Agenda packet — Lancaster City Council, June 13, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ ______________________________ ANDREA ALEXANDER R. REX PARRIS
City Clerk Mayor
City of Lancaster City of Lancaster

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF LANCASTER )

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION

CITY COUNCIL
I, __________________________, ________________________ City of Lancaster, California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. , for which the original is on file in my office.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, on this 13th day of June, 2023.
(seal)
_____________________________

ANDREA ALEXANDER
City Clerk
City of Lancaster

RESOLUTION NO. 23-37

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS

FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITOR IES INTO THE

LANCASTER MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lancaster desires to in itiate proceedings to annex territory (the “Annexations”) into the City’s Maintenance Districts, specifically the City of Lancaster’s Lighting Maintenance District (“LLMD”); Landscape Maintenance District (“LMD”); and Drainage Maintenance District (“ DMD”) (collectively, the “Districts”) , and t o levy and collect annual assessments therein, pursuant to the terms of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing with Se ction 22500) (the “1972 Act”); the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, being Chapter 6.4, Part 1, Division 2 of the Government Code (the “1982 Act”) ; and the provisions of Section 53753 of the California Government Code, and Chapter 1, Article 4 of the Act and the provisions of the California Constitution, Article XIII D (“Proposition 218”). Said Annexations are designated as: (Refer to Exhibit 1 for details)

WHEREAS, as a condition of development approval, the City has required that all new developments annex into the existing Districts for which their parcels will receive benefit, to provide funding for the street lighting, landscaping and/or drainage improvements as described below; and,

WHEREAS, in response to the City’s conditions of development approva l, the owners of the Annexations have executed and returned a Waiver and Consent to annex into the Districts , waiving certain statutory requirements related to protest, report, resolutions and notice of hearing; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. That the City Council proposes to annex territory into the Districts, and to levy and collect annual assessments for the Annexations, to pay for the continued operation, maintenance and servicing of the street lighting, landscaping and /or drainage improvements and appurtenant facilities related thereto; and,

Section 3. T hat the Annexations consist of the lots and parcels of land that will receive special benefit from the improvements and services provided, and are within the boundaries of the City. Location maps for the Annexations are included with the Staff Report accompanying this Resolution; and,

Resolution No. 23-37

Page 2 ends

Section 4. The improvements for which the Annexation s are proposed to be assessed generally include, but are not limited to: for the LLMD – street lighting, public parking lot lighting; for the LMD – landscaping, graffiti abatement, water and electrical power; for the DMD – catch basins, pipes, retention/detention basins, channels, parkway drains, spillways, streets and gutters. These improvements are more fully described in the corresponding Engineer’s Reports for the Districts.

Section 5. The distinctive de signation of each of the Annexations are included as Exhibit 1.

Section 6. The City hereby directs the preparation and a written report (the “Engineer’s Report”), and file it with the City Clerk pursuant to State Law.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13
th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

___________________________ ______________________________ ANDREA ALEXANDER R. REX PARRIS
City Clerk Mayor
City of Lancaster City of Lancaster

Resolution No. 23-37

Page 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF LANCASTER )

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION

CITY COUNCIL

I, __________________________, ________________________ City of Lancaster, California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 23- 37, for which the original is on file in my office.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, on this _________ day of ________________, 2023.

(seal)

Annexation
No.'s APN(s) Project Location Developer/Owner Calculated EDU's
Estimated
1st Year
Assessment
DMD
DMD 22-01 3123-009-038 & 039 SPR 21-12 1333 W. Ave. K TRU 2005 RE 1 LLC 126.55 $9,456.78 DMD 22-02 3386-007-007 SPR 21-02 S.W. corner of Ave. K and 65th Street E. Amberland LLC 1056.82 $78,976.20 DMD 22-03 3111-018-023 PMT 21-04696 Quartz Hill GOCKE BENJAMIN & LINDSAY 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-04 3109-032-007 PMT 22-01125 Between Ave. M & Desert Rose Drive RAMIREZ FELIPE - in Parcel Quest 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-05 3109-024-033 DR 20-38 42240 15th Street W. DO DREAM COMMUNITY CHURCH 24.47 $1,828.27 DMD 22-06 3126-016-028 SPR 20-06 8th Street E, south of Ave. L-8 MARKOSYAN EDWARD 15.04 $1,124.09 DMD 22-07 3111-028-069 PMT 21-01495 41454 Sierra Vista Way ELIOPULOS, ANDREW J 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-08 3124-023-002 PMT 20-05992 44623 Cedar Ave. LOVEJOY, CATLIN J 1.59 $119.11 DMD 22-09 3109-024-049 & 052 SPR 20-05 S.E. corner of 12th Street W. & Ave. L-8 HONOR, DENNIS L & ELIZABETH D 63.89 $4,774.80 DMD 22-10 3128-012-004 SPR 20-07 South side of Ave. L-8, west of Division COMMERCIAL SERVICES 17.25 $1,289.09 DMD 22-11 3138-018-047 DR 19-80 44721 Trevor Ave. OUR LADY OF CHARITY CONFERENCE OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL 4.12 $308.03
DMD 22-12 3126-015-019 SPR 21-06 6th Street E, south of Ave. L-4 VILLAR ALEXANDER & RHONDA 15.87 $1,185.97 DMD 22-13 3126-034-102 PMT 21-05364 Denmore Ave. & Lois Lane USHER, ULRIC E & CAROL C 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-14 3111-002-037 PMT 22-03024 Derby Circle & Sierra Way HAYNES, JOHN E & LISANDRA 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-15 3126-002-035 PM 83360 Between 7th Street E. & Firstview RINCON CHRISTOPHER 4.00 $298.92 DMD 22-16 3122-001-024 PMT 22-02560 2oth Street W. south of Lancaster Blvd MARTINEZ JUANITA & ZULEYMA 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-17 3203-008-056 & 057 TR 71563 N.E. corner of 60th Street W. & Ave. J PACIFIC COMMUNITIES 108.00 $8,070.84 DMD 22-18 3114-013-054 GRA 22-03398 23rd Stret W., south of Ave, H-8 PULLIAM, BONNIE 31.33 $2,514.54 DMD 22-19 3170-006-005; 038;
040; 041 & 042 TTM 74101 S.W. corner of 25th Street E. & Ave. K BREFPG LANCASTER LLC 86.00 $6,903.22 DMD 22-20
3125-027; 007-008; 025
& 0274 CUP 17-25 Ave. I between Beech & Sierra Highway CEDARTOP LLC 14.32 $1,149.82 DMD 22-21 3123-004-024 GRA 22-03489 44144 18th Street W. ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTHCARE DIST. 138.00 $11,077.26 DMD 22-22 3126-034-101 PMT 22-05356 West of Challenger on Denmore USHER, ULRIC E & CAROL C 1.00 $80.27 EXHIBIT 1

CITY OF LANCASTER
Maintenance District Annexations

DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
DMD 22-23 3126-034-103 PMT 22-05359 West of Challenger on Denmore USHER, ULRIC E & CAROL C 1.00 $48.80 DMD 22-24 3126-034-104 PMT 22-05361 West of Challenger on Denmore USHER, ULRIC E & CAROL C 1.00 $80.27 DMD 22-25 3121-034-025 CUP 20-02 20th Street W., north of Lancaster Blvd EMERALD 2020 LP 260.56 $22,216.48 DMD 22-26 3114-013-069 CUP 17-19 NW corner of 20th Street W. & Ave. I YOO, STEVEN & LANA J 7.04 $564.94 DMD 22-27 3134-024-020 PMT 22-05793 Between Elm & Date, south of Newgrove FAST TC TRUCKING LLC 1.59 $127.92 DMD 22-28 3109-002-130 CUP 05-14 NW corner of 30th Street W. & Ave. M ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES 107.42 $8,622.20 DMD 22-29 3203-018-064 thru 071 TR 72534 67th Street W. & Ave. J-12 GID LANCASTER 80 LLC 109.00 $8,749.43 DMD 22-30 3141-006-009; 010 &
011 CUP 20-11 Division Street, north of Ave. J-5 JULIO RAZA 7.95 $638.05 DMD 22-31 3126-002-035 PMT 22-06518 Between 7th Street E. & Firstview RINCON, CHRISTOPHER 1.00 $80.27 DMD 22-32 3248-020-018 PMT 22-07183 85th Street W. & Ave. L CASTRO, LESLIE M 1.00 $80.27 DMD 22-33 3111-002-080 PMT 22-07218 40th Street W. & Ave. M-8 ELIOPULOS, ANDREW J 1.00 $80.27 DMD 22-34 3248-006-030 PMT 22-07223 103rd W. & Ave. K-6 MALDONADO, MARIA 1.00 $80.27 DMD 22-35 3123-001-904 & 922 DR 22-125 Ave. J. & 15th Street W. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 222.59 $18,867.62 DMD 22-36 3126-017-015 PM 83526 Between 6th & 7th Street E., north of Ave. M G & C FAMILY TRUST 3.00 $224.19 DMD 22-37 3204-006-111 TR 61040 & 61041 S.W. corner of 25th Street E. & Ave. K KB HOME 86.00 $6,903.22 DMD 23-01 3154-005-014 PMT 22-03001 Between 35th & 37th E., south of Ave. H LARA, CARLOS & MARIA 1.00 $80.27 DMD 23-02 3122-007-006 PMT 22-01300 44676 W. 67th Street W. PQ: Colin Nicanor M & GEMMA Accela: ARMENTA MARTIN M 1.00 $80.27
DMD 23-03 3123-009-043 thru 049 DR 22-69 N.E. corner of 15th Street W. & Ave. K TRU 2005 RE 1 LLC 16.42 $1,318.19 DMD 23-04 3111-001-0417 & 093 TR 62664 40th Street W. & Ave. M-8 SHAYAN CAPITAL LLC 30.00 $2,408.10 DMD 23-05 3110-007-036 DR 22-100 N.E. corner of Ave. L & 40th Street W HIX SNEDEKER LANCASTER LLC 42.64 $3,422.87 DMD 23-06 3170-007-053 TR 61574 30th Street E. & Ave. K-4 SHAYAN CAPITAL VENTURES LLC 46.00 $3,692.42 DMD 23-07 3112-049-040 PMT 22-04421 Ave. K & Westfield Dr FRANCES, WALTER & ESTHER 2.00 $160.54 DMD 23-08 3109-011-094 PMT 23-01524 Ave. L & 26th Street W WEBB, MICHAEL G 1.00 $80.27 Annexation
No.'s APN(s) Project Location Developer/Owner Calculated EDU's
Estimated
1st Year
Assessment
LLMD
LLMD 22-01 3386-007-007 SPR 21-02 S.W. corner of Ave. K and 65th Street E. Amberland LLC 5.00 $545.40 LLMD 22-02 3111-018-023 PMT 21-04696 Quartz Hill GOCKE BENJAMIN & LINDSAY 1.00 $109.08 LLMD 22-03 3109-032-007 PMT 22-01125 Between Ave. M & Desert Rose Drive RAMIREZ FELIPE - in Parcel Quest 1.00 $109.08 LLMD 22-04 3109-024-033 DR 20-38 42240 15th Street W. DO DREAM COMMUNITY CHURCH 2.00 $218.16

LANCASTER LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
LLMD 22-05 3126-016-028 SPR 20-06 8th Street E, south of Ave. L-8 MARKOSYAN EDWARD 11.00 $1,199.88 LLMD 22-07 3124-023-002 PMT 20-05992 44623 Cedar Ave. LOVEJOY, CATLIN J 1.75 $190.89 LLMD 22-08 3109-024-049 & 052 SPR 20-05 S.E. corner of 12th Street W. & Ave. L-8 HONOR, DENNIS L & ELIZABETH D 15.00 $1,636.20 LLMD 22-09 3138-018-047 DR 19-80 44721 Trevor Ave. OUR LADY OF CHARITY CONFERENCE OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL 2.00 $218.16
LLMD 22-10 3126-015-019 SPR 21-06 6th Street E, south of Ave. L-4 VILLAR ALEXANDER & RHONDA 7.50 $818.16 LLMD 22-11
3170-006-005; 038;
040; 041 & 042 TTM 74101 S.W. corner of 25th Street E. & Ave. K BREFPG LANCASTER LLC 86.00 $10,074.90 LLMD 22-12
3125-027; 007-008; 025
& 0274 CUP 17-25 Ave. I between Beech & Sierra Highway CEDARTOP LLC 8.00 $937.20 LLMD 22-13 3121-034-035 GRA 22-03022 20th Street W., north of Lancaster Blvd EMERALD 2020 LP 92.15 $10,795.37 LLMD 22-14 3203-018-064 thru 071 TR 72534 67th Street W. & Ave. J-12 GID LANCASTER 80 LLC 109.00 $12,769.35 LLMD 22-15 3126-002-035 PMT 22-06518 Between 7th Street E. & Firstview RINCON, CHRISTOPHER 1.00 $117.15 LLMD 22-16 3123-001-904 & 922 DR 22-125 Ave. J. & 15th Street W. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 8.00 $937.20 LLMD 22-17 3126-017-015 PM 83526 Between 6th & 7th Street E., north of Ave. M G & C FAMILY TRUST 3.00 $327.24 LLMD 22-19 3204-006-111 TR 61040 & 61041 S.W. corner of 25th Street E. & Ave. K KB HOME 98.00 $3,037.02 Annexation
No.'s APN(s) Project Location Developer/Owner Calculated EDU's
Estimated
1st Year
Assessment
LMD
LMD 22-01 3111-028-069 PMT 21-01495 41454 Sierra Vista Way ELIOPULOS, ANDREW J 1.00 $119.57 LMD 22-02 3126-034-102 PMT 21-05364 Denmore Ave. & Lois Lane USHER, ULRIC E & CAROL C 1.00 $119.57 LMD 22-03 3203-008-056 & 057 TR 71563 N.E. corner 60th Street W. & of Ave. J PACIFIC COMMUNITIES 108.00 $12,913.56 LMD 22-04
3170-006-005; 038;
040; 041 & 042 TTM 74101 S.W. corner of 25th Street E. & Ave. K BREFPG LANCASTER LLC 86.00 $11,044.12 LMD 22-05 3121-034-025 CUP 20-02 20th Street W., north of Lancaster Blvd EMERALD 2020 LP 1.00 $128.41 LMD 22-06 3203-018-064 thru 071 TR 72534 67th Street W. & Ave. J-12 GID LANCASTER 80 LLC 109.00 $13,997.78 LMD 23-01 3111-001-0417 & 093 TR 62664 40th Street W. & Ave. M-8 SHAYAN CAPITAL LLC 30.00 $3,852.30 LMD 23-06 3170-007-053 TR 61574 30th Street E. & Ave. K-4 SHAYAN CAPITAL VENTURES LLC 46.00 $5,907.32

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 23-38

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S

REPORT, ANNOUNCING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A

PUBLIC HEARING, AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO

ANNEX TERRITORIES INTO THE LANCASTER

MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT

ASSESSMENTS THEREIN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lancaster has, by previous Resolution No. 23-37, initiated proceedings for the annexation of territory (the “Annexations”) into the Lancaster Maintenance Districts, specifically the City of Lancaster’s Lighting Maintenance District (“LLMD”); Landscape Maintenance District (“LMD”); and Drainage Maintenance District (“DMD”) (collectively the “Districts”), and ordered the Assessment Engineer to prepare an annual report pursuant to the terms of the pursuant to the terms of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 22500) (the “1972 Act”); the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, being Chapter 6.4, Part 1, Division 2 of the Government Code (the “1982 Act”); and the provisions of Section 53753 of the California Government Code, and Chapter 1, Article 4 of the Act and the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID (“Proposition 218”); and,
WHEREAS, the Assessment Engineer (Harris & Associates) has previously prepared said annual report (the “Engineer’s Report”) and filed the same with the City Clerk, and said City Clerk has presented the Engineer’s Report to this City Council for consideration; and, WHEREAS, the projects to be annexed shall be identified as shown on Exhibit 1; and, WHEREAS, Harris & Associates has prepared diagrams showing the boundaries of the Annexations, and said diagrams are included as attachments to the Staff Report accompanying this Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report and diagrams have been filed with the City Clerk and are open for public inspection and may be referred to for all details regarding the boundary of the Annexations; and,
WHEREAS, the Annexations are identified as detailed in Exhibit 1; and, WHEREAS, the property owners of the real property proposed to be annexed have waived their right to all statutory protest, report, resolutions and notice of hearing; and, WHEREAS, in addition, the owners of the Annexations have also submitted signed and properly executed ballots for the Annexation of their properties. Copies of the signed waivers and ballots are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are also included as attachments to the Staff Report accompanying this Resolution.

Resolution No. 23-38

Page 2 ends

1 3
8 7

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Said Engineer’s Report, previously approved by this City Council, shall be filed in the Office of the City Clerk and is hereby made part of this Resolution by reference.

Section 3. The associated diagrams are hereby approved and directed to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

Section 4. June 27, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City of Lancaster, is hereby fixed as the time and place of the public hearing for approval of the Annexations shown on Exhibit 1.

Section 5. This City Council hereby declares its intention to annex territories into the Districts, to provide for the maintenance and servicing of District improvements. This City Council also declares its intention to levy and collect annual assessment to pay for all costs and expenses related to providing said services. The improvements and services are more particularly described in the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk.

Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to provide notice of said public hearing pursuant to State Law.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

ANDREA ALEXANDER R. REX PARRIS
City Clerk Mayor
City of Lancaster City of Lancaster
Resolution No. 23-38

Page 3 ends

1 3
8 7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF LANCASTER )

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, on this _________ day of ________________, 2023.
(seal)
Annexation
No.'s APN(s) Project Location Developer/Owner Calculated EDU's
Estimated
1st Year
Assessment
DMD
DMD 22-01 3123-009-038 & 039 SPR 21-12 1333 W. Ave. K TRU 2005 RE 1 LLC 126.55 $9,456.78 DMD 22-02 3386-007-007 SPR 21-02 S.W. corner of Ave. K and 65th Street E. Amberland LLC 1056.82 $78,976.20 DMD 22-03 3111-018-023 PMT 21-04696 Quartz Hill GOCKE BENJAMIN & LINDSAY 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-04 3109-032-007 PMT 22-01125 Between Ave. M & Desert Rose Drive RAMIREZ FELIPE - in Parcel Quest 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-05 3109-024-033 DR 20-38 42240 15th Street W. DO DREAM COMMUNITY CHURCH 24.47 $1,828.27 DMD 22-06 3126-016-028 SPR 20-06 8th Street E, south of Ave. L-8 MARKOSYAN EDWARD 15.04 $1,124.09 DMD 22-07 3111-028-069 PMT 21-01495 41454 Sierra Vista Way ELIOPULOS, ANDREW J 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-08 3124-023-002 PMT 20-05992 44623 Cedar Ave. LOVEJOY, CATLIN J 1.59 $119.11 DMD 22-09 3109-024-049 & 052 SPR 20-05 S.E. corner of 12th Street W. & Ave. L-8 HONOR, DENNIS L & ELIZABETH D 63.89 $4,774.80 DMD 22-10 3128-012-004 SPR 20-07 South side of Ave. L-8, west of Division COMMERCIAL SERVICES 17.25 $1,289.09 DMD 22-11 3138-018-047 DR 19-80 44721 Trevor Ave. OUR LADY OF CHARITY CONFERENCE OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL 4.12 $308.03
DMD 22-12 3126-015-019 SPR 21-06 6th Street E, south of Ave. L-4 VILLAR ALEXANDER & RHONDA 15.87 $1,185.97 DMD 22-13 3126-034-102 PMT 21-05364 Denmore Ave. & Lois Lane USHER, ULRIC E & CAROL C 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-14 3111-002-037 PMT 22-03024 Derby Circle & Sierra Way HAYNES, JOHN E & LISANDRA 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-15 3126-002-035 PM 83360 Between 7th Street E. & Firstview RINCON CHRISTOPHER 4.00 $298.92 DMD 22-16 3122-001-024 PMT 22-02560 2oth Street W. south of Lancaster Blvd MARTINEZ JUANITA & ZULEYMA 1.00 $74.73 DMD 22-17 3203-008-056 & 057 TR 71563 N.E. corner of 60th Street W. & Ave. J PACIFIC COMMUNITIES 108.00 $8,070.84 DMD 22-18 3114-013-054 GRA 22-03398 23rd Stret W., south of Ave, H-8 PULLIAM, BONNIE 31.33 $2,514.54 DMD 22-19 3170-006-005; 038;
040; 041 & 042 TTM 74101 S.W. corner of 25th Street E. & Ave. K BREFPG LANCASTER LLC 86.00 $6,903.22 DMD 22-20
3125-027; 007-008; 025
& 0274 CUP 17-25 Ave. I between Beech & Sierra Highway CEDARTOP LLC 14.32 $1,149.82 DMD 22-21 3123-004-024 GRA 22-03489 44144 18th Street W. ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTHCARE DIST. 138.00 $11,077.26 DMD 22-22 3126-034-101 PMT 22-05356 West of Challenger on Denmore USHER, ULRIC E & CAROL C 1.00 $80.27 EXHIBIT 1

CITY OF LANCASTER
Maintenance District Annexations

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT

DECLARATION OF WAIVER OF ALL NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH

CONSENT TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY OF LANCASTER

MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
(DR 22-100)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 3110-007-036
Property Owner: Hix Snedeker Lancaster, LLC
Property Type: Commercial
Parcel Acreage/Units: 3.09 ac
The Property Owner owns that certain real property identified above by the Assessor Parcel Number(s) (the “Property”). The City of Lancaster requires that the Property be annexed into certain Assessment District(s) of the City of Lancaster. This Declaration of Waiver and Consent to Annex includes a waiver of notice and hearing requirements associated with the annexation of the Property into the Assessment District(s) of the City of Lancaster. The Districts include the Lancaster Drainage Maintenance District (DMD), the Lancaster Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD), the Lancaster Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) and the Lancaster Sanitary Sewer Service District (Sewer). Your property may be annexed into one or all of the Districts, depending upon the location and type of development.

The Property Owner hereby affirms and restates that it has waived any and all notice and hearing requirements associated with the annexation of the Property into the Assessment District(s) of the City of Lancaster including, but not limited to, those notice and hearing requirements set forth in: Proposition 218 (California Constitution Articles XIIIC and XIIID); the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code section 53750, et seq.); the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code section 22500, et seq.); and the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code section 54710 et seq.).

An Assessment Ballot will be mailed at a later date, which will identify the Districts and corresponding assessment amounts for your property.

I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I am the owner, or the authorized representative of the owner, of the Property identified above. ________________________________J_o_n_a_s_D_y_e_r,_P_r_o_j e_c_t_M_a_n_a_g_e_r egally Authorized Representative Printed Name, Title
_
3 _
/8
_
/
_
2 _
02 _
3 __________________
Date

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 9
6/13/2023
JC
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Marissa Diaz, Director - Public Works
Stephen Carrillo, Senior Engineer - City Engineering
Subject: Final Map Approval – Tract Map No. 061733 (Located at the Southwest Corner of 26th Street West and Avenue L-2)
Recommendation:

Approve the map and accept the dedications as offered on Tract Map No. 061733, located at the southeast corner of 26 th Street West and Avenue L-2; make findings that this project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66473.5, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act; and instruct the City Clerk to endorse on the face of the map the certificate which embodies the approval of said map and the dedications shown thereon.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Background:

On September 21, 2020, the City of Lancaster Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 061733 (Phasing Map Approved on August 3, 2021).

