Lancaster City Council
July 8, 2025

1 Responses to Comments Raised on Appeal
An Initial Study (SCH# 2024080570) 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 August 14, 2024 to September 13, 2024. An extension to the public comment period was requested by Adams Broadwell and the end of the comment period was extended to September 30, 2024. During the public comment period a total of 35 comment letters were received from State agencies (Caltrans and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife), local agencies (Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District), two law firms (Adams Broadwell representing Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles [CREED LA], and Lozeau Drury representing Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility [SAFER]), and 30 letters from members of the public. After the close of the comment period letters were received from the Jordan R Sisson law firm representing UNITE HERE 11 and Advocates for the Environment.

Based on the comments received, the Initial Study was revised to provide additional information and clarification. The revised Initial Study was circulated for public review and comment from March 19, 2025 through April 18, 2025. Similar comment letters were received on the revised Initial Study from the law firms and the public. No additional comments were received from State/local agencies or Advocates for the Environment. The comment letters were reviewed by staff and provided to the Planning Commissioners in their packets; the issues raised in these letters discussed at the Planning Commission along with responses to issues raised by speakers. No additional revision to the Initial Study were deemed to be necessary. At the April 21, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the project was approved by a 4-2-0-0-1 vote. This included approving the Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Subsequent to the approval by the Planning Commission, a formal appeal was filed by Lozeau Drury on April 25, 2025. The appeal claimed that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required due to significant impacts to biological resources, valley fever, noise and air quality including valley fever. In addition to the formal appeal, three other appeals were filed after the Planning Commission approval. These appeals were filed by Adams Broadwell, the White Fence Farms Homeowners, and Jordan R Sisson. In addition to the issues raised in the Lozeau Drury appeal, a variety of other issues were raised in the remaining appeals. A total of 12 broad issues were raised in the appeals. These issues are listed and addressed below:
Biological Resources
Air Quality (including greenhouse gas emissions)
Valley Fever
Noise
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Transportation
Public Services
Energy
2 Noise
Affordable Housing
General Plan (including Urban/Rural areas and plan consistency) Miscellaneous impacts (aesthetics, hydrology and water, wildfire) 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 identified mitigation measures.

Biological Resources
The appellant(s) state that the proposed project could have a significant impact to biological resources as the Initial Study did not account for the diversity of species, habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, traffic mortality and bird-window collision.

The project site is approximately 10 acres consisting of highly disturbed habitat surrounded by Avenue L, the Antelope Valley Freeway, and single-family homes on large lots. As documented in the Initial Study, a biological resources report was prepared for the project site including a pedestrian survey. All species that were observed, along with those having the potential to occur on the project site were documented in the biological report. The Initial Study identifies 16 wildlife species that were either observed or their sign was present on the site. Additionally, the biological report identifies other species that have varying levels of the potential to occur on site. None of the species identified in biological report or Initial Study are listed or candidate species. While the bird species identified on site may vary over time, appropriate mitigation measures have been included to address both nesting birds and nesting raptors, burrowing owls, and legless lizards.

These mitigation measures were included as written per the request of CDFW. No revisions to biological resources are necessary.

The site does have 28 individual Joshua trees with two additional clusters of Joshua trees with three to six individuals. Western Joshua trees are a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act and are afforded all of the protections that a listed species receives. In order to remove, transplant, trim, etc. any Joshua tree a permit is required from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As part of that permit, mitigation measures are identified. The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act that was adopted July 10, 2023 explicitly states that the mitigation is payment of a fee depending upon the height of the tree. No other mitigation measures, including transplanting the trees to another location, are required or necessary. Two mitigation measures were identified for Joshua trees on page 23 of the Initial Study. These mitigation measures reflect the requested wording from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). No changes with respect to Joshua trees are necessary.

