CHECK RUN:260123 TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INVOICE: 260123
01/21/26 7468027 P 01/23/26 42126000 5802 WATER 1,685.72 INVOICE: 260123
VENDOR TOTALS 56,658.67 YTD INVOICED 77,802.33 YTD PAID 3,080.87 11694 R H A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS, INC.
01/14/26 25001157 7468028 P 01/23/26 42126000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 1,875.00 INVOICE: 122889
VENDOR TOTALS 2,825.00 YTD INVOICED 28,457.50 YTD PAID 1,875.00 12559 REYNA, VICTORIA
01/07/26 7468029 P 01/23/26 10160000 5910 TRAVEL/MILEAGE REIMBURSEM 302.30 INVOICE: 251117MLGE
VENDOR TOTALS 431.51 YTD INVOICED 603.30 YTD PAID 302.30 13197 RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
12/23/25 7468030 P 01/23/26 10130000 5920 TRAINING 25.00 INVOICE: F25-292-ZLPD
VENDOR TOTALS 89.00 YTD INVOICED 570.00 YTD PAID 25.00 13249 SAFEROCK
01/01/26 26000208 7468031 P 01/23/26 21841000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 17,022.72 INVOICE: CP-33-0150
VENDOR TOTALS 15,375.36 YTD INVOICED 116,779.52 YTD PAID 17,022.72 13777 SENTRY PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.
01/12/26 26000190 7468032 P 01/23/26 10130000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 3,024.00 INVOICE: 1081
10/20/25 26000739 7468032 P 01/23/26 10165031 5700 SERVICES 2,016.00 INVOICE: 354
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 46,432.00 YTD PAID 5,040.00 11016 SHAWNS PAINTING LLC
01/08/26 26000632 7468033 P 01/23/26 10166020 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 4,600.00 INVOICE: 80
VENDOR TOTALS 64,303.37 YTD INVOICED 14,400.00 YTD PAID 4,600.00 10831 SO CA EDISON
01/21/26 7468034 P 01/23/26 10131000 5804 ELECTRIC 3,980.94 INVOICE: 260123
01/21/26 7468034 P 01/23/26 10163000 5804 ELECTRIC 9,618.09 INVOICE: 260123
01/21/26 7468034 P 01/23/26 42126000 5804 ELECTRIC 236.71 INVOICE: 260123
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123 TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 01/21/26 7468034 P 01/23/26 42242000 5804 ELECTRIC 1,645.88 INVOICE: 260123
01/21/26 7468035 P 01/23/26 42242000 5804 ELECTRIC 199.42 INVOICE: 260123STHWY
01/21/26 7468036 P 01/23/26 10163000 5804 ELECTRIC 48.65 INVOICE: 260122LMD2
01/21/26 7468036 P 01/23/26 42126000 5804 ELECTRIC 696.69 INVOICE: 260122LMD2
01/21/26 7468036 P 01/23/26 42343000 5804 ELECTRIC 60.60 INVOICE: 260122LMD2
VENDOR TOTALS 2,329,771.30 YTD INVOICED 2,851,212.74 YTD PAID 16,486.98 10783 SO CA GAS COMPANY
01/21/26 7468037 P 01/23/26 10163000 5803 GAS 202.32 INVOICE: 260123
VENDOR TOTALS 110,155.55 YTD INVOICED 94,448.15 YTD PAID 202.32 13100 SOS ENTERTAINMENT
12/17/25 26000728 7468038 P 01/23/26 10165037 5370 AUDIO VISUALS 2,466.00 INVOICE: BAL230945973
VENDOR TOTALS 35,910.00 YTD INVOICED 50,152.00 YTD PAID 2,466.00 13723 SPEEDY TIRE AND LUBE
01/06/26 26000392 7468039 P 01/23/26 11144000 5321 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 532.80 INVOICE: 7
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 1,443.80 YTD PAID 532.80 11950 STOTZ EQUIPMENT
10/30/25 26000186 7468040 P 01/23/26 10163000 8100 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 26,978.13 INVOICE: 080816
VENDOR TOTALS 66,039.75 YTD INVOICED 66,233.90 YTD PAID 26,978.13 10784 STRADLING,YOCCA,CARLSON,RAUTH
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 8,850.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 186.87 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 7,505.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 6,350.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 1,330.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 1,845.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 8,230.00 &LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123 TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 875.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 3,588.20 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 30,677.96 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 4,110.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 50191000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 70.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 2,135.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10113000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 10,722.89 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 2,090.00 INVOICE: 426217
11/30/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 1,365.00 INVOICE: 426217
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 8,850.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 9,052.11 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 6,430.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 3,313.80 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 210.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 9,854.32 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 1,225.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 5,194.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 14,939.69 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 4,585.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 2,275.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10113000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 11,175.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 4,410.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 2,065.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 1,178.00 INVOICE: 427124
12/31/25 7468041 P 01/23/26 10111000 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 4,012.50 INVOICE: 427124
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123 TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 480,334.15 YTD INVOICED 893,081.34 YTD PAID 178,700.34 11948 STRATHAM(RESERVE AT LANCASTER)
12/15/25 7468042 P 01/23/26 41149900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 8,826.71 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR RESERVE
12/15/25 7468042 P 01/23/26 10147000 4607 ENGINEERING ADD'L FEES -938.00 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR RESERVE
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 7,888.71 YTD PAID 7,888.71 11949 STRATHAM(STG REGENCY)
12/15/25 7468043 P 01/23/26 41149900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 22,811.98 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR STG REG
12/15/25 7468043 P 01/23/26 10147000 4607 ENGINEERING ADD'L FEES -938.00 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR STG REG
VENDOR TOTALS 91,201.20 YTD INVOICED 21,873.98 YTD PAID 21,873.98 10972 TESCO CONTROLS INC
12/15/25 26000176 7468044 P 01/23/26 21142000 5792 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICES 16,259.19 INVOICE: 0087230-IN
12/15/25 26000176 7468044 P 01/23/26 21142000 5792 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICES 108,179.50 INVOICE: 0087230-IN
VENDOR TOTALS 115,696.35 YTD INVOICED 124,438.69 YTD PAID 124,438.69 11715 THE LAMAR COMPANIES
01/05/26 7468045 P 01/23/26 23030000 5656 GRANT EXPENSE 4,715.00 INVOICE: 117826789
VENDOR TOTALS 39,450.00 YTD INVOICED 14,430.00 YTD PAID 4,715.00 10960 THE PITTSBURGH PAINTS CO.
12/01/25 26000258 7468046 P 01/23/26 10141000 5317 GRAFITTI REMOVAL 1,170.31 INVOICE: 972120005696
01/14/26 7468046 P 01/23/26 10160020 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 418.43 INVOICE: 972120005919
VENDOR TOTALS 2,167.81 YTD INVOICED 12,028.37 YTD PAID 1,588.74 12302 THE SAUCE CREATIVE SERVICES CORP
10/22/25 26000722 7468047 P 01/23/26 10165030 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 6,209.63 INVOICE: 7864
VENDOR TOTALS 6,850.00 YTD INVOICED 25,534.84 YTD PAID 6,209.63 10796 THE TIRE STORE
11/21/25 26000049 7468048 P 01/23/26 11144000 5321 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 552.08 INVOICE: 778917
11/20/25 26000049 7468048 P 01/23/26 11144000 5321 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 785.75 &LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123 TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INVOICE: 778871
12/30/25 26000049 7468048 P 01/23/26 11144000 5321 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 654.40 INVOICE: 780063
VENDOR TOTALS 27,205.11 YTD INVOICED 31,127.03 YTD PAID 1,992.23 11771 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST PMT CENTR
01/01/26 26000415 7468049 P 01/23/26 10124100 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 1,356.93 INVOICE: 853033340
01/01/26 26000415 7468049 P 01/23/26 10131000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 407.07 INVOICE: 853033340
VENDOR TOTALS 15,783.06 YTD INVOICED 18,761.19 YTD PAID 1,764.00 10794 TIP TOP ARBORISTS, INC
01/07/26 26000202 7468050 P 01/23/26 42126000 5755 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTS 6,734.14 INVOICE: 38167
01/07/26 26000202 7468050 P 01/23/26 42226000 5755 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTS 5,680.45 INVOICE: 38166
VENDOR TOTALS 269,731.18 YTD INVOICED 261,671.08 YTD PAID 12,414.59 11916 TPX COMMUNICATIONS
12/31/25 7468051 P 01/23/26 11218000 5801 TELEPHONE 1,869.29 INVOICE: 188684272-0
VENDOR TOTALS 39,544.47 YTD INVOICED 12,709.10 YTD PAID 1,869.29 13680 TRUSTPOINT COURT REPORTING, LLC
11/30/25 7468052 P 01/23/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 1,556.05 INVOICE: 202254
11/30/25 7468052 P 01/23/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 1,127.50 INVOICE: 202479
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 8,379.75 YTD PAID 2,683.55 10823 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS INC
12/31/25 26000023 7468053 P 01/23/26 10130000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 3,071.50 INVOICE: 47483
12/31/25 7468053 P 01/23/26 10124100 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 1,566.12 INVOICE: 47481
12/31/25 26000581 7468053 P 01/23/26 10124100 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 1,335.00 INVOICE: 47482
VENDOR TOTALS 83,482.00 YTD INVOICED 119,378.02 YTD PAID 5,972.62 11622 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
12/31/25 24000710 7468054 P 01/23/26 11218000 5361 COMPUTERS SOFTWARE 14,800.00 INVOICE: 045-549818
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123 TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 178,870.14 YTD INVOICED 158,269.19 YTD PAID 14,800.00 11963 U S BANK
12/23/25 7468056 P 01/23/26 10119000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 249.60 INVOICE: 15080690
12/24/25 7468055 P 01/23/26 42280000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 1,975.00 INVOICE: 8011564
VENDOR TOTALS 16,846,760.60 YTD INVOICED 16,486,574.80 YTD PAID 2,224.60 13117 UNDERWOOD FAMILY FARMS LP
10/31/25 7468057 P 01/23/26 10165031 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 400.00 INVOICE: 02949
VENDOR TOTALS 9,212.00 YTD INVOICED 12,124.00 YTD PAID 400.00 11366 UNIFIRST CORPORATION
01/12/26 26000093 7468058 P 01/23/26 42043000 5315 UNIFORMS 103.28 INVOICE: 2210266235
01/12/26 7468058 P 01/23/26 10145000 5315 UNIFORMS 22.93 INVOICE: 2210266248
01/12/26 7468058 P 01/23/26 11144000 5315 UNIFORMS 140.83 INVOICE: 2210266248
VENDOR TOTALS 8,649.32 YTD INVOICED 7,151.62 YTD PAID 267.04 10830 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
12/26/25 7468059 P 01/23/26 10163014 5310 OPERATING MATERIALS & SUP 67.07 INVOICE: 83706287
01/08/26 7468059 P 01/23/26 10163099 5310 OPERATING MATERIALS & SUP 1,754.71 INVOICE: 83722613
01/09/26 7468059 P 01/23/26 10163097 5310 OPERATING MATERIALS & SUP 1,063.62 INVOICE: 83725242
01/12/26 7468059 P 01/23/26 10163099 5310 OPERATING MATERIALS & SUP 78.05 INVOICE: 83727323
VENDOR TOTALS 52,248.25 YTD INVOICED 45,988.87 YTD PAID 2,963.45 11129 WCH COMMUNITIES, L.P.
12/15/25 7468060 P 01/23/26 41149900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 4,265.54 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR 54400
12/15/25 7468060 P 01/23/26 10147000 4607 ENGINEERING ADD'L FEES -938.00 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR 54400
12/15/25 7468061 P 01/23/26 41149900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 15,607.00 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR 60154
12/15/25 7468061 P 01/23/26 10147000 4607 ENGINEERING ADD'L FEES -938.00 INVOICE: FY24-25 DR 60154
VENDOR TOTALS 40,352.66 YTD INVOICED 17,996.54 YTD PAID 17,996.54 &LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123 TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 11845 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
10/21/25 26000695 7468062 P 01/23/26 10121000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 650.00 INVOICE: 010-63830
11/17/25 26000695 7468062 P 01/23/26 10121000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 842.00 INVOICE: 010-64177
12/17/25 26000695 7468062 P 01/23/26 10121000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 4,550.00 INVOICE: 010-64447
VENDOR TOTALS 50,498.76 YTD INVOICED 22,831.13 YTD PAID 6,042.00 12096 WORRELL, JULIE
01/07/26 7468063 P 01/23/26 42043000 5910 TRAVEL/MILEAGE REIMBURSEM 387.00 INVOICE: 260201
VENDOR TOTALS 473.00 YTD INVOICED 688.00 YTD PAID 387.00 REPORT TOTALS 1,254,072.35
COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL PRINTED CHECKS
105 1,254,072.35
City of Lancaster ~CA 53201~
PAID INVOICES REPORT
Report generated: 01/26/2026 08:45
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:250113W TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 10538 MIDAS LANCASTER, LP
01/08/26 101012181 W 01/13/26 10119000 4105 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 88,283.27 INVOICE: 260109WIRE
VENDOR TOTALS 8,983.60 YTD INVOICED 99,455.38 YTD PAID 88,283.27 REPORT TOTALS 88,283.27
COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS 1 88,283.27
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Michael Pugmire **
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260116W TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 13870 DERRYBERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLP
01/07/26 101012183 W 01/16/26 10119000 5809 WATER PURCHASE - OPTION 262,500.00 INVOICE: 260108WIRE
01/08/26 101012182 W 01/16/26 10119000 8300 WATER RIGHTS 5,000,000.00 INVOICE: 260108WIRE
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 5,262,500.00 YTD PAID 5,262,500.00 REPORT TOTALS 5,262,500.00
COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS
2 5,262,500.00
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260114W TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 13861 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
01/06/25 101012184 W 01/14/26 10149900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 133,231.31 INVOICE: CWIS_076356-01WIRE
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 133,231.31 YTD PAID 133,231.31 REPORT TOTALS 133,231.31
COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS 1 133,231.31
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260116E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 10940 ADELMAN BROADCASTING, INC
12/28/25 2001042 T 01/16/26 10110300 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 3,080.00 INVOICE: 23145-7
12/31/25 2001042 T 01/16/26 10110300 5720 ADVERTISING 2,310.00 INVOICE: 23145-8
12/21/25 2001042 T 01/16/26 10110300 5720 ADVERTISING 2,205.00 INVOICE: 23145-9
VENDOR TOTALS 80,630.00 YTD INVOICED 44,506.00 YTD PAID 7,595.00 11623 AFFORDABLE HSG & DEV OF SOCAL
01/05/26 26000287 2001043 T 01/16/26 31422000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 13,750.00 INVOICE: 26-330-01
VENDOR TOTALS 83,192.00 YTD INVOICED 93,950.00 YTD PAID 13,750.00 11509 AMANATULLAH, NURI
12/30/25 26000691 2001044 T 01/16/26 10160020 5700 SERVICES 15,175.00 INVOICE: BALANCE251230
VENDOR TOTALS 20,000.00 YTD INVOICED 30,350.00 YTD PAID 15,175.00 12672 AMERICAN MARKER
12/22/25 26000702 2001045 T 01/16/26 10111000 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 3,044.52 INVOICE: 260106
10/07/25 2001045 T 01/16/26 10165031 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 719.88 INVOICE: 9088-25
10/24/25 26000705 2001045 T 01/16/26 10165030 5720 ADVERTISING 2,455.82 INVOICE: 9096-25
VENDOR TOTALS 40,997.06 YTD INVOICED 39,996.48 YTD PAID 6,220.22 11727 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING
12/21/25 2001046 T 01/16/26 11218000 5801 TELEPHONE 1,505.02 INVOICE: 187995501122125
12/21/25 2001046 T 01/16/26 11218000 5801 TELEPHONE 516.92 INVOICE: 253293001122125
VENDOR TOTALS 64,953.39 YTD INVOICED 51,304.62 YTD PAID 2,021.94 11176 COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION INC
01/06/26 2001047 T 01/16/26 10110300 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 1,958.67 INVOICE: 123332428
VENDOR TOTALS 14,857.03 YTD INVOICED 13,619.20 YTD PAID 1,958.67 13048 CUNANAN, AERIEL
01/05/26 2001048 T 01/16/26 10115100 5341 PEG EXPENSE 1,300.00 INVOICE: AC_JANW1_33
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260116E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 23,900.00 YTD INVOICED 7,600.00 YTD PAID 1,300.00 12744 DESERT BLOOM MARKETING
01/05/26 2001049 T 01/16/26 10167021 5720 ADVERTISING 1,750.00 INVOICE: 512
VENDOR TOTALS 6,522.50 YTD INVOICED 11,419.38 YTD PAID 1,750.00 10477 EKC ENTERPRISES INC
12/18/25 26000668 2001050 T 01/16/26 10130000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 20,000.00 INVOICE: 64436
12/23/25 26000361 2001050 T 01/16/26 10130000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 124,232.41 INVOICE: 64517
10/30/25 26000126 2001050 T 01/16/26 10130000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 35,262.25 INVOICE: 64521
VENDOR TOTALS 375,083.13 YTD INVOICED 838,026.88 YTD PAID 179,494.66 10638 EXCEL PEST PROS
11/19/25 2001051 T 01/16/26 10162100 5790 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERV 750.00 INVOICE: 1672
VENDOR TOTALS 6,800.00 YTD INVOICED 4,500.00 YTD PAID 750.00 13028 FIRST ORION CORP.