The Final Map is in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. Tract Map No. 061733 has been examined by the City Surveyor, and is ready for Council approval. In addition, Lien Agreement and Improvement Securities have been submitted to guarantee the installation of improvements.

SC:EW/km
Attachment:

Vicinity Map
AVE LAVE L-830TH ST WAVE L
25TH ST W25TH ST WAVE L-4AVE L-2
26TH ST W26TH ST W25TH ST W
30TH ST W
AVE L-4
27TH ST W28TH ST W28TH ST WROADRUNNER WY28TH ST W28TH ST WCALANDRI LNSUNNYVALE RDAVE L-2 CITY OF LANCASTERVICINITY MAPN.T.S27TH ST W
AVE L-8AVE L-8AVE LTRACT No.061733

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 10
6/13/2023
JC
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Marissa Diaz, Director – Public Works
Stephen Carrillo, Senior Engineer – City Engineering
Subject: Final Map Approval – Tract Map No. 061733-01 (Located at the Northeast Corner of 27th Street West and Avenue L-4)
Recommendation:

Approve the map and accept the dedications as offered on Tract Map No. 061733-01, located at the northeast corner of 27 th Street West and Avenue L-4; make findings that this project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66473.5, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act; and instruct the City Clerk to endorse on the face of the map the certificate which embodies the approval of said map and the dedications shown thereon.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Background:

On September 21, 2020, the City of Lancaster Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 061733 (Phasing Map Approved on August 3, 2021).

The Final Map is in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. Tract Map No. 061733-01 has been examined by the City Surveyor, and is ready for Council approval. In addition, Lien Agreement and Improvement Securities have been submitted to guarantee the installation of improvements.

SC:EW/km
Attachment:

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 11
6/13/2023
JC
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Marissa Diaz, Director - Public Works
Stephen Carrillo, Senior Engineer - City Engineering
Subject: Final Map Approval – Tract Map No. 061733-02 (Located at the Southeast Corner of 27th Street West and Avenue L-2)
Recommendation:

Approve the map and accept the dedications as offered on Tract Map No. 061733-02, located at the southeast corner of 27 th Street West and Avenue L-2; make findings that this project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66473.5, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act; and instruct the City Clerk to endorse on the face of the map the certificate which embodies the approval of said map and the dedications shown thereon.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Background:

On September 21, 2020, the City of Lancaster Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 061733 (Phasing Map Approved on August 3, 2021).

The Final Map is in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. Tract Map No. 061733-02 has been examined by the City Surveyor, and is ready for Council approval. In addition, Lien Agreement and Improvement Securities have been submitted to guarantee the installation of improvements.

SC:EW/km
Attachment:

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 12
6/13/2023
JC
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Marissa Diaz, Director – Public Works
Stephen Carrillo, Senior Engineer – City Engineering
Subject: Final Map Approval – Tract Map No. 74101 (Located at the Southwest Corner of Avenue K and 25th Street East)
Recommendation:

Approve the map and accept the dedications as offered on Tract Map No. 74101, located at the southwest corner of Avenue K and 25th th Street East; make findings that this project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66473.5, 66474.1 and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act; and instruct the City Clerk to endorse on the face of the map the certificate which embodies the approval of said map and the dedications shown thereon.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Background:

On May 20, 2019, the City of Lancaster Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 74101.

The Final Map is in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map. Tract Map No. 74101 has been examined by the City Surveyor, and is ready for Council approval. In addition, an Undertaking Agreement and Improvement Securities have been submitted to guarantee the installation of improvements.

SC:EW/km
Attachment:

Vicinity Map

CITY OF LANCASTER

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.

TR 74101

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 13
6/13/2023
JC
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Marissa Diaz, Director – Public Works
Sheila Niebla, Senior Engineer – City Engineering
Diane Maldonado, Analyst – Public Works
Subject: 2023-2024 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Project List for Senate Bill 1, The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 23-39, approving Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Proposed Project List Form, and allocate funds in the fiscal year 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Budget to clarify Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funded projects.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Background:

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), was passed by the State Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017. The purpose of the bill is to address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system. SB 1 increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel state taxes and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.

SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency; therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA funding, the statute requires cities to adopt a proposed project list at a regular public meeting. The list of proposed projects must include a description and location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. Cities must also adopt RMRA funded projects into a city’s operating or capital improvement budget. Cities must then submit the completed SB 1 Proposed Project List form to the California Transportation Commission (CATC), in order to receive its apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller.

Staff recommends the inclusion of the 2024 PMP – Road Rehabilitation Project, (PWCP 24-005) 1 2
9 3
on the proposed project list. Staff anticipates that the design of PWCP 24-005 will be completed by March 2024, and construction completed by June 2025.

DM:SN/km
Attachments:

Resolution No. 23-39
SB 1 Proposed Project List
RESOLUTION NO. 23-39

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SENATE BILL 1
(SB 1) PROPOSED PROJECT LIST FORM, AND ALLOCATE
FUNDS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT BUDGET TO CLARIFY ROAD

MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT
(RMRA) FUNDED PROJECTS
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Lancaster are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community, and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City of Lancaster must adopt a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1 by resolution, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City of Lancaster, will receive an estimated $4,363,097.00 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the seventh year in which the City of Lancaster is receiving SB funding, and will enable the City of Lancaster to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lancaster used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City of Lancaster maintain and rehabilitate roads on major corridors throughout the City this year and dozens of similar projects into the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an at-risk condition, and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system; and

Resolution No. 23-39

Page 2 ends

3 4
3 2
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. The following proposed project will be funded in-part or solely with fiscal year 2023-2024 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
•PWCP 24-005 – 2024 PMP – Road Rehabilitation Project
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ______________________________ ANDREA ALEXANDER R. REX PARRIS
City Clerk Mayor
City of Lancaster City of Lancaster
Resolution No. 23-39

Page 3 ends

3 4
3 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF LANCASTER )

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION

CITY COUNCIL
I, _____________________________, _________________________ City of Lancaster, California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 23-39, for which the original is on file in my office.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, on this ____________ day of _____________________, _________.
(seal)
__________________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Senate Bill (SB) 1 Proposed Project List Form
* Required
Type
(Select from dropdown list)
Explanation
(if "Other" is selected,
please explain)
?
Pre-
Construction
(mm/yyyy)
Construction
(mm/yyyy) Min. Max. Sustainability
?
Technologies
?
Climate
Change
?
Complete
Streets
Elements
?
Description of
Elements
PP01 5419
2024 PMP - Road
Rehabilitation Project
PWCP 24-005 Road Maintenance &
Rehabilitation
The 2024 Pavement Management Program (PMP) -
Road Rehabilitation Project involves various asphalt
pavement rehabilitation (overlays, digouts, full depth
reconstruction, etc.) of City streets with traffic signing, striping, and markings. In general on arterial and
secondary arterial streets within the City core, and may include ancillary concrete repairs.
* Ave K from Challenger Way to 20th St E
* Ave J from 25th St W to 30th St W
* 20th St W from Ave J-8 to Ave K
* Challenger Way from Ave K to Ave L
* Business Center Pkwy from Ave K-8 to
Ave L
* 20th St E from Lancaster Blvd to Nugent
St
* 20th St E from Nugent St to Ave J
* 30th St W from Ave K to Ave L-2
* 35th St W from Ave K-8 to Ave L
* Ave K-8 from 25th St W to 35th St W
03/2024 06/2025 7 25 21 36 No No No Yes
Various asphalt
pavement
rehabilitation
(overlays, digouts,
full depth
reconstruction, etc.);
traffic signing,
striping, and
markings; and
ancillary concrete
repairs.

Legislative District(s)
LoCode
Part 2: Project Information
Local Streets and Roads Program
Additional Project Elements
(Does the project include element(s) as described in SHC 2030 (c)-(f)? (Select Y/N from dropdown list)
?Proposed
Project
(PP#)
* Project Title Project ID
(if any)
* Project Description
?
* Project Location
?
State Senate State
Assembly
* Estimated
Completion Date
* Estimated
Useful Life
(# of Yr)
Project Type
?
1 of 1

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 14
6/13/2023
JC
Date:June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From:Larissa De La Cruz, Director – Community Development Sonya Patterson, Director – Parks, Arts, Recreation and Community Services Subject:Extension of Contract with Tip Top Arborists, Inc., for Tree Trimming Services Recommendations:
a. Approve final one-year contract extension with Tip Top Arborists, Inc., of Lancaster, CA, for professional tree maintenance and management services, for an estimated amount not to exceed $543,533 (with option for 5% contingency).
b. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sign all documents.

Fiscal Impact:
$543,533 (with option for 5% contingency); source of funding: General Fund, Gas Tax Fund, Landscape Maintenance District Assessment Fund, and Lighting Maintenance District Assessment Fund including:
214-2600-5790 – Right-of-Way $262,395
421-2600-5790 - Landscape Maintenance District $93,712
422-2600-5790 - Lighting Maintenance District $93,713
101-6300-5790 – Parks & Facilities Repair and Maintenance $93,713 Background:

The City of Lancaster maintains an Urban Forest consisting of over 20,000 trees. Services covered under this bid includes trimming, planting and removal of trees located in the easement/right-of- way, on main thoroughfares, within parks and in maintenance districts throughout the City. In June 2019, Tip Top Arborists, Inc., was awarded the contract for Tree Trimming Services through Request For Proposal 706-19. Tip Top Arborists, Inc., has serviced this contract through their home-based Lancaster facility, which currently employs 35 Lancaster residents and 10 additional employees from the greater Antelope Valley. This amendment will extend the contract by one (1) year, effective July 1, 2023.

Attachment:

Tip Top RFP 706-19 Agreement Amendment No. 2
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES
This Amendment (“Amendment No. 1”) is hereby entered into effective July 1, 2023 by and between the City of Lancaster, a Municipal Corporation, in the State of California (the OWNER"), and Tip Top Arborists, Inc. (CONTRACTOR) with respect to Amendment No. 1 dated July 1, 2022 and the Agreement for Maintenance Services between the parties dated July 9, 2019 (“Agreement”).

The Parties agree as follows:

1. The term of the Agreement is extended to and including June 30, 2024.

2. “Exhibit A – Payment Clause” dated July 1, 2012, are deleted in their entirety and replaced with “Payment Clause” attached hereto as Exhibit “A”

3. All other terms and provisions of the Agreement and subsequent amendments are hereby reaffirmed.

CITY OF LANCASTER CONTRACTOR
TIP TOP ARBORISTS, INC.
______________________ ______________________
Jason Caudle, City Manager James Lewandowski, President/CEO ATTEST:

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
CONTRACT SUBMISSION APPROVAL:

Department Head
Department Head
EXHIBIT "A"
Effective July 1, 2023

PAYMENT CLAUSE

7. Obligations of the OWNER.

A. The total compensation to be paid by OWNER to CONTRACTOR for all work and services described in Scope of Services is not to exceed $543,533 (with option for 5% contingency) for FY23/24. CONTRACTOR’S fees and charges for the work and services performed shall in no event exceed those set forth in Exhibit “B” of the original contracted dated July 9, 2019.

B. No payment made hereunder by OWNER to CONTRACTOR, other than the final payment, shall be construed as an acceptance by OWNER of any work or materials, nor as evidence of satisfactory performance by CONTRACTOR of its obligations under this AGREEMENT.

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: George N. Harris II, Finance Director
Subject:TDA Article 8 FY 2022-23 Application for Available Funds Recommendation:

Approve Resolution No. 23-40, authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for $8,971,543 of funds available to the City of Lancaster from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA).

Fiscal Impact:

The application includes a request of FY 2022-23 allocation in the amount of $8,952,102, as well as a request of prior year’s reserves: FY 2020-21 in the amount of $19,441. The amount left on the reserve for FY 2020-21 is $0.

Background:

Annually, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority allocates Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 8 funds to fund unmet transit needs in areas outside the Metro service area.

TDA Article 8 revenues will be used by the City to fund the following Council-approved and budgeted Capital Improvement Projects and operating transfers:
•City Beautification
•2020 Fall Pavement Management Program
•Edgeline Refresh Project
•Lancaster Health District
•Annual Long Line Striping – RB NBH
•35 th St West Ave K-8 Imp Phase II
•Pedestrian Gap Closure Improvements
•Commercial Driveway Access Mods
•High Vis Crosswalk Standardization
GH:LH
Attachments
Memo to TDA Article 8 recipients dated December 6, 2022 from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Resolution No. 23-40
TDA8 CIP Budgeted 2022-23
CC 15
6/13/2023
JC
1 3
0 0

1 3
0 0

RESOLUTION NO. 23-40

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO APPLY FOR ALL FUNDS

AVAILABLE TO THE CITY OF LANCASTER, FROM THE LOS

ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY, ALLOCATED FOR STREET AND ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8,952,102 AND DRAW RESERVES FOR:

FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,441.

WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Transportation Development Act provides that cities can use eligible funds of the County’s Local Transportation Fund for local streets and road expenditures when the City’s unmet transportation needs have been satisfied; and WHEREAS, the City of Lancaster has met its unmet public transportation needs through an agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide public transportation in the City of Lancaster;
WHEREAS, the City of Lancaster desires to use its portion of its allocation of Transportation Development Act funds for minor street and road improvements;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT:

Section 1. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Lancaster and is the City’s designated contact person.

Section 2. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to, and shall, apply for all funds available to the City of Lancaster allocated for street and road improvements for Fiscal Year 2022-23 in the amount of $8,952,102, and draw reserves for: Fiscal Year 2020-21 in the amount of $19,441.

Resolution No. 23-40

Page 2 ends

1 3
9 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________ ANDREA ALEXANDER R. REX PARRIS
City Clerk Mayor
City of Lancaster City of Lancaster

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF LANCASTER )

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION

CITY COUNCIL
I, _______________________, ____________________, City of Lancaster, CA, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 23-40, for which the original is on file in my office.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, on this ______ day of _________, 2023.
(seal)
__________________________________
FY 2022-23
TDA 8 PROJECT BUDGET
Budget
Sum of Budget Funding Source
Project# Project Proj Desc TDA 8 Other Funding Source Grand Total 23-001 11ZZ005 CITY BEAUTIFICATION - 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 23-002 12ST043 2020 FALL PVMT MGMT PROG - - -
23-003 12TC005 EDGELINE REFRESH PROJECT 87,631.00 249,939.00 337,570.00 23-004 15ST058 LANCASTER HEALTH DISTRICT - 3,678,420.00 3,678,420.00 23-005 15ST080 ANNUAL LONG LINE STRIPING 500,000.00 - 500,000.00 23-006 15ST083 PMP - RB NBH 3,967,758.00 1,632,242.00 5,600,000.00 23-007 15ST086 35TH ST W/AVE K-8 IMP PHASEII 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 23-008 15SW016 PEDESTRIAN GAP CLOSURE IMPS - - -
23-009 16ST034 COMMERCL DRVWAY ACCESS MODS - - -
23-010 16TC003 HIGH VIS XWALK STANDARDIZATION - -
Grand Total 7,055,389.00 7,560,601.00 14,615,990.00

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 16
6/13/2023
JC
Date:June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Larissa De La Cruz, Director – Community Development Patti Garibay, Assistant Director – Community Development Subject:Approval of the Ground Water Purchase and Sales Agreement between the City of Lancaster and Los Angeles County Sanitation District 14 Recommendations:
a. Approve the Ground Water Purchase and Sales Agreement between the City of Lancaster and Los Angeles County Sanitation District 14 (D14) for the purchase of 50 Acre Feet (AF) of Permanent Ground Water Rights to be utilized at the Lancaster National Soccer Center (LNSC).
b. Approve the Transfer Request Form which will be submitted jointly by the City of Lancaster and D14 to the Antelope Valley Water Master (Water Master) for approval of the transaction. c. Authorize the City Manager, or his designees, to execute all documents and make any non- substantive changes necessary to complete the transaction.

Fiscal Impact:

The City of Lancaster will pay $7,500 per AF of water purchased, a total one-time cost of $375,000 out of account 101-4430-912. Additionally, the City will be responsible to pay the Antelope Valley Water Master a one-time water transfer fee of $1,650 as well as an annual administrative assessment of $5/AF for the permanent production right of 50 Acre-Foot per Year (AFY).

Background:
1 3
0 7
As a participant in the Antelope Valley Ground Water Adjudication the City of Lancaster was granted certain water rights for the LNSC as part of the final judgement. According to the Rules and Regulations established by the Water Master the City of Lancaster can produce up to 500 AF of groundwater for reasonable and beneficial uses at the LNSC. The allocation has helped to keep the facility green except during the summer months. For many years staff has had to select certain areas in the park that will not be watered during the summer so that the most visible and frequently used locations at the facility can be preserved throughout the warm summer months.

One of the benefits of participating in the adjudication for the City is the opportunity to buy water from exhibit four parties including the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 14 for the benefit of keeping City facilities such as the LNSC green. Through the purchase of any quantity of permanent water rights the City will also have the ability to transfer permanent and carryover water to development projects that take place in the City going forward.

With Council approval of the Ground Water Purchase and Sales Agreement the City will move forward in purchasing 50 AF of permanent water rights from D14 to be used at the LNSC. The City will pay D14 after the transaction is approved by the Water Master. D14 has agreed to sell permanent water rights to the City at a rate of $7,500 per AF a one-time cost which was established through a third-party water appraisal completed by Merriman Hurst & Associates Inc. in November of 2022. The City and D14 will jointly submit a Transfer Request Form to the Water Master which provides details of the transaction. The City will also pay the Water Master a one- time administrative assessment of $1,650 when the Transfer Request Form is submitted and will also be responsible to pay an annual assessment of $5/AF ($250) to the Water Master.

PG/hb
Attachments:

Ground Water Purchase and Sales Agreement
Transfer Request Form
Water Appraisal
{00555096;2}
4835-9352-2417, v. 1 1 DOC 6274131

GROUNDW ATER PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
This Groundwater Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of ________________, 2023 (“Effective Date”), by and between COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 14 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, a county sanitation district organized and existing under the County Sanitation District Act, California Health and Safety Code Section 4700 et seq. (“District”), and CITY OF LANCASTER, a California municipal corporation and charter city (“City”). District and City are individually referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

R E C I T A L S
A. District and City entered into a Surplus Groundwater Agreement dated December 11, 2018, District’s Contract No. 5164 (“Brokerage Agreement”), which granted to City the exclusive right to broker the sale, lease or other transfer of the City Portion of District’s Surplus Groundwater Rights (as defined and described in the Brokerage Agreement). The City did not broker any such sale, lease or transfer, and the Brokerage Agreement expired on December 31, 2021.

B. District has 3,040 acre feet per year (“AFY”) of groundwater production rights in the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin pursuant to the December 2015 Judgment in the consolidated Antelope V alley Groundwater Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4408 (“Judgment”). District uses approximately 10 AFY of groundwater at its Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant (“LWRP”); uses approximately 1 AFY of groundwater at its residential property adjacent to the LWRP’s agricultural reuse site; and has leased 2,850 AFY of groundwater to Calandri Farms, Inc. Therefore, District currently has 199 AFY of production rights that are unused.

C. District provides wastewater management services to City as well as portions of the City of Palmdale and unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. City represents 79 percent of District’s service area, as measured by the total number of sewage units in the District. Therefore, 157 AFY of District’s 199 AFY of unused production rights are attributable to City.

E. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Parties now desire to enter into this Agreement in order to provide for District’s sale to City and City’s purchase from District of 50 AFY of Production Rights (as defined below) held by District.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated in and constitute a substantive part of this Agreement.

2. Purchase and Sale of Production Rights. District shall sell to City and City shall purchase from District 50 AFY of groundwater production rights (the “Production Rights”), as that term is defined in the Judgment, held by District (“Production Rights Purchase”). The Production Rights Purchase shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Section 2. (a) Purchase Price; Acknowledgment of Fair Market Value. City shall make a one-time payment to District in the amount of $7,500 per AFY of groundwater production rights for the Production Rights Purchase, which totals $375,000 (the “Production Rights Purchase Price”). City {00555096;2}
4835-9352-2417, v. 1 2 DOC 6274131
shall pay the Production Rights Purchase Price to District within fifteen (15) days after approval of the transaction by the Antelope Valley Watermaster by check made payable to “County Sanitation District No. 14” and delivered by overnight mail to the address and contact listed in Section 8. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Production Rights Purchase Price constitutes the fair market value of the Production Rights Purchase, as established by an appraisal report, commissioned by District, prepared by Merriman Hurst & Associates, Inc. dated November 16, 2022 (“Appraisal”), which is incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Purchased In Perpetuity. The Production Rights Purchase is a transfer of all rights, title and interest in and to the Production Rights. District shall transfer the Production Rights to City in perpetuity and shall not reserve or retain any interest in the Production Rights. (c) Watermaster Approval. This transfer is subject to the provisions of the Judgment and the Watermaster’s Rules and Regulations, and also requires Watermaster approval. City shall complete and submit the Transfer Request Form, which is included as Attachment 1 to this Agreement, to the Watermaster for approval, with any and all costs incurred in seeking Watermaster approval borne by City. District shall reasonably cooperate with City to obtain Watermaster approval.

In the event that the Watermaster does not fully approve the transfer, this Agreement shall lapse and become null and void.
(d) Warranties, Representations, and Covenants of District. District hereby warrants, represents, and/or covenants to City that:
(i) Pending Claims. Other than the judgment in the consolidated Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4408, to the best of District’s knowledge, there are no actions, suits, claims, legal proceedings, or any other proceedings affecting the Production Rights that are the subject of the Production Rights Purchase or any portion thereof, at law, or in equity before any court or governmental agency, domestic or foreign. (ii) Conflict with Other Obligation. To the best of District’s knowledge, neither the execution of this Agreement nor the performance of the obligations herein will conflict with, or breach any of the provisions of any bond, note, evidence of indebtedness, contract, lease, covenants, conditions and restrictions, or other agreement or instrument to which District or Production Rights may be bound.
(iii) Change of Situation. District shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this section 2(d) not to be true as of the Effective Date, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City. (iv) Authority. District has the full right, power, and authority to grant the Production Rights to City as provided herein and to carry out District’s obligations hereunder. (v) Governmental Compliance. District has not received any notice from any governmental agency or authority alleging that it is currently in violation of any law, ordinance, rule, regulation or requirement applicable to the Production Rights. If any such notice or notices are received by District following the date this Agreement is signed by City, District shall, within ten (10) days of receipt of such notice notify City.

3. Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
{00555096;2}
4835-9352-2417, v. 1 3 DOC 6274131

4. Counterparts; Electronic Execution. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts by the Parties. All counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement binding upon the Parties, notwithstanding that the Parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart.

Each counterpart shall be deemed an original to this Agreement, all of which shall constitute one (1) agreement. Documents executed, scanned and transmitted electronically and electronic signatures shall be deemed original signatures for purposes of this Agreement and all matters related thereto, with such scanned and electronic signatures having the same legal effect as original signatures. This Agreement, as well as any other document necessary for the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement may be accepted, executed or agreed to through the use of an electronic signature in accordance with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq., and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.1 et seq.

5. Effective Date. City shall execute this Agreement first, and District shall execute this Agreement second. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution by District.

