Lancaster City Council
January 24, 2023

Specifically, SGMA requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or prepare an alternative to a GSP. According to the California Department of Water Resources, the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin is categorized as a “very low” priority basin. 10 Therefore, there is no
groundwater sustainability plan established.

REGIONAL LEVEL
Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region,
North And South Basins
The City of Lancaster is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Lahontan RWQCB. As one of nine regional boards in the State, the Lahontan RWQCB develops and enforces water quality objectives and implementation plans that safeguard the quality of water resources in its region. Its duties include developing “basin plans” for its hydrologic area, issuing waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement action against violators, and monitoring water quality. In March 1995, a Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, North and South Basins (Basin Plan), adopted by the Lahontan RWQCB, took effect. The Basin Plan incorporates language from and replaces three earlier plans: the 10 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/, accessed November 9, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-14 Hydrology and Water Quality Lahontan RWQCB’s 1975 North and South Lahontan Basin Plans, as amended through 1991, and the SWRCB’s 1980 Lake Tahoe Basin Water Quality Plan, as amended through 1989. The earlier plans were combined into a single plan which was adopted by the Lahontan RWQCB in November 1994 and took effect upon approval by the California Office of Administrative Law in March 1995. The current Basin Plan incorporates amendments effective August 1995 through October 29, 2019.

Antelope Valley Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan The Antelope Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Antelope Valley IRWMP) is a multicounty collaboration effort developed to address regional concerns about water supply reliability, water quality, flood protection, environmental resources and land use management in the Antelope Valley. It should be noted that the current Antelope Valley IRWMP (2019) includes new information as required by the DWR’s 2016 Integrated Regional Water Management Proposition 1 Guidelines as well as updates to information from the previous Antelope Valley IRWMP prepared in 2013.

LOCAL LEVEL
City of Lancaster Master Plan of Drainage
In 1992, the City adopted the City of Lancaster Master Plan of Drainage (Master Plan of Drainage). The current version of the Master Plan of Drainage (dated May 2019 and revised December 3, 2020) contains updated facilities and drainage fee schedules. The City funds all Master Plan of Drainage facilities through drainage impact fees and drainage maintenance fees. As undeveloped lands are covered or paved over, their natural absorption capabilities are reduced and the amount of runoff is increased. Even small amounts of rain in the Lancaster area can cause flooding problems because of the general lack of adequate storm drain facilities.

For large projects (equal to or greater than 100 lots), the Master Plan of Drainage calls for the construction of local retention or detention basins until the regional system can be built. New local flood control facilities are presently built on an individual, project by project basis. These projects are designed for the Capital Flood Protection. The County of Los Angeles defines the ‘Capital Flood’ as the runoff produced by a 50-year frequency design storm falling on a saturated watershed (soil moisture at field capacity). A 50-year frequency design storm has a one in 50 probability of being equaled or exceeded in any year. Capital Flood Protection also requires adding the effects of fires and erosion under certain conditions. New developments that fall under the Capital Flood Protection criteria are required to design their plan based on a 50-year storm frequency. As the regional system is built, these basins may be eliminated or converted to detention basins for peak flows only. The lowest finish floor elevation of all habitable structures shall be a minimum of one foot above maximum water level resulting from a ‘Capital Flood.’
For smaller projects (less than 100 residential units per lots, regardless of size), streets are considered the primary stormwater conveyance facility. Local streets currently direct much of the storm water flows to the few existing improved storm drain structures. Existing City standards are to maintain a 50-year storm within the existing rights-of-way. The Master Plan of Drainage calls for containment of 25-year and/or 10-year storm flows within the curbs of the streets. In portions of the City with no Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-15 Hydrology and Water Quality Master Plan of Drainage facilities, streets act as the primary local flood control program and new houses are usually built two to three feet above street grade.

City of Lancaster Storm Water Management Program
The CWA mandates that cities in major metropolitan areas, such as Los Angeles County, obtain permits to “effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewers” and “require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable....” The EPA has delegated this authority to the State of California, which has authorized the SWRCB and its local regulatory agencies, the RWQCBs, to control nonpoint source discharges to California’s waterways.

The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer (drain) systems (MS4s). Most of these permits are issued to a group of copermittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. These regional MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Storm Water Management Plan/Program with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MEP is the performance standard specified in CWA Section 402(p). The management programs specify what BMPs will be used to address certain program areas. The program areas include public education and outreach; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction and post-construction; and good housekeeping for municipal operations.

The City of Lancaster has been designated a regulated Small Municipal Separate Storm System by the EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 122.322(a)(1). To comply with the Phase II regulations of the NPDES, the City filed an NOI to comply with the SWRCB Small MS4 General Permit (MS4 Permit) in lieu of obtaining an individual permit. In compliance with Federal regulations, the City submitted an NOI, a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP), and applicable fee on March 7, 2003. On April 20, 2003, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004 was adopted. The objective of the City’s SWMP is to establish ordinances, policies, procedures, and practices to manage and control the quality of stormwater runoff in Lancaster.

City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
The General Plan includes the Plan for the Natural Environment, Plan for Public Health and Safety, Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities, all of which identifies objectives and policies to address the City’s hydrology and water quality. The following policies are relevant to the proposed project:

Plan for the Natural Environment
Objective 3.1: Protect, maintain, and replenish groundwater supplies to meet present and future urban and rural needs.

Policy 3.1.1: Ensure that development does not adversely affect the groundwater basin.

Policy 3.1.2: Promote efforts to exert greater City control over the existing water supply and to explore potential new sources.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-16 Hydrology and Water Quality Policy 3.1.3: Encourage the use of recycled tertiary treated wastewater when possible.

Objective 3.2: Reduce the per capita rate of water consumption in the City of Lancaster through increased conservation, technology, retrofits and system efficiency to levels consistent with other desert communities.

Policy 3.2.1: Promote the use of water conservation measures in the landscape plans of new developments.

Policy 3.2.2: Consider the potential impact of new development projects on the existing water supply.

Policy 3.2.3: Encourage incorporation of water-saving design measures into existing developments.

Policy 3.2.4: Implement the public information/education component of the City's Water Conservation Program in order to develop and maintain public sensitivity to water conservation issues and to encourage voluntary compliance with programs designed to reduce water consumption.

Policy 3.2.5: Promote the use of water conservation measures in the design of new developments.

Policy 3.2.6: Continue to provide water conservation leadership by example through implementing the Water Management Component of the City's Water Conservation Program at City facilities.

Objective 3.5.1: Minimize erosion problems resulting from development activities.

Policy 3.5.1 Minimize erosion problems resulting from development activities.

Plan for Public Health and Safety
Objective 4.2: Minimize the potential for loss of life, physical injury, property damage, and social disruption resulting from a FEMA 100-year flood.

Policy 4.2.1 Manage flood hazards to ensure an acceptable level of risk and to facilitate rapid physical and economic recovery following a flood through the identification and recognition of potentially hazardous conditions and implementation of effective standards for location and construction of development.

Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities
Objective 15.1: Achieve and maintain the following levels of service: Flood Control – Provision of protection of structures for human occupancy from the FEMA 100‐year flood.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-17 Hydrology and Water Quality Policy 15.1.1 Promote continued coordination between the City of Lancaster and local service providers.

Policy 15.1.3 Ensure that adequate flood control facilities are provided, which maintain the integrity of significant riparian and other environmental habitats in accordance with Biological Resources policies.

Policy 15.1.4 Ensure that mitigation is provided for all development in recognized flood prone areas. Any mitigation of flood hazard in one area shall not exacerbate flooding problems in other areas.

Lancaster Municipal Code
Municipal Code Section 8.50.200, Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention, establishes stormwater management practices or technical requirements for existing and/or new landscape that minimize runoff and increase rainwater retention and infiltration.

Section 15.64.060, Drainage/Flood Control Improvements Fee, of the Municipal Code, requires that all new development in the City pay a drainage/flood control improvements fee to mitigate the stormwater runoff impacts caused by new development.

Municipal Code Chapter 16.24, Improvements, Dedications, and Reservations, requires all improvements that are required by the conditions of a tentative map, by this chapter, or by any other City statute, ordinance or policy, to conform with the requirements within Chapter 16.24, including those outlines in Article II, Drainage Facilities, of this chapter. Specifically, Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study, requires a hydrology study to be submitted and approved prior to the filing of the final map. The hydrology study would verify, among other things, that the proposed streets and existing downstream streets are designed to carry a 50-year storm, top of curb to top of curb, and 100-year storm within the right-ofway. Additionally, the anticipated flow through the subdivisions and/or potential drainage problems would be mitigated through the installation of drainage structures such as culverts, storm drains, or other improvements in accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.24.150, Mitigation of Storm and Nuisance Water Runoff.

5.6.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality (refer to Impact Statements HWQ-1); b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-18 Hydrology and Water Quality c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (refer to Impact Statement HWQ2); ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site (refer to Impact Statement HWQ-2); iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (refer to Impact Statement HWQ-2); or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows (refer to Impact Statement HWQ-2); d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); and/or e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or a “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

5.6.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

WATER QUALITY
HWQ-1 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED

PROJECT COULD VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE

DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY
DEGRADE WATER QUALITY.

Impact Analysis: The proposed VMT Mitigation Program would fund future transportation improvement projects that contribute towards reducing Citywide VMT. Future transportation improvements could contribute to water quality degradation in the City. Although minimal, transportation improvement projects, such as widened shoulders, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and multipurpose paths, would likely increase impervious areas in the City, thus increasing urban runoff.

There is also the possibility for water quality degradation during construction. Substances such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents may be transported to nearby drainages, watersheds, and groundwater in stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water. The significance of these water quality impacts Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-19 Hydrology and Water Quality would vary depending upon the level of construction activity, weather conditions, soil conditions, increased sedimentation of drainage systems within the area, compliance with NPDES permit requirements, and proper installation of BMPs.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Future VMT-reducing transportation infrastructure improvements are unlikely to disturb more than one acre of land. In this case, the improvements would be required to comply with the City’s SWMP, which includes minimum control measures that minimize stormwater runoff during construction and operation. In the event future improvements occur as part of larger development projects and disturb more than one acre of land, a General Construction Permit under the NPDES program would be required. Such transportation improvement projects would be subject to the stormwater discharge requirements of a General Construction Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES Permit No.

CAS000002). Compliance with the General Construction Permit would require submittal of an NOI, SWPPP, Risk Assessment, and other documents prior to the commencement of soil disturbing activities. The SWPPP would identify point and nonpoint sources of pollutant discharge associated with the project that could adversely affect water quality in the City. The SWPPP would also list proposed BMPs to be implemented by the project in order to control sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-storm water runoff. Further, the SWPPP is required to include a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. Examples of construction BMPs include soil and wind erosion controls, sediment controls, tracking controls, non-stormwater management controls; and waste management controls. Selection and implementation of these BMPs would occur on a case-bycase basis, and would be based on the pollutants of concern for the specific project site and the BMP’s ability to effectively treat those pollutants, in consideration of site conditions and constraints dependent on project size and stormwater treatment needs. Additionally, the future development project would similarly be required to comply with the City’s SWMP and associated minimum control measures that minimize stormwater runoff during construction and operation. Compliance with existing regulations would minimize construction-related water quality impacts associated with future transportation infrastructure improvements funded by the proposed program.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
As discussed above, future transportation improvements associated with the proposed project would likely increase impervious areas and could result in increased runoff. However, it is noted that many of the potential VMT-reducing improvements, such as raised crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus bulb-outs, and pedestrian traffic signals, would add minimal new impervious surfaces and would not substantially increase runoff in a manner that would adversely impact water quality. Regardless, to reduce long-term operational impacts in accordance with the requirements of the City and the regional MS4 permit, future transportation improvement projects would be required to comply with the NPDES permit and any BMP conditions and requirements established by the City. As stated, future transportation improvements would be City-initiated projects or implemented as part of future development projects and would require environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report). Thus, Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-20 Hydrology and Water Quality project- and site-specific operational impacts would be analyzed and, if applicable, future developers would be required to prepare a hydrology study pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study. Further, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8.50.200, Stormwater Management And Rainwater Retention, stormwater management practices or technical requirements for existing and/or new landscaping would be required for new developments to minimize runoff and increase rainwater retention and infiltration. Additionally, Section 15.64.060, Drainage/Flood Control Improvements Fee, of the Municipal Code, requires all new development in the City to pay a drainage/flood control improvement fee to mitigate stormwater runoff impacts caused by new development.

Additionally, applicable future transportation improvement projects would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with the NPDES permit requirements.

Project-specific WQMPs are intended to reduce pollutants and post-development runoff and can include low impact development (LID) features, site design BMPs, and structural/nonstructural treatment BMPs to address post-construction stormwater runoff management. LID features may include techniques to infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, or retain runoff close to the source of runoff, and are consistent with the prescribed hierarchy of treatment provided in the regional MS4 permit.

Selection of LID and additional treatment control BMPs would be based on the pollutants of concern for the specific project site and the BMP’s ability to effectively treat those pollutants, in consideration of site conditions and constraints. Additionally, future applicable transportation improvement projects would be required to comply with the City’s SWMP, which includes additional minimum control measures that reduce stormwater runoff during construction and operation.

Conclusion
Overall, future transportation improvement projects associated with the proposed program would be required to comply with a number of local, State, and Federal regulations that ensure pollutant runoff generated by future projects does not exceed water quality standards and the City continues to comply with MS4 permit requirements related to water quality. Future improvements would be required to undergo separate environmental review to evaluate project- and site-specific impacts with regards to water quality. Applicable projects would also be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs and WQMPs to minimize off-site discharge of potential pollutant runoff during the construction and postconstruction phases of the project. As a result, the project would not result in violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-21 Hydrology and Water Quality

DRAINAGE PATTERNS
HWQ-2 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED

PROJECT COULD SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE

PATTERNS OF THE SITE OR AREA, OR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE

THE RATE OR AMOUNT OF SURFACE RUNOFF, IN A MANNER THAT

WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION, SILTATION, OR
FLOODING ON- OR OFF-SITE.

Impact Analysis: Future transportation improvement projects associated with the proposed program could alter existing drainage patterns and increase runoff volumes in the area. For example, implementing widened sidewalks, multipurpose paths, bicycle lanes, and widened shoulders along existing rights-of-way or along future development project frontages would increase impervious surfaces if constructed on undeveloped or pervious areas, and thus, increase runoff volumes.

However, other transportation improvements, such as raised crosswalks, bus bulb-outs, pedestrian refuge islands, roundabouts, and new pedestrian crosswalk traffic signals, would not substantively increase impervious area and would have minimal impacts with regards to altering existing drainage patterns or runoff volumes.

Regardless, all future transportation improvement projects would be required to undergo separate environmental review to evaluate project- and site-specific impacts in this regard. In addition, all improvements would be required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local stormwater regulations and requirements as detailed above. Depending on the level of development, hydrology and drainage studies may also be required per Municipal Code Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study, which would require an analysis of pre- and post-development hydrology conditions. Any changes in drainage flow paths, impervious areas, and runoff volumes associated with the transportation improvement projects would be identified in these studies and mitigation would be recommended to ensure the improvement (or larger development project) do not substantially alter a site’s existing drainage pattern in a manner that could result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. These studies may identify site-specific LID features, BMPs, and other on-site retention techniques to be implemented to reduce peak flow rates and/or runoff volumes.

Erosion/Siltation
In addition to complying with existing City regulations, applicable future transportation improvements would be required to prepare a SWPPP under the NPDES program. Implementation of a projectspecific SWPPP and associated BMPs would minimize construction-related water quality impacts (including erosion and siltation) to less than significant levels. Additionally, future improvements may also be required to implement a project-specific WQMP and associated BMPs to reduce operational impacts in this regard.

Flooding
As detailed above, the City and surrounding area’s population resides in low lying areas adjacent to significant mountain ranges with uncontrolled runoff (i.e., the San Gabriel and Sierra Pelona Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-22 Hydrology and Water Quality Mountains to the south). As such, residents in these areas are subject to periodic flooding during and immediately after periods of heavy rain fall. In addition, small areas in the northern part, eastern terminal, and western terminal of the City are identified as areas with one percent annual chance of flood hazard. Future transportation improvement projects could be located in areas within the City that are prone to flooding. However, all transportation improvement projects would be required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local stormwater regulations and requirements as detailed above. These regulations and requirements may include preparation of hydrology and/or drainage studies per Municipal Code Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study, implementation of stormwater management practices for proposed landscaping per Municipal Code Section 8.50.200, Stormwater Management And Rainwater Retention, payment of drainage/flood control improvement fees per Municipal Code Section 15.64.060, Drainage/Flood Control Improvements Fee, and preparation of a SWPPP and/or WQMP and associated BMPs per NPDES permit requirements. Further, all future transportation improvement projects would be required to undergo project-level environmental review under CEQA.

Additionally, while existing City standards are to maintain a 50-year storm within existing rights-ofway, the Master Plan of Drainage calls for the containment of 25-year and/or 10-year storm flows within the curbs of the streets. Thus, all applicable future transportation improvements in existing rights-of-way or along new development project frontages (e.g., sidewalks) would be required to meet these standards to ensure flooding from 25-year and/or 10-year storm events can be adequately contained.

Stormwater Drainage System
As stated above, existing Federal, State, and local regulations would ensure future transportation improvements prepare and implement the appropriate studies and BMPs to reduce project-related runoff and pollutants during construction and operations. Given the nature of the transportation improvements, the improvements are not anticipated to increase runoff volumes in a manner that would exceed existing and planned stormwater drainage system capacities. In addition to requiring separate environmental review under CEQA, future developers implementing transportation improvements as part of larger development projects would also be require to pay drainage/flood control improvement fees per Municipal Code Section 15.64.060, Drainage/Flood Control Improvements Fee, to mitigate stormwater runoff impacts caused by new development. Further, Municipal Code Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study, requires a hydrology study to be submitted and approved prior to the filing of the final map, and the anticipated flow through the subdivisions and/or potential drainage problems would be mitigated through the installation of drainage structures such as culverts, storm drains, or other improvements in accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.24.150, Mitigation of Storm and Nuisance Water Runoff.

Overall, upon compliance with existing regulations, future transportation improvement projects would not alter existing drainage patterns or substantially increase runoff volumes or rates in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, cause flooding on- or off-site, or exceed stormwater drainage system capacities. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-23 Hydrology and Water Quality Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative analysis below considers the proposed project’s impacts in conjunction with future buildout of the General Plan; refer to Table 4-1, General Plan 2030 – GPCAC Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative Buildout.

WATER QUALITY
 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS, COMBINED WITH OTHER RELATED

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS, COULD VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY.

Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan buildout could contribute to water quality degradation in the City. However, all cumulative projects would be required to mitigate site-specific hydrologic impacts on a project-by-project basis pursuant to all applicable Federal, State, and local stormwater regulations and requirements, including NPDES permit requirements (i.e., preparation of project-specific SWPPPs, WQMPs, and associated BMP/LID features). Similarly, cumulative projects would also be required to undergo project-level environmental review under CEQA on a case-by-case basis.

The proposed program does not propose site-specific development and would not significantly impact drainage courses and hydrologic flows throughout the City. As discussed in Impact Statement HWQ1, in compliance with NPDES permit requirements, applicable transportation improvement projects would be required to implement project-specific SWPPPs and WQMPs to minimize off-site discharge of anticipated and potential pollutant runoff during the construction and post-construction phase. As a result, future transportation improvement projects would not result in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

Implementation of the proposed program would not result in a substantial cumulative contribution to water quality impacts and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.6-24 Hydrology and Water Quality

DRAINAGE PATTERNS
 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS, COMBINED WITH OTHER RELATED

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS, COULD SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING

DRAINAGE PATTERNS OF THE SITE OR AREA, OR SUBSTANTIALLY

INCREASE THE RATE OR AMOUNT OF SURFACE RUNOFF, IN A MANNER

THAT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION, SILTATION, OR FLOODING ON- OR OFF-SITE.

Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan could alter local drainage patterns and result in substantial erosion/siltation and/or flooding. However, as stated above, cumulative projects would be required to evaluate site-specific hydrologic impacts on a projectby-project basis pursuant to all applicable Federal, State, and local stormwater regulations and requirements (e.g., NPDES and FEMA requirements). These regulations would require projectspecific BMPs, LID features, and/or on-site retention techniques, which would reduce peak flow rate or runoff volumes. Preparation of a WQMP may also be required and would include nonstructural/source control and structural/treatment BMPs. Future cumulative projects would also be required to undergo project-level environmental review under CEQA on a case-by-case basis.

As discussed in Impact Statement HWQ-2, impacts pertaining to changes in drainage patterns would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to ensure a project does not substantially alter a site’s drainage pattern, resulting in substantial erosion/siltation, flooding, or significant risk of loss. As detailed above, LID features, BMPs, and on-site retention techniques would be identified in projectlevel SWPPPs and WQMPs for construction and operation phases, respectively, all of which would reduce peak flow rates and runoff volumes. As such, implementation of the proposed program would not result in a substantial cumulative contribution to erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes the potential for the proposed project to expose the public to hazards, hazardous materials, or risk of upset that may be related to existing conditions or new hazards created as a result of the project.

For the purpose of this analysis, the term “hazardous material” refers to both hazardous substances and hazardous waste. A material is defined as “hazardous” if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a Federal, State, or local regulatory agency, or if it possesses characteristics defined as “hazardous” by such an agency. A “hazardous waste” is a solid waste that exhibits toxic or hazardous characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity).

5.7.1 EXISTING SETTING

ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS
Structures within Lancaster constructed between the 1940s and the 1960s may be associated with hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos-containing material [ACM] and/or lead-based paint [LBP]). Additionally, universal waste (certain categories of hazardous waste such as batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps that are commonly generated by a wide variety of establishments) may also be present within Lancaster.

Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material, which was used in many commercial products since prior to the 1940s and up until the early 1970s. If inhaled, asbestos fibers can result in serious health problems. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) asbestos construction standard (Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1259) defines ACM as material containing more than one percent asbestos. Asbestos Containing Construction Material (ACCM) is defined as any manufactured construction material which contains more than one tenth of one percent asbestos by weight (a lower threshold than the one percent for ACM). Suspect materials that may contain ACMs include, but may not be limited to, drywall systems, floor tiles, ceiling tiles, and roofing systems.

LEAD-BASED PAINTS
Lead has long been used as a component of paint, primarily as a pigment and for its ability to inhibit and resist corrosion. Over time, as concern over the health effects associated with lead began to grow, health and environmental regulations were enacted to restrict the use of lead in certain products and activities in the U.S. In the last 25 years, lead-based paint, leaded gasoline, leaded can solder, and leadcontaining plumbing materials were among the products that were gradually restricted or phased out of use.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

REGULATORY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY
Many existing industrial, institutional, and commercial/retail uses currently handle, store, and/or transport hazardous materials/waste within the City. The following describes existing uses that have reported such activities to the SWRCB and/or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

It is acknowledged that other uses, not listed below, may also handle, store, and/or transport hazardous materials/waste, as this list is not meant to be all inclusive.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
The SWRCB’s GeoTracker is a data warehouse that tracks regulatory data regarding underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies. GeoTracker was developed pursuant to a mandate by the California State Legislature (Assembly Bill 592, Senate Bill 1189) to investigate the feasibility of establishing a Statewide Geographic Information System (GIS) database for leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) sites. The GeoTracker database contains well, tank, and pipeline data for California.

A search of the GeoTracker database conducted by Michael Baker International revealed a total of 205 regulated sites within the City, as of October 22, 2021. Of these sites, approximately 135 were reported as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites with one exception, the Mission Linen Supply, located at 44926 North Yucca Avenue, which is a former dry cleaning facility where groundwater has been impacted primarily by tetrachloroethylene). Of the 135 sites with reported LUSTs, six have not been granted case closure, indicating the releases have not been remediated or mitigated to the satisfaction of the overseeing regulatory agency and no longer pose a threat to human health or the environment. Additionally, approximately 70 of the 205 regulated sites are permitted UST sites.

SITES HANDLING, STORING, AND TRANSPORTING

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The DTSC’s EnviroStor database is an online search and GIS tool for identifying sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. It also identifies facilities that are authorized to treat, store, dispose of, or transfer hazardous waste. The EnviroStor database includes lists of the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priority List); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites.

EnviroStor provides site name, site type, status, address, any restricted use (recorded deed restrictions), past use(s) that caused contamination, potential contaminants of concern, potential environmental media affected, site history, planned and completed activities.

A search of EnviroStor conducted by Michael Baker International revealed a total of 26 listed sites of the aforementioned types within the City as of October 22, 2021. Of the 26 sites reported, three sites are active, three sites are inactive and may need evaluation, and 18 sites are closed with no action required. Additionally, one of the 26 sites is referred to another agency for oversight, and one other site is undergoing case closure.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

PAST RELEASES/CORTESE LIST
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to CCR Tile 14 Section 18051 to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. Specifically, Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC and SWRCB to compile and update a regulatory sites listing per the Code Section’s criteria. Additionally, the State Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and are subject to water analysis pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 116395.

These lists are collectively known as the “Cortese List”.1 According to the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database, approximately 136 properties within the City are listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
2 Specifically, these sites have reported past
releases of hazardous materials to the soil, surface water, soil gas, and/or groundwater, all of which were reported as incidents involving USTs leakage. Further, one site within the City has been listed by SWRCB as a site with “active” Cease and Desist Order and Cleanup and Abatement Order. 3 TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE
The major transportation arterials within the City are State Route 14 (SR-14; Antelope Valley Freeway) and State Route 138 (SR-138). According to the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 6, Article 1, Explosive Routes and Stopping Places, SR-14 and SR-138 are designated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for explosive transport. A variety of hazardous materials are also handled and transported by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), which is controlled by State and Federal regulations. According to the City’s Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous materials are shipped by rail through the City each year. The railroad line is oriented in a north/south direction, parallel to Sierra Highway, and roughly bisects the City. Transportation accidents involving hazardous materials could occur on any of the routes, potentially resulting in explosions, physical contact by emergency response personnel, environmental degradation and exposure to the public via airborne exposure.

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
There are four airport facilities located in and around the City of Lancaster, including the Edwards Air Force Base (located at 305 East Popson Avenue in the community of Edwards), the General William J. Fox Airfield (located at 4725 William J Barnes Avenue in the City of Lancaster), the U.S. 1 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed January 27, 2022. 2 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case_number=&business_name=&main_street_name=& city=&zip=&county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STATUS=&BRANCH=&MASTER_BASE=&Search=Search , accessed January 27, 2022. 3 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board (MS Excel, 1,453 KB), https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanupCorteseList-CDOCAOList.xlsx, accessed January 27, 2022.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Air Force Plant 42 (located at 2501 East Avenue P in the City of Palmdale), and the Palmdale Regional Airport (located at 41000 20th Street East in the City of Palmdale). Both Edwards Air Force Base and U.S. Air Force Plant 42 are military facilities; the U.S. Air Force Plant 42 shares the same site and runways with the Palmdale Regional Airport. It is acknowledged the Palmdale Regional Airport is not currently operational.

SCHOOL SITES
The City is served by four school districts: Lancaster School District, Westside Union School District, Eastside Union School District, and Antelope Valley Union High School District. These districts provide educational services for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Education facilities and resources within Lancaster also include joint-use programs, and private and public education.

5.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL LEVEL
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a “hazardous” waste is defined as one “which because of its quantity, concentrations, or physiochemical or infectious properties, may either increase mortality or produce irreversible or incapacitating illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed” (U.S. Public Health and Welfare Code Section 6903). Special handling and management are required for materials and wastes that exhibit hazardous properties.

Treatment, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials are highly regulated at both the Federal and State levels. The Federal and State laws provide the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Businesses, institutions, and other entities that generate hazardous waste are required to identify and track their hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed of. Compliance with Federal and State hazardous materials laws and regulations minimizes the potential risks to the public presented by these potential hazards.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the principal Federal law that regulates generation, management, and transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. The primary responsibility for implementing RCRA is assigned to the EPA’s DTSC, although individual states are encouraged to seek authorization to implement some or all RCRA provisions.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) is a law developed to protect the water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials disposal practices. This law is also referred to as the Superfund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List, which are called Superfund sites.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA) empowered the Secretary of Transportation to designate as hazardous material any “particular quantity or form” of a material that “may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property.” In 1990, Congress enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) to clarify the maze of conflicting State, local, and Federal regulations. Like the HMTA, the HMTUSA requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations for the safe transport of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The HMTUSA statute includes provisions to encourage uniformity among different State and local highway routing regulations, to develop criteria for the issuance of Federal permits to motor carriers of hazardous materials, and to regulate the transport of radioactive materials.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III of this regulation may be cited as the “Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986” (EPCRA). The EPCRA required the establishment of State commissions, planning districts, and local committees to facilitate the preparation and implementation of emergency plan. Under the requirements, local emergency planning committees are responsible for developing a plan for preparing for and responding to a chemical emergency, including:
• An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present;
• The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a communitywide evacuation plan); • A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred; • The names of response coordinators at local facilities; and • A plan for conducting drills to test the plan.

The emergency plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community. The local emergency planning committee is required to review, test, and update the plan each year. The goal of the plan is to improve public- and private-sector readiness and to mitigate local impacts resulting from natural or man-made emergencies.

Another purpose of the EPCRA is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report to State and local agencies the location and quantities of chemicals stored on-site. Under Section 313 of EPCRA, manufacturers are required to report chemical releases for more than 600 designated chemicals. In addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to report off-site transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, pollution prevention measures, and chemical recycling activities. The Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials EPA maintains the Toxic Release Inventory database that documents the information that regulated facilities are required to report annually.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) are stationary source standards for hazardous air pollutants established by the EPA. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Sources subject to NESHAPs are required to perform an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance. To demonstrate continuous compliance, sources are generally required to monitor control device operating parameters which are established during the initial performance test. Sources may also be required to install and operate continuous emission monitors to demonstrate compliance.

STATE LEVEL
The EPA and the DTSC have developed and continue to update lists of hazardous wastes subject to regulation. In addition to the EPA and DTSC, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB) is the enforcing agency for the protection and restoration of water resources, including remediation of unauthorized releases of hazardous substances in soil and groundwater.

Other State agencies involved in hazardous materials management include the Office of Emergency Services (OES), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CHP, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Hazardous Materials Release Notification
Many State statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release, including, but not limited to, the following:
• California Health and Safety Codes Sections 25270.8, and 25507; • Vehicle Code Section 23112.5;
• Public Utilities Code Section 7673, (PUC General Orders #22-B, 161); • Government Code Sections 51018, 8670.25.5 (a);
• Water Codes Sections 13271, 13272; and
• California Labor Code Section 6409.1 (b)10.

Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, all releases that result in injuries or harmful exposure to workers must be immediately reported to the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration pursuant to the California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs
The Unified Program administered by the State of California consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs, which include: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (business plans), the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, the UST Program, and the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank (APST) Program. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs).

Hazardous Materials Business Plans
Both the Federal government (Code of Federal Regulations) and the State of California (California Health and Safety Code) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount - or “reporting quantity” - of hazardous or extremely hazardous materials to submit a hazardous materials business plan (business plan) to their CUPA. Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code establishes minimum Statewide standards for a business plan. The Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances Section 12.64.030 requires all hazardous materials handlers operating under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County to electronically submit an updated Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and/or a certification statement including hazardous materials inventory, site map, contingency plan and the employee training plan information via the California Environmental Reporting System annually.

An HMBP must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses must update their HMBP at least every three years and the chemical portion every year. Also, HMBPs must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures for immediate notification of all appropriate agencies and personnel, identification of local emergency medical assistance appropriate for potential accident scenarios, contact information for all company emergency coordinators, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials/Wastes
Transportation of hazardous materials/wastes is regulated by CCR Title 26. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is the primary regulatory authority for the interstate transport of hazardous materials. The DOT establishes regulations for safe handling procedures (i.e., packaging, marking, labeling, and routing) and enforces Federal and State regulations and respond to hazardous materials transportation emergencies along with the California Highway Patrol. Emergency responses are coordinated as necessary between Federal, State, and local governmental authorities and private persons through a State-mandated Emergency Management Plan.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Worker and Workplace Hazardous Materials Safety
Occupational safety standards exist to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. Cal/OSHA is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and assuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. Among other requirements, Cal/OSHA requires many businesses to prepare Injury and Illness Prevention Plans and Chemical Hygiene Plans. The Hazard Communication Standard requires that workers be informed of the hazards associated with the materials they handle.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
The responsibility for implementation of RCRA was given to DTSC in August 1992. The DTSC is also responsible for implementing and enforcing California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Although similar to RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated regulations define hazardous waste more broadly and regulate a larger number of chemicals. Hazardous wastes regulated by California but not by EPA are called “non-RCRA hazardous wastes.”
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Lahontan RWQCB is the enforcing agency for the protection and restoration of water resources, including remediation of unauthorized releases of hazardous substances in soil and groundwater. The Underground Storage Tank Program protects public health and safety and the environment from releases of petroleum and other hazardous substances from UST systems. Such sites include active and inactive gasoline stations, agricultural sites, brownfield redevelopment sites, airports, bulk petrochemical storage terminals, pipeline facilities, and various chemical and industrial facilities. The Site Cleanup Program (SCP) focuses on releases of pollutants to soils and groundwater, but in some cases also to surface waters and sediments. SCP sites include those with pollution from recent or historical surface spills and subsurface releases (e.g., pipelines, sumps), along with other unauthorized discharges that pollute or threaten to pollute surface waters or groundwater.

