg. 3.3-16). The DEIR also states that such facilities may also be The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 33
subject to District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) (pg. 3.3-39). The SJVAPCD’s comment is noted.

Response to SJVAPCD-6
The Attachment B receptor distance has been converted from feet into meters based on the comment, and the revised air quality study Technical Memorandum appears in Section 3.2, Revisions to DEIR Volume 2 (Technical Appendices) of this FEIR. The SVJAPCD-supplied mall model had conflicting measurement units across worksheets. Impact 3.3-5 of the DEIR analyzes operational emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Converting the receptor distance from feet to meters increases the potential risk from fast food restaurants to the nearest sensitive receptor by 1.86 E-07 to 7.33 E-07 in the Opening Day Scenario. This is higher than the risk level of 6.8 E-09 listed in Impact 3.3-5 in the DEIR (pg. 3.3-40); however, the revised risk level remains well below the 10 increased cancer risks per million population threshold (1 E-05) set forth by the district. Because of this low cancer risk factor, a Health Risk Assessment is not required. The proposed project’s stationary source TAC emissions due to commercial charbroiling continue to be considered less than significant. The DEIR has been revised to reflect this nominal increase in risk level (see Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

Impact 3.3-8b of the DEIR analyzes cumulative localized stationary source impacts. Here, converting the receptor distance from feet to meters increases risk associated with cumulative operational stationary source TACs from 5.60 E-07 to 2.19 E-06. This risk remains less than the SJVAPCD significance thresholds of cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million (1 E-05) and/or non-carcinogenic Hazard Index greater than 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) and continues to be considered less than significant. The DEIR has been revised to reflect this nominal increase in risk level (see Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

Response to SJVAPCD-7
As stated in the DEIR’s air quality study Technical Memorandum, the ratio of High Horizontal Trucks (HH) and Truck Refrigeration Units (TRU) is unknown (Appendix 3.3, Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Technical Memorandum, pg. 8). Therefore, each was modeled separately as the only source of truck traffic to and from the site. Approximately 8,613 truck trips were estimated to occur per year.

Therefore, 8,613 HH trips were modeled and 8,613 TRU trips were modeled. The potential risk that was calculated for these runs was then averaged. This allows for the best estimation of risk without knowing the exact ratio of HH and TRU. However, HH trips have a higher risk than TRU trips, and if all of the trips (8,613) were HH trips, the risk would still be below the 10 in 1 million threshold.

Response to SJVAPCD-8
The image below presents the truck travel path explained in the air quality study Technical Memorandum (FEIR Section 3.2, Revisions to DEIR Volume 2 (Technical Appendices)). As explained in the Technical Memorandum, the midpoints of 50 meter segments along the roadways were used for the distance to the nearest receptor. The receptor quadrant varied depending on where the truck was along the roadway. This roadway consists of approximately 24 sections of 50 meters in length. Each The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 34
segment of roadway was counted twice using two 50 meter segments to account for trucks entering and then leaving the project site. The DEIR has been revised to include this information as an addition to the air quality Technical Memorandum, Photo Plate 1: Truck Travel Path (see Section 3.2, Revisions to DEIR Volume 2 (Technical Appendices) Air Quality And Greenhouse Gas Studies).

Response to SJVAPCD-9
The DEIR revisions described in Response to SJVAPCD-6 increase the health risk impact to the nearest sensitive receptor, but the risk remains less than the 10 in 1 million MEI threshold and continues to be considered less than significant. For further detail, see Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response to SJVAPCD-10
The DEIR states that the project is subject to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII and that project will be required to comply with Regulation VIII requirements as a Condition of Approval for the project. (pgs. 3.3-28 and

3.3-29).

The DEIR presents Rule 4102, Rule 4601, and Rule 4641 as part of the regulatory setting describing the regulations to which the project may be subject (pg. 3.3-9).

Regarding Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)), the DEIR explains that all stationary sources having a significant potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from the SJVAPCD, and that the granting of permits requires projects to be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including Rule 4002 (pg. 3.3-39). The DEIR identifies that demolition of the existing building on the site may uncover potentially hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-1 requires all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials to be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, including the NESHAPS, prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb such materials.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 35
Response to SJVAPCD-11
This comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project, and so no response is necessary.

Response to SJVAPCD-12
This comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project, and so no response is necessary. However, the City will provide a copy of the District’s comments to the project applicant.

Response to SJVAPCD-13
This comment does not address any significant environmental effects of the project, and so no response is necessary.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 36

2.4 INDIVIDUAL AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
No comments on the project were received from individuals or from private organizations.

3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines section 15088, subdivision (d) requires the lead agency to identify changes made to the Draft EIR (DEIR). This section of the FEIR contains all changes made to the DEIR.

DEIR text changes appear in the order in which they appear in the DEIR by page number. Additions to the DEIR appear in underlined type (underlined) and all deletions appear in strikethrough type (strikethrough).

These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the DEIR and they do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions contained in the DEIR.

3.1 REVISIONS TO DEIR VOLUME 1 (MAIN DOCUMENT)
On page S-5 of the DEIR, the following revisions have been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts to correct references to a mitigation measure:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.1-3. The
proposed project
could generate a
new source of light
and/or glare which
would adversely
affect day or
nighttime views in
adjacent areas.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Mitigation Measure MM 3.10-4a3.10-1 (see Section

3.10, Noise) would limit construction activities to the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. This will effectively eliminate nighttime light and glare impacts during
construction. No additional mitigation is necessary.

Less than
Significant
Impact
Impact 3.1
Cumulative Visual
Effect The
proposed project,
combined with other
similar projects in
the area, may result
in a cumulative
aesthetic impact to
the existing visual
character of the
project area.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
However, the proposed project would extend the existing development of commercial land uses in the area. While
this alters the area’s visual character, this change would not constitute any degradation of visual quality –
particularly where the City’s General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance contain specific development standards to
ensure that new commercial development is attractive
and of high-quality design (City of Delano, 2005; pg. 6- 5). Mitigation Measure MM 3.10-4a 3.10-1 (see Section

3.10, Noise) has also been proposed that will reduce the proposed project’s incremental contribution to nighttime lighting impacts to less than significant levels.

Therefore, compliance with the City’s existing design
review process and proposed Mitigation Measure MM

3.10-4a3.10-1 will ensure that the proposed project will Less than
Significant
Cumulative
Impact
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 38
TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
not have a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact in combination with other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in the
area.

On pages S-9 through S-10 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to add omitted material from Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-3.

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential
Project Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.3-3.

Implementation
of the proposed
project could
conflict with or
obstruct
implementation
of the
applicable air
quality plan by
exceeding

SJVAPCD
significance
thresholds (Air
Quality
Standard of
Significance 1).

Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM 3.3-3 The proposed project shall comply with SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review (ISR), District Rule 9510. In
accordance with ISR Rule 9510, the purchase of offsets or provision of equivalent funding would be required to mitigate operational emissions associated with the proposed project (see ISR Rule 9510, subsection 7). The specific fees to be paid would be determined in consultation with the SJVAPCD and would be dependent on various factors, including the offset costs established by the SJVAPCD at the time of
payment, as well as the specific emission-reduction
measures incorporated into the proposed project, as
identified in the AIA to be prepared for the proposed project.

As is set forth in ISR Rule 9510 subsection 6.3, mitigation required by the rule may be met through a “combination of on-site emission reduction measures or off-site fees.” No additional mitigation measures other than those described above are feasible.

As Table 3.3-10 indicates, the mitigation listed above would mitigate impacts of operational emissions of regional
pollutants of primary concern and lower emissions of PM10 further below the SJVAPCD CEQA threshold of 15 tons per year, while meeting the 50 percent reduction ISR Rule 9510 requirement. However, emissions of NOx and ROG would
remain above the SJVAPCD CEQA threshold of 10 tons per
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 39
TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential
Project Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
year, despite NOx meeting the 33.3 percent reduction
required by ISR Rule 9510 (ROG does not have a
percentage reduction requirement under ISR 9510).

However, while the prior mitigation achieves ISR 9510, it does not reduce it below the 15 tons per year threshold, despite implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.

Additionally, the number of parking spaces for the project will be reduced to lower emissions of NOx and ROG. (This action will also reduce emissions of CO and GHGs.) The project description for the project proposes 2,512 parking spaces for the project. In order to reduce emissions, the project
applicant will reduce the number of parking spaces to 2,060, a number sufficient to mitigate air quality impacts while still supplying the required number of parking spaces under the City Zoning Ordinance.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 40
On pages S-11 to S-12 of the DEIR, the following revisions have been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to replace references to Mitigation Measure MM

3.13-1c, which does not appear in the text of the DEIR, with references to Mitigation Measure MM 3.13- 2h:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.3-8b
Cumulative Air
Impacts
Cumulative
Localized
Stationary Source
TAC Impacts
Project-generated
emissions of TACs
could contribute,
on a cumulative
basis, to localized
increases in TAC
concentrations.

Cumulative
Localized CO
Impacts Projectgenerated
emissions of CO
could contribute,
on a cumulative
basis, to localized
increases in CO
pollutant
concentrations.

Cumulative
Localized DPM
Impacts Projectgenerated
emissions of DPM
could contribute,
on a cumulative
basis, to localized
increases in DPM
pollutant
concentrations.

Less than
Significant Impact
Cumulative Localized Stationary Source TAC
Impacts As previously discussed, sensitive land
uses located in the vicinity of the project site consist primarily of residential land uses. The analysis of
cumulative conditions assumes buildout and
occupancy of the currently undeveloped residential
development located approximately 180 feet (55 m)
north of the northern boundary of the project site,
which is much closer to the project than the existing
day care center located approximately 0.29 mile
(1,531.2 feet) north of the project site. This
residential development is the nearest sensitive
receptor for the cumulative scenario.

The SJVAPCD considers impacts of local pollutants
(CO, TACs) to be cumulatively significant when
modeling shows that the combined emissions from
the project and other existing and planned projects
will exceed air quality standards (SJVAPCD, 2002;
pg.29). Cumulative TACs depend on the future mix
of local uses, which are not known. A surrogate
approach was used to assess the potential TAC
impacts on sensitive receptors. The cumulative TAC
scenario represents the likely emissions from other
future development projects planned in the area, in
addition to the proposed project. Therefore, the
cumulative modeling examined the TAC emissions
from the likeliest TAC source (fast food restaurants)
for each of the proposed developments, at the same
ratio as the proposed project. The risk associated
with cumulative operational stationary source TACs
is 5.60 E-07.

Cumulative Localized CO Impacts As noted in
Impact 3.3-5, implementation of the proposed project
would not be anticipated to contribute to localized
concentrations of mobile source CO under future
cumulative conditions. Cumulative mobile source
emissions of TACs (e.g., CO and DPM) will be
lessened with the proposed roadway improvements
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 41
TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
set forth in the traffic study and listed in Mitigation Measures MM 3.13.1-a, 3.13-1b, 3.13-1c, and MM

3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2g3.13-2h. (Omni-Means,
2014; pgs. 38-44; Appendix 3.13). These mitigation
measures will decrease CO by improving traffic
congestion. By improving roadway LOS above LOS
“E” or “F”, the cumulative CO emissions will not
create a hotspot according to the SJVAPCD
GAMAQI (SJVAPCD, 2002; pg. 49).

Cumulative Localized DPM Impacts Before
mitigation, DPM is not expected to exceed the 10 in 1
million MEI threshold based upon the Existing Plus
Project traffic volumes identified in the traffic study, and the DPM modeling conducted with the same
traffic volumes. The risk from cumulative DPM
emissions is estimated from the SJVAPCD-provided
mall spreadsheet and the surrogate approach
explained in Impact 3.3-8b. The DPM risk from truck
travel is 7.80 E-07 and truck idling is 1.74 E-07. This modeling represents a “worst case scenario”
because intersection improvement mitigation
measures were not included in the model.

Cumulative impacts would be lessened even further
with the proposed project traffic mitigation in
Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-1a, MM 3.13-1b, MM

3.13-1c and MM 3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2g 3.13-
2h.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 42
On page S-17 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to clarify Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-1e:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential
Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
MM 3.4-1e: The measures below shall be implemented throughout construction of the project.
a) USFWS guidelines for protection of San Joaquin kit fox require a speed limit not greater than 15 miles per hour in all project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways. For the purposes of the project’s air quality Dust Control Plan, on-site vehicle speeds on
unpaved roads will be limited to 5 mph (see Impact 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions). Project-related vehicles shall observe a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit in all project areas, except on county roads and State and federal highways.

Construction after sundown shall be prohibited. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be
prohibited.

On page S-18 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to clarify Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-1g:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential
Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
MM 3.4-1f: A pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist for nesting birds shall be required if construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for raptors and other migratory birds (February 1–August 31), to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors. The survey shall be conducted within 30 days of before ground disturbance activities.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 43
On page S-24 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts to include Mitigation Measure MM 3.6-4, which appears in Section 3.6 Geology and Soils in the DEIR, but was inadventenly omitted from Table S-1:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.6-4 The
project could 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.6-3 would
ensure that potential impacts from soil compressibility and collapse would be reduced to a less than
significant level.

MM 3.6-4 Recommendations to help mitigate the
impact of near-surface expansive soils are addressed
within the geotechnical investigation prepared by BSK
in the Site Preparation and Earthwork Construction
Section (BSK, 2013; pgs. 9 to 11). A final geotechnical investigation will be required to be prepared for the City to ensure that the geotechnical mitigation measures are incorporated in the design plans as described in
Mitigation Measure MM 3.6-1a to ensure that potential
impacts from expansive soil would be reduced to a less
than significant level.

Less than
Significant
Impact
On page S-26 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts to be consistent with Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.7-4. Construction of project
elements, especially utility pipelines
and roads, may interfere temporarily
with traffic flow and roadway use. This
could potentially impair
implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan by interfering with
emergency vehicle access and
evacuation routes.

Potentially
Significant
Impact No
Impact
No significant impact has been
identified; therefore, no mitigation is
proposed.

No Impact
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 44
On page S-25 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to add material to Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-1 in response to the comment made by the Kern County Environmental Health Division (Comment KCEHD-5).

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential
Project Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.7-1
Development of
the proposed
project could
expose people,
property or the
environment to
risks associated
with asbestos
or lead-based
paint
associated with
building
materials from
the historical
residence in the
event these
hazards were
present.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM 3.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building
permits, the project applicant shall properly remove building debris from the previous residence. In the event that suspect asbestos-containing materials or other potentially hazardous materials are uncovered during project construction, work at the project site shall immediately halt and a qualified hazardous materials professional shall be contacted and brought to the project site to make a proper assessment of the suspect materials. All potentially friable asbestoscontaining materials shall be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb such materials.

If any abandoned water wells are found during the
construction and grading process, the project applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Kern
County Public Health Services Department (KCEHD) for
proper destruction procedures.

In addition, if any septic tanks or home heating oil tanks are found during the construction and grading process, the
project applicant shall contact KCEHD for proper removal procedures.

Less than
Significant
Impact
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 45
On page S-28 of the DEIR, a revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to add detail to Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-5b in order to correct the internet hyperlink to the Valley Fever Fact Sheet in Tagalog. The revised MM 3.7-5b is presented below as it appears on pages S-27 through S-28 of the DEIR.

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential
Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
MM 3.7-5b Administrative Controls and Hazard Awareness:

To increase hazard awareness and knowledge of safe work practices so that workers and supervisors may employ safer work practices, the project applicant will ensure that the following actions are taken.

1. Workers and supervisors will be trained on:
a. Distribution of endemic areas
b. Symptoms and signs of Valley Fever
c. The need to report symptoms to supervisors
d. The need to obtain medical evaluation
e. People at highest risk of serious disease
f. Effective practices, such as avoiding dust and
working upwind of dust
g. Effective controls, including proper use of
equipment such as respirators
h. The need to shower and wash hair as soon as
possible after work to limit exposure and
transport of fungal spores.

2. The following CDPH materials on Valley Fever will be distributed to workers and supervisors.
a. For supervisors:
i. CDPH pamphlet, “Preventing WorkRelated Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever),” available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/hesi
s/Documents/CocciFact.pdf.
b. For workers:
i. CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in
English, available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/dis
cond/Pages/Coccidioidomycosis.aspx
ii. CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in
Spanish, available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/dic
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 46
TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential
Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
ond/Documents/fiebredelvalle12.pdf
i. CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in
Tagalog, available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/dis
cond/Documents/fiebredelvalle12.pdfh
ttp://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/disc
ond/Documents/TagalogGeneralValley
FeverFactSheet.pdf
(CDPH, 2013b; CDPH, 2012b; and CDPH, 2012c)
On page S-45 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts to delete an impact that was listed under an incorrect number and to renumber the following impact. Airport-related impacts to land use are analyzed as part of Impact 3.9-1 in the DEIR (see Section 3.9, Land Use Planning).

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.9-2. The Delano Municipal
Airport is located approximately onehalf (0.61) mile east of the project site, and the proposed project is located
within the “Airport Influence Area” of
the Delano Municipal Airport, as
determined by the Kern County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan and the
Delano Municipal Airport Master Plan.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No significant impact has been
identified; therefore, no mitigation is
proposed.

Less than
Significant
Impact
Impact 3.9-23. The project site is not
subject to any habitat conservation
plan or natural community
conservation plan.

No
Impact
No significant impact has been
identified; therefore, no mitigation is
proposed.

No
Impact
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 47
On page S-48 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to add Mitigation Measure MM 3.12-3 in response to the comments made by the Kern County Superintendent of Schools.

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.12-3. The
proposed project could
theoretically result in
the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities
related to schools.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM 3.12-3 In accordance with the provisions of
the state Education Code and the School Facilities
Act of 1988, the project applicant will pay statutory
school facilities fees to mitigate impacts to school
facilities.

Less than
Significant
Impact
On pages S-49 to S-50 of the DEIR, the following revision has been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts to delete Mitigation Measure MM 3.13-1c, which does not appear in the text of the DEIR, and to add explanatory text:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.13-1c.

Woollomes Avenue/
SR 99 Northbound
Ramps. The
Woollomes
Avenue/SR 99
northbound ramps
would operate at an
acceptable LOS D
during Existing Plus
Project conditions, but
they are projected to
not accommodate the
95th percentile queue
for eastbound left turn
movement. (In other
words, the number of
cars lining up is
Potentially
Significant
Impact
MM 3.13-1c. In order to achieve and maintain
accommodation of the 95th percentile queue, the
existing eastbound through lane shall be converted to
a shared through and left lane. The eastbound signal
phasing shall to be changed to a split phase.

Furthermore, 50 feet of storage for the eastbound left
turn pocket will be reduced. An additional
northbound SR 99 on-ramp lane will be constructed
to provide two receiving lanes for the eastbound left
turn traffic.

The improvements needed to accommodate the 95th
percentile queue are infeasible on a project-level
basis given existing physical constraints (existing
rights of ways and frontage road); traffic delays
associated with the construction of this improvement;
and, will not provide a long-term benefit because the
entire Woollomes/SR 99 interchange will be
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 48
TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
expected to exceed
the storage capacity of
the road section.)
reconstructed under cumulative conditions pursuant
to the existing City’s traffic impact fee program.

On pages S-50 through S-51 of the DEIR, the following changes have been made to Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts in order to revise Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2d in response to the comments made by the Kern County Roads Department. A change has also been made to add Mitigation Measure MM 3.13-2h:

TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 3.13-2.

Intersection LOS
under Cumulative
Plus Project
Conditions
Implementation of
the proposed project
combined with
cumulative
conditions could
result in long-term
traffic conditions
conflicting with an
applicable plan,
ordinance or policy
establishing
measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the
circulation system,
taking into account
all modes of
transportation
including mass
transit and nonPotentially
Significant
Impact
MM 3.13-2a. Woollomes Avenue/Stradley Avenue In
order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D,
an additional westbound right lane will be constructed
(see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a
fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated
with the Kern County Roads Department because the
westbound approach to this intersection is not part of
the City. The project applicant shall obtain all
necessary encroachment permits for any road work
within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue
and Stradley Avenue.

MM 3.13-2b. Woollomes Avenue/Belmont Street In
order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D,
this intersection will be signalized and the eastbound
and westbound approaches will be widened to two
through lanes in each direction, with a dedicated
eastbound left turn pocket (see Figure 3.13-18). The
project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the
construction of this improvement. Construction of this
improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County
Roads Department because this portion of Woollomes
is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work
Less than
Significant
Impact
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 49
TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
motorized travel and
relevant
components of the
circulation system,
including but not
limited to
intersections,
streets, highways
and freeways,
pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and
mass transit.
within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

MM 3.13-2c. Woollomes Avenue/Project Driveway
In order to achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than
D, the eastbound and westbound approaches will be
widened to two through lanes in each direction and
have a dedicated eastbound left turn pocket (see
Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fairshare towards the construction of this improvement.

Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated
with the Kern County Roads Department because this
portion of Woollomes is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment
permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

MM 3.13-2d. Woollomes Avenue/Dover Parkway In
order achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than D,
the eastbound and westbound approaches of this
intersection will be widened to include dual left turn
lanes, dedicated right turn lanes, and three through
lanes. The northbound and southbound approaches
will be widened to include dual left turn lanes, two
through lanes, and dedicated right turn lanes (see
Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fairshare towards the construction of this improvement.

Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated
with the Kern County Roads Department because the
eastbound approach of this intersection is not part of
the City. The project applicant shall obtain all
necessary encroachment permits for any road work
within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

MM 3.13-2e. Woollomes Avenue/Home Depot West
In order to achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than
D, the eastbound and westbound approaches of the
intersection will be widened to include dual left turn
lanes, dedicated right turn lanes, and three through
lanes (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will
pay a fair-share towards the construction of this
improvement.

MM 3.13-2f. Woollomes Avenue/Home Depot East
In order to achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than
D, eastbound and westbound left turns will be
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 50
TABLE S-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Potential Project
Impact
Level of
Significance
w/o Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Resulting
Level of
Significance
prohibited at this intersection and redirected to the next downstream signalized intersection. Also, a westbound
through lane will be constructed (see Figure 3.13-18).

The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

MM 3.13-2g. Woollomes Avenue/Lexington Street
In order to achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than
D, a second eastbound lane will be constructed from
the SR 99 northbound ramps to Lexington Street. This
lane will become a dedicated left turn lane at the
intersection (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this
improvement.