12/31/25 2001052 T 01/16/26 11218000 5801 TELEPHONE 535.07 INVOICE: 024062
VENDOR TOTALS 2,512.29 YTD INVOICED 4,537.30 YTD PAID 535.07 12878 GARRIDO, JACOBO
01/06/26 2001053 T 01/16/26 10115100 5341 PEG EXPENSE 417.00 INVOICE: JG_47
VENDOR TOTALS 57,000.00 YTD INVOICED 7,467.00 YTD PAID 417.00 10462 GONZALEZ PROPERTY SVCS
12/30/25 2001054 T 01/16/26 10163000 5798 VANDALISM 560.00 INVOICE: 23745
12/30/25 2001054 T 01/16/26 10163000 5798 VANDALISM 785.00 INVOICE: 23746
12/29/25 2001054 T 01/16/26 10163000 5798 VANDALISM 585.00 INVOICE: 23742
VENDOR TOTALS 295,883.00 YTD INVOICED 355,680.50 YTD PAID 1,930.00 12848 HORN'S BACKFLOW & PLUMBING SERVICE INC
12/12/25 26000522 2001055 T 01/16/26 10126000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 3,000.00 INVOICE: 108732
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260116E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 76,728.00 YTD INVOICED 26,488.18 YTD PAID 3,000.00 13610 ILIGHT TECH LLC
12/29/25 26000666 2001056 T 01/16/26 11218000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 7,480.00 INVOICE: ILT-2025-1209
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 7,480.00 YTD PAID 7,480.00 12752 IMAGEN INC
10/13/25 2001057 T 01/16/26 10165030 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 766.71 INVOICE: 46100-1
10/09/25 2001057 T 01/16/26 10165030 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 493.44 INVOICE: 46126-1
VENDOR TOTALS 14,554.20 YTD INVOICED 26,668.52 YTD PAID 1,260.15 10077 LANDSCAPE CONNECTION GROUP
09/18/25 2001058 T 01/16/26 10163007 5790 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERV 682.00 INVOICE: 4696
VENDOR TOTALS 716,812.00 YTD INVOICED 1,120,646.00 YTD PAID 682.00 11936 LAW OFFICES CHRISTOPHER RAMSEY
12/31/25 2001059 T 01/16/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 4,862.00 INVOICE: #1051-24ARGUELLO
12/31/25 2001059 T 01/16/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 13,319.58 INVOICE: #1044-24MORGAN
12/24/25 2001059 T 01/16/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 8,897.58 INVOICE: 057-23FINAL
12/31/25 2001059 T 01/16/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 7,775.58 INVOICE: #1041-24SIMPSON
12/25/25 2001059 T 01/16/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 3,036.00 INVOICE: 015-25FINAL
12/31/25 2001059 T 01/16/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 11,838.85 INVOICE: 044-22WOLFEFINAL
12/29/25 2001059 T 01/16/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 3,190.00 INVOICE: #4029-24
VENDOR TOTALS 134,966.39 YTD INVOICED 136,372.73 YTD PAID 52,919.59 12835 LAYAO, JOSEPH R.
01/06/26 2001060 T 01/16/26 10115100 5341 PEG EXPENSE 1,050.00 INVOICE: JRL_51
VENDOR TOTALS 71,333.43 YTD INVOICED 22,650.00 YTD PAID 1,050.00 10132 LSY ENTERPRISE INC
12/03/25 24001576 2001061 T 01/16/26 42242000 5790 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERV 10,710.80 INVOICE: L 2009
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260116E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 39,978.20 YTD INVOICED 42,773.80 YTD PAID 10,710.80 10945 P A R S
11/11/25 2001062 T 01/16/26 10114000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 6,098.42 INVOICE: 59232
11/07/25 2001062 T 01/16/26 10114000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 1,052.50 INVOICE: 59179
VENDOR TOTALS 35,524.80 YTD INVOICED 38,646.77 YTD PAID 7,150.92 11011 PRIME TIME PARTY RENTALS
12/17/25 2001063 T 01/16/26 10162100 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 1,135.00 INVOICE: 121725
VENDOR TOTALS 58,574.36 YTD INVOICED 82,637.50 YTD PAID 1,135.00 11644 SO CA EDISON-ACCTS REC
01/12/26 2001064 T 01/16/26 50191000 5806 POWER PURCHASE EXPENSE 5,268.70 INVOICE: 1057064
01/12/26 2001064 T 01/16/26 50191000 5806 POWER PURCHASE EXPENSE 343,183.64 INVOICE: 1050000
VENDOR TOTALS 2,619,542.99 YTD INVOICED 2,310,547.66 YTD PAID 348,452.34 10647 SRK INSIGHTS LLC
01/05/26 26000286 2001065 T 01/16/26 31422000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 662.50 INVOICE: 041
01/05/26 26000286 2001065 T 01/16/26 31022000 5656 GRANT EXPENSE 5,008.50 INVOICE: 041
01/05/26 26000286 2001065 T 01/16/26 23022000 5656 GRANT EXPENSE 1,643.00 INVOICE: 041
VENDOR TOTALS 60,080.00 YTD INVOICED 60,038.00 YTD PAID 7,314.00 13689 STETSON HR & PAYROLL CONSULTING
01/02/26 26000513 2001066 T 01/16/26 11218000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 17,400.00 INVOICE: 1026
VENDOR TOTALS .00 YTD INVOICED 63,600.00 YTD PAID 17,400.00 11995 TACENERGY, LLC
12/22/25 2001067 T 01/16/26 11144000 5314 FUEL 26,299.03 INVOICE: 3357363
VENDOR TOTALS 138,263.90 YTD INVOICED 115,333.41 YTD PAID 26,299.03 12250 TITAN ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
12/22/25 2001068 T 01/16/26 31022000 5656 GRANT EXPENSE 675.00 INVOICE: 11136925
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260116E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 14,370.00 YTD INVOICED 35,697.00 YTD PAID 675.00 10334 TITAN WATER TECHNOLOGY INC
12/01/25 2001069 T 01/16/26 10163000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 569.25 INVOICE: 120125GDW37
VENDOR TOTALS 4,554.00 YTD INVOICED 3,415.50 YTD PAID 569.25 11963 U S BANK
01/08/26 2001070 T 01/16/26 42200000 1045 TRUSTEE CASH 149,800.47 INVOICE: 3116450
VENDOR TOTALS 16,846,760.60 YTD INVOICED 16,486,574.80 YTD PAID 149,800.47 11645 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT/SC
01/01/26 2001071 T 01/16/26 10143000 5413 GOVERNMENT FEES/LICENSES 375.14 INVOICE: 25-262121
01/01/26 2001071 T 01/16/26 10143000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 598.00 INVOICE: 1220250404
VENDOR TOTALS 9,583.45 YTD INVOICED 7,998.94 YTD PAID 973.14 10828 UNIVERSAL ELECTRONIC ALARMS
12/01/25 2001072 T 01/16/26 10163000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 60.00 INVOICE: 53117
12/01/25 2001072 T 01/16/26 10163000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 164.85 INVOICE: 53140
VENDOR TOTALS 19,598.96 YTD INVOICED 13,747.01 YTD PAID 224.85 REPORT TOTALS 869,994.10
COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL EFT TRANSFERS
31 869,994.10
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 10940 ADELMAN BROADCASTING, INC
12/30/25 2001073 T 01/23/26 10115000 5720 ADVERTISING 370.00 INVOICE: 23442-2
12/13/25 2001073 T 01/23/26 10115000 5720 ADVERTISING 990.00 INVOICE: 22664-1
12/13/25 2001073 T 01/23/26 10115000 5720 ADVERTISING 910.00 INVOICE: 22664-2
12/05/25 2001073 T 01/23/26 10115000 5720 ADVERTISING 230.00 INVOICE: 23440-2
VENDOR TOTALS 80,630.00 YTD INVOICED 44,506.00 YTD PAID 2,500.00 11917 AMERICAN PLUMBING SERVICES,INC
01/06/26 2001074 T 01/23/26 10163010 5790 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERV 135.00 INVOICE: 33464
01/08/26 2001074 T 01/23/26 10163021 5790 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERV 420.00 INVOICE: 33484
VENDOR TOTALS 13,508.03 YTD INVOICED 11,169.74 YTD PAID 555.00 12943 AVENEW SOLUTIONS LLC
01/08/26 24001544 2001075 T 01/23/26 10110000 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 25,658.60 INVOICE: 052099
VENDOR TOTALS 195,741.75 YTD INVOICED 155,549.35 YTD PAID 25,658.60 10869 AXES FIRE INC
01/06/26 26000005 2001076 T 01/23/26 11144000 5321 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 288.00 INVOICE: 031291
VENDOR TOTALS 8,236.49 YTD INVOICED 8,964.22 YTD PAID 288.00 11852 B'S EMBROIDERY ETC, INC
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 20.00 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 233.29 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 168.88 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 273.34 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 215.83 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 325.52 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 797.44 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 26000697 2001077 T 01/23/26 21549900 8000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 93.45 INVOICE: 14817
12/04/25 2001077 T 01/23/26 10145000 5315 UNIFORMS 219.66 INVOICE: 14817
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 36,619.37 YTD INVOICED 40,386.79 YTD PAID 2,347.41 11794 DAPEER,ROSENBLIT & LITVAK, LLP
11/30/25 2001078 T 01/23/26 10124100 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 196.00 INVOICE: 25225
11/30/25 2001078 T 01/23/26 10124100 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 678.13 INVOICE: 25224
11/30/25 2001078 T 01/23/26 10124100 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 465.50 INVOICE: 25226
VENDOR TOTALS 74,610.20 YTD INVOICED 96,823.75 YTD PAID 1,339.63 10628 GO2ZERO STRATEGIES
12/31/25 26000095 2001079 T 01/23/26 22445000 5656 GRANT EXPENSE 10,784.83 INVOICE: INV-20260106-173
VENDOR TOTALS 68,115.45 YTD INVOICED 71,476.80 YTD PAID 10,784.83 10462 GONZALEZ PROPERTY SVCS
01/10/26 26000275 2001080 T 01/23/26 10163026 5790 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERV 10,800.00 INVOICE: 23760
01/12/26 26000709 2001080 T 01/23/26 10163000 5798 VANDALISM 4,650.00 INVOICE: 23759
12/30/25 26000626 2001080 T 01/23/26 10163000 5798 VANDALISM 12,500.00 INVOICE: 23747
VENDOR TOTALS 295,883.00 YTD INVOICED 355,680.50 YTD PAID 27,950.00 10970 H & H AUTO PARTS WHOLESALE
01/02/26 26000012 2001081 T 01/23/26 11144000 5321 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 115.21 INVOICE: 2IN0146753
VENDOR TOTALS 21,368.27 YTD INVOICED 13,340.05 YTD PAID 115.21 10386 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES
01/09/26 26000057 2001082 T 01/23/26 11218100 5710 PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SE 9,607.50 INVOICE: 4859
VENDOR TOTALS 77,888.75 YTD INVOICED 74,350.00 YTD PAID 9,607.50 11649 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYS OF A V
12/30/25 26000081 2001083 T 01/23/26 11144000 5321 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 160.71 INVOICE: 30099930
VENDOR TOTALS 15,229.51 YTD INVOICED 9,467.26 YTD PAID 160.71 12060 JONES, NICOLE
01/16/26 2001084 T 01/23/26 10120000 5910 TRAVEL/MILEAGE REIMBURSEM 387.00 INVOICE: 260116
&LW\RI/DQFDVWHUa&$a
3$,',192,&(65(3257
Report generated: 01/26/2026 07:47
User: mpugmire
Program ID: appdwarr
CHECK RUN:260123E TO FISCAL 2025/08 07/01/2025 TO 06/30/2026
VENDOR NAME
INV DATE PO CHECK NO T CHK DATE GL ACCOUNT GL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTALS 795.00 YTD INVOICED 688.00 YTD PAID 387.00 11936 LAW OFFICES CHRISTOPHER RAMSEY
01/07/26 2001085 T 01/23/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 8,005.56 INVOICE: #1RIVALI008-25
01/09/26 2001085 T 01/23/26 11313200 5740 LEGAL SERVICES 2,112.00 INVOICE: #1COLLINS059-25FINAL
VENDOR TOTALS 134,966.39 YTD INVOICED 136,372.73 YTD PAID 10,117.56 12089 PARKWOOD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE INC.
12/31/25 26000523 2001086 T 01/23/26 10126000 5755 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTS 24,311.62 INVOICE: 110596
12/31/25 26000523 2001086 T 01/23/26 42126000 5755 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTS 146,993.14 INVOICE: 110596
VENDOR TOTALS 1,195,236.22 YTD INVOICED 1,189,408.72 YTD PAID 171,304.76 11011 PRIME TIME PARTY RENTALS
01/09/26 2001087 T 01/23/26 10162200 5312 SPECIAL ACTIVITY SUPPLIES 500.00 INVOICE: 010926
VENDOR TOTALS 58,574.36 YTD INVOICED 82,637.50 YTD PAID 500.00 13202 SANTA FE JANITORIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES INC.
12/01/25 26000128 2001088 T 01/23/26 10163097 5790 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERV 10,467.26 INVOICE: 22947
VENDOR TOTALS 32,851.08 YTD INVOICED 73,270.82 YTD PAID 10,467.26 11933 VERIZON WIRELESS
01/01/26 2001089 T 01/23/26 11218000 5805 WIRELESS 2,822.67 INVOICE: 6132405837
VENDOR TOTALS 76,674.47 YTD INVOICED 31,186.12 YTD PAID 2,822.67 REPORT TOTALS 276,906.14
COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL EFT TRANSFERS
17 276,906.14
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Michael Pugmire **
STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
CC 9
2/10/2026
TN
Date: February 10, 2026
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Josh Thomas, Supervisor – Film and Economic Development Larissa De La Cruz, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Award of Contract to TIP Strategies, Inc. for the Development of a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and Job Plan (RFP 864-26) Recommendations:
1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with TIP Strategies, Inc. for the preparation of the City of Lancaster’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and Jobs Plan.
2. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract, including all necessary documents and provisions, subject to City Attorney approval.
G.C. Section 84308: No
Fiscal Impact:
The total cost of the agreement is $190,000. Sufficient funds have been budgeted and are available in account 101.10300.5710.
Background:
A CEDS is a long-range strategic planning document recognized by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) and is required to access certain federal and state funding opportunities. The City of Lancaster issued Request for Proposals (RFP 864-26) seeking qualified consulting firms to prepare the City’s first-ever CEDS and Jobs Plan. Following a comprehensive review process, TIP Strategies, Inc. was identified as the top-ranked firm based on its extensive experience preparing EDA-compliant CEDS documents, a strong California project portfolio, and its proposed approach that closely aligns with Lancaster’s economic priorities.
The purpose of a CEDS plan is to establish a clear, data-driven roadmap for Lancaster’s economic 2 3
0 3
growth over the next five years, with a focus on job creation, industry diversification, infrastructure readiness, workforce alignment, housing, and quality of place. The plan will serve as a guide for City decision-making, prioritize investments, and align public and private partners around shared economic goals.
Under the proposed agreement, TIP Strategies will work closely with City staff and community stakeholders through a three-phase planning process:
1. Discovery Phase – Baseline economic and market analysis, stakeholder engagement, industry and workforce assessment, infrastructure and transportation readiness, and peer benchmarking.
2. Opportunity Phase – Identification and prioritization of economic development strategies, including focused analyses on the creative economy and film industry, industrial and warehouse development, housing and workforce development, retail revitalization, and clean energy opportunities.
3. Implementation Phase – Development of an actionable, EDA-compliant CEDS and Jobs Plan, including an implementation matrix, performance metrics, and a dashboard to track progress.
Completion of this plan will position Lancaster to:
Compete more effectively for federal and state economic development grants. Align workforce, housing, and infrastructure planning with targeted industries. Strengthen Lancaster’s competitiveness in aerospace, clean energy, film, logistics, and advanced manufacturing.
Provide City Council and staff with a clear, actionable framework for economic development decision-making.
Approving this agreement enables the City to launch its first CEDS and Jobs Plan. This initiative is a vital step toward defining Lancaster’s economic vision and securing long-term growth and opportunities.
JT/hb
Attachment:
Professional Services Agreement with TIP Strategies, Inc. - 1 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES is made and entered into this _____ day of _____________, 2026, by and between the CITY OF LANCASTER, a municipal corporation and charter city, (“City”), and TIP Strategies Inc. a [entity type (e.g., California corporation] (“Consultant”) (collectively, sometimes referred to hereinafter as the “Parties”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage Consultant to perform certain technical and professional services, as provided herein, identified as:
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy and Job Plan (THE “SERVICES”) WHEREAS, the principal members of Consultant are qualified and duly 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.Parties to the Agreement.
The parties to this Agreement are:
A. CITY: City of Lancaster
B. CONSULTANT: TIP Strategies, Inc.
2.Notices. 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.
CITY City of Lancaster
Attn: Trolis Niebla, City Manager
44933 North Fern Avenue
Lancaster, California 93534
CONSULTANT TIP Strategies, Inc.
Attn: Tom Stellman, CEO
Address 13492 N Hwy 183
Austin, TX 78750
3.Successors 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 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
4.Description of Work. The City hereby engages Consultant, 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 $!90,000 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. 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 all 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 that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment - 3 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
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 other 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 Agreement 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 accordance 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 shall 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 expressly understood between the Parties 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:
Commercial General Liability
Each Occurrence $2,000,000
Per Project General Aggregate $5,000,000
- 4 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
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 $5,000,000
(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 provided on behalf of the Certificate Holder for the Workers Compensation & Employers’ Liability policies)
Professional Liability
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.
C. Professional liability and/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 this 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:
- 5 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
(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:
“[Name of the Project/Services/Title & Date of Event]
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 be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within ___ days after execution of this Agreement, and shall be completed no later than _____ days 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.
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. - 6 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
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 services 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 be 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.
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 reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated herein in their entirety:
Exhibit “A” Scope of Services and Rates Schedule
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.]
- 7 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
- 7 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
- 8 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
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:
Trolis Niebla, City Manager
Dated:
_________________________________
By:
(Tom Stellman, CEO)
Dated:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
- 8 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
- 9 -
Professional Services Agreement; January 2026
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Background
Consultant shall provide professional services to the City in support of the Project. The services shall be performed in accordance with applicable professional standards and in a manner satisfactory to the City.