REGIONAL LEVEL
County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Materials Control Program
In May 1982, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established the Hazardous Materials Control Program within the Department of Health Services. Originally, the Program focused on the inspection of businesses that generate hazardous waste, but has since expanded to include hazardous materials inspections, criminal investigations, site mitigation oversight, and emergency response operations. On July 1, 1991, the Program was transferred to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and its name changed to Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The HHMD’s mission is to protect the public health and the environment throughout Los Angeles County from accidental releases and improper handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes through coordinated efforts of inspections, emergency response, enforcement, and site mitigation oversight. The Hazardous Materials Specialists are environmental health professionals dedicated to preventing pollution by serving both the public and business communities in Los Angeles County.

Household Hazardous and E-Waste Program
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District, in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS), established the Household Hazardous and E-Waste (electronic waste) Roundup Program. The Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program provides Los Angeles County residents a legal and cost-free way to dispose of unwanted household chemicals that cannot be disposed of in the regular trash.

LOCAL LEVEL
City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
Plan for Public Health and Safety
The Plan for Public Health and Safety of the General Plan discusses natural and manmade conditions in the City which may pose certain levels of health and safety hazards to life and property within Lancaster, along with a comprehensive program to mitigate those hazards to acceptable levels. To a great extent, the creation, transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated by Federal, State, and County agencies, precluding action by the City. There are, however, well defined areas within which the City has the responsibility to enforce hazardous material regulations. The following policies pertaining to hazardous materials apply to the proposed project:

Objective 4.5 Protect life and property from the potential detrimental effects (short and long term) of the creation, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes within the City of Lancaster.

Policy 4.5.1: Ensure that activities within the City of Lancaster transport, use, store, and dispose of hazardous materials in a responsible manner which protects the public health and safety.

City of Lancaster General Plan Safety Element Update
The Safety Element is one of the State-mandated elements of the General Plan and is currently being updated to comply with recent State legislation and guidelines. It presents the City’s overall goals, policies, and action programs to facilitate resiliency and prosperity. Through incorporating data and maps, addressing vulnerability to climate change, and incorporating policies and programs from the City’s update to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, technical amendments to the Safety Element are intended to achieve compliance with State, regional and local policies and guidelines. The Safety Element organizes safety goals and policies into the following sections: Geology and Seismicity, Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Flooding, Noise, Air Installation Land Use Compatibility, Hazardous Materials, Crime Prevention and Protection Services, Fire Prevention and Suppression Services, Disaster Preparedness and Evacuation, Emergency Medical Facilities, and Climate Adaptation. The Safety Element Update was approved by City Council in June 2022.

Lancaster Municipal Code
Municipal Code Chapter 17.40, Article VII, Hazardous Waste Facilities, establishes a uniform conditional use permit application and review process for the location, design and maintenance of hazardous waste facilities to ensure protection of the health, safety, and welfare of City residents. All land use decisions made with regard to an application for a hazardous waste facility project is required to be consistent with the approved Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Review at the local level allows the community greater protection from hazardous waste facility projects being sited and located under County guidelines, which may not adequately address unique or specific circumstances within Lancaster. The permit process requires a detailed application, proper environmental assessment, and public hearings before both the Lancaster Planning Commission and City Council, which ensures that site development occurs in an orderly, safe, and environmentally sound manner.

Section 10.04.240, Vehicles Transporting Hazardous Materials-Parking Restrictions, of the Municipal Code addresses vehicles transporting hazardous materials. This section aims to provide rules that prevent relief of a driver from any obligation imposed by Federal, State, or local laws relating to the transportation of hazardous materials or explosives, motor carrier safety regulations, or the placement of warning signs or devices when a motor vehicle is stopped on a public street or highway. Specifically, the section requires a vehicle transporting hazardous materials to be attended at all times by its driver or a qualified representative. It also prohibits the vehicle from being parked on any highway, highway shoulder, street, alley, public way or public place, or within five feet of a residential zone, 1,000 feet of any school, or 300 feet of any bridge or tunnel, except for brief periods when mechanical or equipment failure or disablement or malfunction of the vehicle, or the necessities of operation require the vehicle to be parked and make it impractical to park the vehicle in any other place.

Antelope Valley Environmental Collection Center
The Antelope Valley Environmental Collection Center (AVECC), located at 1200 West City Ranch Road in the City of Palmdale, is a joint partnership between the City of Lancaster, County, and Waste Management. AVECC is available to the residents of Lancaster to dispose of household hazardous waste at no cost. The AVECC is open the first and third Saturday of every month and collects household hazardous waste, including batteries, oil, paint, anti-freeze and pesticides, electronic waste (e.g., televisions, computers, monitors, cell phones, and printers), as well as sharps.

Lancaster residents also have the option to dispose of electronic waste at the Lancaster City Yard (615 West Avenue H) or Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center (600 East Avenue F) at no additional cost.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.7.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The issues presented in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this Section. Accordingly, hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project may be considered significant if they would result in the following:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (refer to Impact Statements HAZ-1 and HAZ-2); b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (refer to Impact Statements HAZ-1 and HAZ-2); c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (refer to Impact Statement HAZ-1);
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (refer to Impact Statement HAZ-3); e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant);
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); and g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.7.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS
HAZ-1 SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH

FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS COULD CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD

TO THE PUBLIC OR ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY

FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE

RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, OR

THROUGH THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Impact Analysis: Construction activities associated with new transportation improvements funded by the proposed program could release hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions or the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Potential construction-related impacts in this regard are discussed below.

Disturbance of Contaminated Properties
As discussed under Section 5.7.1, Existing Setting, numerous properties in the City are or were listed as regulatory sites for containing USTs, handling, storing, and/or transporting hazardous materials/waste, or having reported instances of hazardous releases, all of which could have impacted soil, soil gas, surface water, and/or groundwater.

Future VMT-reducing transportation infrastructure improvements funded by the proposed program could involve grading and excavation activities that could expose construction workers and the public to hazardous substances and hazardous waste in the soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater from the listed sites. However, future improvement projects would predominantly occur within the existing disturbed rights-of-way. Moreover, future improvements would be required to comply with existing applicable Federal, State, and local laws related to the hazardous materials.

Additionally, all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects within the City, would be required to undergo project-level environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, future development projects and associated transportation improvements would be required to comply with existing applicable Federal, State, and local laws related to the hazardous materials. The LACFD, Lahontan RWQCB, as well as the DTSC are responsible for monitoring regulatory sites (e.g., permitted UST and APST facilities) and preventing accidental release of hazards and hazardous materials. For example, owners or operators of APST and UST facilities are required to file a tank facility statement and develop and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. Compliance with these programs would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents involving leaking storage tanks, which could pollute ground and surface waters. If leaking storage tanks occur, the Lahontan RWQCB is responsible for overseeing cleanup actions. Additionally, Cal/OSHA is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and assuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials materials. Compliance with regulations established by these agencies would reduce potential risks related to accidental release of hazardous materials from contaminated properties during construction to less than significant levels.

Hauling and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
Construction activities associated with future transportation improvements funded through implementation of the proposed program could expose construction workers and the public to hazardous substances/materials involving the transport, use, and storage of construction materials, equipment (i.e., oil, diesel fuel, and transmission fluid), and demolition debris. However, these activities would be short-term, and the materials used would not be in such quantities, or stored in such a manner, as to pose a significant safety hazard. All construction activities would be required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials, ensuring that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner. Specifically, regulations established by the DOT, Caltrans, and CHP as well as the HMTUSA statute would ensure that impacts concerning the hauling or disposal of hazardous materials during construction are reduced to less than significant levels.

School Sites
Construction activities associated with future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program could involve construction activities within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and thus, could expose children to hazardous substances/materials involving the transport, use, and storage of construction materials/equipment (i.e., oil, diesel fuel, and transmission fluid) and demolition debris. However, as discussed above, these activities would be short-term, and the materials used would not be in such quantities, or stored in such a manner, as to pose a significant safety hazard. All construction activities would demonstrate compliance with the applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials, ensuring that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner. Specifically, regulations established by the DOT, Caltrans, and CHP as well as the HMTUSA statute would ensure that impacts concerning the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant.

Unknown Contaminated Sites
Future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program could involve grading and excavation activities which could reveal unknown hazards and hazardous materials contamination. As stated, future improvements would predominantly occur within the City’s existing rights-of-way and would likely not occur on previously undisturbed land. Additionally, future improvements would be required to would be comply with existing applicable Federal, State, and local laws related to the hazardous materials.

Nevertheless, given that the exact location of future transportation improvement projects is unknown at this time, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 establishes procedures to minimize potential risks to the public and environment if unknown wastes or suspect materials believed to involve hazardous waste Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials or materials are encountered during construction of future transportation improvements. Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would further minimize potential risks related to accidental release of hazardous materials from unknown contamination discovered during construction.

Overall, compliance with existing applicable Federal, State, and local laws related to the hazardous materials and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce potential construction-related impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-1 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction activities associated with improvements funded by the VMT Mitigation Program that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the construction contractor shall implement the following:
• Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area;
• Notify the City of Lancaster Development Services Director/City Engineer; • Secure the area as directed by the Development Services Director/City Engineer; and
• Notify the implementing agency’s Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator (e.g., Los Angeles County Fire Department, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or Department of Toxic Substances Control, as applicable). The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
HAZ-2 LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE

IMPROVEMENTS COULD CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE

PUBLIC OR ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, OR THROUGH

THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.

Impact Analysis: Currently, there are a variety of existing land uses within the City that use, store, or transport hazardous substances, as well as generate hazardous waste. Future transportation infrastructure improvements funded by the proposed program can include crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, roundabouts, widened sidewalks, restriped roadways, and multi-purpose paths, among Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-15 Hazards and Hazardous Materials others, none of which would have operational impacts in regard to hazards and hazardous materials.

Overall, the proposed project would not involve the development of land uses that have the potential to significantly increase risks pertaining to release of hazardous materials through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
HAZ-3 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD BE LOCATED ON A HAZARDOUS

MATERIAL SITES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65962.5 AND CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT.

Impact Analysis: As discussed, numerous properties within the City are listed as regulatory sites on the “Cortese List” pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Future improvements accommodated through implementation of the proposed program could be located on these sites and could potentially expose construction workers and future users/residents to previously undiscovered hazardous substances present in the soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater on beneath these sites. All future transportation improvements would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project- and site-specific hazardous impacts.

Additionally, as discussed under Impact Statements HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, future transportation improvements would be required to comply with existing Federal, State, and local laws related to the hazardous materials established by the regulating agencies, such as the LACFD, Lahontan RWQCB, DTSC, DOT, Caltrans, CHP, and Cal/OSHA. Additionally, future transportation improvement projects would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which establishes procedures to minimize potential risks to the public and environment if unknown wastes or suspect materials believed to involve hazardous waste or materials are encountered during construction. Compliance with regulations established by these agencies as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ1 would reduce potential risks from hazardous materials sites to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

5.7.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-16 Hazards and Hazardous Materials  SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE

IMPROVEMENTS, COMBINED WITH OTHER RELATED PROJECTS, COULD

RESULT IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE HAZARDS TO THE PUBLIC OR

ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND

ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, OR THROUGH THE ROUTINE
TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan could result in the handling of hazardous materials, potential for accidental conditions, or an increase in the transport of hazardous materials, during site disturbance, demolition, and/or grading activities.

Cumulative projects would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine potential impacts in this regard and any required mitigation. Future construction activities associated with cumulative projects would also be required to comply with existing Federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to the handling/transport of hazardous materials/waste.

As discussed above, with implementation of existing laws and regulations established by the LACFD, Lahontan RWQCB, DTSC, DOT, Caltrans, and Cal/OSHA, among others, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regards to short-term construction activities associated with future transportation improvements. As such, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.  LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE

IMPROVEMENTS, COMBINED WITH OTHER RELATED PROJECTS, COULD

RESULT IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE HAZARDS TO THE PUBLIC OR

ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND

ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, OR THROUGH THE ROUTINE
TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects that result in the operations of facilities that use, handle, or transport a regulated hazardous substance or material would be required to submit an HMBP and/or a certification statement, including hazardous materials inventory, site map, contingency plan, and employee training plan information via the California Environmental Reporting System annually pursuant to Los Angeles County Code of Ordinance, Section 12.64.030. Compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations related to the handling/storage/transport of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents, thereby ensuring that longterm operational impacts associated with cumulative projects are reduced to less than significant levels.

Further, cumulative projects would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-17 Hazards and Hazardous Materials under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine potential impacts in this regard and any required mitigation.

As stated above, given the nature of the future transportation improvements associated with the proposed program, such improvements would not result in long-term operational impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials. Each transportation improvement would also be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA. Thus, the project would not cumulatively contribute towards a significant impact in this regard. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE LOCATED ON A HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL SITES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65962.5 AND

RESULT IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT.

Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan could occur on hazardous material sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As stated, cumulative projects would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine potential impacts in this regard and any required mitigation.

Should future transportation improvements associated with the proposed program be located on a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, construction activities would be required to comply with all existing Federal, State, and local laws related to the hazardous materials established by the implementing agencies such as the LACFD, Lahontan RWQCB, DTSC, DOT, Caltrans, CHP, and Cal/OSHA, among others. Further, each transportation improvement project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which establishes procedures to minimize potential risks to the public and environment if unknown wastes or suspect materials believed to involve hazardous waste or materials are encountered during construction. As such, project compliance with applicable existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that a less than significant cumulative impact occurs.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

5.7.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials have been identified.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.7-18 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This page intentionally left blank.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-1 Transportation

5.8 TRANSPORTATION
This section evaluates potential transportation impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This section describes the existing circulation system within the City, conditions of the local roadway system, transit system, and bicycle network, as well as relevant Federal, State, and local regulations related to transportation.

5.8.1 EXISTING SETTING

EXISTING ROADWAY CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14 [SR-14]) is an important regional north-south arterial within the Antelope Valley. SR-14 provides the primary regional connection between the City of Lancaster, City of Palmdale, and the Santa Clarita Valley, as well as metropolitan Los Angeles County, approximately 45 miles to the south. SR-14 runs north to Kern County and then transitions to Interstate Highway 395 north of the community of Inyokern. Highway 58 branches from SR-14 in the community of Mojave to extend northwest to the City of Bakersfield.

Various other regional arterials in the vicinity of the City provide regional connectivity. Avenue D (State Route 138) extends west from SR-14, and connects to the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5) near the Ventura County border, and extends east from the City of Palmdale, connecting with Interstate 15. Avenue I turns into Lancaster Road at 110th Street West, and then proceeds northwest to intersect with Avenue D at 250th Street West. Sierra Highway links Lancaster with the community of Rosamond to the north and the City of Palmdale to the south. Sierra Highway continues south and connects to San Fernando Road in the northern San Fernando Valley. Consequently, Sierra Highway is commonly used as an alternate route to SR-14 by southbound commuters trying to connect to the San Fernando Valley. Similarly, mountain roads such as Soledad Canyon Road, Bouquet Canyon Road, and San Francisquito Canyon Road are utilized to travel from the Antelope Valley to Santa Clarita Valley.

Roadway Classifications
The existing regional and local roadway network in Lancaster is a hierarchical system of highways and local streets developed to provide regional traffic movement and local access. The roadway network is primarily designed in a north-south and east-west grid pattern with major and secondary arterials spaced at one mile and one-half mile intervals, respectively. The following section provides a description of the functional classification of the facilities within the project area.

Regional Arterials
Regional arterials are limited access facilities that provide service to non-local through trips with minimal direct access to adjacent land uses. They have a design cross section of eight lanes (four in each direction) with medians and turn lanes at a limited number of access points. Regional arterials are designated as 106-foot wide roadways, typically within a 120-foot right-of-way.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-2 Transportation
Major Arterials
Major arterials are primarily intended to serve through, non-local traffic and provide limited local access. They have a cross-section of three through lanes, and a raised landscape median and turn lanes at a limited number of access points. Major arterials are designated as 84-foot wide roadways, within a 100-foot right-of-way.

Secondary Arterials
Secondary arterials provide more local access than major arterials, while also providing a reduced level of non-local through traffic service. Secondary arterials have a cross-section of four through lanes, a bike lane in each direction and a left-turn lane within 68 feet of curb-to-curb space, within an 84-foot right-of-way. These roadways are usually undivided with the potential for limited on-street parking, turn lanes at major intersections, and partial control of vehicular and pedestrian access from driveways, cross streets, and crosswalks.

Collectors
The primary role of collector roadways is to provide access between the arterial network and the neighborhoods and commercial development. These roadways are typically two lanes wide with limited access to driveways and cross streets. They are usually undivided and do not have turn lanes at intersections. Collectors in Lancaster are 44 feet wide, curb to curb, within 64-foot rights-of-way.

Local Residential Streets
Local residential streets serve adjacent residential land uses only, allowing access to residential driveways and providing on-street parking for neighborhoods. Local residential streets in Lancaster are designated as 42-foot wide roadways within a 60-foot right-of-way. These streets are not intended to serve through traffic traveling from one street to another.

PUBLIC TRANSIT
Public transit service in the City includes Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) local fixed-route bus services, AVTA commuter bus services, and Metrolink commuter rail lines, among others, as described below.

AVTA Local Fixed-Route Bus Services
AVTA provides fixed-route bus services throughout Lancaster, including Routes 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 50, 94, and 97.1 Several routes travel through downtown Lancaster and other routes provide connections from Lancaster to the City of Palmdale and communities of Sun Village, Littlerock, and Pearblossom to the south and Lake Los Angeles to the east. 1 Antelope Valley Transit Authority, Local Transit Service, https://www.avta.com/system-map.php, accessed January 31, 2022.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-3 Transportation
Lake L.A. Express
The Lake L.A. Express line provides service between Lancaster City Park and the Town Center Plaza in Lake Los Angeles primarily via Avenue L, 20th Street East, Avenue J, 170th Street East, Avenue N, 155th Street East, and Avenue N-8.

AVTA Commuter Bus Routes
AVTA operates three commuter bus service routes from the Antelope Valley to downtown Los Angeles, Century City and San Fernando Valley. Within the Antelope Valley, all commuter routes stop at Lancaster City Park and the Palmdale Transportation Center. • Route 785 (Lancaster/Palmdale to Los Angeles) provides commuter service to downtown Los Angeles.
• Route 786 (Lancaster/Palmdale to Century City/West Los Angeles) provides commuter service to Westwood, Century City, Beverly Hills, West Los Angeles, and West Hollywood. • Route 787 (Lancaster/Palmdale to West San Fernando Valley) provides commuter service to the San Fernando Valley. This route serves CSU-Northridge and Warner Center, as well as the communities of Granada Hills, Chatsworth, Northridge, Canoga Park, Woodland Hills, Tarzana and Van Nuys.

Metrolink Commuter Rail
The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operates Metrolink, the commuter rail service of southern California. The Metrolink Lancaster Station is located at 44812 North Sierra Highway and is located along the Antelope Valley Line. The Antelope Valley Line connects downtown Los Angeles (Union Station) to Lancaster (last station) and has stops along the way in Glendale, Burbank, Sun Valley, Sylmar/San Fernando, Newhall, Santa Clarita, Via Princessa, Vincent Grade/Acton, and Palmdale. The current Metrolink schedule for the Antelope Valley Line shows train headways of one to three hours in the morning hours and three to four hours in the afternoon hours.

The Lancaster Station also provides connections to other transit services, including AVTA, the Santa Clarita Transit, Amtrak ThruWay Bus, Eastern Sierra Transit Authority, and Kern Transit.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City has a number of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as described below.

Bicycle Facilities
The City currently has a number of existing Class I, II, and III bikeways on segments of many City streets; refer to Exhibit 5.8-1, Existing and Proposed Bikeways. Class I bike paths provide a separate rightof-way (outside the pavement used for automobiles) for bicycles and other uses. Class II bike lanes provide a restricted right-of-way for bicycles, which is most often in the form of a painted line and Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-4 Transportation
signs on the road. Motor vehicles are allowed to enter the bike lane when making turns within 200 feet of an intersection and to park when permitted. Class III bike routes allow for sharing of a travel lane by motor vehicles and bicycles and are indicated only by signs. The City currently has five miles of Class 1 bike paths, 35 miles of Class II bike lanes, and 3 miles of Class III bike routes. 2 As shown
on Exhibit 5.8-1, the City also has several Class I, II, and III bikeway improvements proposed throughout Lancaster.

Pedestrian Facilities
The City currently has limited existing trails for recreational users and equestrians; refer to Exhibit

5.8-2, Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities. However, the City of Lancaster Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways (Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways) proposes a number of pedestrian facilities to establish a network of trails in the future. The Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways aims to implement bike paths, paved multipurpose paths, earthen multipurpose paths, equestrian trails, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails throughout Lancaster; refer to Exhibit 5.8-2.

5.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING

STATE LEVEL
Complete Streets Act of 2008
Assembly Bill 1358 (AB 1358), the Complete Streets Act of 2008, was developed in response to and in support of other legislation aimed at reducing vehicle emissions through reduced trip length and frequency combined with changes in land use policies. Specifically, the bill directs that, “commencing January 1, 2011, that the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of a general plan, modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.”
The Complete Streets Act is supported by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Deputy Directive DD-64-R1, which memorializes the importance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to the State’s transportation system and outlines responsibilities for Caltrans employees to ensure that travelers of all ages and abilities can move safely and efficiently along and across a network of complete streets throughout the State.
2 City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways, March 2012.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 5.8-1
Existing and Proposed Bikeways
Source: Ryan Snyder Associates
02/2022 JN 184421

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 5.8-2
Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
Source: Ryan Snyder Associates
02/2022 JN 184421
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-7 Transportation
Senate Bill 743
In September 2013, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) signed SB 743 into law, starting a process that fundamentally changes the way transportation impact analysis is conducted under CEQA. SB 743 identifies VMT as the most appropriate CEQA transportation metric and eliminates of auto delay, or level of service (LOS), and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. In December 2018, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted the CEQA statute (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.3).

REGIONAL LEVEL
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are:
• Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
• Promote diverse housing choices;
• Leverage technology innovations;
• Support implementation of sustainability policies; and • Promote a green region.

Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the statemandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita VMT. Some of these tools include center-focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.

LOCAL LEVEL
City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
Plan for Physical Mobility
The Plan for Physical Mobility focuses on transportation issues, such as how goods and people move within Lancaster. The plan recognizes that transportation affects land use, urban design, energy consumption, air quality, and the City’s infrastructure. Addressed not only at the local level, but circulation decisions must also be coordinated with regional, State, and Federal agencies, as well as with neighboring communities. Transportation facilities as well as alternative modes of transportation are discussed in the Plan for Physical Mobility. The following goal and policies are applicable to the proposed project:

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-8 Transportation
Objective 14.1: Maintain a hierarchical system which balances the need for free traffic flow with economic realities, such that streets are designed to handle normal traffic flows with tolerances to allow for potential short-term delays at peak hours.

Policy 14.1.1: Design the City’s street system to serve both the existing population and future residents
Policy 14.1.2: Maintain and improve the operation of the roadway network by adhering to the circulation system improvements of the Transportation Master Plan for the development and operation of the system, while providing the flexibility to allow consideration of innovative design solutions.

Policy 14.1.3: Require that the fair and equitable cost of constructing arterials which connect outlying urban development to the City core be borne by developments which create the need for them.

Policy 14.1.4: Encourage the design of roads and traffic controls to optimize safe traffic flow by minimizing turning movements, curb parking, uncontrolled access, and frequent stops
Policy 14.1.5: Provide adequate levels of maintenance for all components of the circulation system, such as roadways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, roadway drainage systems, pedestrian, recreational trails, and similar facilities (see also related policies and specific actions in the Pedestrian, Equestrian and Bicycle Trails’ subsection of the Plan for Active Living).

Policy 14.1.6: Work with regional partners to ensure that the regional circulation system provides adequate connections across the Antelope Valley for convenient circulation and rapid emergency access.

Objective 14.2: Promote a roadway system which balances the need to move vehicles while protecting environmental, aesthetic, and quality of life issues.

Policy 14.2.1: Support and improve a roadway network that is sensitive to environmental issues such as, biological, land, and water resources, as well as air quality, while permitting continued development within the project area.

Policy 14.2.2: Manage the City’s roadway network so that it is aesthetically pleasing through the development and maintenance of streetscapes.

Policy 14.2.3: Support a roadway network that takes into consideration noise and safety issues, along with other quality of life issues.

Policy 14.2.4: Promote the creation of a high desert transportation corridor which will provide a direct connection between Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 to the City of Lancaster.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-9 Transportation
Objective 14.4: Reduce reliance of the use of automobiles and increase the average vehicle occupancy by promoting alternatives to single-occupancy auto use, including ridesharing, non-motorized transportation (bicycle, pedestrian), and the use of public transit.

Policy 14.4.1: Under the guidance of the Transportation Master Plan, support and encourage the various public transit companies, ridesharing programs and other incentive programs, that allow residents to utilize modes of transportation other than the private automobile, and accommodate those households within the Urbanizing Area of the City that rely on public transit.

Policy 14.4.2: Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation through the development of convenient and attractive facilities that support and accommodate the services.

Policy 14.4.3: Encourage bicycling as an alternative to automobile travel for the purpose of reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fuel consumption, traffic congestion, and air pollution by providing appropriate facilities for the bicycle riders (see also Policy 10.2.4 and subordinate specific actions of the Plan for Active Living).

Policy 14.4.4: Encourage commuters and employers to reduce vehicular trips by implementing Transportation Demand Management strategies.

Policy 14.4.5: Design transportation facilities to encourage walking, provide connectivity, ADA accessibility, and safety by reducing potential auto/pedestrian conflicts.

Plan for Active Living
The Plan for Active Living of the General Plan focuses on the components of the community’s shelter, culture, and lifestyle and on the manner in which those in need can be helped so that all can share in achieving a high quality of life. The following policy is applicable to the proposed project:

Objective 10.2: Through the adoption and implementation of a Master Plan of trails, establish and maintain a hierarchical system of trails (including equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian trails) providing recreational opportunities and an alternative means of reaching schools, parks and natural areas, and places of employment, and connecting to regional trail systems.

Policy 10.2.4: Facilitate the use of bicycles as an alternative form of transportation, as well as a form of recreation. Promote the creation of a high desert transportation corridor which will provide a direct connection between Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 to the City of Lancaster.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-10 Transportation Lancaster Municipal Code
Municipal Code Section 15.64.040, Street improvements fee, imposes a fee on all new development in the City to finance the costs of street improvements, including acquisition, widening and reconstruction, street landscaping, intersection improvements and freeway interchange improvements in order to mitigate the additional traffic burdens created by new development to the City’s arterial and collector street system.

Municipal Code Section 15.64.050, Traffic signalization fee, imposes a traffic signalization fee on all new development in the City to finance the costs of traffic signalization improvements in order to mitigate additional burdens created by new development to the City’s traffic congestion beyond the financial ability of the City to control.

City of Lancaster Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways
The City of Lancaster Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways (Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways), adopted March 2012, is intended to guide the planning and design of pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian facilities in a comprehensive manner throughout Lancaster. The City’s vision is to create a connected network of on-road and off-road trails and bikeway facilities to accommodate users of all ages and abilities, including equestrians. When implemented, it is anticipated that the proposed network will provide linkages between residential areas, commercial centers, transportation hubs, employment centers, and recreational venues. The Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways includes a summary of the City’s public outreach efforts during preparation of the plan; discussion of the plan’s context with other neighboring jurisdictions and regional plans; goals, policies, and actions to implement the plan; and discussion of the City’s existing bicycle, pedestrian, and trail conditions; Bicycle Plan, Trails Plan, and ADA Transition Plan, potential funding programs, implementation actions, and design guidelines.

Lancaster Master Plan of Complete Streets
The Lancaster Master Plan of Complete Streets (Master Plan of Complete Streets) accompanies the General Plan, specifically the Plan for Physical Mobility. The General Plan’s emphasis on safety, connectivity, access, and street design flexibility are key principles that mirror the objectives of the Master Plan of Complete Streets. As defined in the plan, complete streets refer to streets, sidewalks, and public rightsof-way that are designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and freight and motor vehicle drivers of all ages and abilities.

The Master Plan of Complete Streets is meant to supplement existing engineering practices and requirements to meet the goals of complete streets and includes design guidance for future roadway improvements. While not encompassing all pedestrian, bicycle, and other traffic calming measures available to implement complete street principles in the City, the design guidelines are intended to provide initial design principles so that the development of new and existing streets serve all users and travel modes. In addition, the plan identifies potential complete streets in Lancaster and suggested treatments. The City is obligated to weigh the cost of proposed street improvements against the expected benefit of those improvements, while also considering both the initial and long-term maintenance obligations.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-11 Transportation Transportation Analysis Updates in Lancaster
In response to SB 743, the City of Lancaster adopted new transportation impact thresholds utilizing the VMT metric. The Transportation Analysis Updates in Lancaster (Lancaster Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines), prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated May 27, 2020, provides guidance on conducting transportation studies in the City. Specifically, the Lancaster Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines provides an overview of SB 743 and what it means for transportation impact analysis in Lancaster; describes the process for determining the City’s baseline VMT and describes the analysis methodology and VMT metrics; and outlines the methodology for calculating VMT for projects and plans in the City, provides the threshold of significance, and discusses mitigation options for projects that are found to have a VMT impact.

5.8.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

VMT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
In compliance with SB 743, the Lancaster Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines provides new guidance to analyze VMT impacts under CEQA. The guidelines discuss VMT screening; VMT analysis methodology, VMT impact thresholds, and VMT mitigation. The Lancaster Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines closely follow the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory), dated December 2018.

Specifically, a project can be screened out of VMT analysis if it falls within one of the following categories, as defined by the Lancaster Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines: 1) Project Type Screening, 2) Low VMT Area Screening, 3) Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening, 4) Affordable Housing Screening, or 5) Transportation Facilities Screening.

If a project does not screen out of VMT analysis, full VMT analysis would be required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, Thresholds of Significance, encourages lead agencies to develop and publish thresholds of significance. Pursuant to Section 15064.7(b), the City can adopt a threshold of significance for VMT by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation through a public review process supported by substantial evidence. The OPR Technical Advisory identifies 15 percent below the regional average as the threshold for identifying a significant VMT impact for land use projects and plans. This is based on research conducted to determine the VMT reduction needed in order to help the State achieve its climate goals. The California Air Resources Board has quantified the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the State’s long-term climate goals and OPR sees reducing VMT to 15 percent below existing conditions as a reasonable threshold for new development projects. OPR guidance is also provided for transportation projects. For roadway widening projects, a significant impact would occur if the project increased the baseline VMT in the study area. The VMT thresholds for projects and plans in the City of Lancaster are summarized below in Table 5.8-1, VMT Thresholds of Significance.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-12 Transportation Table 5.8-1
VMT Thresholds of Significance
Project Type Threshold for Determination of Significant VMT Impact Residential Project Project exceeds 15 percent below Antelope Valley Planning Area (AVPA) Baseline VMT for home-based VMT per capita
Employment (Commercial
or Industrial Project)
Project exceeds 15 percent below AVPA Baseline VMT for home-based work VMT per employee Regional Retail Project Project results in a net increase in total VMT per service population in comparison to the AVPA Baseline VMT
Mixed-Use Projects Evaluate each project land use component separately using the criteria above Land Use Plans Plan exceeds 15 percent below AVPA Baseline VMT for Total VMT per service population Other Land Use Types Project exceeds 15 percent below AVPA Baseline VMT. For land use types not listed above, the City can determine the appropriate VMT metric
depending on the project characteristics. For projects that are generally producing job-related travel, the employment generating VMT (home-based work VMT per employee) can be compared to the baseline. For other projects, the total VMT per service population can be compared to the AVPA baseline, or the net change in Total VMT can be estimated.