MM 3.13-2h Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 Northbound
Ramps
In order to mitigate potential cumulative impacts to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps, the
project applicant will pay a fair share fee in accordance with the City’s existing traffic impact fee program
towards traffic improvements to the Woollomes
Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps that may include on a
conceptual level the following characteristics:
conversion of the existing eastbound through lane to a
shared through and left lane, changing the eastbound
signal phasing to a split phase, and constructing an
additional northbound SR 99 on-ramp lane to provide
two receiving lanes for the eastbound left turn traffic.

The City’s reconstruction of the interchange, which may include these proposed design elements, will be subject to its own future CEQA review after a specific design is developed with the participation and input from
Caltrans.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 51
On pages 1-3 through 1-4 of the DEIR, Table 1.0 Summary of NOP Comments has been revised to add a comment from the Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Services, Floodplain Management Section, that was inadvertently omitted from the table, as follows:

TABLE 1.0

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENTS
Commenter Summary of Comment Date Received
General Public Would like a mix of restaurants. 04/25/2013 General Public Wanted project movie theater to reduce driving out of town. 04/25/2013
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
Air District is at various nonattainment levels for
federal and state ozone and particulate matter
standards. The EIR should discuss potential,
identify and quantify existing, construction, and
post-project emissions, (including nuisance
odors), including net increase of any criteria
pollutant or precursor for which San Joaquin
Basin is in non-attainment. Modeling should
include all phases of the project and define
sensitive receptors. Project may require specific
air permits.
04/11/2013
Kern County Engineering, Surveying,
and Permit Services, Floodplain
Management Section
From the information provided, the agency had
no comments or recommendations regarding the
project.
04/15/2013
Kern County Development Service
Agency, Roads Department
Anticipates significant impact to Woollomes
Avenue. Study should include a comparative
project/no project analysis to determine
necessary improvements to mitigate impacts.

City should annex this portion of road because it
is the only segment of Woollomes not part of the
City.
04/18/2013
Delano City staff member, Noemi
Zamudio City plans to add a bus stop at the project. 04/24/2013 Delano Police Chief, Mark DeRosia No unexpected law enforcement impacts. 04/24/2013 Kern County Waste Management
Shafter-Wasco Recycling and Sanitary Landfill is
likely Solid Waste disposal facility. Compliance
with construction disposal requires
documentation. Various recycling requirements
may be applicable.
04/26/2013
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 52
TABLE 1.0

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENTS
Commenter Summary of Comment Date Received
Kern County Superintendent of
Schools Mgr., Mary Baker
No significant effect as long as statutory school
facilities fees and no additional mitigation is
required.
04/28/2013
City of Delano Public
Works/Engineering
Capacity exists for drinking and waste water.

New connections will be required for all services.

Stormwater capacity needed. FEMA floodplain
study needed. Mitigation expected for traffic,
water and wastewater; water supply; wastewater
treatment capacity. Subdivision Agreement,
Building Permits, and Development Impact Fees
are additional actions required to implement the
project
04/29/2013
On page 2-1 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify the name of Albany Street-Stradley Avenue (this road is named South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes Avenue):

2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT
The project applicant, YK America (hereinafter “project applicant”) has applied to the City of Delano (City) to develop a 328,500-square-foot community shopping center on an approximately 44.64-acre site located east of South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue, west of Dover Parkway, south of Morse Boulevard, and north of Woollomes Avenue, west of the intersection of State Route 99 and Woollomes Avenue. (South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue is known as South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes Avenue.) The project’s location is shown in Figure 2-1, Project Vicinity, and an aerial photograph is provided in Figure 2-2, Site Area.

On page 2-1 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify the name of South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue:

2.3 PROJECT SITE AND IMMEDIATE VICINITY
The project site is approximately 44.64 acres in area and is comprised of one parcel, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 521-010-21, located east of South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue, west of Dover Parkway, north of Woollomes Avenue, and south of Morse Boulevard. (South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue is known as South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes Avenue.)
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 53
On page 2-11 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify the name of South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue:

Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The proposed project will be served via four streets: Woollomes Avenue to the south, Dover Parkway to the east, Morse Boulevard to the north, and South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue to the west.

On page 3.1-14 of the DEIR, in the discussion of Impact 3.1-3, the text has been revised to correct a reference to a mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure MM 3.10-4a3.10-1 (see Section 3.10, Noise) would limit construction activities to the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. This will effectively eliminate nighttime light and glare impacts during construction. No additional mitigation is necessary.

On page 3.1-15 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct references to a mitigation measure:

3.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project, combined with other similar projects in the area, may result in a cumulative aesthetic impact to the existing visual character of the project area.

However, the proposed project would extend the existing development of commercial land uses in the area. While this alters the area’s visual character, this change would not constitute any degradation of visual quality – particularly where the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance contain specific development standards to ensure that new commercial development is attractive and of high-quality design (City of Delano, 2005; pg. 6-5). Mitigation Measure MM

3.10-4a3.10-1 (see Section 3.10, Noise) has also been proposed that will reduce the proposed project’s incremental contribution to nighttime lighting impacts to less than significant levels.

Therefore, compliance with the City’s existing design review process and proposed Mitigation Measure MM 3.10-4a3.10-1 will ensure that the proposed project will not have a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact in combination with other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in the area. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.10-4a3.10-1, the cumulative visual impact is considered to be less than significant.

On page 3.3-34 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct a description of the significance of Impact 3.3-3, Operational Emissions of Regional Pollutants of Primary Concern, as follows:

The proposed project’s operational emissions of regional pollutants of primary concern would exceed applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds. This is considered a significant impact.

Mitigation that will be reduced the impact, but not to a less than significant level through mitigation. After all feasible mitigation, the impact will be significant and unavoidable.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 54
On pages 3.3-37 through 3.3-38 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify and correct a reference to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District’s CEQA threshold of significance for emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx):

However, emissions of NOx and ROG would remain above the SJVAPCD CEQA threshold of 10 tons per year, despite NOx meeting the 33.3 percent reduction required by ISR Rule 9510 (ROG does not have a percentage reduction requirement under ISR 9510). However, wWhile the prior mitigation achieves ISR 9510, it does not reduce it below the 10 15 tons per year CEQA threshold, despite implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.

On page 3.3-40 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct a calculation of health risk related to operational TAC emissions from mobile sources:

Using the district-provided spreadsheet for DPM risk, the risk associated with the project truck travel is 5.30 4.19 E-08 and truck idling is 2.73 E-08 at the nearest sensitive receptor. These values do not exceed the 10 in 1 million risk threshold established by the SJVAPCD and is therefore is considered less than significant with mitigation.

On page 3.3-40 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct calculations of health risk related to fast-food production:

Applying the values provided by the SJVAPCD, the spreadsheet calculates a risk of 3.81 E-08 6.8 E-09 for TAC emissions due to fast-food production. This is less than the 10-in-a-million cancer risk factor threshold set forth by the district. Because of this low cancer risk factor, a Health Risk Assessment is not required. Therefore, the proposed project’s stationary source TAC emissions due to commercial charbroiling are considered less than significant.

On page 3.3-40 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify the calculations totaling health risk from all operational Toxic Air Contaminant emission sources:

Conclusion
The combined risk from all operational TAC emission sources is 1.07 E-07 8.73 E-08. This risk is below the 10 in 1 million MEI threshold, and therefore, operational TAC emissions are considered a less than significant impact.

On page 3.3-44 of the DEIR, under Impact 3.3-8b Cumulative Air Impacts, Cumulative Localized Stationary Source TAC Impacts, the text has been revised to correct and add measurements in meters:

The analysis of cumulative conditions assumes buildout and occupancy of the currently undeveloped residential development located approximately 180 feet (55 m) north of the northern boundary of the project site, which is much closer to the project than the existing day care center located approximately 0.29 mile (1,531.2 feet or 460 m) north of the project site.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 55
On page 3.3-44 of the DEIR, under Impact 3.3-8b Cumulative Air Impacts, Cumulative Localized Stationary Source TAC Impacts, the text has been revised to correct the calculation of health risk as follows:

The risk associated with cumulative operational stationary source TACs is 2.19 E-06 5.60 E-07.

This risk is less than the 10 in 1 million MEI threshold and is therefore considered less than significant.

On page 3.3-44 of the DEIR, in discussion of Impact 3.3-8b, the text has been revised to correct references to mitigation measures:

Cumulative Localized CO Impacts Project-generated emissions of CO could contribute, on a cumulative basis, to localized increases in CO pollutant concentrations. This impact is considered potentially significant. As noted in Impact 3.3-5, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to contribute to localized concentrations of mobile source CO under future cumulative conditions. Cumulative mobile source emissions of TACs (e.g., CO and DPM) will be lessened with the proposed roadway improvements set forth in the traffic study and listed in Mitigation Measures MM 3.13.1-a, 3.13-1b, 3.13-1c, and MM 3.13-2a through MM

3.13-2g3.13-2h.

On page 3.3-45 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct references to mitigation measures and to correct the calculation of the total stationary and mobile cumulative localized TAC emissions from future developments:

Cumulative Localized DPM Impacts Project-generated emissions of DPM could contribute, on a cumulative basis, to localized increases in DPM pollutant concentrations. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Before mitigation, DPM is not expected to exceed the 10 in 1 million MEI threshold based upon the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes identified in the traffic study, and the DPM modeling conducted with the same traffic volumes. The risk from cumulative DPM emissions is estimated from the SJVAPCD-provided mall spreadsheet and the surrogate approach explained in Impact

3.3-8b. The DPM risk from truck travel is 7.80 E-07 and truck idling is 1.74 E-07. This modeling represents a “worst case scenario” because intersection improvement mitigation measures were not included in the model. Cumulative impacts would be lessened even further with the proposed project traffic mitigation in Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-1a, MM 3.13-1b, MM 3.13- 1c, and MM 3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2g3.13-2h. This is below the 10 in 1 million MEI threshold and therefore cumulative DPM emissions are considered less than significant.

Conclusion
The cumulative localized TAC emissions from future developments associated with all sources (stationary and mobile) is 3.14 E-06 1.5 E-06. This is below the 10 in one million MEI threshold and is therefore considered less than significant.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 56
On page 3.4-22 of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-1e has been revised as follows:

MM 3.4-1e: The measures below shall be implemented throughout construction of the project. b) USFWS guidelines for protection of San Joaquin kit fox require a speed limit not greater than 15 miles per hour speed limit in all project areas, except on county roads and State and federal highways. For the purposes of the project’s air quality Dust Control Plan, on-site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 5 mph (see Impact 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Project-related vehicles shall observe a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit in all project areas, except on county roads and State and federal highways. Construction after sundown shall be prohibited. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be prohibited.

On page 3.4-22 of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-1f has been revised as follows:

MM 3.4-1f: A pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist for nesting birds shall be required if construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for raptors and other migratory birds (February 1–August 31), to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors. The survey shall be conducted within 30 days before of ground disturbance activities.

On page 3.7-14 of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-1 has been revised to read:

Mitigation Measure
MM 3.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall properly remove building debris from the previous residence. In the event that suspect asbestos-containing materials or other potentially hazardous materials are uncovered during project construction, work at the project site shall immediately halt and a qualified hazardous materials professional shall be contacted and brought to the project site to make a proper assessment of the suspect materials. All potentially friable asbestos-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb such materials.

If any abandoned water wells are found during the construction and grading process, the project applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Kern County Public Health Services Department (KCEHD) for proper destruction procedures.

In addition, if any septic tanks or home heating oil tanks are found during the construction and grading process, the project applicant shall contact (KCEHD) for proper removal procedures.

On page 3.7-20 of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure MM 3.7-5b has been revised to correct the internet hyperlink to the Valley Fever Fact Sheet in Tagalog. The revised measure appears as follows on pages

3.7-19 through 3.7-20 of the DEIR:

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 57
MM 3.7-5b Administrative Controls and Hazard Awareness: To increase hazard awareness and knowledge of safe work practices so that workers and supervisors may employ safer work practices, the project applicant will ensure that the following actions are taken.

3. Workers and supervisors will be trained on:
a. Distribution of endemic areas
b. Symptoms and signs of Valley Fever
c. The need to report symptoms to supervisors
d. The need to obtain medical evaluation
e. People at highest risk of serious disease
f. Effective practices, such as avoiding dust and working upwind of dust g. Effective controls, including proper use of equipment such as respirators h. The need to shower and wash hair as soon as possible after work to limit exposure and transport of fungal spores

4. The following CDPH materials on Valley Fever will be distributed to workers and supervisors.
a. For supervisors:
i. CDPH pamphlet, “Preventing Work-Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever),” available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/hesis/Documents/CocciFact.pdf. b. For workers:
i. CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in English, available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/Coccidioidomycosis.a spx
ii. CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in Spanish, available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Documents/fiebredelvalle12 .pdf
iii. CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in Tagalog, available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Documents/fiebredelvalle12 .pdf
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Documents/TagalogGeneral ValleyFeverFactSheet.pdf
(CDPH, 2013b; CDPH, 2012b; and CDPH, 2012c)
On page 3.7-21 of the DEIR, discussion of Impact 3.7-6 has been revised to clarify the potential significance of the impact:

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 58
Impact 3.7-6 Areas of standing water, due to temporary construction ponds, pooling of water during construction or during irrigation of landscaping, or due to stormwater management, could inadvertently create mosquito breeding areas. These breeding areas could in turn create the potential for a small increase in the risk of mosquito-borne illness.

The small increase is not considered a less than significant impact because of the lack of nearby vectors, such as wetlands or stockponds. However, to support Kern County and the Delano Mosquito Abatement District programs and state recommendations to adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs), the following mitigation measures will be implemented to assure the impact is less than significant.

On page 3.9-1 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify the name of South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue:

Project Site
The project site is approximately 44.64 acres in area and is comprised of one parcel, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 521-010-21, located east of South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue, west of Dover Parkway (currently an unimproved and incomplete street), north of Woollomes Avenue, and south of Morse Boulevard (also currently an unimproved and incomplete street).

On page 3.9-8 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct the numbering of an impact analysis:

Impact 3.9-23 Implementation of the proposed project could conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

On page 3.11-2 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify the name of South Albany StreetStradley Avenue:

Project Characteristics Related to Population and Housing The project applicant has applied to the City to develop a 328,500-square-foot community shopping center on an approximately 44.64-acre site located east of South Albany StreetStradley Avenue, west of Dover Parkway, south of Morse Boulevard, and north of Woollomes Avenue, west of the intersection of State Route 99 and Woollomes Avenue.

Beginning on page 3.12-7 of the DEIR, Impact 3.12-3 and Mitigation Measure MM 3.12-3 have been added, as follows:

Impact 3.12-3 The proposed project could theoretically result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to schools.

The proposed project will be subject to development impact fees collected by the Delano Union Elementary School District and the Delano Union High School District, in accordance with the provisions of the state Education Code and the School Facilities Act of 1988. By statute, these fees are the exclusive means to mitigate all school facility impacts of the proposed project.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 59
Upon payment of the fee, all impacts are mitigated. CEQA case law explains that no additional analysis is required in an EIR. (Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016.) According to the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, fees are currently $0.51 per square foot and are expected to increase $0.54 per square foot July 1, 2014.

Mitigation Measure
MM 3.12-3 In accordance with the provisions of the state Education Code and the School Facilities Act of 1988, the project applicant will pay statutory school facilities fees to mitigate impacts to school facilities.

On page 3.13-1 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to clarify the name of South Albany StreetStradley Avenue:

Project Site Setting
The project site is approximately 44.64 acres in area and is comprised of one parcel, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 521-010-21, located east of South Albany Street-Stradley Avenue, west of Dover Parkway, north of Woollomes Avenue, and south of Morse Boulevard (currently an unimproved and incomplete street).

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 60
On page 3.13-26 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-4 has been revised to correct a reference to South Albany Street/Stradley Avenue (the thoroughfare is known as South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes):

TABLE 3.13-4
EXISTING CONDITIONS: DAILY ROADWAY LOS
# Roadway Segment Capacity Configuration Target
LOS
Existing

ADT LOS
1 Woollomes Ave. (Stradley
Ave. to Belmont St.) 2- Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) D 3,063 < B 2 Woollomes Ave. (Belmont St.
to Project Driveway)
2-Lane Undivided (2 to 4.5
signals/mi.) D 3,063 < C
3 Woollomes Ave. (Project
Driveway to Dover Parkway)
2-Lane Undivided (2 to 4.5
signals/mi.) D 3,063 < C
4 Woollomes Ave. (Dover
Parkway to Home Depot East) 6-Lane Divided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 8,313 < C 5 Woollomes Ave. (Home Depot
East to SR 99 SB Ramps) 4-Lane Divided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 9,013 < C 6 Woollomes Ave. (SR 99 SB
Ramps to SR 99 NB Ramps)
2-Lane Undivided (>4.5
signals/mi.) D 8,438 D
7 Woollomes Ave. (SR 99 NB
Ramps to Lexington St.)
2-Lane Undivided (>4.5
signals/mi.) D 8,425 D
8 S. Albany St. Stradley Ave.
(north of Woollomes Ave.) 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 3,788 < B 9 Stradley Ave. (south of
Woollomes Ave.) 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 1,700 < B 10 Lexington St. (north of
Woollomes Ave.) 4-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 7,450 < B 11 Lexington St. (south of
Woollomes Ave. 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 4,657 < B The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 61
On page 3.13-27 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-5 has been revised to incorporate revised highway capacity software (HCS) analysis for the SR 99 mainline:

TABLE 3.13-5
EXISTING CONDITIONS: MAINLINE LOS
No.

Lanes
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Mid-day
peak
Freeway
Mainline
Segment
Vol. Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
Vol. Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
Vol. Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
SR 99 NB
north of
Woollomes
Ave
23 C 1,555 13.3

10.1 B
A
2,120 18.2

13.8 B 1,580 13.510.3
B
A
SR 99 NB
south of
Woollomes
Ave
23 C 1,702 14.6

11.1 B 2,218 19.014.4
C
B
1,578 13.5

10.2 B
A
SR 99 SB
north of
Woollomes
Ave
23 C 1,583 13.6

10.3 B
A
1,893 16.2

12.3 B 1,621 13.910.5
B
A
SR 99 SB
south of
Woollomes
Ave
23 C 1,544 13.2

10.0 B
A
1,937 16.6

12.6 B 1,532 13.110.0
B
A
On page 3.13-27 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-6 has been revised to incorporate revised HCS analysis for the SR 99 ramps:

TABLE 3.13-6
EXISTING CONDITIONS: RAMPS LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Mid-day
Peak
Interchange Location
Target
LOS
Junction
Type
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
SR 99 Ramps at
Woollomes Ave
SR 99 NB north of
Woollomes Ave C Merge

18.1 13.6 B
22 16.6 CB

17.7 13.7 B
SR 99 NB south of
Woollomes Ave C Diverge

18.9 15.9 B

23.5 19.5 CB

17.3 14.8 B
SR 99 SB north of
Woollomes Ave C Merge

17.8 13.9 B
23 17.4 CB

17.7 13.8 B
SR 99 SB south of
Woollomes Ave C Diverge

18.6 15.5 B

20.7 17.4 CB
18 15.6 B
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 62
On page 3.13-32 of the DEIR, the text has been changed to update the LOS to incorporate HCS analysis for the SR 99 ramp and mainline and to clarify analysis regarding the potential impact:

Impact 3.13-1c Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 Northbound Ramps
The Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps would operate at an acceptable LOS C D during Existing Plus Project conditions, but they are projected to not accommodate the 95th percentile queue for eastbound left turn movement. (In other words, the number of cars lining up is expected to exceed the storage capacity of the road section.) While the 95th percentile queue is not an existing significance standard of the City, adopted either as a matter of general application or specific to the proposed project, it is addressed here to be conservative and provide full disclosure.

In order to achieve and maintain accommodation of the 95th percentile queue, significant reconstruction of the Woollomes/SR 99 interchange would be required: the existing eastbound through lane would need to be converted to a shared through and left lane, the eastbound signal phasing would need to be changed to a split phase, 50 feet of storage for the eastbound left turn pocket would be reduced, and an additional northbound SR 99 on-ramp lane would be constructed to provide two receiving lanes for the eastbound left turn traffic. These significant improvements are infeasible on a project-level basis given existing physical constraints (existing rights of ways and frontage road); traffic delays associated with the construction of this improvement; and, will not provide a long-term benefit because the entire Woollomes/SR 99 interchange will be reconstructed under cumulative conditions pursuant to the existing City’s traffic impact fee program.

On page 3.13-36 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct a reference to South Albany Street (the thoroughfare is known as South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes):

Table 3.13-9 presents the Cumulative No Project daily roadway segment LOS analysis results.

This table indicates that all segments of Woollomes Avenue are expected to exceed daily capacities in the Cumulative No Project conditions, except between Dover Parkway and the Home Depot East driveway. Additionally, the segment of South Albany Street Stradley Avenue just north of Woollomes Avenue is expected to operate at unacceptable LOS under cumulative conditions without the building of the proposed project.

On page 3.13-37 of the DEIR, the text has been changed to to incorporate revised HCS analysis for the SR 99 ramp and mainline:

As presented in Tables 3.13-10 and 3.13-11, the freeway mainline is projected to operate at acceptable LOS D for the northbound direction, north of Woollomes Avenue in the AM peak hour, and on all study segments in the PM peak hour during Cumulative No Project conditions.

The SR 99 northbound off-ramp is projected to operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour Cumulative No Project Scenario. Similarly, the northbound on and off ramps are expected to The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 63
operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour, and all ramps are projected to operate at LOS D or worse during the PM peak hour.