The project site is a 10-acre parcel that does not connect to any other undeveloped properties. The southern boundary is developed with single family residences on large (2.5 acre) lots. The northern and eastern boundaries are adjoining Avenue L and the Antelope Valley Freeway, respectively while the western boundary is formed by 15th Street West which is dirt. The site’s location, 3 surrounding development and lack of connectivity prevent it from being utilized as a wildlife corridor. No changes to the Initial Study are warranted to address this issue. It is also possible that wildlife may be hit by vehicles or fly into structures. The potential for this to happen exists now with the roadways and surrounding development. The proposed project will not cause these issues to increase more than they area already occurring and to try and estimate it is speculative.

Air Quality (including greenhouse gas emissions)
The appellant(s) claim that the air quality analysis underestimates the construction and operational air emissions associated with the project and would exceed the thresholds established by the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), would expose residents to diesel particulate matter from trucks, would generate indoor air quality impacts, and would be in conflict with the City’s Climate Action Plan.

An air quality study was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the guidelines established by the AVAQMD. The study utilized CalEEMod to calculate the construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions as well as the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the project. The calculated emissions can be seen in the Initial Study in Tables 4 and 5 for criteria pollutants and Tables 8 and 9 for GHG emissions. The emission levels for criteria pollutants are substantially lower than the criteria pollutant emissions for the air district.

Additionally, the project would comply with all air quality rules and regulations during construction and operation including dust control requirements, VOCs, equipment permitting, etc.

The threshold established by the air district for GHG emissions is 100,000 tons per year or 548,000 pounds per day. If all GHG emissions associated with construction are added to the annual operational emissions, the total is 1,446 MTCO2e which is substantially below 100,000 MTCO2e.

As such, the emissions are less than significant.

A diesel particulate matter analysis and/or Health Risk Assessment was not conducted for the project as it does not trigger the requirement. According to the AVAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, the following types of projects proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated for the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including those resulting in a cancer risk greater than or equal to 10 in a million and/or a HI [non-cancerous] greater than or equal to 1:
Any industrial project within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor land use; A distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet; A major transportation project (50,000 or more vehicles per day) within 1,000 feet; A dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet; and A gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.

As shown by the project description, the proposed project does not contain any of the uses that would require a health risk assessment. Additionally, the uses in the proposed development do not require a lot of deliveries and most of vehicle traffic would be tenants of the multi-family buildings, 4 guests of the hotel, or visitors to the commercial/restaurant uses. As such, no changes to the analysis are required.

The multi-family units would be constructed in accordance with all requirements of the California Building Code and Green Building Code along with applicable requirements of the AVAQMD (e.g., amount of VOC in coatings). The building code requires that buildings be energy efficient with appropriate insulation and tight fitting windows. This ensures the air within the building is clean with minimal pollutants in the air. The project is conditioned to utilize high-efficiency air filters due to the proximity of the site to the freeway. Additionally, multi-family residential buildings are built with an exhaust system that draws the stale indoor air out along with any emissions released from building products. As such, no changes to the Initial Study are warranted.

The appellant(s) also claims that the project is inconsistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. The City’s Climate Action Plan was adopted in March 2017 and contains a total of 61 projects across eight sectors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from uses within the City. The project was analyzed for consistency with the applicable projects in the climate action plan and with the goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan. The applicable policies from the general plan (3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4) are analyzed on pages 45 through 46 of the Initial Study. The applicable projects from the Climate Action Plan include bike lanes/pedestrian amenities (transportation), renewable energy (energy), recycled water lines/sensor technology (water), recycling incentives (waste), and xeriscaping/habitat acquisition (community).

Valley Fever
The appellant(s) claim that there is a significant impact with respect to Valley Fever and that the mitigation measure provided is insufficient to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

There is a detailed valley fever discussion contained within the Initial Study on pages 16 through

19. This includes a description of what valley fever is, how it is 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 Valley Fever mitigation measure only requires the preparation of a handout and training for construction workers. The appellant further states that is deferred mitigation and is not allowed under CEQA. The appellant is incorrect in their assumptions. The 5 mitigation measure does require a handout and training for the construction workers, but it also identifies other specific items that must be done including requirements for personal protective equipment, dust control, separate eating areas, clean up areas, etc. The City 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.