Transportation Projects Project results in an increase in VMT in the study area in comparison to baseline conditions Source: Fehr & Peers, Transportation Analysis Updates in Lancaster, May 27, 2020.

CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (refer to Impact Statement TRA-1); b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (refer to Impact Statement TRA-2);
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Impact Statement TRA-3); and/or
d) Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Impact Statement TRA-4).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-13 Transportation

5.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CONSISTENCY WITH TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
TRA-1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM

PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION

SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE, AND
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.

Impact Analysis: The proposed VMT Mitigation Program aims to establish mitigation for projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds in the form of a mitigation impact fee. The program identifies relevant TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects within the City to be funded by the impact fee.

These TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects were identified in the following existing City planning documents as unfunded, planned infrastructure improvement projects that could contribute towards reducing Citywide VMT:
• Master Plan of Complete Streets (June 26, 2018);
• Lancaster TOD Zones (adopted February 10, 2015, updated January 2020); • Safer Streets Action Plan (January 2020);
• Safe Routes to School Master Plan (November 2016); and • Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways (March 2012).

Table 3-1, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvements, provides a summary of VMT-reducing infrastructure improvements that could be funded and implemented with the support of the VMT Mitigation Program. Potential improvements include bus bulb-outs, crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, neighborhood traffic circles, two-way bicycle tracks, widened sidewalks, and multi-purpose paths. As such, the proposed program would help implement many of the City’s planned infrastructure improvement projects that have yet to be funded. Thus, the proposed program would be consistent with adopted transportation-related plans and programs and help fund existing planned and unfunded infrastructure improvement projects.

Overall, the proposed program would fund improvements to roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the City, and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-14 Transportation

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
TRA-2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD CONFLICT OR BE
INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15064.3,
SUBDIVISION (B).

Impact Analysis: As stated, the nature of the proposed VMT Mitigation Program is to support reductions in Citywide VMT. If a future development project screens out of VMT analysis or is located in a VMT efficient zone, the impact fee would not be applicable. VMT efficient zones are areas of the City where the VMT is already 15 percent or more below the adopted thresholds for the type of use (e.g., residential). Therefore, the program incentivizes future development to occur within VMT efficient zones of Lancaster.

However, should future projects be developed in areas outside of the City’s VMT efficient zones and result in potentially significant VMT impacts (i.e., project VMT is greater than 85 percent of the established threshold), the project would be required to pay the mitigation impact fee. Payment of the impact fee is intended to serve as mitigation for future development projects that exceed the City’s established VMT threshold. However, while the proposed program would fund and help implement TDM measures and VMT-reducing projects within the City at a program level, potentially significant VMT impacts could still occur on a project-level. For example, a future development project outside of the City’s VMT efficient zones could pay the required impact fee, but their required fee may not fund the full cost of what is necessary to construct/complete an identified infrastructure improvement project. Therefore, it cannot be determined with certainty whether improvements would be implemented at the time a future development project’s VMT impacts occur (e.g., at project opening), and whether those impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Additionally, the impact fee would only apply to VMT generated above the City’s established VMT threshold and thus, would not be able to fully fund all the identified TDM improvements. Given the speculative timing of when the TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements would be implemented and the fact that the mitigation program cannot fully fund all identified improvements, no feasible mitigation is available at this time to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, impacts in this regard would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available.

Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.

HAZARDOUS DESIGN FEATURES
TRA-3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE (E.G., SHARP

CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT).

Impact Analysis: The program does not propose any specific changes to roadways. However, transportation improvements would be funded and eventually implemented as a result of the program.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-15 Transportation Nevertheless, future funded VMT-reducing transportation improvements would undergo separate environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) to evaluate project- and site-specific impacts with regards to increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Additionally, future roadway improvements would be required to comply with existing City standards related to street improvements. Specifically, Municipal Code Chapter 12.12, Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks, requires street improvements (e.g., curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and paving) installed along the frontage of any lots or parcels improved with new or expanded structure to conform to the City’s Development Services Department’s standards and specifications. In addition, the project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts in this regard, as a range of the identified future improvements (crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, neighborhood traffic circles, widened sidewalks, and multi-purpose paths) would improve safety for alternate modes of transportation. Thus, future improvements funded and implemented in accordance with the proposed program would result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

EMERGENCY ACCESS
TRA-4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS.

Impact Analysis: Future infrastructure improvements implemented in accordance with the proposed program would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and policies related to emergency access, including the California Fire Code and Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction. Future improvement projects would also be required to undergo separate environmental review to evaluate project-level impacts with regards to emergency access. Thus, the proposed program’s impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative analysis below considers the proposed project’s impacts in conjunction with future buildout of the General Plan; refer to Table 4-1, General Plan 2030 – GPCAC Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative Buildout.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-16 Transportation  THE PROPOSED PROJECT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH CUMULATIVE

DEVELOPMENT, COULD CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE,

OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING
TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.

Impact Analysis: As stated, the proposed project would fund TDM measures and VMT-reducing projects identified in existing City planning documents related to transportation. Thus, the project would help improve roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities within the City. The project would be consistent with existing transportation programs and plans and result in less than significant impacts. Thus, the project’s contribution towards cumulative impacts in conjunction with development associated with the General Plan buildout are not cumulatively considerable. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
 THE PROPOSED PROJECT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH CUMULATIVE

DEVELOPMENT, COULD CONFLICT OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15064.3, SUBDIVISION (B).

Impact Analysis: The proposed program’s intent is to reduce Citywide VMT by establishing a mitigation impact fee and funding TDM measures and VMT-reducing projects. However, as stated above, it cannot be determined with certainty whether the identified transportation improvements would be implemented at the time a future project’s VMT impacts occur, and whether those impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Additionally, the impact fee would only apply to VMT generated above the established threshold and thus, would not be able to fully fund all the identified improvements. As such, VMT impacts associated with the proposed program would be significant and unavoidable. Given that, the project could also cumulatively contribute towards significant impacts when considered in conjunction with impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan. No feasible mitigation is available given the speculative timing of when the TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements would be implemented and the fact that the mitigation program cannot fully fund all identified improvements. Thus, cumulative impacts in this regard would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation measures are available.

Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-17 Transportation  THE PROPOSED PROJECT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH CUMULATIVE

DEVELOPMENT, COULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE (E.G., SHARP CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INTRODUCE INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT).

Impact Analysis: Similar to future roadway improvements funded by the program, future cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to comply with existing City standards related to street improvements, including Municipal Code Chapter 12.12, Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks. Future cumulative projects would also be required to undergo separate environmental review to evaluate project-specific impacts.

As analyzed above, future roadway improvement projects funded by the program would be required to comply with existing City standards related to street improvements and thus, would result in less than significant impacts. In addition, the project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts in this regard, as a range of the identified future improvements (crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, neighborhood traffic circles, widened sidewalks, and multi-purpose paths) would improve safety for alternate modes of transportation. Therefore, the project would not contribute towards cumulatively considerable impacts with regards to increasing hazards due to geometric design features or introducing incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
 THE PROPOSED PROJECT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH CUMULATIVE
DEVELOPMENT, COULD RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS.

Impact Analysis: Similar to future roadway improvements funded by the program, cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to comply with existing codes and standards, including the California Fire Code and Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction. Future cumulative projects would also be required to undergo separate environmental review to evaluate project-specific impacts.

As analyzed above, future infrastructure improvements funded by the program would not result in inadequate emergency access given that the improvements are intended to provide enhanced and safer multimodal amenities within the City. Additionally, all improvements would be required to comply with existing codes and standards and thus, would result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, the project would not contribute towards cumulatively considerable impacts with regards to emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.8-18 Transportation

5.8.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Project implementation would result in significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to VMT.
• VMT Impacts. While the proposed program would fund and help implement TDM measures and VMT-reducing projects within the City at a program level, potentially significant VMT impacts could still occur. A future development project outside of the City’s VMT efficient zones could pay the required impact fee, but their required fee may not fund the full cost of what is necessary to construct/complete an identified infrastructure improvement project.

Therefore, it cannot be determined with certainty whether improvements would be implemented at the time a future project’s VMT impacts occur (e.g., at project opening), and whether those impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Additionally, the impact fee would only apply to VMT generated above the established threshold and thus, would not be able to fully fund all the identified improvements. Given the speculative timing of when the TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements would be implemented and the fact that the mitigation program cannot fully fund all identified improvements, no feasible mitigation is available at this time to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, impacts in this regard would be significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative VMT Impacts. The project would contribute towards cumulatively considerable significant VMT impacts when considered in conjunction with impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan. As stated, no feasible mitigation is available given the speculative timing of when the TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements would be implemented and the fact that the mitigation program cannot fully fund all identified improvements. Therefore, cumulative impacts in this regard would similarly be significant and unavoidable.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-1 Air Quality

5.9 AIR QUALITY
This section addresses the potential air emissions generated by construction and operational activities as a result of implementation of the proposed project and associated impacts to air quality. The analysis also addresses the consistency of the proposed project with the air quality policies set forth within the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District’s (AVAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

The analysis of project-generated air emissions focuses on whether the proposed project would cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard or AVAQMD significance thresholds.

5.9.1 EXISTING SETTING

MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN
Geography
The State of California is divided geographically into 15 air basins. The City is located in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The MDAB includes the desert portion of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, the eastern desert portion of Kern County, and the northeastern desert portion of Riverside County. The MDAB primarily contains pollutants from other air basins, dust raised by construction, travel on unpaved roads, and paved roads with silty debris.

Air quality in the MDAB is a function of the area’s natural physical characteristics (weather and topography) as well as man-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of air pollutants throughout the MDAB.

Climate
The general region lies in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. The climate consists of a semiarid environment with mild winters, warm summers, moderate temperatures, and comfortable humidity. Precipitation is limited to a few winter storms. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The average annual temperature varies little throughout the MDAB, averaging 75 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). However, with a lesspronounced oceanic influence, the eastern inland portions of the MDAB show greater variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures. All portions of the MDAB have recorded temperatures over 100°F in recent years.

The AVAQMD covers a western portion of the MDAB. The MDAB is an assemblage of mountain ranges interspersed with long broad valleys that often contain dry lakes. Many of the lower mountains which dot the vast terrain rise from 1,000 to 4,000 feet above the valley floor. Prevailing winds in the MDAB are out of the west and southwest. These prevailing winds are due to the proximity of the MDAB to coastal and central regions and the blocking nature of the Sierra Nevada mountains to the Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-2 Air Quality
north; air masses pushed onshore in southern California by differential heating are channeled through the MDAB. The MDAB is separated from the southern California coastal and central California valley regions by mountains (highest elevation approximately 10,000 feet), whose passes form the main channels for these air masses. The Antelope Valley is bordered in the northwest by the Tehachapi Mountains, separated from the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the north by the Tehachapi Pass (3,800 feet elevation). The Antelope Valley is bordered in the south by the San Gabriel Mountains, bisected by Soledad Canyon (3,300 feet).

During the summer, the MDAB is generally influenced by a Pacific Subtropical High cell that sits off the coast, inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. The MDAB is rarely influenced by cold air masses moving south from Canada and Alaska, as these frontal systems are weak and diffuse by the time the reach the desert. Most desert moisture arrives from infrequent warm, moist and unstable air masses from the south. The MDAB is classified as a dry-hot desert climate, with portions classified as dry-very hot desert, to indicate at least three months have maximum average temperatures over 100.4° F.1
The City experiences average high temperatures of up to 98°F during the month of July and August, and average low temperatures of 30°F during the month of December. The annual average precipitation in the City is 7.38 inches. Rainfall occurs most frequently in February with an average rainfall of 1.78 inches.2

LOCAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. The closest monitoring station to the City is the Lancaster – Division Street Monitoring Station. The air pollutants measured at Lancaster – Division Street Monitoring Station include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10), nitrogen oxide (NO2), and fine particulates (PM2.5). The air quality data monitored at the Lancaster – Division Street Monitoring Station from 2018 to 2020 are presented in Table 5.9-1, Measured Air Quality Levels. 1 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016.
2 U.S. Climate Data, City of Lancaster, California,
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/lancaster/california/%20united-states/usca0591, accessed October 13, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-3 Air Quality
Table 5.9-1
Measured Air Quality Levels
Pollutant
Primary Standard
Year Maximum
Concentration1
Number of Days
State/Federal
Std. Exceeded California Federal
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)2
(1-Hour)
20 ppm
for 1 hour
35 ppm
for 1 hour
2018
2019
2020

1.208 ppm

1.388 ppm

1.617 ppm
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
Ozone (O3)2
(1-Hour)

0.09 ppm
for 1 hour N/A
2018
2019
2020

0.125 ppm

0.096 ppm

0.099 ppm
5 / 1
1 / 0
4 / 0
Ozone (O3)2
(8-Hour)

0.070 ppm
for 8 hours

0.070 ppm
for 8 hours
2018
2019
2020

0.105 ppm

0.082 ppm

0.084 ppm
49 / 48
14 / 13
8 / 8
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NOx)2

0.18 ppm
for 1 hour

0.100 ppm
for 1 hour
2018
2019
2020

0.047 ppm

0.049 ppm

0.051 ppm
0 / 0
0 / 0
0 / 0
Particulate Matter
(PM10)2,3,4
50 µg/m3
for 24 hours
150 µg/m3
for 24 hours
2018
2019
2020

89.3 µg/m3
165.1 µg/m3
192.3 µg/m3
1 / 0
1 / 0
0 / 0
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) 2,4
No Separate
State Standard
35 µg/m3
for 24 hours
2018
2019
2020

40.4 µg/m3

13.6 µg/m3

74.7 µg/m3
* / 1
* / 0
* / 9
ppm = parts per million PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less * = Data Not Provided N/A = Not Applicable
Notes:

1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard.

2. Measurements taken at the Lancaster – Division Street Monitoring Station located at 43301 Division St, Lancaster CA 93535.

3. PM10 exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002.

4. PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days.

Sources: California Air Resources Board, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/, accessed on October 4, 2021.

California Air Resources Board, AQMIS Air Quality and Meteorological Information’s Systems, https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php, accessed on October 4, 2021.

Criteria Air Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions.

CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-4 Air Quality
Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” O3 layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOX are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOX) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.

Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the CARB adopted amendments to the statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-5 Air Quality
Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards.

On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the MDAB as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging. Currently, the MDAB remains in nonattainment as the EPA has not determined that California has met the Federal Clean Air Act requirements for redesignating the MDAB nonattainment area to attainment.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is often used interchangeably with SOX. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic.

Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The terms VOC and reactive organic gases (ROG) (see below) are often used interchangeably.

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOCs, ROGs are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The terms ROG and VOC are often used interchangeably.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) (also referred to as hazardous air pollutants [HAPs]), are pollutants that result in an increase in mortality, a serious illness, or pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health effects of TACs may include cancer, birth defects, and immune system and neurological damage.

TACs can be separated into carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the physiological degradation associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. Noncarcinogenic Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-6 Air Quality
TACs differ in that there is a safe level in which it is generally assumed that no negative health impacts would occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

TACs are not considered criteria air pollutants and thus are not specifically addressed through the setting of ambient air quality standards. Instead, the EPA and CARB regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology (MACT or BACT) to limit emissions.

Airborne Fungus
Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is primarily a disease of the lungs caused by the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus. The spores are found in soils, become airborne when the soil is disturbed, and are subsequently inhaled into the lungs. After the fungal spores have settled in the lungs, they change into a multicellular structure called a spherule. Fungal growth in the lungs occurs as the spherule grows and bursts, releasing endospores, which then develop into more spherules.

Valley Fever symptoms occur within two to three weeks of exposure. Approximately 60 percent of Valley Fever cases are mild and display flu-like symptoms or no symptoms at all. Of those who are exposed and seek medical treatment, the most common symptoms include fatigue, cough, loss of appetite, rash, headache, and joint aches. In some cases, painful red bumps may develop on the skin.

One important fact to mention is that these symptoms are not unique to Valley Fever and may be caused by other illnesses as well. Identifying and confirming this disease require specific laboratory tests such as: (1) microscopic identification of the fungal spherules in infected tissue, sputum, or body fluid sample; (2) growing a culture of Coccidioides immitis from a tissue specimen, sputum, or body fluid; (3) detection of antibodies (serological tests specifically for Valley Fever) against the fungus in blood serum or other body fluids; and (4) administering the Valley Fever Skin Test (called coccidioidin or spherulin), which indicate prior exposure to the fungus.

Valley Fever is not contagious, and therefore, cannot be passed on from person to person. Most of those who are infected would recover without treatment within six months and would have a life-long immunity to the fungal spores. In severe cases, especially in those patients with rapid and extensive primary illness, those who are at risk for dissemination of disease, and those who have disseminated disease, antifungal drug therapy is used. The type of medication used, and the duration of drug therapy are determined by the severity of disease and response to the therapy. The medications used include ketoconazole, itraconazole and fluconazole in chronic, mild-to-moderate disease, and amphotericin B, given intravenously or inserted into the spinal fluid, for rapidly progressive disease. Although these treatments are often helpful, evidence of disease may persist, and years of treatment may be required.

The usual course of Valley Fever in healthy people is complete recovery within six months. In most cases, the body’s immune response is effective, and no specific course of treatment is necessary. About five percent of cases of Valley Fever result in pneumonia (infection of the lungs), while another five percent of patients develop lung cavities after their initial infection with Valley Fever. These cavities occur most often in older adults, usually without symptoms, and about 50 percent of them disappear within two years. Occasionally, these cavities rupture, causing chest pain and difficulty breathing, and Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-7 Air Quality
require surgical repair. Only one to two percent of those exposed who seek medical attention would develop a disease that disseminates (spreads) to other parts of the body other than the lungs.

Factors that affect the susceptibility to coccidioidal dissemination are race, sex, pregnancy, age, and immunosuppression. While there are no racial or gender differences in susceptibility to primary infection with coccidioidomycosis, differences in risk of disseminated infection do appear to exist.

Men have a higher rate of dissemination than do women and several studies have shown that the rate of dissemination in African Americans and Filipinos is several times higher than in the rest of the U.S. population. Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians may also have a higher rate of dissemination than the general population, but these population differences are not well defined.

The Coccidioides immitis fungal spores are often found in the soil around rodent burrows, Indian ruins, and burial grounds. The spores become airborne when the soil is disturbed by winds, construction, farming, and soil disturbing activities. This type of fungus is endemic to the southwestern United States and is common in the Antelope Valley. The City is located in an area designated as suspected endemic for Valley Fever by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).3 Annual morbidity reports for 2011 through 2016 from Los Angeles County Public Health (LACPH) indicate that the Los Angeles County has the reported case rate that are approximately 30 per 100,000 population.4 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population.

Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The following types of people are most likely to be adversely affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB: children under 14, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups are called sensitive receptors and include residential areas, hospitals, day-care facilities, elder-care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The City currently has numerous sensitive land uses. These land uses will continue to exist, while new sensitive land uses would not occur as a result of the implementation of the project.

5.9.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL LEVEL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA is responsible for implementing the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was first enacted in 1955 and amended numerous times after. The FCAA established Federal air quality standards 3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Sources of Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis), https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/maps.html, accessed October 6, 2021. 4 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Acute Communicable Disease Control 2016 Annual Morbidity Report, http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/docs/2011to2016.pdf, accessed October 8, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-8 Air Quality
known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare; refer to Table 5.9-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards.

STATE LEVEL
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 5.9-2, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an AQMP to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMP’s also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for the State of California.

Like the EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data show that a State standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State standard and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.

Air Toxics Programs
Toxic air contaminants are another group of pollutants of concern in southern California. There are hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle engine exhaust. Public exposure to toxic air contaminants can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset spill conditions. Health effects of toxic air contaminants include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-9 Air Quality
Table 5.9-2
National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California1 Federal2
Standard3 Attainment Status Standards3,4 Attainment Status Ozone (O3)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) Nonattainment N/A N/A5
8 Hours 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3) Nonattainment 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Nonattainment/Severe Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 Hours 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Maintenance/Serious Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 Nonattainment N/A Maintenance/Serious
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hours No Separate State Standard 35 µg/m3 Unclassified/Attainment Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 Attainment/Unclassified 12 µg/m3 Unclassified/Attainment Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8 Hours 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Attainment 9 ppm(10 mg/m3) Unclassified/Attainment 1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm(40 mg/m3) Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)5
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3) N/A 53 ppb
(100 µg/m3) Unclassified/Attainment
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3) Attainment 100 ppb(188 µg/m3) Unclassified/Attainment Lead (Pb)7,8
30 days
Average 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment N/A N/A
Calendar
Quarter N/A N/A 1.5 µg/m3 Unclassified/Attainment
Rolling 3-
Month Average N/A N/A 0.15 µg/m3 Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)6
24 Hours 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3) Attainment 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) Unclassified/Attainment
3 Hours N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3) Attainment 75 ppb(196 µg/m3) N/A
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
N/A N/A 0.30 ppm
(for certain areas) Unclassified/Attainment
VisibilityReducing
Particles9
8 Hours (10
a.m. to 6 p.m.,
PST)
Extinction
coefficient =

0.23 km@<70%
RH
Unclassified
No
Federal
Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3) Unclassified
Vinyl
Chloride7 24 Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3) Unclassified
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-10 Air Quality
Table 5.9-2 [cont’d]
National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; km = kilometer(s); RH = relative humidity; PST = Pacific Standard Time; N/A = Not Applicable

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.

5. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

6. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

7. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

8. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

9. In 1989, CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air MDAB standards, respectively.

Source: Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Antelope Valley AQMD Attainment Status, https://avaqmd.ca.gov/files/e0986ab83/AVAQMD+2017+Attainment+Status+Table.pdf, 2017.

California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf, May 2016
California regulates toxic air contaminants through its air toxics program, mandated in Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) of the Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety Code Section 39660 et seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment) (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et seq.). CARB, working in conjunction with the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, identifies toxic air contaminants. Air toxic control measures may then be adopted to reduce ambient concentrations of the identified toxic air contaminant to below a specific threshold, based on its effects on health, or to the lowest concentration achievable through use of best available control technology (BACT) for toxics. The program is administered by CARB. Air quality control Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-11 Air Quality
agencies, including the AVAQMD, must incorporate air toxic control measures into their regulatory programs or adopt equally stringent control measures as rules within six months of adoption by CARB.

REGIONAL LEVEL
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are:
• Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
• Promote diverse housing choices;
• Leverage technology innovations;
• Support implementation of sustainability policies; and • Promote a green region.

Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the statemandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita VMT. Some of these tools include center-focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.

LOCAL LEVEL
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District
Air districts have the primary responsibility to control air pollution from all sources other than those directly emitted from motor vehicles, which are the responsibility of the CARB and the EPA. Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve State and Federal ambient air quality standards and enforce applicable State and Federal law.

The AVAQMD adopted the 2017 Federal 75ppb Ozone Attainment Plan (2017 Attainment Plan) on March 21, 2017. The document sets forth a comprehensive program that would lead the area into compliance with Federal and State air quality standards. The 2017 Attainment Plan includes the latest planning assumptions regarding population, vehicle, and industrial activity and addresses all existing and forecasted ozone precursor-producing activities within the Antelope Valley through the year 2026.

In August 2016, the AVAQMD adopted the California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Conformity Guidelines (CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines) to provide direction on the preferred analysis approach in preparing environmental analysis or document review. The guidelines characterize the topography and climate of the MDAB, defines cumulative impacts, and provide emission thresholds Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-12 Air Quality
for construction and operation. The CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines establish significance thresholds for projects. Any project is significant if it triggers or exceeds the most appropriate evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are: (1) generates total emissions (direct and indirect) in excess of the thresholds given in Table 5.9-3, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds; (2) generates a violation of any ambient air quality standard when added to the local background; (3) does not conform with the applicable attainment or maintenance plan(s); and (4) exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including those resulting in a cancer risk greater than or equal to 10 in a million and/or a Hazard Index (HI) (non-cancerous) greater than or equal to 1. This air quality analysis is based on these four criteria.

Table 5.9-3
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Annual Threshold (tons/year) Daily Thresholds (pounds/day) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 548
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 25 137
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 25 137
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 25 137
Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 82
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15 65
Source: Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016.

City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
The General Plan was adopted on July 14, 2009, and the horizon year for the adopted General Plan is 2030. The General Plan contains the vision, goals, objectives, policies, and specific actions for the City. The General Plan includes the following elements or plans: natural environment, public health and safety, active living, physical mobility, municipal services and facilities, economic development and vitality and physical development. The following objectives and policies related to air quality in the Plan for the Natural Environment Chapter of the General Plan would be applicable to the project:

Objective 3.3: Preserve acceptable air quality by striving to attain and maintain national, State and local air quality standards.

Policy 3.3.1: Minimize the amount of vehicular miles traveled.

Policy 3.3.2: Facilitate the development and use of public transportation and travel modes such as bicycle riding and walking.

Policy 3.3.3: Minimize air pollutant emissions generated by new and existing development.

Policy 3.3.4: Protect sensitive uses such as homes, schools and medical facilities, from the impacts of air pollution.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-13 Air Quality
Policy 3.3.5: Cooperate with AVAQMD and other agencies to protect air quality in the Antelope Valley.

Objective 14.2: Promote a roadway system which balances the need to move vehicles while protecting environmental, aesthetic, and quality of life issues.

Policy 14.2.1: Support and improve a roadway network that is sensitive to environmental issues such as, biological, land, and water resources, as well as air quality, while permitting continued development within the study area.

Lancaster Municipal Code
Chapter 12.10, Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction
Lancaster Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 12.10, Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction, supports the AVAQMD’s imposition of the vehicle registration fee and to bring the City into compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 44243 of the Health and Safety Code in order to receive fee revenues for the purpose of implementing programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.

5.9.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

REGIONAL AIR QUALITY
AVAQMD Thresholds
Under CEQA, the AVAQMD is a responsible agency on air quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. Under the FCAA, the AVAQMD has adopted attainment plans for O3. The AVAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would not: (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any air quality standard; or (3) delay timely attainment of any air quality standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones of any Federal attainment plan. The AVAQMD has adopted an attainment plan for ozone pursuant to the FCAA.

For the purposes of this air quality analysis, actions that violate Federal standards for criteria pollutants (i.e., primary standards designed to safeguard the health of people considered to be sensitive receptors, and outdoor and secondary standards designed to safeguard human welfare) are considered significant impacts. Additionally, actions that violate State standards developed by the CARB or criteria developed by the AVAQMD, including thresholds for criteria pollutants, are considered significant impacts.

AVAQMD’s CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines also provides significance thresholds to assess the impact of project related air pollutant emissions. Table 5.9-3 provides the significance thresholds set forth by the AVAQMD. A project that generates total emissions (direct and indirect) in excess of the thresholds given in Table 5.9-3 is considered significant.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-14 Air Quality
Conformity Impacts
According to AVAQMD’s CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, a project is non-conforming if it conflicts with or delays implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plans. A project is conforming if it complies with all applicable AVAQMD rules and regulations, complies with all proposed control measures that are not adopted from applicable plan(s), and is consistent with the growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s). Conformity with growth forecasts can be established by demonstrating that the project is consistent with the land use plan that was used to generate the growth forecast (i.e., General Plan).

CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to Impact Statement AQ-4);
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (refer to Impact Statements AQ-1 and AQ-2);
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to Impact Statement AQ-3); and
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people (refer to Impact Statement AQ-5).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-15 Air Quality

5.9.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

SHORT-TERM (CONSTRUCTION) AIR EMISSIONS
AQ-1 SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE

PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY

CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR

WHICH THE PROJECT REGION IS NON-ATTAINMENT UNDER AN
APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD.

Impact Analysis: The intent of the proposed project is to streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects while funding future VMT improvement projects to reduce Citywide VMT.

Future transportation improvements may include crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, roundabouts, widened sidewalks, additional bicycle lanes, and multi-purpose paths, among others; refer to Table 3- 1, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvements.

The thresholds of significance recommended by the AVAQMD for construction emissions were developed for individual development projects. Construction-related emissions are described as shortterm or temporary in duration and have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. The improvements would likely be small-scale transportation improvement projects in the City. The future construction-related activities associated with buildout of the proposed project within the City would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors from site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, and clearing); exhaust from off-road equipment, material delivery trucks, and worker commute vehicles; vehicle travel on roads; and other miscellaneous activities (e.g., asphalt paving).

As a VMT mitigation program, the project provides a broad range of VMT-reducing transportation improvements that could be funded through the program. The pace of development within the City, ratio of development within and outside of VMT efficient zones, and timing for development of VMT-reducing improvements cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, construction-related emissions associated with future transportation improvements that may occur at any one time are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. The construction activities would occur throughout the City as funding becomes available. Although the rate of improvement projects cannot be predicted, each individual improvement project would be small-scale with a limited construction duration, and is not anticipated such improvements would have the capacity to exceed AVAQMD construction threshold. Furthermore, all future individual VMTreducing improvement projects within the City, including those implemented as part of development projects, would require separate environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) and be analyzed at a project-specific level. Future improvements would be reviewed by the City to ensure that the improvements occur in a logical manner consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code.

Further, future development projects would be required to comply with all applicable AVAQMD rules and regulations as well as other control measures to reduce construction emissions; refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Specifically, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require future projects within the City to utilize construction equipment vehicles in proper condition and in tune per manufacturer’s Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-16 Air Quality
specifications to ensure ozone precursor emissions are reduced. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ2 would require a Construction Management Plan and Traffic Control Plan be prepared and implemented to reduce traffic congestion during future temporary construction activities, thus reducing construction-related air quality emissions. Compliance with existing AVAQMD regulations and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would ensure impacts in this regard are reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permit for a transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt under CEQA), the City of Lancaster Development Services Department, Community Development Division shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Construction Plans, and specifications require that ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer’s specifications.

AQ-2 Each transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt under CEQA) shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. To reduce traffic congestion during temporary construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan shall include the following, as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer: temporary traffic controls such as a flag person during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow, dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site, scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to off-peak hour, consolidating truck deliveries, rerouting of construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptors, and/or signal synchronization to improve traffic flow.

Traffic control devices included in the traffic control plan shall be developed in compliance with the requirements of the most current standards. The Construction Management Plan shall also include construction phasing, personnel parking, and material storage areas to reduce traffic congestion.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

LONG-TERM (OPERATIONAL) AIR EMISSIONS
AQ-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN

INCREASED IMPACTS PERTAINING TO OPERATIONAL AIR
EMISSIONS.

Impact Analysis: Implementation of the project would not directly generate operational emissions as the transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would cause a net decrease in Citywide VMT and associated mobile source operational emissions. In alignment with SB 743, the Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-17 Air Quality
project would allow implementation of TDM strategies and VMT-reducing improvements that contribute towards reducing Citywide VMT, resulting in beneficial operational air quality impacts.

Additionally, the proposed program itself would not involve any building construction or land uses that may generate stationary or mobile source emissions. As such, there would be no impact with regards to operational emissions.

Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, O3 precursors VOCs and NOx affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.

The issue of correlating regional air pollution to human health effects was raised in litigation regarding the Friant Ranch project, which is a 942-acre master-planned community in Fresno County. In 2011, litigation was filed by the Sierra Club and other groups challenging the adequacy of Fresno County’s EIR for failing to comply with CEQA. The Superior Court upheld all aspects of the EIR, but an appeal then followed, ultimately reversing the decision as it held that the EIR was deficient in its informational discussion of air quality impacts as they connect to adverse human health effects. In the appeal process the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) took the lead on behalf of air quality regulating agencies to file amicus briefs to identify the infeasibility of conducting this type of analysis using the tools that are currently available.

As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD,5 the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SJVAPCD,6 SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.
5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014. 6 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-18 Air Quality
The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from ozone, as an example is correlated with the increases in ambient level of ozone in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce ozone levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify ozonerelated health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. As such, since implementation of the potential transportation improvements would cause a decrease in Citywide VMT and associated mobile emissions, the project would have no significant impact for air quality health impacts.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: No Impact.

LOCALIZED EMISSIONS
AQ-3 DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN LOCALIZED EMISSIONS

IMPACTS OR EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS.

Impact Analysis:

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.).