6. Delegation to Chief Engineer. District’s Chief Engineer and General Manager, or his designee, is authorized to take all actions on behalf of District in connection with any approvals, consents, or actions required of or by District under this Agreement.

7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is freely and voluntarily entered into by the Parties after having had the opportunity to consult with their respective attorneys. The Parties, in entering into this Agreement, do not rely on any inducements, promises, or representations made by each other, their representatives, or any other person, other than those inducements, promises, and representations contained in this Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the Parties. This Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment to this Agreement agreed to by the Parties. The Parties and the Party representatives executing this Agreement have the power and authority to execute this Agreement, and once executed by all Parties, this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties.

8. Notice. Any notice related to this Agreement must be in writing and delivered personally or by U.S. Mail or nationally-recognized overnight service to the addresses below, which addresses may be changed at any time upon written notice:

To District:

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
Attn: Stan Pegadiotes, Section Head, Planning and Property Management (562) 908-4288, ext. 2705
[email protected]

To City:

City of Lancaster
44933 Fern Avenue
Lancaster, CA 93534
Attn: Patti Garibay, Assistant Director, Community Development – Planning and Permitting
(661) 723-6072
[email protected]

{00555096;2}
4835-9352-2417, v. 1 4 DOC 6274131
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

DISTRICT:

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 14

OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
By:________________________________
Chairperson, Board of Directors

ATTEST:

________________________
Secretary to the Board

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

________________________
District Counsel

CITY:

CITY OF LANCASTER
By:________________________________
Jason Caudle
City Manager

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Andrea Alexander, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Allison E. Burns, City Attorney

{00555096;2}
4835-9352-2417, v. 1 5 DOC 6274131
Attachment 1
Watermaster Transfer Request Form

Page 1 of 2 ends

TRANSFER REQUEST FORM

ANTELOPE VALLEY WATERMASTER
Please include an application fee according to the fee schedule posted on the Watermaster website:
https://avwatermaster.net. Make check out to: Antelope Valley Watermaster Mail to: Antelope Valley Watermaster, 5022 West Avenue N, Suite 102, #158, Palmdale, CA 93551 OR email to:
[email protected]
Call Watermaster Administrative staff at 661-234-8233 with questions. Transfer Requests review could take up to 60 days.

PERMANENT TRANSFER? Yes or No TEMPORARY/ONE-TIME TRANSFER? Yes or No

Permanent Amount acre-feet Temporary/One-time Amount acre-feet

IF TRANSFER DUE TO CHANGE IN LAND OWNERSHIP, PLEASE ATTACH DEED AS PROOF OF SALE OR A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT
Date Requested
If Temporary, Calendar Year(s) to be Used
Which Party will be paying the annual Administrative Assessment(s) for the transferred water? Is either Party a member of the Antelope Valley United Mutuals Group? Yes or No TRANSFER FROM (SELLER/TRANSFEROR):

Name Street Address
City State Zip Code
Phone email
APN#(s) where transfer originates (i.e., production well location(s))

APN#(s) (or water supply service area) where groundwater was used

TRANSFER TO (BUYER/TRANSFEREE):

Name Street Address
City State Zip Code
Phone email
Note: Legal notices under the Judgment will be sent to the above email address. You are required to keep this information up to date. Please notify the Watermaster of any changes.

APN#(s) (or water supply service area) where transfer will be pumped and used

Purpose of Transfer:
 Permanent Transfer resulting from Property Sale/Transfer [PLEASE ATTACH DEED OR PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT]  Additional Source of Water
 Other, explain
Water is to be Transferred from/to: (transferred water retains its original water type):
 Current Year Production Right: amount acre-feet
 Carry Over Water: amount acre-feet
 Storage: amount acre-feet
 Other, explain

Page 2 of 2 ends

(Transferred water retains its original water type – e.g., transferred Carry Over Water remains Carry Over water)

WATER QUALITY AND WATER LEVELS (not required if transfer is in association of change of land ownership) Are Parties aware of any water quality issues that exist in either the area transferred from or to? Yes or No If yes, please explain:

Please provide groundwater elevations in the areas affected by the transfer.

Are Parties aware of any water level issues that exist in either the area transferred from or to? Yes or No If yes, please explain:

MAPS
Please include a map of the area where the water was used by the Transferor and a map of the area where the water is intended to be used by the Transferee. Include locations of production facilities involved in or affected by the Transfer. This map can include all possible locations of past source and use and future source and use.

SECURITY IN TEREST OR LIENHOLDERS
For Permanent Transfers, please provide a list of all parties with a recorded security interest, deed of trust or a lien in such real property or in crops growing or to be grown thereon, and attach copies of written notices to such parties and copies of return receipts.

The transfer shall be conditioned upon:

1. Transferee shall succeed to the right of Transferor under the terms of the Judgment.

2. Transferee shall only use Transferred waters for reasonable and beneficial uses.

3. Any Transferee not already a Party to the Judgment must intervene and become a Party to the Judgment.

4. All applicable assessments (Administrative and Balance) and transfer fees are paid in full.

5. If the Watermaster determines that the transfer has resulted in a material injury, the parties will be required to work with the Watermaster Board to mitigate that material injury.

6. For Permanent Transfers, the Parties agree to duly record in the office of the appropriate County Recorder a document reflecting the Permanent Transfer reflected in this Transfer Form.

7. The Transfer Request Form must bear the notarized signatures of both the transferor and the transferee.

8. The Seller/Transferor must be the owner of the water rights pursuant to the Judgment. No Party may transfer water rights held pursuant to a lease agreement or other private contract with the actual water rights owner.

Page 3 of 2 ends

SIGNATURES
I understand and agree to abide by the terms of the Antelope Valley Adjudication Judgment. I swear under penalty of perjury that the information provided on this Transfer Request Form is correct to the best of my knowledge, that I am authorized to enter into this Transfer on behalf of the party indicated below and to bind that party on whose behalf I am signing, and that signing this Transfer Request Form is within the scope of my authority, and that the signature below, whether original, electronic, or photocopied, is authorized and valid, and is affixed with the intent to be enforceable. I understand that it is my responsibility to notify the Antelope Valley Watermaster of any changes in any of the information provided on this form within 15 days. I also understand that additional information may be required if there is a suspected potential for a material injury as defined in the Judgment.

Signature of Transferor Date
Signature of Transferee Date

To be completed by the Watermaster:

Watermaster Engineer Approval Date

Watermaster Board Approval Date

Page 1 of 2 ends

TRANSFER REQUEST FORM

PERMANENT TRANSFER? Yes or No TEMPORARY/ONE-TIME TRANSFER? Yes or No

Permanent Amount acre-feet Temporary/One-time Amount acre-feet

Name Street Address
City State Zip Code
Phone email
APN#(s) where transfer originates (i.e., production well location(s))

APN#(s) (or water supply service area) where groundwater was used

TRANSFER TO (BUYER/TRANSFEREE):

APN#(s) (or water supply service area) where transfer will be pumped and used

Page 2 of 2 ends

(Transferred water retains its original water type – e.g., transferred Carry Over Water remains Carry Over water)

Please provide groundwater elevations in the areas affected by the transfer.

Are Parties aware of any water level issues that exist in either the area transferred from or to? Yes or No If yes, please explain:

The transfer shall be conditioned upon:

1. Transferee shall succeed to the right of Transferor under the terms of the Judgment.

2. Transferee shall only use Transferred waters for reasonable and beneficial uses.

3. Any Transferee not already a Party to the Judgment must intervene and become a Party to the Judgment.

4. All applicable assessments (Administrative and Balance) and transfer fees are paid in full.

5. If the Watermaster determines that the transfer has resulted in a material injury, the parties will be required to work with the Watermaster Board to mitigate that material injury.

6. For Permanent Transfers, the Parties agree to duly record in the office of the appropriate County Recorder a document reflecting the Permanent Transfer reflected in this Transfer Form.

7. The Transfer Request Form must bear the notarized signatures of both the transferor and the transferee.

Page 3 of 2 ends

Signature of Transferor Date
Signature of Transferee Date

To be completed by the Watermaster:

Watermaster Engineer Approval Date

Watermaster Board Approval Date

APPRAISAL REPORT

Antelope Valley Adjudicated Water Rights
County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and 20 of Los Angeles County Los Angeles County, California

File No. 14805

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Appraisal Project Antelope Valley Adjudicated Water Rights County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and 20
of Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County, California

Interest Valued 100% Fee Simple (Adjudicated Water Rights Only)

Land Area N/A

Adjudicated Water Right 3,400 Acre Feet (Post Ramp-down)

Flood Hazard N/A

Zoning N/A

Present Use Adjudicated Water Rights, Available for Domestic or Agriculture Use

Highest and Best Use Adjudicated Water Rights, Available for Domestic or Agriculture Use

Value Indicated by

Cost Approach N/A

Income Approach N/A

Sales Comparison Approach $25,500,000

Value Conclusion $25,500,000

Fair Market Rental Value $418/AF/Year

Effective Date of Value November 16, 2022

Date of Report November 16, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESCRIPTION, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Purpose of the Appraisal 1
Intended Use of Report 2
Intended User 2
Scope of the Appraisal 2
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 3
Description of Property Rights Appraised 4
Owner of Record/Sales History 4
Interest Valued 4
Effective Date of Value 4
Date of Report 4
Location Map 5
Antelope Valley Regional Analysis 6
Subject Map 8
Area Analysis 9
Highest and Best Use 10
Summary of Analysis and Valuation 12

Sales Comparison Approach 13
Fair Market Rental Value 17
Conclusion and Final Opinion of Value 19

Certification 20

ADDENDA

Qualifications of Randy K. Merriman, MAI, SRA
Merriman Hurst & Associates Proposal Letter
Purchase Order
Antelope Valley Basin Water Rights Adjudication –
Per Santa Clara Case No. 1-05-CV-049053

MERRIMAN HURST
& A S S O C I A T E S I N C.

Randy K. Merriman, MAI, SRA 140 S. Montclair St., Suite C David E. Hurst, MAI Bakersfield, CA 93309
Christine Johnson, Appraiser (661) 832-0322
(661) 832-3417 FAX

November 16, 2022

Los Angeles County Sanitation District Re: File No. 14805 1955 Workman Mill Road Appraisal Report – Antelope Valley Whittier, California 90601-1415 Adjudicated Water Rights Attn: Michelle Mikulas, Civil Engineer County Sanitation District Nos. 14 & 20 of Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County, California

Dear Ms. Mikulas:

In response to your request, I have prepared this Appraisal Report in connection with the adjudicated water rights referred to above which are described in greater detail elsewhere in this report.

PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL:

The purpose of this appraisal is to provide the appraiser’s estimate of the market value of the adjudicated water rights described herein as of November 16, 2022. Market value is defined by the federal financial institutions regulatory agencies as follows:

Market value means the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

(1) buyer and seller are typically motivated;

(2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;

(3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

(4) payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and

(5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financial or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.

- 2 -

Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs that are normally paid by the sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparison to financing terms offered by a third party institution lender that is not already involved in the property transaction. The dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment.

(Source: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency under 12 CFR, Part 34, Subpart C-Appraisals, 34.42 Definitions [f].)

INTENDED USE OF REPORT: The intended use of this report is for internal decision making by the water right holder, the County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and 20 of Los Angeles County.

INTENDED USER: This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by the Client, County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and 20 of Los Angeles County, c/o Michelle Mikulas, Civil Engineer/Waste Water Planning, and her designees. The appraisal is not to be utilized by any other user than those identified.

SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL:

The scope of this appraisal involves compiling and analyzing market data relevant to the valuation of the subject property. The data utilized in this appraisal has been gathered from various sources of information to include public records, visual inspections, and interviews with real estate brokers, buyers, and sellers in the marketplace. The sources of the data are considered to be reliable. Data believed unreliable was not included in the report nor used as a basis for the value conclusions. In preparing this appraisal, the appraiser;

(1) Provided sufficient information to legally and physically identify the underlying groundwater right interest that is subject to this appraisal;

(2) Relied on information taken from Santa Clara Court Case No. 1-05-CV-049053, which pertains to the adjudicated water rights described herein, as well as the restrictions and potential uses,

(3) Relied on information from a prior appraisal of the water rights as of March 2, 2020 and March 11, 2021 prepared by Randy Merriman of Merriman Hurst & Associates Inc.,

(4) Gathered information on area/neighborhood and comparable sales characteristics as well as lease/rental data pertaining to water right sale/lease transactions in the area described as the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin;

(5) Confirmed and analyzed the data and applied the Sales Comparison Approach to value.

A discussion of the approaches to value and their applicability is shown in the Summary of Analysis and Valuation section of this report.

Completion of this assignment includes preparation of an Appraisal Report that is in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

- 3 -

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS:

1. This is an Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(a) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for an Appraisal Report. As such, it includes summary discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser’s opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is summarized in this report. The information contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report.

2. No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the water rights are assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report.

3. The water rights are appraised free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances unless otherwise stated in this report.

4. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report.

5. All engineering is assumed to be correct. Any plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.

6. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report.

7. It is assumed that all applicable use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this appraisal report.

8. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value opinions contained in this report are based.

9. Any sketch in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Maps and exhibits found in this report are provided for reader reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report. No survey has been made for the purpose of this report.

10. This appraisal is to be used only in its entirety and no part is to be separated from the whole report. All conclusions and opinions concerning the analysis as set forth in the report were prepared by the appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report. No change of any item in the report shall be made by anyone other than the appraiser and/or officer of the firm. The appraiser and firm shall have no responsibility if any such unauthorized change is made. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other than the appraiser’s or firm's client, through advertising, solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the written consent and approval of the authors, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which the appraiser is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Further, the appraiser or firm assume no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment.

- 4 -

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The property rights are briefly described as follows:

County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and 20 of Los Angeles County, Adjudicated Water Rights within the Antelope Valley
Groundwater Basin Stipulated by Santa Clara Case No. 1-05-CV-049053, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4408.

Per agreement referenced above, the County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and Nos. 20 of Los Angeles are entitled to 3,400 acre feet (post ramp-down) overlying production rights to groundwater within the area commonly known as the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin, Los Angeles County, California.

A summary of the overlying production rights for all water users in the Antelope Valley Basin is identified by Santa Clara Case No. 1-05-CV-049053, Exhibit 4, a copy of which is included in the Addenda of this report.

OWNER OF RECORD/SALES HISTORY: According to information available through public records, the owner of record is the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, mailing address 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. The Sanitation District has had the overlying right to pump groundwater from the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin since the District’s formation in 1923. In November 2015, a court settlement resulted in an adjudication of the water rights for the Antelope Valley Basin. The Sanitation District has owned the water rights specified by the adjudication since this time. There has been no arms’ length transfer of the water rights during the past three years.

INTEREST VALUED: 100% fee interest, adjudicated rights only, subject to reservations of record and Assumptions and Limiting Conditions shown herein. A Preliminary Title Report was not furnished to the appraiser.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE: November 16, 2022

DATE OF REPORT: November 16, 2022

- 5 -

LOCATION MAP

- 6 -

ANTELOPE VALLEY REGIONAL ANALYSIS:

Location – The Antelope Valley, often referred to as “High Desert” region, lies 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles in the northeastern most portion of Los Angeles County. Kern County lies immediately to the north, Ventura County to the west and San Bernardino County to the east.

Within the greater Antelope Valley area there are many communities. The largest are the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, with smaller towns and communities such as Quartz Hill, Rosamond, Lake Elizabeth and Lake Hughes, Pearblossom, Little Rock and Leona Valley. The most recent population estimate for Lancaster indicates a total of 170,150 residents, and in Palmdale there are 165,761 residents. The combined urban area population for these communities is estimated at 336,000 residents.

As noted previously, the Antelope Valley is referred to as the high desert, sitting at approximately 2,500 feet above sea level. The air is usually dry, often windy and typically experiences 300 sunny days per year. Highs in the summer reach the 90’s and 100’s, with lows in the winter often below freezing at night. The average annual high temperature is 98˚ Fahrenheit in the summer and 59˚ Fahrenheit in the winter. The San Gabriel Mountain Range forms the southern boundary of the Antelope Valley and the Tehachapi/Sierra Nevada Mountain Range forms the western boundaries.

High desert areas extend to the north and east, including Mojave Desert located 30 to 40 miles to the northeast.

Access into the study area is classed good and provided by State Highways 14 and 138 which bisect the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale traveling north and south. Highway 14 connects with Highway 58 to the north and Interstate Freeway 5 to the southwest. Access to and from state highways is provided by surface roads, city and county maintained.

Transportation - The area is served by the Palmdale Airport, located in the City of Palmdale.

General William J. Fox Airfield is within a north portion of the Lancaster city limits. Alternate transportation is provided by Greyhound Bus Service and the Southern Pacific Railway.

Regional Economics – Over the years, the mainstay of the local economy has been directed towards the aerospace industries at Air Force Plant No. 42 within the boundaries of the Palmdale Airport, and Edwards Air Force Base to the north in Kern County. The Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, also located in Kern County to the north, is another major employer. There are also employment opportunities throughout the area which include the Antelope Valley Hospital Medical Center, Lancaster Business Park, US Borax and Chemical Company, Antelope Valley Union High School District, and several others. There is also substantial agricultural activity taking place in, and around the Palmdale and Lancaster areas. The sandy soil conditions in this location are well suited for a wide variety of vegetable crops, many of which are grown organically.

There has been active solar energy development, most notably in the northern and western portions of the Antelope Valley.

Trend – The overall trend in the study area is classed as static to gradually upwards and relates to the expanding population that is relocating from the Southern California Basin, which is resulting in demand for additional services and housing to serve the expanding population. Employment opportunities at Air Force Plant No. 42 and Edwards Air Force Base continue to be the mainstay of the local economy. Substantial employment is also generated by some of the larger aerospace contractors to include Northrop Grumman Corporation and Lockheed Martin Company. There has also been a substantial upward trend in recent years toward renewable energy development including solar and wind energy, most of which is taking place in the northern and western areas

- 7 -

of the Antelope Valley, and surrounding mountain ranges. One publication notes that the Antelope Valley is currently on the precipice of becoming the “Renewable Energy Center” providing solar and wind energy generated power sources, green technologies and renewable energy for many Southern California residents. It is also interesting to note that a substantial portion of the local work force in the Antelope Valley commutes to the Los Angeles Basin for employment on a daily basis. The average daily commute time for Lancaster and Palmdale workers is 89 minutes and 67 minutes, respectively.

Both the economy and real estate markets in Palmdale and Lancaster tend to parallel market activity in the Southern California Basin. Substantial upward trends in growth were evident during the early to mid 2000’s. This was most notable within the housing market. Subsequent to 2005/2006 the housing market became oversupplied and was being dominated by foreclosures.

During this time there were numerous blocks of land that were in various stages of development, including subdivisions with fully finished lots as well as partially developed subdivisions. In many cases development and new construction activity came to a complete halt. More recent trends have seen a housing market that has somewhat stabilized, with supply and demand generally in balance. New residential construction activity is taking place on a gradual basis within existing tract style developments, however, there has been no new land development, given the fact that there is a substantial amount of land surrounding both the Palmdale and Lancaster communities that has already been entitled for residential use, and in some cases is partially developed. There has also been some new sales and development activity within both the commercial and industrial markets, however, prices being paid for both these type land classes and developed properties have been relatively static. Trends noted in the study area, in my opinion, are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, with the real estate market continuing to show gradual increases, paralleling trends in the local and regional economy.

- 8 -

SUBJECT MAP

- 9 -

AREA ANALYSIS:

Location – The land areas encumbered by the County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and No. 20 of Los Angeles encompass the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, as well as the immediate surrounding areas, as shown by the referenced map on the facing page. In addition, District 14 includes outlying areas to the north and east of Lancaster that are utilized for the Lancaster Water Reclamation Facility and Lancaster Agriculture Refuse Site. Areas within District 20 that are north and northeast of the city of Palmdale include land that is utilized for the water reclamation facility and storage reservoirs. Information available indicates that District 14 encompasses approximately 59 square miles; and District 20 approximately 41.3 square miles.

Access into the area in which both districts are located is provided by surface roads that are both city and county maintained. Major freeway systems include Highway 14 that extends through both Lancaster and Palmdale in a north/south direction. Highway 14 continues to the south and west to the city of Los Angeles, approximately 70 miles to the southwest.

Surrounding Land Use – The predominant areas encompassed by Districts 14 and 20 include the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster, and immediate surrounding areas. A wide variety of regional and local commercial services are available to both these cities, as well as tract style residential neighborhoods and lands that are designated for industrial use. The 2022 population estimate for Lancaster is approximately 170,150 residents. Palmdale has an estimated 2022 population of 165,761 residents. As noted previously in this report, the mainstay of the local economy for both these communities is directed towards the aerospace industries at Air Force Plant No. 42 within the boundaries of the Palmdale Airport and Edwards Air Force Base to the north in Kern County.

There are also substantial agricultural activities taking place in, and around the Palmdale and Lancaster areas. Grimmway Farms and Bolthouse Farms, two of the largest organic grown vegetable farming operations, farm large blocks of land that are located to the east of Palmdale and Lancaster.

Trend - Overall, area trends are considered stable to cautiously upward. There has been some limited new development and sales activity within the light industrial and commercial land markets within both these cities. The agricultural market has been static to gradually upward for several years. Very few farm properties have been bought and sold, which is in part due to the pattern of land ownership that includes several large scale farming entities that own and farm the majority of the acreage. Limited sales activity also relates to litigation over the adjudication of water rights which was ongoing for several years, before a settlement agreement was negotiated in late 2015.

Subsequent to this time there has been a mandated gradual ramp down of water usage in the basin in order to achieve a safe ground water pumping level established by the adjudication settlement agreement. In the current market place there is an active trend toward temporary water transfers, or year to year rentals of carry over water rights. There has been limited sales activity of permanent water rights, with most of the transactions involving purchases by local urban water agencies.

Demand for all types of real estate in the Antelope Valley is being influenced by the housing market, which has been oversupplied for a number of years, subsequent to the housing boom that took place in the early to mid 2000’s. During this time, a substantial amount of land within peripheral areas of both the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale was mapped for residential subdivision use, but was left undeveloped. Demand for all types of real estate in the area has been influenced by the oversupplied housing market, which appears to have stabilized in recent years.

More recent trends are seeing a gradual upward trend with respect to new home construction. In 2015, Northrup Grumman was awarded a $55 Billion contract to build a new stealth air craft, which will take place at U.S. Air Force Plant No. 42, within the boundaries of the Palmdale Airport.

There has been a substantial increase in employment activity at this facility, which has served to stimulate demand for new housing in the area. However, it is important to note that the population for the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale has shown only a modest increase in recent years. There has also been a trend toward acquisition of land parcels for wind and solar energy development within western portions of the Antelope Valley, as it extends north to the Tehachapi mountain range. The new development is in response to a state mandate to increase renewable energy resources.