Scope of Work
Consultant’s services shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
Project initiation and coordination, including kickoff meeting Ongoing project management and coordination with City staff Data collection, research, and analysis necessary to support the Project Stakeholder engagement, including meetings, workshops, and interviews Preparation of draft reports, materials, and recommendations Revisions to deliverables based on City review and direction Preparation and delivery of final reports and presentations Attendance at meetings and presentations, including up to five (5) in-person trips
RATE SCHEDULE
The City shall compensate Consultant for the Services in accordance with the following fixed monthly payment schedule:
Month Amount Notes
February $36,000 Contract execution and
project initiation
March $16,000
April $16,000
May $16,000
June $16,000
July $16,000
August $16,000
September $16,000
October $16,000
November $16,000 Final invoice held until
project completion
Reimbursable Expenses
Approved reimbursable expenses shall be billed at cost and shall not exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for the term of the Agreement. Reimbursable expenses shall be invoiced at the end of the month in which they are incurred. This budget assumes up to five (5) in-person trips.
STAFF REPORT
City of Lancaster
PH 1
2/10/2026
TN
Date: February 10, 2026
To: Mayor Parris and City Council Members
From: Patti Garibay, Director - Community Development
Jocelyn Swain, Senior Planner
Subject: Parkway Village Specific Plan
Recommendations:
1. Introduce Resolution No.____, containing the following actions:
a. Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 changing the land use designation of the plan area to Specific Plan (SP);
b. Approval of the Parkway Village Specific Plan under Specific Plan No. 24-001; and c. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Parkway Village Specific Plan (SCH# 202402979) and adoption of the Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
2. Introduce Ordinance No.____, amending the City Zoning Map for approximately 435 acres of land generally bounded by Avenue K, Sierra Highway, 10 th Street West, and Avenue L to be zoned Specific Plan (SP), known as Zone Change No. 25-004; G.C. Section 84308: No
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Background:
The Parkway Village Specific Plan provides direction for development within the plan area over a 20-year period with a buildout year of 2050. This plan envisions a mixed-use, walkable community with a variety of commercial, residential, medical, and open space/public uses. The residential uses include traditional single-family residences, single family-residences on smaller lots, townhomes, condominiums, and apartment complexes. The project site would be divided into multiple planning areas dedicated to different types of uses.
2 2
9 7
There is no construction associated with the proposed specific plan, and future development would be subject to separate approval. Existing legal non-conforming uses within the plan area would not be removed as part of this proposal.
KB/vm
Attachments:
A. Resolution No.
B. Ordinance No.
C. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations
D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E. PC Staff Report, January 26, 2026
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 25 -006 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 435 ACRES
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY AVENUE K, SIERRA
HIGHWAY, 10 TH STREET WEST, AND AVENUE L,
IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 3128 -001-
005, -008, -009, -015 THROUGH -019, -021, -022; 3128-002-001 THROUGH -005, -014, -17 THROUGH - 020, -900, -901; 3128- 004-011, -013, -17, -024, -025, -900, -902, -903; 3128- 005-001 THROUGH -038; 3128-006-001 THROUGH -007, -009, -010, -017 THROUGH -025, -027 THROUGH -029, -031, -032, -046, -049 THROUGH -052, -054 THROUGH - 060, -062, AND - 900
THROUGH -906, TO SPECIFIC PLAN, APPROVING T HE
PARKWAY VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN UNDER SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 24 -001, AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PARKWAY
VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH# 202402979) AND
ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS/STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 435 acres generally bounded by Avenue K, Sierra Highway, 10th Street West, and Avenue L, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 3128-001- 005, -008, -009, -015 through -019, -021, -022; 3128-002-001 through -005, -014, -17 through -020, - 900, -901; 3128-004-011, -013, -17, -024, -025, -900, -902, -903; 3128-005-001 through -038; 3128- 006-001 through -007, -009, -010, -017 through -025, -027 through -029, -031, -032, -046, -049 through -052, -054 through -060, -062, and -900 through -906; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.c. of City Council Resolution No. 93-07, the City of Lancaster initiated an application for General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 25-006 to change the General Plan land use designation for the subject property to Specific Plan (SP); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.24.040 of the Lancaster Municipal Code (“LMC”), the Applicant has initiated an application for Zone Change (ZC) No. 25-004 to change the zoning designation of the subject property to Specific Plan (SP); and
WHEREAS, the City of Lancaster has prepared the Parkway Village Specific Plan (SP) No. 24-001 for the subject property in order to implement the SP zoning and provide design guidelines and development standards; and
WHEREAS, staff has performed necessary investigations, prepared a written report, and recommended approval of the GPA, ZC, and SP; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, notice of which was published and provided as required by law, and adopted Resolution No.
CC Resolution No.
26-02 (the “Planning Commission Recommendation”), recommending to the City Council approval of GPA No. 25-006, ZC No. 25-004, and SP No. 24-001; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 eq seq.) (“CEQA”), a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 202402979) was prepared for the Parkway Village Specific Plan in compliance with CEQA and circulated for a 45-day public review ending on November 3, 2025, with a one-week extension to November 10, 2025 which was granted by public request; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were available during the public review period at City Hall, the Lancaster Library, the City’s website, and the State Clearinghouse website; and
WHEREAS, all comments received from the public and responsible, trustee, and interested agencies were considered and responded to in writing in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, said Final EIR was released and provided to all commenting entities on January 16, 2026; and
WHEREAS, a notice of intention to consider granting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Specific Plan, has been given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, public notice was published and given as required by law, and a public hearing was held on February 10, 2026, before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve and adopt GPA No. 25-006, ZC No. 25-004, and SP No. 24-001;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the foregoing Recitals are true, correct and a substantive part of this Resolution.
2. That the City Council hereby certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed Parkway Village Specific Plan in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act prior to taking action and hereby finds, pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the Public Resources Code, that the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Parkway Village Specific Plan reflects the independent judgement of the City of Lancaster.
3. That the City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR determined that the Parkway Village Specific Plan could have a significant effect on the environment; however, with incorporation CC Resolution No.
of the identified mitigation measures the effects would be reduced to less than significant levels with the exception of impacts associated with operational air quality.
4. That the City Council certifies the Final EIR for the Parkway Village Specific Plan, adopts the associated Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
5. That the Community Development Department staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA (including its implementing guidelines).
6. That the City Council hereby adopts the following General Plan Amendment findings, pursuant to Section 17.24.140 of the LMC, in support of approval of this application:
a. Information presented at public hearing shows that such amendment is necessary to implement the general plan and/or that the public convenience, the general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action.
The proposed Parkway Village Specific Plan and anticipated subsequent development are compatible with the intent of the General Plan and consistent with the specific objectives and policies identified in the Analysis section of the staff report. In order to accommodate the development associated with the Parkway Village Specific Plan, the General Plan designation for all parcels within the Plan Area must be changed to Specific Plan. This change would allow for the development of the uses identified in the Parkway Village Specific Plan, resulting in the vision the General Plan has for the core of the City.
7. That the City Council hereby adopts the following Zone Change findings, pursuant to Section 17.24.120 of the LMC, in support of approval of this application:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the area or district under consideration.
The Parkway Village Specific Plan area is comprised of land which is ideal for development in the core of the City. As surrounding portions of the City have built out, it has become increasingly apparent that clear and specific development standards implementing a cohesive vision for the plan area are necessary. Modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan, as the Plan Area is a mix of zoning designations and land uses. The proposed Parkway Village Specific Plan would allow for organized, high-quality development of the plan area as a multimodal district with a mix of uses (commercial, office, medical, residential, open space, etc.).
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area or district.
CC Resolution No.
The proposed zoning classification of Specific Plan is necessary in order to allow for development standards and design guidelines which have been uniquely tailored to the plan area. This zoning designation would be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation of Specific Plan.
c. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification within such area or district.
The Parkway Village Specific Plan area is located in the central portion of the City, near a variety of other uses, including a large park, medical facilities, shopping areas, and several high-density residential developments. Adjoining the plan area, adequate roadway capacity and infrastructure exist or can be provided to support the development.
d. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and welfare and in conformity with good zoning practice.
Placement of the proposed Parkway Village Specific Plan will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice, because it will provide a consistent zoning across the plan area while remaining compatible with the surrounding land uses. Additionally, mitigation measures required of all development within the plan area would ensure the health, safety and general welfare of individuals residing or working within the area.
8. The City Council hereby approves GPA No. 25-006 to redesignate the subject property to SP.
9. The City Council hereby approves SP No. 24- 001 for the Parkway Village Specific Plan.
10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
CC Resolution No.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 10
th day of February 2026, 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 ____________ day of _____________________, _________.
(seal)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY
ZONING PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 435 ACRES
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY AVENUE K, SIERRA
HIGHWAY, 10TH STREET WEST, AND AVENUE L,
IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 3128-001-
005, -008, -009, -015 THROUGH -019, -021, -022; 3128-002-001 THROUGH -005, -014, -17 THROUGH -020, -900, -901; 3128- 004-011, -013, -17, -024, -025, -900, -902, -903; 3128-005-001 THROUGH -038; 3128-006-001 THROUGH -007, -009, -010, -
017 THROUGH -025, -027 THROUGH -029, -031, -032, -046, - 049 THROUGH -052, -054 THROUGH -060, -062, AND -900
THROUGH -906, KNOWN AS ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-004
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.24.060 of the Lancaster Municipal Code, an application (Zone Change No. 25-004) has been initiated by the City of Lancaster (“Applicant”) to change the zoning for the subject area to Specific Plan (SP); and WHEREAS, a notice of intention to consider a Zone Change for the subject property was given, as required by Section 17.24.110 of the Lancaster Municipal Code (“LMC”) and Sections 65854 and 65905 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2026, the City of Lancaster’s Planning Commission held a public hearing on Zone Change No. 25-004, notice of which was published and provided as required by law, and adopted Resolution No. 26-02 (the “Planning Commission Recommendation”) recommending to the City of Lancaster City Council (“City Council”) approval of Zone Change No. 25-004; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 eq seq.) (“CEQA”), a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 202402979) was prepared for the Parkway Village Specific Plan in compliance with CEQA and circulated for a 45-day public review ending on November 3, 2025. At the request of a commenter, the review period was extended to November 10, 2025; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were available during the public review period at City Hall, the Lancaster Library, the City’s website; and the State Clearinghouse website; and WHEREAS, All comments received from the public and responsible, trustee, and interested agencies were considered and responded to in writing in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, said Final EIR was released and provided to all commenting entities on January 16, 2026; and
Ordinance No.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission (a) certified that it had reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prepared for the proposed project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (including its implementing regulations) prior to taking action; (b) found the Final EIR determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures all impacts with the exception of air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts would be less than significant; and (c) recommended to the City Council certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the associated findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
WHEREAS, staff has performed the necessary investigations, prepared a written report, and recommended that the Zone Change be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the Applicant’s request as set forth herein.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing Recitals are true, correct and a substantive part of this Ordinance.
Section 2. The City Council has received, reviewed and hereby adopts the Planning Commission Recommendation. Consistent therewith, the City Council makes the following findings:
a. That modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the area or district under consideration; and
b. That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area or district; and
c. That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification within such area or district; and
d. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare and in conformity with good zoning practice
Section 3. The properties within the plan area are reclassified from the existing zoning classifications to SP 24-001.
Section 4. Any ordinance previously adopted by the City Council shall be and hereby is repealed if and to the extent inconsistent with this Ordinance , provided, however, that each such ordinance shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of Ordinance No.
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance , and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard, and this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption.
Ordinance No.
I, Andrea Alexander, City Clerk of the City of Lancaster, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading on the ________ day of ____________, ______, and placed upon its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _______ day of __________, ______, 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 ORDINANCE
CITY COUNCIL
I, ________________________________, ___________________________________ City of Lancaster, California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Ordinance No. , 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)
___________________________________
1 EXHIBIT “G”
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS / STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE PARKWAY VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25-006, ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-004, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 24-001) (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2024020979)
1. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is appro ved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, making infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in substation (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the sp ecific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on and monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
2 (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.
Having received, reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Parkway Village Specific Plan , dated January 2026 (“Final EIR”), which includes but is not limited to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“ Draft EIR”), Responses to Comments on the D raft EIR, and all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (“Findings”) are hereby adopted by the City of Lancaster (“City”) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the City’s environmental basis for approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 25-006, Zone Change No. 25-004, and Specific Plan (SP) No. 24-001 (“project”).
A. Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project and overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project’s objectives.
(3) Section 3 provides a summary of the environmental review conducted in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by the City for the project and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period either not to be relevant to the project or which were determined to clearly not manifest at levels which were deemed to be significant for consideration at the project-specific level. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the F inal EIR which the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant through the imposition of mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project.
Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which will or which may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibility be mitigated to a less than significant level.
(6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Proposed Project. 3 (7) Section 7 consists of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which sets forth the City’s reasons for finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations associated with the project outweigh the project’s potential unavoidable environmental effects.
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the project are located at the City of Lancaster, Community Development Department, 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, California, 93534. The Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Discretionary Actions
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the current discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the approval of the project. These actions include approval of GPA No. 25-006, Zone Change No. 25-004, and the Parkway Village Specific Plan (SP No. 24-001).
B. Project Location
The Antelope Valley is located in the northern portion of Los Angeles County, in the geographic sub-region of the western tip of the Mojave Desert and is situated between the Tehachapi, Sierra Pelona, and San Gabriel Mountains. On a regional basis, the area is accessible via State Route (SR) 14 and SR 138.
The project site encompasses approximately 435 acres of land in the central portion of the City of Lancaster generally bound by Avenue K, Avenue L, 10th Street West, and Sierra Highway. Specifically, the 435-acre project site consists of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 3128-001-005, -008, -009, -015 thru -019, -021, -022; 3128-002-001 thru -005, -014, -17 thru -020, -900, -901; 3128-004-011, -013, - 17, -024, -025, -900, -902, -903; 3128-005-001 thru -038; 3128-006-001 thru -007, -009, -010, -017 thru - 025, -027 thru -029, -031, -032, -046, -049 thru -052, -054 thru -060, -062, and -900 thru -906.
The Plan area is relatively flat and largely undeveloped, with land elevation gradually increasing from the northwestern corner to the southeastern corner of the site. Existing development within the Plan area includes the Kaiser Permanente Antelope Valley Medical Offices and various commercial and storage uses located along the southern site boundary (Avenue L); a church located at the southwestern corner of 5th Street West and Avenue K along the northern site boundary; a mix of retail and restaurant uses, a retirement village, a bowling alley, a recreational vehicle and trailer park, and a transitional housing facility located along the eastern site boundary (Sierra Highway); and an auto repair shop and solar farm along the western site boundary. A 1.3-acre parcel along the 5 th Street West right-of-way (ROW) is owned
by Los Angeles County and contains a small waterworks facility. Amargosa Creek is a dry wash which has been undergrounded through the Plan area from roughly the southern portion of the site tow ard the northwestern corner.
C. Project Description
The Parkway Village Specific Plan proposes land use and circulation plans for the area and provides development standards and regulations to guide future development of the land within the Plan area. The 4 overall area will be known as Parkway Village. The Specific Plan provides a regulatory framework to for the development of a master -planned community that contains residential neighborhoods, parks and other recreational facilities including a future aquatic center , a school site, open space, and medical, office, and commercial uses. The Specific Plan also allows for the development of a future transit hub within the Plan area. The Plan sets forth standards and guidelines to regulate development by establishing permitted uses, property development standards, and general development criteria.
The following is a summary of the development allowed by the Parkway Village Specific Plan:
• 4,246 residential units. Planning Areas 7 and 8 may include a transit hub. • 130 hotel rooms in one or more hotels.
• 150,000 square feet of commercial uses in areas designated Town Center (Planning Areas 1-6).
• 415,000 square feet of office, medical office, assisted/supportive living, and uses supportive of office including restaurants, financial institutions, professional services, etc., in areas designated Business.
• 185,000 square feet of commercial uses including indoor technical schools, fitness centers and gymnasiums in areas designated Workshop.
• 8.7 acres for school uses.
• 27.8 acres for parks of varying sizes.
• A 200-bed hospital and up to 500,000 square feet of medical-related uses including skilled nursing and assisted living.
• 10.2 acre aquatic center.
D. Project Objectives
The following objectives have been established for the proposed project:
• Provide a range of residential, commercial, recreational, office, and medical uses within an underutilized area in the central portion of the City of Lancaster. • Provide a variety of housing types and styles, including those not typically found in the City of Lancaster, ranging from conventional single -family homes and detached cluster homes to townhomes and apartments.
• Provide business and employment opportunities to promote a strong and diversified economy.
• Incorporate a variety of parks, paseos, parkways, trails, and open space features that serve the recreational needs of community residents.
• Use the existing Amargosa Creek channel alignment as open space connections for pedestrian and non-motorized mobility, and storm flow conveyance. • Accommodate the expansion of medical -related and health and wellness uses on property under the current ownership of Kaiser Permanente. 5 • Establish a distinctive community character through place-making elements.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The environmental review process for the proposed project is summarized as follows.
On February 27, 2024, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; publication of the NOP occurred in the Antelope Valley Press; was posted at City Hall/website; filed with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk; and sent to all property owners/residents within and 500 feet from the boundaries of the plan area. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day public review period from February 27, 2024 through March 28, 2024 . A public scoping meeting was held on March 14 , 2024, at Lancaster City Hall located at 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, California 93534, to solicit comments on the proposed project.
A copy of the NOP comments received can be found in Appendix F of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available and distributed to agencies, interested organizations, individuals and property owners by the City for 45-day public review and comment period beginning on September 19, 2025 and ending on November 3, 2025. However, the public review period was extended an additional week to November 10 , 2025 at the request of Adams Broadwell (representing CREED LA) . Comments received during the public review period for the D raft EIR were responded to in the Responses to Comments which was i ncluded in the F inal EIR, dated January 2026 . The Final EIR was distributed to all commenting parties and posted on the City’s website on January 16, 2026.