On page 3.13-37 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-9 has been revised to correct a reference to South Albany Street/Stradley Avenue (the thoroughfare is known as South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes):

TABLE 3.13-9
CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS: DAILY ROADWAY LOS
# Roadway Segment Capacity Configuration Target
LOS
Cumulative No
Project

ADT LOS
1 Woollomes Ave. (Stradley Ave. to
Belmont St.) 2- Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) D 24,000 E 2 Woollomes Ave. (Belmont St. to Project
Driveway)
2-Lane Undivided (2 to 4.5
signals/mi.) D 24,000 F
3 Woollomes Ave. (Project Driveway to
Dover Parkway)
2-Lane Undivided (2 to 4.5
signals/mi.) D 24,000 F
4 Woollomes Ave. (Dover Parkway to
Home Depot East) 6-Lane Divided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 37,850 D 5 Woollomes Ave. (Home Depot East to
SR 99 SB Ramps) 4-Lane Divided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 43,900 F 6 Woollomes Ave. (SR 99 SB Ramps to
SR 99 NB Ramps)
2-Lane Undivided (>4.5
signals/mi.) D 33,450 F
7 Woollomes Ave. (SR 99 NB Ramps to
Lexington St.)
2-Lane Undivided (>4.5
signals/mi.) D 20,850 F
8 S. Albany St. Stradley Ave. (north of
Woollomes Ave.) 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 22,550 E 9 Stradley Ave. (south of Woollomes Ave.) 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 13,750 C 10 Lexington St. (north of Woollomes Ave.) 4-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 18,550 B 11 Lexington St. (south of Woollomes Ave.) 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 6,600 B The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 64
On page 3.13-38 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-10 has been revised to incorporate revised HCS analysis for the SR 99 mainline:

TABLE 3.13-10
CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS: MAINLINE LOS
Freeway
Mainline
Segment
No.

Lanes
Target
LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Mid-day
peak
Vol. Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
Vol. Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
Vol. Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
SR 99 NB
north of
Woollomes
Ave. 23 C
3,130 27.5

20.3 C 3,325 29.821.6
D
C
2,435 20.9

15.8 C
B
SR 99 NB
south of
Woollomes
Ave. 23 C
2,835 24.5

18.4 C 3,695 35.024.1
D
C
2,630 22.6

17.1 C
B
SR 99 SB
north of
Woollomes
Ave. 23 C
2,480 21.3

16.1 B 3,220 28.620.9
D
C
2,535 21.7

16.5 C
B
SR 99 SB
south of
Woollomes
Ave. 23 C
2,575 22.1

16.7 B 3,225 28.618.8
D
C
2,555 21.9

16.6 C
B
On page 3.13-38 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-11 has been revised to incorporate revised HCS analysis for the SR 99 ramps:

TABLE 3.13-11
CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS: RAMPS LOS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Mid-day
Peak
Interchange Location
Target
LOS
Junction
Type
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
SR 99 Ramps at
Woollomes Ave
SR 99 NB north of
Woollomes Ave C Merge

30.6 24.7 DC

32.3 25.2 DC

24.7 19.6 C
SR 99 NB south of
Woollomes Ave C Diverge
29 23.9 DC

37.1 30.2 ED

27.1 23.2 C
SR 99 SB north of
Woollomes Ave C Merge

26.4 21.0 DC

31.9 25.0 DC

26.1 21.1 C
SR 99 SB south of
Woollomes Ave C Diverge

26.1 22.0 DC

33.1 27.3 DC

26.6 23.1 C
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 65
On page 3.13-45 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct a reference to South Albany Street (the thoroughfare is known as South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes):

Table 3.13-13 presents the Cumulative Plus Project daily roadway segment LOS analysis results.

As presented in this table, all segments of Woollomes Avenue are expected to exceed daily capacities in the Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Additionally, the segment of South Albany Street Stradley Avenue just north of Woollomes Avenue is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS. As explained above, impacts and mitigations for this study are based on intersection operations analysis.

On page 3.13-46 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-13 has been revised to correct an error in the Cumulative column heading and to correct a reference to South Albany Street/Stradley Avenue (the thoroughfare is known as South Albany Street north of Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue south of Woollomes):

TABLE 3.13-13
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: DAILY ROADWAY LOS
# Roadway Segment Capacity Configuration Target
LOS
Project
Only
Traffic
Daily
Cumulative
No Plus
Project

ADT LOS
1 Woollomes Ave. (Stradley
Ave. to Belmont St.) 2- Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) D 1,326 25,326 E 2 Woollomes Ave. (Belmont St.
to Project Driveway)
2-Lane Undivided (2 to 4.5
signals/mi.) D 1,768 25,768 F
3 Woollomes Ave. (Project
Driveway to Dover Parkway)
2-Lane Undivided (2 to 4.5
signals/mi.) D 11,184 35,184 F
4 Woollomes Ave. (Dover
Parkway to Home Depot East) 6-Lane Divided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 12,064 49,914 F 5 Woollomes Ave. (Home Depot
East to SR 99 SB Ramps) 4-Lane Divided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 12,064 55,964 F 6 Woollomes Ave. (SR 99 SB
Ramps to SR 99 NB Ramps) 2-Lane Undivided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 6,916 40,366 F 7 Woollomes Ave. (SR 99 NB
Ramps to Lexington St.) 2-Lane Undivided (>4.5 signals/mi.) D 1,766 22,616 F 8 S. Albany St. Stradley Ave.
(north of Woollomes Ave.) 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 884 23,434 E 9 Stradley Ave. (south of
Woollomes Ave.) 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 442 14,192 D 10 Lexington St. (north of
Woollomes Ave.) 4-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 1,326 19,876 C 11 Lexington St. (south of
Woollomes Ave. 2-Lane Undivided (<2 signals/mi.) C 442 7,042 B The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 66
On page 3.13-46 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to incorporate revised HCS analysis for the SR 99 ramp and mainline:

As presented in these tables, the freeway mainline is projected to operate at acceptable LOS C D for the northbound direction., The southbound direction is projected to operate at LOS C for PM peak and Saturday peak hours and at LOS B during AM peak hour scenarios north of Woollomes Avenue in the AM peak hour, and at LOS D or worse on all study segments in the PM peak hour during Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Similarly, the northbound on and off ramps are expected to operate at LOS C D during all scenarios with the exception of the SR 99 northbound off-ramp during PM peak hour when it is projected to operate at LOS Dthe AM peak hour, and all ramps are projected to operate at LOS D or worse during the PM peak hour. The southbound on and off ramps are expected to operate at LOS C during all scenarios with the exception of the SR 99 southbound off-ramp during PM peak hours when it is projected to operate at LOS Dand the northbound off ramp are also projected to operate at LOS D during the Saturday peak hour. Interchange improvements that will mitigate these deficiencies are discussed in the final section of this report.

On page 3.13-47 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-14 has been revised to incorporate revised HCS analysis for the SR 99 mainline:

TABLE 3.13-14
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: MAINLINE LOS
Freeway
Mainline
Segment
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Mid-day
peak
No.

Lanes
Target
LOS Vol.

Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
Vol.

Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
Vol.

Density
(pc/mi/ln)
L
O
S
SR 99 NB
north of
Woollomes
Ave.
23 C 3,179 28.1

20.6 D
C
3,602 33.6

23.5 D
C
2,799 24.1

18.2 C
SR 99 NB
south of
Woollomes
Ave.
23 C 2,895 25.1

18.8 C 3,887 38.225.6
E
C
2,926 25.4

19.0 C
SR 99 SB
north of
Woollomes
Ave.
23 C 2,560 21.9

16.6 C
B
3,476 31.8

22.6 D
C
2,929 25.4

19.0 C
SR 99 SB
south of
Woollomes
Ave.
23 C 2,612 22.4

17.0 C
B
3,433 31.2

20.0 D
C
2,828 25.4

18.4 C
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 67
On page 3.13-47 of the DEIR, Table 3.13-15 has been revised to incorporate revised HCS analysis for the SR 99 ramps:

TABLE 3.13-15
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: RAMPS LOS
Interchange Location
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Mid-day
Peak
Target
LOS
Junction
Type
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS SR 99 Ramps at
Woollomes Ave
SR 99 NB north of
Woollomes Ave C Merge 31.0 25.1 DC 34.6 27.5 DC 27.7 22.4 C SR 99 NB south of
Woollomes Ave C Diverge 29.6 24.4 DC 38.9 31.7 ED 29.9 25.8 DC SR 99 SB north of
Woollomes Ave C Merge 26.7 21.3 C 33.5 26.6 DC 28.3 23.2 DC SR 99 SB south of
Woollomes Ave C Diverge 26.8 22.7 C 35.5 29.4 ED 30.3 26.4 DC On page 3.13-48 of the DEIR, text has been added to clarify analysis of a potential cumulative impact of the project at the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps. As the DEIR discussed in Impact 3.13- 1c, improvements to the Woollomes/SR 99 interchange necessary to mitigate project-level impacts to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps are infeasible on a project-level basis and will not provide a long-term benefit because the entire Woollomes/SR 99 interchange will be reconstructed under cumulative conditions pursuant to the existing City’s traffic impact fee program. The DEIR identified but did not specifically enumerate the cumulative impact, namely the potentially significant cumulative impact to the interchange or ramps. The added text clarifies that this potential cumulative impact would be fully mitigated by payment of a fair share fee pursuant to the City’s existing traffic impact fee program:

Intersection LOS under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Impact 3.13-2
Implementation of the proposed project combined with cumulative conditions could result in long-term traffic conditions conflicting with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. This is considered a potentially significant impact that will be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 68
The proposed project’s incremental contribution to cumulative public services and facilities impacts will be addressed in part by payment of existing applicable circulation development impact fees, which would also be assessed on any future development in the City. Additionally, the project would be required to pay fair-share fees, as detailed below in mitigation measures MM 3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2g3.13-2h.

As documented in the DEIR, reconstruction of the Woollomes/SR 99 interchange is planned for in the City’s capital improvement program and funded pursuant to the City’s traffic impact fee program. If the Woollomes/SR 99 interchange were not somehow reconstructed in accordance with these City policies, the proposed project could be found to incrementally contribute to potentially significant cumulative traffic conditions at the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps. However, this hypothetical potentially significant cumulative impact will be fully mitigated through the payment of a fair share fee to the City’s existing traffic impact fee program, as detailed below in mitigation measure MM 3.13-2h.

On page 3.13-49 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to add Mitigation Measure MM 3.13-2h and to remove a reference to MM 3.13-1c:

MM 3.13-2g Woollomes Avenue/Lexington Street In order to achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than D, a second eastbound lane will be constructed from the SR 99 northbound ramps to Lexington Street. This lane will become a dedicated left turn lane at the intersection (see Figure

3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

MM 3.13-2h Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 Northbound Ramps
In order to mitigate potential cumulative impacts to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps, the project applicant will pay a fair share fee in accordance with the City’s existing traffic impact fee program towards traffic improvements to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps that may include on a conceptual level the following characteristics: conversion of the existing eastbound through lane to a shared through and left lane, changing the eastbound signal phasing to a split phase, and constructing an additional northbound SR 99 on-ramp lane to provide two receiving lanes for the eastbound left turn traffic. The City’s reconstruction of the interchange, which may include these proposed design elements, will be subject to its own future CEQA review after a specific design is developed with the participation and input from Caltrans.

These mitigation measures, along with mitigation measures MM 3.13-1a, and MM 3.13-1b, and MM 3.13-1c, would ensure that cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 69
On pages 3.13-48 through 3.13-49 of the DEIR, the text has been revised in response to comments from the Kern County Roads Department. (See Section 2.0, Comments and Responses, Response to KCRD-3 for discussion).

Mitigation Measures
MM 3.13-2a Woollomes Avenue/Stradley Avenue In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, an additional westbound right lane will be constructed (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because the westbound approach to this intersection is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue.

MM 3.13-2b Woollomes Avenue/Belmont Street In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, this intersection will be signalized and the eastbound and westbound approaches will be widened to two through lanes in each direction, with a dedicated eastbound left turn pocket (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement. Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because this portion of Woollomes is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

MM 3.13-2c Woollomes Avenue/Project Driveway In order to achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than D, the eastbound and westbound approaches will be widened to two through lanes in each direction and have a dedicated eastbound left turn pocket (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because this portion of Woollomes is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

MM 3.13-2d Woollomes Avenue/Dover Parkway In order achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than D, the eastbound and westbound approaches of this intersection will be widened to include dual left turn lanes, dedicated right turn lanes, and three through lanes. The northbound and southbound approaches will be widened to include dual left turn lanes, two through lanes, and dedicated right turn lanes (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement. Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because the eastbound approach of this intersection is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 70
On page 3.13-52 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct references to mitigation measures:

Impact 3.13-3 The project could conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highway. The mitigation measures identified above (MM 3.13-1a, MM 3.13-1b through 3.13-1c, and MM 3.13-2a through 3.13-2g3.13-2h) will address the potential significant impacts to alleviate projected long-term congestion and bring conditions into compliance with the General Plan.

On page 5-10 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct references to mitigation measures:

Cumulative Localized CO Impacts Project-generated emissions of CO could contribute, on a cumulative basis, to localized increases in CO pollutant concentrations. This impact is considered potentially significant. As noted in Impact 3.3-5, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to contribute to localized concentrations of mobile source CO under future cumulative conditions. Cumulative mobile source emissions of TACs (e.g., CO and DPM) will be lessened with the proposed roadway improvements set forth in the traffic study and listed in Mitigation Measures MM 3.13.1-a, 3.13-1b, 3.13-1c, and MM 3.13-2a through MM

3.13-2g3.13-2h. (Omni-Means, 2014; pgs. 38-44; Appendix 3.13). These mitigation measures will decrease CO by improving traffic congestion. By improving roadway LOS above LOS “E” or “F”, the cumulative CO emissions will not create a hotspot according to the SJVAPCD GAMAQI (SJVAPCD, 2002; pg. 49). By eliminating hotspot potential, mobile source CO emissions will be considered less than significant.

Cumulative Localized DPM Impacts Project-generated emissions of DPM could contribute, on a cumulative basis, to localized increases in DPM pollutant concentrations. This impact is considered potentially significant.

Before mitigation, DPM is not expected to exceed the 10 in 1 million MEI threshold based upon the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes identified in the traffic study, and the DPM modeling conducted with the same traffic volumes. The risk from cumulative DPM emissions is estimated from the SJVAPCD-provided mall spreadsheet and the surrogate approach explained in Impact

3.3-8b. The DPM risk from truck travel is 7.80 E-07 and truck idling is 1.74 E-07. This modeling represents a “worst case scenario” because intersection improvement mitigation measures were not included in the model. Cumulative impacts would be lessened even further with the proposed project traffic mitigation in Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-1a, MM 3.13-1b, MM 3.13- 1c, and MM 3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2g3.13-2h. This is below the 10 in 1 million MEI threshold and therefore cumulative DPM emissions are considered less than significant.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 71
On page 5-15 of the DEIR, in the discussion of Impact 3.13-2, the text has been revised to correct a reference to mitigation measures:

The proposed project’s incremental contribution to cumulative public services and facilities impacts will be addressed in part by payment of existing applicable circulation development impact fees, which would also be assessed on any future development in the City. Additionally, the project would be required to pay fair-share fees, as detailed in mitigation measures MM

3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2g3.13-2h.

On page 5-16 to 5-17 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to correct references to mitigation measures and to add a reference to MM 3.13-2h:

MM 3.13-2g Woollomes Avenue/Lexington Street In order to achieve and maintain an LOS no worse than D, a second eastbound lane will be constructed from the SR 99 northbound ramps to Lexington Street. This lane will become a dedicated left turn lane at the intersection (see Figure

3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

MM 3.13-2h Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 Northbound Ramps In order to mitigate potential cumulative impacts to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps, the project applicant will pay a fair share fee in accordance with the City’s existing traffic impact fee program towards traffic improvements to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps that may include on a conceptual level the following characteristics: conversion of the existing eastbound through lane to a shared through and left lane, changing the eastbound signal phasing to a split phase, and constructing an additional northbound SR 99 on-ramp lane to provide two receiving lanes for the eastbound left turn traffic. The City’s reconstruction of the interchange, which may include these proposed design elements, will be subject to its own future CEQA review after a specific design is developed with the participation and input from Caltrans.

These mitigation measures, along with mitigation measures MM 3.13-1a, and MM 3.13-1b, and MM 3.13-1c, would ensure that cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

On page 6-1 of the DEIR, the text has been revised to add text that was inadvertently omitted on the project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. This material appears elsewhere in the DEIR:
the Executive Summary (pg. S-2), Table S-1 Executive Summary of Project and Cumulative Impacts (Impacts 3.3-3 and 3.3-7), and Section 3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (pgs. 3.3-35 to 3.3- 38 and 3.3-41 to 3.3-43).

Based upon the environmental analysis provided in Section 3.0, the majority of the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation measures that would be implemented in conjunction with the proposed project. However, this DEIR has identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality and Transportation/Traffic that cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. Regarding Air Quality, the project’s incremental contribution to operational The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 72
emissions of regional pollutants of primary concern, reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), during project operations will result in a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality conditions. The project’s incremental contribution to emissions of NOX, and ROG will result in a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative regional air quality conditions. In the area of Transportation/Traffic, short-term project-level traffic impacts on the Woollomes Avenue/State Route 99 northbound ramps would be temporarily significant and unavoidable, on a short-term basis between operation of the proposed project and full build out under cumulative conditions.

3.2 REVISIONS TO DEIR VOLUME 2 (TECHNICAL APPENDICES)
Portions of the DEIR’s Appendix 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Studies, have been revised in response to comments by the SJVAPCD. These revised portions appear beginning on the next page. 3140 Gold Camp Drive Suite 160
Rancho Cordova CA 95670
P 916.853.9293
F 916.853.9297
www.bskassociates.com
An Employee-Owned Company ● Analytical Testing ● Construction Observation ● Ecological Services ● Engineering Geology Environmental Engineering ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Materials Testing ● Water Resources Technical Memorandum
Subject: Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study
Date: March 21, 2014
To: City of Delano
From: BSK Associates
The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide a detailed analysis, and a description of the air modeling used to identify pollutant emissions from the Grapevine Shopping Center Project in Delano, CA. BSK Associates calculated the project-related emissions from construction and operational sources. The methods used were both state and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) approved air quality models and guidance tools. These models include the California Emissions Estimate Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2 and the SJVAPCD provided Mall Model Spreadsheet. The modeling assumptions, methods, and results are summarized below.

PROJECT-RELATED AIR EMISSIONS
This document was prepared pursuant to SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), January 10, 2002 Revision. GAMAQI does not necessarily require a quantification of construction emissions for all projects. Emissions quantification is typically required only at the request of the lead agency. The SJVAPCD generally assumes that implementation of any construction-related mitigation measures will result in construction emissions impacts that are less than significant. The GAMAQI identifies thresholds that separate a project’s short-term emissions from its long-term emissions.

In order to estimate emissions associated with the proposed project, several changes were made to the standard defaults provided in CalEEMod. These changes are detailed within the modeling program results that are provided in Attachment A and are explained further below.

CalEEMod ASSUMPTIONS
CalEEMod allows the user to change defaults within the program if site-specific information is supported with substantial evidence required by CEQA (CalEEMod, 2013; pg. 9). The CalEEMod modeling conducted relied on default values based on SJVAPCD data. These values influence Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 2
on-road vehicle emissions, trip lengths, water supply and treatment electricity use, solid waste disposal rates, amount of paved roads, days of landscaping equipment use, architectural coating emissions, and hearth usage (CalEEMod, 2013; pg. 11).

The project’s land use was set as 328,500 square feet of “regional shopping center” with the remainder of the project site consisting of parking. These areas are based on the project description and Notice of Preparation (City of Delano, 2013; pg. 5).

The construction portion of CalEEMod assumed in the first year of construction, activities on the project site will consist of project site clearing, grading, detention basin expansion, and the beginning of construction of the proposed project. It is assumed that the following two years will consist of construction of the proposed project. Once construction is completed, architectural coating will occur on the project site. Buildout of the project site is assumed to be approximately 25% in the first year, 47% in the second year, and 28% in the third year. These phases were based on communications with Cornerstone Engineering and review of the Delano Marketplace Construction methods (City of Delano, 2007).

The operational aspect of the CalEEMod modeling utilized traffic volumes from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report conducted by Omni-Means (Omni-Means, 2014). This report utilized ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) Code 820 (Shopping Center) as the basis for project-related traffic.

The vegetation currently on the project site is an empty field with small amounts of vegetation.

The new project will plant approximately 300 native trees that are tolerant to the Delano climate.

The CalEEMod model features mitigation measures for construction and operational phases, individually. According to NOP comments from SJVAPCD, construction will utilize add-on controls, cleaner fuels, or newer, lower emitting equipment of at least Tier II or better (SJVAPCD, 2013; pg. 2). Furthermore, the project site will be watered more frequently than recommended to meet PM10 and PM2.5 requirements. Additional mitigation measures for both construction and operation impacts are described in Section 3.3 within the DEIR and within the modeling outputs.

Project-Emissions Results
The following are the CalEEMod emission results for the Grapevine Shopping Center before and after mitigation.

Table 1 represents the fugitive dust created during construction of the proposed project before mitigation.

Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 3
TABLE 1

CONSTRUCTION-GENERATED TOTAL PM EMISSIONS

BEFORE COMPLIANCE WITH SJVAPCD PM CONTROL PROVISIONS
Sources
Fugitive
PM10
(Tons)
Exhaust
PM10
(Tons)
Fugitive
PM2.5
(Tons)
Exhaust
PM2.5
(Tons)
Total PM
(Tons)
2014 0.86 0.38 0.25 0.35 1.84
2015 1.01 0.34 0.27 0.32 1.94
2016 0.45 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.82
Construction Total 2.32 0.85 0.64 0.79 4.60
Source: BSK Associates, 2014
These emissions are below the 15 tons per year PM10 threshold established by SJVAPCD and are therefore less than significant.

Table 2 represents the construction-generated ROG and NOx from the proposed project without mitigation.

TABLE 2

CONSTRUCTION-GENERATED EMISSIONS OF ROG & NOX

WITHOUT MITIGATION
Sources
Emissions (tons/year)

ROG NOX
SJVAPCD Thresholds (tons/year) 10 10
2014 1.39 9.05
2015 1.46 8.48
2016 1.43 3.25
Total Emissions 4.28 20.78
Source: BSK Associates, 2014
These emissions are below the 10 ton per year threshold established by SJVAPCD and are therefore considered less than significant.

Both NOx and PM10 are required to meet percent reductions according to Indirect Source Review (ISR) Rule 9510. This reduction is demonstrated in Table 3. In accordance with this rule, exhaust emissions of NOx from construction equipment greater than fifty (50) horsepower used or associated with the development project shall be reduced by 20 percent and reduce PM10 emissions by 45 percent (SJVAPCD, 2005; pg. 9510-11).

With Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-2, and Regulation VIII, Rule 8021 under SJVAPCD, both NOx and PM10 meet their percent reductions with a 23% and 63% reduction, respectively. This satisfies an applicable air quality plan and is therefore considered less than significant with mitigation.

Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 4
TABLE 3
CONSTRUCTION-GENERATED EMISSIONS OF NOX AND PM10 WITH MITIGATION Sources NOX
Emissions with Mitigation
(Tons)
PM10 Emission with Mitigation
(Tons)
SJVAPCD Thresholds
(tons/year)
10 15
Percent Reduction
Threshold
20% 45%
2014 6.64 0.46
2015 6.74 0.51
2016 2.54 0.22
Total Emissions 15.93 1.19
Percent Reduction 23.36 62.60
Source: BSK Associates, 2014
Table 4 represents the proposed project’s operational emissions prior to mitigation compared to the SJVAPCD thresholds.

TABLE 4

PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS WITHOUT MITIGATION Sources Emissions Generated (tons/year)

ROG NOX
PM10 Total PM2.5 Total

SJVAPCD
Thresholds
(tons/year)
10 10 15 Encompassed
within PM10
Area Sources 7.29 1.60e-004 6.0e-005 6.0e-005
Energy 0.01 0.11 8.46e-03 8.46e-03
Mobile Sources 12.75 35.43 10.27 3.06
Total Emissions 20.05 35.54 10.27 3.06
Source: BSK Associates, 2014
This table shows that both ROG and NOx do not satisfy the 10 ton per year threshold and therefore are considered a potentially significant impacts. Table 5 represents the proposed project operational emissions with MM 3.3-3 incorporated and the resulting percent reduction.

Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 5
TABLE 5
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF NOx AND PM10 FOR PRE- AND POST-MITIGATION CONDITIONS Emissions Generated (tons/year)
NOX ROG PM10 Total
Pre-Mitigation 35.54 20.05 10.28
Post-Mitigation 21.92 17.96 5.13
Total Reductions 13.61 2.09 5.15
Percentage Reduction Threshold 33% NA 50%
Total Emission Percentage Reduction 38.33% 10.44% 50.04% Source: BSK Associates, 2014
Both NOx and PM10 meet the percent reduction required by ISR 9510; however only PM10 satisfies its yearly tonnage threshold. Both NOx and ROG exceed their 10 ton/year threshold.

With MM 3.3-3, project emissions of NOx and PM10 achieve ISR 9510 percent reduction but NOx and ROG fail to meet the 10 ton/year threshold. Therefore, after mitigation, operational emissions of regional pollutants of primary concern (NOx and ROG) would be significant and unavoidable.

CUMULATIVE REGIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS
GHG Emissions
As indicated in Table 6, MM 3.3-3 combined with the project’s design features under the CalEEMod model, reduce the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions by 44.26%.

SJVAPCD GHG emission guidance states that in order for a project to be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions, a project must either implement SJVAPCD BPS, or achieve a 29% reduction in GHG emissions (SJVAPCD, 2009; pg. 5). The proposed project’s GHG emission reduction project features meet the threshold described in SJVAPCD guidance, because they achieve a 29% reduction in GHG Emissions as estimated through CalEEMod. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions is considered less than significant.

Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 6
TABLE 6
CalEEMod PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS WITH

AND WITHOUT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
Greenhouse Gas
Total CO2
(MT/Year)
CH4
(MT/Year) N20 (MT/Year)
Without Features 16,237.22 4.64 0.03
With Features 8,638.93 2.02 0.02
Percent Reduction 46.74 56.51 29.54
Total Average Percent Reduction: = 44.26
Source: BSK Associates, 2014 Appendix 3.3
ROG and NOx
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to increases in emissions of ROG and NOX. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-3, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be reduced, but not to a less than significant level. Thus, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative regional air quality conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable.

PROJECT-RELATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Stationary Source Toxic Air Contaminants
The proposed project consists primarily of retail stores, a 12-screen movie theater and various food venues, both fast food and sit-down. The project was analyzed for the “Opening Day” scenario, beginning of project operations, and a “Cumulative” scenario, with full area buildout of all surrounding development. The food venues are identified as the only stationary sources that have the potential to emit Area Source Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). Under San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 2020, most retail food processing equipment is exempt from permitting requirements, except for charbroilers, which are subject to Rule 4692.

The TACs emitted from fast food restaurants are Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), with and without Naphalene. The SJVAPCD provided a dynamic “Mall HRA Screening” spreadsheet to BSK to evaluate the emissions and risk of TACs from fast food restaurants (SJVAPCD, 2014). This spreadsheet and the models conducted are provided in Attachment B. The district’s default values were used to estimate the proposed project emissions. These values include pounds of meat per week, pounds of TAC emitted per ton of meat, and the number of fast food restaurants for the given project. Once all values are inputted, the spreadsheet produces a risk factor based on the nearest sensitive receptor location within a provided quadrant.

The dynamic spreadsheet is provided in the attachments and lists the district default values.

This table shows four facility types. The project description for the proposed project indicates the potential for up to 13 food vendors, four of which are proposed fast food drive-through restaurants. This model took a conservative approach and modeled the risk as if all food Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 7
vendors are considered fast food restaurants, which have the highest TAC emissions. These stationary sources were summed to calculate the overall risk. The nearest sensitive receptor for the proposed project’s “Opening Day” scenario in regards to air emissions is a daycare located north of the project. The sensitive receptor is located approximately 0.29 miles (460 meters (m)) from the northern boundary of the project site.

Stationary Toxic Air Contaminants Results
With the district-provided default values and the 0.29 mile (460 m) distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, the spreadsheet calculates a risk of 6.82 E-093.81 E-08 for Toxic Air Contaminants due to fast food production. This is less than the 10 in a million risk factor threshold determined by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, the proposed project’s stationary sources TAC emissions are considered less than significant.

Mobile Source Toxic Air Contaminants
Carbon Monoxide Toxic Air Contaminant
The proposed project will increase traffic volumes along Woollomes Avenue and nearby roadways. The increase in traffic volumes creates the potential for high levels of carbon monoxide (CO). CO is a TAC and is monitored within the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD’s threshold for CO is 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for 1 hour from the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (SJVAPCD, 2002; pg. 26).

Prior to conducting a full CO “hotspot” analysis, the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) states that if neither of the following criteria are met at all intersections affected by the development project, the project can be said to have no potential to create a violation of the CO standard:
“a traffic study for the project indicates Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at more or more ([sic]) intersections in the project vicinity” (SJVAPCD, 2002; pg. 49).

Carbon Monoxide Toxic Air Contaminant Results
Prior to mitigation, the Woollomes Ave/Home Depot East intersection operates at LOS F.

However, after mitigation, the intersection will operate at LOS C. The improved LOS brings all intersections within the criteria, and therefore according to the GAMAQI, there is no potential to create a violation of the CO standard (SJVAPCD, 2002; pg. 49).

Diesel Particulate Matter Toxic Air Contaminant
The “Mall HRA Screening” spreadsheet calculates levels of diesel particulate matter (DPM). The two workbooks within the spreadsheet used are the “Truck Idling” and “Truck Travel” tabs.

Within the Truck Idling workbook, the truck idling times were set at 0.083 hours to stay Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 8
consistent with the required project 5 minute idle limit set forth by section 2485 of Title 13 the California Code of Regulations (CCR, 2006). The SJVAPCD default PM10 emissions factor of 2.57 g/hr. was used in the analysis. The 8,613 events per year is based on the average number of deliveries per day of 3 similar projects (City of Delano, 2007; pg. 3.3-50; City of Madera, 2012; pg. 3.2-47; City of Fresno, 2013; pg. 3.3-57). These projects average 33 delivery trucks per day, running 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year. As the ratio of truck refrigeration units (TRUs) and high horizontal (HH) is unknown, both were modeled and averaged. In reality, the type of trucks will vary from TRU, HH, and smaller delivery trucks. The sensitive receptor for opening day is the daycare located approximately 0.29 miles (460 m) north of the proposed project northern boundary and primarily in quadrant 4 in the model.

The Truck Travel workbook analyzed the truck travel emission starting from the SR 99 on and off ramps, moving west along Woollomes Ave., turning right on Dover Parkway and traveling north to Morse Blvd, then turning left on to Morse Blvd and entering the project site from the rear entrance. The midpoints of 50 meter segments along the roadways were used for the distance to the nearest receptor. The receptor quadrant varied depending on where the truck was along the roadway. This roadway consists of approximately 24 sections of 50 meters in length. Each segment of roadway was counted twice using two 50 meter segments to account for trucks entering and then leaving the project site. The SJVAPCD default PM10 emissions factor of 0.252 g/mi was used in the analysis. The 8,613 events per year is based on the average number of deliveries per day of 3 similar shopping center projects (City of Delano, 2007; pg. 3.3-50; City of Madera, 2012; pg. 3.2-47; City of Fresno, 2013; pg. 3.3-57).

The truck travel path used in this analysis appears below in Photo Plate 1: Truck Travel Path.

Truck Travel Path
Grapevine Shopping Center
Delano, California
Photo Plate1
PROJECT: E1401201S
Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 10
Diesel Particulate Matter Toxic Air Contaminant Results Using the district-provided spreadsheet for DPM risk, the risk associated with the project truck idling is 2.73 E-08 and truck travel is 5.30 E-084.19 E-08. These values do not exceed the 10 in 1 million risk threshold established by the SJVAPCD and therefore is considered less than significant.

Project Related Toxic Air Contaminants Results
The sum of toxic air contaminant emissions from all modeled sources (fast food, truck idling, truck travel) of the proposed project is 8.73 E-081.07 E-07. This does not exceed the 10 in 1 million threshold established by the SJVAPCD and therefore is considered less than significant.

CUMULATIVE TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Stationary Source Toxic Air Contaminants
For the cumulative conditions, which would include the buildout of the nearby residential development to the north, the analysis decreased the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor from the daycare to immediately north of the project. The nearest sensitive receptor was modeled as a residential land use located approximately 180 feet (55 m) north of the northern project boundary. Cumulative TACs depend on the future mix of uses, which are not known. A surrogate approach was used to assess the potential TAC impacts on sensitive receptors. A conservative future scenario of 39 additional fast food restaurants (13 per development including the proposed project) was modeled to determine TACs from stationary sources. The cumulative TAC scenario represents the likely emissions from other future development projects planned in the area, in addition to the proposed project. Therefore, the cumulative modeling examined the TAC emissions from the likeliest TAC source (fast food restaurants) for each of the proposed developments, at the same ratio as the proposed project.

The analysis was completed by assessing the City of Delano Community Development Major Project Map and comparing it to the Major Project list, two new sources in the project area will potentially emit TACs (City of Delano, 2011a; City of Delano, 2011b). These developments are the Delano Vineyard Plaza (Map reference V) and the Community Retail Commercial and Residential (Map reference Y). The Delano Vineyard Plaza is approximately 52 acres and incorporates similar land uses to the proposed project. The Community Retail Commercial and Residential is approximately 77 acres with a combination of commercial and multiple family developments. This mix of developments is a reasonable surrogate for any likely development in this area given its zoning and history. While other mixes are possible, this mix considers the likely sources.

Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 11
Stationary Source Toxic Air Contaminants Results
The conservative future scenario of 39 additional fast food restaurants calculated the potential cumulative TACs to be 5.60 E-072.19 E-06, based on the known cumulative sensitive receptor.

The potential combined risks from the proposed project and approved/pending projects stationary TACs will not exceed the 10 in 1 million Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI) threshold, and are therefore considered less than significant.

Mobile Source Toxic Air Contaminants
Carbon Monoxide
For the cumulative conditions which would include the buildout of the nearby residences, the nearest sensitive receptor is a future residential land use located approximately 180 feet (55 m) north of the northern boundary of the project site. In the cumulative buildout scenario, the cumulative mobile source emissions of CO will be mitigated with the proposed roadway improvements set forth in the traffic study and listed in Mitigation Measures MM 3.13-1a through MM 3.13-1c and MM 3.13-2a through MM 3.13-2g.

These mitigation measures will decrease CO and DPM by improving traffic congestion and maintaining a LOS above “E” or “F”. This improved roadway and intersection movement will eliminate hotspots according to the SJVAPCD GAMAQI (SJVAPCD, 2002; pg. 49).

Cumulative Carbon Monoxide Toxic Air Contaminant Results The cumulative improvements of the project’s intersections and roadways raising LOS above “E” or “F” through mitigation measures reduces the CO impact to a less than significant level.

Diesel Particulate Matter
The cumulative threshold for DPM is the same 10 in 1 million MEI threshold for TACs. To determine the impacts from DPM on the nearest sensitive receptor, the truck idling and truck travel workbooks from the “Mall Model” spreadsheet were used. The same assumptions and values as the Opening Day scenario model runs for both truck idling and truck travel were used in the cumulative analysis with the exception of the sensitive receptor. The sensitive receptor in the cumulative scenario is the same future residential development located approximately 180 feet (55 m) north of the proposed project northern boundary and primarily in quadrant 4 in the model. A similar surrogate approach for the stationary source TACs was used in the cumulative DPM analysis. The sensitive receptor distance reflects the potential housing development with regards to loading bay proximity and the 5 minute idle time regulation (CCR, 2006).

Cumulative Diesel Particulate Matter Results
The cumulative DPM emissions from truck idling is 1.74 E-07 and truck travel is 7.80 E-07 for the proposed project and future developments. These emissions are below the 10 in 1 million MEI risk threshold and is therefore considered less than significant.

Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 12
Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Results
The modeled sum of cumulative toxic air contaminant emissions from all sources of the proposed project and future development is 1.5 E-063.14 E-06. This does not exceed the 10 in 1 million threshold established by the SJVAPCD and therefore is considered less than significant.

Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 13
References
California Code of Regulations (CCR), 2006; Title 13, § 2485 Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. 2006 CalEEMod, 2013. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMoD), User’s Guide Version 2013.2; July 2013.

City of Delano, 2011a. Major Developments Map. City of Delano. November 16, 2011. (http://www.cityofdelano.org/DocumentCenter/View/1093) web accessed March 24, 2014.

City of Delano, 2011b. List of Major Projects. City of Delano. November 16, 2011 (http://www.cityofdelano.org/DocumentCenter/View/1094). Web accessed March 24, 2014.

City of Delano, 2007. Delano Marketplace Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Pacific Municipal Consultants, April 2007.

City of Fresno, 2013. Westlake Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Quad Knopf, April 2013; (http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D299F047- 98A6-4AAF-9FF7-286B1939E99E/0/WestlakeDEIR.pdf) web accessed February 27, 2014.

City of Madera, 2012. Foxglove Shopping Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, November 13, 2012; (http://www.cityofmadera.org/ web/guest/foxglove-draft-eir) web accessed February 27, 2014.

Nation Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2014; Annual Summaries Station Details.

Delano, CA (2011); (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/ANNUAL/stations/COOP:042 346/detail) web accessed January 2014.

Omni-Means, 2014. Grapevine Commercial Transportation Impact Analysis Report and Appendix, prepared for the City of Delano, March 2014.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2014. Mall Screening for Health Risk Assessment; (http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Resources/resources_idx.htm) web accessed December 2013.

SJVAPCD, 2013. Comments on the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Grapevine Project, District CEQA Reference No.: 20130309, April 11, 2013.

SJVAPCD, 2005. Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review ISR; adopted December 15, 2005.

SJVAPCD, 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, December 17, 2009; (http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/ Technical Memorandum March 21, 2014
Grapevine Shopping Center Air Quality Study Page 14
CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf) web accessed January 13, 2014.

SJVAPCD, 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. August 20, 1998; January 10, 2002 revised.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2014. Prevailing Wind Direction by Month (1992-2002); (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwinddir.html) web accessed January 2014.

Stack Parameters: Height = 5ft above roof height, Temperature = 200 F, Velocity = 1210 ft/min, Diameter = 1 ft Facility Name : NW NE
Project #:

Date: 4 1
Quad: 1
Receptor Distance: 488
Location: (U = Urban or R = Rural) 3 2
SW SE
Risk Summary
Facility
Type Description
PAH wo/NaphthaleneNaphthalene
PAH
wo/Naphthalene
Naphthalene
PAH
wo/Naphthalene
NaphthaleneTotal
Risk
1 CD-Charbroiler 2.55E-03 1.51E-01 2.91E-07 1.73E-05 7.29E-09 2.97E-10 7.59071E-09 2 Flat Griddle 7.57E-04 1.70E-01 8.64E-08 1.94E-05 2.16E-09 3.33E-10 2.49668E-09 3 UF-Charbroiler 6.66E-03 3.35E-01 7.61E-07 3.82E-05 1.9E-08 6.57E-10 1.96977E-08 4 Flat Griddle 2.52E-04 5.72E-02 2.87E-08 6.53E-06 7.19E-10 1.12E-10 8.31607E-10

3.06167E-08

3.81011E-08
*Sum= I51+(I50*9)
u
Total (Lb/Yr) Total (Lb/Hr) Risk
S
Receptor Quad
N
W E
Grapevine Shopping Center (Opening Day/Near Term)
1 3/5/2014
Sum of all potential restaurants (13) =
Calculate Risk
Date : 3/5/2014 NW NE
Facility Name: Grapevine Shopping Center (Opening Day/Near Term Facility Location: Delano, CA 4 1
Facility ID #:
3 2
SW SE
Unit #
Segment Direction
EW = East-West
NS = North-South
NWSE = Northwest-Southeast
NESW = Northeast-Southwest
# (50m)
Segments
PM10
g/mi
Events/
Year
Receptor
Distance
(m)
Quad Load
%
Emissions
Lb / Yr
Location
U=Urban
R=Rural
Segment
Risk
1 EW 2 0.252 8613 1015 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
2 EW 2 0.252 8613 991 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
3 EW 2 0.252 8613 966 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
4 EW 2 0.252 8613 942 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
5 EW 2 0.252 8613 923 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
6 EW 2 0.252 8613 908 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
7 EW 2 0.252 8613 894 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
8 EW 2 0.252 8613 880 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
9 EW 2 0.252 8613 874 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
10 EW 2 0.252 8613 868 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
11 NS 2 0.252 8613 837 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
12 NS 2 0.252 8613 787 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
13 NS 2 0.252 8613 738 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
14 NS 2 0.252 8613 691 4 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
15 NS 2 0.252 8613 642 4 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
16 NS 2 0.252 8613 586 4 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
17 NS 2 0.252 8613 537 4 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
18 NS 2 0.252 8613 488 4 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
19 EW 2 0.252 8613 461 4 100 2.97E-01 u 3.70E-09
20 EW 2 0.252 8613 460 1 100 2.97E-01 u 1.23E-09
21 EW 2 0.252 8613 463 1 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
22 EW 2 0.252 8613 465 1 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
23 EW 2 0.252 8613 471 1 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
24 EW 2 0.252 8613 485 1 100 2.97E-01 u 2.47E-09
Sum 4.19E-08

0.252 g/mi= District Default
8613= 50+9+40/3=33*261 (5 days per week, 52 weeks per year) Marketplace deliveries=50 delivery trucks per day
Westlake= 5 HHDT 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year
4 TRU trips per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year Madera Foxglove- 40 daily truck deliveries per day
S
Truck Travel
Receptor Quad
N
W E
Stack Parameters: Height = 5ft above roof height, Temperature = 200 F, Velocity = 1210 ft/min, Diameter = 1 ft Facility Name : NW NE
Project #:

Date: 4 1
Quad: 1
Receptor Distance: 53
Location: (U = Urban or R = Rural) 3 2
SW SE
Risk Summary
Facility
Type Description
PAH wo/NaphthaleneNaphthalene
PAH
wo/NaphthaleneNaphthalene
PAH
wo/NaphthaleneNaphthaleneTotal
Risk
1 CD-Charbroiler 2.55E-03 1.51E-01 2.91E-07 1.73E-05 1.4E-07 5.71E-09 1.45975E-07 2 Flat Griddle 7.57E-04 1.70E-01 8.64E-08 1.94E-05 4.16E-08 6.4E-09 4.80131E-08 3 UF-Charbroiler 6.66E-03 3.35E-01 7.61E-07 3.82E-05 3.66E-07 1.26E-08 3.78801E-07 4 Flat Griddle 2.52E-04 5.72E-02 2.87E-08 6.53E-06 1.38E-08 2.16E-09 1.59924E-08

5.88782E-07

7.32714E-07
*Sum= I51+(I50*9)
Sum of all Potential Cumulative Restaurants (13*3=39)= 2.19814E-06 TOTAL TAC= 2.20E-06
Sum of all Potential Restaurants (13) =
This worksheet allows the user to enter the proposed quantity for each type of meat cooked by type of operation. If the user is uncertain which type of operation will be used for a single proposed fast food location then the emissions from the highest priority operation with the District's default values should be used.

Examples:
1) Proposed site has two fast food locations. The user will use Facility Type 1 and 2. 2) Proposed site has four fast food locations. The user will use Facility Type 1,2,3, and 4. 3) Proposed site has six fast food locations. The user will use Facility Type 1,2,3, and 4 for the first four locations For all other locations Facility Type 4 should be used. 1 3/5/2014
u
Total (Lb/Yr) Total (Lb/Hr) Risk
S
Receptor Quad
N
W E
Grapevine Shopping Center (Cumulative Project)
Calculate Risk

4.0 REFERENCES
Caltrans, 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002; (http://www. dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr_ceqa_files/tisguide.pdf) web accessed May 21, 2014.

City of Delano, 2013a. Memorandum: Comments on Grapevine NOP, from Roman Dowling, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer to Richelle Cariño, Community Development Director, April 29, 2013.

City of Delano, 2013b. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, March 27, 2013.

City of Delano, 2013c. Resolution No. 2013-59, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Delano Adopting Updated Development Impact Fees, October 21, 2013.

City of Delano, 2007. Delano Marketplace Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Pacific Municipal Consultants, April 2007.

City of Delano, 2005. General Plan Update, adopted December 5, 2005; (http://www.cityofdelano. org/DocumentCenter/View/99) web accessed March 18, 2014.

Kern County, 2013. Kern County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division email communication, October 31, 2013.

Omni-Means. 2014. Grapevine Commercial Transportation Impact Analysis Report, prepared for the City of Delano, March 2014. (Appears in DEIR as Appendix 3.13.) San Joaquin Valley Air Polluction Control District (SJVAPCD), 2012a. Staff Recommendation to Approve Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement with Tesoro Viejo, Inc., December 20, 2012; (http://www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2012/December/i11- FINALGBITEM_REVISED2_TesoroViejoVERA_122012.pdf) web accessed May 15, 2014.