The MDAB is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area for State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased. Nationwide estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.7 CO emissions have continued to decline since this time. The MDAB was re-designated as attainment and is no longer addressed in the AVAQMD’s AQMP. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO 7 United States Environmental Protection Agency¸ Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed by October 18, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-19 Air Quality
emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

Localized concentrations of CO are typically associated with the idling of vehicles, particularly in highly congested areas. For this reason, the areas of primary concern are congested roadway intersections that experience high levels of vehicle traffic with degraded levels of service (LOS). With regard to potential increases in CO concentrations that could potentially exceed applicable ambient air quality standards, signalized intersections that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F are of particular concern. As the potential transportation improvements implemented in accordance with the proposed program would reduce Citywide VMT and encourage multimodal transportation throughout the City, there would be less congestion within the City as a result of the project implementation, leading to a reduction in CO hotspot impacts. Furthermore, the highest hourly recorded CO value at the Lancaster – Division Street Monitoring Station between 2018 and 2020 was 1.617 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm 1-hour CO Federal Standard. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Toxic Air Contaminants
As noted above, implementation of the project would not result in long-term operation of any stationary sources of TACs and would have a decrease in mobile source emissions as the project would cause a decrease in Citywide VMT. However, construction of the various potential transportation improvements may result in temporary increases in emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) associated with the use of off-road diesel equipment. Health-related risks associated with dieselexhaust emissions are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer. As such, the calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure of to TACs are typically calculated based on a long-term (e.g., 70- year) period of exposure. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. For these reasons, exposure to construction-generated DPM would not be anticipated to exceed applicable thresholds (i.e., incremental increase in cancer risk of 10 in one million). As such, impacts from toxic air contaminants would less than significant in this regard.

Valley Fever
Nearby sensitive receptors as well as workers could be exposed to Valley Fever from fugitive dust generated during construction. There is the potential that Coccidioides spores would be stirred up during excavation, grading, and earth-moving activities, exposing construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to these spores and thereby, to the potential of contracting Valley Fever. However, future transportation improvements implemented in accordance with the proposed project would be required to comply with AVAQMD Rules 401 and 403 emissions during construction and implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3 that would provide personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. As such, the risk of exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized to a less than significant level. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, dust from construction of the proposed project would be limited and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to the Valley Fever fungus.

Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-20 Air Quality
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and:

AQ-3 Prior to ground disturbance activities associated with the VMT-reducing improvements funded by the proposed program, the project operator shall provide evidence to the Director of Community Development that the project operator and/or construction manager has developed a “Valley Fever Training Handout” training and schedule of sessions for education to be provided to all construction personnel. All evidence of the training session materials, handout(s), and schedule shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development within 24 hours of the first training session. Multiple training sessions may be conducted if different work crews come to the site for different stages of construction; however, all construction personnel shall be provided training prior to beginning work. The evidence submitted to the Director of Community Development regarding the “Valley Fever Training Handout” and session(s) shall include the following:
• A sign-in sheet (to include the printed employee names, signature, and date) for all employees who attended the training session.
• Distribution of a written flier or brochure that includes educational information regarding the health effects of exposure to criteria pollutant emissions and Valley Fever.
• Training on methods that may help prevent Valley Fever infection. • A demonstration to employees on how to use personal protective equipment, such as respiratory equipment (masks), to reduce exposure to pollutants and facilitate recognition of symptoms and earlier treatment of Valley Fever. Where respirators are required, the equipment shall be readily available and shall be provided to employees for use during work. Proof that the demonstration is included in the training shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development. This proof can be via printed training materials/agenda, DVD, digital media files, or photographs.

The project operator also shall consult with the Los Angeles County Public Health to develop a Valley Fever Dust Management Plan (Plan) that addresses the potential presence of the Coccidioides spore and mitigates for the potential for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever). Prior to issuance of permits, the project operator shall submit the Plan to the Los Angeles County Public Health for review and approval. The Plan shall include a program to evaluate the potential for exposure to Valley Fever from construction activities and to identify appropriate safety procedures that shall be implemented, as needed, to minimize personnel and public exposure to potential Coccidioides spores. Measures in the Plan shall include the following:
• Provide High Efficiency Particulate (HEP)-filters for heavy equipment equipped with factory enclosed cabs capable of accepting the filters. Require contractors utilizing applicable heavy equipment to furnish proof of worker training on proper Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-21 Air Quality
use of applicable heavy equipment cabs (e.g., turning on the air conditioning prior to using the equipment).
• Provide communication methods, such as two-way radios, for use in enclosed cabs.
• Require National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)- approved half-face respirators equipped with minimum N-95 protection factor for use during worker collocation with surface disturbance activities, as required per the hazard assessment process.
• Require employees to be medically evaluated, fit-tested, and properly trained on the use of the respirators, and implement a full respiratory protection program in accordance with the applicable Cal/OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard (8 CCR 5144).
• Provide separate, clean eating areas with hand-washing facilities. • Install equipment inspection stations at each construction equipment access/egress point. Examine construction vehicles and equipment for excess soil material and clean, as necessary, before equipment is moved off-site. • Train workers to recognize the symptoms of Valley Fever, and to promptly report suspected symptoms of work-related Valley Fever to a supervisor. • Work with a medical professional to develop a protocol to medically evaluate employees who develop symptoms of Valley Fever.
• Work with a medical professional, in consultation with the Los Angeles County Public Health, to develop an educational handout for on-site workers and surrounding residents within three miles of the project site and include the following information on Valley Fever: what are the potential sources/causes, what are the common symptoms, what are the options or remedies available should someone be experiencing these symptoms, and where testing for exposure is available. Prior to construction permit issuance, this handout shall have been created by the project operator and reviewed by the project operator and reviewed by the Director of Community Development. No less than 30 days prior to any work commencing, this handout shall be mailed to all existing residences within three miles of the project boundaries.
• When possible, position workers upwind or crosswind when digging a trench or performing other soil-disturbing tasks.
• Prohibit smoking at the worksite outside of designated smoking areas; designated smoking areas shall be equipped with handwashing facilities.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-22 Air Quality
• Post warnings on-site and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection.
• Audit and enforce compliance with relevant Cal/OSHA health and safety standards on the job site.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS
AQ-4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD CONFLICT

WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE AIR
QUALITY PLAN.

Impact Analysis: A potentially significant impact to air quality would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the project’s consistency with the 2017 Attainment Plan as well as the General Plan and growth forecasts. The purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus, if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. It is important to note that even if a project is found consistent it could still have a significant impact on air quality under CEQA. Consistency with plans means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the Federal and State air quality standards.

The AVAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines notes the following with respect to conformity impacts:

According to AVAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines a project is consistent with applicable air quality plans if it complies with all applicable AVAQMD rules and regulations, complies with all proposed control measures that are not adopted from applicable plans, and is consistent with the growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s). Conformity with growth forecasts can be established by demonstrating that the project is consistent with the land use plan that was used to generate the growth forecast.

The project would be consistent with the General Plan as it would preserve acceptable air quality and promote a roadway systems network that is sensitive to environmental issues, such as air quality; refer to Table 5.9-4, General Plan Consistency. The project would not affect SCAG’s nor the 2017 Attainment Plan’s buildout projections for the City as the project would not involve any developments that would introduce population or employment to the City. As such, the proposed project would not exceed the housing and population growth forecasts for the City. Further, as discussed above, the project’s shortterm construction and long-term operational emissions impacts would be less than significant and further reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, and the project would be required to comply with all AVAQMD rules and regulations to improve air quality.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-23 Air Quality
Table 5.9-4
General Plan Consistency
General Objectives and Policies Project Consistency
Objectives: Preserve acceptable air quality by striving to attain and maintain national, State and local air quality standards.

Policy 3.3.1: Minimize the amount of vehicular miles traveled.

Policy 3.3.2: Facilitate the development and use of public transportation and travel modes such as bicycle riding and walking.

Policy 3.3.3: Minimize air pollutant emissions generated by new and existing development.

Policy 3.3.4: Protect sensitive uses such as homes, schools and medical facilities, from the impacts of air pollution.

Policy 3.3.5: Cooperate with AVAQMD and other agencies to protect air quality in the Antelope Valley.

Consistent. The proposed fee program would fund future TDM strategies and VMT-reducing improvements within the City. The potential improvements would facilitate alternative travel modes and would reduce air pollutant emissions from mobile sources.

Additionally, all future transportation improvements would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific impacts with regards to air pollutant emissions and identify any required mitigation measures. Thus, the project would protect sensitive land uses as it improves air quality. Additionally, the City would continue to cooperate with AVAQMD and other agencies to protect air quality in the region. As such, the project would be consistent with this General Plan objective.

Objectives: Promote a roadway system which balances the need to move vehicles while protecting environmental, aesthetic, and quality of life issues.

Policy 14.2.1: Support and improve a roadway network that is sensitive to environmental issues such as, biological, land, and water resources, as well as air quality, while permitting continued development within the study area.

Consistent. As discussed above, the potential VMT-reducing improvements funded by the project would include widening sidewalk, restriping roadway, and constructing median and multi-purpose path, among others. These improvements would support and improve the current roadway network and reduce Citywide VMT and associated air pollutant emissions. As such, the project would be consistent with this General Plan objective.

Source: City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster General Plan 2030, July 14, 2009.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

AQ-5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD CREATE

OBJECTIONABLE ODORS AFFECTING A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF
PEOPLE.

Impact Analysis: According to the AVAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project would not include any uses identified by the AVAQMD as being associated with odors.

The project does not propose any demolition or development activities within the City. Individual transportation improvements within the City would occur in incremental phases over time, based largely on available funding. Transportation improvements may also occur as part of development Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-24 Air Quality
projects (e.g., improvements along a project frontage). The phasing and exact details of each improvement would be evaluated by the City on a case-by-case basis as the funding becomes available.

Construction activities associated with these improvements may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and paving. However, these construction-related odors would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. All transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific impacts and any required mitigation. In addition, the improvements within the City would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. Improvements within the City would also be required to comply with the AVAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1120 – Asphalt Pavement Heaters, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during asphalt paving activities. Thus, odors associated with project construction would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative analysis below considers the proposed project’s impacts in conjunction with future buildout of the General Plan; refer to Table 4-1, General Plan 2030 – GPCAC Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative Buildout.

According to the AVAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. If a project impact is individually less than significant, the impacts of the surrounding past, present and future projects must be taken into account. The AVAQMD relies on SCAQMD guidelines to determine cumulative impacts, which states that the thresholds of significance for cumulative impacts are the same as those for the project-related impacts. Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the AVAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. The following discussions are included by topic area to determine whether a significant cumulative effect would occur.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-25 Air Quality

SHORT-TERM (CONSTRUCTION) AIR EMISSIONS
 SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE

PROPOSED PROJECT AND OTHER RELATED CUMULATIVE PROJECTS,

COULD RESULT IN INCREASED AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION IMPACTS OR

EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO INCREASED POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS.

Impact Analysis: The AVAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction emissions, nor does it provide separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction impacts. The AVAQMD significance thresholds for construction are intended to meet the objectives of the AQMP to ensure the NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded. As the City has no control over the timing or sequencing of cumulative development in Lancaster, any quantitative analysis to ascertain the daily construction emissions that assumes multiple, concurrent construction would be speculative. In addition, construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are temporary in nature and cease following project completion.

Per AVAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the MDAB, which would include future development in accordance with the General Plan buildout. Based on the programmatic construction analysis above, construction-related emissions associated with future development projects within the City and surrounding area would be required to comply with the applicable AVAQMD rules and regulations, as well as Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3.

Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts regarding construction air quality emissions.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

LONG-TERM (OPERATIONAL) AIR EMISSIONS
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND OTHER RELATED

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS COULD RESULT IN INCREASED IMPACTS
PERTAINING TO OPERATIONAL AIR EMISSIONS.

Impact Analysis: As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality impacts, as the proposed transportation improvements would not result in any operational air emissions. Compared to existing conditions, implementation of the proposed program would result in a decrease in Citywide VMT and associated mobile source operational emissions. The project would not involve any land use development with area source emissions. Additionally, adherence to AVAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Furthermore, emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans are Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-26 Air Quality
constantly being developed. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. No cumulative operational impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: No Impact.

CUMULATIVE CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE

PROJECTS COULD RESULT IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOT IMPACTS.

Impact Analysis: Cumulative development is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations such as CO hotspots. Future ambient CO concentrations resulting from the project would be substantially below National and State standards, as the highest hourly recorded CO value at the Lancaster – Division Street Monitoring Station between 2018 and 2020 was 1.617 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm 1-hour CO Federal Standard. Therefore, the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable as the project would cause a decrease in Citywide VMT and associated emissions within the City. Cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

CUMULATIVE CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND RELATED PROJECTS

COULD RESULT IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN.

Impact Analysis: As noted above, the AVAQMD considers any project with a significant projectlevel air quality impact to also have a significant cumulative air quality impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in any air quality violations with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 during construction and operation and would not conflict with the growth forecasts for the City as the project would not involve any building development that would introduce population and employment to the City. Project impacts were determined to be less than significant with regard to consistency with regional air quality plans. Additionally, the project would be consistent with General Plan and SCAG’s growth forecasts. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact in this regard. A less than significant impact would occur.

As such, impacts associated with the project in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-27 Air Quality
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

CUMULATIVE ODOR IMPACTS
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND RELATED PROJECTS COULD RESULT IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE ODOR IMPACTS.

Impact Analysis: Odors resulting from the construction activities associated with implementation of the projects that would occur within the City are not likely to affect a substantial number of people, since construction activities occur in a limited area and do not usually emit odors that are considered offensive. As discussed above, future transportation improvements funded by the program would occur in incremental phases over time and exact details of each project would be evaluated by the City on a case-by-case basis with separate environmental review under CEQA. The individual developments would be required to analyze odors and mitigate any potential odor impacts. Thus, implementation of the project would not cumulatively result in significant or highly objectionable odor.

Further, the project would not involve development of facilities such as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project also would not involve development of residential, industrial, and commercial uses, or restaurants. As such, there would be no odor generated during operation. The project would not involve land use developments that would have potential odor emissions during operation. As such, cumulative odor impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.9.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality have been identified.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.9-28 Air Quality
This page intentionally left blank.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section evaluates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the proposed project and analyzes project compliance with applicable regulations. Consideration of the project’s consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations, as well as the introduction of new sources of GHGs, is included in this section.

5.10.1 EXISTING SETTING
The City lies within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The MDAB includes the desert portion of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, the eastern desert portion of Kern County, and the northeastern desert portion of Riverside County.

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
The study area for climate change and the analysis of GHG emissions is broad as climate change is influenced by world-wide emissions and their global effects. However, the study area is also limited by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [Section 15064(d)] (CEQA Guidelines), which directs lead agencies to consider an “indirect physical change” only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project.

The baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project includes the natural and anthropogenic drivers of global climate change, including world-wide GHG emissions from human activities that have grown more than 70 percent between 1970 and 2004. The State of California is leading the nation in managing GHG emissions. Accordingly, the impact analysis for this project relies on guidelines, analyses, policy, and plans for reducing GHG emissions established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE – GREENHOUSE GASES
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “greenhouse effect.”1 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows:
short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHG in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.

The most abundant GHGs are water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Many other trace gases have greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global 1 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation. GHGs normally associated with development projects include the following:2 • Water Vapor (H2O). Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively. The primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles; however, it does not contribute a significant amount (less than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not determined a GWP for water vapor.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by a total of 2.6 percent between 1990 and 2019.3 Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining GWPs for other GHGs. • Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. The United States’ top three methane sources are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP of methane is 27.9.
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human related sources.

Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The GWP of nitrous oxide is 273. • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning, use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year GWP of HFCs range from 4.84 for HFC-161 to 14,600 for HFC-23. • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). PFCs are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine and are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

PFCs are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand times that of CO2, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years). The GWP of PFCs range from 7,380 to 12,400. 2 All GWPs are given as 100-year GWP. Generally, GWPs were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), with the addition of GWPs from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report for fluorinated GHGs that did not have GWPs in the AR4 and AR5. 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2019, 2021, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-maintext.pdf?VersionId=yu89kg1O2qP754CdR8Qmyn4RRWc5iodZ, accessed October 20, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the IPCC with a GWP of 25,200. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate due to its low mixing ratio compared to CO2 (4 parts per trillion in 1990 versus 365 parts per million, respectively).

In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (O3) depletors; therefore, their gradual phase out is currently in effect.

The following is a listing of these compounds:
• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out of HCFCs.

The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year GWPs of HCFCs range from 56.4 for HCFC-122 to 2,300 for HCFC-142b. • 1,1,1 trichloroethane (C2H3Cl3). 1,1,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The GWP of methyl chloroform is 161 times that of CO2.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final Rule (57 Federal Register [FR] 3374) for the phase out of O3 depleting substances.

Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with 100-year GWPs ranging from 3,550 for CFC-112a to 16,200 for CFC-13.

5.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL LEVEL
To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. However, various efforts have been promulgated at the Federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects as described below.

Energy Independence and Security Act Of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The EPA authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence, it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.

Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, the George W. Bush Administration issued Executive Order 13432 in 2007 directing the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012 through 2016.

In 2010, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated Federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017 through 2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022 through 2025 in a future rulemaking. On January 12, 2017, the EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022 through 2025 cars and light trucks.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014 through 2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

Presidential Executive Order 13783
Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (March 28, 2017), orders all Federal agencies to apply cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of carbon, N2O, and CH4.

STATE LEVEL
Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term.

Executive Order S-1-07
Executive Order S-1-07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of Statewide emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32. The development of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update has identified the LCFS as a regulatory measure to reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 emissions target. In calculating Statewide emissions and targets, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update has assumed the LCFS be extended to an 18-percent reduction in carbon intensity beyond 2020. On September 27, 2018, CARB approved a rulemaking package that amended the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to relax the 2020 carbon intensity reduction from 10 percent to 7.5 percent and to require a carbon intensity reduction of 20 percent by 2030.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary also submits biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.

Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 seeks to enhance the State’s management of climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events by facilitating the development of the State’s first climate adaptation strategy. This Executive Order results in consistent guidance from experts on how to address climate change impacts in the State of California.

Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.” To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961 and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet-average GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium-duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any medium-duty vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each model year through 2016. The near-term standards were intended to achieve a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term standards were intended to achieve a reduction of about 30 percent.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

Senate Bill 32
Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

Senate Bill 100
SB 100 (Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, 60 percent by December 31, 2030, and 100 percent by December 31, 2045. The bill would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC), State board, and all other State agencies to incorporate that policy into all relevant planning. In addition, SB 100 would require the CPUC, CEC, and State board to utilize programs authorized under existing statutes to achieve that policy and, as part of a public process, issue a joint report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and every 4 years thereafter, that includes specified information relating to the implementation of the policy.

CARB Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to achieve the California GHG reductions required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California would implement to reduce the projected 2020 “Business-as-Usual” (BAU) emissions to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. These strategies are intended to reduce CO2e emissions by 174 million metric tons. This reduction of 42 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), or almost ten percent from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, would be required despite the population and economic growth forecasted through 2020.

CARB’s Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as those expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. When CARB’s Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which actual data was available. The measures described in CARB’s Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.

AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG reduction necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05, and observes that “a midterm Statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.” The Scoping Plan update did not establish or propose any specific post-2020 goals, but identified such goals in water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use.

On January 20, 2017, CARB released the proposed Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update was finalized in November 2017 and approved on December 14, 2017 and reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes a new Statewide emissions limit of 260 million MTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update contains the following goals:
• SB 350
­ Increase renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030; ­ Double energy efficiency savings by 2030;
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
­ Increase stringency (reduce carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020);
• Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) ­ Maintain existing GHG standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles; ­ Put 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the roads; ­ Increase ZEV buses, delivery and other trucks;
• Sustainable Freight Action Plan
­ Improve freight system efficiency;
­ Maximize use of near-zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy;
­ Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030; Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy ­ Reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030;
­ Reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; • SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
­ Increased stringency of 2035 targets;
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
­ Decline caps, continue linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada; ­ CARB to look for opportunities to strengthen the program to support more air quality co-benefits, including specific program design elements; ­ Reduce GHG emissions in the refinery sector by 20 percent; and ­ By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Senate Bill 375
Acknowledging the relationship between land use planning and transportation sector GHG emissions, SB 375 was passed by the State Assembly on August 25, 2008 and signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. The legislation links regional planning for housing and transportation with the GHG reduction goals outlined in AB 32. Reductions in GHG emissions can be achieved by, for example, locating employment opportunities close to transit. Under SB 375, each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to encourage compact development that reduces passenger vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and trips so the region can meet a target, created by CARB, for reducing GHG emissions. If the SCS is unable to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets, then the MPO is required to prepare an alternative planning strategy that shows how the GHG emissions reduction target can be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, and/or transportation measures.

REGIONAL LEVEL
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels).

Specially, these strategies are:
• Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
• Promote diverse housing choices;
• Leverage technology innovations;
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Support implementation of sustainability policies; and • Promote a green region.

Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the statemandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita VMT. Some of these tools include center-focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.

LOCAL LEVEL
City of Lancaster Climate Action Plan
The City of Lancaster adopted the City of Lancaster Climate Action Plan (CAP) in March 2017. The CAP documents the City’s GHG emissions inventories and the progress the City has made through its alternative energy and sustainability programs. The CAP also identifies projects that would enhance the City’s ability to further reduce GHG emissions. A focused working group made up of City staff worked to develop projects which would enhance the community, improve government operations, and ultimately reduce GHG emissions. A total of 61 projects across eight sectors were identified:
traffic, energy, municipal operations, water, waste, built environment, community, and land use.

Additionally, the CAP evaluates four different future scenarios, and the proposed measures were quantified for each scenario based upon the project descriptions, action items, and indicators. These scenarios assume that Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) has varying amounts of alternative energy in their portfolio by 2050, which result in different amounts of GHG reductions. Under all scenarios, the City meets the 2020 target by a wide margin and makes substantial progress towards achieving the post-2020 reduction targets.

5.10.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions. Consistent with existing CEQA practice, Section 15064.4 gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. This section recommends certain factors to be considered in the determination of significance (i.e., the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHGs). The amendments do not establish a quantified or performance-based threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)).

The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG emissions should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analyses Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).4 A project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.5

CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS
The project’s GHG impacts are evaluated by assessing the project’s consistency with applicable local, regional, and Statewide GHG reduction plans and strategies. On a regional level, the SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS contains measures to achieve VMT reductions required under SB 375. On a Statewide level, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update provides measures to achieve SB 32 targets. Thus, if the project complies with these plans, policies, regulations, and requirements, the project will result in a less than significant impact because it would be consistent with the overarching State and regional plans for GHG reduction. A consistency analysis is provided below and describes the project’s compliance with performance-based standards included in the regulations outlined in the applicable portions of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

ANTELOPE VALLEY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (AVAQMD)

THRESHOLDS
According to the AVAQMD California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Conformity Guidelines (CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines), the annual emissions threshold for GHG emissions is 100,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr). A project is considered significant if it triggers or exceeds this annual threshold.

CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form that was used during the preparation of this PEIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement GHG-1); and b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (refer to Impact Statement GHG-2).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced 4 See Generally California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action (December 2009), pp. 11-13, 14, 16; see also Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of the Office of Planning and Research to Mike Chrisman, Secretary for Natural Resources, April 13, 2009, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed October 20, 2021. 5 14 CCR Section 15064(h)(3).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

5.10.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

GHG-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD CONFLICT

WITH AN APPLICABLE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN,
POLICY, OR REGULATION.

Impact Analysis: The intent of the proposed project is to streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects while funding future VMT-reducing transportation improvements to reduce Citywide VMT. The program itself does not propose any demolition or development activities within the City. Future transportation improvements would be City-initiated or occur as part of development projects and would occur in incremental phases over time, based largely on funding availability, economic considerations, market demand, and other planning considerations. The phasing and exact details of each future VMT-reducing improvement would be evaluated by the City on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, construction and operational GHG emissions are not quantified as part of this programmatic analysis.

Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. However, the proposed project-related GHG emissions would not include emissions from indirect sources as the funded transportation improvements would not involve any building construction that may use natural gas, water, or generate solid waste during operation. Similarly, future transportation improvements would not generate area source emissions as no building construction would occur. Additionally, future funded transportation improvements would reduce mobile source emissions as the intent of the proposed program is to reduce Citywide VMT.

It is acknowledged that pedestrian crosswalk traffic signals and traffic signal modifications are potential transportation improvements that may utilize electricity. However, energy associated GHG emissions from traffic signal electricity usage would be minimal compared to the project’s GHG reduction as the project would reduce Citywide VMT and associated mobile source emissions.

Further, all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) to Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions evaluate project-level GHG impacts and to identify any required mitigation. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Consistency with Applicable GHG plans, Policies, or Regulations The GHG plan consistency for the project is based on the project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and applicable goals found within the City’s CAP. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per-capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the southern California region. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update describes the approach California will take to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The City’s CAP contains VMT reduction goals and strategies that would help implement VMT-reducing measures and would subsequently reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions within the City.

Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best-performing projects; and different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. These goals are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecasted to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and by 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals. Table 5.10-1, Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, evaluates the project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS strategies. As detailed, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 5.10-1
Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate
multimodal access to work, educational and
other destinations
• Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to
reduce commute times and distances and
expand job opportunities near transit and along
center-focused main streets
• Plan for growth near transit investments and
support implementation of first/last mile
strategies
• Promote the redevelopment of underperforming
retail developments and other outmoded
nonresidential uses
• Prioritize infill and redevelopment of
underutilized land to accommodate new growth,
increase amenities and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods
• Encourage design and transportation options
that reduce the reliance on and number of solo
car trips (this could include mixed uses or
locating and orienting close to existing
destinations)
• Identify ways to ‘right size’ parking requirements
and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g.,
shared parking or smart parking)
Center Focused
Placemaking, Priority Growth
Areas (PGA), Job Centers,
High Quality Transit Areas
(HQTAs), Transit Priority
Areas (TPA), Neighborhood
Mobility Areas (NMAs),
Livable Corridors, Spheres of
Influence (SOIs), Green
Region, Urban Greening.

Consistent. No land use development
would occur as part of the project.

However, the proposed project would
fund VMT-reducing transportation
improvements, such as bus bulb-outs,
traffic signal modifications for bike
phasing, neighborhood traffic circles,
crosswalks, and other traffic calming
features that would provide and
expand multimodal transportation
amenities and opportunities in the
City. Thus, the improvements would
facilitate multimodal access to work,
education, and other destinations. The
intent of the program is to reduce
Citywide VMT, and thus, would
contribute towards reducing commute
times and distances within Lancaster
and reliance on and number of solo
car trips. The intent of the program is
to reduce Citywide VMT, and thus,
would contribute towards reducing
commute times and distances within
Lancaster and reliance on and number
of solo car trips. The potential
transportation improvements would
also improve mobility in the City. As
such, the project would be consistent
with the strategy.

Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and
prevent displacement
• Identify funding opportunities for new workforce
and affordable housing development
• Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers
for building context sensitive accessory dwelling
units to increase housing supply
• Provide support to local jurisdictions to
streamline and lessen barriers to housing
development that supports reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions
PGA, Job Centers, HQTAs,
NMA, TPAs, Livable
Corridors, Green Region,
Urban Greening.

Not Applicable. The project would not
involve any building construction. As
such, the strategy is not applicable to
the project.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 5.10-1 [cont’d]
Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission technologies such as
neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides
hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by
providing supportive and safe infrastructure such
as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/dropoff space • Improve access to services through
technology—such as telework and telemedicine
as well as other incentives such as a “mobility
wallet,” an app-based system for storing transit
and other multi-modal payments
• Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids”
in communities, for example solar energy,
hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power
generation
HQTA, TPAs, NMA, Livable
Corridors.

Consistent. The project would fund
VMT-reducing transportation
improvements, which may include
bike or car sharing programs along
with other multi-modal improvements
and amenities. As such, the project
would be consistent with this reduction
strategy.

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to support local
sustainable development implementation
projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Support Statewide legislation that reduces
barriers to new construction and that incentivizes
development near transit corridors and stations
• Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs), Community Revitalization and
Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax
increment or value capture tools to finance
sustainable infrastructure and development
projects, including parks and open space
• Work with local jurisdictions/communities to
identify opportunities and assess barriers to
implement sustainability strategies
• Enhance partnerships with other planning
organizations to promote resources and best
practices in the SCAG region
• Continue to support long range planning efforts
by local jurisdictions
• Provide educational opportunities to local
decisions makers and staff on new tools, best
practices and policies related to implementing
the Sustainable Communities Strategy
Center Focused
Placemaking, Priority Growth
Areas (PGA), Job Centers,
High Quality Transit Areas
(HQTAs), Transit Priority
Areas (TPA), Neighborhood
Mobility Areas (NMAs),
Livable Corridors, Spheres of
Influence (SOIs), Green
Region, Urban Greening.

Consistent. The proposed project
aims to establish mitigation for
projects that exceed the City’s VMT
thresholds in the form of a mitigation
fee. Establishing a fee mechanism for
development projects to mitigate their
potentially significant VMT impacts
would reduce barriers to new
construction and incentivize
development in the City. Additionally,
the fee would fund potential VMTreducing transportation improvements in the City that would also reduce
associated GHG emissions from
mobile sources. As such, the
proposed project would be consistent
with this strategy.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-16 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 5.10-1 [cont’d]
Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local climate adaptation
and hazard mitigation plans, as well as project
implementation that improves community
resiliency to climate change and natural hazards
• Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands, and
carbon sequestration
• Integrate local food production into the regional
landscape
• Promote more resource efficient development
focused on conservation, recycling, and
reclamation
• Preserve, enhance, and restore regional wildlife
connectivity
• Reduce consumption of resource areas,
including agricultural land
• Identify ways to improve access to public park
space
Green Region, Urban
Greening, Greenbelts and
Community Separators.

Not Applicable. The proposed project
would not involve any development
that would affect green region or delay
the implementation of any related
plans. As such, this strategy is not
applicable to the project.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020.

Consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan (2013). Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve Statewide GHG emissions targets. Provided in Table 5.10-2, Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, is an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 5.10-2
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
SB 350
Achieve a 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030, with a doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is a City-initiated fee program to reduce development project impacts related to VMT under CEQA. The program is not related to any electrical provider. Furthermore, the project would not affect the City’s electricity usage as the project would not involve any building development. As such, this goal is not applicable to the project.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Increase stringency of carbon fuel standards; reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 18 percent by 2030, which is up from 10 percent in 2020.

Consistent. While not directly related to fuel usage,
implementation of the transportation improvements funded by the proposed program is intended to reduce Citywide VMT and thus, would indirectly reduce fuel usage. The program would not regulate the type of fuel utilized by motor vehicles driven within the City. However, all motor vehicles would be required to use LCFS complaint fuels, thus the project would be in compliance with this goal.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) Maintain existing GHG standards of light and heavy-duty vehicles while adding an addition 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Increase the number of ZEV buses, delivery trucks, or other trucks.

Consistent. The project does not propose any demolition or development activities. However, truck uses within the City would be required to comply with all CARB regulations, including the LCFS and newer engine standards. The proposed project would not conflict with the CARB’s goal of adding 4.2 million ZEVs on the road. Furthermore, development within the City would be required to comply with the most current version of the Title 24 and CALGreen Code at the time of construction. The current version of the CALGreen code requires the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in public parking lots. As such, the project would not conflict with the goals of the Mobile Source Strategy.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve the freight system efficiency and maximize the use of near zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy. Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission
trucks and equipment by 2030.

Consistent. As described above, truck uses within the City would be required to comply with all CARB regulations, including the LCFS and newer engine standards. Additionally, the project would not conflict with CARB’s goal to deploy over 100,000 zeroemission trucks and equipment by 2030, as the project would comply with all future applicable regulatory standard adopted by CARB. As such, the project would not conflict with the
Sustainable Freight Action Plan.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy Reduce the GHG emissions of methane and
hydrofluorocarbons by 40 percent below the 2013 levels by 2030. Furthermore, reduce the emissions of black carbon by 50 percent below the 2013 levels by the year 2030.

Consistent. The transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would not result in operational GHG emissions impacts and would decrease Citywide VMT and associated
mobile source emissions. Furthermore, all future transportation improvements would be required to comply with applicable CARB and AVAQMD hydrofluorocarbon regulations. As such, the
proposed project would not conflict with the SLCP reduction strategy.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-18 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 5.10-2 [cont’d]
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Increase the stringency of the 2035 GHG emission per
capita reduction target for metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO).

Consistent. As shown in Table 5.10-1, the project would be consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and would not conflict with the goals of SB 375. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP goals by reducing Citywide VMT.

As such, the project would be consistent with this strategy.

Post-2020 Cap and Trade Programs
The Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on Statewide GHG emissions while
employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would reduce mobile source GHG emissions given that the future transportation improvements would decrease Citywide VMT. As such, the Capand-Trade Program is not applicable to the project.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017 Scoping Plan, November 2017.

Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan
The City adopted a CAP in March 2017. The CAP documents the City’s GHG emissions inventories and the progress the City has made through its alternative energy and sustainability programs. The CAP outlines how the City would meet the State GHG reduction targets for 2020 and make substantial progress towards achieving the post-2020 targets. Project consistency with the applicable CAP measures is analyzed in Table 5.10-3, Project Consistency with the Climate Action Plan. As depicted in Table

5.10-3, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP.

Table 5.10-3
Project Consistency with the Climate Action Plan
Measure Code Measure Project Consistency Analysis
Transportation

4.1.2a: Roundabouts Install roundabouts at appropriate
locations to ensure the efficient
flow of traffic.

Consistent. As detailed in Table 3-1, Potential VMTReducing Improvements, the proposed project would fund transportation improvements such as one-lane roundabouts and traffic circles. Thus, the project would be consistent with the CAP Measure Code 4.1.2a.

4.1.2b: Bike Lanes Installation of Class I, Class II, and Class III bike lanes to provide safe
cycling facilities for residents.

Consistent. Potential VMT-reducing improvements funded
by the program would include two-way cycle tracks, multipurpose paths, bicycle lanes, and traffic signal modifications for bike phasing; refer to Table 3-1. Thus, the project would be consistent with the CAP Measure Code 4.1.2b.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-19 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 5.10-3 [cont’d]
Project Consistency with the Climate Action Plan
Measure Code Measure Project Consistency Analysis

4.1.2c: Pedestrian
Amenities
Provide pedestrian amenities
throughout the City to encourage
walking instead of driving.

Consistent. The proposed project would fund potential
VMT-reducing improvements such as sidewalks with curb
and gutter, widened sidewalks, multi-purpose paths,
crosswalks, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, curb popouts, pedestrian refuge islands, and widened shoulders; refer to Table 3-1. Thus, the project would be consistent with the CAP Measure Code 4.1.2c.

4.1.2d: Traffic Signal
Synchronization
Synchronization of the traffic
signals along segments of major
roadways to provide for a more
efficient transportation network.

Consistent. The proposed project would fund potential
VMT-reducing improvements such as traffic signal
modifications for bike phasing and new traffic signals for pedestrian crosswalks; refer to Table 3-1. These
improvements would make transportation network more
efficient. Thus, the project would be consistent with the CAP Measure Code 4.1.2d.

4.1.2e: Roadway Right
Sizing
Implement road right-sizing where
determined to be appropriate in
order to ensure a comprehensive
roadway network.

Consistent. The proposed project would fund potential
VMT-reducing improvements such as restriped roadways,
and widened shoulders, sidewalks, and medians; refer to Table 3-1. Thus, the project would be consistent with the CAP Measure Code 4.1.2e.

Source: City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster Climate Action Plan, March 2017.

Conclusion
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the proposed project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and the City’s CAP. The proposed project would also be consistent with the General Plan; refer to Section 5.11, Energy.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. As the project does not conflict with 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS, the 2017 Scoping Plan, or the City’s CAP, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.10.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative analysis below considers the proposed Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.10-20 Greenhouse Gas Emissions project’s impacts in conjunction with future buildout of the General Plan; refer to Table 4-1, General Plan 2030 – GPCAC Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative Buildout.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE

GHG PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS
 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GENERATED BY THE PROJECT AND OTHER

RELATED CUMULATIVE PROJECTS COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND OTHER RELATED

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS COULD CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION.

Impact Analysis: It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory.6 GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective.7 The additive effect of the project’s GHG emissions would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. In addition, the project, as well as other cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., California Energy Code and CALGreen Code), which would further reduce GHG emissions. As stated above, implementation of the transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would result in a less than significant impact regarding GHG emissions, as the project would decrease Citywide VMT and associated mobile source GHG emissions. As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable measures in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and the City’s CAP. Thus, the project would not cumulatively contribute to GHG impacts and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.10.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions have been identified in this section. 6 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2008. 7 Ibid.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-1 Energy

5.11 ENERGY
This section analyzes potential project impacts related to energy consumption and energy plan consistency. Potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the proposed program are evaluated in this section. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) during both construction and operational activities.

5.11.1 EXISTING SETTING

ELECTRICITY/NATURAL GAS SERVICES
While Southern California Edison (SCE) is the default electricity service provider in the region, Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) provides electric generation services in the City with higher renewable energy content. LCE is supported by SCE who continues to deliver the electricity, provide billing, customer service, and power line maintenance and repair. LCE only replaces the electric generation services with higher renewable energy content at more affordable rates. Over the past 15 years, electricity generation in California has undergone a transition. Historically, California has relied heavily on oil- and gas-fired plants to generate electricity. Spurred by regulatory measures and tax incentives, California’s electrical system has become more reliant on renewable energy sources, including cogeneration, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass conversion, transformation plants, and small hydroelectric plants. Unlike petroleum production, generation of electricity is usually not tied to the location of the fuel source and can be delivered great distances via the electrical grid.

The generating capacity of a unit of electricity is expressed in megawatt (MW). One MW provides enough energy to power 1,000 average California homes per day. Net generation refers to the gross amount of energy produced by a unit, minus the amount of energy the unit consumes. Generation is typically measured in megawatt-hours (MWh), kilowatt-hours (kWh), or gigawatt-hours (GWh).

The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas services to the City. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon fuel found in reservoirs beneath the earth’s surface and is composed primarily of methane (CH4). It is used for space and water heating, process heating and electricity generation, and as transportation fuel. Use of natural gas to generate electricity is expected to increase in coming years because it is a relatively clean alternative to other fossil fuels like oil and coal. In California and throughout the western United States, many new electrical generation plants that are fired by natural gas are being brought online. Thus, there is great interest in importing liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. Nearly 45 percent of the electricity consumed in California was generated using natural gas.1 While the supply of natural gas in the United States and production has increased greatly, California produces little, and imports 90 percent of its natural gas.2 1 California Energy Commission, Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-naturalgas-california, accessed October 12, 2021. 2 Ibid.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-2 Energy

ENERGY USAGE
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy usage in California was 7,802.3 trillion BTU in 2019 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available), which equates to an average of 198 million BTU per capita.3,4 Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 39.4 percent transportation, 23.1 percent industrial, 18.8 percent commercial, and 18.7 percent residential.5 Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. In 2020, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for approximately 14 billion gallons of gasoline.6
The electricity consumption attributable to Los Angeles County from 2009 to 2019 is shown in Table

5.11-1, Electricity Consumption in Los Angeles County, 2009-2019. 7 As indicated in Table 5.11-1, electricity
consumption in Los Angeles County remained relatively constant between 2009 to 2013, peaked in 2014, and started to decline since 2015.

Table 5.11-1
Electricity Consumption in Los Angeles County, 2009-2019 Year Electricity Consumption (in millions of kilowatt hours) 2009 69,950
2010 68,258
2011 68,197
2012 69,271
2013 68,373
2014 69,953
2015 69,532
2016 69,414
2017 68,657
2018 67,907
2019 66,119
Source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms. energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed October 12, 2021.
3 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Rankings: Total Energy Consumed per Capita, 2019 (million Btu), https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=CA#series/12, accessed October 12, 2021. 4 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table F33: Total Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2019, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_te.html&sid=US, accessed October 12, 2021. 5 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California Energy Consumption by End-Use Section, 2019, https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1, accessed October 12, 2021. 6 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons, https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-Report.xlsx, accessed October 12, 2021. 7 Electricity consumption data is not available for the City. The year 2019 is the most recent year for which the County’s electricity consumption data is available.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-3 Energy
The natural gas consumption in Los Angeles County from 2009 to 2019 is shown in Table 5.11-2, Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County, 2009-2019. 8 As indicated in Table 5.11-2, natural gas
consumption in Los Angeles County remained relatively constant between 2009 and 2019, with no substantial increase or decrease.

Table 5.11-2
Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County, 2009-2019 Year Natural Gas Consumption (in millions of therms)
2009 2,897
2010 3,048
2011 3,056
2012 2,959
2013 3,067
2014 2,794
2015 2,762
2016 2,878
2017 2,957
2018 2,922
2019 3,048
Source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed October 12, 2021.

GASOLINE/DIESEL FUELS
Automotive fuel consumption in Los Angeles County from 2010 to 2020 is shown in Table 5.11-3, Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County, 2010-2021 (projections for the year 2021 are also shown). As shown in Table 5.11-3, since 2017, on-road automotive fuel consumption in Los Angeles County has generally declined and heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption has steadily increased.

Table 5.11-3
Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County, 2010-2021 Year On-Road Automotive Fuel Consumption
(Gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel Consumption
(Gallons)
2010 4,304,076,427 329,505,114
2011 4,236,651,198 339,867,222
2012 4,198,980,534 338,853,704
2013 4,216,912,594 361,667,359
2014 4,253,550,697 362,244,178
2015 4,385,856,315 361,744,298
2016 4,505,175,042 384,515,771
2017 4,519,219,673 383,126,269
8 Natural gas consumption data is not available for the City. The year 2019 is the most recent year for which the County’s natural gas consumption data is available.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-4 Energy
Table 5.11-3 [cont’d]
Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County, 2010-2021 Year On-Road Automotive Fuel Consumption
(Gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel Consumption
(Gallons)
2018 4,424,988,496 387,832,414
2019 4,316,736,552 390,339,591
2020 4,227,065,544 391,991,276
2021(Projected) 4,138,735,098 392,769,572
Source: California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017.

5.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING

STATE LEVEL
Senate Bill 100
Senate Bill (SB) 100 (Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; 60 percent by December 31, 2030; and 100 percent by December 31, 2045. SB 100 requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC), State board, and all other State agencies incorporate this policy into all relevant planning. In addition, SB 100 requires the CPUC, CEC, and State board to utilize programs authorized under existing statutes to achieve such renewable energy goals.

California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24)
In 1978, the CEC established the Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,” California’s energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings.

The 2019 Title 24 standards became effective on January 1, 2020. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Under the 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings use about 53 percent less energy (mainly due to solar photovoltaic panels and lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards, and nonresidential buildings use about 30 percent less energy (mainly due to lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards. The standards require installation of energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-5 Energy
California Green Building Code
The California Green Building (CALGreen) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) is a Statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code was adopted in 2019 and went into effect on January 1, 2020. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies (e.g., lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials.9 California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan The CPUC prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) in September 2008 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and GHG reductions. In January 2011, a lighting chapter was adopted and added to the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is California’s single roadmap to achieving maximum energy savings in the State from 2009 to 2020 and beyond. The Strategic Plan contains the practical strategies and actions to attain significant Statewide energy savings, as a result of a year-long collaboration by energy experts, utilities, businesses, consumer groups, and governmental organizations in California, throughout the West, nationally and internationally. The plan includes the following four strategies:
• All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020; • All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030; • HVAC will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
• All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the lowincome energy efficiency program by 2020.

California Energy Commission Integrated Energy Policy Report In 2002, the California State legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which requires the CEC to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. SB 1389 requires the CEC to 9 U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Costs and Savings, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/greenbuilding-costs-and-savings, accessed October 12, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-6 Energy
conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices, and use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State’s economy, and protect public health and safety.

The CEC adopted the 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update (2020 IEPR Update) Volume I and Volume III on March 23, 2021, and Volume II on April 15, 2021.10 The 2020 IEPR Update provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California, many of which will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs.11 The year of 2020 was unprecedented as the State continues to face the impacts and repercussions of several events including the COVID-19 pandemic, electricity outages, and Statewide wildfires. In response to these challenging events, the 2020 IEPR Update covers a broad range of topics, including transportation, microgrids, and the California Energy Demand Forecast. Volume I of the 2020 IEPR Update focuses on California’s transportation future and the transition to zero-emission vehicles; Volume II examines microgrids, lessons learned from a decade of State-supported research, and stakeholder feedback on the potential of microgrids to contribute to a clean and resilient energy system; and Volume III reports on California’s energy demand outlook, updated to reflect the global pandemic and help plan for a growth in zero-emission plug in electric vehicles.12 Overall, the 2020 IEPR Update identifies actions the State and others can take that would strengthen energy resiliency, reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change, improve air quality, and contribute to a more equitable future.

LOCAL LEVEL
City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
The General Plan was adopted on July 14, 2009 and has a horizon year of 2030. The General Plan includes the following elements or plans: natural environment, public health and safety, active living, physical mobility, municipal services and facilities, economic development and vitality and physical development. The Plan for the Natural Environment chapter includes goals, objectives, policies, and actions related to energy resources and efficiency. The objectives and policies related to the proposed project are listed in the following:

Objective 3.6: Encourage efficient use of energy resources through the promotion of efficient land use patterns and the incorporation of energy conservation practices into new and existing development, and appropriate use of alternative energy. 10 California Energy Commission, 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, March 25, 2021, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2020-integrated-energy-policy-reportupdate, accessed October 12, 2021. 11 California Energy Commission, Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update Volume I - Blue Skies, Clean Transportation, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 03/2020_IEPR_Update%20Vol%20I%20ExectuiveSummary.pdf, accessed October 12, 2021. 12 Ibid.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-7 Energy
Policy 3.6.1: Reduce energy consumption by establishing land use patterns which would decrease automobile travel and increase the use of energy efficient modes of transportation.

Policy 3.6.2: Encourage innovative building, site design, and orientation techniques which minimize energy use.

Policy 3.6.3: Encourage the incorporation of energy conservation measures in existing and new structures.

Policy 3.6.4: Support State and Federal legislation that would eliminate wasteful energy consumption in an appropriate manner.

Policy 3.6.5: Promote the amount of energy consumed by City operations and assist residents and businesses in reducing their energy consumption rates.

Policy 3.6.6: Consider and promote the use of alternative energy such as wind energy and solar energy.

5.11.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (refer to Impact Statement EN-1); and
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (refer to Impact Statement EN-2).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or a “potentially significant impact.” If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of goals, policies, standards, or mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The standards used to evaluate the significance of impacts are often qualitative rather than quantitative because appropriate quantitative standards are either not available for many types of impacts or are not applicable for some types of projects.

Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines is an advisory document that assists EIR preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis in Impact Statement EN-1 relies upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met:

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-8 Energy
• Criterion 1: The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. • Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
• Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
• Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. • Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources. • Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

The project’s energy usage is qualitatively discussed and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on construction-related energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy use focuses transportation energy demand and discusses Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 6, as the proposed program would not affect the City’s building energy demand.

5.11.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

ENERGY CONSUMPTION
EN-1 THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES.

Impact Analysis: The proposed program would not include funding for development of any habitable structures or other uses that would result in building energy consumption, and therefore would not cause changes to the City’s or County’s electricity or natural gas consumption.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in construction activities associated with VMTreducing transportation improvements funded by the program, which would result in construction fuel consumption. However, construction details of these projects are unknown at this stage of the planning process and therefore, the associated construction fuel consumption cannot be quantified at this time. Each individual transportation improvement is expected to be small in scale (in the context of Citywide and Countywide energy consumption) with a limited construction duration, and would not significantly increase the City’s or County’s construction fuel consumption. Additionally, all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would require separate environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) to evaluate project-specific energy consumption impacts and identify any required mitigation.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-9 Energy
Further, the intent of the proposed program is to reduce Citywide VMT, which would proportionally reduce Citywide operational fuel consumption. Since the details of the potential transportation improvements are unknown at this stage of the planning process, total operational fuel consumption reduction associated with the future transportation improvements cannot be quantified at this time (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 1).

Construction-Related Energy
During construction, the transportation improvements would consume energy in two general forms:
(1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. However, as stated, construction details of these improvements are unknown at this stage of the planning process, and these improvements could be built at any time in the future as funding provided by the proposed program becomes available. Therefore, construction-related energy consumption that may occur at any one time is speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this time. Additionally, as stated above, future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects would be subject to environmental review on a projectby-project basis, and specific mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce constructionrelated energy consumption impacts during construction, as needed.

Notwithstanding, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards.

These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. In addition, because the cost of fuel and transportation is a significant aspect of construction budgets, contractors have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 4).

Significant reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting construction materials composed of recycled materials that require less energy to produce than nonrecycled materials.13 The integration of resource-efficient construction materials can help reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, transport, processing, fabrication, installation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of these construction materials.14 It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual characteristics associated with future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program that would necessitate the use of construction equipment, materials, or methods that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, fuel energy and construction materials consumed during construction would not represent a significant demand on energy resources (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 5).
13 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed October 12, 2021. 14 Ibid.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-10 Energy
Overall, construction energy use associated with future VMT-reducing projects funded by the proposed program would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Operational Energy
Transportation Energy Demand
Future transportation improvement projects funded by the proposed program may include bus bulbouts, crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, widened sidewalks, and multi-purpose paths, among others; refer to Table 3-1, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvements. Such improvements would not require operational energy use. It is acknowledged that some improvements would require lighting (e.g., bus shelters, etc.) or other electrical element (e.g., pedestrian crosswalk traffic signals and rectangular rapid flashing beacons) and thus, may require minimal ongoing operational energy demand. Nevertheless, implementation of future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program, as a whole, would reduce Citywide VMT and associated fuel consumption, and therefore would not result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 2). The lighting and other electric element required by the improvements would be minimal and would not cause additional peak and base period demands for electricity (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 3).

The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are not within the scope of the proposed program and associated transportation improvements. However, VMTreducing improvements funded by the proposed program would encourage residents, workers, and visitors of the City to use alternative transportation methods, including walking, biking, and transit, and contribute towards improving the overall traffic flow throughout the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed program would contribute towards reducing Citywide fuel consumption (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 4 and Criterion 6).

Overall, fuel consumption associated with the proposed program would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other developments in the region. A less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE ENERGY PLAN
EN-2 THE PROJECT COULD CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT A STATE OR LOCAL PLAN FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

Impact Analysis: The proposed program would comply with the applicable goals identified in the General Plan, as detailed in Table 5.11-4, Proposed Program General Plan Consistency Analysis. The General Plan contains energy resources and efficiency objectives and policies that would help implement Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-11 Energy
renewable energy and energy efficient measures and would subsequently reduce energy consumption within the City. As the proposed program would not affect the City’s building energy consumption, the Title 24 standards, CALGreen Code, and RPS do not apply to the proposed program. Therefore, the proposed program would result in less than significant impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans.

Table 5.11-4
Proposed Program General Plan Consistency Analysis
Policies Project Consistency
Policy 3.6.1: Reduce energy consumption by
establishing land use patterns which would decrease
automobile travel and increase the use of energy
efficient modes of transportation.

Consistent. Implementation of the proposed program would involve transportation improvements that would contribute towards reducing Citywide VMT. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 3.6.2: Encourage innovative building, site
design, and orientation techniques which minimize
energy use.

Not Applicable. The proposed program would not involve building construction. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the program.

Policy 3.6.3: Encourage the incorporation of energy
conservation measures in existing and new
structures.

Not Applicable. The proposed program would not involve building construction or modification to existing buildings. Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the program.

Policy 3.6.4: Support State and Federal legislation
that would eliminate wasteful energy consumption in
an appropriate manner.

Consistent. The proposed program would streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA. The proposed program would fund VMT-reducing transportation improvements within the City and thus, supports eliminating wasteful energy consumption.

Policy 3.6.5: Promote the amount of energy
consumed by City operations and assist residents
and businesses in reducing their energy consumption
rates.

Consistent. The proposed program would fund transportation improvement projects that would reduce Citywide VMT, which would reduce associated transportation energy consumption rates of City residents and businesses. Therefore, the program would be consistent with this policy.

Policy 3.6.6: Consider and promote the use of
alternative energy such as wind energy and solar
energy.

Not Applicable. The proposed program would not involve building construction nor directly consume energy during operational activities.

Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the program.

Sources: City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster General Plan 2030, July 14, 2009.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.11.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative analysis below considers the proposed project’s impacts in conjunction with future buildout of the General Plan; refer to Table 4-1, General Plan 2030 – GPCAC Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative Buildout.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.11-12 Energy

ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND PLAN CONSISTENCY
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT AND OTHER CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

COULD RESULT IN WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY
CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES.
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT AND OTHER CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

COULD CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT A STATE OR LOCAL PLAN FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

Impact Analysis: The geographic context for cumulative energy consumption impacts for electricity and natural gas is Countywide and relative to LCE and SCGC’s service areas. While the geographic context for the transportation-related energy use is more difficult to define, it is meaningful to consider the project in the context of Countywide consumption. Future growth within the County is anticipated to increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy, as well as the need for energy infrastructure. As discussed above, the proposed program would not affect the City’s electricity and natural gas consumption, would nominally increase construction fuel consumption, and would cause a net decrease of operational fuel consumption. Additionally, the program and other cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be subject to all applicable energy standards, as well as objectives and policies of the General Plan. Cumulative development projects also would be required to implement any required mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA provisions. Thus, the proposed program and related projects would comply with energy conservation plans and efficiency standards required to ensure that energy is used efficiently. As such, implementation of the program and other cumulative projects would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.11.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts related to energy have been identified.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-1 Noise

5.12 NOISE
This section evaluates short-term construction-related and long-term operational impacts associated with potential VMT-reducing transportation improvements funded by the proposed program.

Mitigation measures are also recommended to avoid or lessen the project’s noise impacts.

5.12.1 EXISTING SETTING

NOISE SCALES AND DEFINITIONS
Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud, and 20 dBA higher four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Examples of various sound levels in different environments are illustrated on Exhibit 5.12-1, Common Environmental Noise Levels.

Many methods have been developed for evaluating community noise to account for, among other things:
• The variation of noise levels over time;
• The influence of periodic individual loud events; and • The community response to changes in the community noise environment.

Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time; refer to Table 5.12- 1, Noise Descriptors.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION PROGRAM | ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 5.12-1
Common Environmental Noise Levels 11/2021 JN 184421
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-3 Noise
Table 5.12-1
Noise Descriptors
Term Definition
Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measured sound to a reference pressure (20 micropascals).

A-Weighted
Decibel (dBA)
A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts for the fact that the region of highest sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000 and 4,000 cycles per second (hertz).

Equivalent Sound
Level (Leq)
The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level.

Maximum Sound
Level (Lmax)
The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period.

Minimum Sound
Level (Lmin)
The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level
(CNEL)
A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.

Day/Night Average
(Ldn)
The Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq.

The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq’s for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the “sleeping hours” (defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night.

Exceedance Level
(Ln)
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% (L01, L10, L50, L90, respectively) of the time during the measurement period.

Source: Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, dated 1979.

HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE
Human response to sound is highly individualized. Annoyance is the most common issue regarding community noise. However, many factors influence people’s response to noise. The factors can include the character of the noise, the variability of the sound level, the presence of tones or impulses, and the time of day of the occurrence. Additionally, non-acoustical factors, such as the person’s opinion of the noise source, the ability to adapt to the noise, the attitude towards the source and those associated with it, and the predictability of the noise, all influence people’s response. As such, response to noise varies widely from one person to another and with any particular noise, individual responses will range from “not annoyed” to “highly annoyed.”
The effects of noise are often only transitory, but adverse effects can be cumulative with prolonged or repeated exposure. The effects of noise on the community can be organized into six broad categories:
• Noise-Induced Hearing Loss;
• Interference with Communication;
• Effects of Noise on Sleep;
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-4 Noise
• Effects on Performance and Behavior;
• Extra-Auditory Health Effects; and
• Annoyance.

According to the United States Public Health Service, nearly ten million of the estimated 21 million Americans with hearing impairments owe their losses to noise exposure. Noise can mask important sounds and disrupt communication between individuals in a variety of settings. This process can cause anything from a slight irritation to a serious safety hazard, depending on the circumstance. Noise can disrupt face-to-face communication and telephone communication, and the enjoyment of music and television in the home. It can also disrupt effective communication between teachers and pupils in schools, and can cause fatigue and vocal strain in those who need to communicate in spite of the noise.

Interference with communication has proved to be one of the most important components of noiserelated annoyance. Noise-induced sleep interference is one of the critical components of community annoyance. Sound level, frequency distribution, duration, repetition, and variability can make it difficult to fall asleep and may cause momentary shifts in the natural sleep pattern, or level of sleep. It can produce short-term adverse effects on mood changes and job performance, with the possibility of more serious effects on health if it continues over long periods. Noise can cause adverse effects on task performance and behavior at work, and non-occupational and social settings. These effects are the subject of some controversy, since the presence and degree of effects depends on a variety of intervening variables. Most research in this area has focused mainly on occupational settings, where noise levels must be sufficiently high and the task sufficiently complex for effects on performance to occur.

Annoyance can be viewed as the expression of negative feelings resulting from interference with activities, as well as the disruption of one’s peace of mind and the enjoyment of one’s environment.

Field evaluations of community annoyance are useful for predicting the consequences of planned actions involving highways, airports, road traffic, railroads, or other noise sources. The consequences of noise-induced annoyance are privately held dissatisfaction, publicly expressed complaints to authorities, and potential adverse health effects, as discussed above. In a study conducted by the United States Department of Transportation, the effects of annoyance to the community were quantified. In areas where noise levels were consistently above 60 dBA CNEL, approximately nine percent of the community is highly annoyed. When levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, that percentage rises to 15 percent. Although evidence for the various effects of noise have differing levels of certainty, it is clear that noise can affect human health. Most of the effects are, to a varying degree, stress related.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-5 Noise
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, whereas PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration. Typically, groundborne vibration, generated by man-made activities, attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of vibration. Man-made vibration issues are therefore usually confined to short distances (i.e., 500 feet or less) from the source. Both construction and operation of development projects can generate groundborne vibration.

Table 5.12-2, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous Vibration Levels, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in Table 5.12-2 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.

Table 5.12-2
Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous Vibration Levels Peak Particle
Velocity
(inch/second)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006-0.019 Range of threshold of perception Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level to which ruins
and ancient monuments should be
subjected

0.1 Level at which continuous vibrations may begin to annoy people, particularly those involved in vibration sensitive activities
Virtually no risk of architectural damage to
normal buildings

0.2 Vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings Threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal dwellings1

0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people
walking on bridges
Architectural damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Note:

1. Historic and some old buildings have a threshold of 0.25 PPV (in/sec).

Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, April 2020.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-6 Noise

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of noise than are the general population.

Land uses considered sensitive by the State of California include residences, schools, playgrounds, athletic facilities, hospitals, rest homes, rehabilitation centers, long-term care and mental care facilities.

Generally, a sensitive receptor is identified as a location where human populations (especially children, senior citizens, and sick persons) are present.

Land uses less sensitive to noise are business, commercial, and professional developments. Noise receptors categorized as being least sensitive to noise include industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, natural open space, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, and transit terminals.

These types of land uses often generate high noise levels. Moderately sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, and outpatient clinics. Current land uses within the City that are sensitive to intrusive noise include residential, health care, and public uses.

EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Existing noise sources in the City consist of stationary and transportation sources. Stationary sources of noise include airports; industrial and construction activities; air conditioning and refrigeration units; whistles or bells (signaling breaks or shift changes); high level radio, stereo, or television usage; power tools; lawnmowers; appliances used in the home; and barking dogs. Transportation-related noise sources include aircrafts, trains, automobiles, trucks, buses, and off-road vehicles. Existing traffic noise contours are show on Exhibit 5.12-2, Existing Traffic Noise Contours. As shown on Exhibit 5.12-2, the greatest noise levels occur along Avenue L, Avenue M, and Sierra Highway.

5.12.2 REGULATORY SETTING
This section summarizes the laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards that are applicable to the project. Regulatory requirements related to environmental noise are typically promulgated at the local level. However, Federal and State agencies provide standards and guidelines to the local jurisdictions.

FEDERAL LEVEL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers guidelines for community noise exposure in the publication Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. These guidelines consider occupational noise exposure as well as noise exposure in homes. The EPA recognizes an exterior noise level of 55 decibels day-night level (dB Ldn) as a general goal to protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and annoyance. The EPA and other Federal agencies have adopted suggested land use compatibility guidelines that indicate that residential noise exposures of 55 to 65 dB Ldn are acceptable. However, the EPA notes that these levels are not regulatory goals, but are levels defined by a negotiated scientific consensus, without concern for economic and technological feasibility or the needs and desires of any particular community.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 5.12-2
Existing Traffic Noise Contours 11/2021 JN 184421
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-8 Noise

STATE LEVEL
California Environmental Quality Act
The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the CNEL. Table 5.12-3, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, presents guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.

Table 5.12-3
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential-Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile
Homes 50 – 60 55 - 70 70 – 75 75 – 85
Residential – Multiple Family 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 75 70 – 85 Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 – 70 NA 65 – 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 – 75 NA 70 – 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 – 70 NA 67.5 – 77.5 72.5 – 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries 50 – 70 NA 70 – 80 80 – 85
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 – 70 67.5 – 77.5 75 – 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 – 75 70 – 80 75 – 85 NA Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; NA = not applicable NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.

NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be included in the design.

CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: Office of Planning and Research, California, General Plan Guidelines, July 2017.

As depicted in Table 5.12-3, the range of noise exposure levels overlap between the normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable categories.

OPR’s State General Plan Guidelines note that noise planning policy needs to be rather flexible and Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-9 Noise
dynamic to reflect not only technological advances in noise control, but also economic constraints governing application of noise-control technology and anticipated regional growth and demands of the community. In project-specific analyses, each community must decide the level of noise exposure its residents are willing to tolerate within a limited range of values below the known levels of health impairment. Therefore, the City may use their discretion to determine which noise levels are considered acceptable or unacceptable, based on land use, project location, and other project factors.

LOCAL LEVEL
City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
The Noise section of the Plan for Public Health and Safety (i.e., Noise Element/Safety Element) was adopted by the City to control and abate environmental noise, and to protect the citizens of the City from excessive exposure to noise. The Noise section specifies the maximum exterior noise levels allowable for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads. To protect City residents from excessive noise, the Noise section contains the following noise-related objectives and policies relevant to the proposed project:

Objective 4.3: Promote noise compatible land use relationships by implementing the noise standards identified in Table 3-1 (Table 5.12-4, Noise Compatible Land Use Objectives, below) to be utilized for design purposes in new development, and establishing a program to attenuate existing noise problem[s].

Policy 4.3.1: Ensure that noise-sensitive land uses and noise generators are located and designed in such a manner that City noise objectives will be achieved.

Policy 4.3.2: Wherever feasible, manage the generation of single event noise levels (SENL) from motor vehicles, trains, aircraft, commercial, industrial, construction, and other activities such that SENL levels are no greater than 15 dBA above the noise objectives included in the Plan for Public Health and Safety.

Policy 4.3.3: Ensure that the provision of noise attenuation does not create significant negative visual impacts.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-10 Noise
Table 5.12-4
Noise Compatible Land Use Objectives
Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)
Maximum Exterior Maximum Interior
Rural, Single-Family, Multiple-Family Residential 65 dBA 45 dBA Schools:

Classrooms
Playgrounds
65 dBA
70 dBA
45 dBA
-
Libraries - 50 dBA
Hospitals/Convalescent Facilities:

Living Areas
Sleeping Areas
-
-
50 dBA
40 dBA
Commercial and Industrial
Office Areas
70 dBA
-
-
50 dBA
Source: City of Lancaster, Lancaster General Plan 2030, July 14, 2009.

Lancaster Municipal Code
The City’s standards for governing environmental noise are set forth in Chapter 8.24, Noise Regulations, of the Municipal Code. For the purpose of this analysis, the noise impacts associated with the project are controlled by the Plan for Public Health and Safety in the General Plan, and the permitted hours of construction activity are established in the Municipal Code.

The City has set restrictions with respect to the hours during which construction activity may take place. Municipal Code Section 8.24.040, Loud, unnecessary and unusual noises prohibited - Construction and Building, indicates that:
“…a person at any time on Sunday or any day between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall not perform any construction or repair work of any kind upon any building or structure or perform any earth excavating, filling or moving where any of the foregoing entails the use of any air compressor, jack hammer, power-driven drill, riveting machine, excavator, diesel-powered truck, tractor or other earth moving equipment, hard hammers on steel or iron or any other machine tool, device or equipment which makes loud noises within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling, apartment, hotel, mobile home or other place of residence.”

5.12.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
a) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (refer to Impact Statements NOI-1 and NOI-3); Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-11 Noise
b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (refer to Impact Statement NOI-2); and/or
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA
Significance of Changes in Traffic Noise Levels
An off-site traffic noise impact typically occurs when there is a discernable increase in traffic and the resulting noise level exceeds an established noise standard. In community noise considerations, changes in noise levels greater than 3.0 dB are often identified as substantial, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. A 5-dB change is generally recognized as a clearly discernable difference.