The Final EIR consists of the following components in addition to the Draft EIR:
• Section 1 – Introduction, which provides an introduction to the Final EIR; • Section 2 – Responses to Comments, which provides copies of the written comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments received in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 and minor corrections/Errata to the Draft EIR; The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (separate document), includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting (MMRP) table intended to provide verification that all applicable mitigation measures relative to significant environmental impacts are mo nitored and reported in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
The City Planning Commission considered the F inal EIR and project at its hearing on January 26 , 2026 to make a recommendation to the City Council on the certification of the F inal EIR and adoption of GPA No. 25-006, Zone Change No. 25-004, and SP No. 24 -001. The City Council considered the F inal EIR and project at its hearings on February 10, 2026 and February 24, 2026.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO NOT BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY
THE PROJECT
During preparation of the Draft EIR, the City conducted an analysis of the proposed project’s effect on specific environmental topic areas included as part of the Environmental Checklist form presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Through the course of this evaluation, certain impacts were identified as “less than significant” or “no impact” due to the inability of a project of this scope to yield such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. These effects are not required to 6 be included in the primary environmental analysis sections in the D raft EIR Sections 3.2 through 3.15. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, D raft EIR Section 3.16, Effects Not Found to be Significant, includes a brief description of potential impacts found to be less than significant or result in no impact.
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES : The following issues were not analyzed in the Draft EIR for the reasons identified below:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use:
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract • Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)):
• Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use:
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use:
As designated by the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) California Important Farmland Finder, the Plan area is entirely comprised of Urban and Built-Up Land and Other Land. There are no farmlands of local, state, or federal importance in the Plan area, n or surrounding the Plan area. There are no Williamson Act Contract lands within the Plan area or in the City of Lancaster. In addition, there are no forest lands, and the project would not result in the loss of forest land. There would be no agricultural o r forestry impacts as a result of the implementation of the Parkway Village Specific Plan.
MINERAL RESOURCES: The following issues were not analyzed in the Draft EIR for the reasons identified below:
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State:
• Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan:
The City of Lancaster is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, which indicates an area which contains potential but presently unproven resources. It is not considered likely that the plan area has large, valuable mineral and aggregate deposits. Therefore, there would be no impacts to mineral resources as a result of implementation of the Parkway Village Specific Plan.
TRANSPORTATION: The following issues were not analyzed in the Draft EIR for the reasons identified below:
• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which addresses vehicle miles traveled (VMT);
7 • Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access
In response to SB 743, the City of Lancaster developed guidelines for analyzing proposed development projects to determine if a project would result in a significant VMT impact. The guidelines provide thresholds that are to be used for evaluating the significance of a project’s VMT impacts. If a proposed project’s VMT is 15 percent or greater below the Antelope Valley Planning Area (AVPA) baseline VMT, the project’s VMT impact would be considered as less than significant.
The City’s guidelines also provide screening criteria that can be used to screen a project from requiring a detailed VMT analysis. As documented in a report titled “Transportation Analysis Updates in Lancaster” (Fehr and Peers, May 27, 2020), a project can be screened out of a VMT analysis if the project site is in a low VMT generating area of Lancaster. Figures 3 and 4 of that report indicate that the Parkway Village Specific Plan site is in an area of Lancaster that is greater than 15 percent below the AV PA average baseline VMT. The proposed Specific Plan development can, therefore, be screened from any further VMT analysis.
The proposed Specific Plan would not provide any internal or external roadway, access, or circulation features that would create or increase any design hazards or incompatible uses.
The increased levels of traffic on the study area streets, the increased number of pedestrians and bicyclists in the area, and the increased number of vehicular turning movements that would occur on the access routes and at the nearby intersections would result in an increased number of traffic conflicts and a corresponding increase in the probability of an accident occurring. These impacts would not be significant; however, because the streets, intersections, sidewalks, bike lanes, and driveways are designed or will be designed to accommodate the anticipated levels of vehicular and pedestrian activity.
All street improvements in the public ROW will be designed and constructed consistent with the City of Lancaster and all improvements within the Plan area would be consistent with the criteria outlined in the PVSP. Over time, the development within the PVSP would add vehicles to the nearby streets and intersections, but the additional vehicles would be compatible with the design and use of the affected roadways.
As the existing and proposed street network, which would include the recommended improvements and mitigation measures, could accommodate the anticipated increases in vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle activity, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.
Finally, t he proposed access and circulation features within the PVSP, which includes the street network, driveways, on-site roadways, parking lots, and fire lanes, would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles.
These facilities would provide access to all areas of the Plan area and each development project within the Plan boundaries would include emergency access features that would be subject to review and approval by the Los Angeles County F ire Department and the City’s Community Development Department
8 As the project can be screened from requiring a detailed VMT analysis, is required to be consist with state and local design and construction standards regarding potential design hazards, and requires emergency ingress and egress be incorporated into the proposed access and circulation features of the Plan, these impacts were found to be less than significant, and these significance criteria are not discussed further in this EIR.
WILDFIRE: The following issues were not analyzed in the Draft EIR for the reasons identified below:
• If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
o Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
o Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
o Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment;
o Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes:
The Cal Fire maps for Los Angeles County indicate that the Plan area is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Within the LRA, the Plan area falls within an area mapped as a Non- Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Plan area is within an urban environment that includes areas of scattered to dense development and undeveloped areas of sparse desert vegetation. Once developed, the Plan area would add to the area’s urban environment with planned and engineered landscaping, design, and architecture th at complies with State and local fire codes and design requirements. The City of Lancaster General Plan Safety Element identifies the Plan area as having moderate wildfire risk . The few areas of sparse desert vegetation that would remain in the Plan area would be less prone to wildfires than other heavily vegetated areas of Southern California. The urbanized area s near the Plan area are unlikely to be exposed to wildland fires due to the lack of wildlands in the vicinity.
As discussed in Sections 3.14, Transportation, and 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the buildout of the Specific Plan would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Existing evacuation and emergency response routes would continue to be available for access during project construction and operation activities associated with the Specific Plan.
5. FINDINGS ON POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN
THE DRAFT EIR
Where as a result of the environmental analysis of the proposed project and the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, the following potentially significant impacts have been determined by the 9 City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) that “Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project wh ich mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment,” which is referred to herein as “Finding 1.” Where the potential impact can be reduced to less than significant solely through adherence to and implementation of project design features or standard conditions, these measures are considered “incorporated into the project” which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant effect, and in these situations, the City also will make “Finding 1” even though no mitigation measures are required, but will find that the potential impact has been reduced to Less Than Significant through either project design features incorporated into the project or adherence to standard conditions.
Where the City has determined pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that “Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopt ed by that other agency, the City’s finding is referred to herein as “Finding 2.”
Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the proposed project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identified of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordanc e with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact work,” referred to herein as “Finding 3.” In making these findings, the City has relied upon the environmental conclusions reached by the experts that prepared the F inal EIR, including the information, analysis and conclusions in the technical reports prepared and made a part of the Final EIR. Although contrary opinions may have been presented in comments submitted on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, the City has weighed those comments against the underlying data, analysis and conclusions in the Final EIR, and has reached its conclusions accordingly.
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR. • Aesthetics/Visual
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning and Recreation
• Noise and Vibration
• Population and Housing
• Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
10 A. AESTHETICS/VISUAL
The thresholds of significance for aesthetic/visual impacts are listed in Section 3.2, Aesthetics/Visual, on pages 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.2-4 through 3.2-10.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in adverse effects on a scenic vista.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
While the Tehachapi Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains provide scenic backdrops to the City and Plan area, the City of Lancaster General Plan does not designate any scenic vistas as being located on or near the Plan area. Buildout of the Plan area would alter existing views across the largely vacant site but would not substantially obstruct views of the mountain ranges from surrounding public viewpoints.
The Specific Plan includes height limitations for all land use categories, with a maximum of 50 feet allowed for most development (with the exception of Kaiser Permanente property where the height is established by existing Development Agreement); the height can exceed 50 feet with a Conditional Use Permit. These height limits are consistent with surrounding development and would not significantly impair views of the distant mountains. Furthermore, the circulation plan and open space network are designed to maintain view corridors through the site. The Specific Plan also includes policies to enhance views, such as creating vistas and view corridors of community value through thoughtful siting of buildings. As such impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
There are no officially designated State scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site; however, State Route 14 (SR -14), is identified in the City of Lancaster General Plan 2030 as a locally designated scenic route. The General Plan recognizes the significance of SR-14 as a scenic corridor that provides travelers with views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Tehachapi Mountains, as well as more distant views of the San Bernardino Mountains. Within the City of Lancaster (between Avenues A and M), this rou te offers long-range views of these mountain ranges and provides travelers with their primary introduction to the visual character of the Lancaster area.
The Plan area is not visible from a State scenic highway as the nearest designated State scenic highway is State Route 2 (Angeles Crest Highway), located approximately 28 miles southeast of the Plan area. The Plan area does not contain significant scenic resources such as notable trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings as it is primarily undeveloped, with scattered existing development and typical desert vegetation. Changes to the site would be consistent with the existing urban development pattern and would not substantially damage scenic resources. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
11 Potential Impact: The proposed project could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Plan area would transform the primarily undeveloped site into a master -planned community with a mix of residential, commercial, office, recreational, and medical uses in an urban area. While this represents a substantial change from the current visual character, the Specific Plan has been designed to create a cohesive, high-quality visual environment that is compatible with surrounding development.
The Specific Plan includes comprehensive design guidelines and development standards to ensure visually appealing and contextually appropriate development throughout the Plan area. The Specific Plan emphasizes creating a pedestrian -friendly environment with the incorporation of approximately 27.8 acres of parks, plazas, and open spaces throughout the area which would enhance the overall aesthetic quality. Key elements include:
• Architectural design guidelines for various land use types and styles • Streetscape and landscape design standards
• Requirements for community gathering spaces and recreational amenities • Policies to create distinctive neighborhood identities and entry features Additionally, the Specific Plan is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and specific actions to enhance the visual quality of development within the City. As such impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could generate new sources of light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The surrounding area is predominantly developed with urban uses while the Plan area remains largely undeveloped. Development within the Plan area would introduce new sources of light and glare to the Plan area. New lighting sources would include street lighting, exterior building illumination, parking lot lighting, illuminated signage, interior lighting visible through windows, and potential glare from reflective building materials. These new lighting sources and their effects would be similar in character and intensity to those found in the existing developed areas surrounding the Plan area. Additionally, development would be required to comply with Lancaster Municipal Code Section 17.08.140 regarding lighting and the lighting design requirements of the Specific Plan to ensure development(s) provide proper illumination for safety and function ality while minimizing adverse impacts within the Plan area and adjacent properties. These include requirements, but are not limited to, focusing all lighting downward, shielding light fixtures, and using minimum brightness necessary for illuminated signs. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. 12 Potential Impact: The proposed project , in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative aesthetic and visual impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Cumulative development in the Plan area vicinity would continue to alter the visual character of the area to a more urbanized landscape through new development and redevelopment. The Specific Plan and other development projects in Lancaster are subject to the City’s design review process and must comply with applicable General Plan policies and development standards related to aesthetics and visual quality.
The PVSP’s emphasis on high -quality design, integrated open spaces, and pedestrian -friendly environments is consistent with the City’s vision for future development.
The PVSP’s compliance with City of Lancaster General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements related to aesthetics and visual quality, as well as its incorporation of comprehensive design guidelines, ensures that future development of the Plan area would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts. Therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The overall cumulative impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
B. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES
The thresholds of significance for air quality and greenhouse gas impacts are listed in Section 3.3 , Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, on pages 3.3-6 and 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.37 through 3.3-15.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The AVAQMD is responsible for managing local air quality and administering the State and federal air quality control programs to ensure implementation of applicable air quality management plans. State - level air quality planning strategies to attain CAAQS are implemented through rules, regulations, and programs adopted by AVAQMD and CARB to control ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5. The AVAQMD has adopted a Federal Ozone Attainment Plan, with the most recent Plan being adopted in 2023. The attainment plan relies on the established rules and regulations and control measures for emission sources within the AVAQMD jurisdiction, including the New Source Review program with a 25 ton per year major source level for ozone precursors. All construction and project de velopment-related activities, including operation and maintenance, would comply with the applicable rules, regulations, and programs.
All construction and operation activities would be required to comply with applicable AVAWMD Rules.
Currently, l construction and operation activities would comply with AVAQMD’s Rules 201, 203, and 209.
Additionally, activities would comply with AVAQMD Rules 401, 402, 403, 461, and 481 which prevent nuisance and regulate fugitive dust emissions. These or similar Rules would be in effect during Plan buildout. Development within the Plan area would also need to conform to the federal and state Clean Air Act requirements by complying with the rules and regulations that are contained in the air quality plan. 13 Because The PVSP-related stationary sources would be subject to the AVAQMD permitting authority for avoiding substantial emissions increases of ozone precursors, the PVSP would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create cumulatively considerable net increases of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 3.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction would generate emissions on-site and off-site along the roadways traveled by construction traffic. Construction emissions would be caused by exhaust from vehicles and equipment (this includes ozone precursors VOC or ROG and NOx, CO, and particulate matter [PM 10 and PM 2.5]) and fugitive dust/particulate matter from ground -disturbing activities and travel on unpaved surfaces and on paved roads.
To minimize the amount of fugitive dust from unpaved surfaces and emissions from other ground - disturbing activities during the site preparation period, all construction activity would be required to comply with local air district rules regarding dust control (AVAQMD Rules 401, 402, 403). Diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment would be classified as portable or as mobile sources (off-road equipment), and these sources are subject to statewide registration and fleet requirements. On -road motor vehicle emissions would occur primarily off site. The on-road sources include the heavy-duty trucks to deliver equipment, concrete, water, and other materials, and light -duty vehicles carrying crews and medium-duty deliveries.
Emission sources would be dispersed across the site and not always used continuously or at the same time. Substantial or adverse levels of localized ground -level concentrations would be unlikely with construction because pollutants would be emitted from several pieces of equipment dispersed over large areas. Dust control and engine exhaust would be subject to AVAQMD rules and regulations to avoid adverse levels of air pollutant concentrations. Emissions were estimated by assuming an average amount of emissions that may occur in a day during over the 20-year buildout. Common construction phase types and their typical offroad equipment types and quantity were used to estimate maximum potentially daily emissions. Table 3.3-4 of the Draft EIR summarizes the maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation and Table 3.3-5 summarizes the maximum annual emissions rates anticipated for construction., both assuming construction starts in 2030. Daily and yearly emission maximums are due to the most intensive pha se. As shown in these tables, construction emissions would not exceed the established AVAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.
Operations-related emissions would be caused by area sources, energy use, and mobile sources from increased traffic. After the development of the Plan area, there would be area sources and energy use from newly developed residences, offices, schools, parks , medical centers and more. Additionally, emissions would stem from increased traffic associated with new housing, offices, schools and retail.
Development of the Specific Plan would occur through implementation of individual projects, each of which would contribute to the overall operational emissions of the Specific Plan, commencing when each individual project starts operations. For this analysis, the estimated emissions from complete buildout and 14 operation of the entire PVSP site were compared against the AVAQMD thresholds for individual projects.
Operational emissions of PVSP development in year 2050 would exceed some of the thresholds. As shown in Table 3.3-6 (without mitigation) and Table 3.3 -7 (with mitigation) of the Draft EIR, without mitigation air emissions would exceed thresholds for VOC, CO, and PM10. With mitigation, the thresholds would continue to be exceeded for VOC and CO.
After implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (Operational Area Source Emission Reduction Plan) , quantified emissions would be largely decreased, and less than the threshold for PM 10, but still in
exceedance of the VOC and CO thresholds. As such, Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The operational air quality emissions calculations were modified to specifically include generators in response to a comment received on the Draft EIR. The revised calculations are provided in the Final EIR as part of the Response to Comment B03-64. While these revisions caused the specific amounts of emissions to rise slightly, the changes did not change the conclusions and operational air quality impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 3.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Specific Plan would not directly result in any activities that generate Toxic Air Contaminants ( TAC) emissions. However, construction activities associated with new development would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions and other air toxics from gasoline-fueled equipment that would cause some increase in TAC health risks. Proper implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would reduce future development health risks and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Valley fever spores are found in the top few inches of soil and may be stirred up by wind, vehicles, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities and become airborne. Construction workers and others who work outdoors are at risk for Valley Fever, especially when disturbing soil, operating heavy machinery, or working under windy conditions. Valley Fever is highly endemic in Antelope Valley, meaning that the annual incidence rate of Valley Fever is greater than 20 cases per 100,000 persons per year. By California law (AB 203), construction employers who work in counties with high rates of Valley Fever must annually train employees on minimizing the risk of Valley Fever). Steps that can be taken to limit workers’ exposure to dust, such as watering down the soil before digging, reduce the risk of Valley Fever. Since the plan Area is in an area where Valley Fever is endemic, and workers as well as receptors in the area could be exposed to the spores during construction activities mitigation is required to mi nimize impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, impacts would be less than significant.
The main contributor to threshold exceedances during operations is mobile sources. The Specific Plan would generate emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources, though the source of concern for exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be mobile sources, and more specifically CO, VOC, and PM
10 (Fugitive Dust) emissions. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
15 Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Development within the Plan area could generate potentially objectionable odors that would be temporarily created during construction activities, primarily from paving operations associated with the construction of future development. However, these asphal t odors would be temporary, not overly offensive or regularly experienced in an urban/suburban setting. Other minor odor sources during construction and operation include tailpipe emissions from off-road equipment and on-road vehicles used during construct ion and new development operation, and odors from new restaurants. Therefore, impacts would not be significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have an impact on the environment.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction activities include mobilizing construction equipment, crews, and materials, excavating, and installing concrete foundations and equipment. These activities during construction would cause GHG emissions due to fuels used by the construction vehi cles and equipment. Diesel and gasoline -powered construction equipment would include trucks for materials and crews, and the following types of equipment: grader, bulldozer, front -end loader, excavator, and a crane. Equipment and motor vehicles would directly emit carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH 4), and nitrous oxide (N 2O) due to fuel use and combustion.
The resulting one- time aggregate quantity of GHG emitted during the 20 -year period of construction would be approximately 7,434 MTCO2e (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent). This equates to roughly 372 MTCO 2e per year if averaged over the twenty -year construction period. Additional information regarding GHG emission calculations can be found in Appendix A of the Draft EIR , Air Quality Technical Report.