Noise
The noise analysis for the proposed project is based on information contained with the General Plan and the General Plan Master Environmental Assessment as well as the distance from the project site (property line) to the nearest occupied residences. Construction noise would be audible in the general area but would also blend with the noise from automobile traffic along Avenue L and 15th Street West as well as distance site noise from nearby commercial, residential, and medical uses. This construction noise would only occur during hours permitted by the Lancaster Municipal Code. Operational noise would be similar to noise generated by surrounding land uses; however, much of the noise generated on site would be blocked by the height of the hotel and multi-family residential buildings. These buildings along with the perimeter/site landscaping would provide a buffer between the noise sources on the site and the surrounding uses to the south and west. The project also includes construction noise best management practices/mitigation measures that are applied to all construction projects in the City.

Since a project specific noise study was not conducted and the details regarding construction are not known at this time (e.g., subterranean parking – is it going to be included, etc.), a noise mitigation measure was included to require a specific noise study to be prepared to ensure that all noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA at the property lines, even though the standard for mixed- use/commercial uses is 70 dBA. The mitigation measure includes specific performance standards that have to be met for the project prior to the issuance of any construction-related permits. Since performance standards were included in the mitigation measure, it does not constitute deferred mitigation. Therefore, no changes to the analysis are necessary.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
In July 2020, the City of Lancaster adopted standards and thresholds for analyzing projects with respect to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A series of screening criteria were adopted and if a project meets one of these criteria, a VMT analysis is not required. These criteria are: 1) project site – generates fewer than 110 trips per day; 2) locally serving retail – commercial developments of 50,000 sf or smaller; 3) project located in a low VMT area – 15% below baseline; 4) transit proximity; 5) affordable housing; and 6) transportation facilities.

The appellants claim that the Initial Study did not fully analyze or mitigate the project’s VMT impacts. A VMT study was prepared for the project in accordance with the City’s adopted policies and standards. This study was reviewed and approved by the City’s traffic engineer. For mixed- use developments, each type of use is analyzed separately; as a result the 12,800 square feet of commercial/retail uses screens out of a VMT analysis under criteria 2 – locally serving retail – 6 commercial developments of 50,000 square feet of smaller. The hotel and multi-family residential uses were fully analyzed in the approved VMT study.

The study showed that the VMT generated by the multi-family residential uses would be more than 15% below the City’s adopted thresholds. Therefore, the VMT associated with this use would be less than significant. In order to reduce the VMT generated by the hotel to be 15% or more below the AVPA baseline, the hotel would need to reduce its VMT by 185.7 VMT.

On January 24, 2023, the City of Lancaster City Council adopted the Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee Mitigation Program and certified the accompanying Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The VMT mitigation program allows developers to pay $150 per VMT to mitigate their VMT impacts and tier off of the Program EIR. Pursuant to LMC Section 15.67.070, Administration of fee and allowable uses, fees acquired as part of the VMT mitigation program shall only be expended for the transportation demand management strategies and VMT-reducing projects identified in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Fee Mitigation Program and corresponding nexus study. Future implementation of the transportation demand strategies and VMT-reducing projects would contribute towards reducing overall Citywide VMT. Based on the City’s adopted program, the developer would be required to pay a total of $27,855 to mitigate the hotel’s VMT impact. With payment of the fee, the project’s VMT impacts would be less than significant.

The City does not have a requirement for a developer to reduce the VMT for a project to zero particularly given the City’s large land area. Additionally, the project site is located in close proximity to medical, commercial uses, large park, and the Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) transit center. Therefore, no revisions to the Initial Study are necessary and impacts would be less than significant with payment of the required mitigation fee.