SJVAPCD, 2012b. Summary of Comments and Responses to Proposed Revisions to the GAMAQI-2012, May 31, 2012; (http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQIDRAFT-2012/GAMAQIResponseto Comments5-10-12%20.pdf) web accessed May 15, 2014.

SJVAPCD, 2010. Staff Recommendation to Approve Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement with Yokohl Ranch Company LLC, May 20, 2010; (http://valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda _minutes/Agenda/2010/May/Agenda%20_Item_22_May_20_2010.pdf) web accessed May 15, 2014.

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt a reporting or monitoring program, or both, for mitigation measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code section 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines section 15097). This chapter contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. The MMRP has been designed to assist the City in its implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures for the project. The mitigation measures are taken from the DEIR or as revised in this FEIR.

The MMRP appears in table format and lists the actions that must occur to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, the entities responsible for implementing each action, and the agencies responsible for monitoring and verifying compliance with each mitigation measure. Mitigation measures in the MMRP are listed with the same number as in the DEIR.

The project applicant is responsible to provide evidence to the City that the mitigation measures are implemented and completed. The City, as lead agency, will be responsible for overseeing the enforcement of all mitigation measures in accordance with this program. The following table, Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Grapevine Project, includes all applicable mitigation and monitoring information for the proposed project.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 92
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
NOTE: references cited in this MMRP may be found in the DEIR reference lists at the end of each technical section.

Aesthetics — no mitigation measures
Agricultural Resources — no mitigation measures
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM 3.3-2 The project applicant shall comply with the SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review Rule (Rule 9510). In accordance with ISR Rule 9510, a detailed air impact assessment (AIA) shall be prepared detailing the specific construction requirements (i.e., equipment required, hours of use, etc.) and operational characteristics associated with proposed on-site and off-site improvements. In accordance with this rule, exhaust emissions of NOx from construction equipment greater than fifty (50) horsepower used or associated with the development project shall be reduced by 20 percent. The project will demonstrate compliance with ISR Rule 9510, including payment of all applicable fees, before issuance of first building permit.

Construction emissions may be reduced on-site by using less-polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing add-on controls, cleaner fuels, or newer lower emitting equipment of at least Tier II or better (SJVAPCD, 2013b; pg. 2) as identified in the AIA. Based on the findings of the AIA, the project applicant shall pay to the SJVAPCD a monetary sum necessary to offset the required construction emissions not reduced by measures contained in the AIA. Any offset fees to be paid will be dependent on the findings of the AIA, to be calculated in accordance with the methodologies identified in ISR Rule 9510 and approved by the SJVAPCD.

To reduce short-term air quality impacts attributable to the proposed project, the following SJVAPCD-recommended mitigation measures will be implemented:

Prepare AIA, demonstrate
compliance with ISR Rule
9510, pay applicable ISR
fees before issuance of
first building permit, pay
SJVAPCD offset fee
based on AIA findings,
implement listed
SJVAPCD-recommended
mitigation measures. In
the event NOX emissions
exceed 10 tons/year,
emission offset fees will
be paid to SJVAPCD.

Project
Applicant
Must
demonstrate
compliance with
ISR Rule 9510
before issuance
of first building
permit
Emission
reductions
actions: Ongoing during
construction
and operations
San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control
District
(SJVAPCD)
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 93
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
a) Off-road construction equipment will achieve fleet average emissions equal to or cleaner than the Tier II emissions standards set forth in section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (SJVAPCD, 2013b)
b) When not in use, on-site equipment shall not be left idling longer than 10 minutes
c) On-site equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Equipment maintenance records shall be kept on-site and made available upon request by the SJVAPCD or City
d) The project applicant shall comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Copies of any applicable air quality permits and/or monitoring plans shall be provided to the City
e) In the event NOX emissions exceed 10 tons/year, emission offsets would be required to offset any remaining project-generated emissions
MM 3.3-3 The proposed project shall comply with SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review (ISR), District Rule 9510. Compliance with ISR Rule 9510, including the purchase of offsets or provision of equivalent funding, would be required to mitigate operational emissions associated with the proposed project (see ISR Rule 9510, subsection 7). The specific fees to be paid would be determined in consultation with the SJVAPCD and would be dependent on various factors, including the offset costs established by the SJVAPCD at the time of payment, as well as the specific emission-reduction measures incorporated into the proposed project, as identified in the AIA to be prepared for the proposed Purchase offsets for
emissions greater than
ISR Rule 9510 thresholds
Reduce the number of
parking spaces from
2,512 to 2,060.

Project
Applicant
On-going SJVAPCD
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 94
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
project.

To lower emissions of NOx and ROG, the project applicant will reduce the number of parking spaces from 2,512 to 2,060.

MM 3.3-5 Per section 2485 of Title 13 the California Code of Regulations, in order to lower DPM health risk related to operational TAC emissions from mobile sources, the project applicant shall ensure that diesel-powered delivery trucks operating at the project site shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes.

Limit truck idling to five
minutes. Post signage in
delivery areas to alert
truck operators to
requirement.

Project
Applicant
On-going during
operations
Community
Development
Dept. (CDD)
Biological Resources
MM 3.4-1a Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct a pre-construction plant survey of the project site, the potential footprint of the City stormwater basin expansion, and at the off-site source of soil used to fill the on-site emergency stormwater detention basin for the presence of special status plant species according to guidelines listed in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (DFG, 2009). Survey results shall be submitted to the City, and positive detections submitted to USFWS, and/or CDFW as appropriate, for evaluation and comment prior to the onset of construction activities. If no special status plants are located during the surveys, no further mitigation would be required.

If special status plant species are present, the applicant will consult with the City, and with USFWS and/or DFW (as appropriate) to determine appropriate mitigation.

If non-listed special status plant species are found (California Native Plant Retain qualified biologist
to conduct appropriate
special status plant and
animal surveys at
locations described. If
special status species are
present, consult with the
City, and with USFWS
and/or DFW (as
appropriate).

Project
Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
grading or
building
permits.

CDD, and as
applicable
U.S. Fish &
Wildlife
Service
(USFWS),
Cal. Dept. of
Fish &
Wildlife
(CDFW)
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 95
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
Society 1A, 1B, and 2B), the project applicant shall notify CDFW within 24 hours to provide the opportunity to salvage plants, soil, or seed banks for use in rare plant restoration in mitigation areas.

MM 3.4-1b
a) A pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. If any evidence of occupation of the project site by listed or other special-status plant or animal species is subsequently observed, a buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist that results in sufficient avoidance to comply with applicable regulations.

If sufficient avoidance cannot be established, the USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted for further guidance and consultation on additional measures. The project proponent shall obtain any required permits from the appropriate wildlife agency. Copies of the preconstruction survey and results, as well as any required permits and evidence of compliance with applicable regulations, shall be submitted to the City.

The following buffer distances shall be established prior to construction activities:
i. San Joaquin kit fox or American badger potential den: 50 feet
ii. San Joaquin kit fox known den: 100 feet
iii. San Joaquin kit fox or American badger pupping den:
contact the CDFW and USFWS
iv. Burrowing owl burrow outside of breeding season: as Retain qualified biologist
to conduct appropriate
special status plant and
animal surveys. If
evidence of status species
is observed, notify
USFWS and CDFW for
guidance and
consultation, obtain any
required permits,
implement recommended
buffers, and implement
Construction Worker
Environmental Awareness
Training and Education
Program.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
No more than
30 days prior to
the issuance of
grading or
building
permits.

CDD, and as
applicable
USFWS,
CDFW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 96
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
recommended by CDFG 2012
v. Burrowing owl burrow during breeding season: as
recommended by CDFG 2012
vi. Swainson’s hawk nest during breeding season: ½ mile vii. Other protected raptor nests during the breeding season: as recommended by qualified biologist
viii. Other protected nesting migratory bird nests during the breeding season: as recommended by qualified biologist
ix. Other special-status wildlife species: as recommended by qualified biologist
b) If any evidence of occupation of the project site by listed or other special-status plant or animal species is subsequently observed, a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program, developed and presented by a qualified Biologist, shall be conducted within one week of employment of all new construction workers at the project site. The Training Program shall include, but not be limited to, information on the life history of the species observed, as well as other wildlife and plant species that may be encountered during construction activities, their legal protections, the definition of “take” under the Endangered Species Act, measures to protect the species, reporting requirements, specific measures that each worker shall employ to avoid take of wildlife species, and penalties for violation of the Act.

A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating that the worker has completed the environmental training. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training and are wearing hard hats The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 97
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
with the required sticker.

The construction crews and contractor(s) shall be responsible for unauthorized impacts from construction activities to sensitive biological resources that are outside the areas defined as subject to impacts by project permits.

MM 3.4-1c
a) If any burrowing owl burrows are observed during the preconstruction survey, avoidance measures shall be consistent with those included in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012).
b) If occupied burrowing owl burrows are observed outside of the breeding season, a passive relocation effort may be instituted in accordance with the guidelines established by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) and the CDFW (CDFW, 2012) (Table 1). During the breeding season, a buffer zone as noted in Table 1 shall be maintained unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
a) Retain qualified
biologist to conduct
burrowing owl survey. If
burrowing owl burrows are
observed, take listed
avoidance measures.
b) If occupied burrowing
owl burrows are observed
outside of the breeding
season, passive
relocation effort may be
instituted.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
No more than
30 days prior to
the issuance of
grading or
building
permits.

CDD
MM 3.4-1d The measures listed below shall be implemented during construction:
a) If any San Joaquin kit fox dens are found during preconstruction surveys, the status of the dens shall be evaluated no more than 14 days prior to project ground disturbance. Provided that no evidence of kit fox occupation is observed, potential dens shall be marked and a) If any San Joaquin kit
fox dens are found during
preconstruction surveys,
implement listed
measures during
Project
Applicant,
Contractor
During
construction.

CDD, and as
applicable
USFWS,
CDFW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 98
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
a 50-foot avoidance buffer delineated using stakes and flagging or other similar material to prevent inadvertent damage to the potential den. If a potential den cannot be avoided, it may be hand-excavated following USFWS standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. If kit fox activity is observed at a den, the den status shall change to “known” per USFWS guidelines (1999), and the buffer distance shall be increased to 100 feet. Absolutely no excavation of San Joaquin kit fox known or pupping dens shall occur without prior authorization from the USFWS and CDFW.
b) To enable kit foxes and other wildlife (e.g., American badger) to pass through the project site during construction, the perimeter security fence shall leave a 4- to 5-inch opening between the fence mesh and the ground or the fence shall be raised 4 inches above the ground.

The bottom of the fence fabric shall be knuckled (wrapped back to form a smooth edge) to protect wildlife that passes under the fence. c) All pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or more that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of construction activity until the fox has escaped.
d) To prevent inadvertent entrapment of San Joaquin kit foxes, badgers, or other animals during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep shall be covered with plywood or similar materials at the close of each working day, or construction.
b) If a perimeter security
fence is used, install as
specified.
c) Inspect all pipes,
culverts, and similar
structures as specified. If
kit fox is discovered,
consult with USFWS and
take specified actions.
d) Cover all excavated,
steep-walled holes or
trenches more than two
feet deep with plywood or
similar materials at the
close of each working
day. Before filling, inspect
for trapped animals. If
trapped animals are seen,
install escape ramps or
structures immediately
and contact USFWS and
CDFW.
e) Cap all vertical tubes at
time of installation.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 99
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If trapped animals are observed, escape ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow escape. If listed species are trapped, the USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted.
e) All vertical tubes used in project construction, such as chain link fencing poles, shall be temporarily or permanently capped at the time they are installed to avoid the entrapment and death of special-status birds.

MM 3.4-1e The measures below shall be implemented throughout construction of the project.
a) Project-related vehicles shall observe a 5 mile-per-hour speed limit in all project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways. Construction after sundown shall be prohibited. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be prohibited. b) All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a week from construction or project site.
c) No pets shall be allowed in project areas.
d) The use of herbicides for vegetation control in project areas shall be restricted. No rodenticides shall be used on the property. All uses of such herbicidal compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and federal and state legislation as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed a) Observe 5 mile-perhour speed limit. Refrain
from construction after
sundown. Do not allow
off-road traffic outside of
designated project areas.
b) Dispose of all foodrelated items in closed
containers; remove at
least once a week.
c) Do not allow pets in
project areas.
d) Restrict herbicide use;
if using, observe label and
other restrictions. Do not
Project
Applicant,
Contractor
During
construction.

CDD, and as
applicable
USFWS,
CDFW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 100
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
necessary by the CDFW and/or the USFWS.
e) No plants or wildlife shall be collected, taken, or removed from the construction areas or areas of off-site improvements, except as necessary for project-related vegetation removal or wildlife relocation. Salvage of native vegetation to be removed from construction areas is encouraged, but shall only be performed by qualified biologists and with written approval from the CDFW. f) If San Joaquin kit fox known or pupping dens are observed in project areas, the project proponent shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to discuss appropriate actions.
use rodenticides.
e) Do not remove plants
or wildlife except for
project-related removal or
relocation. Allow salvage
of native vegetation only
by qualified biologists.
f) If San Joaquin kit fox or
fox pupping dens are
observed, contact
USFWS and CDFW.

MM 3.4-1f A pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist for nesting birds shall be required if construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for raptors and other migratory birds (February 1–August 31), to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors. The survey shall be conducted within 30 days before ground disturbance activities.

If construction is
scheduled during Feb. 1-
Aug. 31, retain qualified
biologist to conduct
nesting bird survey.

Project
Applicant
Within 30 days
before ground
disturbance
during Feb. 1-
Aug. 31.

CDD
MM 3.4-1g During construction of the project, if Tipton kangaroo rats, San Joaquin kit foxes, or blunt‐nosed leopard lizards are found within the project area, temporary fencing shall be installed around the ground disturbance zone perimeter to prevent individuals from entering the construction zone. If the above species are found within the disturbance zone, work in the vicinity of the animal will cease until a qualified biologist is on site to determine the appropriate measure to be taken. Concurrent with this effort, USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted regarding any additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures that may be necessary. Once the sensitive species is observed leaving the site, work in the area can resume. A report shall be If Tipton kangaroo rats,
San Joaquin kit foxes, or
blunt‐nosed leopard
lizards are found, install
temporary fencing around
the ground disturbance
zone. If a Tipton
kangaroo rat, San Joaquin
kit fox, or blunt‐nosed
leopard lizard is in
Project
Applicant,
Contractor
During
construction.

CDD
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 101
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
prepared by the biologist to document the activities and a copy of the report shall be submitted to wildlife and resource agency representatives and the City.
disturbed area, stop work
near the animal until a
qualified biologist is on
site and contact USFWS
and CDFW.

Cultural Resources
MM 3.5-1 Should any cultural, historic, or archaeological resources be uncovered in the course of site preparation, clearing, or grading activities, all operations within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until such time as a City-approved qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and recommend appropriate action. Project personnel shall not collect or remove any material suspected to have cultural, historic, or archaeological value. The archaeologist shall evaluate the resource(s) and assess the significance of the find based on the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5’s criteria for historical or archaeological resources and make recommendations. The identified resource shall be avoided by project activities during evaluation. If the resource does not meet the section 15064.5 criteria and is not considered significant by the City under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (a)(4), avoidance is not necessary. If the resource meets the section 15064.5 criteria or is considered significant by the City under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (a)(4), it shall be avoided or any unavoidable adverse effects must be mitigated. Mitigation actions may range from documentation of the find to emergency protection of the find and its removal from the site depending on the specific values identified by the archeologist. Upon completion of the archaeologist’s evaluation, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods and results, as well as recommendations. The recommendations of the archaeologist shall be incorporated into construction plans. The report shall be submitted to the City Halt construction activity if
cultural, historic, or
archaeological resource is
uncovered. Establish a
50-foot buffer around
discovery and consult with
City-approved qualified
archaeologist for
recommended mitigation
actions.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
On-going during
construction
CDD
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 102
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.

MM 3.5-3 If animal or plant fossils, as well as unique geologic resources, are encountered during construction subsurface earthwork activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop until a city-approved qualified paleontologist has determined the significance of the find and provided recommendations. Project personnel shall not collect or remove any paleontological material. If the paleontological finds are found to be significant, the area shall be avoided by project activities. The recommendations of the paleontologist shall be incorporated into construction plans.

If unique geologic resources are unearthed during construction earthwork activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop until a cityapproved qualified geologist has determined the significance of the find and provided recommendations. Project personnel shall not collect or remove any geological material. If the geological find is found to be significant, the area shall be avoided by project activities.

Mitigation actions may range from documentation of the find to emergency protection of the find and its removal from the site depending on the specific values identified by the paleontologist and/or geologist. Upon completion of the paleontologist’s and/or geologist’s evaluations, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods and results of the evaluation(s), as well as recommendations. The recommendations of the paleontologist and/or geologist shall be incorporated into construction plans. The report(s) shall be submitted to the City and the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History.

Halt construction activity if
animal or plant fossils or
unique geologic resource
is uncovered. Establish a
50-foot buffer around
discovery and consult with
City-approved qualified
paleontologist and/or
geologist for
recommended mitigation
actions.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
On-going during
construction
CDD
MM 3.5-4 In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected Halt excavation or
disturbance if human
remains are discovered
Project
Applicant,
On-going during
construction
CDD, and as
applicable,
Kern County
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 103
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Kern County has determined whether the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. This is in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of identification. Pursuant to section 5097.98 of the Public Resource Code, the NAHC will identify persons “most likely descended from the deceased” to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods.
and contact Kern County
coroner.

Contractor Coroner,
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
Geology and Soils
MM 3.6-1a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a final Geotechnical Investigation by a qualified engineer shall be prepared for review and approval by the City. Geotechnical mitigation measures shall be incorporated in the design plans.

Arrange for final
Geotechnical Investigation
by a qualified engineer.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading permits

CDD, PW
MM 3.6-1b Prior to the issuance of building permits and subject to review and approval by the City, construction at the project site and engineering and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with City standards, the requirements of the 2010 edition or later of the California Building Standards Code. The geotechnical investigations prepared by BSK recommend actions that apply these City and state standards to construction at the site. (BSK, 2013; pgs. 9 to 16).

Design construction plans
and engineering and
improvement plans in
accordance with the 2010
edition or later of the
California Building
Standards Code and
apply BSK geotechnical
recommended actions.

Project
Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits

CDD, PW
MM 3.6-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and subject to review and approval by the City, a qualified engineer shall determine the design and Arrange for qualified
engineer to determine the
design and suitable fill for
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of

CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 104
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
suitable fill for the temporary storm water detention basin on the site. temporary storm water detention basin.
grading permits
MM 3.6-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits and subject to review and approval by the City, construction at the project site and engineering and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with City’s standards and the requirements of the California Building Standards Code (2013).

Get approval from the City
on construction of
engineering and
improvement plans
designed in accordance
with the City standards
and California Building
Code.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Prior to
issuance of
building permits

CDD, PW
MM 3.6-4 To help mitigate the impact of near-surface expansive soils, consult the geotechnical investigation prepared by BSK in the Site Preparation and Earthwork Construction Section (BSK, 2013; pgs. 9 to 11). A final geotechnical investigation will be required to be prepared for the City to ensure that the geotechnical mitigation measures are incorporated in the design plans as described in Mitigation Measure MM 3.6-1a to ensure that potential impacts from expansive soil would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Follow BSK proposed
mitigation for expansive
soils.

Ensure that final
geotechnical investigation
is prepared as described.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Prior to
issuance of
building permits

CDD, PW
MM 3.6-5 Subject to review and approval by the City, buried metal conduits, ferrous metal pipes, and exposed steel shall have a protective coating in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification.

Apply protective coating to
buried metal conduits,
ferrous metal pipes, and
exposed steel.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
On-going during
construction

CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 105
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 3.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall properly remove building debris from the previous residence.

In the event that suspect asbestos-containing materials or other potentially hazardous materials are uncovered during project construction, work at the project site shall immediately halt and a qualified hazardous materials professional shall be contacted and brought to the project site to make a proper assessment of the suspect materials. All potentially friable asbestoscontaining materials shall be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb such materials.

If any abandoned water wells are found during the construction and grading process, the project applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Kern County Public Health Services Department (KCEHD) for proper destruction procedures.

In addition, if any septic tanks or home heating oil tanks are found during the construction and grading process, the project applicant shall contact KCEHD for proper removal procedures.

Remove debris from the
previous residence from
the site.

If hazardous material is
uncovered, stop work at
the project site and
contact qualified
hazardous materials
professional.

Remove all potentially
friable asbestoscontaining materials in
accordance with federal,
state, and local laws and
the NESHAP guidelines
prior to activities that
could disturb the material.

If water wells, septic tanks
or home heating oil tanks
are found, contact
KCEHD.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Prior to the
issuance of
grading or
building permits
and on-going
during
construction

CDD, PW
MM 3.7-2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall prepare a hazardous materials business plan and submit it to the Kern County Environmental Health Division (KCEHD)/Hazardous Submit a hazardous
materials business plan
as described, submit to
Project
Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
grading or
CDD and
Kern County
Environ-
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 106
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
Materials Section for review and approval. The hazardous materials business plan shall delineate hazardous material and hazardous waste storage areas; describe proper handling, storage, transport, and disposal techniques; describe methods to be used to avoid spills and minimize impacts in the event of a spill; describe procedures for handling and disposing of unanticipated hazardous materials encountered during construction; and establish public and agency notification procedures for spills and other emergencies, including fires. The hazardous materials business plan shall also include procedures to avoid or minimize dust from existing residual pesticide and herbicide use that may be present on the sites. A copy of the approved hazardous materials business plan shall be submitted to the City, a copy shall be provided to all contractors working on the project, and one copy must be available at the project site at all times.

KCEHD Hazardous
Materials Section, to City,
and to all contractors.

Ensure one copy is
available on project site.
building
permits.
mental Health
Division
MM 3.7-5a Valley Fever Engineering and Work Practice Controls: In order to minimize worker exposure to dust containing the Valley Fever fungus, the following actions will be taken by the project applicant:
a) When digging a trench or performing other soil-disturbing tasks, workers will be positioned upwind when possible.
b) When possible, vehicles will have enclosed, air-conditioned cabs and workers will be advised to keep the windows closed.
c) Overwatering the site for dust control could create an increased threat, and so wetting must be applied in a controlled, strategic manner.