After a full build out of the project area, operational emissions including area, energy, and mobile sources would be approximately 45,623 MTCO
2e/yr. When added to the amortized construction emissions, the total yearly GHG emissions would be approximately 45,995 MTCO2e which is below the AVAQMD threshold of 100,000 MTCO2e/yr, and as such, impacts would not be significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations of any agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Specific Plan would allow for the construction and operation of residences, commercial buildings, parks (including a new aquatic center), medical uses, and school(s) that would be required to comply with the most recent California Building Code (CBC), including the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. These standards require new construction to incorporate energy efficiency 16 technologies and methods to reduce energy consumption throughout the State. The CALGreen Code was incorporated into the CBC in 2010 to add further energy-efficiency building standards through which the Plan’s energy consumption, while also reducing GHG emissions.
The City of Lancaster Climate Action Plan (CAP) documents the City’s GHG emissions inventories and the progress the City has made through its alternative energy and sustainability programs. It also outlines how the City would meet the State GHG reduction targets for 2020 and make substantial progress towards achieving the post-2020 targets. Numerous measures within the CAP are applicable to the Plan area, and the Plan’s consistency with the applicable CAP measures was documented on page 3.3-14 of the Draft EIR.
Development within the Plan area would com ply with the plans, policies, and regulations described for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 3.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Specific Plan is a project of regional significance and implementation of the Specific Plan would be consistent with the federal, state, and regional plans, including City of Lancaster General Plan and the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (A VAQMD) Rules and Regulations . Furthermore, all future projects in the Plan area and vicinity would be evaluated for consistencies with the established goals, policies, regulations and guidelines of the City’s General Plan 2030 and the Lancaster Municip al Code.
Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would continue to be significant and unavoidable during the operational phase of the project after implementation of applicable mitigation measures. As such, the Specific Plan would result in a cumulatively significant operational impact. The AVAQMD thresholds are project-level and were used in absence of plan level thresholds. Since the Plan includes multiple developments over a 20-year period, rather than a single, smaller project, the operation phase emissions are much higher. Increased traffic from new residences, offices, medical buildings, school, parks (including a future aquatic center) all contribute to the VOC and CO emissions that exceed the applicable thresholds. All other identified air quality and greenhouse gas impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation.
The cumulative impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributes towards global climate change.
Because the direct environmental effect of GHG emissions is to influence global climate change, GHG emissions are by their nature inherently a cumulative concern with a cumulatively global scope. No single project could, by itself, result in a substantial change in the global climate. The analysis considers the contribution of the GHG emissions from Specific Plan implementation and demonstrates that the quantity of GHG emissions would not have a significant impact on the environment and would not conflict with GHG reduction goals. The incremental contribution to GHG emissions would therefore not be cumulatively considerable.
17 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The thresholds of significance for biological resources impacts are listed in Section 3. 4, Biological Resources, on pages 3. 4-16 and 3.4-17 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3. 4-17 through 3.3-26.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create effects on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction of individual projects within the PVSP would result in vegetation removal (including western Joshua Trees) and ground-disturbing activities over a majority of the Plan area, which could directly affect nesting birds, Crotch’s bumble bee, western burrowing owls, and other special -status species that have potential to occur as discussed in detailed on pages 3.4-17 through 3.4-20 of the Draft EIR. These species may be affected by temporary or permanent loss or modification of habitat, the introduc tion, or proliferation of invasive species, disturbance from dust, construction noise, vibration, entrapment in constructional materials or excavations, exposure to hazardous substances accidentally released by vehicles or other equipment, and displacement , injury, or morality from project -related construction activities. These activities could also indirectly impact other special- status species by disrupting the potential use of the area for foraging by monarch, golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, and for winte ring by merlin and ferruginous hawk. The potential impacts to nesting birds and special- status wildlife, should they occur, would be significant without mitigation. For special-status plants ranked CRPR 4 with potential to occur in the Plan area, these impacts would likely be less than significant, as these species are not listed under the ESA or CESA and are unlikely to be abundant in the Plan area.
Mitigation Measures were identified to reduce the identified impacts to the extent feasible and include the following:
• Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nest Avoidance
• Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Western Burrowing Owl preconstruction surveys and Incidental Take Permits (if necessary)
• Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
• Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring • Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Worker Environmental Awareness Training • Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Prevent Invasive Weed Introduction • Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Manage Project Trash
• Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Hazardous Materials Best Management Practices • Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Avoid Wildlife Hazards and Entrapment • Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Western Joshua Tree
These measures are described in detail in the Draft EIR. Additionally, Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO-3, and BIO-4 were modified at the request of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). These modifications are reflected in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 (MMRP) prepared and adopted for the proposed project. With the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Based on the series of focused biological surveys conducted in April 2020 and 2024, as well as site visits on May 8, 2024 and July 1, 2024, vegetation and cover types within the Plan area include native desert shrubland, Joshua tree woodland, fields of non -native grasses and forbs, and disturbed or developed areas. Natural communities on the Plan area include the following: Big Sagebrush Scrub, Joshua tree woodland, Non -native red brome/Mediterranean grass grassland, rubber rabbitbrush scrub, upland mustard and star -thistle fields, and disturbed/developed. These communities are described in detail in Section 3.4.1.1 of the Draft EIR.
The Plan area lacks riparian habitat, and Joshua tree woodland is the only sensitive natural community present. The development within the boundaries of the PVSP would directly and permanently impact all
2.94 acres of Joshua tree woodland from construction activities. The removal of Joshua woodland c ould also result in the loss of sheltering, nesting, and foraging habitat for many common and special- status wildlife and plant species. No special status plant species were observed during the surveys; however, the removal of Joshua tree woodland could result in their direct impact and contribute to the overall decline of suitable habitat for them if present. No individual western Joshua trees were identified within 50 feet of the Plan boundary, so indirect impacts to Joshua tree woodland are not expected to occur from the implementation of the Specific Plan.
The Joshua tree woodland in the Plan area is already visibly degraded by the presence of non -native vegetation, homeless encampments, and non -Project-related human activities, such as off- road driving, trash dumping, and the felling of individual western Joshua trees. Although the direct and indirect impacts to this sensitive community from project activities will be adverse, the poor condition of the Joshua tree woodland in the Plan area, along with the small acreage of impacted habitat would result in les s than significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the previously identified mitigation measures.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create effects on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Future project construction in the Plan area may permanently impact one small drainage not exceeding 0.13 acres. Portions of this feature could lose function entirely while others may still convey water but would no longer be vegetated or provide habitat for wildlife. Although this feature is a remnant tributary of Amargosa Creek, it has been artificially channelized and is highly modified. The channel is deeply incised and does not readily support wetland habitat or riparian vegetation. Instead, it is dominated by upland species, including non-native grasses and herbs. Because of this, it is unlikely to support ecological functions similar 19 to even small patches of riparian habitats. Therefore, the impacts to 0.13 acres and 0.07 acres of State waters, under the jurisdiction of the CDFW and the Lahontan RWQCB, respectively, would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Regulatory Permits.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create effects on native wildlife movement, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The Plan area is not identified on the Essential Connectivity Map commissioned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CDFW to create a statewide assessment of essential habitat connectivity to be used for conservation and infrastructure planning. In addition, no perennial water bodies are located on the Plan area. Except to the south, lands around the Plan area are largely developed.
While the Plan area is not within any designated wildlife corridors, the Plan area may provide localized wildlife movement within the region. The Plan area is likely to be used as a forage or dispersal area for wildlife in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the Plan area has many shrubs and open areas that may provide nesting habitat. Numerous common species of birds are known to nest in the region and are likely to nest in the Plan area. Regardless, development within the boundaries of the PVSP would not interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites . Therefore, impacts would bel less than significant with respect to wildlife corridors and no migration measures are necessary.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The Specific Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances, such as a tree preservation policy, protecting biological resources. Development projects within the Plan area would be subject to Ordinance No. 848, Biological Impact Fee, which requires the payment of $770 per acre to help offset the cumulative loss of biological resources in the Antelope Valley as a result of development. This fee is required of all projects oc curring on previously undeveloped land regardless of the biological resources present and is utilized to enhance biological resources through education programs and the acquisition of property for conservation. The Lancaster Municipal Code does not include any other policies or ordinances that protect biological resources i n the Plan area. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could conflict with adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved habitat conservation plans.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding:
20 No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Communities Conservation Plans or other local, regional or State habitat conservation plans have been adopted for the Plan area or vicinity. As such, implementation of the PVSP would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative biological resources impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As discussed in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR , several special-status plants and wildlife species are present or have a potential to be present within the Plan area. These include western Joshua tree, Mojave Indian paintbrush, Mojave spineflower, golden goodmania, Mojave monardella, monarch, w estern burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumble bee, golden eagles, northern California legless lizard, loggerhead shrike, Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawks, Ferruginous hawk, merlin, and Costa’s hummingbird. These species occur elsewhere in the Antelope Valley and in the vicinity of the Plan area, but extensive habitat is still present in the region. O ther development projects in the region would also need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
Riparian vegetation is absent from the Plan area, but one sensitive natural community , Joshua tree woodland, is present. The Joshua tree woodland on site is sparse ; however, it is abundant in the region .
Therefore, no cumulative impacts are expected. Federally protected wetlands are absent within the Plan area and therefore no cumulative impacts would expected. Construction activities are not expected to impact wildlife movement or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; therefore, no cumulative impacts would be expected. Additionally, construction activities will have no impacts to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or conflict with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s potential to contribute to a cumulative impact associated with biological resources would not be considerable.
Compliance with applicable regulations would avoid any conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, resulting in a less than significant impact. The development within the PVSP would have a less than significant impact on wildlife movement and the use of wildlife nursery sites.
All significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The thresholds of significance for cultural resources impacts are listed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, on page 3.5-11 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.5-11 through 3.5-14.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
21 Facts in Support of Findings:
No above-ground historical resources were identified in the Plan area during background research or field surveys conducted in 2020 and 2024. Therefore, activities associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan would not be expected to impact known historical resources. As with any project that involves ground-disturbing activity, it is possible that unknown buried resources that qualify as historical resources maybe encountered, especially given that Amargosa Creek runs through the southwestern portion of the Plan Area. Unanticipated discoveries could be significantly impacted without mitigation in place. The following mitigation measures have been identified and are described in detail on pages 3.5 - 12 through 3.5-13 of the Draft EIR and the MMRP prepared and adopted for the Specific Plan. • Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Worker Environmental Awareness Program • Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Native American Monitoring
• Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources • Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Monitoring Program Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL -4 will ensure a less than significant impact to unanticipated cultural resources.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
No archaeological resources that qualify as unique archaeological resources under CEQA were identified in the Plan area during background research or field surveys conducted in 2020 and 2024. Therefore, there is no reasonable potential for the activities resulting from Plan implementation to impact known archaeological resources. However, as with any action that involves ground -disturbing activity, it is possible that unknown buried resources that qualify as unique archaeological resources may be encountered. These unanticipated discoveries could be significantly impacted without mitigation in place.
Therefore, compliance with MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -4 will ensure a less than significant impact to unanticipated cultural resources.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could cause the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Through background research and a pedestrian survey, the Plan area does not contain a formal cemetery and there is no evidence to suggest that the Plan area would contain human remains. Therefore, there is low potential that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with a future development project. However, As with any project that involves ground-disturbing activity, it is possible that human remains could be encountered. In the unlikely event of the discovery of human 22 remains, compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL -5 (Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains) will ensure a less than significant impact.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative cultural resources impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Impacts to cultural resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site -by-site basis .
Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL -5 would lessen the overall impact to unknown buried cultural resources. The related/cumulative projects that are within the geographic extent for cultural resources include 28 identified projects which generally include commercial uses, residential buildings, gas station development, and industrial buildings. These projects all likely involve ground-disturbing activity to some degree, which have the potential to impact buried cultural resources, and it is assumed that each project will implement similar inadvertent discovery mitigation measures to reduce impacts to buried unknown resources. Therefore, the Project would not make a considerable contribution any cumulative impacts on archaeological resources.
E. ENERGY
The thresholds of significance for energy impacts are listed in Section 3.6, Energy, on page 3.6-11 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.6-12 through 3.6-13.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, future development within t he PVSP area would adhere to all applicable f ederal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency , including the Lancaster Municipal Code and the design standards and development regulations established in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Specific Plan.
Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the California Building Code, including energy requirements, and the California Green Building Standards Code would ensure that development within the Plan area does not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Additionally, the City’s Climate Action Plan has programs identified to encourage the use of renewable energy. As such no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create impacts with respect to compliance with State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
23 Facts in Support of Findings:
As stated above, all future development in the Plan area would require approval by the City. Each development project would be required to adhere to all applicable local, regional, and State standards, laws, policies, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Lancaster 2030 General Plan and Municipal Code.
On November 8, 2022, the City adopted the 2022 California Building Codes, including the 2022 CALGreen Code that addresses renewable energy and energy efficiency measures for building development in the state which went into effect on January 1, 2023. The latest codes went into effect on January 1, 2026.
The 2024 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ( RTP/SCS) outlines energy efficiency measures in relation to transportation in the Southern California region. The Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) works directly with its member cities to ensure that planning efforts of each of the cities are in alignment with the regional goals of reducing GHG emissions. The City of Lancaster, and all other SCAG city-members, develop their general plans to reflect these regional goals and plan for future growth projections. Therefore, by adhering to the existing laws, standards, policies, ordinances, and regulations that have been developed by the City and outlined in the General Plan and Municipal Code, the future dev elopment in the PVSP would be in compliance with the regional 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS with respect to energy efficiency. Thus, adoption of the PVSP would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the project would result in a less than significant impact in this area. No mitigation measures are required.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative energy impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
As discussed previously, the Specific Plan would be a project of regional significance according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, Projects of Statewide, Regional or Areawide Significance. Along with the City of Lancaster, SCAG has a responsibility for addressing and evaluating all cumulative projects or regional significance to determine each project’s level of significance in the region. As noted above, implementation of the Specific Plan would be consistent with the regional plans, including the 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, that address projected growth patterns in the region. Furthermore, all future projects in the Plan’s vicinity would be evaluated for consistencies with the established goals, policies, regulations and guidelines of the City’s General Plan 2030 and Municipal Code.
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY
The thresholds of significance for geology, soils, and paleontology impacts are listed in Section 3. 7, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology , on page s 3.7-12 and 3.7 -13 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.7-13 through 3.7-21.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of an Alquist-Priolo zoned fault or other known active earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seis mic related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
24 Facts in Support of Findings:
Fault Rupture
The PVSP area is not crossed by or adjacent to any known active faults or a delineated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as the nearest mapped fault is the San Andreas fault zone approximately 5.9 miles south of the Plan area. Fault rupture in the PVSP area would therefore be unlikely and no impacts would occur.
Ground Shaking
The Plan area is in a seismically active area of Southern California that is expected to experience moderate to large regional earthquakes within the lifetime of the Specific Plan developments that would generate moderate to severe ground shaking at the site. This risk of seismically induced ground shaking in the PVSP region would not be increased by projects developed under the Specific Plan. Seismically induced ground shaking has the potential to cause damage; however, developments would be required to comply with all applicable building codes. Additionally, i mplementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 (Geotechnical Investigation) would require that each development project conduct a geotechnical investigation and that project design comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation to address seismic parameters and project specific conditions, thus reducing the pot ential for adverse effects from seismically induced ground shaking. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and compliance with applicable building codes would reduce the impact from seismically induced ground shaking to a less than significant level.
Seismic Related Ground Failure
The potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading to within the Plan area is low. However, there is a narrow zone of liquefaction in the area where Amargosa Creek is mapped across the southwestern portion of the site. Amargosa Creek traverses the Plan area in an underground culvert that prevents infiltration of water along the creek channel in this area and significantly reduces the potential for liquefaction.
Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is low. Additionally, the Plan area identifies uses of the area over the buried Amargosa Creek culvert as open space connections for pedestrian and non-motorized mobility, and storm flow conveyance; no structures for human occupancy would be built over the buried creek channel. The limited potential for liquefaction at the Plan area would be further reduced by required compliance with applicable building codes and Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Any potential adverse impacts related to seismic ground failures and liquefaction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Landslides
The PVSP area and vicinity are relatively flat to gently sloping and would not be subject to landslides or other slope failures. Therefore, no impact would occur from landslides and no mitigation measures are required.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
25 Facts in Support of Findings:
The Plan area is comprised primarily of previously disturbed land. Construction within the Plan area would require ground-disturbing activities that would loosen site soil creating the potential for erosion during rainfall events and high winds. Additionally, some of the soils in the Plan area have moderate susceptibility to wind erosion and moderate to high susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by water.
Development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to obtain, under Clean Water Act regulations, a NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity.
Compliance with the NPDES would require that each project submit a project specific SWPPP which would require identification of erosion sources development and implementation of BMPs to minimize and control erosion. Additionally, projects would be required to comply with Section 8.16.030 of the Lancaster Municipal Code requiring protection against erosion and dust creation. Fugitive dust control is also required through the compliance with AVAQMD Rule s 401, 402, and 403. Compliance with AVAQMD requirements, NPDES requirements, and the Lancaster Municipal Code would ensure that erosion effects from development and impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Following construction of each project in the Plan area, wind and water erosion on the developed portion of the Plan area would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces, and drainage would be controlled through the storm drain and storm water flow systems which would reduce the potential for erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The PVSP area and vicinity are relatively flat and would not be subject to earthquake-induced or naturally occurring landslides or other ground failures. Additionally, the area has a low liquefaction potential and therefore, lateral spread would not occur.
Although the Plan area is located in the vicinity of a mapped subsidence zone due to ground water extraction from the Antelope Valley ground water basin, no subsidence or subsidence related features have been noted in the Plan area. Estimated subsidence north of the Plan area was only about 0.2 inches/year between 1930 and 1992 and this small amount of subsidence outside of the Plan area is unlikely to cause adverse impacts to development under the Specific Plan . Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
A small area of liquefaction potential has been identified along the Amargosa Creek channel which crosses the southwestern portion of the Plan area. The creek has been placed in an underground culvert, reducing potential liquefaction in the creek vicinity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Geotechnical Investigations) and compliance with applicable building codes would reduce potential impacts form liquefaction to a less than significant level.