Transportation
The standard for determining transportation impacts in CEQA documents was changed in 2013 with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743. Effective July 1, 2020 all CEQA documents utilizing VMT to determine transportation impacts. As seen from the above discussion, the VMT impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated by paying into the City’s VMT Mitigation Program.

However, many jurisdictions still utilize traditional traffic studies and Level of Service to help determine what improvements may be necessary to ensure the smooth flow of traffic. A traffic study was prepared and reviewed by the City’s traffic engineer. Conditions of approval have been added to the project specifying roadway and signal improvements that are required as part of the project to ensure the safe and smooth operation of the surrounding street network.

Additionally, 15th Street West between Avenue L and Avenue M is currently a private roadway.

With the construction of the project, 15 th Street West along the project frontage would become public. During the public outreach meetings held with the surrounding community, one of the issues that was raised was traffic utilizing 15th Street West as a short-cut, thereby disrupting the 7 neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to place a remote operated gate across 15th Street West at the southern end of his property to reduce traffic cut-through. This requirement is included in the conditions of approval.

Public Utilities
The appellant(s) claim that the Initial Study does not fully address impacts to public utilities such as water, sewer, and electricity. The project site is located within the boundaries of the White Fence Farm Mutual Water Company. Water service to the development can be provided in accordance with the conditions and procedures of the water company. Wastewater treatment is provided by Los Angeles County Sanitation District #14 at the Lancaster Wastewater Reclamation facility.

This facility has a capacity of 18 million gallons per day (mgd) and averages approximately 13 mgd. The local sewer lines are maintained by the City and the trunk sewer lines are maintained by the District. The development will connect to the local lines for conveyance to the Districts’ trunk sewers which have capacity to handle the additional flow.

Electrical service lines are located along Avenue L which the proposed development would be able to connect to. All three utilities routinely evaluate the service needs of existing and future developments in order to provide service. Processes and requirements are in place with all the providers to facilitate connection to water, sewer, and electricity. Therefore, no changes to the Initial Study are required.

Energy
The appellant(s) claim that the Initial Study does not fully analyze the energy usage of the project and does not provide mitigation for energy consumption beyond what is required by the Building Code.

The Initial Study identifies the types of energy that would be consumed by the project during construction and operation along with regulatory codes that the development is required to comply with. The Building Code and the Green Building Code are updated everything three years with the goal of increasing the efficiency of buildings with respect to energy consumption. This includes specifying insulation standards, prohibiting the use of natural gas in residential structures, and increasing reliance on alternative energy.

The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the building code including roof top solar and EV charging stations/wiring for additional stations. There is no legal requirement that a development must exceed the requirements of the building code with respect to energy consumption. The project would comply with the code requirements in place at the time the building permits are issued. Additionally, all power would be obtained from Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) in accordance with City requirements. LCE has two plans: ClearChoice and SmartChoice. ClearChoice meets or exceeds the state mandates for renewable energy and SmartChoice is 100% renewable energy. As such, the proposed development would utilize energy resources in an efficient manner and no modifications to the Initial Study are required. 8 Affordable Housing
The City has a current Housing Element that was adopted by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in 2023. The appellant(s) claim that the project is inconsistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan as it does not provide any affordable housing. To substantiate their claim, they cite Policies H-1.1, H-1.2, and H-1.6, which states the following:

Policy H-1.1 Provide for adequate sites that will enable the production of 9,023 housing units through October 2029 to meet the demands of present and future residents, including an adequate number and range of new dwelling types affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income households.

Policy H-1.2 Encourage a mix of housing types are provided, including single- and multi- family housing within a variety of price ranges to provide a range of housing options for Lancaster residents.

Policy H-1.6 Encourage affordable mixed-use and multi-family residential housing developments on mixed-use zoned sites.

With the adopted and certified Housing Element, the City identified suitable sites to accommodate the 9,023 housing units, including affordable housing. The subject property is not one of these sites. None of the policies in the Housing Element or the requirements of Zoning Code specify that a certain percentage of the units in any housing development are required to be affordable.