Implement listed dust
control measures.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Before and
during
construction
CDD
MM 3.7-5b Valley Fever Administrative Controls and Hazard Awareness To increase hazard awareness so that workers and supervisors may employ safer work practices, the project applicant will ensure that the following actions are taken.
a) Provide listed training
to workers and
supervisors.
b) Distribute listed CDPH
Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Before and
during
construction
CDD
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 107
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
a) Workers and supervisors will be trained on:
i. Distribution of endemic areas
ii. Symptoms and signs of Valley Fever
iii. The need to report symptoms to supervisors
iv. The need to obtain medical evaluation
v. People at highest risk of serious disease
vi. Effective practices, such as avoiding dust and working upwind of dust
vii. Effective controls, including proper use of equipment such as respirators
viii. The need to shower and wash hair as soon as possible after work to limit exposure and transport of fungal spores.
b) The following CDPH materials on Valley Fever will be distributed to workers and supervisors.
i. For supervisors:
 CDPH pamphlet, “Preventing Work-Related
Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever),” available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/hesis/Documents/C
occiFact.pdf.
ii. For workers:
 CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in English, available
at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Document
s/VFGeneral.pdf
 CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in Spanish, available
at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Document
s/fiebredelvalle12.pdf
 CDPH Valley Fever Fact Sheet in Tagalog, available
at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Document
materials to workers and
supervisors.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 108
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
s/TagalogGeneralValleyFeverFactSheet.pdf
MM 3.7-5c Valley Fever Personal Protective Equipment: To ensure that workers have appropriate protection from dust, the project applicant will ensure that the following actions are taken.
a) When digging or working near earth-moving trucks or equipment, the contractors shall make available NIOSH-approved masks rated at N95 or above.
b) If respirators are used, a comprehensive respirator program will be implemented, including medical clearance, training, fit testing, and procedures for cleaning and maintaining respirators. Such training may be combined with that listed in MM 3.7-5b above.

Workers will be made aware of the potential threat of the spores and that work clothes can transport them. A changing area will be made available.

Provide listed protective
equipment and training to
workers.

Make clothes-changing
area available.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Before and
during
construction
CDD
MM 3.7-5d Limiting Valley Fever Spore Transport/Clean-up Controls: At the end of the work day, workers will be required to remove their work clothes at the work site. Work boots will be stored on site if possible; otherwise a boot wash will be provided for workers to use before leaving the project site.

Equipment will be washed before being moved off-site.

Require workers to
remove work clothes at
work site.

Store work boots on site
or provide boot wash.

Wash equipment before
moving off-site.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Before and
during
construction
CDD
MM 3.7-5e Valley Fever Case Reporting Protocols: In order to ensure appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and reporting of potential Valley Fever cases, the following actions will be taken by the project applicant’s contractor. a) When two or more workers report symptoms that suggest Valley Fever, workers should be sent to a single medical provider or If two or more workers
report Valley Fever
symptoms (fever, fatigue,
muscle or joint aches,
cough, chest pain,
Project
Applicant,
Contractor
Before and
during
construction
CDD
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 109
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
occupational medicine clinic for coordinated medical care, if possible.

The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate better communication between the medical provider, public health agencies, and employer. b) An “Employer’s Report of Occupational Injury or Illness” (Form 5020) shall be completed for each occupational Valley Fever illness which results in “lost time” or medical treatment beyond first aid. Form is available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/Form5020.pdf c) Valley Fever cases will be listed on the Cal/OSHA Form 300, “Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.” Form is available at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DOSH/Doshreg/Apndxa300final.pdf,
instructions available at
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh_publications/reckeepoverview.pdf d) In compliance with section 330 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, serious worker illnesses or death connected with Valley Fever shall be reported to the local Cal/OSHA district office, as well as the City of Delano Community Development Department at 1015 Eleventh Avenue, Delano, California 93215.
headaches, night sweats,
rash, unexplained weight
loss) send them to single
medical provider.

Complete OSHA Form
5020 for each Valley
Fever illness and record
on Cal/OSHA Form 300.

In event of serious worker
illness or death, report to
local Cal/OSHA district
office and City CDD.

MM 3.7-6a Mosquito Control: During construction and operations of the project, Universally Applicable Mosquito Control BMPs shall be implemented to the extent feasible:
a) Examine outdoor areas and drain temporary and unnecessary water that may stand longer than 96 hours.
b) Dispose of unwanted or unused artificial containers. c) Properly dispose of old tires.
d) If possible, drill drainage holes, cover, or invert any container or object that holds standing water that must remain outdoors. Be sure to check for containers or trash in places that may be hard to see, Implement listed
Universally Applicable
Mosquito Control BMPs
Project
Applicant/
Contractor
On-going during
construction
and operations
CDD, Delano
Mosquito
Abatement
District
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 110
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
such as under bushes or buildings.
e) Clean clogged rain gutters and storm drains. Keep outdoor drains flowing freely and clear of leaves, vegetation, and other debris. f) Aerate ornamental ponds to avoid letting water stagnate. g) Change water in birdbaths and fountains at least once per week. h) Ensure rain and/or irrigation water does not stand in plant containers, trash cans, or other containers on commercial properties. i) Maintain irrigation systems to avoid excess water use and runoff into storm drains.
j) Minimize sites mosquitoes can use for refuge (harborage) by thinning branches, trimming and pruning ornamental shrubs and bushes, and keeping grass mowed short.
k) Contact the Delano Mosquito Abatement District to evaluate the project site for mosquito breeding areas and work cooperatively to prevent a mosquito problem on the site.

MM 3.7-6b Mosquito Control: The project applicant shall implement the following to manage the landscaped areas at the project site:
a) Avoid over-irrigating to prevent excess pooling and runoff. b) Routinely inspect, maintain, and repair irrigation system components. c) All underground drain pipes shall be laid to grade to avoid low areas that may hold water for longer than 96 hours.
d) Back-fill tire ruts or other low areas that hold water for more than 96 hours.
e) Improve drainage channels and grading to minimize potential for standing water.
f) Keep drainage ditches free of excessive vegetation and debris to provide rapid drainage.
g) Check and repair leaky outdoor faucets.

Implement listed Mosquito
Control BMPs for
landscaped areas.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
On-going during
construction
and operations
CDD, Delano
Mosquito
Abatement
District
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 111
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
h) Report any evidence of standing water to responsible maintenance personnel.
i) Use waterfalls, fountains, aerators, and/or mosquitofish in ponds and ornamental water features. Land owners must consult with the local mosquito control agencies or California Fish and Wildlife regarding proper use of mosquito fish.
j) Prevent mosquito breeding in rain barrels by properly screening all openings, preventing mosquito access to the stored water. k) For ponds and ornamental water features where mosquitofish cannot be used, landowners should use one of several readily available larval mosquito control products to treat water when they see immature mosquitoes.

MM 3.7-6c Mosquito Control: Mosquito Control Measures for temporary or permanent stormwater control basins or other open water control areas shall be implemented on the site during construction and operations. These shall include, but are not limited to:
a) General Stormwater Management Mosquito Control BMPs
i. Manage sprinkler and irrigation systems to minimize runoff entering stormwater infrastructure.
ii. Avoid intentionally running water into stormwater systems by not washing sidewalks and driveways, washing cars on streets or driveways, etc.
iii. Inspect facilities weekly during warm weather for the presence of standing water or immature mosquitoes.
iv. Remove emergent vegetation and debris from gutters and channels that accumulate water.
v. Consider mosquito production during the design,
construction, and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure.

Implement listed Mosquito
Control BMPs for
temporary or permanent
stormwater control basins
or other open water
control areas.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
On-going during
project design,
pre-construction
planning,
construction,
and operations
CDD, Delano
Mosquito
Abatement
District
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 112
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
vi. Design and maintain systems to fully discharge captured water in 96 hours or less.
vii. Include access for maintenance in system design.
viii. Design systems with permanent water sources such as wetlands, ponds, sumps, and basins to minimize mosquito habitat and plan for routine larval mosquito inspection and control activities with the assistance of a local mosquito control program.
b) Stormwater Conveyance
i. Provide proper grades along conveyance structures to ensure that water flows freely.
ii. Inspect on a routine basis to ensure the grade remains as designed and to remove accumulations of sediment, trash, and debris.
iii. Keep inlets free of accumulations of sediment, trash, and debris to prevent standing water from backing up on
roadways and gutters.
iv. Design outfalls to prevent scour depressions that can hold standing water.
c) Stormwater Storage and Infiltration Systems (Aboveground) i. Design structures so that they do not hold standing water for more than 96 hours to prevent mosquito development.

Features to prevent or reduce the possibility of clogged discharge orifices (e.g., debris screens) shall be
incorporated into the design. The use of weep holes is not permitted due to rapid clogging.
ii. Provide a uniform grade between the inlets and outlets to ensure that all water is discharged in 96 hours or less.

Routine inspection and maintenance are crucial to ensuring the grade remains as designed.

The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 113
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
iii. Avoid the use of electric pumps. They are subject to failure and often require permanent-water sumps. Structures that do not require pumping should be favored over those that have this requirement.
iv. Avoid the use of loose rock rip-rap that may hold standing water.
v. Design distribution pumping and containment basins with adequate slopes to drain fully. The design slope should take into consideration buildup of sediment between
maintenance periods.
d) Stormwater Structures with Permanent-Water Sumps or Basins (Belowground)
i. Where possible, seal access holes (e.g., pickholes in manhole covers) to below ground structures designed to
retain water in sumps or basins to minimize entry of adult mosquitoes. If using covers or screens, maximum allowable gaps of 1/16 inch (2 mm) will exclude entry of adult
mosquitoes. Inspect barriers frequently and replace when needed.
ii. If the sump or basin is completely sealed against
mosquitoes (with the exception of the inlet and outlet), the inlet and outlet shall be completely submerged to reduce the available surface area of water for mosquitoes to lay eggs (female mosquitoes can fly through pipes).
iii. Where possible, design below ground sumps with the equipment necessary to allow for easy dewatering of the unit.
iv. Contact the local mosquito control program for advice with problem systems.
e) Stormwater Treatment Ponds and Constructed Treatment Wetlands The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 114
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
i. Whenever possible, stock stormwater ponds and
constructed wetlands with mosquito-eating fish available from local mosquito control programs.
ii. Design and maintain accessible shorelines to allow for periodic maintenance and/or control of emergent and
shoreline vegetation and routine monitoring and control of mosquitoes. Emergent plant density should be routinely
managed so mosquito predators can move throughout the
vegetated areas and are not excluded from pond edges.
iii. Whenever possible, design and maintain deep zones in excess of four feet (1.2 meters) to limit the spread of invasive emergent vegetation such as cattails. The edges below the water surface shall be as steep as practicable and uniform to discourage dense plant growth that may
provide immature mosquitoes with refuge from predators
and increased nutrient availability.
iv. Use concrete or liners in shallow areas to discourage plant growth where vegetation is not necessary.
v. Whenever possible, provide a means for easy dewatering if needed.
vi. Manage the spread and density of floating and submerged vegetation that encourages mosquito production (i.e., water hyacinth, water primrose, parrot’s feather, duckweed, and filamentous algal mats).
vii. If possible, compartmentalize managed treatment wetlands so the maximum width of ponds does not exceed two times the effective distance (40 feet [12 meters]) of land-based application technologies for mosquito control agents.
f) General Access Requirements for Stormwater Treatment Structures i. All structures shall be easily and safely accessible, without The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 115
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
the need for special requirements (e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration - OSHA requirements for
“confined space”). This will allow for monitoring and, if necessary, abatement of mosquitoes.
ii. If utilizing covers, the design should include spring-loaded or lightweight access hatches that can be easily opened. iii. Provide all-weather road access (with provisions for turning a full-size work vehicle) along at least one side of large aboveground structures that are less than seven meters
wide, or both sides if shore-to-shore distance is greater than seven meters. Note: Mosquito larvicides are applied with hand-held equipment at small sites and with backpack or truck-mounted high-pressure sprayers at large sites. The effective swath width of most backpack or truck-mounted larvicide sprayers is approximately 20-25 feet (6-7 meters) on a windless day.
iv. Build access roads as close to the shoreline as possible to allow for maintenance and vector control crews to
periodically maintain, control and remove emergent
vegetation and conduct routine mosquito monitoring and
abatement. Remove vegetation and/or other obstacles
between the access road and the structure that might
obstruct the path of larvicides to the water.
v. Control vegetation (by removal, thinning, or mowing) periodically to prevent barriers to access.

Hydrology and Water Quality
MM 3.8-1a The proposed project shall include the following post-construction BMPs in order to reduce non-point source pollutant loads:

Implement listed postconstruction BMPs.Project
Applicant
PostConstruction/CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 116
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
a) The project applicant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations during the operational phase of the proposed project regarding non-point source discharges and obtain all necessary permits or approvals that may be required. b) Impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and driveways shall be cleaned on a monthly basis during both the “wet” and “dry” seasons to limit the accumulation of “first flush” contaminants. c) Storm drain inlets shall be labeled with the phrase “No dumping,” or a similar phrase, to discourage illegal discharges of pollutants to the storm drainage system.
d) Common landscaped areas shall be subject to a program of efficient irrigation and proper maintenance including minimizing use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
e) The project applicant shall establish a trash management and litter control program to mitigate the impacts of gross pollutants on stormwater quality. This program shall include litter patrol, emptying trash receptacles in common areas, and reporting and investigating trash disposal violations.
during
operations
MM 3.8-1b Prior to construction activities the project applicant shall submit to the City of Delano an approved copy of the following: a) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); b) the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and, c) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) to include the expansion area.

The requirements of the SWPPP and NPDES shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include but are not Submit SWPPP, NOI,
WDRs to City as
described.

Incorporate SWPPP and
NPDES requirements into
design specifications and
construction contracts
Project
Applicant
PostConstruction/
during
operations

CDD, PW,
Central
Valley
Regional
Water Quality
Control Board
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 117
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
limited to the following:
a) Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly.
b) Protecting existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas. c) Implementing erosion controls.
i. Properly managing construction materials.
ii. Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls.

MM 3.8-1c In the event the City institutes construction plan review procedures pursuant to SWRCB Order No. 2013-001-DWQ, sections E.12.c and E.12.e, before the project has been granted all discretionary permits, or before the project has a vesting tentative map and has not requested and received an extension of previously granted approvals, the project applicant will comply with the City Low Impact Development (LID) standards established under SWRCB Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, section E.12.e.(i) and (ii).

If City institutes
construction plan review
procedures pursuant to
SWRCB Order No. 2013-
001-DWQ, comply with
City LID standards.

Project
Applicant
Before all
discretionary
permits granted
or before
project has a
vesting
tentative map
and has not
requested and
received an
extension of
previously
granted
approvals

CDD, PW
MM 3.8-7a Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, an Engineering Study by a qualified engineer to determine the Base Flood Elevation of the project site shall be performed. The study shall be approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and a copy of the approval provided to the City.

Complete an Engineering
Study by a qualified
engineer to determine the
Base Flood Elevation of
site.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of grading or
building permits

CDD, PW,
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(FEMA)
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 118
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
MM 3.8-7b Prior to recordation of a final map, or as otherwise determined by the City, the project applicant is required to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA for project site areas currently zoned within Zone A. The LOMR shall identify the area of the proposed development that has been removed from the “Zone A” FEMA designation and shall be submitted to the City.

Obtain LOMR from FEMA
for site areas now within
Zone A and submit to
City.

Project
Applicant
Before
recordation of a
final map or as
otherwise
determined by
the City

CDD, PW,
FEMA
Land Use Planning — no mitigation measures
Noise
MM 3.10-4a During construction, the project applicant shall limit construction activities to the least noise-sensitive daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Construction activities shall not be allowed on Sundays and legal holidays.

These limitations shall be specified in all construction contracts and specifications entered into by the project applicant.

Limit construction to 7
a.m. to 10 p.m.

Refrain from construction
on Sundays and legal
holidays.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
On-going during
construction
CDD
MM 3.10-4b During construction, the project applicant shall ensure that all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, are equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and acoustical shields or shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

Ensure all equipment is
be equipped with properly
operating and maintained
mufflers and acoustical
shields or shrouds.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
CDD
Population and Housing — no mitigation measures
Public Services
MM 3.12-3 In accordance with the provisions of the state Education Code and the School Facilities Act of 1988, the project applicant will pay statutory school facilities fees to mitigate impacts to school facilities.

Pay statutory school
facilities fees.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building permits
CDD, Kern
County
Superintendent of
Schools
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 119
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
Transportation/Traffic
MM 3.13-1a Woollomes Ave./Home Depot West In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, the project applicant will change the northsouth Home Depot driveway from a full access configuration to right-turn access only for outbound movements (i.e., from a full exit to a right-turn only exit) (see Figure 3.13-17). The left turn and through southbound traffic will use the adjacent signalized intersection (Home Depot West).

Construct listed traffic
movement improvements.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
MM 3.13-1b Woollomes Ave./SR 99 Southbound Ramps In order to achieve and maintain accommodation of the 95th percentile queue, the existing southbound shared through and left turn lane shall be converted to a shared right, through, and left lane. Furthermore, 50 feet of storage for the westbound left turn pocket will be added.

Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
or pay fee to traffic impact
fee frogram.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
MM 3.13-2a Woollomes Avenue/Stradley Avenue In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, an additional westbound right lane will be constructed (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement. Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because the westbound approach to this intersection is not part of the City.

The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue and Stradley Avenue.

Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
in coordination with Kern
County Roads
Department and pay fairshare towards cost.

Obtain encroachment
permits for road work in
County right of way.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW,
Kern County
Roads
Department
MM 3.13-2b Woollomes Avenue/Belmont Street In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, this intersection will be signalized and the eastbound and westbound approaches will be widened to two through lanes in each direction, with a dedicated eastbound left turn pocket (see Figure 3.13- Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
and pay fair-share
towards cost.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 120
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement. Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because this portion of Woollomes is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

Obtain encroachment
permits for road work in
County right of way.

MM 3.13-2c Woollomes Avenue/Project Driveway In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, the eastbound and westbound approaches will be widened to two through lanes in each direction and have a dedicated eastbound left turn pocket (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement. Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because this portion of Woollomes is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue
Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
in coordination with Kern
County Roads
Department and pay fairshare towards cost.

Obtain encroachment
permits for road work in
County right of way.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW,
Kern County
Roads
Department
MM 3.13-2d Woollomes Avenue/Dover Parkway In order achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, the eastbound and westbound approaches of this intersection will be widened to include dual left turn lanes, dedicated right turn lanes, and three through lanes. The northbound and southbound approaches will be widened to include dual left turn lanes, two through lanes, and dedicated right turn lanes (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement. Construction of this improvement shall be coordinated with the Kern County Roads Department because the eastbound approach of this intersection is not part of the City. The project applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits for any road work within the County right of way on Woollomes Avenue.

Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
in coordination with Kern
County Roads
Department and pay fairshare towards cost.

Obtain encroachment
permits for road work in
County right of way.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW,
Kern County
Roads
Department
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 121
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
MM 3.13-2e Woollomes Avenue/Home Depot West In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, the eastbound and westbound approaches of the intersection will be widened to include dual left turn lanes, dedicated right turn lanes, and three through lanes (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
and pay fair-share
towards cost.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
MM 3.13-2f Woollomes Avenue/Home Depot East In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, eastbound and westbound left turns will be prohibited at this intersection and redirected to the next downstream signalized intersection. Also, a westbound through lane will be constructed (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
and pay fair-share
towards cost.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
MM 3.13-2g Woollomes Avenue/Lexington Street In order to achieve and maintain a LOS no worse than D, a second eastbound lane will be constructed from the SR 99 northbound ramps to Lexington Street. This lane will become a dedicated left turn lane at the intersection (see Figure 3.13-18). The project applicant will pay a fair-share towards the construction of this improvement.

Construct listed traffic
movement improvements
and pay fair-share
towards cost.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
MM 3.13-2h Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 Northbound Ramps In order to mitigate potential cumulative impacts to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps, the project applicant will pay a fair share fee in accordance with the City’s existing traffic impact fee program towards traffic improvements to the Woollomes Avenue/SR 99 northbound ramps that may include on a conceptual level the following characteristics: conversion of the existing eastbound through lane to a shared through and left lane, changing the eastbound signal phasing to a split phase, and constructing an additional northbound SR 99 on-ramp lane to provide two receiving lanes for the eastbound left turn traffic.

Pay fair share fee in
accordance with the City’s
existing traffic impact fee
program towards traffic
improvements to the
Woollomes Avenue/SR 99
northbound ramps.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 122
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
MM 3.13-3 In order to reduce congestion from impacts during construction, adequate temporary access lanes will be provided around the construction site and will remain open.

Provide temporary access
lanes around construction.

Project
Applicant,
Contractor
During
construction

CDD, PW
MM 3.13-7a Subject to review and approval by the City, bicycle facilities shall be incorporated into the proposed project and shown on final improvement plans to include:
a) Class II bicycle lanes along the project street frontages b) Bicycle racks and/or lockers to accommodate bicycle travel by customers and employees. Bicycle parking facilities will be located in high visibility areas in order to encourage bicycle travel and discourage theft and vandalism
Construct Class II bicycle
lanes along the project
street frontages. Install
bicycle racks and/or
lockers in high visibility
areas.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
MM 3.13-7b Subject to review and approval by the City, pedestrian crosswalks and traffic signals will be provided at all legs of the Woollomes Avenue proposed site access intersections. These improvements will be incorporated into the final implementation plans prior to approval by the City.

Construct pedestrian
crosswalks and traffic
signals.

Project
Applicant
Prior to final
occupancy

CDD, PW
Utilities
MM 3.14-2a Prior to issuance of grading permits and subject to review and approval by the City, an extension to an existing 60-inch line shall be constructed to connect with the existing City storm water detention basin.