As traffic noise levels at sensitive uses likely approach or exceed the City’s 65 dBA CNEL maximum noise standard at sensitive uses (e.g., residential and school uses), a 3.0 dB increase as a result of the project is used as the increase threshold for the project. Thus, the project would result in a significant noise impact if a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3.0 dB occurs upon project implementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a noise sensitive use.

5.12.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
NOI-1 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT TEMPORARY NOISE IMPACTS TO
NEARBY NOISE SENSITIVE RECEIVERS.

Impact Analysis: Noise from construction activities is generated by two primary sources: (1) the transport of workers and equipment to construction sites and (2) the noise related to active construction equipment. These noise sources can be a nuisance to local residents and businesses or unbearable to sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, hospitals, senior centers, schools, day care facilities, etc.).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-12 Noise
The proposed program would fund future VMT-reducing transportation improvements within the City, which would generate noise during construction activities. Construction noise levels are dependent upon the specific locations, site plans, and construction details of individual VMT improvements. Given the programmatic level of the proposed project, construction-related noise impacts that may occur at any one time are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. Construction would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time. Because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify the construction noise impacts at specific sensitive receptors. Construction of individual transportation improvements funded by the proposed program could temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each individual project. However, all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) to evaluate projectspecific construction noise impacts and identify any required mitigation. Moreover, based on the range of VMT-reducing facilities potentially funded by the proposed project, the majority of potential future improvements would be limited in scope and scale (e.g., sidewalk/path improvements, signal/crosswalk enhancements, etc.), requiring a limited range of construction equipment and a brief construction duration.

Further, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.24.040, Loud, unnecessary and unusual noises prohibitedConstruction and building, construction of future improvements would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. Construction noise levels would be further reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which would require construction best management practices (BMPs). Specifically, Mitigation Measure NOI1 would require that all construction equipment be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, locate stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest noise sensitive receptors, locate equipment staging in areas furthest away from sensitive receptors, and limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday). Therefore, compliance with Municipal Code Section 8.24.040 and implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce short-term construction noise impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

NOI-1 Each transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt from CEQA) shall ensure through contract specifications that construction best management practices (BMPs) are implemented by construction contractors to reduce construction noise levels. Contract specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Lancaster Development Services Director prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (whichever is issued first). BMPs to reduce construction noise levels may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-13 Noise
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and is in good working condition.
• Place noise-generating construction equipment and construction staging areas away from sensitive uses.
• Construction activities shall occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Monday through Saturday, pursuant to Section 8.24.040, Loud, unnecessary and unusual noises prohibited-Construction and building, of the Lancaster Municipal Code. • Implement noise attenuation measures, as needed, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources.
• Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
• Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.
• The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday). The haul route exhibit shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.
• Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party and the Development Services Director.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

VIBRATION IMPACTS
NOI-2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT

VIBRATION IMPACTS TO NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND
STRUCTURES.

Impact Analysis: Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-14 Noise
amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment.

As shown in Table 5.12-2, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has published reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. Based on Table 5.12-2, there is a risk of architectural damage to normal dwellings at 0.2 inch/second PPV and a risk of architectural damage to historic buildings at 0.25 inch/second PPV. Further, Table 5.12-2 notes that vibrations may begin to annoy people at 0.2 inch/second PPV. The typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 5.12-5, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.

Table 5.12-5
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate peak
particle velocity
at 25 feet
(inch/second)
Approximate peak
particle velocity
at 60 feet
(inch/second)
Approximate peak
particle velocity
at 100 feet
(inch/second)
Vibratory compactor/roller 0.210 0.056 0.026
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.011
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.020 0.010
Jackhammer 0.035 0.009 0.004
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0008 0.0004
Notes:

1. Calculated using the following formula:

PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level at 25 feet in in/sec D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Groundborne vibration generated during construction activities would primarily impact existing structures that are located adjacent to or within the vicinity of specific transportation improvements.

Based upon the information provided in Table 5.12-5, vibration levels could reach up to 0.210 Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-15 Noise
inch/second PPV for typical construction activities (and up to 1.518 inch/second PPV if pile driving activities were to occur) at structures located within 25 feet of construction. For structures that are located at or within 25 feet of potential project construction sites, structures at these locations may experience vibration levels during construction activities that exceed the Caltrans vibration impact threshold of 0.2 inch/second PPV; refer to Table 5.12-2. Structures located at or further than 26 feet from typical construction activities would not experience vibration levels above the Caltrans vibration impact threshold of 0.2 inch/second PPV. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure NOI-2, should construction activities requiring operation of groundborne vibration generating equipment take place within 25 feet of a structure, a project-specific vibration impact analysis shall be conducted. Future VMT-reducing transportation improvements associated with the proposed program would not include construction of large-scale structures. Therefore, pile driving activities are not expected to occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, construction vibration levels would not exceed 0.2 inch/second PPV. Therefore, the human annoyance threshold criteria (i.e. 0.2 inch/second PPV) would not be exceeded. Short-term vibration impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

With regards to operational impacts, the potential transportation improvements would result in no impacts with regards to groundborne vibration.

Further, it should be noted that all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific groundborne vibration impacts and to identify any required mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

NOI-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, each transportation improvement funded by the proposed program subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (meaning, subject to discretionary action and non-exempt from CEQA) with construction activities requiring operation of groundborne vibration generating equipment (i.e., vibratory compactor/roller, large bulldozer, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammer) within 25 feet of an existing structure shall be required to prepare a projectspecific vibration impact analysis to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts associated with the project, and to determine any specific vibration control mechanisms that shall be incorporated into the project’s construction bid documents to reduce such impacts. Contract specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-16 Noise

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
NOI-3 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL

PERMANENT INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY AND EXPOSE PERSONS TO OR GENERATE NOISE

LEVELS IN EXCESS OF STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL

GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES.

Impact Analysis:

Mobile Sources
The purpose of the proposed program is to establish a mitigation fee mechanism for development projects that trigger a potentially significant VMT impact under CEQA, and to utilize collected funds towards future VMT-reducing transportation improvements to reduce Citywide VMT. As such, the proposed program is not considered a trip-generating land use project. The majority of potential transportation improvements would not increase traffic volumes or cause an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. For example, constructing crosswalks or pedestrian refuge islands would not result in long-term mobile noise impacts. However, indirect vehicular traffic redistribution as a result of travel lane reductions (e.g., restriping roadways to add bicycle lanes or widen sidewalks and medians) has the potential to increase traffic noise levels on adjacent roadways. According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3.0 dB increase in traffic noise levels, which is barely detectable by the human ear.1 As noted under Section 5.12.3, the project would result in a significant noise impact if a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3.0 dB occurs upon project implementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a noise sensitive use (65 dBA CNEL).

This analysis considers a potential lane reduction VMT improvement project to assess traffic noise impacts in the project vicinity. As depicted in Appendix 11.2, VMT-Reducing Projects, under the City of Lancaster Master Plan of Complete Streets, the 30th Street West Corridor from Avenue J to Avenue L is proposed to be reduced from four travel lanes to two travel lanes. To provide a worst-case scenario, this analysis conservatively assumes 50 percent of existing average daily traffic (ADT) would be redistributed entirely to each adjacent roadway. Table 5.12-6, Traffic Noise Levels, shows the existing and potential project redistribution traffic volumes and associated noise levels. 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, updated August 24, 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed on October 20, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-17 Noise
Table 5.12-6
Traffic Noise Levels
Scenario Segment
Existing Traffic Project Potential
Traffic Redistribution Noise
Level
ADT Increase Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)1 ADT2
Noise Level
(dBA
CNEL)1
Lane
Reduction
Segment
30th Street West
(Avenue J to Avenue L) 13,711 64.1 6,856 60.9 -3.2
Potentially
Redistributed
Traffic
Segments
Avenue I
(40th Street West to 20th Street
West)
16,769 66.8 23,625 68.2 1.5
Avenue J
(40th Street West to 20th Street
West)
27,028 66.2 33,884 67.2 1.0
Lancaster Boulevard
(40th Street West to 20th Street
West)
14,441 64.3 21,297 66.0 1.7
Avenue K
(40th Street West to 20th Street
West)
27,955 67.4 34,811 68.4 1.0
Potentially
Redistributed
Traffic
Segments
(cont’d)
Avenue L
(40th Street West to 20th Street
West)
23,285 66.4 30,141 67.5 1.1
Avenue M
(40th Street West to 20th Street
West)
14,799 65.2 21,655 66.9 1.7
Notes: ADT = Average Daily Traffic; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level

1. Traffic noise levels were modeled with RD-77-108 and are measured at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Refer to Appendix 11.4, Noise Data, for RD-77-108 modeling sheets.

2. Conservatively assumes 50 percent of traffic from 30th Street West (Avenue J to Avenue L) would be redistributed entirely along each roadway segment listed.

Source: City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster ADT Map,
https://www.cityoflancasterca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/41344/637141754835800000, accessed October 20, 2021.

As shown in Table 5.12-6, the project’s potential traffic redistribution noise levels would not exceed the 3.0 dB increase threshold along any adjacent roadway segments as a result of lane reductions along 30th Street West (Avenue J to Avenue L). As previously discussed, the potential project redistribution traffic volumes conservatively assumes 50 percent (i.e., 6,856 trips) of existing ADTs along 30th Street West (Avenue J to Avenue L) would be redistributed entirely to each adjacent roadway (i.e., Avenue I, Avenue J, Lancaster Boulevard, Avenue K, Avenue L, and Avenue M). In reality, traffic redistribution would occur on multiple roadways and would not be concentrated on one roadway segment as modeled in Table 5.12-6. As summarized in this analysis, traffic redistribution along adjacent roadways as a result of lane reduction VMT improvement projects would not double existing traffic volumes and therefore, would not cause a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels (i.e., 3.0 dB). Notwithstanding, all future transportation improvements, including single improvements initiated by the City and those implemented as part of development projects, would be subject to Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-18 Noise
future CEQA analysis on a project-by-project basis as the extent of impacts become known through the design process. Further, the transportation improvements would be required to implement any required mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA provisions. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Stationary Sources
Stationary noise sources are generally associated with residential, commercial, and industrial developments involving mechanical equipment, loading areas, parking areas, heating, and ventilation units, etc. Due to the scope and nature of the proposed project (VMT-reducing transportation improvements), no long-term stationary noise impacts are anticipated to occur. No noise-generating stationary operations are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.12.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative analysis below considers the proposed project’s impacts in conjunction with future buildout of the General Plan; refer to Table 4-1, General Plan 2030 – GPCAC Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative Buildout.

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT TEMPORARY NOISE IMPACTS TO NEARBY NOISE SENSITIVE RECEIVERS.

Impact Analysis: Construction activities associated with the proposed project and cumulative projects may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. However, construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to the construction site. As previously discussed, future VMT-reducing transportation improvements within the City would generate noise during construction activities. However, all future improvements would undergo environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific construction noise impacts and identify any required mitigation.

Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure BMPs related to construction noise are implemented to further reduce such impacts. Future construction activities associated with cumulative development projects in accordance with the General Plan would also be required to comply with the Municipal Code and incorporate mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis, as applicable, to reduce construction noise pursuant to CEQA provisions. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-19 Noise
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

VIBRATION IMPACTS
 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT VIBRATION IMPACTS TO NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND STRUCTURES.

Impact Analysis: As discussed above, project-related construction and operational activities would not generate groundborne vibration on-site above the significance criteria (i.e. 0.2 in-per-second PPV threshold as established by Caltrans) with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

Groundborne vibration generated from cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA to determine project-specific impacts and any required mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative vibration impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
 THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND LONG-TERM STATIONARY AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS.

Impact Analysis:

Mobile Noise
As discussed above, the project’s potential traffic redistribution noise levels would not exceed the established significance criteria (i.e., 3.0 dB increase and exceedance of 65 dBA CNEL). Traffic noise generated from cumulative development projects would be required to implement any required mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA provisions.

Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with cumulative traffic noise levels, would result in less than significant impacts.

Stationary Noise
Although cumulative development could occur in proximity to future transportation improvements implemented under the proposed project, the proposed transportation improvements would not involve stationary noise sources. Further, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA analysis, which would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate. Additionally, as noise dissipates as it travels away from its Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.12-20 Noise
source, noise impacts from stationary sources would be limited to each of the respective sites and their vicinities. Thus, the project and any cumulative development in the project vicinity are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.12.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts related to noise have been identified.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-1 Utilities and Service Systems

5.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section identifies the existing utilities and service systems in the City and provides an analysis of potential impacts that may result from project implementation. Existing baseline conditions and characteristics, an analysis of the potential project impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible for those impacts determined to be significant, if any, are described.

5.13.1 EXISTING SETTING
WATER
The Antelope Valley is located in a desert environment and underlain by a closed groundwater basin.

Water service to the City is provided by numerous retail water agencies with all water provided from either imported water from the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency (AVEK), groundwater, or a combination. The largest purveyor serving the City is the Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40 (LACWD 40); refer to General Plan MEA Figure 10.1-2, Regional Water Facilities. Given that LACWD 40 provides water services to most of the City, information regarding LACWD 40’s existing and planned water supply sources is provided below.

Imported Water
As discussed in the Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts’ 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 Antelope Valley (2020 UWMP), LACWD 40 uses both imported water (purchased from AVEK) and groundwater as its primary water supply sources.

Currently, AVEK has an average allocation for purchasing up to 144,844 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the State Water Project (SWP). To maximize the use of its SWP supplies, AVEK has developed and is planning several groundwater banks, including the Westside Water Bank, Antelope Valley Water Bank, and the Water Supply Stabilization Project. AVEK has also entered into various water transfer/exchange programs with other SWP contractors. Of AVEK’s 144,844 AFY allocation from the SWP, LACWD 40 typically purchases about 70 percent of that volume, which is approximately 58,800 AFY.

Table 5.13-1, LACWD 40 Current and Projected Water Supplies, summarizes LACWD 40’s current and projected water supply sources and amounts from 2025 through 2045. As shown, in addition to imported water from AVEK and groundwater, additional purchased/imported water (from a new supply or developer fees) and recycled water are also supply sources for LACWD 40.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-2 Utilities and Service Systems Table 5.13-1
LACWD 40 Current and Projected Water Supplies
Water Supply 2020 (actual) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Purchased Water (from
AVEK) 31,552 57,300 55,800 54,200 52,700 52,700
Groundwater (from
Antelope Valley
Groundwater Basin)
14,266 23,298 23,298 23,298 23,298 23,298
Purchased or Imported
Water (from new
supply/developer fees)
0 1,733 1,733 1,733 1,733 1,733
Recycled Water 361 764 902 1,102 1,302 1,302
Total Water Supplies 46,179 83,095 80,831 80,333 79,033 79,033 Notes:
1 All units are in acre-feet per year (AFY).

2. New Supply refers to new supply from new development.

Source: Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40, October 2021.

Groundwater
The LACWD 40 relies on the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin for its groundwater supplies. The Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin is a large, topographically closed, alluvial basin with an estimated total storage capacity of about 68 million acre-feet. The basin is recharged principally by deep percolation of precipitation and runoff from the surrounding mountains and hills. The Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin does not have an associated groundwater sustainability plan and is not identified as being in overdraft but has had subsidence occur.

In December 2015, the Superior Court of California (Court), Santa Clara County, entered a judgment and physical solution in the Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases (2015). Based on the Court’s findings that the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin is in overdraft. As of 2020, the groundwater adjudication judgment provides non-overlying production rights of 6,789 acre-feet, approximately 3,500 acre-feet of unused federal reserve rights, and return flows equivalent to 39 percent of LACWD 40’s five-year average of purchased SWP water supply (39 percent of 26,657 acre-feet or 10,400 acre-feet). LACWD 40 also has the right to lease 2,600 acre-feet of groundwater rights from AVEK, for a total of 23,289 acre-feet of groundwater available to LACWD 40.

Water Demand
LACWD currently provides water to 58,607 service connections, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional/governmental, and other uses. Table 5.13-2, LACWD Current and Projected Water Demand, summarizes LACWD’s current and total water demand projections through 2045.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-3 Utilities and Service Systems Table 5.13-2
LACWD Current and Projected Water Demand
Water Demand 2020 (actual) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable and Raw Water 45,818 54,400 57,100 60,000 63,100 66,300 Recycled Water 362 764 902 1,102 1,302 1,302
Total Water Demand 46,180 55,164 58,002 61,102 64,402 67,602 Note: All units are in acre-feet per year.

Projected water demand for 2020 through 2045 reflect future water committed for development and reflect average normal water year demand before taking into consideration savings from water conservation.

Source: Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40, October 2021.

WASTEWATER
Collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater within the City and adjacent unincorporated areas are under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 14 (District No. 14).

District No. 14 owns and maintains the trunk sewers and Lancaster Wastewater Reclamation Plant (LWRP), which convey and treat wastewater generated by residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the City, as well as portions of the City of Palmdale and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Local sewer collection is provided by the small diameter pipelines owned by the City of Lancaster.

Wastewater generated within the City initially flows through the City’s local sewer pipelines owned and maintained by the City. At the locations of significant flow confluence, connection is made with the regional trunk sewer pipelines owned and operated by District No. 14. The District No. 14 trunk main network consists of approximately 64 miles of pipeline. Trunk sewer pipelines 24-inches in diameter or smaller are usually constructed of vitrified clay pipe. Larger trunk sewers are typically reinforced concrete pipes. District No. 14 checks the capacity and physical condition of the pipeline periodically to determine if repairs or hydraulic relief is necessary.

The regional trunk sewer pipelines then convey wastewater flows to the LWRP. Currently, the LWRP provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and has a design capacity of 18 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD).1 LWRP processes an average flow of approximately 12.9 mgd.2

LWRP also utilizes treated wastewater as recycled water for landscape irrigation and other municipal and industrial purposes in the City, and to maintain water levels at Apollo Lakes Regional Park and Piute Ponds. The remaining recycled water is used for irrigation of fodder crops. 1 County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts, Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant, https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/lancaster-water-reclamation-plant, accessed October 19, 2021. 2 City of Lancaster, Avanti South Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, page 5.11-8, November 2017.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-4 Utilities and Service Systems

STORMWATER
Refer to Section 5.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed discussion regarding drainage conditions within the City. There are a number of existing local and regional flood control facilities in the City, including channels, storm drains, and retention basins; refer to General Plan MEA Figure 10.3-1, Existing City Flood Control Structures.

Local streets are generally used to convey water runoff, which tends to flow in sheets over paved surfaces and collect in low-lying areas. In many areas City streets are designed to accommodate 10- year and/or 25-year storm flows within the right-of-way. However, there are several areas in the City experience recurring flood problems during rainy periods.

The City’s established drainage pattern is an overland flow in a northerly direction through the City to Rosamond Dry Lake. The City and general area is subject to flooding. This is partially due the flat topography of the area, and partially due to the uncontrolled runoff from the San Gabriel and Sierra Pelona mountains to the south. The Antelope Valley drainage basin consists of alluvial fans extending north from these mountains to the dry lakebeds at Edwards Air Force Base. Natural tributaries within the City include the Amargosa Creek and Little Rock Creek. The basin has no natural outlet to the sea, which restricts the removal of runoff to percolation or evaporation.

Runoff typically flows north out of several major canyons, then spreads out and flows across the alluvial fans, eventually reaching the dry lake beds including Rogers, Rosamond, and Buckhorn all located northeast of the City. Storm flows in the undeveloped portions of the City are generally channeled through wide, north-south swales until intercepted by various flood control structures or natural creek beds. Much of the City is subject to sheet flow, resulting in the type of flooding in which water flows over large areas with depths of only a few inches.

SOLID WASTE
Waste Management is the exclusive provider of waste and recycling collection services to residents and businesses in the City.

The majority of the City’s solid waste is admitted to two landfills, the Antelope Valley Public Landfill and the Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center. These landfills are classified as major Class III landfills, which are permitted to accept only non-hazardous waste. Table 5.13-3, Landfills Serving the City, provides a summary of both facilities and their respective levels of capacity for solid waste.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-5 Utilities and Service Systems Table 5.13-3
Landfills Serving the City
Landfill/Location
Amount
Disposed by
City in 2019
(tons per day)
Maximum Daily
Throughput
(tons per day)
Remaining
Capacity (cubic
yards)
Anticipated
Closure Date
Antelope Valley Public Landfill
1200 West City Ranch Road
Palmdale, CA 93551
38,525 5,548 17,911,225 4/1/2044
Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center
600 East Avenue F
Lancaster, CA 93535
88,749 5,100 14,514,648 3/1/2044
Total 128,671 -- 32,425,873 --
Note: The following landfills received less than one percent (combined) of the City’s solid waste and thus, were excluded from this table:

Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF, Olinda Alpha Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center and Canyon City/County Landfill.

Sources:

1. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, SWIS Facility/Site Search, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed September 29, 2021.

2. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility, Disposal during 2019 for Lancaster, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility, accessed September 29, 2021.

DRY UTILITIES
Electricity
Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) is the City’s locally-operated, locally-controlled electrical power provider. LCE was designed to offer residents and businesses within the City a viable alternative to traditional investor-owned utilities (e.g., Southern California Edison). LCE obtains electricity from a variety of generation sources. At a minimum, 35 percent of LCE’s Clear Choice option comes from renewable sources. LCE’s Smart Choice option provides electricity from 100 percent renewable sources. LCE rolled out to all City customers in 2015. Southern California Edison (SCE) continues to maintain the grid, provide customer service, and handle repairs, outages, and billing. Overall, LCE procures and generates electricity while SCE delivers the energy through existing infrastructure.

Natural Gas
Natural gas services in the City are provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). The SCG’s total service territory encompasses approximately 24,000 square miles throughout central and southern California.

SCG maintains an extensive supply network within the City. Natural gas service lines range in size from two- to six-inch delivery mains. The main 30-inch supply line to the Antelope Valley comes from the south end of the valley, from Palmdale off of Avenue S. SCG has an eight-inch supply line along Division Street, flowing south to north, and a 10-inch supply line along Avenue H. Six-inch supply Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-6 Utilities and Service Systems lines also runs within 10th Street West, 40th Street East, and Avenue L. A 10-inch supply line runs within Avenue I, extending from Division Street and flows west toward State Route 14.

Telecommunications
Telecommunication systems for telephones, internet, and cable television are serviced by Spectrum.

Facilities are located above and below ground within private easements.

5.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
WATER
Federal Level
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The EPA, states, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met. Originally, Safe Drinking Water Act focused primarily on treatment as the means of providing safe drinking water at the tap. The 1996 amendments greatly enhanced the existing law by recognizing source water protection, operator training, funding for water system improvements, and public information as important components of safe drinking water. This approach ensures the quality of drinking water by protecting it from source to tap. The Safe Drinking Water Act applies to every public water system in the United States.

State Level
State of California Water Recycling Act
Enacted in 1991, the Water Recycling Act established water recycling as a State priority. The Water Recycling Act encourages municipal wastewater treatment districts to implement recycling programs to reduce local water demands.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 Water Recycling Criteria California regulates the wastewater treatment process and use of recycled water pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Water Recycling Criteria. According to these regulations, recycled water to be used for irrigation of public areas must be filtered and disinfected to tertiary standards.

Urban Water Management Act
The Urban Water Management Plan Act was passed in 1983 and codified as Water Code Sections 10610 through 10657. Since its adoption in 1983, the Urban Water Management Plan Act has been Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-7 Utilities and Service Systems amended on several occasions. Some of the more notable amendments include an amendment in 2004, which required additional discussion of transfer and exchange opportunities, non-implemented demand management measures, and planned water supply projects. Also, in 2005, another amendment required water use projections (required by Water Code Section 10631) to include projected water use for single-family and multi-family residential housing needed for lower income households. In addition, Government Code Section 65589.7 was amended to require local governments to provide the adopted housing element to water and sewer providers. The Act requires “every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet of water annually, to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an urban water management plan.” Urban water suppliers must file these plans with the California Department of Water Resources every five years describing and evaluating reasonable and practical efficient water uses, reclamation, and conservation activities. As required by the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California and Assembly Bill 11, the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Act, incorporated water conservation initiatives, and a Water Shortage Contingency Plan as well.

Water Conservation Act of 2009
Water Code Sections 10800, et seq. creates a framework for future planning and actions by urban (and agricultural) water suppliers to reduce California’s water use. The law requires urban water suppliers to reduce Statewide per capita water consumption by 20 percent by 2020. Additionally, the State is required to make incremental progress towards this goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10 percent by 2015. Each urban retail water supplier was required to develop water use targets and an interim water use target by July 1, 2011. Each urban retail water supplier was required, by July 2011, to include in their water management plan the baseline daily per capita water use, water use target, interim water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use.

Senate Bill 610
Water Code Sections 10610 to 10656 require water suppliers to prepare an UWMP to promote water demand management and efficient use in their service areas. UWMPs are included with the environmental document for specified projects.

Concerning water supply, the Water Code requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment for certain projects.3 The Water Code requires that a Water Supply Assessment be prepared for any “project” which would consist of one or more of the following:4 • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; 3 Water Code Sections 10910–10915. 4 Water Code Section 10912(a).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-8 Utilities and Service Systems • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.

Senate Bill 221
Senate Bill 221 (SB 221),5 amended State law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and land use at the tentative map preparation phase of a project. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures which seek to:
• Promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties; • Require detailed information regarding water availability be provided to city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specific large development projects; • Require that this detailed information be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects; and • Recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and the approval of projects.

SB 221 pertains only to residential projects and establishes the relationship between the Water Supply Assessment prepared for a project and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act.

Efficiency Standards
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20 addresses Public Utilities and Energy and includes appliance efficiency standards that promote water conservation. The CBC (CCR Title 24) includes the 5 Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Government Code Section 66473.4.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-9 Utilities and Service Systems California Plumbing Code (Part 5), which promotes water conservation. In addition, a number of California laws listed below require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in structures:
• CCR Title 20 Section 1604(g) establishes efficiency standards that give the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, sink faucets, and tub spout diverters. • CCR Title 20 Section 1606 prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with established efficiency regulations.
• CCR Title 24 Sections 25352(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Insulation of water-heating systems is also required.
• Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings.

Local Level
Los Angeles County Waterworks 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 Antelope Valley
In compliance with Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, LACWD 40 adopted its UWMP in October 2021. The UWMP outlines LACWD 40’s existing and future water supplies and assesses LACWD’s forecasted water demands and supply availability through 2045. The UWMP also includes a description of LACWD’s service area, baseline and target updates for water demand per capita, water supplies, water supply reliability, and water conservation efforts.

City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
The Plan for the Natural Environment and the Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities in the General Plan includes objectives and policies related to the City’s water demands. The following goals and policies are relevant to the proposed project:

Plan for the Natural Environment
Objective 3.1: Protect, maintain, and replenish groundwater supplies to meet present and future urban and rural needs.

Policy 3.1.1 Ensure that development does not adversely affect the groundwater basin.

Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities
Objective 15.1: Achieve and maintain the following levels of service:

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-10 Utilities and Service Systems Facility/Service Performance Objective
Water Systems Adequate fire flow as established by the County Fire Department; sufficient storage for emergency situations.

Policy 15.1.2: Cooperate with local water agencies to provide an adequate water supply system to meet the standards for domestic and emergency needs.

WASTEWATER
Federal Level
Federal Clean Water Act (33 USC Sections 1251, Et Seq.) The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) primary goals are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and to make all surface waters fishable and swimmable. The CWA forms the basic national framework for the management of water quality and the control of pollution discharges; it provides the legal framework for several water quality regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), effluent limitations, water quality standards, pretreatment standards, antidegradation policy, nonpoint-source discharge programs, and wetlands protection. The EPA has delegated the responsibility for administration of CWA portions to State and regional agencies. In California, the SWRCB administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality.

State Level
There are no State regulations directly applicable to wastewater treatment with respect to this project.

Local Level
Lancaster Sewer System Management Plan
The Lancaster Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), last updated in October 2019, was prepared pursuant to SWRCB’s Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements and Monitoring and Reporting Program (GWDR) Order No. 2006-0003. SSMPs are State-mandated requirements for California public collection system agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length. The goals for these plans are to reduce Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), protect public health and environment, and improve the overall maintenance and management of sewer systems, including neighborhood lift stations. The City’s SSMP includes a comprehensive assessment of its existing sewer system and its ability to accommodate existing and future wastewater collection needs.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-11 Utilities and Service Systems City of Lancaster General Plan 2030
The Plan for the Natural Environment and the Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities in the General Plan includes objectives and policies to address the City’s wastewater demands. The following goals and policies are relevant to the proposed project:

Plan for the Natural Environment
Objective 3.1: Protect, maintain, and replenish groundwater supplies to meet present and future urban and rural needs.

Policy 3.1.3: Encourage the use of recycled tertiary treated wastewater when possible.

Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities
Objective 15.1: Achieve and maintain the following levels of service:

Facility/Service Performance Objective
Sanitary Sewers Restricted flow only during peak day, peak hour conditions.

Sewage Treatment Remain within the rated capacity of the treatment facility.

Policy 15.1.5: Ensure sufficient infrastructure is built and maintained to handle and treat wastewater discharge.

Lancaster Municipal Code
Municipal Code Chapter 15.64, Development Impact Fees, establishes an urban structure program for the adoption and administration of development impact fees by the City for the benefit of the citizens.

Specifically, Municipal Code Section 15.64.080, Sewage Treatment Improvements Fee, requires all new developments to pay a Sewage Treatment Improvements Fee to mitigate additional burdens placed on the City’s existing sewage treatment systems created by new development. The fee requires developments to pay their fair-share of the cost of certain capital improvements. The Sewage Treatment Improvements Fee provides funding for land acquisition, design and construction of sewage treatment plant improvements and expansions, wastewater interceptors, and other related improvements.

STORMWATER
Federal Level
Refer to Section 5.6.2, Regulatory Setting, for a discussion regarding all applicable Federal level regulations regarding stormwater.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-12 Utilities and Service Systems State Level
Refer to Section 5.5.2 for a discussion regarding all applicable State level regulations regarding stormwater.

Local Level
Section 5.6 includes a discussion on all applicable local level regulations regarding stormwater.

Nevertheless, the following discussion on local regulations and standards are specifically focused on impacts to stormwater as a utility service system.

City of Lancaster Master Plan of Drainage Update
The City of Lancaster Master Plan of Drainage Update (MPDU), prepared in May 2019 and revised December 3, 2020, provides an analysis of existing storm drain facilities within Lancaster. The goal of the MPDU is to provide recommendations on any flooding issues relating to existing storm drain facilities and propose new facilities to accommodate the anticipated drainage from ultimate condition.

The MPDU also provides an updated drainage fee schedule, or the development impact fee per acre of residential development and per square foot of non-residential development to fund the identified storm drain facility improvements.

City of Lancaster Stormwater Management Plan
The City has been designated a regulated Small Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) by the U.S.

EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 122.322(a)(1). Therefore, the City is required to comply with the Phase II regulations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). There are two options.

One is to obtain an individual permit addressing specific compliance provisions and the other is to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State Water Resources Board Small MS4 General Permit. The City decided to file an NOI to comply with the General Permit in lieu of obtaining an individual permit. As such, the City submitted an NOI, Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) and a fee on March 7, 2003. On April 20, 2003, the NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004 was adopted. The City of Lancaster Stormwater Management Plan, revised August 2003, establishes ordinances, policies, procedures, and practices to manage and control the quality of stormwater runoff in the City.

Lancaster Municipal Code
Municipal Code Section 8.50.200, Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention, establishes stormwater management practices or technical requirements for existing and/or new landscape that minimize runoff and increase rainwater retention and infiltration. Suggested BMPs are also outlined in the section.

Section 15.64.060, Drainage/Flood Control Improvements Fee, of the Municipal Code requires that all new development in the City pay a drainage/flood control improvements fee to offset impacts related to each new development’s stormwater runoff.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-13 Utilities and Service Systems Chapter 16.24, Improvements, Dedications, and Reservations, of the Municipal Code requires all improvements that are required by the conditions of a tentative map, by this chapter, or by any other City statute, ordinance or policy, to conform with the requirements within Chapter 16.24, including those outlines in Article II, Drainage Facilities, of this chapter. Specifically, Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study, requires a hydrology study be submitted and approved prior to the filing of the final map. The hydrology study would verify that the proposed streets and existing downstream streets are designed to carry a 50-year storm, top-of-curb to top-of-curb, and 100-year storm within the right-of-way, among others. The anticipated flow through new developments and potential associated drainage problems would be mitigated through the installation of drainage structures such as culverts, storm drains, or other improvements in accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.24.150, Mitigation of Storm and Nuisance Water Runoff.

SOLID WASTE
Federal Level
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Part 258 contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria. The Federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.