In conclusion, trends noted in the study area are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

- 10 -

HIGHEST AND BEST USE:

Highest and best use as taken from the Appraisal Institute publication The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal - Sixth Edition , “is the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value." The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are:

1. Legally permissible

2. Physically possible

3. Financially feasible

4. Maximum productivity

The highest and best use of the adjudicated groundwater rights described herein directly relates to those uses described by the Antelope Valley Groundwater Adjudication Case No. 1-05-CV- 049053. The judgement, which was signed December 23, 2015, assigned specific water rights to overlying producers that participated in the lawsuit, and also set forth parameters for achieving a sustainable groundwater management program for the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin, which encompasses approximately 1,580 square miles. Prior to the adjudication agreement, the basin was identified as being in a state of overdraft, which was causing subsidence in some areas. In 2016, a Watermaster (5 member board) was established under the direction of the court judgement. A water engineering firm was also hired to provide hydrogeological and technical analysis, and to guide administrative functions to fulfill the judgement.

The highest and best use of the water rights described herein are subject to the specific terms for water use in the basin, set forth by the adjudication judgement. In order to maintain a “safe yield”, both municipal and agriculture water users in the basin were required to reduce their pumping activity during what was referred to as a seven year “ramp-down” period that began in 2016. In general, the overlying production rights assigned to each water user were reduced on a gradual basis during this time frame, by as much as 65%, when compared to pre-ramp down pumping rights. A summary of the pre-ramp-down and post-ramp-down production rights for the individual producers is shown by Exhibit 4 of Santa Clara Court Case No. 1-05-CV-049053, a copy of which is included in the Addenda of this report. The adjudicated water right owned by the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County was 8,000 acre feet pre-ramp-down; and 3,400 acre feet post-ramp- down. A portion of the water available to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District is utilized in conjunction with the operation of their sanitation facilities that serve both the communities of Palmdale and Lancaster. Per adjudication agreement, the water right holder can permanently transfer (sell) or temporarily transfer (lease) any, or all of their assigned water rights. The adjudication judgement stipulates that the overlying production rights to pump groundwater may not be transferred out of the basin, which somewhat limits the potential uses and market for the asset. It is also important to note that the judgement allows for the overlying producer to carry over unused water rights from year to year, which can be rented on a year to year basis. Any permanent, or temporary water transfers are subject to approval by the watermaster.

In the current marketplace, the highest and best use of the Sanitation District’s adjudicated water rights directly relates to demand. The majority of the adjudicated water rights in the Antelope Valley Basin are assigned to municipal and regional water agencies. Water rights are also held by both small and large agricultural operations. These entities represent the most likely users of the water rights, as available for sale or lease in the marketplace. The value of the water right, for sale or lease, directly relates to the intended use of the water. In general, municipal and regional water agencies can pay more for water that is utilized for domestic purposes; however, most agencies

- 11 -

are state regulated, which impacts what can be charged to the consumer. The financial feasibility to acquire water by public agencies is also impacted by the substantial cost associated with pumping, transporting, and water treatment. Agriculture is also a viable use for groundwater in the Antelope Valley Basin, which is evident by the substantial amount of cultivated agricultural acreage in the area. Climate and soil conditions in the Antelope Valley are most conducive to growing row crops that include alfalfa, grain and in some cases organically grown vegetables.

Water requirements for these type crops are substantial, and can range between 3 - 4 AF per acre annually. In the current marketplace, substantial increases in the cost of fuel and labor are having an impact on the cost to grow all types of crops. In order to maintain a reasonable profit on crops that are grown in this area, the cost of water available for irrigation is a key factor. Furthermore, the restriction against transferring the water rights out of the Antelope Valley Basin has an impact on prices, which relates to a limited market.

In conclusion, most municipal, and, regional water agencies in the Antelope Valley Basin were involved in the adjudication of water rights and have sufficient water to serve their existing consumer base. It is important to note, however, that future expansion of the population base in the area will likely stimulate demand for new housing which will create a need for these agencies to acquire additional water rights. At this time, demand for water available from municipal uses is considered to be relatively static, given the fact that the population base in both the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale has shown only small increase in recent years. It is important to note that future expansion of the population in the basin will result in increased demand for water available for municipal uses, and will likely stimulate a sell off of water rights held by land owners or farming entities that are located in the basin. A substantial amount of the adjudicated water rights in the basin are held by long standing farming entities, which have had to reduce the amount of acreage being farmed. Compliance with the ramp-down of water use mandated by the adjudication judgement has resulted in a reduction of irrigated farmland in the basin. It is highly unlikely that there will be an expansion of land utilized for agriculture production in the basin in the foreseeable future, given that the cost to acquire water in today’s marketplace has a direct impact on the financial feasibility of farming.

In the current market place there has been increasing interest for temporary transfers of overlying production and carry over water rights on a year to year basis. This has provided the opportunity for both municipal and agriculture land users to fulfil their water needs on a short term basis.

Under the terms of the adjudication agreement, carryover water transfers will be allowed to take place on a free market basis for a period of 10 years before the water right holder will be required to enter in to an agreement with the watermaster for long term storage, or forfeit the carryover water rights to a general pool that will be available to water right holders in the basin. The seven year mandated water ramp down period will be complete at the end of 2022. This has created some urgency for permanent water right purchases by a few local municipal water agencies that through the adjudication process were left without sufficient water rights to serve their constituents. Further discussion of the permanent water right transfers/sales is included in the Sales Comparison Approach section of this report.

- 12 -

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND VALUATION:

In this study, the Cost, Income, and Sales Comparison Approaches to value have been considered.

Each is defined as follows:

Cost Approach - That approach in appraisal analysis which is based on the proposition that the informed purchaser would pay no more than the cost of producing a substitute property with the same utility as the subject property. It is particularly applicable when the property being appraised involves relatively new improvements which represent the highest and best use of the land or when relatively unique or specialized improvements are located on the site and for which there exist no comparable properties on the market.

Income Approach - That procedure in appraisal analysis which converts anticipated benefits (dollar income or amenities) to be derived from the ownership of property into a value opinion. The Income Approach is widely applied in appraising income-producing properties. Anticipated future income and/or reversions are discounted to a present worth figure through the capitalization process.

Sales Comparison Approach - That approach in appraisal analysis which is based on the proposition that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a property than the cost of acquiring an existing property with the same utility. This approach is applicable when an active market provides sufficient quantities of reliable data which can be verified from authoritative sources. The Sales Comparison Approach is relatively unreliable in an inactive market or in estimating the value of properties for which no real comparable sales data are available. It is also questionable when sales data cannot be verified with principals to the transaction. This is also referred to as the Market Comparison or Market Data Approach.

Due to the characteristics of the interest valued in this appraisal, the Cost and Income Approaches were not applicable and were not utilized. The omission of these approaches to value does not affect the reliability of the conclusion derived herein.

The market for permanent sales or temporary transfers of adjudicated water rights in the Antelope Valley is in its early stages of establishing itself, subsequent to the adjudication judgement in late 2015. A detailed discussion of the Sales Comparison Approach and the market data utilized in support of establishing a fair market value of the subject water rights is shown on the following pages.

- 13 -

Sales on Approach – Market data with respect to permanent water right transfers have been investigated and analyzed. A summary of the market data, analysis, and discussion is as follows:

Summary of Market Data - Water Rights Sales
Sale
No.

Sale
Date
Grantor/
Grantee
Document No./
Resolution No.

Location/
Assessor’s Parcel No.

Size
(Acres)
Sales
Price
Price/Acre
Adjudicated
Water
Right
(Acre Feet)
Price/
Acre Ft
Adjudicated
Water
Right
1 03/08/16 Red Dawn Suntower,
LLC/ Rosamond
Community Services
#281380
20301 W. Avenue B8
Lancaster, CA
3256-006-012, 013 & 019
210.0 $975,000
$4,643

150 AF $6,500/AF
(Included
Land)
2 9/27/17 FS Land Holding
Co. LLC/ Diamond
Farming Co.
#132232
N/A
Antelope Valley Basin
(Water rights only)
N/A $1,627,500
N/A*
217 AF $7,500/AF
3 9/27/17 FS Land Holding
Co. LLC/
Grimmway
Enterprises
#132231
N/A
Antelope Valley Basin
(Water rights only)
N/A $1,447,500
N/A*
193 AF $7,500/AF
4 9/27/17 FS Land Holding
Co. LLC/ Crystal
Organic Farms LLC
#132230
N/A
Antelope Valley Basin
(Water rights only)
N/A $1,425,000
N/A*
190 AF $7,500/AF
5 04/13/21 Nebeker/
W.D.S. California II
LLC #69682
N/A
Antelope Valley Basin
(Water rights only)
N/A $11,000,000
N/A*

1,775 AF $6,197/AF

6 01/04/22 Mojave Public
Utility District/
City of Tehachapi
#98892
N/A
Tehachapi Basin
(Water rights only)
N/A $562,500
N/A*
75 AF $7,500/AF
7 02/23/22 Van Dam/
Rosamond CSD
#R-22-13
N/A
Antelope Valley Basin
(Water rights only)
N/A $3,150,000
N/A*
350 AF $9,000
8 03/21/22

Healey Enterprises
Inc/Antelope Valley
East Kern Water
Agency
#338581
Healy Farms
16700 Lancaster Road
Lancaster, CA
(43 APN’s)
2,227
Acres
$11,000,000
$4,939
700 AF
Permanent
4,200 AF
Carryover
$13,194 AF
(Permanent
Allocation
includes
land)
9 05/04/22 Miner/
Rosamond CSD
#R-22-03
N/A
Antelope Valley Basin
(Water rights only)
N/A $11,932,000
N/A*

999 AF
Permanent
5,084 AF
Carryover
$9,907/AF
(Permanent
Allocation)
10 06/02/22 Radcast Investments/
Rosamond CSD
#675636
West line 60th Street,
just north of Avenue E
Los Angeles County
3201-003-005 & 006;
3201-004-007
274.84
Acres
$2,470,000
$8,987
232.56 AF
Permanent
1,395.36 AF
Carryover
$8,112 AF
(Permanent
Allocation
includes
land)
*No real estate transferred, water right only

- 14 -

Market data with respect to sales or listings of permanent water right transfers in the Antelope Valley Basin has been very limited, given the fact that the adjudication agreement has only been in place for 6 years. Most water right holders in the basin that are interested in selling their water rights have had a “wait and see” attitude as far as allowing the market to establish itself, before considering to sell. Those water right holders that are not fully utilizing their water rights have been able to profit through temporary water right transfers, which generally includes a lease of their water rights on an annual basis. While the process to oversee and accommodate water transfers by the water master was not finalized until April 25 th of 2018, Sales 1 through 4 took place subsequent to adjudication, and prior to this time frame. No other permanent water transfers took place in the basin until April of 2021, shown as Sale 5. The property was on the market for almost four years at an asking price of $10,000 per acre foot, with very little interest. The April 2021 sale represents a purchase by an investor who has other water rights in the basin. Both buyer and seller were considered to be knowledgeable parties in the transaction. Sale 9 was also advertised on the market for over three years, including both the land and water rights. The underlying land sold in September of 2020 to a solar developer. A sale of the water rights was consummated in May of 2022. The buyer is a municipal water agency that is located in a northern portion of the Antelope Valley Basin, also acquiring water right Sales 1, 7 and 10. Subsequent to adjudication the municipal water agency (Rosamond Community Services District) was left without sufficient permanent water rights to serve their constituents, and their obligation to fulfill the district’s water needs was a motivating factor in each of these purchase transactions. Sale 8 was also acquired by a large scale local water agency who has substantial adjudicated water rights in the basin, in addition to contracts to receive water through the state water project. The buyer, Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency, has a pipeline that extends through the sale property and has future plans to create a water bank, utilizing both the land and acquired water rights. This was a motivating factor to purchase the property, along with the water rights. Based on the market data analyzed, and consideration given to the motivation of the buyers and sellers, there is insufficient information to recognize any change, or support for a time adjustment during the time frame in which the sales took place.

Financing can be an influencing factor on the price paid for all types of real estate and/or water interests. Each of the sales investigated included all cash to the seller. No special financing or seller concessions were reported.

Analysis of the market data is based on the price per acre foot of adjudicated water right transferred, or available. It is apparent that there is a wide range in price per acre foot, when comparing the consummated price for the sales. It is important to note that the market for all types of real estate, as well as intangible assets such as water rights, is driven by supply and demand.

The adjudication judgement allows for water right holders that have excess or unused water rights to be transferred (leased) on a temporary, year to year basis. This has provided the opportunity for both municipal and agricultural land users to fulfil their water needs on a short term basis. Under the terms of the adjudication agreement, carryover water transfers will be allowed to take place on a free market basis for a period of ten years. At this time the producer will be required to enter into a storage agreement with the watermaster, and temporary water exchanges will be subject to additional fees. In the current market place, most property owners that have water rights which they are not fully utilizing, are taking advantage of the ability to profit from free market temporary exchanges of water rights. This has resulted in the limited motivation to sell water rights on a permanent basis. Most of the sales that have taken place during the past few years have been influenced by highly motivated buyers, including the Rosamond Community Services District who was the Grantee for Sales 1, 7, 9 and 10. As noted previously, subsequent to the adjudication judgement, the agency was left with insufficient water to service their existing customer base.

During the past six years the district has utilized temporary water purchases to fulfil their water

- 15 -

needs. With the ramp down period ending, the district became highly motivated to fulfil their water right needs through purchases of permanent water rights, reflected by Sales 7, 9 and 10.

Sales 9 and 10 included carry over or temporary water rights that were in addition to the permanent water rights acquired. The temporary, or carry over water rights in these sales were allocated at a rate of $418/AF, which equates to 80% of the current replacement cost charged by the water master. The allocated price per acre foot for the permanent water rights for these sales range from $8,112 per acre foot to $9,907 per acre foot. In each case the sellers were aware of the buyer’s immediate, or near term needs to acquire these water rights, and the allocated prices paid for the permanent water purchase were highly influenced by the buyer’s motivation to complete these transactions. Buyer motivation was also an influencing factor for Sale 8, which included the purchase of the underlying land, in addition to both permanent and carry over water rights. The buyer, Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency, has substantial water interests in the basin, including contracts to state water, delivered into the area through the California Aqueduct. The district has an existing pipeline that connects to the sale property, and intends to develop the land to a ground water banking facility in the future.

Given the limited market data with respect to sales of adjudicated groundwater rights in the Antelope Valley Basin, market data has been considered with respect to sales of permanent groundwater rights in other nearby adjudicated basins. Sale 6 includes a permanent water right purchase in the Tehachapi Basin, approximately 25 miles to the northwest. The water right transfer represents a negotiated sale between two municipal water districts. The seller, Mojave Public Utility District acquired the water right through their land ownership, upon adjudication of the Tehachapi Basin. Like the Antelope Valley Basin, the water cannot be transferred out of the Tehachapi Basin, and the water right had no benefit to the Mojave Utility District, which is located 15 to 20 miles to the east. The sale represents a negotiated purchase of the water rights between the two public agencies. The price paid per acre foot is competitive with other smaller water right transfers in the Tehachapi Basin and is considered to be reflective of a fair market value.

Other market data considered for this analysis includes sales of permanent ground water rights in the Mojave Basin, located to the east of Antelope Valley Basin. The water rights in the Mojave Basin were adjudicated in the 1990’s, and similar to the Antelope Valley Basin, the area is served by surface water available from the State Water Project. Information available from public record indicates that there were numerous temporary and permanent water transfers during the 2018 – 2020 water years, with prices paid per acre foot for permanent water rights ranging from a low of $500/AF to a high of $5,000/AF. Most of the lower prices paid per acre foot were for water rights that were acquired in rural areas of the basin, where the demand for groundwater is not as strong when compared to areas where there is a large urban influence. There were seven permanent water right transfers in the Alto sub basin, which encompasses urban areas of Adelanto, Hesperia and Victorville. The permanent water right transfers ranged from 10 AF to 200 AF. The prices paid per acre foot ranged from $4,750/AF to a high of $5,000/AF. An analysis of the water right sales indicate the per acre foot prices in 2018 are competitive with more recent year transfers, which reflects the stability of the market in this area and the fact that the adjudication process took place over 20 years ago.

It is evident that the water market in the Antelope Valley Basin is in the early years of establishing itself, subsequent to adjudication in late 2015. It is also evident that the initial prices being paid for adjudicated water rights in Antelope Valley are significantly higher, when compared to those purchases that have taken place in the Mojave Basin. The most likely reason for the difference is the higher level of urbanization in the Antelope Valley, when compared to the Mojave Basin. In most cases prices paid per acre foot shown by the market data are at a level that severely limits the financial feasibility to acquire water rights for an agriculture use. This is reflected by the fact that there has been no new agricultural land development in the basin during recent years, and it is likely that there will be no new agricultural land development take place in this area in the

- 16 -

foreseeable future. Sales 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 include water rights associated with land that was previously utilized for agriculture. In each case the water rights were acquired for an urban related use. It is important to note that there are still a substantial amount of adjudicated water rights in the Antelope Valley Basin that are held by larger scale farming operations, which in most cases have no intentions of discontinuing this use in the near term. Most of the recent sales of water rights shown in the preceding table were acquired by public agencies, including the Rosamond Community Services District, who was highly motivated to fulfill their shortfall of water rights due to the basin adjudication. Sale 5 represents the only recent water right purchase in the basin by a non-public agency. The water rights were acquired by a larger scale investor, and the seller appeared to be somewhat motivated, after marketing the property for several years.

In an overall analysis of the market data, it is evident that the market for water rights in the Antelope Valley Basin is in the early years of establishing itself, with most of the permanent water right sales involving highly motivated buyers. It is apparent that there are a substantial amount of permanent water rights that are not being fully utilized in the basin given the amount of temporary water right transfers that have taken place during the past few years. Continued increases in prices being paid for temporary water rights will likely have an influence on permanent water right transfers over the next several years. With the amount of water rights available in the basin, market conditions are anticipated to be competitive.

In conclusion, after analysis and comparison of the market data, a comparative unit value of $7,500 per acre foot is considered reasonable for the Antelope Valley Basin adjudicated water rights that are held by the County Sanitation District Nos. 14 and 20 of Los Angeles County. The comparative unit value is supported by the range set forth by the sales, as well as marketing comments from the buyers, sellers and brokers that were involved in the transactions. The indicated value of the water right is calculated as follows:

3,400 AF @ $7,500/AF = $25,500,000

Value Indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach = $25,500,000

- 17 -

FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE:

As part of this assignment, the Client has requested that the appraiser provide a fair market rental value estimate for a temporary transfer of the water right asset described herein. As noted previously in this report, information available from the Antelope Valley Basin Watermaster indicates that adjudicated water rights held by the overlying producers in the basin are transferrable on a permanent or temporary basis. The temporary basis refers to a lease of the water right on an annual basis, which requires formal application and approval by the Watermaster Board of Directors. Guidelines for all water transfers in the basin were established in early 2018, and subsequent to this time there has been an active market with respect to temporary transfers of overlying production and carryover water rights. These type transfers must be renewed on a year to year basis. Temporary transfers provide the opportunity for both municipal and agricultural land users to fulfill their water needs on a short term basis. Under the terms of the adjudication judgement, overlying and carryover temporary water transfers will be allowed to take place on a free market basis for a period of ten years. At this time the producer will be required to enter into a storage agreement with the Watermaster, in order to maintain their right to utilize the carry over water. In the current market place most property owners that have water rights that are not being fully utilized are taking advantage of the ability to profit from the free market temporary exchanges of water rights. As noted, all water right exchanges, temporary or permanent, must be approved by the Watermaster. Information available through public record indicates that there were multiple temporary water exchanges that took place during the current 2022 water year. A summary of some of these transactions is outlined in the following table.

Temporary Water Right Transfers
Transferor Transferee Transfer
Date
Type of
Transfer
Amount
Water
(AF)
Amount
$/AF
% of
Replacement
Water Cost
Godde
Bolthouse
Properties
LLC
03-23-22 Temporary
COW 714 $418 80%
WDS
California
RTS Orchards
LLC 04-27-22 Temporary
COW 1,000 $418 80%
Selak RTS Orchards
LLC 06-22-22 Temporary
COW 65 $418 80%
Selak RTS Orchards
LLC 06-22-22 Temporary
COW 65 $418 80%
Gorridno
Resources
LLC
RTS Orchards
LLC 06-22-22 Temporary
COW 64 $418 80%
Sahara
Nursery
RTS Orchards
LLC 06-22-22 Temporary
COW 60 $418 80%
COW – Carry over water

- 18 -

Information pertaining to the amount of water transferred and the parties involved in each of these transactions was obtained through public record on the Watermaster’s website, however, the Watermaster is not required to disclose the agreed upon dollar amount of the water transfer, which is considered to be private information between the transferor and transferee. Information shown in the proceeding table was confirmed with a party directly involved in each of these transactions.

In most cases the negotiated per acre foot rental rate directly correlates with the annual cost associated with acquiring replacement water from the Watermaster. Replacement water assessments are charged by the Watermaster to pay for the cost incurred to buy and recharge replacement water, and are set at the beginning of each year. The purpose of the replacement water is to insure that each party may fully exercise their production right while keeping the basin in hydrologic balance. The Watermaster shall impose a replacement water assessment on any producer whose production of ground water is more than the sum of the producer’s rights to pump ground water. Replacement water costs are based on the cost for the Watermaster to acquire water that is imported into the basin from the State Water Project and is subject to annual fluctuations.

Subsequent to the adjudication judgement in 2015, replacement water rates established by the Watermaster were $415/AF during the years 2016 – 2018, increasing to $451/AF in 2019, $486/AF in 2020 and $498/AF in 2021. The 2022 replacement water cost is at a rate of $523/AF.

Interviews with local participants in the marketplace indicate that the going rate for private temporary water transfers (annual leases) are typically negotiated based on a 20 percent discount from the current year replacement water rate set forth by the Watermaster, which coincides with the temporary water transfers shown in the preceding table.

As the water market in the Antelope Valley Basin continues to establish itself, it is anticipated that there will be a gradual increase in demand for temporary water transfers, or leases of ground water rights. It is likely that there will continue to be a direct correlation between market prices paid for temporary water purchases and the annual cost of replacement water available through the Watermaster. However, it important to note that continued increases in replacement water costs could result in a higher discount in market negotiated water transfer rates in order to maintain the cost effectiveness to the end user, especially those that are acquiring water for agriculture related uses.

In conclusion, it is my opinion, based on the market data analyzed, that the fair market lease rate for a temporary transfer of all, or portions, of the subject adjudicated water production rights is $418/AF on an annual basis.

- 19 -

Conclusion and Final Opinion of Value -

Value Indicated by the Cost Approach N/A

Value Indicated by the Income Approach N/A

Value Indicated by the Sales Comparison Approach $25,500,000

A Sales Comparison Approach can provide a reliable indication of value when there is adequate market data available in support of the interest being valued. In this case, the interest is an adjudicated water right that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. It is important to note that the market for this asset in the Antelope Valley Basin is slowly establishing itself, subsequent to the adjudication judgement in late 2015. While the market data analyzed in support of a value conclusion is somewhat limited, it is considered to be reflective of demand in the marketplace at this time.

In conclusion and after careful consideration of the data outlined in this report, it is my opinion that the market value of the water right appraised in its present condition, as of November 16, 2022 is the sum of:

TWENTY FIVE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($25,500,000)

Based on the market data analyzed in this report, and consideration given to the concluded value derived herein, it is my opinion that a reasonable market exposure time for a permanent sale of the subject water rights, would fall within a range of 12 to 24 months.

MERRIMAN HURST
& A S S O C I A T E S I N C.