Construct extension to
existing 60-inch line to
connect with existing City
storm water detention
basin.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of grading
permits

CDD, PW
MM 3.14-2b Prior to issuance of grading permits and subject to review and approval by the City, the project applicant shall expand the City’s existing offsite storm water basin by a minimum of 7.7 acre-feet to accommodate storm Expand City’s existing offsite storm water basin by
a minimum of 7.7 acreProject
Applicant
Before issuance
of grading

CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 123
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
water runoff generated by the proposed project; this is in addition to the expansion necessitated by the Delano Marketplace project. The applicant shall perform the necessary capacity expansion prior to approval of a grading permit for the proposed project. The storm water drainage plans and design calculations shall be subject to review and approval by the City. feet, in addition to the
expansion required by the
Delano Marketplace
project.
permits
MM 3.14-2c Prior to issuance of a grading permit, and subject to review and approval by the City, the project applicant shall fill the existing emergency storm water basin located on the project site. The project applicant shall also disconnect the existing emergency storm water basin from the Delano Marketplace project, and then establish a new connection to the City’s existing off-site detention basin.

Fill the existing
emergency storm water
basin on the project site.

Establish a new
connection to the City’s
existing off-site detention
basin.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of grading
permits

CDD, PW
MM 3.14-3a: Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupation, a will-serve letter for water provision from the City shall be obtained by the applicant.

Obtain a will-serve letter
for water provision from
the City.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of Certificate of
Occupation

CDD, PW
MM 3.14-3b The project applicant shall implement water conservation methods as required by the City. These methods include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Outdoor watering may not occur on Mondays.
b) During construction and operation of the project, water will not be used in a manner which allows water to run off the property or area to which it is being applied. This is specifically in reference to, but not limited to, the irrigation of turf, ground cover, trees, or other forms of landscaping that result in water flowing into gutters, drains, ditches, or other non-target areas of the irrigation system.

Implement listed water
conservation measures.

Project
Applicant
Construction
and during
operations

CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 124
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
c) The washing of building exteriors may only be performed with a hose with a positive stop device and a bucket.
d) Driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, patios, or other hard surfaces of the project will not be washed. These areas will be swept in lieu of using any water.
e) Lawns, ground cover, trees, and shrubbery will not be watered between the hours of eleven a.m. and six p.m. from May 1 to September 30 or during periods of high winds exceeding twenty miles per hour. Drip, bubbler, and soaker hose irrigation systems will be excepted from these requirements.
f) All leaks or malfunctioning plumbing will be repaired within twentyfour hours. g) Ornamental fountains that do not recycle the water will not be operated.
h) Irrigation systems will not be operated in such a manner that water is applied to more than an incidental amount of driveway, sidewalk, patio, parking lot, or other hard surface or area, including bare ground not sustaining plant material that would require water.

Water will not be allowed to gather into a pool or puddle where it serves no useful purpose but may act as a harbor or breeding place for mosquitoes.

MM 3.14-5a Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit a waste management plan for C&D waste to the City documenting that all future commercial businesses at the project will have contracted franchise hauler agreements to maintain a recycling program that appropriately segregates recyclable materials, compostable materials, and trash in compliance with state mandatory commercial recycling requirements (AB 341). The franchise hauler will meet the requirements of Kern County ordinance G-8337 (Kern County, 2013; pgs. 4 to 5; and KCWMD, 2013b).

Submit a waste
management plan for
C&D waste to the City as
described.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of building
permits

CDD, PW
The Grapevine Project
Final EIR June 13, 2014
City of Delano, California Page 125
Notes:

CDD = City Community Development Department PW = City Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish & Wildlife SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District KCEHD = Kern County Environmental Health Division USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service TABLE 5-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE DELANO GRAPEVINE PROJECT Mitigation Measure Summary of Action(s) Implementing
Party Timing Monitoring Party
MM 3.14-5b Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit a site plan illustrating required recycling storage area(s) to the City for approval. The site plan should show fenced storage areas for recyclable materials that are clearly identified for recycling, as required by the City. As requested by KCWMD, a site plan showing the recycling storage area will be submitted to the City Community Development Department prior to construction of the project.

Submit a site plan
illustrating required
recycling storage area(s)
to the City as described.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of building
permits

CDD, PW
MM 3.14-5c Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project applicant shall provide refuse and source-separated consolidation containers located both inside and outside the shopping center, in order to comply with AB 341. Consolidation containers located inside the shopping center will be designed to promote the separation of solid waste and recyclable material.

Design features for consolidation containers located outside the shopping center will include adequate storage for refuse and source-separated materials, and will be designed to provide safe access for employees and/or customers to use the containers (KCWMD, 2013f; pg. 2). The consolidation containers shall meet the requirements of all applicable City or Kern County ordinances and regulations.

Provide refuse and
source-separated
consolidation containers
located both inside and
outside the shopping
center as described.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of Certificate of
Occupancy

CDD, PW
MM 3.14-5d In addition to consulting the hazardous waste disposal program resources listed in MM 3.7-2 (see Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the project applicant will provide documentation to the City that the solid waste segregation programs of all commercial tenants provide for collection of universal waste or other hazardous waste, which is prohibited from disposal at solid waste facilities.

Provide documentation to
the City that the solid
waste segregation
programs of all
commercial tenants
provide for collection of
universal waste or other
hazardous waste.

Project
Applicant
Before issuance
of building
permits

CDD, PW

APPENDIX A
Letter from Native American Heritage Commission
Sacred Lands File Search Results
May 6, 2014

APPENDIX B
Letter from Caltrans to Omni-Means, Ltd.

June 17, 2013

APPENDIX C
Letter from Caltrans to City of Delano
March 27, 2007

APPENDIX D
Letter from Caltrans to City of Delano
May 21, 2007

APPENDIX E
Letter from Caltrans to City of Delano
July 23, 2007

APPENDIX F
Transcript of Statement by Moses Stites of Caltrans
at Delano City Council Meeting
July 23, 2007

APPENDIX G
Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate in Part
Kern County Superior Court
March 24, 2009

APPENDIX H
Study Location Identification Memorandum
from Omni-Means, Ltd.

May 21, 2014
1 943 Reserve Drive, Suite 100, Roseville, CA 95678 ~ (916) 782-8688 fax (916) 782-8689

MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum has been prepared at BSK Associates’ request to describe the methodology by OmniMeans used to identify study intersections for the Grapevine Commercial Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR).

STUDY LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
Study intersections within the City of Delano were selected in consultation with the City. The selections were made in part based on proximity to the proposed project and in part based on the amount of traffic the proposed project was, at the time of project kickoff, expected to generate through them during the AM and PM peak hours. Intersections and roadways that provide primary access to the proposed project, namely on Woollomes Avenue, were selected as the proposed project would directly influence conditions on that road.

Study intersections outside the City of Delano were also evaluated for selection based on the same methodology, specifically using a general “50 trip” threshold. For study location selection, if the project generated over 50 AM, PM, or Saturday peak hour trips through any intersection, it was selected for potential inclusion. The only intersection outside the City limits that came close to inclusion in the study was the Schuster Road / Stradley Avenue (Albany Street) intersection. Stradley Avenue, south of Woollomes Avenue, would carry 58 Saturday peak hour trips (28 southbound and 30 northbound) based on the project trip generation and distribution from the TIAR.

Given the remote location of the Schuster Road / Stradley Avenue intersection and current and future low volumes, it was not considered a critical study location despite being 8 trips over the general “50 trip” threshold. Furthermore, it is not clear that 58 trips would actually reach the next intersection south of Woollomes Avenue, Schuster Road, since there is potential for trip capture between the two locations which are spaced a mile apart.

To: BSK Associates Date: May 21, 2014
Attn: Lucinda Calvo Project: Grapevine Commerical
From: Omni-Means Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Re: Study Location Identification Job No.: 25-1691-02
Methodology File No.: C1726MEM002.DOCX
CC:

Addendum Environmental
Impact Report

CITY OF DELANO

STAFF REPORT
June 21, 2022
Agenda Item: 11
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Maribel Reyna, City Manager
By: Sumeet Batth-Chavez, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of the CDBG 2022-2023 Action Plan

RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council approve the adoption of 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary HUD documents.

DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
The City of Delano is required to submit an Action Plan to continue receiving entitlement funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Annual Action Plan describes the federally-funded projects the City will undertake during the upcoming fiscal year to further the goals and objectives outlined in its Consolidated Plan.

The program year Action Plan is subject to federal citizen participation requirements. A 30-day public review period (May 21 - June 21) was held ending with today’s public hearing, during which the Action Plan was available for comment. No public comments have been received to date.

The City’s CDBG funding for the 2022-2023 program year is $556,356 and is to be assigned as follows:
• $83,453 -Domestic Violence Center Operations- Funds will be used to meet the operational needs for Transitional Housing and Shelter for the homeless, or victims of domestic violence in Delano. • $111,271 –2022-2023 Planning and Administration-CDBG funds will be used to support the general administration and monitoring of the programs, general expenses to administer the program and to cover preparation costs of HUD required documents, including reports such as the Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.
• $129,000 –Section 108 Loan Repayment –Repayment of Section 108 loan for the construction of gymnasium at the Community Center-140 W. 11th Ave.
• $232,632 -Waterline and Resurfacing Street Improvements- Infrastructure activities to include replacement of water lines and resurfacing of street and alleys.

The Draft Action Plan was made available for public review at the Delano City Hall, 1015 11th Avenue and the Delano Public Library, 925 10th Avenue. The plans were also made available for public review on the City’s website at http://www.cityofdelano.org
Attachments
Resolution
Action Plan
Fiscal Impact
Finance to reallocate funds accordingly within the budgeted line items in fund 32 as amounts changed from the original adopted biennial budget
RESOLUTION NO._________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DELANO APPROVING THE 2022- 2023 ACTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING.

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program, authorized pursuant to Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (Act), requires that jurisdictions provide for the issuance of grants in order to attain the objective of providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to, and reviewed by the City Council, 2022-2023 Action Plan (Action Plan) which describes programs to be funded, in compliance with the goals and objectives set out in the Con Plan.

IT IS NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Delano approves as follows:

Section 1
The City Council approves the adoption of the City of Delano 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, certifying that the City of Delano has and will continue to conduct its activities in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations governing the CDBG Program.

Section 2
The City Council has determined that federal Citizen Participation requirements were met during the development of the 2022-2023 Action Plan.

Section 3
The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized to execute and file the Application, Certifications, and all documents, including the Action Plan and SF 424, that are required to receive CDBG funding for and on behalf of the City of Delano, and to make minor changes to these documents where necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Delano at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Bryan Osorio, Mayor
The undersigned Clerk of the City of Delano City Council does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing is a true and full copy a resolution of the Governing Council adopted at a duly convened meeting on the date abovementioned, which has not been altered, amended or repealed. ______________________________________________________________________ Ricardo G. Chavez, City Clerk Date
Annual Action Plan 1
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
City of Delano
2022-2023
Annual Action Plan
(July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023)
City of Delano
City Manager’s Office
1015 11th Avenue
Delano, CA 93215

Annual Action Plan 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ........................................................................ 3 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b) ...................................................................................... 6 AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) ................................................................................... 7 AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c) ................................................................................................. 12 Expected Resources .................................................................................................................................... 15 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ........................................................................................... 15 Annual Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 17 Projects ................................................................................................................................................... 19 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) ..................................................................................................................... 19 AP-38 Project Summary .......................................................................................................................... 20 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) ............................................................................................. 23 Affordable Housing ..................................................................................................................................... 24 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) ................................................................................................... 24 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) ........................................................................................................... 25 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) ............................................................ 26 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) ................................................................................... 28 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) ............................................................................................................ 29 Program Specific Requirements .................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..… A-1 Two In-Person Public Meetings – April 12, and May 3, 2022……………………….……………………………....… A-2 City Council Public Hearing – June 21, 2022…………………….…………………………………………………………….. A-3 Annual Action Plan 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Executive Summary
AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of Delano, known as the Diamond of the Golden Empire, is located in the Kern CountyBakersfield metropolitan area; Kern County is the third-largest county in California, covering more than 8,000 square miles. Delano is located 31 miles north-northwest of Bakersfield, the County seat, and is strategically located along State Highway 99, one of California's primary north/south arterials.

The City of Delano encompasses about 13 square miles with an estimated population of 51,428 people according to the 2020 United States Census Bureau American Community Survey. Delano is home to two California state prisons: North Kern State Prison and Kern Valley State prison. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, approximately 13 percent of the City’s population consists of prison inmates. In 2021, North Kern State Prison had an average inmate population of 3,322 and Kern Valley State Prison had an average inmate population of 3,488. The American Community Survey identified 11,444 households from 2016-2020 with an estimated 3.87 persons per household.

This Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 Action Plan represents the second cycle of the City’s FY 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). The FY 2022-2023 Action Plan was prepared using the eCon Planning Suite system developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and covers the planning period of July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. The system prescribes the structure and contents of this document, following the Federal Consolidated Planning regulations.

2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan This Action Plan incorporates outcome measures for activities in accordance with the Federal Register Notice dated March 7, 2006, which require the following Performance Measure Objectives/Outcomes to be associated with each activity funded:

General Objective Categories- Activities will meet one of the following:
 Decent Housing (DH)
 A Suitable Living Environment (SL)
 Creating Economic Opportunities (EO)
Outcome Categories- Activities will meet one of the following:
 Availability/Accessibility (1)
 Affordability (2)
 Sustainability (3)
The City of Delano continues to have a range of housing and community development needs. CDBG funds alone are not adequate to address the various needs identified during the public outreach process Annual Action Plan 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
and summarized in the Needs Assessment of the FY 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan. The City intends to use these funds to coordinate programs, services, and projects to create a decent and suitable living environment to benefit low- and moderate-income households and those with special needs. Needs that have been determined to be a High Priority level will receive funding during this five-year Con Plan period. Needs with a Low Priority may be funded based on the availability of funds. The priorities for the FY 2021-2025 Con Plan are:

Housing Priorities:
 Conserve and improve housing
 Provide first-time homebuyer opportunities
 Support new affordable housing construction
 Promote equal housing opportunity
 Support housing and services for persons with special needs, including homeless and persons at risk of homelessness
Community Development Priorities:
 Provide for new and improve existing community facilities  Provide for needed infrastructure improvements in low- and moderate-income areas  Provide for necessary planning activities

3. Evaluation of past performance
During the last five-year Consolidated Plan for FY 2016-2020, the City met most of the goals and objectives. Allocated funds supported infrastructure and public facilities improvements, public services and planning, and administration. As a result of the continuous desk and on-site monitoring, the City moved its CDBG projects forward. The City accomplished the construction of a new gymnasium in November of 2017 at the Community Center located at 140 W. 11th Street. Additionally, the City also carried out waterline and resurfacing street improvements and Section 108 Loan repayments have been on track.

Moreover, the City provides funding to the Alliance Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault (AAFVSA), a non-profit in Bakersfield, that operates the Domestic Violence Center located in Delano. The Center provides transitional housing and shelter for the homeless or victims of domestic violence in Delano. The shelter provides 12 emergency and 12 transitional beds. The City of Delano also moved forward with funding for improved planning and administration.

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Citizen participation is one of the key components of the Action Plan process. To solicit public input during the development of the Action Plan, the City of Delano conducted two community workshops.

Annual Action Plan 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Residents, local housing and services providers, and community stakeholders were invited to participate in the public comment forums.

Community Workshops: The City of Delano held two community workshops to solicit input on needs during the development of this Action Plan. The workshops were held in person on April 14, 2022, and May 3, 2022, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Nineteen members of the community attended.

Publicity: Outreach for the Community Workshop included:
 Notice posted on the City website
 Notice posted at Delano City Hall
 Flyers advertising the Community Workshops were distributed to more than 20 service providers and agencies.

Public Hearing: A Public Hearing before the City Council will be held on June 21, 2022. A public notice for the hearing was published in the Bakersfield Californian.

Public Review of Draft Documents: A 30-day public review will be held from May 21, 2022, through June 21, 2022. A public notice for the public review period was published in the Bakersfield Californian.

Copies of the Draft Action Plan were made available for the public at the following locations:
 City website
 Delano City Hall
 Delano Library
The final Consolidated Plan, Amendments, Annual Action Plans, and Performance Reports will be available for five years at the Delano City Hall.

5. Summary of public comments
A summary of the public comments received is provided in Appendix A.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments were received and accepted by the City of Delano.

7. Summary
The City of Delano has undertaken diligent and good faith efforts in outreaching to all segments of the community that may benefit from the CDBG program.

Annual Action Plan 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b)

1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator City of Delano Recreation Department Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative (optional)
In addition to overseeing the programs funded by the Consolidated Plan, the City of Delano’s Economic Development Department (EDD) serves as the lead agency in coordinating the consolidated planning and application process. The EDD prepares, manages, implements, and monitors the Consolidated Plan documents, including the City’s Annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation and Review (CAPER).

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
For matters concerning the City of Delano’s CDBG program, please contact: Sumeet Batth, Recreation Manager (Interim CDBG Administrator), City of Delano Recreation Department, 925 Ellington Street, Delano, CA 93215.

Annual Action Plan 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)

1. Introduction
As part of the development of this Action Plan, the City conducted an outreach program to consult and coordinate with nonprofit agencies, affordable housing providers, and government agencies regarding the needs of the low- and moderate-income community. The outreach program along with the results and public comments has been summarized in Appendix A.

The City compiled an outreach list consisting of over 20 agencies, including:
 Nonprofit service providers;
 Affordable housing providers;
 Housing advocates;
 Housing professionals;
 Public agencies (such as health services, human services);  Economic development and employment organizations; and  Community and neighborhood groups.

The complete outreach list is included in Appendix A. These agencies were e-mailed notices of the community workshops. Specific agencies were also contacted to obtain data in preparation for this Action Plan. For example, the State Developmental Services Department and State Social Services Department were contacted to obtain data and housing resources for persons with disabilities.

Coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.

CDBG funds will be used to support programs focused on addressing housing needs citywide, and continuing care for the homeless and persons at risk of homelessness. The City is continuously committed to funding programs with CDBG to address a continuum of care that supports the operational needs for Transitional Housing and Shelter for the homeless, or victims of domestic violence in Delano.

Consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS
The City of Delano does not receive ESG funds.

Annual Action Plan 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

2. Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities
Annual Action Plan 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
1 Agency/Group/Organization Kern County Department of
Public Health, Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program (CLPPP)
Agency/Group/Organization Type Health Agency
Other government - County
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Lead-based Paint Strategy
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City of Delano consulted
with the Kern County
Department of Public Health,
Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program (CLPPP),
and the California Department
of Public Health - Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention
Branch (CLPPB) to obtain
statistics on the number of
children testing positive for
elevated blood levels signaling
lead poisoning as related to the
Lead-based Paint Strategy.
2 Agency/Group/Organization Kern County Homeless
Collaborative (KCHC)
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services-homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically
homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with
children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs -
Unaccompanied youth
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Annual Action Plan 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Kern County Homeless
Collaborative was contacted for
data pertaining to homeless
needs and those at risk of
homelessness.
3 Agency/Group/Organization Kern County Public Health
Services Department -
Health Assessment and
Epidemiology
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Persons with HIV/AIDS Health Agency
Other government - County
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
The City consulted with the
Kern County Department of
Public Health HIV/AIDS
Epidemiology Department to
obtain data on the number of
people living with HIV/AIDS and
their housing needs.
4 Agency/Group/Organization Housing Authority of the
County of Kern
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
PHA
Other government - County
What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Housing Need Assessment Public Housing Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination?
Provided data pertaining to the
Housing Choice Voucher
Program and statistics of Delano
residents utilizing the program.

Agency plans and data were
reviewed.

Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated Annual Action Plan 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City of Delano contacted over 20 agencies as part of the outreach process for this Action Plan. All applicable agencies and agency types were consulted.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the
goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care Kern County Homeless
Collaborative
Delano's goals of the Strategic
Plan coincide with the goals of
KCHC regarding homeless
needs.

Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Narrative (optional)
Cooperation and coordination with other public entities in the implementation of the Action Plan included phone consultation with adjacent units of general local government and review of the data which was provided. City staff attended various meetings and workshops throughout each Fiscal Year as part of this effort. Specifically for homeless needs, which are a regional issue, the City relies on adjacent units of local government in the provision of shelter. The City also coordinates with State and adjacent governments in other areas such as transportation, economic development, housing, public works projects, and environmental issues.

Annual Action Plan 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Citizen participation is one of the most important components of the Action Plan process. To solicit public input during the development of this Action Plan, the City of Delano held two Community Workshops for residents. The workshops were held in person on April 14, 2022, and May 3, 2022, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Nineteen members of the community attended. s A Public Hearing before the City Council will be held on June 21, 2022. A 30-day public review of the Action Plan will be held from May 21, 2022, through June 21, 2022. A public notice for the hearing and public review period was published in the Bakersfield Californian. The final Consolidated Plan, Amendments, Annual Action Plans, and Performance Reports will be available for five years at Delano City Hall.

Annual Action Plan 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort Order Mode of
Outreach
Target of Outreach Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments Received
Summary of
Comments
not Accepted
and Reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Community
Workshop #1
Non-targeted/broad
community
There were 13
community members
who attended this
meeting.

Residents expressed
interest in youth
programs (arts, coding,
sports, cooking, etc.),
anti-gang initiatives
and community groups
that promote healing,
replacement of water
lines on the west side
of town, ADA
crosswalks and curbs
at new
residential/commercial
areas, sidewalk and
alley improvements,
homeless care kits and
laundry vouchers, park
amenities, improved
residential lighting
(including solarpowered street lights),
and street
improvements (such as
speed bumps to
control vehicle speed
measures in specific
areas).

There were no
comments
that were not
accepted.

N/A
Annual Action Plan 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
2 Community
Workshop #2
Non-targeted/broad
community
There were 6
community members
who attended this
meeting.

Residents expressed
interest in youth
programs, waterline
replacements and
improvements, park
amenities (such as
public restrooms,
refillable water bottle
stations, disc golf
courses, drive-in
theaters, and lighting
improvements), and
social services for the
homeless.

There were no
comments
that were not
accepted.

N/A
3 Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/broad
community
The City of Delano
published a public
notice in the
Bakersfield
Californian,
announcing the public
hearing that will be
held in the Council
Chambers on June 21,
2022, to consider the
one-year Action Plan
for FY 2022-2023.

Not applicable. There were no
comments
that were not
accepted.

N/A
4 Public Meeting Non-targeted/broad
community
The Delano City
Council will hold a
public hearing on June
21, 2022, to consider
the one-year Action
Plan for FY 2022-2023.

No comments on the
CDBG program were
received.

There were no
comments
that were not
accepted.