26 Most of the soils underlying the Plan area consist of fine-grained granular sediments that may be prone to collapse if wetted and subject to loading from structured development under the Specific Plan .
Implementation of Mitigation GEO-1 (Geotechnical Investigations) and compliance with applicable building codes would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could be located on an expansive soil that could create adverse effects.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Most of the Plan area is underlain by sandy soils with low expansion potential (Cajon and Hesperia soils); however, some areas are underlain by Rosamond fine sandy loam and the Rosamond loam which have low to moderate expansion potential. Soils with moderate expansion potential are considered expansive and could potentially cause adverse effects to roads, foundations, and structures due to shrinking and swelling with changes in water moisture. Each deve lopment under the Plan area would be required to comply with applicable building codes and prepare a project specific geotechnical study (Mitigation Measure GEO-1) and comply with the recommendations contained in the report. Any potential adverse impacts related to expansive soil would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in the destruction of unique paleontological resources.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The near surface geologic units underlying the Plan area consist of disturbed surface soils with no potential for significant paleontological resources overlying young Quaternary (Holocene and Holocene to late Pleistocene in age) alluvial and wash sediments with low potential for paleontological resources. Older Pleistocene-age alluvium with moderate to high potential for significant paleontological resources likely underlay the younger alluvial sediments at unknown depths and could potentially be encountered during construction activities. The older Pleistocene-age alluvial soils at depth have a moderate to high potential to contain significant vertebrate fossils and excavations could potentially undercover significant fossil vertebrate remains . Mitigation Measure PALEO -1 would provide procedures to alert workers to the potential for fossils to be encountered in deeper excavations and Mitigation Measure PALEO-2 would provide procedures to follow in the event fossils are encountered during construction activi ties. With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative geology and soils and paleontological impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
27 Facts in Support of Findings:
Geology and Soils
With the exception of erosion hazards, potential geologic and soils effects are inherently restricted to the areas proposed for development and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with other existing, planned, or proposed development. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties.
With to the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil, impacts to soil erosion triggered by construction activities could combine with the effects of construction of other projects if they were near each other and ground disturbing activities were occurring at the same time. Erosion impacts related to ground - disturbing construction activities for any project in the Plan area would be less than significant through compliance with federal, State, and local regulations. Other developments and projects in the vicinity of the Plan area would be required to comply with the same or similar regulations to minimize and control erosion and fugitive dust and, therefore, soil erosion impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
During operation of developments, the presence of design features of the developments such as landscaping, impervious surfaces, and storm water flow control features would protect the underlying soils and minimize the potential for erosion of the soils by wind or water. Other cumulative projects would likely have similar design features to prevent erosion during project operation. Impacts from erosion during project operation would not be cumulatively considerable.
Paleontology
Development in the Antelope Valley has the potential to destroy paleontological resources, particularly during activities such as grading and excavation. Where these activities occur in areas containing Pleistocene sediments, which typically contain a moderate to high potential for significant paleontological resources, resource destruction may occur. In areas of high potential for significant paleontological resources collection of fossil materials, dislodging of fossils from their preserved environment, and/or physical damage of fossil specimens could also adversely affect paleontological resources. Together these potential impacts associated with development in the cumulative scenario could result in a cumulatively significant impact to paleontological resources.
As discussed in Section 3.7.2 of the Draft EIR , there is a low potential for significant paleontological resources in the young Quaternary alluvial sediments underlying the PVSP; however, older Pleistocene sediments with moderate to high potential to significant paleontological resources may be encoun tered in deeper excavations. With Implementation of Mitigation Measures PALEO-1 and PALEO -2, paleontological resource impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Should paleontological resources be discovered in similar sediments to those underlying the Plan area, they would be subject to the same requirements and would likely implement mitigation measures similar to the measures described above. This would reduce the effects of their impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would not be cumulatively significant.
28 G. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The thresholds of significance for hazards and hazardous materials impacts are listed in Section 3.8, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, on pages 3.8-11 and 3.8-12 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.8-12 through 3.8-18.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
During construction within the Plan area, common hazardous substances typical of construction projects would be transported to, used, and stored at the project site. Hazardous materials such as gasoline and diesel fuel, oils and lubricants, hydraulic fluid, solvents, batteries, paints and coatin gs, and glycol-based antifreeze would likely be used in construction activities, construction equipment, and vehicles. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction -related materials , which would minimize the potential for adverse effects from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities.
Operation/occupancy of individual developments within the Plan area may include the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Residential uses may utilize household products that contain toxic substances, such as cleansers, paints, adhesives, and solvents; however, these products are usually in low concentration and small in amount and would not pose a significant risk to humans or the environment during transport to/from or use at individual properties. Pursuant to State law and local regulations, residents would be required to dispose of household hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, paint, etc.) at a permitted household hazardous waste collection facility.
Commercial uses may store, handle, and/or transport hazardous materials. Any business that handles a hazardous material and/or hazardous waste is required to comply with a variety of State, federal, and local regulations depending upon the type and quantity of material. Compliance with existing Federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the public or environment due to the routine transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the completed PVSP developments. Thus, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction activities would use typical construction -related hazardous materials that could cause adverse effects to worker and the environment if spills or leaks were to occur through improper handing or accident. Construction activities will be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local 29 regulations regarding handling and storage of hazardous materials . Additionally, c onstruction activities would result in ground-disturbing activities in areas previously used for agricultural activities. Much of the Plan area was historically farmed until around 1974. Two potential environmental conditions that are typically associated with agricultural properties that may be present in the Plan area including residual pesticide soil contamination and UST s that were commonly used to store fuel and may have been improperly abandoned and left in place.
To reduce the potential impacts of contaminated soil and historic USTs, Mitigation Measure HAZ- 1 requires a site characterization study prior to issuance of a grading permit to determine if residual pesticides/herbicides are present in the soil above DTSC regulatory thresholds for residential uses and if historical USTs are onsite, and associated remediation of contaminated soil and removal of USTs, if needed. Mitigation Measure HAZ -2 would be required to ensure that in the event unknown hazardous materials or waste are encountered during project construction that appropriate procedures are in place to prevent adverse effects to workers or the environment. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts from the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
There is one school site within 0.25 -mile of the PVSP site, Assurance Learning Academy located approximately 320 feet east of the eastern Plan area boundary and is separated from the Plan area by Sierra Highway and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Additionally, the Specific Plan would allow for the development of a school within the Plan area. The project would construct new uses within 0.25-mile of the Assurance Learning Academy and the proposed new school site which could result in the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes near the proposed school facilities. enforced by HHMD. With compliance with HHMD regulations pertaining to the storing/handling of hazardous materials and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, future developments within the Plan area would not result in significant impacts pertaining to the handling of hazardous materials near a school facility.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
A review of agency environmental databases identified at least 17 hazardous material sites in the Plan area; however, all of the sites were determined to not be of significant environmental concern due to type of listing or listing statu s, as described in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR . One of the sites is a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case related to a leaking gasoline tank that has been remediated and is listed as case closed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
30 Potential Impact: The proposed project could be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan area.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Some residential and commercial uses would be constructed within the current Planning Boundary/Airport Influence Area of the USAF Plant 42 Airport and could be within revised future airport influence areas if and when future planned development of the airport by the City of Palmdale occurs.
However, the Plan does not change the height limits that currently apply to both existing and new uses in these areas. Compliance with existing regulations, would reduce potential hazards to less than significant levels.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Plan area would be accessed via Sierra Highway, 10 th Street West, Avenue L, Avenue K, Avenue K- 8, and 5th Street West. Construction activities could affect access along these streets during construction due to short-term, temporary lane closures. However, access to surrounding land uses would remain open and accessible at all times. Additionally , Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would ensure that these activities would not impede emergency access. Implementation of MM HAZ-3 would reduce potential impacts in this regard to less-than-significant levels.
Although routes to be used for an evacuation would depend on the location of an incident, in general evacuation routes include City of Lancaster major arterials and regional routes. Additionally, the City of Lancaster Safety Element of the General Plan establishes the north -south and east -west evacuation routes. The regional evacuation routes for the Lancaster area include SR-14, Sierra Highway, and SR-138.
The closest local evacuation routes to the Plan area are Sierra Highway, Avenues K and L, and 10th Street West. These routes would continue to be available for access during construction and operation/occupancy of individual developments.
During construction and long-term operation, adequate access for emergency vehicles would be required to be maintained. Individual projects would be required to coordinate with the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) as part of the entitlement and building permit stages which would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided in compliance with applicable design standards, and code and ordinance requirements. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not substantially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
31 Facts in Support of Findings:
Development within the Plan area would be required to be constructed in accordance with all applicable fire safety standards including fire-flow standards and fire hydrant placement. All development in the City of Lancaster is required to meet established fire -flow requirements. Development within the City of Lancaster also is subject to compliance with all relevant LACFD general requirements, which address adequate ingress and egress access for emergency response, emergency access and fire and life safety requirements during construction, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrant spacing, access roadways to Fire Department apparatus, and maintenance of access roads and fire sprinkler systems. Mandatory compliance with LACFD Standard Conditions of Approval re lated to fire hazards would ensure that any development’s potential to expose people or structures to substantial risks associated with fire would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Pursuant to State law and local regulations, residents of developments within the Plan area would be required to dispose of household hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, paint , etc.) at a permitted household hazardous waste collection facility. Similarly, any other developments in the area proposing land uses with the potential for use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials also would be required to comply with applicable fede ral, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the Project’s potenti al to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Impacts related to hazardous material use and the potential to encounter hazardous materials or waste during construction is specific to each development within the Plan area and would occur only at the subject development site. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous material use or the presence of hazardous materials or waste would have no potential to contribute to effects of cumulative project’s Impacts.
Development within the Plan area could involve the emission or handling of hazardous materials within
0.25-mile of an existing school and the planned school site. Hazardous materials used during construction activities and within the operation of commercial uses would be required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations regarding transport, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials resulting in a less than significant impact. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact.
During construction and operation, the development within the PVSP would be required to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles. Compliance with City standards, codes, and ordinances, and implementation MMs would reduce impacts related to emergency access and evacuation to less than significant. MM HAZ- 3 would ensure adequate access during project construction. Any future development or other cumulative projects would be required to comply with the same standards and regulations regarding emergency access and would have access to the similar evacuation routes and, as such, cumulatively considerable impacts would not occur. 32 The PVSP development and all other future area developments and projects near to USAF Plant 42 Airport (with planned future commercial use as Palmdale Regional Airport) would be required to comply with FAA regulations to reduce aviation hazards if located with the airports influence zone. I mpacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
There are no wildlands near or adjacent to the Plan area and the surrounding area is either developed, bare, or comprised of desert scrub vegetation that has a fairly low level of combustion due to the type and spacing of the plants. Once developed the Plan area would be an urban environment with landscaping, parks, roads, and buildings and limited flammable vegetation. As such, cumulatively significant impacts associated with wildland fires would not occur.
H. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
The thresholds of significance for hydrology/water quality impacts are listed in Section 3.9 , Hydrology/Water Quality, on pages 3.9-11 and 3.9-12 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.9-12 through3.9-16.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction
Construction activities within the Plan area would involve clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, landscaping activities and the building of various structures, which would generate potential water quality pollutants with the potential to adversely affect water quality. The types of potential impacts and activities/materials are detailed in the Draft EIR on pages 3.9-12 through 3.9-14. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction activities associated with development within the Plan area in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Compliance with existing regulations and the implementation of best management practices associated with a NPDES Construction General Permit would ensure that impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
Stormwater pollutants commonly associated with the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan commonly include bacterial indicators, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash/debris, and oil/grease. Stormwater would be collected by roadway curbs and gutters and conveyed into the Plan area’s onsite drainage system. Each completed development would be required to comply with the Lancaster Stormwater Management Plan and the Lancaster Master Plan of Drainage and the associated design requirements, codes, and practic es for control of stormwater runoff water quality. However, the potential for stormwater pollutants to enter the stormwater system could potentially violate water quality standard; therefore, Mitigation Measure WQ-1 (Stormwater Quality Plan) is required to reduce impacts related to potential water quality violations.
The Specific Plan would not include any groundwater wells and water for future developments in the Plan area would be supplied by Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40 . Therefore, impacts related to 33 conflicts with water quality control plan s or sustainable groundwater management plan s would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Developments within the Plan area would not directly extract groundwater as no ground water wells are would be installed in the Plan area. Water for the future projects would be supplied by Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40, which relies on a mix of purchased water, groundwater, and recycled water for their retail supply. Estimated water demand for the full build out of the PVSP is 3,192 acre feet per year (AFY) based on the latest water supply assessment ( WSA) dated November 2025. Based on the WSA , projected increased water demands due to anticipated population growth in the area can be met by District 40 water production rights using imported water, groundwater, and recycled water, and in the event of dry years use of banked groundwater supplies. Therefore, The PVSP would not substantially affect groundwater supplies in the groundwater basin and would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Although development of the Plan area would increase impervious surfaces and decrease surface infiltration, there is little recharge of the underlying ground water aquifers from the Plan area. The future development would not remove existing groundwater infiltration basins and, as such, would not decrease recharge of groundwater basin through operations of the Water Supply Stabilization Project or the Eastside Water Banking and Blending Project. Therefore , the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to groundwater recharge.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing or proposed stormwater drainage systems or create flooding off site.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Specific Plan would allow for the development of the Plan area and would ultimately convert the plan area from a vacant, permeable surface that could accommodate water infiltration to a planned community that would include large amounts of impermeable s urfaces such as roads, paved areas, and roofs. This would result in increased storm water runoff due to development . Stormwater drainage for the Plan area would be designed and implemented consistent with requirements of the Lancaster Stormwater Management Plan and the Lancaster Master Plan of Drainage. Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-2 (Hydrology Study) is required to allow for proper design of the drainage system structures.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
34 Facts in Support of Findings:
Existing drainage up- and downstream of the PVSP area consists of Armargosa Creek. Armargosa Creek is an ephemeral creek that currently crosses northwards across the southwestern portion of the Plan area.
Adjacent to and across the Plan area, Amargosa Creek has been undergrounded and crosses the area within a buried culvert. No other significant drainage features cross or are near the Plan area. The Specific Plan proposes to use the area above the undergrounded Armargosa Creek channel as an open space with parks and for storm flow conveyance. Therefore, alterations to the drainage pattern of the upstream area would be less than significant as the buried channel for Amargosa Creek would not be affected by the PVSP site development and remain in its current location and continue to be used for drainage from the creek.
Potential Impact : The proposed project could place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Most of the Plan area lies in an area determined by FEMA to be outside a designated flood hazard zone except a narrow area along Armargosa Creek that is within a mapped special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent (100 -year) annual chance flood (FEMA, 2008). However, Armargosa Creek was undergrounded across the Plan area 2008/2009 and there is currently no active surface channel within the Plan area that could result in surface flooding or inundation. Additionally, the area above the Amargosa Creek buried channel cannot have structures placed on it and this area would have primarily park land uses and open space connections for pedestrian and non -motorized mobility, and storm flow conveyance. Therefore, there the PVSP would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and impacts would be less than significant.
Project Impact: The proposed project could subject the site to inundation by seiches, tsunami, or mudflow.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
No significant bodies of water with dams are located upstream of the Plan area that would have potential to result in inundation of the Plan area due to dam failure. Additionally, as the Plan area is not located in close proximity to any large water bodies, impacts associated with a seiche would be unlikely. The PVSP site is not near the coast and would not be subject to tsunamis. The Plan area is flat to gently sloping and is not near any slopes that generate mudslides. Therefore, the Project would not be subject to inundation by dam failures, seiches, tsunami, or mudflow . No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Project Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
35 Facts in Support of Findings:
Surface water
Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality include the impacts of the Specific Plan together with cumulative projects within the Lancaster Hydrologic Unit with the Antelope Valley . These cumulative projects have the potential to contribute to cumulative hydrologic and water quality impacts including the introduction of new or exacerbation of existing pollutant generation associated with construction and operation and could contribute to increased runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Cumula tive projects that are crossed by watercourses could generate flooding, with similar flooding impacts as described for the Specific Plan.
All foreseeable future projects in the Antelope Valley would be subject to similar measures as the proposed project when obtaining the required permits that implement compliance with local, state and federal clean water regulations and stormwater and drainage plans and regulations. As all projects would go through an environmental review process, they would be subject to similar mitigation measures as those within the Plan area . Individual cumulative project impacts related to drainage and flooding are expected to be reduced to less than significant through compliance with regulations and mitigation.
Therefore, the combined effects to water quality and drainage flow from the cumulative projects within the geographic scope would not be considerable. All foreseeable future projects in the Antelope Valley would be subject to similar measures as the proposed p roject when obtaining the required permits that implement compliance with local, state and federal clean water regulations and stormwater and drainage plans and regulations. As all projects would go through an environmental review process, they would be subject to similar mitigation measures as those proposed to address potential water quality impacts for the Plan area. Individual cumulative project impacts related to drainage and flooding are expected to be reduced to less than significant through compliance with regulations and mitigation. Therefore, the combined effects to water quality and drainage flow from the cumulative projects within the geographic scope would not be considered cumulatively significant and the proposed Project would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.
The Specific would not place housing or other occupied structures within a regulated 100 -year special flood hazard zone nor would it make a considerable contribution to flood impacts at other project sites.
Groundwater
The ground water is an adjudicated basin with limits on groundwater production rights. No groundwater pumping or placement of wells would occur within the Plan area as all water would be obtained from Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40. Therefore, impacts from groundwater withdrawal would be less than significant for all projects and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING AND RECREATION
The thresholds of significance for land use and planning and recreation impacts are listed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning and Recreation, on pages 3.10-9 through 3.10-11 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.10-11 through 3.10-14.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could conflict with local, regional, or state land use plans, policies, or regulations.
36 Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
As described in detailed in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR, the Parkway Village Specific plan would be consistent with the City of Lancaster Municipal Code, General Plan, and the SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS.