Randy K. Merriman, MAI, SRA 140 S. Montclair St., Suite C David E. Hurst, MAI Bakersfield, CA 93309
Christine Johnson, Appraiser (661) 832-0322
(661) 832-3417 FAX

CURRICULUM VITAE for
RANDY K. MERRIMAN

Real Estate Appraiser, January of 2010 to Present.

President of Merriman Hurst & Associates, Inc., Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, Bakersfield, California.

Real Estate Appraiser, August of 2009 - December 2009.

Vice President of Karpe Merriman Inc., Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, Bakersfield, California.

Real Estate Appraiser, March of 1986 - July of 2009.

Vice President of Karpe Fisher Merriman Inc., Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, Bakersfield, California.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS

"Certified General Real Estate Appraiser", OREA Appraiser I.D. Number AG006809. Expires December 21, 2022.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Awarded MAI designation, April 1997 - Appraisal Institute.

Awarded Senior Residential Appraiser Designation (SRA), September, 1992 - Appraisal Institute.

Candidate for ARA, Accredited Rural Appraiser Designation - American Society Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.

Past President, Bakersfield Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 1993 and 2003.

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

College Courses:

Real Estate Appraisal, Bakersfield Community College, Bakersfield, California.

Advanced Real Estate Appraisal, Bakersfield Community College, Bakersfield, California.

Appraisal Institute:

Appraisal Curriculum Overview Course, Bakersfield, October 21-22, 2010 Advanced Applications, Course 550, Montrose, California, July 16 - 22, 1995 Advanced Income Capitalization, Course 510, Fresno, California, February 24 - 27 and March 4 - 6, 1993 Capitalization Theory and Technique, Part A, San Jose, California, July 5 - 11, 1992

Society of Real Estate Appraisers:

Course 102 - Applied Residential Property Valuation, Los Angeles, California, April 22 - May 2, 1987 Course 101 - Introduction to Appraising Real Property, Challenge Examination, Bakersfield, California, October 17, 1987
2 American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers:

Course A-15 - Appraisal Report Writing, Modesto, California, May 2 - 4, 1996 Course A-25 - Eminent Domain, Shell Beach, California, October 5 - 7, 1993 Course A-30 - Advanced Rural Appraisal, Fresno, California, July 9 - 15, 1989 Course A-20 - Principles of Rural Appraisal, Phoenix, Arizona, June 19 - 25, 1988

Seminars:

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, (USPAP 2022-2023), McKissock

Appraising Agriculture Lands in Transition, ASFMRA, September 9, 2022

Appraisal of Water Rights, ASFMRA, September 8, 2022

Business Practice & Ethics, AI Course, September 7, 2022

Complex Litigation Case Studies, Appraisal Institute, June 11-12, 2018

Best in Business Ethics ASFMRA, California Chapter, October 5, 2017

Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities, October 30, 2016

Permanent Plantings in Changing Markets, ASFMRA, August 23, 2010

Valuation of Detrimental Conditions, AI Central California Chapter, April 7, 2009

Scope of Work, AI Central California Chapter, January 22, 2007

Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book Seminar), AI, Sacramento Sierra Chapter, October 10-11, 2002

Highest & Best Use Applications, AI, Bakersfield Chapter, June 6, 2002

Cold storage Facility Valuation, ASFMRA, California Chapter, April 15-16, 2002

Conservation Easement Seminar, ASFMRA, October 3-4, 2000

Appraisal of Non-Conforming Uses, AI, Bakersfield Chapter, May 5, 2000

The Appraisal of Vineyards & Wineries Seminar, AI, S. California Chapter No. 5, August 12, 1998

Real Estate Appraiser Expert Witness Seminar, AI, Bakersfield Chapter No. 75, June 26, 1998

Federal and State Laws and Regulations Workshop, AI, Bakersfield, Chapter No. 75, October 10, 1997

Easement Valuation, AIREA, Los Angeles Chapter, No. 5, January 16, 1990

Litigation Seminar, AIREA, Los Angeles Chapter, No. 5, December 8, 1989

COURT QUALIFICATIONS

Testified as an expert witness in:

Superior Court of Kern County, California.
3 SCOPE OF EXPERIENCE

Type of Properties Appraised (Partial List):

Agriculture: Precision row crops, rangeland, citrus groves, orchards, vineyards and cold storage/packing facilities

Commercial: Retail store buildings, motels, general and professional office buildings, service stations, and drive-ins

Eminent Domain: Full and partial acquisitions, sewer line right-of-ways, highway right-of-ways, and street widening matters

Industrial: Warehousing and manufacturing facilities

Residential: Single family dwellings, condominiums, and multi-family projects

Special Purpose: Nursing and convalescent homes

Vacant Land: Residential and commercial lots, subdivision acreage, desert, and mountain acreage.

Appraised Property in:

Fresno County Merced County
Inyo County Mono County
Kern County San Luis Obispo County
Kings County Santa Barbara County
Los Angeles County Tulare County
Ventura County

APPRAISALS COMPLETED FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES

U.S. Government: County of Kern:

Department of Navy Public Works Department, Roads
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Housing Authority USDA Farm Service Kern High School District
Bureau of Land Management Kern Economic Development Dept.

Kern County General Services
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
State:

California Department of Fish & Game
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
California Department of Parks & Recreation
California Department of Education

Municipalities: Lending Institutions:

City of Bakersfield Bank of America
City of Delano Bank of the West
City of Los Angeles Bank of the Sierra
City of McFarland California Bank and Trust
City of Shafter California Federal Bank
City of Wasco Citizens Business Bank
Glendale Federal Bank
Hancock Ag Investments
Imperial Bank
Met Life Ag Investments
Mission Bank
Rabobank
Tri Counties Bank
United Security Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
West America Bank
Zion First National Bank

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 17
6/13/2023
JC
Date: June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Roderick Armalin, Public Safety Director
Subject: Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations
Recommendation:

Approve the adoption of an Unmanned Aerial Systems Operations Policy for the City of Lancaster.

This policy aims to establish clear guidelines and procedures for the safe and responsible operation of drones within our organization, ensuring compliance with federal rules and regulations.

Fiscal Impact:

None for this action.

Background:

Unmanned Aerial Systems, commonly known as drones, have become increasingly prevalent in various industries due to their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and ability to perform tasks that were previously challenging or hazardous. As our organization recognizes the potential benefits of UAS technology, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive policy to govern their use within our operations.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed regulations and guidelines for the operation of UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) to ensure safety and mitigate risks.

Compliance with these regulations is mandatory for all operators, including our organization to avoid potential legal, operational, and reputational consequences.

After careful consideration and assessment of the benefits and risks associated with UAS operations, we recommend the adoption of an Unmanned Aerial Systems Operations Policy for the City of Lancaster. This policy will provide a framework to guide the safe, responsible, and compliant operation of drones within our organization.

Attachment:

Unmanned Aerial Systems Operations Policy
City of Lancaster
Public Safety Policies and Procedures Manual
Subject:

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations
Effective Date
Index: Public Safety
Number:

Supersedes
N/A
Staff Contact
T. Bush
Pages
5 1.0PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The mission of the UAS program is to provide aerial support and assistance to Department personnel pursuant to their Division’s mission and requirements. UAS are excellent tools to deploy for situational awareness, if the mission is too dangerous for manned aircraft to be deployed, or when deemed more cost effective than conventional aircraft. Unmanned aircraft shall be operated in a responsible manner consistent with Department policy, applicable state laws (including applicable privacy laws), and applicable federal laws, rules and regulations.

The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for use of the UAS, and for the storage, retrieval, and dissemination of any captured images, video, and/or data.

2.0DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:

Airworthiness – The measure of an aircraft’s suitability for safe flight.

Certificate of Authorization Waiver (COA) – Authorization issued by the FAA to operate a UAS in a manner that is otherwise inconsistent with applicable FAA regulations.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)- The official legal print publication containing the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - The national aviation authority of the United States, with powers to regulate all aspects of American aviation.

Remote Pilot Certificate – Certificate to operate a UAS issued by the FAA pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 107.53 et seq.

Remote Pilot-in-Command (RPIC) – Person possessing a Remote Pilot Certificate issued by the FAA who is directly responsible for controlling the UAS and is the final authority as to the operation of the UAS.

UAS Coordinator – Department member in charge of managing all aspects of the UAS program as designated by the Public Safety Director.

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) – An unmanned aircraft of any type that is capable of sustaining directed flight, whether preprogrammed or remotely controlled (commonly referred to as an unmanned aerial vehicle), and all of the supporting or attached systems designed for gathering information through imaging, recording, or any other means.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) – An aircraft piloted by remote control or onboard computers. For the purpose of this policy, UAV is the same as and means UAS.

Visual Line of Sight (VLOS): Unobstructed visual contact between the RPIC and UAS, without the use of any vision-enhancing devices, other than prescription eyewear, sufficient to maintain safe operational control of the UAS.

Visual Observer (VO)- A person who assists the RPIC with the deployment and operation of the UAS, including utilization of the “see and avoid” technique by scanning the area for air traffic or possible hazards pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 107.33.

3.0POLICY
A UAS may be utilized to enhance effectiveness, timeliness, safety and cost savings of City activities. Any use of a UAS must comply with applicable constitutional privacy rights, State Law, existing city policy, and FAA regulations. Use by City of Lancaster Public Safety shall be managed and regulated by their respective policies and procedures as well as applicable state and federal law. Safety, above all else, is the primary concern in each and every operation, regardless of the nature of the mission.

4.0PRIVACY
The City recognizes that the use of an UAS involves potential privacy considerations and is committed to respecting privacy laws. The RPIC and VO shall at all times comply with applicable federal and/or state privacy laws, including Section 1708.8 of the California Civil Code.

5.0UAS Coordinator
The Director of Public Safety will appoint a UAS Coordinator who will be responsible for the overall management of the program. The coordinator will ensure that policies and procedures conform to current laws, regulations, and best practices, and that all employees involved in the program are familiar with and adhere to those policies and procedures. The UAS Coordinator will have the following additional responsibilities:
•Coordinating the (COA) application process and ensuring that it is current. •Maintaining contact with the FAA and familiarity with applicable FAA regulations. •Ensuring that RPICs and VOs have completed all required FAA and Department required training in the operation, laws, policies and procedures related to use of a UAS.
•Ensuring deployment and operational protocols are strictly adhered to, including the following:
oDeployment request and approval process;
oPre and post flight inspection of aircraft;
oBriefing prior to and debriefing following deployment; and oAn after-action report is completed by the pilot to include reason for deployment, flight time/hours, and brief synopsis of outcome. •Ensuring bi-annual inspections of UAS are conducted and documented identifying “airworthiness” of the airships.
•Ensuring recommended maintenance, both preventative and malfunction repair are conducted in a timely manner. A maintenance record shall be kept showing date, type of maintenance, and person/company completing the work. •Ensuring all RPICs and VOs are familiar with Department policies and procedures related to video evidence storage and retrieval, including chain of custody requirements.
•Ensuring that all training, flight and maintenance records for each RPIC and aircraft are maintained.
•Working with the City Clerk to ensure compliance with applicable retention laws, and policies.
•Facilitating access to images, video, and/or data captured by a UAS. •Conducting annual review of the UAS program and provide documented findings to Public Safety Director, to include recommended program enhancements or areas of needed improvements. Also provide periodic updates to Director on deployments and status of UAS program.

6.0USE OF UAS.

The UAS may be used when necessary or convenient to the conduct of City business within the scope of activities of any City Department.

Possible UAS use include the following:
•Live “birds-eye” and high-resolution imaging (e.g. scene mapping, damage assessment)
•Structural inspections
•GIS mapping
•Construction Tracking
•Public information or Education
•Special Events
•Search and rescue
•Video/Photograph documentation of crime Scenes
•Training flights as required to meet FAA and Department certification standards •Used in accordance with a court order or search warrant •Disaster response (e.g. flood, earthquake)
•HAZMAT response
•High risk tactical operations to reduce risk to the risk to first responders, City personnel, suspects, and community members.
•Response to fires or post-fire investigations.

The UAS must be operated by a RPIC who has been approved by the UAS Coordinator.

The RPIC is responsible for determining whether current weather conditions are appropriate to deploy the UAS and must monitor weather conditions during operation of the UAS.

The UAS may only be used in a manner that complies with applicable laws and regulations, including the regulations promulgated by the FAA and set forth in Part 107 of Title 14 of the Federal Code of Regulations.

7.0PROHIBITED USE
The UAS shall not be used as follows:
•To conduct personal business of any type.
•In a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. •To deploy or carry weapons. The UAS shall not be weaponized. •In a manner that violates any applicable law or regulation, including the regulations promulgated by the FAA and set forth in Part 107 of Title 14 of the Federal Code of Regulations.

8.0FAA NOTIFICATIONS
Should a collision involving the UAS occur which results in any injury to a person or causes damage to property (other than the UAS) in excess of $500 to repair or replace, notification shall be made to the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) within ten (10) days per 14 C.F.R. § 107.9. Current contact information is included below:

Van Nuys FSDO
16501 Sherman Way
Van Nuys, CA 91406
PH: (818) 267-3300
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/vny/

9.0DOCUMENTATION
(a) Prior to every flight, a flight log shall be initiated for documentation. (b) Inspection and weather conditions shall be documented on the flight log prior to flight.
(c) After each flight, the RPIC shall document on the flight log the purpose of the flight, the geographical area within which the flight occurred, and whether the flight yielded any form of media (e.g., still photograph(s), video(s), etc. (d) Any media that results from the deployment, or operation of the UAS must be secured and stored in accordance with Department policies and procedures.

10.0RETENTION OF UAS DATA
Media and any other data collected by the UAS and any associated reporting as required by the FAA, shall be retained as provided in the established records retention schedule.

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 18
6/13/2023
JC
Date:June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From:Jennifer Seguin, Communications Manager
Subject:Professional Services Agreement – Corporate Streams Recommendations:
a. Approve a one year $500,000 contract with option of a 2 year extension with Corporate Streams of Orange County, California, to produce and broadcast 2 news hours per week, as well as non-news programming - including special event filming and production services.

Additionally, the contract includes budget for promotion support to increase reach for channel programming.
b. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sign all documents, including extensions. c. Find that this item is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Fiscal Impact:

Sufficient funds of $500,000 are available in Lancaster TV Peg Fee Expense account number 101-4207-296.

Background:

L28 is the government-operated cable channel for the City of Lancaster. A production services contractor is needed for L28 in order to provide the residents of Lancaster with a place for city updates, entertainment, and community enrichment.

The City aims to keep up with the media needs of a large community in the modern age of information. The top priority will be local-focused news and programming that reflects the Lancaster community, which accurately and effectively communicates crucial information 1 3
1 0
and updates. Programming will also promote local events, businesses, and organizations to foster resident engagement. Programming will be entertaining, informative, and uniquely tailored to the City’s residents. Content will be produced in a timely and thoughtful manner, geared towards a wide range of demographics among City residents. Actively managing and producing new programming for the City’s cable channel will greatly enhance its ability to attract viewership, inform and build community trust.

On February 8, 2022 the City conducted a bid opening for RFP 758-22. Two (2) qualified sealed bids were received by the due date of March 8, 2022, whereby Corporate Streams was deemed the lowest bidder and most qualified vendor. Council then approved a one-year contract with Corporate Streams at the March 22, 2022 meeting.

Staff is now recommending a one year $500,000 contract with option of a two-year extension with Corporate Streams which will be evaluated yearly.

Attachment:

Professional Services Agreement
- 1 -

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES is made and entered into this 22nd day of June, 2023, by and between the CITY OF LANCASTER, a municipal corporation and charter city, (“C ity”), and CORPORATE STREAMS, a Video Production Service Company (“Consultant”) (collectively, sometimes referred to hereinafter as the “Parties”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City desires t o eng age Consultant to perform cer tain t echnical an d professional services, as provided herein, identified as:

RFP 758-22 L28 PRODUCTION SERVICES (THE “SERVICES”)
WHEREAS, the principal members of Consultant are qualified and dul y registered/licensed under the laws of the State of California, and Consultant desires to accept such engagement; NOW
, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. P arties to the Agreement.

T
he parties to this Agreement are:

A. C
ITY: City of Lancaster
B. C
ONSULTANT: CORPORATE STREAMS

2. N otices. All written notices required by or related to this Agreement shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, postage prepaid and addressed as listed below. Neither party to this Agreement shall refuse to accept such mail; parties to this Agreement shall promptly inform the other party of any changes of address. All notices required by this Agreement are effective on the day of receipt, unless otherwise indicated herein.

C
ITY City of Lancaster
Attn: Jason Caudle, City Manager
44933 North Fern Avenue
Lancaster, California 93534
C
ONSULTANT Corporate Streams
Attn: Noah Sargent
5932 Rand Street
Buena Park, CA 90621

3. S uccessors and Assigns. The terms hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto; provided, however, that no party hereto shall assign any of the benefits and burdens hereunder, whether voluntarily or by operation of law, without prior written consent of the other party, and any such assignments without said consent shall be void.

- 2 -

4. Description of Work . The City hereby engages Consult ant, and Consultant accepts such engagement, to perform the technical and professional services set forth in the “ Scope of Services and Rates Schedule,” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall perform and complete, in a manner satisfactory to the City , all work and services set forth in Exhibit “A.” The City Manager or his designee shall have the right to review and inspect the work during the course of its performance at such times as may be specified by the City Manager, or his designee.

5. Obligations of the City.

A. The City shall pay Consultant an amount not to exceed $500,000 for all work necessary to complete the Services, as described in the Scope of Services and Rates Schedule. Payments shall be due within thirty (30) days following submittal of an invoice detailing the services performed, at the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit A.

B. No payment made hereunder by the City to Consultant , other than the final payment, shall be construed as an acceptance by the City of any work or materials, nor as evidence of satisfactory performance by Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement.

6. Obligations of the Consultant.

A. Consultant shall perform as required by this Agreement and in accordance with the Scope of Services and Rates Schedule set forth in Exhibit A & B.

B. Consultant shall be responsible for payment of all employees’ wages and benefits, and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer ’s liability, workers ’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security.

C. Consultant shall not subcontract any of the work required to perform the Services without the express prior written approval of the City.

7. Hold Harmless and Indemnification . Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers and employees, from and against any and all third -party claims, losses, obligations, or liabilities whatsoever, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred to the extent arising out of or related to Consultant’ s negligent or willful wrongful acts, errors or omissions, or those of its employees or agents. Consultant agrees to defend the City, its officers and employees, using counsel of the City ’s choosing, from and against any and al l claims covered by the indemnity in the preceding sentence.

8. Amendments. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon mutual written approval by the City and Consultant.

9. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.

A. In the performance of this Agreement , Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, physical or mental disability or age. Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure

- 3 -

that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, physical or mental disability or age. Affirmative action relating to employment shall include, but not be limited to the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment; layoff or termination; rates of pay or ot her forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship.

B. The provisions of subsection A above shall be included in all solicitations or advertisements placed by or on behalf of Consultant for personnel to perform any services under this Agreement. The City shall have access to all documents, data and records of Consultant and its subcontractors for purposes of determining compliance with the equal employment opportunity and non- discrimination provisions of this Section.

10. Term; Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective and shall be in full force and effect upon the execution of the Agreement by the City and the Consultant. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for twelve (12) months, unless the Ag reement is sooner terminated in accordance with this Agreement; provided, however, that the City and the Consultant may mutually agree in writing to extend the Term of this Agreement.

11. Termination.

A. For Convenience. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. In the event of termination of this Agreement, Consultant will be paid for work completed through the date of termination within thirty (30) days following submittal of a final invoice.

B. For Cause. If Consultant fails to perform the services called for by this Agreement or so fails to make progress as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accorda nce with its terms, Consultant shall correct such failure within ten (10) days (or such longer period that the City may authorize in writing) after receipt of notice from the City specifying such failure. Should the failure not be corrected within this time period, the City may immediately terminate the Agreement by written notice to Consultant.

C. In the event of termination, whether for convenience or cause, reports, plans, studies and other documents (collectively, “documents”) related to the Services shal l become the City’s property. Consultant shall provide all documents to the City that have not yet been within ten (10) calendar days after termination of the Agreement.

12. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and shall have no power or authority to incur any debt, obligation or liability on behalf of the City. It is ex pressly understood between the P arties to this Agreement that no employee/employer relationship is intended.

13. Insurance.

A. The Consultant, at its expense, shall maintain in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement the following coverage and limits of insurance, which shall be maintained with insurers listed “A-, VIII” or better in the Best’s Key Rating Guide:

- 4 -

Commercial General Liability
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
Per Project General Aggregate $2,000,000
Including Products/Completed Operations; Contractual Liability/Independent Contractors; Property Damage
(Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO form CG2010 11/85 or CG2010 07/04 and CG2037 07/04 combined, or an equivalent providing ongoing and completed operations)

Commercial Automobile Liability
Combined Single Limit per Accident for
Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,000,000
(Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO form CA00 01)

Workers Compensation
As Required by the State of California Statutory Limits

Employers’ Liability
Each Accident $1,000,000
Bodily Injury by Disease $1,000,000
Each Employee $1,000,000
(A Waiver of Subrogation must be provi ded on behalf of the Certificate Holder for the Workers Compensation & Employers’ Liability policies)

Professional Liability
Each Occurrence $2,000,000
General Aggregate $2,000,000

Provide one of the following for cyber-related services Technology Professional Liability
(Errors and Omissions)
Each Occurrence $2,000,000
General Aggregate $2000,000
(Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as are undertaken by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement and shall include, without limitation, claims involving invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network securit y. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as any applicable regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations.)

Or
Cyber Liability Insurance
Each Occurrence $5,000,000
General Aggregate $5,000,000

B. The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insured’s liability.

- 5 -

C. Professional liability an d/or cyber insurance written on a “claims made” basis must be renewed for a period of three (3) years after this contract expires or is terminated. Such insurance must have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of t his contract and will cover Consultant for all claims made by the City insured entities arising out of any acts or omissions of Consultant or its officers, employees, or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.

D. Any deductibles or self-insurance retentions must be declared and approved by the City. At the City’s option, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the City insured entities or the insurer shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

E. All insurance shall be primary and non- contributory as respects the City insured entities. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City insured entities shall be in excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

F. Consultant shall furnish the City with Certificates of Insurance and with endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement. Certificates of Insurance shall meet the following requirements:

(1) Show that the insurance policy has been endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 days’ prior written notice (10 days’ written notice for non-payment) to the City of Lancaster.

(2) List in the “Descriptions of Operations/Locations/Vehicles” section:
“ L28 PRODUCTION SERVICES”
The City of Lancaster, its elected officials, officers, employees and volunteers are included as additional covered parties, but only insofar as the operations under this contract are concerned.”

(3) List in the “Certificate Holder” section:

The City of Lancaster, 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, California 93534.

14. Commencement and Completion of Work . The Services to b e provided by Consultant pursuant to t his Agreement shall commence with in immediately after execution of this Agreement, and shall be completed no later than one year following commencement; provided however, that the Parties may agree to extend the time for completion upon mutual written agreement.

15. Ownership of Documents . All plans, specifications, reports, studies, maps and other documents prepared or obtained by Consultant in the course of performing the work and are required by this Agreement to be delivered to the City shall be the property of the City. Basic sketches, charts, computations and similar data prepared or obtained by Consultant under this Agreement shall, upon request, be made available to City without restriction or limitation on their use.