Additionally, as indicated in the annual reports to HCD, the City is making substantial progress towards meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. Many housing developments have received certificate of occupancy within the past two years, including affordable housing developments, with several others under construction. As such, the proposed development is not required to provide affordable housing and is not inconsistent with the Housing Element.

General Plan Consistency
The appellant(s) claims that the project is inconsistent with the general plan designation for Non- Urban and with the policies identified in the General Plan.

The General Plan was adopted in 2009 based on information and input available between 2005 and 2008. However, General Plans are not stagnant documents and are continually updated to reflect the needs of the community and requirements from the State. For example, the Housing Element is required to be updated every eight years, the Safety Element and Circulation Element have been updated twice, and the Environmental Justice Element was adopted. The 2030 General Plan established an Urban Core with Avenue L being the southern boundary. Development is encouraged to occur within the Urban Core to the extent feasible. However, this does not mean that development cannot occur outside of the Urban Core. 9 The project site is located at the southwest corner of the Antelope Valley Freeway and Avenue L, with a mix of vacant land, residential (single family and high density residential), commercial, park, and medical uses in the immediate vicinity. Avenue L is a major arterial meant to move traffic efficiently from one side of the City to the other. The northern side of Avenue L is located within the Urban Core and the southern side of Avenue L is located just outside of it. However, the needs and uses along Avenue L have been changing over the past 10 years with increased commercial uses being developed/approved along the corridor from 10th Street West towards 40th Street West, including the gas station development at 20th Street West and Avenue L, mini-storage facility approval at 22 nd Street West and the Raising Cane’s/Quick Quack development at 10 th Street West and Avenue L. As a result, both sides of Avenue L are more commercial in nature and will continue to evolve in that manner.

While the proposed development would not be consistent with the existing Non-Urban land use designation, the applicant has requested a general plan amendment to change the designation to Mixed Use and a zone change to Mixed Use – Commercial. With the approval of these changes, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and would be compatible with the surrounding single-family/high density residential, commercial and medical uses along Avenue L.

Additionally, the appellants claim that the proposed project is not consistent with the policies identified in the general plan. The Initial Study analyzed the project’s consistency with applicable general plan policies on pages 44 through 48. With approval of the general plan amendment and zone change, the project would be consistent with the general plan’s policies. Not all policies in the general plan were listed in the analysis as not all policies apply to the project. Some policies are directives for City staff and others to do not apply as they are for different types of development or are location specific (e.g., within an airport land use plan, pertain to farmland of statewide importance, etc.). Therefore, no change to the Initial Study general plan analysis is required.

Miscellaneous
Several other issues were generally mentioned as having significant impacts in one of the appeals but no specific impact was identified for these resource areas. The following summarizes the potential less than significant impacts under these resource areas. Aesthetics – The project site is not located along a State scenic highway. While the development would change the look of the site from an undeveloped vacant lot to a mixed- use development, the buildings’ looks and heights would be compatible with the surrounding uses in the general area including the Kaiser facilities, multi-family developments, and commercial uses. The buildings would also be consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines. The site is located adjacent to freeway and Avenue L which are both busy roadways resulting in moderate ambient lighting in the area. While the site would generate additional lighting from the uses on the site, all lighting would be screened and focused downward.
Hydrology – The project site is not located in a flood zone. Per the FEMA flood map 06037C0420F a portion of the site is located in the X zone, which is outside both the 100 and 500 year flood zones, and a portion of the site is zoned X-shaded, which is within the 500-year flood zone but outside of the 100-year flood zone. Neither of these are designated 10 as a special flood hazard area which triggers additional requirements. Additionally, the project has been conditioned to install drainage improvements, including master planned facilities.
Wildfire – The project site is not located in or adjacent to a Fire Severity Hazard zone based on the currently adopted fire maps. Additionally, the project site is located within the service boundaries of Fire Station No. 134 located at 43225 25th Street West with additional support available from other fire stations.