There would be a less than significant impact with respect to land use as a result of the implementation of the Plan. As such, impacts associated with consistency with adopted plans would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could increase use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities resulting in substantial physical deterioration of the facility.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Parkway Village Specific Plan includes several Planning Areas that would include six Neighborhood Parks, six Linear/Trail System Parks, a Community Park, and a Plaza area. These parks would provide amenities to the residential development that would be permitted within the Plan area. Additionally, the plan allows for the development of a new aquatics center in the Town Center District which would be available for use by residents throughout the Antelope Valley. Individual residential developments would also be required to provide both public and private open space. With the forecasted growth expected in the City, consistent with SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS growth for the region, it is anticipated that the existing neighborhood and regional parks in the vicinity of the Plan area would experience physical deterioration of their facilities. However, as discussed previously, future development in the Plan area would be required to comply with and be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could result in the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Plan proposes several parks and recreational facilities that would be designed in accordance with the design standards of Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan . The Plan area is infill land located within the central portion of the C ity that has been previously disturbed and is surrounded by existing development. The recreational uses include the construction of many pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle recreational amenities that aim to fulfill the City’s goals of planning for an active community. The impacts of constructing and operating the recreational amenities is discussed throughout the Draft EIR as these amenities are part of the development that would be permitted under the Specific Plan. One of the benefits of planning for recreational uses, that do not include the use of petroleum-based vehicles, is the reduction in GHGs that would result in healthier air quality and promotes individuals to pursue a healthy, active lifestyles. Furthermore, as outlined in Chapter 5 of the Plan, the proposed parks and g reen spaces would include the planting of trees and vegetation that would attract wildlife to the area and sequester GHGs such as CO
2. More detailed discussions of potential air quality, biological and hydrological impacts associated with the construction of future recreational facilities are addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.4, Biological Resources; and Section 3.9, Hydrology-Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Finally, all 37 future development of recreational facilities in the Plan area would be required to comply with all local, regional, and state regulations that are established to reduce impacts that would otherwise have adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, the Specific Plan would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the construction of future recreational facilities.
Project Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative land use/planning and recreation impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
As discussed previously, the Specific Plan is a project of regional significance according to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206. SCAG is responsible for addressing and evaluating all cumulative projects to determine each project’s level of significance in the region. As stated above, implementation of the Specific Plan would be consistent with the regional plans, including the 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, that address projected growth patterns in the region. Furthermore, all future projects in the Plan’s v icinity would be evaluated for consistencies with the established goals, policies, regulations and guidelines of the City’s GP 2030 and Municipal Code. Therefore, approval of the Land Use and Zone changes proposed would not result in cumulative impacts associated with land use and growth forecasts in the Plan area, as well as future recreational facilities that would accompany the development of the Plan area.
J. NOISE AND VIBRATION
The thresholds of significance for noise and vibration impacts are listed in Section 3 .11, Noise and Vibration, on page s 3.11-15 through 3.11-17 of the D raft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages
3.11-17 through 3.11-30.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could generate a substantial temporary construction -related increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending upon the nature or phase (e.g., demolition/land clearing, grading, excavation, etc.) of construction. Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.
Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the initial site preparatio n phase tended to involve the most amount of equipment.
Construction would be temporary, episodic, and occur at various locations throughout the Plan area.
Typical noise levels associated with construction equipment are summarized in Table 3.11-10 of the Draft EIR and indicates that the instantaneous noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment typically range from approximately 78 to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Utilizing the loudest pieces of equipment, construction noise could be up to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet; 38 Depending on the location and site design of individual projects, construction activities could occur within 50 feet of existing noise-sensitive land uses which could potentially exceed the City’s applicable exterior noise standard of 80 dBA Lmax for residential uses. All construction activities are required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance which limits the hours during which construction can occur Monday through Saturday and prohibits construction on Sundays. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI -1 (Reduce Short- Term Construction Noise) is required and explained in detail on pages 3.11 -18 and 3.11-19 of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the mitigation measure was modified in response to a comments received to include requirements for noise barriers during construction. This modification is included in the Final EIR and the MMRP prepared and adopted for the Specific Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -1, construction impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could generate a substantial permanent increase in non - transportation ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Residential Land Uses
The Specific Plan includes the development of various residential land uses such as single -family, condominiums/apartments, townhomes, duplexes, and live/work units. Exterior noise sources commonly associated with residential developments include air conditioning units which operate within a range of 50-75 dBA Leq at 3 feet. In accordance with the City of Lancaster Municipal Code and the development standards of the Specific Plan, all HVAC and ground/roof-mounted equipment is required to be screened from view which would ensure that the noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses would not exceed the City’s minimum exterior noise standard of 65 dBA. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Commercial Land Uses
The Specific Plan includes the development of various commercial, park, and educational land uses. Noise sources commonly associated with these land uses include commercial air conditioning units/chillers, mechanical equipment (e.g., trash compactors, generators), material unloading and loading activities , outdoor recreational noise, and noise associated with parking lots such as car alarms . Noise levels commonly associated with these sources are discussed in detail on pages 3.11-19 through 3.11-22 of the Draft EIR.
As discussed in the Draft EIR, noise levels would be expected for different types of activities and mechanical equipment. Depending on the final design of specific developments , the type of activity occurring, the proximity to nearby noise-sensitive land uses, and the size of proposed parking areas, noise levels could potentially exceed the City’s exterior and interior noise standards at the nearest existing land uses. As a result, this potential impact would b e considered significant. The Draft EIR require ments the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2 (Reduce Long- Term Noise Exposure from Stationary Equipment). This mitigation measure requires the preparation of an acoustical analysis for each proposed commercial land use to ensure potential impacts to nearby sensitive land uses would be less than the City standards. This mitigation measure was also modified in response to comments received on the Draft EIR with the updated measure identified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 39 Program adopted for the Specific Plan. With implementation of MM Noi- 2, impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could generate a substantial permanent increase in transportation-related ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
As depicted in Table 3.11-12 of the Draft EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased traffic noise levels of up to 1.7 dBA CNEL along 10 th Street West with smaller predicted increases along other area roadways . As a result, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in substantial increases in traffic noise levels (i.e., 3 dBA, or greater) along area roadways. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
The compatibility of proposed land uses with roadway traffic noise was determined based on predicted traffic noise levels for future -year buildout conditions with implementation of the proposed Plan.
Predicted future -year traffic noise levels and distances to projected traffic noise contours for area roadways are depicted in Table 3.11 -12 of the Draft EIR. As depicted in Table 3.11 -12, predicted future- year traffic noise levels would range from approximately 58 to 75 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the near- travel-lane centerline of nearby roadways. As depicted in Figure 3.11 -1 and provided in Table 3.11 -13, predicted roadway traffic noise levels along the Plan area boundaries could reach levels of approximately 70 dBA CNEL, or more. Depending on the final site design, traffic noise levels at proposed onsite land uses could potentially exceed the City’s noise standards for land use compatibility (Refer to Table 3.11-6). As a result, this impact would be considered significant. Mitigation Measure NOI -3 (Land Use Comp atibility Acoustical Analysis) would require an acoustical analysis for proposed residential uses to ensure that they fall within the 65 dBA noise contour and to include design features/noise -reduction measures into the proposed developments to ensure cons istency with the required noise levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3, impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could generate excess groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to development within the Plan area are primarily associated with short -term construction activities. Construction activities associated with individual developments in the Plan area would require the use of various types of construction equipment that may result in intermittent increases in groundborne vibration levels. However, the use of major groundborne vibration-generating construction equipment/processes (i.e., blasting, pile driving) is not anticipated to be required for the construction of future on -site land uses. Groundborne vibration levels commonly associated with construction equipment are summarized in Table 3.11-14 of the Draft EIR.
Groundborne vibration levels generated by construction equipment would be approximately 0.089 in/sec ppv, or less, at 25 feet which could potentially exceed the threshold for human annoyance of 0.2 in/sec 40 ppv at approximately 13 feet and the threshold for potential structure damage of 0.5 in/sec ppv at approximately 6 feet from construction activities. Major construction activities involving the use of heavy- duty off-road equipment would not be anticipated to occur within 6 feet of existing occupied structures.
As a result, construction activities would not exceed the commonly applied threshold for structural damage of 0.5 in/sec ppv. However, predicted vibration levels at the nearest occupied structures located within 13 feet of onsite construction activities could potentially exceed the commonly applied criteria for the human annoyance of 0.2 in/sec ppv. As a result, construction of the PVSP could result in result in increased levels of annoyance to occupants of nearby structures. With regard to existing residential land uses and the existing motel, increases in groundborne vibration levels during the more sensitive nighttime hours could result in increased levels of sleep disruption . As a result, this poten tial impact would be considered significant. However, the Lancaster Municipal Code limits the hours of construction to daytime hours Monday through Saturday and prohibits construction on Sundays. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would also be required. Compliance with the City’s municipal code and the identified mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or private-use airport, that exposes people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Findings: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The PVSP area is not located within two miles of a public airport or private use airstrip. The nearest airport/airstrip is the Palmdale Airport/USAF Plant 42 which is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site. As depicted in Figure 3.11-2 of the Draft EIR, the Plan area is located within the Palmdale Airport planning boundary and portions of the Plan area are located within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the airport (Draft EIR Figure 3.11 -3). Predicted exterior aircraft noise levels at these pro posed land uses could exceed the City’s exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL. In addition, these land uses could be subject to exterior instantaneous noise levels associated with aircraft overflights that could potentially exceed the City’s applicable noise standards; however, noise from aircraft overflights in a common occurrence across the Antelope Valley.
With regard to aircraft noise, residential land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour would typically be considered incompatible if predicted interior noise levels would exceed 45 dBA CNEL. With compliance with current building insulation standards, ex terior to interior noise levels are typically reduced by approximately 25-30 dBA. Assuming a maximum exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL and a minimum exterior-to-interior reduction of 25 dBA, predicted interior aircraft noise levels would be approximately 40 dBA CNEL, or less. Predicted interior noise levels would not exceed the commonly applied interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Nonetheless, implementation of the proposed Plan could expose workers or residents to aircraft noise levels in excess of th e City’s applicable standards. As a result, this potential impact would be considered significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -3 discussed above, and Mitigation Measure NOI -4 (Require Aviation Easements for Proposed Residential Land Uses) impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative noise and vibration impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
41 Facts in Support of Findings:
Noise levels that result from distant projects are diminished by geometric spreading, ground attenuation, and line-of-sight obstructions as described in Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR. Projects are considered to be too far away when the impacts that they would have on the cumulative noise level in the Plan area are too small to cause a substantial increase in the cumulative noise level.
For onsite construction noise, complying with local regulations and implementing MM NOI -1 would ensure this cumulative impact would remain less than significant. However, increased traffic volumes from cumulative projects, in combination with traffic relat ed to operation of the proposed Plan area, would permanently increase noise levels which may result in a cumulative impact that would be significant. Although project-level mitigation measures would reduce the noise effects of the Plan area and other projects in the vicinity , the Specific Plan, in combination with cumulative projects, would still have the potential to exceed thresholds for noise related to the increase in traffic near sensitive receptors.
As addressed in Section 3.14, Transportation, the proposed Plan would be considered a regionally significant project according to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for addressing and evaluating all cumulative projects to determine each project’s level of significance in the region. Implementation of the PVSP would be consistent with the regional plans, including the 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, that address projected growth patterns in the region. Furthermore, all future projects in the Plan’s vicinity would be evaluated for consistencies with the established goals, policies, regulations and guidelines of the City’s GP 2030 and Municipal Code.
Nonetheless, despite the imposition of mi tigations, the project’s incremental contribution to impacts related to increased ambient noise levels from project-related traffic on the Plan’s vicinity roadways could be cumulatively considerable.
All identified noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant with the imposition of mitigation measures MM NOIS 1 through MM NOIS 4. The Project’s compliance with existing City of Lancaster General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements , combined with the comprehensive design guidelines and standards incorporated into the Specific Plan, along with the aforementioned mitigation measures would ensure that potential noise and vibrational impacts are minimized. The Project would temporarily and permanently alter the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the site but would do so in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted standards for the various land uses and would incorporate design features to minimize adverse effects related to noise and vibrations. Therefore, the Specific Plan’s noise and vibration impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
K. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The thresholds of significance for Population and Housing impacts are listed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, on page 3.12-4 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.12-4 and 3.12-5.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
42 The Specific Plan would allow for future development within the Plan Area including up to 4,246 new dwelling units, along with other land uses that would increase the population and employment in the Plan area. The Specific Plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, because the growth is accounted for and consistent with the projections forecasted by SCAG as described in the Draft EIR on page 3.12 -4. Indirectly, extension of roads and development of other infrastructure or facilities cou ld induce population growth; however, the Specific Plan includes housing units to provide for this population growth. Policies identified in the General Plan would ensure that necessary services and infrastructure would be available to accommodate the proposed growth. Therefore, impacts would not be signi ficant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Finding: The City hereby adopts Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Plan Area includes mostly vacant land, with some existing housing units, including a Sierra Retirement Village and the supportive housing development. The existing land uses within the Plan Area will not change and therefore no people or housing would be displaced. The Plan allows for up to 4,246 new dwelling units, which would accommodate projected growth identified by SCAG. Additionally, a variety of residential housing types provides opportunity for a range of household sizes and income levels to locate in the Plan Area. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative population and housing impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 , the proposed Specific Plan would be a project of regional significance. Implementation of the Specific Plan would be consistent with regional plans, including the 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, that address projected population and housing growth patterns in the region. All development within the Plan area would be evaluated on a project -by-project basis for consistencies with the established goals, policies, regulations and guidelines of the City’s GP 2030 and Municipal Code. Additionally, the RHNA calls for an increase in housing in the City of Lancaster, which would be implemented through development in the Specific Plan Area. As previously discussed, there would be no substantial unplanned population growth in the area, because the population growth is planned for, and development in the Plan area would not cumulatively contribute to cumulative projects’ impacts. Additionally, there would be no displacement of existing people and housing, since all existing uses would remain. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts associated with population and housing.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The thresholds of significance for public services, utilities and service system impacts are listed in Section
3.13, Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems, on page 3.13-14 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.13-15 through 3.13-22.
43 Potential Impact: The proposed project could cause substantial adverse physical effects associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities were fully analyzed on pages 3.13-15 through 3.13-17 of the Draft EIR. This discussion determined that all services could be provided to the future developments within the Parkway Village Specific Plan in accordance with existing procedures of the individual agencies and compliance with State and local regulations. As such, all impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could relocate or construct new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Findings: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Water
The Water Supply Assessment (dated November 2025) prepared for the project indicated that water was available to serve the Plan area. Development associated with the buildout of the Parkway Village Specific Plan would increase water demand and the need for new water supply, storage, and transmission facilities. For new development projects to receive water service, the projects will be subject to an agreement with Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40, together with any and all applicable fees, charges, plans, and specifications. New development is required to install adequately sized water mains to provide domestic service and meet fire flow requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Wastewater
The Lancaster Wastewater Reclamation Plan currently processes an average recycled water flow of 13.9 million gallons per day (MGD) with a capacity of 18 mgd. Developments would connect to local City sewer lines for conveyance to Sanitation District trunk lines and the treatment plant. Individual d evelopments would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure that there is sufficient wastewater treatment capacity available to serve the development. New developments would only be allowed to connect to the City’s sewer systems if there is sufficient capacity or planned expansions of its facilities to accommodate new developments proposed. Therefore, new development would not be permitted to exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance systems or treatment fa cilities, since adequate capacity must be demonstrated in order to contribute flows to the system.
Electric Power
Lancaster Energy would provide electricity to the Plan Area, and SCE power lines would deliver it to the site. Lancaster Energy and SCE anticipate providing sufficient energy to meet new and existing demand. 44 Due to continued growth in the City, power transmission lines and electrical infrastructure would be necessary to be extended in accordance with SCE’s projected development demands. Development under the proposed Plan would be reviewed on a project by -project basis to determine project- specific SCE service requirements. Therefore, impacts would not be significant in this regard. Further, policies in the City’s General Plan, and design guidelines in the Specific Plan have been identified that would further reduce energy consumption through energy conservation.
Natural Gas
Natural gas service to the Plan area is provided by SoCalGas. Buildout of the PVSP would result in an increase in demand for natural gas supplies and service, due to an increase in population and service square footage. The availability of natural gas supp lies is evaluated on a project -by-project basis, based on the current conditions at that time. Development under the PVSP would be reviewed on a project-by- project basis to determine project-specific SoCalGas service requirements. Proposed development within the boundaries of the Plan area would be subject to sustainable design practices, which would reduce energy consumption through development of energy -conserving buildings and required solar energy systems. Given that there is sufficient supply currently, supply would grow as a response to development, and the demand for energy would be reduced, impacts would be less than significant to natural gas resources.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could impact the availability of sufficient water supplies to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Development within the boundaries of the Plan area would increase water demand and the need for new water supply, storage, and transmission facilities. A water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Specific Plan on behalf of Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40, the water supplier for the Plan area.
The WSA dated November 2025 identifies the estimated water demand for the Specific Plan as 3,913 acre feet/year (AFY). District 40’s existing water demand is 45,818 AFY, and it is expected to grow to 66,300 AFY by 2045.
The WSA presents District 40’s normal water year scenario, which shows that the water demands for the PVSP of 3,913 AFY could be accommodated within the estimated system wide supply. This indicates that the demand for water would not be an issue in a normal water year scenario.
In a single -dry year scenario, based on the driest year on record in the area, and a multiple -dry year scenario, based on five consecutive dry years, District 40 determined that the demand for water can be met by pumping groundwater from its banked supplie s, and no supply deficit is anticipated for either scenario. The WSA states that although there are supplies to meet demands, District 40’s water supply is very near the limit of what the region is able to accommodate, and that the development related to the Specific Plan will add stress to an already stressed supply.