16. Data Provided to Consultant . City shall provide to Consultant , without charge, all data, including reports, records, maps and other information, now in the City’s possession which may facilitate the timely performance of the work described in Exhibit A.

- 6 -

17. Consultant’s Warranties and Representations.

Consultant warrants and represents to City as follows:

A. Consultant has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement.

B. Consultant has not paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant , any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the execution of this Agreement . Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or, in the alternative, to deduct from any sums payable hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift.

C. Consultant has no knowledge that any officer or employee of the City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of the Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time, a complete written disclosure of such interest will be made to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws.

D. Upon the execution of this Agreement, Consultant has no interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction or business entity which would conflict with or in any manner hinder the performance of serv ices and work required by this Agreement , nor shall any such interest be acquired during the term of this Agreement.

18. Resolution of Disputes.

A. Disputes regarding the interpretation or application of any provisions of this Agreement shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, be resolved through good faith negotiations between the parties.

B. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through good faith negotiations, either party may give Notice of Dispute to the other party. The Notice of Dispute shall state the nature of the dispute and the corrective action necessary to remedy the dispute.

After Notice of Dispute, the parties shall first attempt to resolve any disputes by mediation. The parties shall agree on a single mediator . Mediation shall b e conducted in Lancaster, California. Each party shall pay its own attorneys ’ fees and the costs of mediation shall be split equally between the parties.

If the dispute has not been resolved by mediation within 45 days after Notice of Dispute, or the parties are unable to agree to a mediator, within 15 days after Notice of Dispute, then, the dispute may, upon agreement of the parties be resolved by binding arbitration.

- 7 -

C. If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney ’s fees, cost and necessary disbursements, in addition to such other relief as may be sought and awarded.

19. Exhibits.

The following exhibits to which ref erence is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated herein in their entirety:

Exhibit “A” Scope of Services
Exhibit “B” Schedule of Pricing & Terms

20. Governing Law.

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

21. Effective Date.

This Agreement shall become effective as of the date set forth below on which the last of the parties, whether City or Consultant, executes said Agreement.

[Signatures begin on next page.]

- 8 -

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized.

CITY OF LANCASTER

LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA

By:

Jason Caudle , City Manager

Dated:

CORPORATE STREAMS

BUENA PARK, CALIFORNIA

By:
(Noah Sargent, Founder)

Dated:

ATTEST:

City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

EXHIBITASCOPEOFSERVICENewsShow● Upto2(two)newsepisodesproducedandbroadcastperweek:○ Studiorecordingday:MondaywithTuesdayasbackupforholidaysasneeded.○ Topicideassubmittedtheweekbeforeshoot○ Approvedstoryideasthatrelatetobusinessesarecheckedbythecitytobeingoodstanding○ Checkedstoriesarewrittenbythewritingteam,focusedonupliftingtheLancastercommunity○ Copyeditorscreenswritingforgrammaticalerrors○ Cityapprovesscriptsforshoot.○ 1stEpisode:recordedMondaymorning.○ 2ndEpisode(orlongforminterview)recordedMondayafternoonofbroadcastingweek.○ Bothepisodesaretargetedtoairaround2weeksafterrecording OtherProgramming● Upto4episodesproducedpermonth○ Non-newsprogrammingwillbeshotandeditedthemonthbefore○ 30-60-minuteepisodes○ Examplesofprogramminginclude,butarenotlimitedto,morningfitnessclasses,cookingclasses,gardeningclasses,children’sSTEAMeducationalcontent,humaninterestfeatures○ Thecity’scommunicationsteamwilldetermineprogrammingbyanalyzingeditorialcalendarandidentifyingresidentialneedsandinterests SpecialProgrammingForAnnualEvents(ListedBelow)● Thefollowingspecialsareincludedinthecontract.Anyotherspecialeventsneedingcoveragewillincludeanadditionalfee.○ JusticeSunday/ MartinLutherKingDay○ PoppyFestival○ Juneteenth○ FourthofJulyFireworks○ SaferStreets:WalkNRoll○ HauntattheHangar○ FieldofDraftsBeerFestival○ MagicalBLVDChristmas ● ThespecialeventswillbescheduledbytheCity, withtheintentofschedulingatleast30daysinadvance,whenpossible.Citywillprovideideasofthetypeofeventcoverageneeded,andproductionoutcomedesired.● Footagefromspecialeventsmaybeusedformultiplepurposes,andmaybereusedandrevisitedforanycitypromotions.● AllworkmustbeapprovedbytheCitybeforebroadcast.

ProductionWorkflow● TheProductionteamreportstoProductionSupervisorRyanMichel.ProductionSupervisorisadvisedbyNoahSargent.● FolloweditingbestpracticesandprotocolsasoutlinedinL28StudioBinder ● Pre-Production○ Draftingscripts○ TheteamutilizesMonday.comfororganization○ Planningandcoordinatingshoots.○ OnScreentalent(Eg:Yogateachers,businesses,etc)willbecontactedbythecity. ● Production○ StudioFilming○ TheCityofLancasterwillprovidestudiospaceforfilmingnewshoursandotherprogramming○ Cameraoperators○ On-screentalent○ Onlocationaudiotech ● Equipment○ 3cameras(1080porbetter)○ Studiolights(LEDlightslikeAputure300Dpreferred)○ Cameraandlightsupport(tripods,lightstands,cstands,etc.)○ Audio(mics,recorders,etc.) ● On-locationFilming○ "Persononthestreetstyle"newssegmentsaboutbigeventsorprojects○ Camera/audiosetupforrun-n-gunfilming○ Oncameratalent Post-Production● PostproductionteamreportstoPostProductionSupervisorFarrinJames.PostproductionsupervisorisadvisedbyNoahSargent.● Edit2episodesofnewsperweekincludinginterviews,studiofootage,fieldfootage,packages,b-roll,andothercontent.● Edit4episodesofotherprogrammingpermonth.● FolloweditingbestpracticesandprotocolsasoutlinedinL28StudioBinder● EditAudiotonormalizeto-14LUFS● ModifyonScreenGraphicsgeneratedbythecity● PostProductionSupervisorreviewsandgivesnotes● Sendovertothecityfornotes● Addressnotesandfinalizeedit● Allrawvideotakenduringon-locationfilmingshallbemadeavailabletotheCityofLancasterforfutureuseatnoadditionalcost OtherRequirements● COVIDsafetynetsandcontingencies● Thedepthofstaffingmustaccountforemergencieswherecrewavailabilityisaffectedbyillness● Safetyprotocolsinplaceforfilming● MustbefamiliarwithSAP/CCGuidelines● Mustbewell-versedinFCCGuidelinesforpubliccontent● FamiliaritywithPEGmoneyrequirementsaplus EXHIBITBSCHEDULEOFPRICING&TERMContractTermThisAgreementshallbeineffectforone(1)year. Thecontractmaybeextendedannuallyasagreeduponbybothparties.

Totalall-inclusivemaximumpricefortheinitialcontracttermis$500,000.

PaymentTermsTheManagementFeewillbebrokenintomonthlyamountsandbilledmonthlyinadditiontonewsandprogramming.

ForspecialeventsoutsideofthelistinExhibitATheCitywillprovideabudgetforeachevent,andtheVendorshallprovideaquoteforthespecialeventbasedontheCity’sgoalsforproduction.PricingforSpecialEventsshallbeinclusiveofpreandpostproductionactivity,includingalllabor, equipment,andactivitiesnecessarytoproducecontentforairing,includingtravelandotherincidentalexpensestoandfromtheCityofLancasterfilminglocation.Thequoteshallbeapprovedpriortoworkcommencing.

PaymentforSpecialEventsisbillableuponprojectdelivery, andshouldbebilledseparatelyfromthemonthlyprogresspayments.

TheTotalcompensationpackageforallservicesoutlinedinthisdocument:
$500,000.00
Additionalserviceswillbebilledseparately.

Pricingisinclusiveofpreandpostproductionactivity, includingalllabor, equipment,andactivitiesnecessarytoproduceanepisodethatisreadytoair, includingtraveltoandfromCityofLancasterfilminglocation.CorporateStreamsManagement,gearupkeep,training,&supervisionareincludedintotal.

STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
PH 1
6/13/2023
JC
Date:June 13, 2023
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From:Larissa De La Cruz, Director - Community Development Jocelyn Swain, Senior Planner - Community Development
Subject:Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 22-11 (Heliogen) Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 23-41, upholding the Planning Commissions approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 22-11 and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration by denying the appeal.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the appeal.

Background:

The proposed project is located at 431 East Avenue K-4, the site of the City’s former Golf Center and Driving Range. In 2019, the property was leased to the applicant and the City approved Director’s Review No. 19-57 on June 14, 2019 to allow for the testing of hydrogen/alternative energy equipment. The existing buildings were utilized as office space and a tower with accompanying concentrating solar and photovoltaic solar fields were installed.

The proposed project consists of the expansion of the existing Heliogen Research and Development facility to include additional testing operations. Specifically, the proposed project would include expanding the uses at the site to include hydrogen production, processing, storing, and dispensing; electricity production using a photovoltaic field; and synthetic fuel production and storage. Detailed information regarding the equipment to be installed and proposed operations can be found in the Planning Commission staff report and the Initial Study. Construction of the proposed expansion would take approximately 3 months and generate 12 construction jobs; no permanent jobs would be created by the project. No commercial production of hydrogen would occur on the project site.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved the proposed project on March 20, 2023. The public hearing included a review and discussion of the issues raised in all five submitted comment letters (Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Caltrans, member of the 1 3
0 6
public, and two letters from Adams Broadwell). Subsequent to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Adams Broadwell, a law firm representing Citizens for Responsible Industry, filed an appeal stating that the Initial Study was inadequate and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required due to the following:
 Decommissioning
 Incomplete environmental setting
 Incomplete project description
 Air quality
 Public Health (including Valley Fever),
 Biological resources
 Noise
 Cumulative
Additionally, the Appellant argues that the City is unable to make the required findings in order to grant the CUP. Staff has reviewed the appeal and believes that the Initial Study does not require revisions necessitating recirculation nor are there any significant impacts associated with the proposed project which would require the preparation of an EIR as documented in the attached Response to Comments.

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission approval of CUP 22-11, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the appeal.

JS/hb
Attachments:

Resolution No. 23-41
Response to Comments
PC Staff Report dated March 20, 2023
Applicant’s Response

RESOLUTION NO. 23-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING

COMMISSION DECISION BY DENYING THE APPEAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 22 -11 TO ALLOW FOR

THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING HYDROGEN

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY LOCATED AT
431 EAST AVENUE K- 4 IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 80 -02
(SP 80 -02) ZONE (APNS: 3126- 031-901, 3126- 031-902) AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

WHEREAS, a Conditional Use Permit has been requested by Heliogen, Inc. (“Applicant”), for the expansion of the existing hydrogen/alternative energy research and development facility at 431 East Avenue K-4 in the Specific Plan No. 80-02 (SP 80-02) zone; and

WHEREAS, an application for the above -described Conditional Use Permit has been filed pursuant to the regulations contained in Article I of Chapter 17.32 of the Lancaster Municipal Code (“LMC”); and

WHEREAS, staff has performed necessary investigations, prepared a written report, and recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study (SCH#2023020184) was prepared for the proposed project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and circulated for public review ending on March 9, 2023; and

WHEREAS, public notice was published and given as required by law, and a public hearing was held on March 20, 2023; and

WHEREAS, comments were received on the Initial Study from the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Caltrans, a member of the public, and Adams Broadwell during the 30-day public comment period; with a second comment letter submitted by Adams Broadwell just prior to the Planning Commission meeting; and

WHEREAS, all comment letters were reviewed by staff, provided to the memb ers of the Planning Commission; and discussed during the public hearing on March 20, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit on March 20, 2023; and

WHEREAS, Adams Broadwell, representing Citizens for Responsible Industry, subsequently filed an appeal of the Planning Commission action in accordance with Chapter 2.44 of the Lancaster Municipal Code on March 31, 2023; and

Resolution No. 23-41

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, a notice of intention to consider the upholding of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 22- 11 has been given, as required in Article V of Chapter 17.32 of the Lancaster Municipal Code, and in Section 65905 of the Government Code of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, reviewed and considered the staff report prepared regarding the appeal, and considered testimony presented during the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, this Council hereby adopts the following Conditional Use Permit finding s per Section 17.32.090, in support of approval of this application:

A. That the proposed use will not be in substantial conflict with the adopted general plan for the area.

The Conditional Use Permit for the proposed hydrogen research and development facility would be in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Specific Plan/Light Industrial (LI). In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and specific actions identified within the General Plan.

B. The requested use at the location proposed will not:

1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area.

The proposed project is for the expansion of an existing research and development facility for alternative energy (solar/hydrogen) located at 431 East Avenue K -4. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Lancaster Business Park which encourages industrial, commercial and research/development type uses. The project site and the immediately surrounding area is zoned as SP 80- 02. There is a multi - family residential development located immediately adjacent to the project site on the northeast and single family residential uses are located to the east and north across 5 th
Street East and Avenue K from the project site. The property to the north and east is zoned R -7,000 with some Commercial zoning on the southeast corner of 5 th Street East and Avenue K. The other uses near the site are commercial and industrial in nature. As designed, the proposed project would not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area.

2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site.

Resolution No. 23-41

Page 3 ends

The expansion of the existing research and development facility would occur on a portion of the property located at 431 East Avenue K-4 in the Lancaster Business Park Specific Plan. The proposed use is compatible with the other uses in the Lancaster Business Park Specific Plan and the residential/commercial uses to the east and north of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of other property.

3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare.

The proposed expansion of the existing research and development facility would not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare of the public or surrounding community. In addition to compliance with all regulations pertaining to hazardous materials, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to air quality, geology and soils, hazards/hazardous materials, and noise to less than significant levels.

C. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is oth erwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area.

The proposed facility is of adequate size and shape to meet all of the required development standards of the Light Industrial zone and Lancaster Business Park Specific Plan (SP 80-02) and would integrate with the surrounding industrial uses.

D. The proposed site is adequately served:

1. By highways or streets of sufficient width, and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate.

The project site would be accessed via the existing driveway located on Avenue K -4.

Avenue K -4 connects to both 5
th Street East and Division Street. These roadways
have already been fully improved and can adequately handle traffic from the proposed project and the surrounding uses. A total of 12 workers would be required to install the proposed equipment for the expansion. After construction is complete, no additional employees would be required and no new trips would be generated.

2. By other public or private service facilities as are required.

The proposed site location has adequate sewer, water, fire, and police services to serve the site. No new utilities would be required to serve the property.

Resolution No. 23-41

Page 4 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the foregoing Recitals are true, correct and a substantive part of this Resolution.

2. This City Council denies the appeal for Conditional Use Permit No. 22- 11, upholding the Planning Commission decision.

3. This City Council here by adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Community Development staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute and file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA (including its implementing guidelines).

4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

______________________________ ______________________________ ANDREA ALEXANDER R. REX PARRIS
City Clerk Mayor
City of Lancaster City of Lancaster

Resolution No. 23-41

Page 5 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF LANCASTER )

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION

CITY COUNCIL

I, _______________________, ____________________, City of Lancaster, CA, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 23- 41, for which the original is on file in my office.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, on this ______ day of _________, 2023.

(seal)

__________________________________

Responses to Comments Raised
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period from February 7, 2023 to March 9, 2023. During the public comment period a total of four comment letters were received (AVAQMD, Caltrans, member of the public, and Adams Broadwell). A second letter from Adams Broadwell was submitted just prior to the Planning Commission meeting on March 20, 2023.

Upon review of the comment letters, staff determined that no issues were raised that necessitated the revision or recirculation of the Initial Study or a detailed discussion in the staff report. All letters were provided to the Planning Commissioners as part of the staff report packet or as soon as it was received in the case of the second Adams Broadwell letter. During the public hearing, an oral staff report was given which included a brief summary of the comment letters received.

Additionally, discussion of the comments raised in the letters was held during the meeting.

On March 20, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 22-11 (5-0-0-0-2). On March 31, 2023, Adams Broadwell, representing Citizens for Responsible Industry, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval and identified eight broad issues with the environmental document and stated that it is not possible to make the required findings to approve the CUP. The eight issues are identified below:
•Decommissioning
•Incomplete environmental setting
•Incomplete project description
•Air Quality
•Public Health (including Valley Fever)
•Biological Resources
•Noise
•Cumulative
The following provides responses to the issues raised in the appeal and clarifies information as necessary. This information is based on the technical studies contained within the Initial Study and the following clarification memos provided by the Applicant’s consultant. •Heliogen R&D Facility Project Supplemental Information to Address Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SWCA Environmental Consultants, May 12, 2023
•Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Noise Discussion, SWCA Environmental Consultants, May 11, 2023
•Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Discussion, SWCA Environmental Consultants, May 5, 2023
None of the issues raised in the appeal letter necessitates the revision and/or recirculation of the Initial Study nor is the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) required. Although mitigation measures are identified for some resource areas, all impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures.

Decommissioning
The issue of decommissioning was not raised by the appellant in any of the comment letters submitted during the public review period nor in any other comment letters provided by public agencies or the member of the public. During the Planning Commission hearing, Commissioner Tufts asked if there were conditions of approval regarding decommissioning of the proposed project. Staff responded that there were not; however, the applicant’s lease for the property spells out what is required at the end of the useful life of the project. Additionally, staff indicated that all decommissioning of the project would be required to occur in compliance with laws and regulations in place at the time that it occurs. In a further review of the lease agreement, the applicant is required to leave everything on-site for the City to utilize, unless the City otherwise asks for the equipment to be removed from the project site and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws.

The appellant argues that their air quality and health risk expert “determined that Project decommissioning will result in even more significant environmental impacts than construction of the Project.” However, no evidence, such as air quality model runs, was provided to substantiate the claim. In reviewing the letter attached to the appeal, it states the following:
“In my opinion, based on over 30 years of experience, the air quality (PM2.5, PM10, NOx), public health (diesel particulate matter), and Valley Fever impacts of decommissioning would be substantially greater than the impacts of constructing the Project documented in my March 8, 2023 for several reasons. First, the entire site would have to be graded and revegetated, rather than the portion disturbed by the instant Project. Second, Project facilities, which contain hazardous materials, would have to be disassembled on-site and transported to distant disposal or reuse facilities.”
While decommissioning emissions may be the same or slightly higher than construction emissions, there is no way of knowing if, when or how those activities will occur. CEQA does not require an analysis of speculative information. Additionally, construction emissions associated with the proposed project are minimal and substantially less than the air district thresholds for criteria pollutants as documented in the air quality report and initial study prepared for the proposed project (Table 8 and Table 4, respectively). The appellant states that the entire site would need to be graded and revegetated which is an incorrect statement. Only a small portion of the project site would be graded, specifically for the perimeter access road (fire department requirement) and the pads for the tower and equipment that would be located on portions of the property that are not already paved. The area where the solar panels would be installed would not be graded in accordance with City policy and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District regulations for alternative energy facilities. While the site would be required to meet the definition of a stabilized surface under the air district rules, it would not necessarily need to be revegetated.

The use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes are highly regulated under existing local, State and federal regulations. Any removal and disposal of the equipment on the project site would be required to comply with existing regulations in place at the time the activities occurred.

Environmental Setting
The appellant states that the Initial Study is not an adequate informational document because it fails to adequately describe the environmental setting against which impacts of the proposed project are analyzed. They specifically state that the information provided for biological resources and noise is inadequate and requires the preparation of an EIR. However, they do not state what information is allegedly missing or why the environmental/existing setting description is inadequate.

The Initial Study provides a brief discussion of the surrounding land uses and identifies specific uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Under the discussions of each individual resource area, additional information is provided pertinent to that resource. For some resource areas, specifically air quality/greenhouse gases, noise, and hazards/hazardous materials, the technical study for the project is referenced, briefly summarized, and made available to the public during the comment period. The technical studies provide detailed information with respect to the existing conditions. The noise study discusses the existing ambient noise conditions in detail on pages 8 through 11 including the results of the short and long-term ambient noise measures and sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. The biological resources section describes the state of the existing facility and clearly states that there is no vegetation or habitat located on the project site.

The information provided in the Initial Study and technical reports is sufficient for the reader to understand the location and context of the project site. No further response is necessary.

Project Description
The appellant argues that the Initial Study only provides a vague project description and fails to analyze the whole of the action including future development on the site over the next ten years.

They go on to state “that the demonstration project evaluated in the MND is the first step to develop a pipeline for approximately three million barrels of fuel over ten years.” The proposed project is a minor expansion to an existing Research and Development facility for alternative energy, specifically hydrogen. The project site is the City’s former Golf Center and Driving Range located at 431 East Avenue K-4 in the Lancaster Business Park. The subject site was leased to the Applicant in 2019 and Director’s Review No. 19-57 for the original tower and heliostat field was approved June 14, 2019. The proposed project is a small expansion to the existing research and development facility as described in the staff report and Initial Study, essentially adding 400 solar panels, a second tower, and miscellaneous hydrogen equipment to the site.

The proposed project is a research and development facility to test equipment potentially utilized in the production of hydrogen fuel. The future needs of a research and development facility cannot be predicted with any accuracy as technology rapidly changes over time, particularly with respect to alternative energy types and production methodologies. As such, identification of all testing activities over the next 10 years would be speculative and not required to be analyzed under CEQA.

In the future, if additional testing needs are identified a subsequent environmental analysis would be prepared which incorporates all activities occurring at the site plus any new proposed activities.

As such, project splitting would not occur.

The existing facility and proposed expansion are for research and development only. No commercial production of any form of alternative energy would occur on the project site. This is clearly stated in both the Initial Study and the staff report. Equipment or processes that are tested on the project site may be used in future commercial production elsewhere; however, that commercial production is not part of the proposed project. Any commercial production proposed by Heliogen, may or may not be located within the City of Lancaster, but it would not be located at this site and would be subject to its own environmental review. While Heliogen may have a stated company goal of producing three million barrels of fuel (commercial production) over the next ten years, that goal is not relevant to the project at hand. General information that is released as part of press releases or SCE filings is meant to keep investors and stakeholders informed as to the goals and general health of a company and to comply with federal requirements for public companies. It is not automatically part of a project description for CEQA purposes.

Air Quality
The appellant states that construction and operation of the proposed project would result in significant air quality impacts. However, they do not provide any detailed emissions analyses showing that the proposed project’s construction or operational emissions would exceed the thresholds established by the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD).

An air quality report was prepared for the proposed project which documented the anticipated construction and operational emissions and was summarized in the Initial Study. Table 7 of the air quality report presents an estimate of the maximum number of pieces of equipment necessary during the construction phase and conservatively assumes equipment will be operating 8 hours per day, 5 days per week for the three-month construction duration. The assumptions regarding equipment and schedule, as well as the project’s emissions, are provided in the supplemental memo. These assumptions are conservative and still result in emissions well below the AVAQMD thresholds of significance as shown in Table 4 and 5 of the Initial Study. During construction all pollutants were projected to be under 19 percent of the AVAQMD significance thresholds, and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) was projected to be under three percent of the AVAQMD significance thresholds, showing minimal potential impacts from the project.