State Level
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) The Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) (California Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste management system that focuses on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 requires every city and county in California to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills whether through waste reduction, recycling, or other means. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates. Actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the County or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the Statewide solid waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020. The law also mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses as well as school districts.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-14 Utilities and Service Systems Assembly Bill 1826
Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826) (California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq.) requires recycling of organic matter by businesses generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds.

AB 1826 also requires that local jurisdictions implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multi-family developments that consist of five or more units.

California Green Building Standards Code
Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11) requires at least 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from non-residential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. CALGreen is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2019 CALGreen took effect on January 1, 2020.

Local Level
City of Lancaster General Plan
The Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities in the General Plan includes objectives and policies to address solid waste within the City. The following goals and policies are relevant to the proposed project:

Plan for Municipal Services and Facilities
Objective 15.2: Minimize the negative impacts of solid waste disposal using a variety of methods including mitigating the disposal of waste from outside the Antelope Valley.

Policy 15.2.1: Consider the use of conversion technologies at appropriate facilities.

Lancaster Municipal Code
Municipal Code 13.16, Refuse Collection and Disposal, addresses waste collection and disposal within the City. The purpose of the Chapter is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Lancaster by establishing regulations governing the collection and disposal of refuse.

Municipal Code Chapter 13.17, Requirements for the Collection and Recycling of Recyclable Materials and Collection and Organics Processing of Organic Material Generated from Commercial Facilities, Multi-Family Dwellings, and Special Events, adopts the State-mandated policies regarding solid waste collection and disposal. These policies include the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), as amended by AB 341 and AB 1826, and any future bills amending the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The State assembly aims to increase the diversion of recyclable material and organic waste from landfill disposal, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, energy and other Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-15 Utilities and Service Systems natural resources, and protect the environment. This Municipal Code chapter ensures Citywide compliance of State-mandated solid waste policies.

DRY UTILITIES
Federal Level
There are no Federal regulations directly applicable to dry utilities with respect to this project.

State Level
California Code of Regulations Title 24 – Electric Codes CCR Title 24 refers to the California Building Code (CBC) and contains regulations and general construction building standards of State adopting agencies, including provisions discussing electricity and potential hazards arising from electric installations. Part 3 of the CBC refers to the California Electrical Code, which contains standards for the installation and maintenance for electric utility lines.

Chapters 3 and 7, in particular, discuss the electricity installation standards for residential units.

Local Level
Lancaster Municipal Code
Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, Electrical Code, adopts by reference the 2019 California Electrical Code in its entirety. The California Electrical Code would constitute the electrical code regulations of the City.

5.13.3 IMPACT THRESHOLDS AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (refer to Impact Statements USS-1, USS-2, USS-3, and USS-5);
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (refer to Impact Statement USS-1); c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (refer to Impact Statement USS-2); Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-16 Utilities and Service Systems d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (refer to Impact Statement USS-4); and
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (refer to Impact Statement USS-4).

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a “less than significant impact” or “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

5.13.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION
USS-1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR

EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF
WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

Impact Analysis: The proposed project would provide a funding mechanism for future VMTreducing improvement projects in the City. These improvements would primarily be infrastructure improvements, and would not involve land use development (e.g., new residential or non-residential development). For example, development of widened sidewalks, multi-purpose paths, pedestrian refuge islands, etc. would not result in increased water demand upon project completion. Nominal water usage would be required during construction of the identified improvements. However, no operational water usage would occur. Overall, the proposed program itself would not result in any water demand and thus, would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water infrastructure. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT
USS-2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR

EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF
WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

Impact Analysis: Potential VMT-reducing improvements funded by the proposed program would primarily consist of individual infrastructure improvement projects and do not involve land Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-17 Utilities and Service Systems development. For example, potential improvements may include bus bulb-outs, bicycle lanes, roundabouts, traffic circles, and crosswalks, among others. Such improvements would not generate wastewater. Thus, the program and associated physical infrastructure improvements would not generate wastewater or require construction of new or expanded wastewater collection or treatment facilities. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES
USS-3 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FUNDED BY THE

PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF

NEW STORM WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR THE EXPANSION OF

EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD
CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

Impact Analysis: Refer to Section 5.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed discussion on the potential for the proposed project to create or contribute stormwater runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

As stated, the future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would primarily be City-initiated infrastructure projects within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. Some transportation improvements would be implemented as part of land development projects (e.g., sidewalks and gutters along a project frontage). In both circumstances, improvement projects would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report).

Additionally, future improvements would be required to comply with Federal, State and local regulations pertaining to stormwater drainage. Future projects would also be required to comply with the ordinances, policies, procedures, and practices detailed in the City of Lancaster Stormwater Management Plan, to manage and control the quality of stormwater runoff from the project site. Where applicable, future developments may also be required to prepare a hydrology study in accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study, to ensure project-related runoff can be accommodated within existing and/or planned stormwater facilities. Overall, the proposed VMT Mitigation program itself would not generate stormwater runoff or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-18 Utilities and Service Systems

SOLID WASTE GENERATION
USS-4 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FUNDED BY THE

PROPOSED PROJECT COULD BE SERVED BY EXISTING LANDFILLS

AND COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE.

Impact Analysis: Future transportation improvements accommodated by the proposed program primarily involve transportation infrastructure improvements and thus, would not generate solid waste upon project completion. Construction activities may generate nominal amounts of construction waste from demolition, excavation, and/or grading activities and thus, would result in one-time construction-related solid waste. However, these activities would be nominal and short-term, and would not exceed the maximum daily throughput or remaining capacities of either the Antelope Valley Public Landfill or the Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center. Thus, as proposed, the VMT Mitigation Program itself would not result in an increase in the overall amount of solid waste generated by the City and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

DRY UTILITIES
USS-5 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FUNDED BY THE

PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN THE RELOCATION OR

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED DRY UTILITY FACILITIES,

THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

Impact Analysis: Future transportation improvements accommodated by the proposed program would not result in increased demand for dry utility services, including electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication. As stated, no land uses are proposed and the funded improvements would be infrastructure improvements primarily within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. It is acknowledged that new pedestrian traffic signals and rapid flashing beacons may be funded by the program and would require electricity during operations; however, electricity use would be minimal and would be adequately accommodated by LCE. Additionally, existing facilities, such as underground and aboveground electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication lines, could be impacted by future transportation improvements that encroach or require construction in the vicinity of existing lines, poles, and/or towers. Given that project-level details regarding each transportation improvement is not known at this programmatic level, future improvements would require separate environmental review under CEQA. Future projects would be evaluated on a project-specific level to conduct sitespecific analysis and to identify any mitigation measures, as needed. Overall, the VMT Mitigation Program itself would not increase demand for dry utility services or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded dry utility facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-19 Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact.

5.13.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 requires an analysis of cumulative impacts, which are defined as, “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative analysis below considers the proposed project’s impacts in conjunction with future buildout of the General Plan; refer to Table 4-1, General Plan 2030 – GPCAC Preferred Land Use Plan Alternative Buildout.

WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION
 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH CUMULATIVE

DEVELOPMENT, COULD RESULT IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE
IMPACTS TO WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION.

Impact Analysis: Cumulative projects developed in accordance with General Plan buildout would increase demand for water and could adversely impact existing water supply and facilities. However, cumulative projects would be required to comply with existing regulations pertaining to water supply and conveyance. If applicable, cumulative projects may be required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment to estimate project-specific water demands and to determine whether the applicable water purveyor can accommodate the project’s demands. Similar to the potential transportation improvements associated with the VMT Mitigation Program, cumulative projects would also be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process. As concluded above, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact in this regard and thus, would not cumulatively contribute towards potentially significant impacts in conjunction with related projects.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT
 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

PROPOSED PROGRAM AND CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT COULD RESULT

IN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS TO WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES.

Impact Analysis: Future cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine potential effects to wastewater treatment facilities.

Additionally, similar to future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program, Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-20 Utilities and Service Systems cumulative projects would be required to comply with Federal and local regulations regarding wastewater treatment, including compliance with Municipal Code Section 15.64.080, Sewage Treatment Improvements Fee.

As stated, future transportation improvement projects would result in less than significant impacts to wastewater services and infrastructure, and would be required to undergo separate environmental review and conform with established regulatory requirements. Thus, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES
 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

PROPOSED PROGRAM AND CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT COULD
INCREASE DEMAND FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES.

Impact Analysis: Future cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine project-specific impacts to existing storm drainage facilities.

Similar to future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program, cumulative projects would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local regulations and policies, including Municipal Code Section 16.24.140, Hydrology Study, which requires applicable projects to prepare a hydrology study to identify whether existing and/or planned stormwater facilities can adequately accommodate any increases in stormwater runoff generated by a project.

As stated, future transportation improvement projects would result in less than significant impacts to storm drainage facilities, and would be required to undergo separate environmental review and conform with established regulatory requirements. Thus, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-21 Utilities and Service Systems

SOLID WASTE GENERATION
 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

PROPOSED PROGRAM AND CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT COULD CREATE

INCREASED DEMAND FOR SOLID WASTE GENERATION THAT COULD
CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

Impact Analysis: Future cumulative development projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine project-specific impacts related to solid waste generation. Similar to future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program, cumulative projects would be required to comply with existing regulations and policies, including AB 939 and AB 341 (related to diverting solid waste from landfills), AB 1826 (related to recycling organic matter), CALGreen Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling (related to recycling construction and demolition waste), and Municipal Code Chapter 13.17, Requirements for the Collection and Recycling of Recyclable Materials and Collection and Organics Processing of Organic Material Generated from Commercial Facilities, Multi-Family Dwellings, and Special Events (related to compliance with AB 939, AB 341, and AB 1826 at the local level).

As stated, all future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA and comply with existing regulations regarding solid waste. Thus, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

DRY UTILITIES
 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

PROPOSED PROGRAM AND CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT COULD CREATE

INCREASED DEMAND FOR DRY UTILITY SERVICES THAT COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

Impact Analysis: Future cumulative projects developed in accordance with the General Plan would be required to undergo project-specific environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process to determine project-specific impacts to existing dry utilities. Similar to future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program, cumulative developments may increase demand for electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication services. However, cumulative projects would be required to undergo environmental review under CEQA to determine project-level impacts to dry utilities and to identify any required mitigation. Additionally, cumulative developments would be required to pay connection fees to LCE, SCG, and Spectrum to receive electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication services, respectively.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 5.13-22 Utilities and Service Systems As stated, all future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA and comply with existing regulations regarding electricity. Thus, cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.

5.13.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts related to utilities and service systems have been identified.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 6-1 Other CEQA Considerations

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED

PROJECT
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, the following is a discussion of short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. If the proposed project is approved and implemented, a variety of short- and long-term impacts would occur on a local level. For example, future transportation improvements implemented in accordance with the proposed VMT Mitigation Program may temporarily impact adjacent uses from dust and noise during future construction activities. Short-term soil erosion may also occur during grading activities. There may also be an increase in emissions caused by grading and construction activities. However, these disruptions would be temporary and may be avoided or lessened to a large degree through mitigation cited in this EIR and through compliance with the established regulatory framework; refer to Section

5.0, Environmental Analysis, and Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant.

Given the nature of the potential transportation improvements, such improvements would not result in any substantial long-term environmental consequences. The transportation improvements may include crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, traffic circles, roundabouts, widened sidewalks, pedestrian traffic signals, bicycle lanes, and multi-purpose paths, among others; refer to Table 3-1, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvements. Thus, no substantial long-term operational physical environmental impacts are anticipated upon completion of the anticipated improvements. Further, the intent of the proposed program is to reduce Citywide VMT. Thus, long-term implications of the project would result in beneficial impacts with regards to reduced VMT and associated air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, mobile noise, and overall traffic volumes.

6.2 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT

WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION

SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c), an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the proposed project be implemented. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d):
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely, Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts [such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area] generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 6-2 Other CEQA Considerations The environmental impacts associated with implementation of the VMT Mitigation Program are analyzed in Section 5.0 and Section 8.0. Future transportation improvements implemented as single projects or as part of larger development projects would consume limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during each individual project’s construction phase and would continue throughout its operational lifetime. Future development would require a commitment of resources including building materials; fuel and operational materials/resources; and transportation of goods and people to and from individual project sites. Construction would require the consumption of resources that are not renewable or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources include, but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt; metals; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment.

Transportation improvements accommodated through the proposed project would consume resources similar to those currently consumed within the City (e.g., energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle trips, fossil fuels, and water). Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with construction activities, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. As stated, given the nature of the transportation improvements, no operational activities requiring the substantial consumption of natural resources are anticipated. While some transportation improvements, such as pedestrian crosswalk traffic signals or rapid flashing beacons, would require electricity for operations, the electricity use would be minimal. Nonetheless, the project’s energy requirements under both construction and operations represent a long-term commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.

Additionally, future construction activities associated with future transportation improvements could release hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions; refer to Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. All potential demolition, grading, and excavation activities would be subject to the established regulatory framework to ensure that hazardous materials are not released into the environment. Compliance with the established regulatory framework and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials.

In conclusion, future development accommodated through project implementation would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future generations or for other uses. It is noted that the continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale in a regional context.

Although irreversible environmental changes would result from project implementation, such changes would not be considered significant given the limited scope and scale of the various VMT-reducing facilities that could be funded by the proposed project.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 6-3 Other CEQA Considerations

6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR analyze a project’s growth inducing impacts.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that an EIR:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth [a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas].

Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area, if it meets any one of the following criteria:
• Removes an impediment to growth (e.g., establishes an essential public service and provision of new access to an area);
• Fosters economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment expansion);
• Fosters population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing or employment-generating land uses), either directly or indirectly;
• Establishes a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning and general plan amendment approval); or
• Develops or encroaches on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an infill project).

Should a project meet any one of the above-listed criteria, it may be considered growth inducing under CEQA. Generally, growth inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth.

It is noted that while CEQA does require an EIR to “discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and “discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage…activities that could significantly affect the environment,” CEQA does not require an EIR to predict (or speculate) specifically where such growth would occur, in what form it would occur, or when it would occur.

Answering such questions would require speculation, which CEQA discourages; see CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, Speculation.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 6-4 Other CEQA Considerations In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and based on the above-listed criteria, the project’s potential growth inducing impacts are analyzed below.

REMOVAL OF AN IMPEDIMENT TO GROWTH
Given the nature of future transportation improvements funded by the VMT Mitigation Program, such improvements would not significantly increase demands for public services (i.e., fire and police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, and libraries) or utility and service systems (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste); refer to Section 5.13, Utilities and Service Systems, and Section 8.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant. Overall, the project would not establish an essential public service that could remove an impediment to growth.

On the other hand, the transportation improvements could involve additional bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and multi-purpose paths, which would increase multimodal access to areas within the City previously accessible to only vehicles (to a large extent). Specifically, transportation improvements implemented outside of the City’s central core would provide new multimodal access to less urbanized areas of Lancaster.

It is also acknowledged that the proposed program streamlines Senate Bill (SB) 743 compliance for development projects within the City. The program establishes a mitigation fee for development projects that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds under CEQA, thereby removing a barrier to development within the City from a policy standpoint.

As such, implementation of the proposed project would remove an existing impediment to growth through the provision of new access to an area and establishment of a mitigation mechanism for future development projects.

ECONOMIC GROWTH
The potential transportation improvements that could be implemented by funding from the program would not result in economic growth within the City (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment expansion).

However, the program could indirectly result in economic growth. As previously discussed, the proposed program streamlines SB 743 compliance for development projects within the City that exceed the City’s VMT thresholds under CEQA. Future development projects triggering potentially significant VMT impacts would be able to pay an impact fee to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels, thereby facilitating and expediting the project entitlement process. As such, the City is encouraging economic growth and land use development within Lancaster by streamlining the SB 743 compliance process for future developers.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 6-5 Other CEQA Considerations

POPULATION GROWTH
A project can induce population growth in an area either directly (i.e., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (i.e., through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). Future improvements funded by the project would be transportation improvements and would not result in residential or commercial development. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly induce population growth.

However, as discussed above, future transportation improvements could involve the extension of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and amenities in areas within the City previously accessible to only vehicles (to a large extent); refer to the ‘Removal of an Impediment to Growth” section.

The program could also indirectly result in population growth by streamlining the SB 743 compliance process for future developments and thereby encouraging new development to occur. Future development projects within the City could involve new residential and/or non-residential development that could induce population growth in the City. Thus, the proposed project would induce indirect population growth.

PRECEDENT-SETTING ACTION
The project would not involve any innovation or change in the City’s zoning and general plan amendment approval process. While the project establishes a mitigation program for future projects to utilize (if needed), all future transportation improvements, including those implemented as part of larger development projects, would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA and the City’s discretionary review process for land use and zoning consistency. As such, the project is not considered growth inducing with regards to establishing a precedent-setting action.

DEVELOPMENT OR ENCROACHMENT OF OPEN SPACE
The location of potential VMT-reducing transportation improvements are illustrated on Exhibit 3-3, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvement Locations. As shown, transportation improvements would occur primarily within or adjacent to existing roadway rights-of-way and would not involve developing or encroaching into open space areas. No growth inducing impacts would occur in this regard.

SUMMARY
In summary, project implementation is considered growth inducing with respect to removing an impediment to growth and indirectly inducing economic and population growth. The project is not considered growth inducing with respect to development of a precedent-setting action or development or encroachment of open space.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 6-6 Other CEQA Considerations This page intentionally left blank.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Under CEQA, the identification and analysis of alternatives to a project is a fundamental part of the environmental review process. CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21002.l(a) establishes the need to address alternatives in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by stating that in addition to determining a project’s significant environmental impacts and indicating potential means of mitigating or avoiding those impacts, “the purpose of an environmental impact report is ... to identify alternatives to the project.”
Direction regarding the definition of project alternatives is provided in the CEQA Guidelines as follows:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.1 The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce significant effects relative to the proposed project, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”2 The CEQA Guidelines further direct that the range of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are addressed.3 In selecting project alternatives for analysis, potential alternatives must pass a test of feasibility. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site ...

Beyond these factors, CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a “no project” alternative and an evaluation of alternative location(s) for the project, if feasible. Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative is to be designated. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.4 In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires that an EIR identify any alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and discuss the reasons for their rejection.

The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. The range of potential alternatives to the proposed 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b). 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f). 4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project project shall also include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General Plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project’s significant effects need be considered for inclusion. An alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative need not be considered.

Potential environmental impacts associated with the following alternatives are compared to the project’s impacts:
• Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative; and
• Alternative 2 – Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative.

These alternatives were selected based on their potential to implement certain components of the project, to accomplish some or most of the basic objectives of the project, and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the proposed project’s significant effects. For example, the No Project Alternative is considered to enable the decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. Throughout the following analysis, the alternatives’ impacts are analyzed for each environmental issue area, as examined in Section 5.1, Land Use and Planning, through Section 5.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR. In this manner, each alternative can be compared to the project on an issue-by-issue basis. A table is included at the end of this section that provides an overview of the alternatives analyzed and a comparison of each alternative’s impact in relation to the project. This section also identifies alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. Among the factors used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration include failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Section

7.6, “Environmentally Superior” Alternative, identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines.

7.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An EIR must only discuss in detail an alternative that is capable of feasibly attaining most of the basic objectives associated with the action, while at the same time avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects associated with the proposed project. Below is a summary of the project objectives, as provided in Section 3.4, Goals and Objectives. • Streamline the Senate Bill (SB) 743 compliance process for development projects by providing feasible mitigation options to reduce potentially significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts.
• Identify funding for future transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and VMT reducing projects within Lancaster to help reduce Citywide total VMT.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-3 Alternatives to the Proposed Project • Contribute towards making Lancaster a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented community with active, healthy, and livable spaces.

7.2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. As detailed in Section 5.1 through Section 5.13 of this EIR, upon compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures, project implementation would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts with the exception of transportation impacts related to VMT as analyzed in Section 5.8, Transportation.

7.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection.

According to CEQA Guidelines, among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration are the alternative’s failures to meet most of the basic project objectives, the alternative’s infeasibility, or the alternative’s inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

7.3.1 VMT-EFFICIENT LAND USE PLAN ALTERNATIVE
The VMT-Efficient Land Use Plan Alternative involves updating the existing General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate areas within the City predominantly designated as residential areas to employmentbased land uses (e.g., mixed-use, commercial, office/professional, and industrial). The intent of updating the Land Use Map to accommodate more employment-based land uses is to attract new jobgenerating developments within the City and thereby reduce Citywide VMT. For example, redesignating existing Urban Residential (UR) uses in the eastern and western ends of the City to Mixed-Use (MU), Commercial (C), or Office/Professional (O/P) would help create jobs in housingrich areas of the City and allow for shorter commutes and VMT by residents both living and working in Lancaster. Creating more jobs-rich areas throughout the City would theoretically expand the City’s VMT-efficient areas and thus, reduce Citywide VMT. However, the VMT-Efficient Land Use Plan Alternative would involve a substantial overhaul of the City’s existing Land Use Map and conflict with the existing and planned growth and character of Lancaster that is envisioned in the General Plan.

This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment to update the Plan for Physical Development of the General Plan and associated Land Use Map. Further, the redesignation of parcels from residential to employment-based land uses would increase buildout of nonresidential development within the City and result in additional environmental impacts from new development beyond those generated by the proposed program. Additionally, the redesignation of residential uses to non-residential uses would conflict with the City’s Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirement set by the California Department of Housing and Community Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Development. Even though the VMT-Efficient Land Use Plan Alternative would expand the City’s VMT-efficient areas, it would not ensure development occurs within the VMT-efficient areas and thus, would still result in significant and unavoidable VMT impacts from developments that occur on the outskirts of the City without feasible mitigation to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, this alternative was considered but rejected from additional analysis.

7.3.2 ADDITIONAL VMT-REDUCING PROJECTS ALTERNATIVE
The VMT-reducing projects and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to be funded by the proposed VMT Mitigation Program were identified from existing City planning documents, including the Master Plan of Complete Streets (June 26, 2018); Lancaster TOD Zones (adopted February 10, 2015, updated January 2020); Safer Streets Action Plan (January 2020); Safe Routes to School Master Plan (November 2016); and Master Plan of Trails and Bikeways (March 2012). Additionally, relevant and applicable TDM measures identified by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) were also incorporated into the City’s list of fundable improvements for the proposed program. Based on the City’s assumptions and calculations, implementing all the identified VMT-reducing projects and TDM strategies would reduce Citywide VMT by approximately 6.8 percent.

The Additional VMT-Reducing Projects Alternative involves enhancing and expanding the City’s list of VMT-reducing projects and TDM strategies to be funded by the mitigation program. The intent of this alternative is to fund more TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects than currently identified and thereby further reduce Citywide VMT compared to the proposed project’s 6.8-percent reduction.

This would require the City to prepare new planning documents that identify other TDM strategies and projects relevant and feasible to the existing and planned development patterns for the City of Lancaster. While this alternative would theoretically reduce Citywide VMT more than the VMT Mitigation Program as currently proposed, this alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable VMT impacts due to the fact that only non-exempt projects are required to pay the fee and only for the VMT generated above the established threshold (i.e., there would be insufficient funding to construct the additional VMT-reducing improvements identified under this alternative).

Thus, the Additional VMT-Reducing Projects Alternative was considered but rejected from further analysis.

7.3.3 ALL APPLICABLE FEE ALTERNATIVE
The All Applicable Fee Alternative would require all future development to pay into the mitigation program, regardless of if the development is located in a VMT-efficient or non VMT-efficient area of the City. The cost per VMT may be lower in VMT-efficient areas and higher in non VMT-efficient areas. Regardless, the intent of the All Applicable Fee Alternative is to hold all future development generating VMT responsible for the projected growth in Citywide VMT rather than only development in non VMT-efficient areas and, of that, only the VMT generated above the established threshold.

This alternative would theoretically increase funds generated by the mitigation program and allow implementation of more VMT-reducing projects and TDM measures than the project as currently proposed and thus, further reduce Citywide VMT. However, similar to the Alternative Mitigation Fee Application Alternative, this alternative would more than likely disincentivize development from Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project occurring within the City due to the high costs. Further, given that it would be applicable to all future development, it would also disincentivize developers from locating their projects in existing VMTefficient areas of the City. Thus, this alternative would deter development from occurring and would not enhance or expand existing VMT-efficient areas of the City. By deterring development, it would also reduce funding generated by the mitigation program and thus, not allow for the implementation of more VMT-reducing projects and TDM strategies that can reduce Citywide VMT.

Further, it is acknowledged that the City adopted the Transportation Analysis Updates in Lancaster (Lancaster Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines), prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated May 27, 2020, which closely follows the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory), dated December 2018. The Lancaster Transportation Guidelines establishes VMT screening criteria that would exempt certain development projects from VMT analysis and thereby result in less than significant VMT impacts. Therefore, given that the All Applicable Fee Alternative would require all future development to pay into the mitigation program, regardless of if a project results in less than significant VMT impacts, this alternative would conflict with the VMT guidelines established in the Lancaster Transportation Guidelines and OPR Technical Advisory. Given the aforementioned reasons, this alternative was considered but rejected from additional analysis.

7.3.4 CONSTRUCTION TRIP VMT REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE
The Construction Trip VMT Reduction Alternative was developed in response to general concerns expressed during the NOP public review period. Generally, commenters requested that development projects utilize local hire and skilled and trained workforce to construct projects. Specifically, it was suggested that local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of a project site can reduce the length of construction worker trips and vendor trips, and thereby reduce VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions and provide localized economic benefits.

As such, this alternative assumes the VMT Mitigation Program is not adopted and instead, the City adopts an ordinance requiring developers to hire a certain percentage of construction workers within 10 miles or less of the project site. The intent of this alternative is to reduce construction-related VMT to reduce Citywide VMT. While some development projects may require multi-year construction activities with construction workers traveling far distances, construction-related VMT is temporary and would cease upon project completion. Further, project-generated VMT analyzed under CEQA pursuant to Senate Bill 743 is tied to proposed land use(s) (e.g., residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial) and the VMT generated during long-term operations of the land use(s) (i.e., the lifetime of the development). Neither the Lancaster Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines nor the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA recommend analyzing short-term construction VMT, nor do they cite or suggest any means of reducing construction-related VMT as it is a temporary condition. As such, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the severity of any significant impact under CEQA.

Moreover, even in the hypothetical scenario that a short-term construction VMT impact were to occur, this alternative would still result in potentially significant VMT impacts without feasible VMT- Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project reducing mitigation measures. Without feasible mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels, the Construction Trip VMT Reduction Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable VMT impacts. Thus, this alternative was considered but rejected from additional analysis.

7.4 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, “the no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions …, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.”5 The CEQA Guidelines continue to state that “in certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.”6 The No Project Alternative includes a discussion and analysis of the existing baseline conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation was published on September 10, 2021. The No Project scenario is described and analyzed to enable the decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.

DESCRIPTION
Under the No Project Alternative, the VMT Mitigation Program would not be adopted. VMTreducing transportation improvements currently identified in existing City planning documents as planned but unfunded would continue to be unfunded under this alternative. Thus, the identified improvements in Table 3-1, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvements, and Exhibit 3-3, Potential VMTReducing Improvement Locations, would not be funded and implemented. The City would be required to separately identify funding from another source. Additionally, given that the program would not be adopted, a mitigation mechanism would not be established to assist future development with reducing potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA. Similar to existing conditions, future developments that trigger significant VMT impacts under CEQA would be required to prepare Environmental Impact Reports and adopt statements of overriding consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, as compared to impacts from the proposed project.

IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Land Use and Planning
The proposed program would result in less than significant impacts with regards to land use and planning and would be consistent with applicable land use planning policies, including the General Plan, Municipal Code, and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). 5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). 6 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Under the No Project Alternative, the VMT Mitigation Program would not be adopted. Thus, no City discretionary approval to adopt the mitigation program would be required. CEQA-related VMT mitigation for future development projects would continue to occur similar to existing conditions and the identified VMT-reducing improvements in Table 3-1 would occur at a later date when alternative funding sources are identified. Therefore, no impacts would occur with regards to land use and planning.

Aesthetics/Light and Glare
While the program itself does not involve construction of VMT-reducing improvements in the City, it would provide funding for the improvements to occur in the form of a mitigation fee paid by developers. Therefore, without adoption of the program, the identified VMT-reducing projects would not have funding to be implemented and no improvements would occur as a result of the program. It is acknowledged that future VMT-reducing improvements could be implemented at a later date when alternative funding sources are identified. However, no impacts would occur with regards to aesthetics/light and glare under this alternative.

Biological Resources
As stated, given that the program would not be adopted, the identified VMT-reducing projects would not be funded and thus, no construction of such improvements would occur. Thus, the project’s less than significant impacts with regards to biological resources would not occur.

Tribal and Cultural Resources
The identified VMT-reducing projects in Table 3-1 would not be constructed under the No Project Alternative given that the VMT Mitigation Program would not be adopted. Thus, the project’s less than significant tribal and cultural resources impacts would not occur.

Geology and Soils
As stated, no funding would be generated under the No Project Alternative that could fund the implementation of the identified VMT-reducing improvements in the City. Thus, no construction activities would occur that could result in geology and soils impacts. The project’s less than significant impact in this regard would not occur.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The VMT-reducing projects identified in Table 3-1 would not be implemented under this alternative.

Thus, the project’s less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts would not occur.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Given that no construction activities associated with the proposed program would occur, no potential for the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or accidental conditions involving Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-8 Alternatives to the Proposed Project hazardous materials would occur. The project’s less than significant impacts would not occur under this alternative.

Transportation
The intent of the VMT Mitigation Program is to streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects by providing feasible mitigation options to reduce potentially significant VMT impacts and establish a funding mechanism to implement TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects within Lancaster to help reduce Citywide total VMT. The proposed mitigation program would not be adopted under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, development projects would continue to mitigate their potentially significant VMT impacts with current mitigation methods (e.g., implementation of TDM measures or VMT-reducing improvements on-site). The identified VMTreducing improvements would not be funded and thus, the City would not be able to reduce its Citywide VMT in this manner.

No construction activities would occur and thus, compared to the project’s less than significant impacts, this alternative would have no impact with regards to conflicting with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, or resulting in inadequate emergency access. However, without an adopted VMT mitigation program that is able to provide feasible VMT-related mitigation measures to future development projects and also establish a funding mechanism to implement TDM strategies and VMT-reducing improvements within the City, this alternative would result in greater transportation impacts. The City would not have a mitigation program in place and future developments would be required to reduce VMT on a project-by-project basis, as feasible. Thus, the No Project Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project.

Air Quality
As stated, given that the program would not be adopted, the identified VMT-reducing projects would not be funded. Therefore, the improvements would not be constructed and no construction-related air quality emissions would be generated. However, the intent of the proposed program is to implement the identified VMT-reducing projects and reduce Citywide VMT and associated air quality emissions from mobile sources (i.e., vehicles). The program would provide a planned approach to reduce VMT (and associated vehicular emissions) on a Citywide context. Thus, air quality impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project and the alternative would be environmentally inferior.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The identified VMT-reducing improvements and TDM measures would indirectly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with vehicles given that these improvements would help reduce Citywide VMT. Therefore, while no construction-related GHG emissions would be generated under this alternative, it would not help reduce GHG emissions on a long-term scale nor within a Citywide context. Therefore, the overall GHG impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-9 Alternatives to the Proposed Project greater than the proposed project. This alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed program.

Energy
As stated, no funding would be generated under the No Project Alternative that could fund the implementation of the identified VMT-reducing improvements in the City. Thus, no construction activities would occur that could result in energy consumption. However, as stated, the intent of the program is to implement VMT-reducing improvements that help reduce Citywide VMT and thus, reduce associated energy consumption from vehicular travel. Thus, this alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed program.

Noise
The identified VMT-reducing projects in Table 3-1 would not be constructed under the No Project Alternative given that the VMT Mitigation Program would not be adopted. Thus, no constructionrelated noise would be generated under this alternative. The project’s less than significant impacts related to noise would not occur.

Utilities and Service Systems
The TDM measures and VMT-reducing projects identified to be funded by the program would not be implemented under this alternative. Therefore, construction-related impacts to utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, storm drains, and solid waste, would not occur.

RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As detailed in Table 7-1, No Project Alternative and Project Objectives, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project’s basic objectives.

Table 7-1
No Project Alternative and Project Objectives
Project Objective Discussion

1. Streamline the SB 743 compliance
process for development projects by
providing feasible mitigation options
to reduce potentially significant VMT
impacts.