N/A
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
Annual Action Plan 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Expected Resources
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
The City of Delano expects to receive $556,356 for FY 2022-23. The following table describes the anticipated resources and uses of funds.

Anticipated Resources
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG PublicFederalAcquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services
$556,356 $0 $0 $556,356 $1,650,000
The City of Delano
expects to receive
$556,356 for FY
2022-23. Over the
five-year planning
period, the City
assumes $1,650,000
in CDBG allocations,
excluding funds
carried over from
prior years and
program income.

Table 5 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
Annual Action Plan 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Explanation of how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied
As noted in the 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan, Federal funds will leverage additional resources as grant opportunities become available. The City actively pursues funding available at the local, state, and federal levels. The City also collaborates with other public and private agencies to maximize the cost-effectiveness of CDBG-funded programs. The CDBG program does not have a matching requirement.

Description of publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan
The City of Delano does not have any publicly owned land which will be used to address the needs identified in the plan and does not plan to use CDBG funds to acquire land within the planning period.

Discussion
See discussion above.

Annual Action Plan 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Annual Goals and Objectives
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Sort Order Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1 Public Services 2021 2026 Homeless
NonHomeless
Special
Needs
Public Services CDBG: An estimated
$83,453
Public Services other
than Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit: 75 persons
assisted
2 Infrastructure
and Public
Facilities
2021 2026 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Infrastructure
and Public
Facilities
CDBG: An estimated
$232,632 water &
sewer plus $129,000
for Section 108 Loan
Repayment
Public Facility or
Infrastructure
Activities other than
Low/Moderate
Income Housing
Benefit: 25,730
persons
3 Program
Planning and
Administration
2021 2026 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Program
Planning and
Administration
CDBG: An estimated
$111,271
Table 6 – Goals Summary
Annual Action Plan 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Public Services
Goal
Description
Support the needs of low- and moderate-income households through public services. The focus is to provide services for victims of domestic violence at a center assisted with CDBG funds. Other public/supportive services for the homeless, atrisk homeless, and persons with special needs may be deemed appropriate in the future. 2 Goal Name Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Goal
Description
Provide assistance to City projects that benefit lower-income households by improving infrastructure and providing facilities that serve their needs. Such projects must be able to demonstrate that they will serve areas of the City of Delano that meet HUD requirements regarding household incomes for that area. 3 Goal Name Program Planning and Administration
Goal
Description
Up to 20 percent of the CDBG funds will be used to support the general administration and monitoring of the programs, general expenses to administer the program, and to cover preparation costs of HUD required documents, including reports, the Action Plan, and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.

Annual Action Plan 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
FY 2022-2023 is the City of Delano’s second year implementing the FY 2021-2025 CDBG Con Plan. This Action Plan outlines the steps that the City of Delano will use to address housing and community development needs in the City. The This program provides funding for a variety of projects and programs, with eligibility based on meeting the following national objectives:
 Benefitting low and moderate income persons;
 Eliminating slum and blight; or
 Meeting a particularly urgent community need.

The City is receiving an allocation of $556,356 in CDBG funds for FY 2022-2023. The total amount of funding recommendations benefiting low- and moderate-income persons equal 100% for funds subject to the low/mod benefit calculations. Based on the limited resources available to the City, statutory restrictions, and the priority needs established in the Consolidated Plan, the proposed activities to be undertaken in FY 2022-2023 are as follows:

Projects
# Project Name
1 Domestic Violence Center Operations
2 Waterline Replacement Project
3 Section 108 Loan Repayment
4 Program Planning and Administration
Table 7 - Project Information
Reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs Efforts should be made to address the needs of those in the most vulnerable segments of the community (victims and those at risk of becoming homeless or homeless). The City of Delano recognizes the needs and plans to use up to 15 percent of its annual CDBG allocations to assist the Domestic Violence Center.

Public improvements and facilities serving its low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and residents with special needs are either aging or inadequate. As a result, the City will utilize the majority of its CDBG allocations to provide or improve infrastructure and facilities to create a decent and suitable living environment for low- and moderate-income residents and those with special needs. Moreover, the City plans to utilize other state and federal funds to provide other housing and supportive services.

Annual Action Plan 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
1 Project Name Domestic Violence Center Operations
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Services
Needs Addressed Public Services
Funding CDBG: $83,453
Description Services to low- and moderate-income households.

Target Date 6/30/2023
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
36 persons are estimated to benefit from the activities.

Location Description Location is confidential.

Planned Activities Funds allocated to the Domestic Violence Center will be used to meet the needs for transitional housing and shelter for the homeless or victims of domestic violence in Delano. The shelter provides 12 emergency and 12 transitional beds.
2 Project Name New Gym – Sec 108 Loan Repayment
Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Needs Addressed Infrastructure and Public Facilities

Funding CDBG: $129,000
Description Repayment of Section 108 loan for the construction of a gymnasium at the community center – 140 W. 11th Avenue.

Target Date 6/30/2023
Annual Action Plan 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
Not applicable. Beneficiaries have been previously reported.

Location Description The gymnasium at the community center – 140 W. 11th Avenue.

Planned Activities Funds allocated will go to the repayment of the Section 108 loan provided for the construction of the gym at the new community center – 140 W. 11th Ave.
3 Project Name Waterline Replacement Project
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Needs Addressed Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Funding CDBG: $232,632
Description Waterline replacement project and associated replacement of streets and alleyways.

Target Date 6/30/2023
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
25,730 persons in low- and moderate-income areas are estimated to benefit from the activities.

Location Description City of Delano low- and moderate-income areas.

Planned Activities Infrastructure activities include the replacement of waterlines and resurfacing of streets and alleys.
4 Project Name Planning and Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Program Administration
Needs Addressed Program Administration
Funding CDBG: $111,271
Description CDBG administration and planning activities.

Target Date 6/30/2023
Annual Action Plan 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Estimate the number and
type of families that will
benefit from the proposed
activities
Not applicable.

Location Description The CDBG program is administered at City Hall.

Planned Activities CDBG administration and planning activities.

Annual Action Plan 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed The City has a limited CDBG allocation and must utilize the funding in an efficient manner. CDBG funds will be used to operate the Domestic Violence Center (location confidential), which will offer services to all residents citywide. Additionally, improvements to public infrastructure and facilities will be focused on low- and moderate-income areas or areas with a high concentration of low-, moderate-, and specialneeds residents.

Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Table 8 - Geographic Distribution
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically According to CDBG regulations, public services are available to residents from all areas of the City according to their needs, income, or other criteria. Public facilities and infrastructure in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in the City are aging or inadequate. Infrastructure and facility improvements will be concentrated in low- and moderate-income areas or in locations that serve primarily low- and moderate-income residents or individuals with special needs.

Discussion
See discussion above.

Annual Action Plan 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
The City anticipates using a portion of CDBG funds to support the operation of the Domestic Violence Center, which offers 12 emergency shelter beds and 12 transitional beds. It is estimated that 36 people might benefit from this service in one year.

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 26
Non-Homeless 8
Special-Needs 2
Total 36
Table 9 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 36
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 0
Acquisition of Existing Units 0
Total 36
Table 10 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion
See discussion above.

Annual Action Plan 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
The Housing Authority of the County of Kern (HACK) is an independent, local government agency providing safe and affordable housing to thousands of Kern County residents. The needs of public housing in the City of Delano are typically met by the HACK.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing No actions are planned during the next year to address the needs of public housing.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
Self-Help Enterprises (SHE) administers and monitors the City’s Homebuyer Assistance Program and the Housing Rehabilitation Program (using State funds). SHE inspects homes before, during, and after construction to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal regulations and works with City of Delano residents, including public housing residents, to participate in homeownership.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance
HACK is not designated as troubled.

Discussion
See discussion above.

Annual Action Plan 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction
As noted in the 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan, according to Title 42 of the United States Code, Chapter 19, homeless persons are described as persons who lack fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence or they live in a welfare hotel, emergency, and transitional housing program, or a place not ordinarily used as regular sleeping accommodations, such as cars, movie theatres, abandoned buildings, in parks, or on the street. Homelessness can be distinguished by its duration. First, there are transitionally homeless people who are unable to stay housed because of circumstances usually in combination with other factors such as job loss, unexpected expenses, or health issues. The majority of this homeless population is extremely poor. In contrast, chronically homeless people routinely live on the streets or other places not intended for habitation.

The jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including The City of Delano will continue to collaborate with agencies that provide services to the homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless to prevent homelessness. Additionally, the City will refer individuals to other agencies such as the Kern County Homeless Collaborative, the Community Action Partnership of Kern, and the United Way of Kern County, which offer public assistance programs. Furthermore, the City is planning to use CDBG funds to assist the Domestic Violence Center in its operation. The facility will provide services that will help prevent victims of domestic violence from becoming homeless.

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
Collaboration with agencies that provide refuge to the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless will continue to be a major component of the City's efforts to prevent homelessness. The City will continue to refer people to public assistance programs offered by other agencies, including the Kern County Homeless Collaborative, Community Action Partnership of Kern, and United Way of Kern County to provide daily meals, overnight shelter beds, showers, and other basic needs services to those in need.

In addition, the City of Delano intends to use CDBG funds to support the operation of the Domestic Violence Center, which helps prevent homelessness among domestic violence victims and provides support to families by offering family overnight shelter, counseling, on-site case management, housing assessments, job training, and more. In addition, the Domestic Violence Center offers hotline services that are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to help support victims of domestic violence.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons By partnering with agencies that offer shelter to the homeless, the City will continue to address the needs for emergency shelter and transitional housing for the homeless. The needs of the homeless population include both emergency shelter and transitional housing. Emergency shelter addresses the immediate needs of those without housing, and transitional housing assists the homeless to move toward being stably housed over the long term. The City will continue to refer residents in need to Annual Action Plan 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
public assistance programs offered by other agencies such as the Kern County Homeless Collaborative, Community Action Partnership of Kern, and United Way of Kern County. Moreover, the effort the City is making to assist victims of domestic violence through the Domestic Violence Center will help prevent homelessness among these victims.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again
The City will continue to work with agencies that provide shelter and other supportive services to the homeless to assist in making the transition to permanent housing and independent living. The City hopes to aid the homeless population by referring those in need to agencies such as the Kern County Homeless Collaborative, Community Action Partnership of Kern, and United Way of Kern County, that can help break the homelessness cycle by providing temporary shelter, supportive services such as counseling, and other basic needs services.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

As part of ongoing efforts, the City of Delano will refer individuals in need to agencies that provide services to help low-income households avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: Discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care, and other youth institutions, and correctional institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, employment, education, or youth needs by collaborating with homeless shelters. Delano will continue to refer individuals and families to public assistance programs offered by other agencies, such as the Kern County Homeless Collaborative, Community Action Partnership of Kern, and United Way of Kern County.

Discussion
See discussion above.

Annual Action Plan 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction
The provision of adequate and affordable housing is constrained by market and governmental factors.

Due to their limited resources for absorbing these costs, low- and moderate-income households are disproportionately affected. To help create safe, high-quality, affordable housing, the City of Delano implements a Housing Element that is consistent with California law, reducing costs or providing offsetting incentives. The City is dedicated to removing restrictions that hinder the production of housing and offers a one-stop streamlined process for obtaining entitlements and building permits.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment
In compliance with State law, the City will continue to monitor its zoning and development regulations and implement streamlined permit processing. Through the state density bonus law, as well as local incentives such as the various specific plans, the City will continue to encourage affordable housing development.

Discussion
See discussion above.

Annual Action Plan 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction
This section discusses the City of Delano's underserved needs and institutional structure for delivering housing and community development activities.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City’s underserved populations include the elderly, disabled, homeless, and at-risk homeless families and individuals. The City will rely on its existing network of public and nonprofit service agencies to provide an array of supportive services for the City’s underserved groups.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will continue to foster affordable housing development in the community through incentives such as density bonuses for affordable housing, mixed-use development, and lot consolidation. Additionally, fair housing as a homeless prevention strategy can assist those facing unfair evictions and foreclosure frauds, and therefore be able to remain at their homes.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City of Delano’s Code Enforcement staff will continue to provide information on lead-based paint hazards and resources for abatement to residents. Such information is also available at public counters.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families Addressing high housing costs and housing insecurity are critical components to an anti-poverty strategy. The City seeks to reduce the number of people living in poverty (extremely low-income households earning less than 30 percent of the AMI) by continuing to implement its anti-poverty strategy which includes providing a number of programs, including housing assistance and economic development assistance.

The City works closely with HACK to provide for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and the Public Housing Program. These two programs provide housing assistance and affordable housing for lower-income families and individuals. The City also collaborates with the Kern County Continuum of Care aimed at addressing homelessness in the region.

Furthermore, the City’s anti-poverty strategy includes policies and programs that aim to improve coordination and collaboration among City departments and non-profit agencies that provide health and social services, employment training, legal assistance, and other support services for low-income persons.

The City’s economic development strategic plan also aims to reduce poverty by creating a better business environment in the City through business attraction and retention (Business Assistance Program) and workforce development.

Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City intends to seek additional funding sources to overcome gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system. Additionally, the City will collaborate with various local Annual Action Plan 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
entities to ensure that services are available to residents in need.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
The City of Delano will continue to coordinate with public and private housing and services agencies to deliver housing and community development activities in the community. Various agencies will continue to be invited to attend public meetings related to the CDBG program.

Discussion
See discussion above.

Annual Action Plan 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction
Please see below.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $0.00

2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee’s strategic plan
$0.00

3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0.00

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. $0.00

5. The amount of income from float-funded activities
Total Program Income $0.00
Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit people of low- and moderate-income
100%
Annual Action Plan A-1

APPENDIX A
Proof of Publication for Public Hearing
and
30-Day Public Comment Period
Public Comments from Two In-Person Public Meetings
Public Comments from 30-Day Public Comment Period
Public Comments from the Public Hearing

Annual Action Plan A-2

CITY OF DELANO
2022-2023 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN PUBLIC COMMENTS
Two In-Person Public Meetings – April 12, and May 3, 2022 A. Comments on Programs

1. Youth Program Funding
 Extracurricular activities like arts & crafts, coding, and cooking  An art program or an arts council
 Sponsor recreation programs for the City

2. Suggested New Community Programs
 An art program or an arts council
 A program that promotes anti-gang initiatives
 A community group that promotes healing
B. Comments on Existing Parks Programming and Maintenance

1. Park Amenities
 Wi-Fi hubs or fiber optics in city parks
 Allocate funds for public restrooms at Veneto Park
 Install refillable water bottle fountains at public parks  Disc golf course at city park
 Drive-in theater
 Develop MLK Jr. park with more amenities such as lighting

2. Park maintenance
 Revamp Cecil Avenue wading pool
C. Comments on Maintenance of Infrastructures

1. Refurbishing Water Pipes/Water Source
 Sewer line replacements and improvements on the west side of town (Austin Street neighborhood)
 Waterline replacement at 10th and Salem Street (to avoid continuous pipe failures at one specific address)
 Improved street and residential lighting (in the Delano High, Albany, Asti, and Belmont areas, and solar-powered streetlights)

2. Sidewalks and Street Improvements
 More crosswalks, ADA, and curbs at the new residential/commercial area by Woollomes Avenue
 Sidewalk improvements (including gutters on both sides on the west side of the city such as the Glenwood area, and overall improvements in the Valle Vista area)  Alleyway improvements in the Madison Street area
 Speed control measures at Cecil and Norwalk and speedbumps were requested at Austin and 9th, Dover and Belmont, and 18th and Jefferson
Annual Action Plan A-3
D. Homeless Initiatives

1. Homeless care kits and laundry vouchers

2. Social services at the Navigation Center for re-entry of the homeless to the general population such as job placement services
City Council Public Hearing – June 21, 2022

1. CITY OF DELANO

STAFF REPORT
June 21, 2022
Agenda Item: 12
TO: Honorable Mayor Osorio and Members of the City Council FROM: Maribel Reyna, City Manager
By: Ricardo G. Chavez, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Discussion and direction regarding a letter of support for Kern Community College District (KCCD) to serve as the regional lead for the Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF) (Mayor Osorio)
Mayor Osorio requested this item to be place on the agenda for discussion.

Attachments:

Proposed letter of support
Overview of the Community Economic Resilience Fund
[ORGANIZATION LETTERHEAD]
[DATE]
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
1400 10th St.

Sacramento, CA 95814
To Whom if May Concern,
[insert organization name] fully supports the Kern Community College District (Kern CCD) to serve as the regional lead for the Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF). Our support stems from witnessing Kern CCD’s successful history in leading collaborative efforts around workforce and economic development. As a partner with Kern CCD in [insert grant/initiative here], we have been impressed with the degree to which Kern CCD engages diverse stakeholders to form long-lasting partnerships to serve the region, thus making it the ideal regional convener and fiscal agent for this one-of-a-kind opportunity that will bring much needed assistance and resources for disinvested communities left bereft from the pandemic.

For more than a century, Kern CCD has served as the primary entity for workforce development, transforming challenges into opportunities in this region. As the persistent drought and the state’s transition to renewable energy have impacted the oil and agriculture industries, Kern CCD has responded proactively to develop accessible, flexible programs. The district’s 21st Century Energy Center was established to provide important training in solar panel installation and industrial maintenance, which has helped Kern County become a global leader in solar and wind energy. Kern CCD also developed the state’s first-ever baccalaureate degree in Industrial Automation, which is training technicians to develop more efficient and sustainable assembly lines for agribusiness and other firms. In Eastern Kern and Inyo and Mono counties, the district is engaged with Mojave Air and Space Port, Edwards Air Force Base, Bishop Hospital, and other partners to develop training in cybersecurity and expand the nursing program at Cerro Coso Community College.

The twin goals of economic and workforce development identified in the CERF grant are not new initiatives for Kern CCD. It is part of the district’s mission to invest in local and regional projects that impact the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Recently, Kern CCD became the fiscal agent and host of the Central/Mother Lode Regional Consortium, a collaborative of 15 community colleges that serves over 107,000 students in career technical education programs with the Strong Workforce Program grant. Additionally, Kern CCD has partnered with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to form the Valley Strong Energy Institute, a partnership of public and private entities dedicated to tackling regional energy challenges such as carbon dioxide removal, zero emission vehicle infrastructure, and community microgrids.

Kern CCD’s workforce development philosophy is buttressed by a clear understanding of whom it serves—the top 100% of the community. Kern CCD and its colleges are located in every community in our region that needs equitable access to training. With its understanding of the deeply entrenched poverty in our region’s rural areas, it worked swiftly to establish the nation’s first Early College program at McFarland High School, which provides high-demand career and technical education degrees to some of our most disadvantaged residents starting in the 9th grade. Early College is now integrated into every school in the Kern High School District, giving more than 42,000 students in the region an opportunity to obtain an associate degree before finishing their secondary education. Cerro Coso Community College is also partnered with the Tehachapi Unified School District to offer welding classes at Tehachapi High School.

As a longstanding partner of Kern CCD, we can attest to the fact that it is the only entity ready to take on the work of shifting the region’s economic landscape, which would improve resilience for Kern County’s most vulnerable populations. It has developed an impressive infrastructure that leverages trusted partnerships and relationships with key stakeholders to bring education and upward mobility to underrepresented and disinvested communities. I urge you to support Kern CCD as the regional lead for CERF.

Sincerely,
[SIGNATURE]
Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF)
Born out of SB 162, CERF is a post-Covid economic recovery initiative aimed at creating sustainable, quality jobs in equitable ways across 13 California regions to help alleviate the effects of the pandemic. Initially, CERF’s Program funding of $600M was appropriated from the American Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Fund of 2021 until the 2022 budget revised the source of funds to the State General Fund in SB 115 (2022).

The Kern Community College District has decided to create an application to receive CERF funding. A number of partners across different sectors in the region have already solidified their support of KCCD’s application. KCDD recognizes that it is uniquely positioned to reach and assist the communities that are most in need of CERF’s resources and relief efforts. Because of KCCD’s long-standing commitment to the communities it serves, KCCD feels that this campaign will move Kern County into the future.

To ensure that all voices are heard, a multitude of voices must be brought to the table. Regions must create planning committees that thoroughly engage the region’s communities to inform the region on which sectors/industries will receive investments.

The grant is split into two funding rounds: (1) planning stage (up to $5M), (2) implementation stage (up to $35M). During the planning stage, planning tables composed of regional partners will create a regional plan through strategizing, hosting meetings, creating measurable criteria, developing a social infrastructure for inclusive planning, and other planning-related measures. The implementation stage, informed by stage 1, will see the implementation of the regional plan utilizing the appropriated funding.

CERF funding will maintain one vision in mind: “to build an equitable and sustainable economy across California’s diverse regions and foster long-term economic resilience in the overall transition to a carbon-neutral economy.”

CITY OF DELANO

STAFF REPORT
June 21, 2022
Agenda Item: 13
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Maribel Reyna, City Manager
By: Ricardo G. Chavez, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Request from Delano Harvest Holidays Association for a sponsorship to utilize the Eleventh Avenue Community Center’s Dance Room Recommendation
Staff recommends to the City Council to discuss and provide direction.

Discussion
The City of Delano received a letter from Delano Harvest Holidays Association requesting a sponsorship for the use of the dance room at the Eleventh Avenue Community Center. The organization will utilize the room for practices held on Saturdays from July 9, 2022 to September 18, 2021 from 9am - 12pm.

Budget Impact
$2,000 - Cost of Rental of Dance Room
Attachment:

Letter from Delano Harvest Holidays Association
June 15, 2022
Dear Maribel,
The Delano Harvest Holidays Association has been hosting long-cherished events that have become city traditions for the past 77 years. Last year, the Delano Harvest Holidays Association hosted its first-ever King and Queen show, where we were fortunate to award the participants over $5,000 in scholarships. We, as a committee, feel immense gratitude to city council members, donors, sponsors, and charitable community members for making last year’s program a success. We couldn’t have made this possible without your collective help.

A vital component in preparation for the show is the opportunity to meet and rehearse the routines and talent numbers in a space with mirrors. In preparation for our show on September 24th, we would like to request the use of the dance room located at the Delano Parks and Recreation Center on 11th street. If approved, these practices would be held on Saturday mornings between 9 am and 12 pm, from July 9th-September 17th. We would appreciate your help and consideration in helping us “Harvest the values we sew.” We look forward to seeing you at the next Harvest Holidays King and Queen show.

Sincerely,
Harvest Holiday Association Committee Member

← All documents from this meeting