Mitigation was not included in the project’s CalEEMod model due to the very low unmitigated emissions and conservative assumptions. However, the proposed project is required to comply with all applicable AVAQMD rules and regulations including AVAQMD Rule 403. Rule 403 requires projects to incorporate fugitive dust control measures including: watering disturbed open areas; limiting track-out distance and removing track-out at the conclusion of each workday; Watering during grading; implementing Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for all sources such that visible emissions do not exceed this limit 100 feet from the point of origin of earth- moving activities; and posting a sign that provides a telephone number to call and receive information or report complaints regarding dust.

All of these best management practices and AVAQMD guidelines would further reduce the emissions reported in the air quality report. For example, reducing the speed limit on unpaved areas to 25 mile per hour would decrease particulate matter by 44%, watering construction roads twice daily has a particulate matter reduction efficacy of 55%, and watering exposed surfaces twice per day has a particulate matter reduction efficacy of 62%. In addition, project features such as gravel access roads placed around the perimeters of the field and the tower(s) would reduce particulate matter emissions during operations and maintenance. As such, the actual construction air emissions are likely to be less the relatively minimal amount estimated in the Initial Study and impacts would be less than significant.

Public Health (Diesel Particulate Matter, Valley Fever, Hazards Materials):

The appellant states the proposed project would have significant air quality and public health impacts which would require the preparation of an EIR. A response to the claims of a significant air quality impact have been addressed above and are not further discussed here. The following provides a response to the claims of a public health impact from diesel particulate matter (DPM) during construction, valley fever impacts and impacts to construction workers from pesticides in the soil from previous agricultural uses. The responses are based in part on the memos provided by SWCA and referenced above.

Diesel Particulate Matter
A health risk assessment was not prepared for the project due to the very small amount of project construction and operation emissions as documented in the Initial Study. Furthermore, diesel particulate matter is a subset of the total particulate matter. The total construction PM10 is 1.71 pounds per day, which is a conservative value based on the assumption that all construction equipment would operate simultaneously for 8 hours per day and 5 days per week. This would not be the case in reality, where equipment would have varying operating hours and would be operating in different locations and times on the project site. The total construction diesel particulate matter is 0.63 pounds per day, making up 36% of the total PM10 generated by the project and 0.8% of the AVAQMD significance threshold for particulate matter.

During project operations, emissions would result from the occasional use of on-site off-road equipment and routine cleaning of the mirrors that would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. The cleaning of the mirrors was included in the air quality report. During operations, daily employee and routine maintenance activities would not require additional workers and any trips would fall below the applicable screening threshold of 110 trips per day. The project’s operational emissions are less than one percent of the AVAQMD significance thresholds and therefore without substantial changes to operation the project would be below the AVAQMD significance thresholds. There are no air emissions from the operation of the facility itself (i.e. stationary sources) and emissions from the Fischer Tropsch process and hydrogen distribution would be negligible. As such, the air quality report analyzed the whole of the project. The project’s emissions of toxic air pollutants would be minimal and would consist of DPM emissions during construction activities. The employees commuting to the site during project construction or operation would use electric or gasoline‐fueled vehicles.

The 2016 AVAQMD guidance provides the project types with health risk concerns to nearby sensitive receptors. These include projects such as gasoline dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, distribution centers with 40 or more trucks per day, and projects with known toxic air contaminants as part of operations. This project does not qualify as one of these project and is a small research and development facility, showing very small amounts of diesel particulate matter, and no operational stationary sources with toxic air contaminant emissions. Best management practices such as limiting idling time, were not included in the emission estimates but would further reduce the diesel particulate matter emissions. The construction-related emissions would be short-term and located at different locations within the project site. The limited duration and limited quantities of construction emissions ensure that no individual receptor would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Valley Fever
There is a detailed valley fever discussion contained within the Initial Study on pages 17 through

20. This includes a description of what valley fever is, how it transmitted, the impacts of valley fever and how it is typically treated. The analysis also includes two mitigation measures to ensure that impacts to construction workers and nearby receptors would be less than significant.

The first mitigation measure is compliance with the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403 with respect to dust control. This rule contains specific requirements regarding dust control including requiring stabilized surfaces, dust control plans with construction watering, posted signage, and stopping of construction activities during high winds (25 miles per hour or higher).

The second mitigation measure is specific to Valley Fever and was developed in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to minimize exposure to Valley Fever during construction activities and is specific to the conditions that exist in the Antelope Valley. This mitigation measure has been required of all development projects in the City of Lancaster since 2018.

The appellant states that the measures contained in the Initial Study are incomplete and inadequate to control potential Valley Fever exposure and that they identified effective Valley Fever mitigation measures that were not included. This is an incorrect statement. The mitigation that is identified by the appellant for Valley Fever is almost identical to what is contained in the City’s Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program including the requirements for worker education programs, personal protective equipment, dust control, clean up areas, etc. The City’s measure goes a step beyond the mitigation measure proposed by the appellant and also requires the workers and residents in the surrounding area to be notified of the future construction and provides them with information regarding Valley Fever and ways in which they can minimize their exposure. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant and no further response is necessary.

Hazardous Materials
The appellant states that the site is contaminated with pesticides from previous agricultural use, and that the project may disturb these contaminants, leading to significant health risks for nearby individuals. Specifically, the comment states that the Phase I report prepared for the Initial Study failed to use California’s Pesticide Use Reports (PUR) database to identify the specific pesticides historically used on the site.

Per the thresholds of significance set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, analysis of the California’s Pesticide Use Reports (PUR) database is not a requirement or a threshold to determine whether a project would result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

As determined in the Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared for the proposed project, the project site has not been used for agricultural purposes since the 1990s and it found no recognized environmental conditions (RECs) for the property. Additionally, between when the project site was utilized for agricultural purposes and when the Phase I was prepared, the project site was developed with the City’s Golf Center and Driving Range. Given that the project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes, and has not been for over 30 years, no recognized environmental concerns were determined to be present on the project site. Project implementation would also not result in the use of pesticides for agricultural purposes and further analysis of pesticide exposure is not warranted for this project.

The appellant states that the risk of upset from potential releases of hazardous materials including hydrogen represents a considerable hazard. The Initial Study states that the proposed project would require the routine transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials including both hydrogen and synthetic crude. It also states that the proposed project would be equipped with any required/necessary safety mechanisms including fire protection/sprinkler systems, dust suppression systems, detectors and alarms, shutdown systems and temperature monitoring. The Initial Study also identifies mitigation measures which require the compliance with all applicable hazardous material/waste rules and regulations.

Additionally, it should also be noted that any business that occupies a building on the project site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) requires a permit from the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one time, greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under AB 2185, to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan. This type of emergency plan is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. This is not a mitigation measure, but a regulatory mandate.

The appellant also states that because a fire could occur on the subject property that the proposed project would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy 4.7.2. The policy states “ensure that the design of new development minimizes the potential for fire”. To be consistent with this policy does not mean that no fires will ever occur. If that was the case, no development or undeveloped property would be consistent with this General Plan policy. To be consistent with the policy means that the property will be developed with measures to minimize fire hazards and comply with all requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The proposed project would have all required safety measures and meets the development standards of the Fire Department which cleared it for approval. Additionally, in the event of a fire, the project site is a little over a mile from the nearest fire station which would be able to provide a quick and timely response.

Biological Resources
The appellant states that the proposed project would have a significant impact to avian species due to the project’s location, size and solar technology. The appellant states that this is a result of the “project’s location near the intersection of two major avian migration routes, its relatively large size and the use of PV technology.”
As discussed in the Initial Study, the project site is located on the grounds of the City’s former Golf Center and Driving Range. This facility has not been in operation for many years and the vegetation (grass) on the property is unmaintained and dead. The only vegetation that is maintained on the project site is the landscaping installed in the parking lot area adjacent to the existing buildings. No trees or suitable nesting habitat is located on the property. There are some trees located along the project frontage with Avenue K and 5th Street East. However, these trees are not located on the project site, would remain undisturbed with the implementation of the proposed project, and project activities would not be occurring on this portion of the property.

The project site itself is located within the central urban core of the City and within the boundaries of the City’s business park. The project site is substantially surrounded by developed uses including residential, industrial, and commercial and adjacent to three roadways (Avenue K, Avenue K-4, and 5 th Street East). These locations provide minimal, if any, habitat for avian or other wildlife species.

The appellant argues that the project site is located at the intersection of two major avian migration routes. While the Antelope Valley as a whole is part of avian migration routes, migratory species tend to utilize areas with water and habitat readily available. These locations include areas such as Lake Palmdale (9 miles south), Lake Lancaster/Caltrans Basin (3.5 miles northwest), Apollo Park (4.5 miles northwest) and Piute Ponds at Edwards Air Force Base. These locations are not contained within the core of the City or near the project site Additionally, the proposed project would install approximately 400 solar panels (generating approximately 100 kilowatts of power) in the southwest portion of the project site as shown on the site plan contained within the Initial Study. This is approximately 0.5 acres in size which is substantially smaller than other utility scale solar facilities which in size from 20 acres to approximately 1,100 acres. This is a minor number of solar panels and in no way constitutes a “relatively large project” or number of panels.

Noise
The appellant argues that the proposed project would generate significant noise impacts during construction specifically from the pile driving for the solar panels and from vibration noise. The appellant states that the Initial Study did not address these issues and that there is substantial evidence to conclude that pile driving and non-pile driving noise and vibration would exceed thresholds.

As part of the preparation of the Initial Study, a noise and ground vibration study was prepared for the proposed project. This study was prepared by SWCA and documented in a report entitled “Noise and Ground Vibration Technical Report, Lancaster Solar R&D Project, Los Angeles County, California”. The results were summarized in the Initial Study and a copy of the report was included as part of the public review documents uploaded to the State Clearinghouse.

As part of the Noise Study, a total of 6 short-term and 1 long-term noise measurements were taken to establish the existing ambient noise conditions of the property between September 8, 2022 and September 15, 2022.

Monitoring locations and duration of the surveys were selected based on the following factors:
proximity to noise-sensitive receptors, coverage, security, access limitations, temporal variability, time efficiency and scheduling flexibility, and maintenance limitations.

Performing short-term noise monitoring at the closest neighboring noise-sensitive receptors, along with one long-term noise monitoring at the closest project property boundary to a sensitive receptor, is sufficient for establishing the existing soundscape in the vicinity of a project site. The appellant also states that noise impacts would occur at nearby locations and the impacts were not analyzed.

Operational impacts were analyzed at the Antelope Valley Springs of Life Ministries and iLEAD Lancaster Charter School receptors as clearly shown and discussed in the noise report. Estimated noise impacts at these receptors from the operation of the proposed project were determined to be less than the existing baseline levels. Noise levels were not estimated at the KTPI, Fox Sports 610 AM, and Clear Channel radio receptors as these are not considered sensitive receptors. Radio stations are not considered noise-sensitive receptors because they are typically considered commercial or industrial establishments; they maintain a controlled environment to ensure the quality of their broadcasts; and noise-sensitive receptors are typically characterized by locations where people live, work, study, or recreate, and where excessive noise levels could impact their health or ability to perform tasks and radio stations do not fall under these categories.

Additionally, the appellant argues that construction noise generated by the project will surpass existing ambient noise levels, consequently leading to a significant impact to neighboring residents. The City of Lancaster has enacted regulations in Chapter 8.24 of the Lancaster Municipal Code (LMC) to control excessive and offensive noise. Although the LMC does not provide explicit definitions for terms like "excessive," "unnecessary," and "annoying," or specify numerical values and averaging periods for determining compliance, it does establish a permissible schedule for construction activities. Specifically, Section 8.24.040 (Loud, Unnecessary and Unusual Noises Prohibited - Construction and Building) states:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person at any time on Sunday or any day between the hours of eight p.m. and seven 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 five hundred (500) feet of an occupied dwelling, apartment, hotel, mobile home or other place of residence…” Construction activities associated with the proposed project are limited to the allowable hours and days identified in the LMC. Furthermore, the City of Lancaster has incorporated a Noise section within the Public Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, which aims to define "quiet" and establish standards that guarantee a suitably quiet environment for the various land uses proposed within the General Plan study area, taking into account the differing noise sensitivities of these uses. The City of Lancaster General Plan Noise Compatible Land Use Objectives specify an exterior noise level of 65 dBA for noise-sensitive residential land uses. Per General Plan, Policy

4.3.2, construction noise, characterized by the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), must not exceed 15 dBA above the noise objectives outlined in the Public Health and Safety Plan.

In order to assess potential impacts resulting from single-event noise levels, the Lmax descriptor is employed for construction noise levels, as it accounts for the maximum level measured over a given time interval. Consequently, an 80 dBA Lmax threshold for project-related construction noise was utilized in the noise report to evaluate construction noise levels at nearby sensitive residential land uses. Estimated noise levels from construction activities at the closest noise- sensitive receptor from the center of the construction site were 74.1 dBA Leq and 76.8 dBA Lmax.

Therefore, without employing mitigation, noise impacts associated with the construction activities for the project would be less than 80 dBA Lmax threshold for project-related construction noise.

Additionally, best management practices were included in the Initial Study to further reduce construction related noise.

Pile driving activities, specifically driving poles to support solar panels, were excluded from the analysis for the following reasons.
•Pile driving is a temporary and intermittent construction activity. It is typically of short duration, and noise levels dissipate rapidly as the construction progresses. The transient nature of pile driving activities makes it less likely to have long-term, sustained noise impacts on neighboring noise sensitive receptors.
•Pile driving will be conducted during daytime hours and in compliance with local noise ordinances, which helps to further minimize potential noise impacts on neighboring receptors.
•Using Lmax (the maximum noise level) can provide some information about pile-driving noise impacts. Lmax represents the highest noise level during a specific period. Using it alone might not provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall noise impacts as each pile driving event will last just a few seconds.

Cumulative
The appellant also states that the Initial Study did not identify all cumulative construction or nearby operational cumulative projects and therefore, it is not a valid information document. Specifically, pages 34 and 35 of the Fox attachment states “The City of Lancaster’s website identifies many proposed projects. These include a 48-MW battery energy storage facility for an existing solar facility, solar facilities, a waste-to-hydrogen plan, a warehouse, and distribution centers. Further, the IS/MND fails to identify the 48-MW battery energy storage facility for an existing solar facility and identifies only one 6-MW solar facility.”
Table 8, on page 52 of the Initial Study, provides a detailed related projects list. This is a list of all projects, and their status, which are located within approximately one mile of the proposed project.

This distance was selected because these are the projects that had the potential to combine to create cumulative impacts and/or to affect the same sensitive receptors. Projects on the far west side of the City or several miles away from the project site would not combine to create cumulative impacts.

The identified 48-MW battery storage facility referenced in the comment letter is located at the northwest corner of Avenue G and 95 th Street West, approximately 10 miles west of the project site. Only one solar facility was identified in the related projects list because utility-scale solar is only permitted in the industrial zones or the RR-2.5 (rural residential, minimum lot size 2.5 acres).

With the exception of the identified utility-scale solar facility, there are no solar facilities within the one mile radius.

All of the cumulative projects identified in the Initial Study could combine with the proposed project to create cumulative impacts if they were to be constructed at the same time. However, this is not likely given the types of projects and the current status of the projects. Additionally, given the size of the proposed project, its location, and the impacts it would generate as discussed in the Initial Study, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be minimal and less than significant and therefore, not cumulatively considerable.

Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study and in the responses above, staff believes that the City has made the findings required to approve a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission approval of CUP 22-11, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the appeal.

May 5, 2023

Jantien Shizuru
Heliogen Holdings, Inc
431 E Ave K4
Lancaster, CA 93535

Re: Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Discussion/ SWCA Project No. 71201
Dear Ms Shizuru,
SWCA prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report (2022 Report) for the Lancaster Solar Project (project) located in Los Angeles County, California dated September 2022. This letter presents additional information helpful to understanding the project’s minimal air impacts and highlights key information already provided in the 2022 Report.

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS
Table 7 of the 2022 Report presents an estimate of the maximum number of pieces of equipment for the single phase and conservatively assumes equipment will be operating 8 hours per day, 5 days per week for the three-month construction duration (January through March 2023). Although the 2022 Report did not include the detailed results from CalEEMod, the assumptions regarding equipment and schedule, as well as the project’s emissions, are provided as Attachment A to this letter. These assumptions are conservative and still result in emissions well below the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) thresholds of significance found in its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. Table 1 shows the unmitigated emissions from the project and the percentage of the AVAQMD significance thresholds. During construction all pollutants were under 19 percent of the AVAQMD significance thresholds, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are under three percent of the AVAQMD significance thresholds, showing minimal potential impacts from the project.

Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Discussion 2 Table 1. Unmitigated Construction and Operation Emissions Summary ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2
2023
Construction–
Pounds per
day

2.31 25.7 27.0 1.71 1.10 0.04
AVAQMD
Significance
Thresholds
137 137 548 82 65 137
Percentage of
Threshold

2.1% 18.8% 4.9% 2.1% 1.7% 0.03%
2023
Construction–
Tons per year

0.09 0.83 0.88 0.06 0.04 0.005
AVAQMD
Significance
Thresholds
25 25 100 15 12 25
Percentage of
Threshold

0.4% 3.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.02%
2023
Operation–
pounds per
day

0.09 0.83 0.88 0.06 0.04 0.005
AVAQMD
Significance
Thresholds
137 137 548 82 65 137
Percentage of
Threshold

0.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.05% 0.1% 0.004%
2023
Operation–
Tons per year

0.01 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.005
AVAQMD
Significance
Thresholds
25 25 100 15 12 25
Percentage of
Threshold

0.4% 0.52% 0.15% 0.1% 0.1% 0.02%
Source: Table 8 and 9, 2022 Report
Mitigation was not included in the project’s CalEEMod model due to the very low unmitigated emissions and conservative assumptions. However, mitigation would be included as part of the project. As stated in the 2022 Report, the following AVAQMD rules and regulations would be applicable to the project:
 AVAQMD Rule 403 requires projects to incorporate fugitive dust control measures. o Watering disturbed open areas;
o Limiting track-out distance and removed track-out at the conclusion of each workday; o Watering during grading;
o Implementing Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for all sources such that visible emissions do not exceed this limit 100 feet from the point of origin of earth-moving activities. A list of BACM is contained in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook; and Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Discussion 3 o Posting a sign that provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation at the entrance to the construction site (only if site is <10 acres).

Also, as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure in Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], idling times would be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes with clear signage provided for construction workers at all access points.

All of these best management practices and AVAQMD guidelines would further reduce the emissions reported in the 2022 Report. For example, reducing the speed limit on unpaved areas to 25 mile per hour would decrease particulate matter by 44%, watering construction roads twice daily has a particulate matter reduction efficacy of 55%, and watering exposed surfaces twice per day has a particulate matter reduction efficacy of 62%. In addition, project features such as gravel access roads placed around the perimeters of the field and the tower(s) would reduce particulate matter emissions during operations and maintenance. The applicant would be required to comply with any AVAQMD grading and/or construction permits. This includes compliance with all prerequisites outlined in District Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, including submission and approval of a Dust Control Plan, installation of signage and the completion of a successful onsite compliance inspection by an AVAQMD field inspector. Proof of compliance would be submitted to the City of Lancaster. This would ensure that all grading and dust causing project activities would be in full compliance and minimize air impacts.

Furthermore, Section 93115 in Title 17 of the CCR states that operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engine shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards. In August 1998, CARB identified DPM emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. In September 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive diesel risk reduction plan to reduce emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The goal of the plan was to reduce diesel PM10 emissions and the associated health risk by 75% in 2010 and by 85% by 2020. The plan identified 14 measures that target new and existing on-road vehicles (e.g., heavy-duty trucks and buses, etc.), off-road equipment (e.g., graders, tractors, forklifts, sweepers, and boats), portable equipment (e.g., pumps, etc.), and stationary engines (e.g., stand-by power generators, etc.). During the control measure phase, specific statewide regulations designed to further reduce diesel PM emissions from diesel-fueled engines and vehicles were evaluated and developed. The goal of each regulation is to make diesel engines as clean as possible by establishing state-of-the-art technology requirements or emission standards to reduce diesel PM emissions. The project would be required to comply with applicable diesel control measures.

Although not necessary due to Project emissions being well below the thresholds, the following are additional mitigation measures to be considered by the project to further minimize impacts:
 Require the use of biodiesel in all construction equipment;  Require the use of Tier 4 final engines in all construction equipment;  Install engine particulate filters;
 Install diesel oxidation catalysts;
 Limit idling to no more than 2 minutes, enforced by an on-site construction monitor;  Restrict the amount of diesel-powered equipment and total engine horsepower operating in a given area;
Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Discussion 4  Modify and/or extend the construction schedule to minimize the amount of diesel-powered equipment operating in a given area at the same time;
 Relocate significantly impacted sensitive receptors; Require routine maintenance of construction equipment;
 Hire only highly skilled equipment operators; and
 Retain an on-site construction manager to assure all mitigation is achieved in practice.

The site’s former use was a golf course and therefore has been previously graded and disturbed prior to this project. Impacts of the existing environmental setting are part of the baseline and the project is not required to evaluate or mitigate those impacts.

According to the AVAQMD, if an individual project results in, and air emissions of criteria pollutants exceed the AVAQMD's recommended daily threshold for project specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants. Construction and operation emissions from the project would not exceed any of the AVAQMD's regional or localized significance thresholds. Any nearby projects would also have to comply with the AVAQMD significance thresholds and guidance. Consequently, the emissions generated by project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Health Risk Assessment
A health risk assessment was not prepared for the project due to the very small amount of project construction and operation emissions (shown in Table 1). Furthermore, diesel particulate matter makes up a percentage of the total particulate matter in Table 1. The total construction PM10 is 1.71 pounds per day, which is a conservative value based on the assumption that all construction equipment would operate simultaneously for 8 hours per day and 5 days per week. This would not be the case in reality, where equipment would have varying operating hours and would be operating in different locations and times on the project site. The total construction diesel particulate matter is 0.63 pounds per day, making up 36% of the total PM10 and 0.8% of the particulate matter AVAQMD significance threshold.

During project operations, emissions would result from the occasional use of on-site off-road equipment (aerial lift and forklift) and routine cleaning of the mirrors that would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. The cleaning of the mirrors was included in the 2022 Report, accounting for the gallons per year required. During operations daily employee and routine maintenance activities would not require additional workers and any trips associated with hydrogen distribution would fall below the applicable screening threshold because there would be less than 110 trips per day. Table 1 show the projects operational emissions and are less than one percent of the AVAQMD significance thresholds and therefore without substantial changes to operation the project will stay below the AVAQMD significance thresholds. There are no air emissions from the operation of the facility itself (i.e. stationary sources) and emissions from the Fischer Tropsch process and hydrogen distribution would be negligible, therefore the evaluation of operational air emissions in the 2022 Report are complete. The project’s emissions of toxic air pollutants would be minimal and would consist of DPM emissions during construction activities. The employees commuting to the site during project construction or operation would use electric or gasoline‐fueled vehicles.