Given that the VMT Mitigation Program would not be adopted, this alternative would not assist in streamlining the SB 743 process and would not provide a mitigation mechanism for development projects to reduce their potentially significant VMT related impacts. Thus, the No Project Alternative would not meet this project objective.

2. Identify funding for future TDM
strategies and VMT-reducing
projects within Lancaster to help
reduce Citywide total VMT.

The transportation improvements in Table 3-1 are unfunded but planned infrastructure improvements identified from existing City planning documents that have the potential to reduce Citywide VMT. The VMT Mitigation Program would not be adopted and thus, no funds would be collected to pay for the identified TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects. Thus, this alternative would not assist the City in identifying funding for such infrastructure improvements.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-10 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 7-1 [cont’d]
No Project Alternative and Project Objectives
Project Objective Discussion

3. Contribute towards making
Lancaster a pedestrian‐, bicycle‐,
and transit‐oriented community with
active, healthy, and livable spaces.

The VMT Mitigation Program would not be adopted under this alternative and thus, no program would be established that would contribute towards making Lancaster an active and multimodal community.

7.5 ALTERNATE MITIGATION FEE APPLICATION

ALTERNATIVE
The VMT Mitigation Program, as currently proposed, requires non-exempt projects to pay a cost per VMT generated above the established threshold. The Alternate Mitigation Fee Calculation Alternative would apply the cost per VMT fee on all VMT generated by non-exempt projects, rather than only the VMT generated above the established threshold. The intent of this alternative is to increase the funds generated by the mitigation program to be able to fund and guarantee the implementation of a higher number of identified capital projects and programmatic TDM measures compared to the program as currently proposed and thus, further reduce Citywide VMT.

The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative, as compared to impacts from the proposed project.

IMPACT COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Land Use and Planning
This alternative would result in similar land use impacts as the proposed project. While the application of the mitigation fee would differ, the program itself would similarly require City discretionary approval to adopt the program. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would be consistent with applicable land use planning policies, including the General Plan, Municipal Code, and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Overall, impacts associated with the Alternate Mitigation Fee Calculation Alternative would be similar to the project.

Aesthetics/Light and Glare
While the mitigation fee would be applicable to all VMT generated by non-exempt projects (compared to only the VMT generated above the established threshold under the proposed project), this alternative would fund and allow the implementation of the same list of identified TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements in the City; refer to Table 3-1. Thus, this alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts with regards to aesthetics and light and glare.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-11 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Biological Resources
As stated, this alternative would apply the mitigation fee to non-exempt projects slightly differently than the proposed project but would result in the implementation of the same identified VMTreducing projects. Thus, the project’s less than significant impacts regarding biological resources would similarly occur under this alternative.

Tribal and Cultural Resources
Given that the VMT-reducing improvements to be funded by the proposed project would be the same as those funded by the Alternate Mitigation Fee Calculation Alternative, construction-related impacts to tribal and cultural resources would be similar under both scenarios.

Geology and Soils
This alternative would fund and allow the implementation of the same list of identified TDM measures and VMT-reducing transportation improvements in the City. Thus, geology and soils impacts associated with the transportation improvements would be similar to the proposed project and less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality
While the application of the mitigation fee would slightly differ, the identified transportation improvements would be the same. Thus, hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the VMT-reducing projects would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The same transportation improvements would be implemented under the proposed project and this alternative. Therefore, construction-related impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under both scenarios and result in less than significant impacts.

Transportation
The Alternate Mitigation Fee Calculation Alternative would theoretically increase funds generated by the mitigation program and thus, be able to guarantee the implementation of the identified TDM measures and VMT-reducing improvements more quickly than the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would theoretically reduce Citywide VMT more than the proposed project. However, similar to the project, potentially significant VMT impacts could still occur on a project-level. It cannot be determined with certainty whether improvements would be implemented at the time a future development project’s VMT impacts occur (e.g., at project opening), and whether those impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Additionally, it is acknowledged that since only non-exempt projects would pay into the mitigation program, the impact fee would still not be able to fully fund all the identified TDM measures and VMT-reducing improvements within the City. Given the speculative timing of when the TDM measures and transportation improvements would be implemented and the Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-12 Alternatives to the Proposed Project fact that the mitigation program cannot fully fund all identified improvements, no feasible mitigation is available at this time to reduce impacts associated with this alternative to less than significant levels.

As such, similar to the proposed project, VMT impacts in this regard would remain significant and unavoidable.

It is acknowledged that while this alternative would theoretically increase funds generated by the program, requiring non-exempt development projects to pay for all VMT generated would likely make many projects infeasible from an economic standpoint. Thus, the likelihood of increasing funds to implement more VMT-reducing transportation improvements within the City under this alternative is unrealistic.

Air Quality
Theoretically, this alternative would increase the funds generated by the mitigation program and be able to implement TDM measures and VMT-reducing improvements more quickly within the City compared to the proposed project. Thus, such improvements would further reduce Citywide VMT and indirectly further reduce mobile source air quality emissions. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project in this regard.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As stated, this alternative would theoretically increase funds to implement VMT-reducing transportation improvements more quickly than the project. Therefore, GHG emissions generated by vehicles traveling within Lancaster would proportionally be reduced if Citywide VMT is further reduced. As such, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project in this regard.

Energy
Given that this alternative would increase funds generated by the program and be able to implement more VMT-reducing improvements within the City at a quicker pace than the project, Citywide VMT and energy consumption associated with vehicular travel would also reduce at a greater pace.

Therefore, construction-related energy consumption would be reduced and this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project.

Noise
Construction-related noise impacts associated with the VMT-reducing transportation improvements would similarly occur under the proposed project and Alternative Mitigation Fee Calculation Alternative. However, given that this alternative would guarantee VMT-reducing improvements are funded and implemented more quickly, Citywide VMT would also be reduced at a greater pace. A greater reduction in Citywide VMT would also proportionally reduce operational mobile noise from vehicular travel. Thus, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-13 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Utilities and Service Systems
As stated, this alternative would apply the mitigation fee to non-exempt projects slightly differently than the proposed project but would result in the implementation of the same identified VMTreducing projects. Thus, construction-related impacts to utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, storm drains, and solid waste, would be similar to the proposed project under this alternative.

RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative would achieve the project’s basic objectives but not to the extent of the proposed project; refer to Table 7-2, Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative and Project Objectives.

Table 7-2
Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative and Project Objectives Project Objective Discussion

1. Streamline the SB 743
compliance process for
development projects by
providing feasible mitigation
options to reduce potentially
significant VMT impacts.

Similar to the proposed program, the Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative would help streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects. While the fee amount would be different under this alternative, payment of the fee towards the mitigation program would be a feasible mitigation option for developers to reduce their project’s potentially significant VMT impacts. Thus, this alternative would meet this project objective.

2. Identify funding for future
TDM strategies and VMTreducing projects within
Lancaster to help reduce
Citywide total VMT.

Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would theoretically provide more funding for future TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects given that the fee would apply to all VMT generated by non-exempt projects rather than only the VMT generated above the established threshold. However, it is acknowledged that requiring developers to pay for all generated VMT would strongly discourage development from occurring within the City. Thus, in reality, this alternative would disincentivize development from occurring and therefore, reduce funding generated by the mitigation program compared to the proposed project. This alternative would meet this project objective while not to the extent of the proposed project.

3. Contribute towards making
Lancaster a pedestrian‐,
bicycle‐, and transit‐
oriented community with
active, healthy, and livable
spaces.

The Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative would establish a funding mechanism for future TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects and thus, would contribute towards making Lancaster a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented community. However, as stated above, this alternative would likely discourage development from occurring given the high cost of the fee for non-exempt projects. Thus, this alternative would meet this project objective but not to the extent of the proposed project.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-14 Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.6 “ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR” ALTERNATIVE
Table 7-3, Comparison of Alternatives, summarizes the comparative analysis presented above (i.e., the alternatives compared to the proposed project).

Table 7-3
Comparison of Alternatives
Sections No Project Alternative Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative
Land Use and Planning  =
Aesthetics/Light and Glare  =
Biological Resources  =
Tribal and Cultural Resources  =
Geology and Soils  =
Hydrology and Water Quality  =
Hazards and Hazardous Materials  =
Transportation  
Air Quality  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions  
Energy  
Noise  
Utilities and Service Systems  =
 Indicates an impact that is greater than the proposed project (environmentally inferior).  Indicates an impact that is less than the proposed project (environmentally superior). = Indicates an impact that is equal to the proposed project (neither environmentally superior nor inferior).

Review of Table 7-3 indicates the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, as it would avoid or lessen most of the project’s environmental impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Accordingly, the Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. The Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project for five topical areas (transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and noise) and would result in similar environmental impacts to the remaining topical areas; refer to Table 7-3.

Similar to the proposed program, the Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative would help streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development projects (Project Objective 1). While the fee amount would be different under this alternative, payment of the fee towards the mitigation program would be a feasible mitigation option for developers to reduce their project’s potentially significant VMT impacts.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-15 Alternatives to the Proposed Project However, while this alternative would theoretically increase funds generated by the mitigation program, it is the City’s understanding of its development community that the high cost of the fee would strongly discourage development from occurring within the City. Thus, in reality, by disincentivizing development from occurring, this alternative would reduce funding generated by the mitigation program compared to the proposed project and thus, would not meet Project Objectives 2 and 3 to the extent of the proposed project.

Overall, the Alternate Mitigation Fee Application Alternative would only meet one of the three project objectives.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 7-16 Alternatives to the Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-1 Effects Found Not to Be Significant

8.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
During preparation of this EIR, the City of Lancaster (City) conducted an analysis of the proposed project’s effect on specific environmental topic areas, included as part of the Environmental Checklist form presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Through the course of this evaluation, certain impacts were identified as “less than significant” or “no impact” due to the inability of a project of this scope to yield such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type.

These effects are not required to be included in the EIR’s primary environmental analysis sections (Section 5.1 through 5.13). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the following discussion includes a brief description of potential impacts found to be less than significant or result in no impact. The lettered analyses under each topical area directly correspond to their order in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

AESTHETICS. Would the project:
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation’s California State Scenic Highway System Map, there are no officially designated or eligible State scenic highways within or near the City.1 Thus, transportation improvements developed in accordance with the proposed program would not substantially damage scenic resources, including tress, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State scenic highway. No impact would occur in this regard.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

1 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed November 15, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-2 Effects Found Not to Be Significant a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation, some areas within the City areas are designated either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance.2 However, future transportation improvements implemented in accordance with the proposed VMT Mitigation Program would be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way and would not involve converting important farmland to non-agricultural uses. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The City does not have an existing zoning district for agricultural use. Additionally, according to the General Plan MEA, there are no Williamson Act contracts in effect within or near the City.3 Thus, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur in this regard. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The City does not have existing zoning districts for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Thus, project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur in this regard. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to response to Agriculture and Forestry Resources (c). e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to responses to Agriculture and Forestry Resources (a) through (c).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The West Mojave Plan (WMP) is a Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which covers approximately 9.3 million acres in the western portion of 2 California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed September 22, 2021. 3 City of Lancaster, Lancaster General Plan 2030 Master Environmental Assessment, page 16, April 2009.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-3 Effects Found Not to Be Significant the Mojave Desert, including parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern, and Inyo Counties. The WMP provides a comprehensive strategy for conserving and protecting nearly 100 sensitive plants and animals and the natural communities which they inhabit. However, no other agencies adopted the HCP proposed in the WMP to cover their jurisdictions, including the City of Lancaster. Thus, the adopted plan only applies to BLM lands.

All future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would occur within the City’s jurisdiction. Given that the WMP only governs BLM lands, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the WMP and no impact would occur in this regard.

CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of future transportation improvements funded by the proposed program would occur within existing rights-of-way in developed areas of the City. As such, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or ground-disturbing activities. Nonetheless, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 through 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the most likely descendant. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop near the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called out, the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the aforementioned regulations, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains are less than significant.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a)(i) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No Impact. The City, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. Faults that have historically produced earthquakes or show evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years are known as “active faults.” According to the California Geological Survey, no known active faults cross the City and no areas of Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant the City are located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.4 Therefore, the potential for surface rupture of a known active fault is considered very low. No impact would occur in this regard.
a)(iv) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
No Impact. As indicated in the General Plan MEA, the southwest areas within the City directly below the north slopes of Quartz Hill and along the slopes of Portal Ridge are the only locations within the City that are susceptible to landslide hazards. Future VMT-reducing transportation improvements would primarily occur within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way in urbanized areas of the City and thus, would not occur in the landslide susceptible areas of Lancaster; refer to Exhibit 3-3, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvement Locations. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impact would occur in this regard.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. Future transportation improvements would not generate wastewater that could require wastewater disposal systems or sewer systems. No impact would occur.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are four airport facilities located in and around the City of Lancaster, including the Edwards Air Force Base (located at 305 East Popson Avenue in the community of Edwards), the General William J. Fox Airfield (located at 4725 William J Barnes Avenue in the City of Lancaster), the U.S. Air Force Plant 42 (located at 2501 East Avenue P in the City of Palmdale), and the Palmdale Regional Airport (located at 41000 20th Street East in the City of Palmdale). Both Edwards Air Force Base and U.S. Air Force Plant 42 are military facilities, while U.S.

Air Force Plant 42 shares the same site and runways with the Palmdale Regional Airport. It is acknowledged that the Palmdale Regional Airport is not currently operational.

The proposed project would adopt the VMT Mitigation Program, which aims to fund TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects within the City. The program does not involve development of any residential or nonresidential development that would introduce residents or workers within an airport land use plan area. Given the scope and nature of future transportation improvements associated with the proposed program, it is not anticipated that these transportation improvements would result in a 4 California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed November 23, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-5 Effects Found Not to Be Significant safety hazard for people residing or working within the area. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) provides a comprehensive analysis of natural and human-caused hazards that threaten the City, with a focus on mitigation and reduction of risks. Each section of the LMHP provides information and resources to assist in understanding the region and hazard-related issues facing citizens, businesses, and the environment. The sections of the LHMP combine to create a document that guides the City’s goal to reduce risk and prevent loss from future hazard events. Additionally, to be used in conjunction with the LMHP, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is a flexible, multi-hazard document that addresses the City’s planned response and short-term recovery to extraordinary emergency/disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies.

The EOP does not address normal day-to-day emergencies or the established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Instead, the operational concepts reflected in this plan focus on potential large-scale disasters that can generate unique situations requiring unusual responses. It is designed to include the City as part of the Los Angeles Operational Area, California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), and National Incident Management System (NIMS).

Moreover, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan Safety Element in June 2022, which provides the context to identify and understand hazards that could threaten the urban and rural areas of the community. The Safety Element presents the City’s overall goals, policies, and action programs to facilitate resiliency.

The proposed program would fund future VMT-reducing transportation improvements within the City and would not result in any adverse alterations to vehicular circulation routes or obstruct public access along adjacent roadways. As discussed in Section 5.8, Transportation, future infrastructure improvements implemented in accordance with the proposed program would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and policies related to emergency access, including the California Fire Code and Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction. Future improvement projects would also be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA (e.g., preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) to evaluate projectlevel impacts with regards to emergency access. Thus, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. Refer to response to Wildfire (a).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-6 Effects Found Not to Be Significant HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed VMT Mitigation Program would fund future transportation improvement projects, primarily within existing rights-of-way in urban areas of the City, that contribute towards reducing Citywide VMT. As shown in Table 3-1, Potential VMT-Reducing Improvements, potential transportation improvements include, but are not limited to, raised crosswalks, widened sidewalks, multi-purpose paths, and bus bulb-outs. As such, given the nature of such improvements, such the projects would not have the potential to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Further, all future transportation improvement projects associated with the proposed program would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project- and site-specific hydrologic impacts. Future improvements would also be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and requirements related to groundwater. As such, implementation of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a manner that would impede sustainable groundwater management of the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact.

Flooding
Refer to Impact Statement HWQ-2 in Section 5.6, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Tsunami
A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes.

The City is located approximately 45 miles from the coastline. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Seiche
A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. Reservoirs, lakes, and/or storage tanks are located within the City and are capable of creating a seiche that could inundate areas where future transportation improvement projects are located. However, as stated, future improvements would primarily be ground level improvements along existing rights-of-way in urbanized areas of the City. Given the nature of the improvements, no pollutants would be released should a seiche occur. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-7 Effects Found Not to Be Significant e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or prepare an alternative to a GSP.

As discussed in Section 5.6, the project site is located within the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin, which is ranked as a “very low” priority basin. Therefore, there is no groundwater sustainability plan established for the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan in this regard.

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, North and South Basins (Basin Plan) establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters within the jurisdiction of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB), and is the basis for the Lahontan RWQCB’s regulatory programs. The Basin Plan defines the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, implementation programs, and surveillance and monitoring programs for waters within the basin. As discussed throughout Section 5.6, implementation of the proposed program and associated future transportation improvements would not conflict with the Basin Plan. All future transportation improvement projects associated with the proposed program would be required to undergo separate environmental review and mitigate project- and site-specific hydrologic impacts as needed. Further, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge; refer to response to Hydrology and Water Quality (b). As such, upon compliance with all applicable regulations, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The City is generally characterized by a pattern of low-density land uses (i.e., a mix of existing single- and multi-family residential, commercial, public, and institutional uses) from 70th Street West to 40th Street East and from Avenue F to Avenue N, with isolated areas of rural development surrounding the core (defined as 30th Street West to 20th Street East from Avenue I to Avenue L) of the City from 110th Street West to 110th Street East. The proposed project would adopt the VMT Mitigation Program, which aims to fund TDM strategies and VMT-reducing projects within the City; refer to Table 3-1. The transportation improvements would primarily occur within existing rights-of-way and would not physically divide any established communities. Given the nature of the project, potential transportation improvements would improve the City’s existing roadway, pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit network. As such, the project would not physically divide an established community, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-8 Effects Found Not to Be Significant MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board establishes Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. The classifications used by the State to define MRZs are as follows:
• MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.
• MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ.

According to the General Plan MEA, areas within the City are designated MRZ-1 or MRZ-3.5 Additionally, no active mining operations currently occur within the City. 6 As such, project
implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the State’s residents. No impact would occur in this regard. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Refer to response to Mineral Resources (a). No locally-important mineral resource recovery sites are located within the City. Thus, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site and no impact would occur.

NOISE. Would the project:
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest airport/private airstrip to the City is the General William J. Fox Field Airport located at 4725 William J. Barnes Avenue in the northern portion of Lancaster.

Based on Exhibit 3-3, potential transportation improvements in the northern portion of Lancaster (near the intersection of 40th Street West and Avenue G) are closest to the General William J. Fox 5 City of Lancaster, Lancaster General Plan 2030 Master Environmental Assessment, page 16, April 2009. 6 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation, Mines Online, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed September 22, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-9 Effects Found Not to Be Significant Field Airport, approximately 0.6 mile to the northwest. All other potential transportation improvements within the City are located further south . Future improvements within the General William J. Fox Field Airport Area of Influence and/or noise contour lines would be required to comply with applicable noise standard requirements. Additionally, given the nature of future transportation improvements, the improvements would not introduce new residents or employees to the area. Thus, the project would not expose people to excessive noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project would establish a funding mechanism for future VMT-reducing transportation improvements in the City, such as sidewalks, bus bulb-outs, bicycle lanes, roundabouts, traffic circles, and raised crosswalks, among others; refer to Table 3-1. Such improvements would not involve new residential or nonresidential development or extension of roadways that could result in direct or indirect population growth. Thus, no unplanned population growth would occur in this regard.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Refer to response to Population and Housing (a).

PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a)(1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
No Impact. As stated, future VMT-reducing transportation improvements in the City could include improvements such as sidewalks, bus bulb-outs, bicycle lanes, roundabouts, traffic circles, and crosswalks, among others; refer to Table 3-1. No residential or nonresidential development is proposed as part of the VMT Mitigation Program that could increase demand for public services in the City. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.
a)(2) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
No Impact. Refer to response to Public Services (a).

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-10 Effects Found Not to Be Significant a)(3) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for school services?
No Impact. Refer to response to Public Services (a).
a)(4) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for park services?
No Impact. Refer to response to Public Services (a).
a)(5) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
No Impact. Refer to response to Public Services (a).

RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Refer to response to Public Services (a).
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. Refer to response to Public Services (a). Additionally, the program does not propose to develop any recreational facilities. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

WILDFIRE. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Los Angeles County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, the City is not located in or near a State responsibility area (SRA).7 Further, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Los Angeles County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, the nearest local responsibility area (LRA) 7 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Los Angeles County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, November 7, 2007, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6705/fhszs_map19.pdf, accessed September 22, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-11 Effects Found Not to Be Significant is situated greater than 0.5-mile south, in the City of Palmdale. 8 As such, future transportation
improvements implemented in the City would not be located in or near any very high fire hazard severity zones and no impact would occur in this regard. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. Refer to response to Wildfire (a).
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. Refer to response to Wildfire (a).
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. Refer to response to Wildfire (a).
8 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Los Angeles County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, As Recommended by CAL FIRE, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/7280/losangelescounty.pdf, accessed September 22, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 8-12 Effects Found Not to Be Significant This page intentionally left blank.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 9-1 Organizations and Persons Consulted

9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

LEAD AGENCY
City of Lancaster
44933 Fern Avenue
Lancaster, California 93534
Larissa De La Cruz, Senior Manager – Community Development Jocelyn Swain, Senior Planner
Matt Simons, Senior Engineer
Rosa Orellana, Engineer

PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Michael Baker International
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Alan Ashimine, Project Director
Frances Yau, AICP, CEQA Project Manager
Dawn Wilson, PE, TE, Transportation Planning Department Manager Carla Dietrich, PE, PTOE, Transportation Technical Manager Winnie Woo, Environmental Analyst
Eleni Getachew, Environmental Analyst
Oscar Escobar, Environmental Analyst
Zhe Chen, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Specialist
Tina Yuan, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Specialist
Faye Stroud, Graphic Artist

TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Fehr & Peers
600 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017
Sarah Brandenberg, PE, Principal
Nico Boyd, Senior Transportation Planner
Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 9-2 Organizations and Persons Consulted Economic & Planning Systems
949 South Hope Street, Suite 103
Los Angeles, California 90015
Jason Moody, Managing Principal
Julie Cooper, Vice President
Chinmay Damle, Associate

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 10-1 Bibliography

10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Antelope Valley AQMD Attainment Status, https://avaqmd.ca.gov/files/e0986ab83/AVAQMD+2017+Attainment+Status+Table.pdf, 2017.

2. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016.

3. Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.

4. Antelope Valley Transit Authority, Local Transit Service, https://www.avta.com/system-map.php, accessed January 31, 2022.

5. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2008.

6. California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards Chart, http://www.arb.ca.gov/ research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf, May 4, 2016.

7. California Air Resources Board, AQMIS Air Quality and Meteorological Information’s Systems, https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqmis2.php, accessed on October 4, 2021.

8. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.

9. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017.

10. California Air Resources Board, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/, accessed October 4, 2021.

11. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation, Mines Online, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed September 22, 2021.

12. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed September 22, 2021.

13. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, RareFind 5, California Natural Diversity Data Base, California - Data base report on threatened, endangered, rare or otherwise sensitive species and communities for the USGS Lancaster East, Lancaster West, Del Sur, Alpine Butte, Little Butte, Rosamond, Rosamond Lake, and Redman, California 7.5-minute quadrangles, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 10-2 Bibliography

14. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed December 13, 2021.

15. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Los Angeles County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, November 7, 2007, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6705/fhszs_map19.pdf, accessed September 22, 2021.

16. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Los Angeles County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, As Recommended by CAL FIRE,
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/7280/losangelescounty.pdf, accessed September 22, 2021.

17. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed October 12, 2021.

18. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility, Disposal during 2019 for Lancaster,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility , accessed September 29, 2021.

19. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, SWIS Facility/Site Search, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed September 29, 2021.

20. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons, https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-Report.xlsx, accessed October 12, 2021.

21. California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa, accessed November 15, 2021.

22. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, April 2020.

23. California Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, South Lahontan Hydrologic region, Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin, last updated February 27, 2004, https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/6_044_AntelopeValley.pdf, accessed November 9, 2021.

24. California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/, accessed November 9, 2021.

25. California Energy Commission, 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, March 25, 2021, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2020- integrated-energy-policy-report-update, accessed October 12, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 10-3 Bibliography

26. California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms. energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed October 12, 2021.

27. California Energy Commission, Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update Volume I - Blue Skies, Clean Transportation, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 03/2020_IEPR_Update%20Vol%20I%20ExectuiveSummary.pdf, accessed October 12, 2021.

28. California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed October 12, 2021.

29. California Energy Commission, Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gasmarket/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california, accessed October 12, 2021.

30. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed January 27, 2022.

31. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case_number=&business_name= &main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STATUS=&B RANCH=&MASTER_BASE=&Search=Search, accessed January 27, 2022.

32. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board (MS Excel, 1,453 KB), https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CDOCAOList.xlsx, accessed January 27, 2022.

33. California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed November 23, 2021.

34. California Geological Survey, Geological Map of the Del Sur 7.5’ Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, 2010, accessed September 28, 2021.

35. California Geological Survey, Geological Map of the Lancaster East 7.5’ Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, 2011, accessed September 28, 2021.

36. California Geological Survey, Geological Map of the Lancaster West 7.5’ Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, 2010, accessed September 28, 2021.

37. California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9- 01 0.0), http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/, accessed October 22, 2021.

38. California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 10-4 Bibliography

39. California Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Resources, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=19, accessed November 15, 2021.

40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Sources of Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis), https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/maps.html, accessed October 6, 2021.

41. City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster ADT Map,
https://www.cityoflancasterca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/41344/6371417548358000 00, accessed October 20, 2021.

42. City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster General Plan 2030, July 14, 2009.

43. City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster General Plan 2030 Master Environmental Assessment, April 2009.

44. City of Lancaster, City of Lancaster Climate Action Plan, March 2017.

45. City of Lancaster, Avanti South Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, November 2017.

46. County of Los Angeles, Comprehensive Floodplain Management Plan, Appendix F, FEMA Flood Zone Maps, May 28, 2015.

47. County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, Significant Ecological Areas, https://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/regional_habitat_linkages_and_wildlife_corridors#, accessed October 27, 2021.

48. County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, Significant Ecological Areas Program, https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/sea/home/, accessed October 22, 2021.

49. County of Los Angeles Library, Antelope Valley Local History, https://lacountylibrary.org/antelope-valley-local-history/, accessed September 28, 2021.

50. County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts, Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant, https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/lancaster-water-reclamation-plant, accessed October 19, 2021.

51. Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979.

52. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Nosie Prediction Model (RD-77-108), 1978.

53. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

54. Google Earth, 2021.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 10-5 Bibliography

55. Lancaster Choice Energy, Blazing a Trail for the Global Good, https://www.lancasterchoiceenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Net-Zero-StatisticsInfographic.pdf, accessed December 2, 2021

56. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Acute Communicable Disease Control 2016 Annual Morbidity Report, http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/docs/2011to2016.pdf, accessed October 8, 2021.

57. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Antelope Valley Watershed, https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/watershed/av/, accessed November 11, 2021.

58. Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 Antelope Valley, October 2021.

59. National Park Service, National Register Database and Research, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm#table, accessed November 15, 2021.

60. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.

61. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.

62. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020.

63. Stantec Consulting Inc., City of Lancaster Master Plan of Drainage, Appendix C, Existing Hydrology Map, dated March 20, 2019,
https://www.cityoflancasterca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/42836/6374858434537300 00, accessed November 3, 2021.

64. State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, North and South Basins, effective March 31, 1995, including amendments effective August 1995 through October 29, 2019.

65. State Water Resources Control Board, Impaired Water Bodies, 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report) – Statewide,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml?wbid=CA R6352005319980803162636, October 11, 2011.

Program Environmental Impact Report
Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
Public Review Draft | August 2022 10-6 Bibliography

66. U.S. Climate Data, City of Lancaster, California,
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/lancaster/california/%20united-states/usca0591, accessed October 13, 2021.

67. U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, updated August 24, 2017,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide0

2.cfm, accessed on October 20, 2021.

68. U.S. Energy Information Administration, California Energy Consumption by End-Use Section, 2019, https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1, accessed October 12, 2021.

69. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Rankings: Total Energy Consumed per Capita, 2019 (million Btu), https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=CA#series/12, accessed October 12, 2021.

70. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table F33: Total Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2019,
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_te.html&sid =US, accessed October 12, 2021.

71. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed by October 18, 2021.

72. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2019, 2021, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghginventory-2021-main-text.pdf?VersionId=yu89kg1O2qP754CdR8Qmyn4RRWc5iodZ, accessed October 20, 2021.

73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, Vocabulary Catalog, Drinking Water Technical & Legal Terms,
https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywor dlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=Drink%20Water%20Tech/Legal%202009#formTop, accessed November 18, 2021

74. U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Costs and Savings, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-costs-and-savings, accessed October 12, 2021.

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) MITIGATION PROGRAM
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
TO: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: CITY OF LANCASTER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE CITYWIDE VEHICLE MILES

TRAVELED (VMT) MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City of Lancaster (City) is the lead agency in charge of environmental review for the Citywide Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Program. The City of Lancaster is proposing to prepare a Program Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed program. The City is soliciting comments from reviewing agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the environmental document. For reviewing agencies, the City requests comments with respect to your agency's statutory responsibility as related to the proposed projects in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). Your agency may need to use the EIR when considering relevant permits or other approvals for the project. The City is also seeking the views of residents, property owners, developers, and concerned citizens regarding issues that should be addressed in the EIR.

Comment Period: Comments may be sent anytime during the 30-day Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period. The NOP review and comment period begins on September 10, 2021 and ends on October 12, 2021. All comments must be received during the comment period and no later than 6:00 PM on October 12, 2021. Please include the name of a contact for your agency, if applicable. All comments should be directed to:

City of Lancaster
Attention: Jocelyn Swain, Senior Planner
44933 Fern Avenue
Lancaster, California 93534
Comments may also be emailed to [email protected]. 2 Scoping Meeting: Oral comments may be provided at the Scoping Meeting to be held on September 22, 2021 from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM via zoom. The meeting link is:
https://zoom.us/j/91316538590?pwd=NlFUSk9zaHowQ25mM0ErNlJGZmZpQT09.

Project Location:

The proposed program would apply to development Citywide.

Project Description:

The City is proposing to adopt an ordinance that establishes a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Program with the intent to reduce Citywide VMT. The VMT Mitigation Program would identify relevant transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and VMT-reducing projects within the City to be funded by future developments that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potential VMT-reducing measures may include providing pedestrian/bicycle network improvements, traffic calming infrastructure, improved street connectivity, and City-run programs to incentivize use of alternative travel modes.

Environmental Review:

It is anticipated that the EIR will address potentially significant impacts associated the following topical areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Biological Resources
• Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Drainage
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population, and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Traffic and Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the proposed sites, the proposed projects would not result in significant impacts with respect to Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Mineral Resources; or Wildfires. Therefore, these topics will be address in the Effects Found Not To Be Significant Section of the EIR.

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7- OFFICE OF REGIONAL PLANNING
100 S. MAIN STREET, SUITE 100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 897-3574
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

September 23, 2021
City of Lancaster
Attention: Jocelyn Swain, Senior Planner
44933 Fern Avenue
Lancaster, California 93534
RE: City of Lancaster Vehicle Miles Traveled
Mitigation Program – Notice of Preparation
(NOP)
SCH# 2021090175
GTS# 07-LA-2021-03703
Vic. LA-14
Dear Jocelyn Swain,
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The City is proposing to adopt an ordinance that establishes a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Program with the intent to reduce Citywide VMT. The VMT Mitigation Program would identify relevant transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and VMT-reducing projects within the City to be funded by future developments that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potential VMT-reducing measures may include providing pedestrian/bicycle network improvements, traffic calming infrastructure, improved street connectivity, and City-run programs to incentivize use of alternative travel modes.

After reviewing the NOP, Caltrans has the following comments:

The primary intent of the VMT Mitigation Program, as well as the potential VMT-reducing measures and strategies, are in direct alignment with State-level sustainable transportation policy goals which seek to reduce the number of trips made by driving, reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and encourage alternative modes of travel. Caltrans’ Strategic Management Plan has set targets of tripling trips made by bicycle and doubling trips made by walking and public transit, as well as achieving a reduction in statewide, per capita, vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Similar goals are embedded in the California Transportation Plan 2040, Draft California Transportation Plan 2050, and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal (2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). Statewide legislation such as AB 32 and SB 375, as well as Executive Order S-3-05 and N-19-19, echo the need to pursue more sustainable development. Programs, like the one proposed, can help California meet these goals.

Jocelyn Swain
September 23, 2021