The 2016 AVAQMD guidance provides the project types with health risk concerns to nearby sensitive receptors. These include projects such as gasoline dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, distribution centers with 40 or more trucks per day, and projects with known toxic air contaminants as part of operations. This Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Discussion 5 project does not qualify as one of these project and is a small research and development facility, showing very small amounts of diesel particulate matter, and no operational stationary sources with toxic air contaminant emissions. Best management practices such as limiting idling time, were not included in the emission estimates but would further reduce the diesel particulate matter emissions. The construction- related emissions would be short-term and located at different locations within the project site. The limited duration and limited quantities of construction emissions ensure that no individual receptor would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Also, per noise mitigation measure eight, material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking and maintenance areas would be located as far away as practicable from residences which would also serve to further minimize air impacts. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Valley Fever
Although not explicitly discussed in the 2022 Report, measures included in the AVAQMD District Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, including submission and approval of a Dust Control Plan would minimize impacts due to Valley Fever. The construction of the proposed project would result in the disturbance of the soil, which increases the possibility that individuals could be exposed to Valley Fever. However, CUP 22-11 Mitigation Measures 2 (for Geology and Soils) requires the project operator to implement dust control measures in compliance with AVAQMD Rule 403, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, which would provide personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever, and the risk of exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized to a less than significant level.

Conclusion
The resulting air emissions from the project are below AVAQMD significance thresholds and will comply will all AVAQMD guidance. The Project is consistent with the City of Lancaster General Plan 2030 policies to minimize and mitigate air impacts. The project construction and operation would not represent a substantial source of TAC emissions, which are more typically associated with large scale industrial, manufacturing, and transportation hub facilities and therefore the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In conclusion, the project impacts would be less than significant for all the air and greenhouse gas impacts identified in the 2022 Report.

Sincerely,

Erin Wielenga
SWCA Air Quality Specialist

Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Discussion 6 ATTACHMENT A

CalEEMod Results – Air Pollutant & GHG Emission Calculations

Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 1 / 33
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 2 / 33

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 3 / 33

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 4 / 33

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 5 / 33

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 6 / 33

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

8. User Changes to Default Data
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 7 / 33

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 4.50
Precipitation (days) 13.0
Location 431 E Ave K4, Lancaster, CA 93535, USA
County Los Angeles-Mojave Desert
City Lancaster
Air District Antelope Valley AQMD
Air Basin Mojave Desert
TAZ 3663
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Industrial Park 80.0 1000sqft 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 8 / 33
No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.35 2.81 25.7 27.0 0.04 1.08 0.63 1.71 0.99 0.11 1.10 — 4,714 4,714 0.19 0.06 0.05 4,738 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.60 0.50 4.57 4.85 0.01 0.19 0.11 0.30 0.18 0.02 0.20 — 841 841 0.03 0.01 0.15 846 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.11 0.09 0.83 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 139 139 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 140

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 3.35 2.81 25.7 27.0 0.04 1.08 0.63 1.71 0.99 0.11 1.10 — 4,714 4,714 0.19 0.06 0.05 4,738 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.60 0.50 4.57 4.85 0.01 0.19 0.11 0.30 0.18 0.02 0.20 — 841 841 0.03 0.01 0.15 846 Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 9 / 33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.11 0.09 0.83 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 139 139 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 140

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.11 0.09 1.01 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.11 0.09 1.01 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08 0.06 0.72 0.84 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 10 / 33
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Off-Road 0.11 0.09 1.01 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Total 0.11 0.09 1.01 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Off-Road 0.11 0.09 1.01 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Total 0.11 0.09 1.01 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Off-Road 0.08 0.06 0.72 0.84 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Total 0.08 0.06 0.72 0.84 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 11 / 33
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3 Total 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.19 2.67 25.3 25.1 0.04 1.08 — 1.08 0.99 — 0.99 — 4,268 4,268 0.17 0.03 — 4,283 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.79 2.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.92 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.57 0.48 4.51 4.47 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 760 760 0.03 0.01 — 763 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.09 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 126 126 0.01 < 0.005 — 126 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 12 / 33
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.13 0.18 1.84 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 320 320 0.02 0.01 0.04 324 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 124 124 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 129 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 59.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.0 22.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 9.70 9.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.83 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.65 3.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.81 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 13 / 33
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 14 / 33
Industrial
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 15 / 33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 16 / 33

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 17 / 33
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aerial
Lifts

0.02 0.02 0.36 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 73.8 73.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 74.1 Forklifts 0.08 0.07 0.65 0.79 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 115 Total 0.11 0.09 1.01 1.18 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 18 / 33
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Aerial
Lifts
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.70 8.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.73 Forklifts 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Total 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 19 / 33
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 20 / 33
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 21 / 33
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2023 3/31/2023 5.00 65.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 22 / 33

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Building Construction Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Building Construction Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 16.0 0.38 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Building Construction Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Building Construction Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Building Construction Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 24.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 1.00 0.20 HHDT

5.4. Vehicles
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 23 / 33

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Industrial Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 24 / 33
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Total all Land Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Industrial Park 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 25 / 33

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Industrial Park 0.00 20,800

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Industrial Park 0.00 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 46.0 0.31
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 26 / 33

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 27 / 33

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 34.5 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.15 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.35 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire — 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality 0 0 0 N/A
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 28 / 33
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire NaN 1 1 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 29 / 33
AQ-PM 8.01
AQ-DPM 13.1
Drinking Water 55.4
Lead Risk Housing 39.1
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 98.4
Traffic 42.0
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 75.2
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 67.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 98.6
Cardio-vascular 93.4
Low Birth Weights 95.4
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 56.5
Housing 25.7
Linguistic 28.8
Poverty 61.6
Unemployment 17.1

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 30 / 33
Economic —
Above Poverty 53.61221609
Employed 14.93648146
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 27.90966252
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 50.86616194
Transportation —
Auto Access 43.30809701
Active commuting 11.07404081
Social —
2-parent households 22.13524958
Voting 30.05261132
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 84.57590145
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 38.86821506
Supermarket access 37.04606698
Tree canopy 31.48979854
Housing —
Homeownership 61.20877711
Housing habitability 72.60361863
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 46.16963942 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 57.91094572
Uncrowded housing 78.31387142
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 66.66238932
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 31 / 33
Arthritis 76.8
Asthma ER Admissions 6.1
High Blood Pressure 81.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 63.4
Asthma 46.1
Coronary Heart Disease 74.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 62.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 60.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 5.2
Cognitively Disabled 68.5
Physically Disabled 60.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 7.3
Mental Health Not Good 43.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 73.0
Obesity 37.5
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 52.6
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 17.1
Current Smoker 42.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 58.6
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 6.8
Elderly 87.4
Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 32 / 33
English Speaking 78.9
Foreign-born 19.9
Outdoor Workers 65.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 81.8
Traffic Density 47.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 49.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 23.4

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 63.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 38.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

Lancaster Solar Test Facility Project Detailed Report, 8/30/2022 33 / 33

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Project area acreage
Construction: Construction Phases Approx. 3 month construction duration Construction: Off-Road Equipment Conservative equipment assumptions Construction: Trips and VMT Anticipated construction trips Operations: Water and Waste Water Water for routine cleaning of mirrors Operations: Solid Waste None
Operations: Refrigerants None

May 11, 2023

Jantien Shizuru
Heliogen Holdings, Inc
431 E Ave K4
Lancaster, CA 93535

Re: Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Noise Discussion/ SWCA Project No. 71201 Dear Ms Shizuru,
In November 2022, SWCA completed the Noise and Vibration Technical Report, also known as the "Noise Report," specifically for the Lancaster Solar Project (project) in Los Angeles County, California. The purpose of this letter is to provide supplementary in formation helpful to understanding the project’s noise impacts. Additionally, it emphasizes essential details that were already included in the Noise Report.

BASELINE NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Adams Broadwell (AB) argues in its March 9, 2023, comment letter that the MND and the Noise Report fail to accurately determine baseline noise levels or identify nearby sensitive land uses.

Measuring baseline noise levels helps to establish the existing noise environment surrounding a project site.

This information is essential for providing context to the noise assessment and determining how introducing new noise sources may affect the existing soundscape.

In order to establish the baseline or ambient sound levels in the vicinity of the project area and at the nearest noise-sensitive locations, ambient sound surveys were carried out in the area. Between September 8 and 15, 2022, a combination of short-term (6) and long-term (1) sound monitoring was conducted to document the acoustic environment surrounding the proposed proj ect. Details on the locations and duration of the monitoring can be found in Tables 5, 9, and Figure 3 of the Noise and Ground Vibration Technical Report.

Additionally, photographs of the monitoring locations are provided in Appendix A.

The goal of conducting the baseline noise survey was not to establish a reference point for evaluating potential impacts of the proposed project, as the applicable local noise ordinances do not rely on increases from existing noise levels. Instead, the measured noise levels serve to verify whether the current noise levels in the project area are in line with the surrounding land uses and the sound levels documented in relevant literature for these land uses. This allows for a mo re accurate understanding of the existing acoustic environment and helps to ensure that the project is consistent with the prevailing noise conditions and land use characteristics in the area.

The selection of monitoring locations aimed to re present the nearest noise-sens itive receptors near the project. Noise-sensitive receptors are generally defi ned as places where people reside or where unwanted sound may negatively impact the existing land use. A need for quietness often characterizes such receptors Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Noise Discussion
2 as a fundamental aspect of their function or wher e excessive noise may hinder the regular use of the location. Common examples of noise-sensitive recept ors include residential neighborhoods, historical monuments, schools, hospitals, places of worship, an d libraries. By focusing on these locations, the monitoring efforts aim to capture the project's potentia l impacts on areas where noise levels are of utmost importance for the well-being and day-to-day activities of the people using these spaces.

Monitoring locations and duration of the surveys were selected based on the following factors:
 Proximity to Noise-Sensitive Receptors – Ta rgeting the closest neighboring noise-sensitive receptors for short-term noise monitoring prior itizes the most vulnerable locations, such as residential areas and churches. This approach aligns with the intent of protecting sensitive receptors from excessive noise.
 Coverage – Performing noise monitoring in the gene ral cardinal directions ensures that the noise assessment covers a wide range of potential noise sources and variations within the project vicinity.

This approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the existing noise environment and helps identify any potential issues associated with specific directions or noise sources.  Security – Conducting noise monitoring at the right-of-way (ROW) or within the property controlled by the applicant, reduces safety risks associated with extended monitoring periods at sensitive properties. This approach minimizes th e potential for equipment damage, theft, or vandalism, and reduces the likelihood of injuries to personnel due to prolonged exposure to the monitoring site.
 Access Limitations – Access to sensitive properti es for long-term monitoring may be limited or restricted due to privacy concerns or property owner permissions. Monitoring at the ROW or within the project site circumvents these issues by focusing on public spaces, allowing for easier access.  Temporal Variability – The long-term monitoring performed at the closest property boundary with respect to the noise-sensitive recepto rs, captures the daily and hourly variations in noise levels at the closest project property boundary to a sen sitive receptor. This data provides valuable information on patterns and trends in the noise environment, such as increases during peak hours or specific events that contribute to the overall noise levels.  Time Efficiency and Scheduling Flexibility – A combination of short-term and long-term monitoring allows for a more efficient and flexible data collection process.  Maintenance Limitations – Long-term monitoring requires regular maintenance and calibration of sound meters to ensure accurate data collection. This process can be time-consuming and costly, especially when performed over extended periods of time. Short-term monitoring reduces the need for frequent maintenance and calibration, improving data reliability and reducing associated costs.

In some cases, measurements may have been taken in proximity to barriers to ensure the safety and security of monitoring equipment and to comply with property access limitations. We acknowledge that barriers may influence the measured noise levels. However, it is important to note that the existing noise sources close to those monitoring locations , such as noise coming from the Sienna apartment complex, are on the other side of the barrier. As a result, it is expected that if any influence on the results is experienced, it would be a reduction on the measured baseline levels . Therefore, the values used to represent these noise- sensitive receptors are lower and therefore more c onservative. This conservative approach provides a margin of safety in the noise impact assessment, ensuring that potential impacts are thoroughly considered.

Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Noise Discussion
3 Additionally, some of the barriers are not tall enough to block the line-of -sight between the sound monitor and the noise-sources; therefore, not providing any type of shielding effects on the recorded readings.

In conclusion, performing short-term noise monitoring at the closest neighboring noise-sensitive receptors, along with one long-term noise monitoring at the closest project property boundary to a sensitive receptor, can be considered sufficient for representing the exis ting soundscape in the vicinity of a project. This approach provides comprehensive coverage of the noise environment, focuses on the most vulnerable locations, captures both spatial and temporal variations, and is cost-effective and efficient.

It is also important to note that the AB letter alle ges that noise impacts at some specific nearby land uses (i.e., KTPI, Fox Sports 610 AM, and Clear Channel ra dio, as well as the Antelope Valley Springs of Life Ministries and iLEAD Lancaster Charter School.) were not analyzed.

Operational impacts were analyzed at the Antelope Valley Springs of Life Ministries and iLEAD Lancaster Charter School receptors as clearly shown in Figure B- 3 of the Noise Report. Estimated noise impacts at these receptors from the operation of the proposed project were determin ed to be less than the existing baseline levels.

Noise levels were not estimated at the KTPI, Fox S ports 610 AM, and Clear Ch annel radio receptors as these are not considered sensitive receptors. Radio stations are not considered noise-sensitive receptors as:
 Radio stations are typically considered commer cial or industrial establishments. Noise impact assessments usually focus on reside ntial areas, schools, hospitals, and other public spaces where people are more likely to be adversely affected by noise.  Radio stations maintain a contro lled environment to ensure the quality of their broadcasts. They use noise-cancellation technologies, acoustic treatments, and isolation techniques to manage noise levels inside the studio effectively. Radio stations have soundproofed walls, ceilings, and windows designed to prevent external noise from entering th e broadcasting rooms. As a result, the noise generated outside should not significantly impact the operations inside the radio station.  Noise-sensitive receptors are typically characteri zed by locations where people live, work, study, or recreate, and where excessive noise levels could impact their health or ability to perform tasks.

Radio stations do not fall under these categories, as they primarily involve broadcasting and production rather than human occupation or recreation.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Additionally, the commenter argues that constructi on noise generated by the project will surpass existing ambient noise levels, consequently leading to a significant impact to neighboring residents.

The City of Lancaster has enacted regulations within the Lancaster Municipal Code to control excessive and offensive noise. As outlined in Chapter 8.24 of th e Health and Safety Code, the City's policy aims to prohibit unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises originating from sources subject to its police power.

Although the code does not provide explicit defin itions for terms like "excessive," "unnecessary," and "annoying," or specify numerical values and averag ing periods for determining compliance, it does establish a permissible schedule for construction activities.

Specifically, Section 8.24.040 (Loud, Unnecessary a nd Unusual Noises Prohibited - Construction and Building) states:

Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Noise Discussion
4 “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person at any time on Sund ay or any day between the hours of eight p.m. and seven 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 equi pment which makes loud noises within five hundred (500) feet of an occupied dwelling, apartment, hotel, mobile home or other place of residence…” The applicant will limit construction to the allowable hours and days in Section 8.24.040, complying with the City of Lancaster requirements on construction noise.

Furthermore, the City of Lancaster has incorporated a Noise section within the Public Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, which aims to define "quiet" and establish standards that guarantee a suitably quiet environment for the various land uses proposed within the General Plan study area, taking into account the differing noise sensitivities of these uses. The City of Lancaster General Plan Noise Compatible Land Use Objectives specify an exterior noise level of 65 dBA for noise-sensitive residential land uses. Per General Plan, Policy 4.3.2, construction noise, char acterized by the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), must not exceed 15 dBA above the noise objectives outlined in the Public Health and Safety Plan.

Consequently, an 80 dBA L max threshold for project-related construction noise was utilized in the Noise Report to evaluate construction noise levels at nearby sensitive residential land uses.

Construction noise levels were determined using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Noise estimates associated with the project's construction are derived from a list detailing the maximum quantity of construction equipment utilized on a given day. The anticipated noise produced by the construction equipment at the facility was conservatively calculate d, taking into account the projected construction equipment roster expected to be employed at the site. This estimation did not factor in additional attenuation due to atmospheric interference or the presence of in tervening structures. This is a very conservative approach as:
 RCNM's Conservative Assumptions – The RCNM includes conservative default assumptions, such as standardized construction equipment sound power levels and generic attenuation factors, which are based on worst-case scenarios or typical values. These assumptions may overestimate the actual noise levels produced by a specific construction project.  Use of Lmax – The Lmax, or maximum noise level, represents the highest noise level during a given time period. By using Lmax to represent construction noise impacts, the analysis inherently focuses on the worst-case noise levels, disregarding lower no ise levels and fluctuations that may occur during construction activities.
 Center of Construction Site: Assuming that all construction activities and noise sources are located at the center of the construction site simplifies the spatial distribution of noise sources. This assumption may not accurately represent the actual layout of construction activities, leading to potential overestimations of noise impacts at sensitive receptors.  Limited Consideration of Site-Specific Factor s: The RCNM does not account for site-specific factors that can influence noise propagation, su ch as topography, meteorological conditions, and the presence of noise barriers. By not considering these factors, the RCNM may overestimate noise levels, leading to a conservative assessment of noise impacts.

Lancaster Solar RD Supplemental Noise Discussion
5 By combining these factors, the described approach offers a highly conservative estimation of construction noise impacts. This conservative approach can provide a margin of safety in the noise impact assessment.

Estimated noise levels from construction activities at the closest noise-sensitive receptor from the center of the construction site were 74.1 dBA Leq and 76.8 dBA Lmax. Therefore, without employing mitigation, noise impacts associated with the construction activities for the project would be less than 80 dBA Lmax threshold for project-related construction noise.

Pile driving activities, specifically driving poles to support solar panels, from the construction noise impact analysis at neighboring noise-sensitive receptors were excluded from the analysis. The following points outline the reasoning behind this exclusion:
 Pile driving is a temporary and in termittent construction activity. It is typically of short duration, and noise levels dissipate rapidly as the construction progresses. The transient nature of pile driving activities makes it less likely to have long-te rm, sustained noise impacts on neighboring noise- sensitive receptors.
 Pile driving will be conducted during daytime hours and in compliance with local noise ordinances, which helps to further minimize potential noise impacts on neighboring receptors.  Using L max (the maximum noise level) can provide some information about pile-driving noise impacts. However, there might be other appropr iate metrics for estimating the impacts on noise- sensitive receptors. Lmax represents the highest noise level during a specific period. Using it alone might not provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall noise impacts as each pile driving event will last just a few seconds.

OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
The commenter also points out that the noise study appears to have erroneously included a margin comment requesting an analysis of the impacts of “500 heliost ats + 400 PV panels” and that it is unclear if the requested analysis was included.

It was confirmed that the requested analysis of the impacts of "500 heliostats + 400 PV panels" was indeed included in the analysis. The Noise Report, specifically in Table 15, lists all the noise sources considered, which includes the mentioned heliostats and PV panels.

Furthermore, the results presented in the Noise Re port accurately represent the 1-hour Leq noise level, assuming the continuous operation of all the listed sources, including the 500 heliostats and 400 PV panels.

The analysis comprehensively takes into account th e noise generated by these specific components, along with other sources, to provide a comprehensive assessment.

Sincerely,

Carlos M. Ituarte-Villarreal
SWCA Air Quality Specialist

1866745v1

MEMORANDUM
To: Jantien Shizuru, Heliogen Holdings, Inc

From: Shannon Pagan, Environmental Planner, SWCA
Date: May 12, 2023
Re: Heliogen R&D Facility Project Supplemental Information to Address Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration / SWCA Project No. 71201 The City of Lancaster’s Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (No. 22-11) on March 20, 2023 for the Heliogen R&D Facility Project (project) located in Los Angeles County, California. This memorandum presents additional information to facilitate the response to comments from Adams Broadwell (AB) received on the analysis provided in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project by the City of Lancaster. Reponses to comments related to the air quality and noise analyses are provided in separate technical memorandums sent to Heliogen on May 5, 2023, and May 12, 2023, respectively.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BASELINE

AB argues that there will be various impacts from already-graded areas (e.g., from wind erosion “until they are built out”) (AB Letter, pp. 16-17, Fox Report, pp. 8-10). o SWCA Response: Upon the initiation of CEQA analysis for a project, the existing environmental setting of a project site constitutes the baseline physical conditions for which project impacts are determined (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). At the time the MND for the project was published, the project site had been previously graded and partially developed for prior uses. As such, this condition is considered part of the project’s baseline physical condition, which serves as the basis for evaluation of the project’s potential environmental impacts provided throughout the various sections of the MND.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

AB argues that the site is contaminated with pesticides from agricultural use, and therefore that the project may disturb these contaminants, leading to significant health risks for nearby persons (AB Letter, p.20). Specifically, the comment states that the MND failed to use California’s Pesticide Use Reports (PUR) database to identify the specific pesticides historically used on the site.

o SWCA Response: Per the thresholds of significance set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, analysis of the California’s Pesticide Use Reports (PUR) database is not a requirement or a threshold to determine whether a project would result in significant Heliogen R&D Facility Project Supplemental Information Memorandum 1866745v1 2
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. As determined in the Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared for the project by SWCA, dated August 2022, the project site has not been used for agricultural purposes since the 1990s and it found no recognized environmental conditions (RECs) for the property (SWCA 2022). Given that the project site is not used or agricultural purposes, no RECs were determined to be present on the project site, and project implementation would not result in the use of pesticides for agricultural purposes, further analysis of pesticide exposure is not warranted for this project.

In response to comment regarding the risk of upset from potential releases of hazardous materials (AB Letter, p. 24-25), the commenter cites studies showing that Hydrogen “can easily cause material failure” and that hydrogen explosion represents a considerable hazard. The MND acknowledged that hydrogen generally poses risks and the applicable mitigation is compliance with applicable laws and regulations. (IS, p. 31.).

o SWCA Response: As stated in MND Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project’s Mitigation Measure 3 would require the applicant to secure all necessary permits required from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, or other applicable agencies (City of Lancaster 2019, page 31). It should also be noted that any business that occupies a building on the project site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) requires a permit from the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one time, greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under AB 2185, to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan. This type of emergency plan is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. Heliogen should confirm that this is being done as part of this project. The intent of the Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan is to satisfy federal and state Community Right-To-Know laws and to provide detailed information for use by emergency responders. If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the project, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above).

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Both AB and Fox comment that the MND fails to identify the other projects to be used for the cumulative analysis. (Fox Report, p. 33-34).

o SWCA Response: As provided in MND Section XXI, Mandatory Findings of Significance, a list of related projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis is provided in Table 8 (City of Lancaster 2019, page 52). As noted, the MND defines the geographic scope for their cumulative project list as foreseeable projects occurring within one mile Heliogen R&D Facility Project Supplemental Information Memorandum 1866745v1 3
of the project site. The projects listed in Table 8 are not intended to be an exhaustive list of projects in the area, but it rather represents those projects in the vicinity of the project site that may have some related environmental impact to the project. Identifying cumulative projects helps to determine whether the combined effects from the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant.

Given the MND identifies the project’s potentially significant impacts and provides mitigation measures to reduce all project related impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the project itself would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts for any of the environmental issues analyzed therein. As such, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts with viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

REFERENCES
City of Lancaster. 2019. Conditional Use Permit No. 22-11 Initial Study. Available at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023020184. Accessed May 5, 2023.

SWCA 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Heliogen Lancaster Test Site in Los Angeles County, California. August 2022. On file with SWCA Environmental Consultants, Pasadena, California.

PC Staff Report
Conditional Use Permit No. 22-11
March 20, 2023

Page 2 ends

Lancaster City CouncilJune 13, 2023

Lancaster City Council
June 13, 2023