The Specific Plan places an emphasis on water conservation in its design guidelines, which would reduce the stress on the water supply. The LACWD currently assesses a fee per billing unit for each new development in the district to fund construction of projects that would assist in water supply, including 45 expansion of the recycled water system, construction of a groundwater bank, and additional groundwater wells. Other potential options to increase water supply include developing or expanding groundwater storage programs, and acquiring new imported water supplies, or by participating with other State Water Project contractors. Site -specific development projects wou ld be required to coordinate with the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 to ensure that transmission capacity and adequate storage would be available or planned to support the development, and if necessary, provide the improvements required to serve the project. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could impact the capacity to the serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the wastewater service provider’s existing commitments.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Lancaster Wastewater Reclamation Plant (LWRP) currently provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment with a design capacity of 18 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD). Currently, the LWRP processes an average recycled water flow of 13.9 MGD. Therefore, there is excess capacity of approximately 4 million gallons of wastewater a day. Developments in the Plan area would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure that there is sufficient wastewater treatment capacity available to serve the development. New developments would only be allowed to connect to the City’s sewer systems if there is sufficient capacity or planned expansions of its facilities to accommodate new developments ..
Therefore, new development would not be permitted to exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance systems or treatment facilities, since adequate capacity must be demonstrated in order to contribute flows to the system, and impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or other impairment to the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The full buildout of the Plan area would generate approximately 21,262 tons of solid waste per year, in addition to the solid waste already generated in the City. The Plan area is served by two landfills, each estimated to operate until 2044. The two landfills that serve the Plan area have a combined capacity of 3,886,520 tons per year, which is several orders of magnitude greater than the solid waste expected to be generated by the projects within the Plan area. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.
Individual development projects within the City would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations with respect to reducing the amount of landfill waste, organics recycling and construction/demolition recycling. Therefore, the Plan would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure and impacts would be less than significant.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could create impacts with respect to compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 46 Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
All new development projects would be required to comply with f ederal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The City’s General Plan and Municipal Code include policies to reduce solid waste generation and disposal at landfills, which includes compliance with state-mandated policies.
Additionally, future development projects resulting from the implementation of the Specific Plan would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure that solid waste disposal services and landfill facilities would be available to serve the development. As discussed above, there is sufficient capacity to serve the planned development. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts in this regard.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative public service, utilities, and service system impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Cumulative effects related to public services, utilities, and service systems are analyzed in terms of the service areas of the providers serving the Plan area, which includes the City of Lancaster. The PVSP and development projects in the cumulative scenario, presented in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR, together, could increase demand for public services and utilities in the City of Lancaster. This has the potential to result in a significant cumulative impact on public services and utilities. However, as described in the Draft EIR on pages 3.13-15 through 3.13-21, the public service providers and utilities/service systems have adequate capacity to serve development within the Plan area. Impacts to the individual service providers (fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, recreation) and utilities (water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste disposal) were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the project’s impacts to public services, utilities and service systems would not be cumulatively considerable.
M. TRANSPORTATION
The thresholds of significance for transportation impacts are listed in Section 3 .14, Transportation, on pages 3.14-16 and 3.14-17 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.14-17 through 3.14-
18. Potential Impact: The proposed project could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Draft EIR analyzed the Specific Plan’s potential to impact programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to transportation on pages 3.14 -17 and 3.14 -18. The Parkway Village Specific Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies presented in the Plan for Physical Mobility component of the City of Lancaster General Plan and the Lancaster Master Plan of Complete Streets. The Specific Plan provides 47 an internal street network that would accommodate the traveling demands of the residents, employees, customers, and visitors of the proposed land uses and the street network is designed to accommodate vehicular travel as well as the pedestrian and bicycle active transportation modes.
Regarding transit, the existing network of bus routes and the proximity of the Owen Memorial Park transit center to the Plan area would provide opportunities for the residents, employees, customers, and visitors of the Specific Plan land uses to conveniently use public transit as an alternative travel mode. In addition, the Specific Plan offers the option of providing a transit hub which would further encourage the use of public transportation. As such impacts would be less than significant and no mitigatio n measures would be required.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative transportation impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
The Specific Plan is a project of regional significance according to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206.
SCAG is responsible for addressing and evaluating all cumulative projects to determine each project’s level of significance in the region. As stated above, implementation of the PVSP w ould be consistent with the regional plans, including the 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, that address projected growth patterns in the region. Furthermore, all future projects in the Plan’s vicinity would be evaluated for con sistencies with the established goals, policies, regulations, and guidelines of the City’s General Plan 2030 and Lancaster Municipal Code as well regulations governed by Caltrans. Therefore, implementation of the PVSP would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts associated with transportation in the Plan area.
N. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The thresholds of significance for tribal cultural resources impacts are listed in Section 3.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, on page 3.15-5 of the Draft EIR. Impact analyses were detailed on pages 3.15-6 and 3.15-7.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could cause a significant impact to a Tribal Cultural Resource, Native American sanctified, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9; 21074(a)(1); and 5024.1(c)).
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
No Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places were identified during formal government to government consultation. Therefore, there is no reasonable potential for the Project’s activities to impact known Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places . However, the plan area was identified as being sensitive for unknown buried resources. As with any project that involves ground-disturbing activity, it is possible that unknown buried resources that qualify as Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places may be encountered. These unanticipated discoveries could be significantly impacted without mitigation in place. 48 Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 through MM CUL-5 will ensure a less-than- significant impact to unanticipated resources.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could cause a significant impact to Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1 or local register of historic resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, or any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
No Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places that are listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1 or local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code S ection 5020.1(k ) were identified during formal government to government consultation. Therefore, there is no reasonable potential for the Plan’s activities to impact known Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places that are listed or may be eligible for listin g in the California Register of Historic Resources or local register of historical resources.
It is possible that unknown buried resources that qualify as Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places eligible for listing in the state or local register maybe encountered. These unanticipated discoveries could be significantly impacted without mitigation in place. Therefore, implementation of MM CUL -1 through CUL-5 will ensure a less-than-significant impact to unanticipated resources.
Potential Impact: The proposed project could cause a significant impact to a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c).
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Findings:
No resources determined by the City to qualify as a Tribal Cultural Resource or Cultural Place was identified during formal government to government consultation . Therefore, there is no reasonable potential for the Project’s activities to impact known Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places. The Plan area was identified as being sensitive for unknown buried resources. As with any project that involves ground-disturbing activity, it is possible that unknown buried resources that qualify as Tribal Cultural Resources or Cultural Places eligible for listing in the state or local register maybe encountered . These unanticipated discoveries could be significantly imp acted without mitigation in place. Therefore, implementation of MM CUL -1 through MM CUL -5 will ensure a less than significant impact to unanticipated resources.
Potential Impact: The proposed project, in conjunction with other related projects, could result in a significant cumulative tribal cultural resource impacts.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1.
49 Facts in Support of Findings:
Impacts to Cultural Places and Tribal Cultural Resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site- by-site basis. The Plan would require implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5, which will lessen the overall impact to unknown buried cultural resources, including those that could be evaluated as Cultural Places or Tribal Cultural Resources. As identified in Table 3.1-1 of the Draft EIR, the cumulative projects that are within the geographic extent for Cultural Places and Tribal Cultural Resources include 28 identified projects which generally include commercial residential buildings, gas station development, and industrial buildings. It is assumed that these projects have, or will have, CEQA clearance which in most cases involves t he identification of Tribal Cultural Resources which can include Cultural Places. These projects all likely involve ground disturbing activity to some degree that have the potential to impact buried cultural resources, some of which could be evaluated as Cultural Places or Tribal Cultural Resources, and it is assumed that each project will implement similar inadvertent discovery mitigation measures to reduce impacts to buried unknown resources. Therefore, implementation of the PVSP would not contribute any additional or cumulative impacts to Cultural Places or Tribal Cultural Resources and no additional mitigation is required.
6. FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIR The CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR must “[d]escribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a).) Accordingly, the alternatives selected for review in the Draft EIR focus on alternatives that could eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance, consistent with the project’s objectives (i.e., the alternatives could impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, but still would enable the project to obtain its basic objectives.). Three alternatives to the proposed project were considered in the Draft EIR, as follows:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Development;
• Alternative 2: No Project/Development Under Existing Zoning; • Alternative 3: All Residential
Each of these alternatives was considered in terms of their ability to reduce significant impacts of the proposed project, their feasibility, and the ability to achieve the project’s objectives. The project’s objectives are as follows:
• Provide a range of residential, commercial, recreational, office, and medical uses within an underutilized area in the central portion of the City of Lancaster. • Provide a variety of housing types and styles, including those not typically found in the City of Lancaster, ranging from conventional single -family homes and detached cluster homes to townhomes and apartments.
• Provide business and employment opportunities to promote a strong and diversified economy.
• Incorporate a variety of parks, paseos, parkways, trails, and open space features that serve the recreational needs of community residents.
50 • Use the existing Amargosa Creek channel alignment as open space connections for pedestrian and non-motorized mobility, and storm flow conveyance. • Accommodate the expansion of medical -related and health and wellness uses on property under the current ownership of Kaiser Permanente. • Establish a distinctive community character through place-making elements.
A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3)). This section identifies alternatives considered by the Lead Agency, but rejected as infeasible, and provides a brief explanation of the reasons for their exclusion. As noted above, alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)).
In the Draft EIR, three alternatives were considered but subsequently rejected as infeasible. These alternatives are described below.
Alternative Site
An alternative location for the development of the specific plan was considered and ultimately dismissed.
There are no other large, vacant land areas within the central urban core of the City that could be considered for this type of development. There are many scattered undeveloped, smaller parcels throughout the urban core which could be developed; however, these parcels are not of suitable size or in proximity to one another to create a cohesive, master planned community. Additionally, a large area of land bound by 8
th Street West, Sierra Highway, Avenue L, and Avenue M is undeveloped. While these parcels are currently undeveloped ;, many of them have been entitled with large distribution facilities, general industrial uses, and solar fields making them unavailable and unsuitable for residential development.
All Commercial
The City considered allowing for the development of the entire Plan area with commercial uses similar to what is currently allowed under the Amargosa Creek Specific Plan. This alternative would have allowed for the development of up to 9,467,766 square feet of commercial space (based on 50% lot coverage permitted by the Lancas ter Municipal Code). This amount of commercial is unsustainable in one concentrated location. This assumption is based on the limited amount of commercial development that has occurred within the Amargosa Creek Specific Plan area over the previous 17 years. Additionally, the alternative would not assist the City in meeting it s Regional Housing Needs Assessment ( RHNA) numbers/housing needs.
Industrial Development
The City considered allowing for the development of the entire Plan area with industrial uses to provide additional employment opportunities for City and area residents and to help meet the current demand for large industrial parcels. This alternative was ultimately dismissed due to the close proximity of existing sensitive receptors (e.g., church, park, residences, etc.) to the Plan area. 51 B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT EIR
The following three alternatives were selected for further analysis in the Draft EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Development;
• Alternative 2: No Project/Development Under Existing Zoning; and • Alternative 3: All Residential
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines , “the no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions …, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.”
1 The CEQA Guidelines continue to state that “in certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” 2 The No Project/No Development Alternative includes a discussion and analysis of the existing baseline conditions at the time the NOP was published on February 27, 2024. The No Project scenario is described and analyzed to enable the decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Under this alternative, the project area would remain in its current condition and no development would occur.
Under this alternative, no impacts to aesthetics/visual resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology/soils/paleontology, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality , land use planning, noise/vibration, public services/utilities, and tribal cultural resources. No impacts to air quality would occur; however, dust would continue to be an issue as a result of a large area that is sparsely vegetated.
Additionally, while there would be no impacts to recreation, population and housing or transportation; none of the positive benefits from the adoption of the Specific Plan would occur either. Benefits such as increased recreational opportunities, additiona l housing stock and types, and increased pedestrian/alternative transportation amenities would not occur under this alternative.
Finding: While Alternative 1 would have less environmental impacts than the proposed project, it would not achieve any of the project’s objectives. The City therefore finds that Alternative 1 is not preferable to the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE 2: NO PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXISTING ZONING Under Alternative 2, development would occur on a project -by-project basis in accordance with the existing zoning. The area currently zoned as Specific Plan 07 -01 (SP 07-01; Amargosa Creek Specific Plan) would ultimately be developed with a mix of commercial uses and the hos pital/medical uses for Kaiser Permanente. A small strip located between Avenue K and Avenue K- 8, which is currently zoned Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N), would be developed predominantly with residential uses. The
1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2).
2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B).
52 remainder of the PVSP area is currently zoned Mixed-Use Employment (MU-E). The intent of the existing zoning is to provide non-retail employment uses in close proximity to multi-family residential uses.
Under this alternative, similar impacts to the proposed project would be expected to occur as development would occur under the current zoning of MU -N, MU-E, and the Amargosa Creek Specific Plan. The expected impacts are summarized by resource area below.
Aesthetics/Visual
Development under Alternative 2 would likely result in similar impacts to aesthetics when compared to development under the Specific Plan . While the Specific Plan includes design guidelines to ensure a cohesive look throughout the area, development under this alternative would be required to comply with the City’s design guidelines and objective design standards for residential uses. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts to aesthetics compared to the Specific Plan, although the impacts would still be less than significant.
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
Construction activities, or any new associated ground -disturbing activities would be similar to those allowed under the implementation of the Specific Plan and would cause similar sources of air pollutant emissions. Development under this alternative would be subject to the same federal, State, and local regulations, and as such, projects would develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts from temporary construction emissions and operational emissions from vehicle trips and energy generation similar to the Specific Plan. Since there would be similar sources of air pollutant emissions, and similar mitigation measures implemented, impacts would be similar to the PVSP.
Biological Resources
Construction activities would be similar to activities allowed under the Specific Plan , and would cause similar impacts to biological resources, such as impacts to special status plant and wildlife species. All projects developed in the region would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Projects developed under this alternative would develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Cultural Resources
Construction and ground-disturbing activities under this alternative would be similar to those that would occur under the Specific Plan , causing potential impacts to unknown buried cultural resources. Projects developed under this alternative would be required to develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts. Therefore, impacts for implementation of this alternative would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Energy
All development would be subject to a pplicable local, regional, and state standards, laws, policies, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Lancaster 2030 General Plan and Municipal Code , related to energy efficiency. Additionally, all development is required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, which includes measures to ensure energy efficiency. However, the additional development standards of the Specific Plan would not apply and impacts of implementing this alternative may be slightly greater for energy resources when compared to the Specific Plan. 53 Geology, Soils and Paleontology
Development under this alternative would be subject to the same seismic and geologic hazards as development allowed under the Specific Plan. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to impacts under the Specific Plan due to a similar amount of ground disturbance and development, causing potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources. Impacts would be mitigated to a less -than- significant level for the Specific Plan , and similarly, projects developed under this alternative would be required to develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
All development would be subject to existing regulations related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, implementation of emergency response plans, and fire safety standards. There would be similar development and therefore similar types of construction and amounts of ground disturbance, causing potential impacts related to the release of hazardous materials or unknown contamination. This alternative would result in construction of more commercial uses than the Specific Plan, which could result in increased hazardous material use and storage depending on the type of projects developed. Projects developed under this alternative would be required to develop similar mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar impacts as the Specific Plan related to spills or leaks of hazardous materials and encountering hazardous materials during project construction, but a slightly increased potential for spills or leaks of hazardous materials during project operation.
Hydrology/Water Quality
All development under this alternative would be subject to existing water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, flooding and drainage engineering requirements, and would be similar to development allowed under the Specific Plan, with a slightly different land use mix. Different land uses may consume more or less water, depending on the type of individual development. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Specific Plan , including impacts to stormwater quality, flooding, and drainage. Therefore, this alternative would have similar impacts as the PVSP.
Land Use and Planning, and Recreation
Under this alternative, development would not be focused on achieving the various planning objectives set forth in the Specific Plan . This alternative would have similar impacts as the PVSP, but without the additional design guidance and objectives provided by the PVSP.
Noise and Vibration
Construction activities, or any new associated ground -disturbing activities would be similar to implementation of the Specific Plan and would cause similar levels of noise and vibrations. Projects would develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts, similar to the Specific Plan , such as limiting construction activities to daytime hours, requiring modern equipment, staging equipment, and operational measures such as installing HVAC equipment in shielded areas, requiring acoustical analys es prior to the issuance of construction permits and avigation easements for residential land uses. However, this alternative allows for a greater amount of commercial uses than the Specific Plan, which could result in higher levels of ambient noise above the existing levels; the impact would be slightly greater. Therefore, impacts would be similar or slightly greater than under the Specific Plan, due to similar sources of noise and vibration emissions and similar mitigation measures being implemented. 54 Population and Housing
Under this alternative, development would be consistent with the current General Plan, zoning, and specific plans applicable to the Plan area. Existing zoning would allow for development of less housing than the Specific Plan. This alternative would have similar impacts as the PVSP, but with the provision of less housing.
Public Services and Utilities
Under this alternative , development would be consistent with the current General Plan, zoning, and specific plans applicable to the Plan area. Each project would be evaluated individually to determine how utilities and public services would be provided. Development under this alternative would result in similar impacts to those of the Specific Plan.
Transportation
Under this alternative, development would be guided by existing General Plan policies and zoning. The area would be developed with a variety of mixed use residential and employment land uses, so that employees could live in close proximity to where they work. Impacts would be similar when compared to the Specific Plan, with less benefits related to pedestrian and bike- friendly infrastructure which connect areas of the community and promote alternative modes of transportation.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, the PVSP would not be implemented, and development would occur under existing General Plan policies and zoning. Construction and ground -disturbing activities would be similar to the PVSP, and therefore, impacts would be similar to PVSP.
Finding: Alternative 2 would have similar impacts for most resources as the same amount of ground disturbance would occur and the same regulatory requirements would apply. However, some resources would have slightly increased impacts, such as aesthetics, energy, hazards/hazardous materials and noise, due to the construction and operation of more commercial uses than under the Specific Plan. There would be no impact areas where the impacts were anticipated to be less than under the Specific Plan.
Additionally, this alternative would achieve project objectives to a lesser degree than the proposed project. As such, the City finds this alternative to be less preferable than the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE 3: ALL RESIDENTIAL
Under Alternative 3, 386.6 acres of the PVSP area would be rezoned to allow for a variety of residential uses. The remaining 48.1 acres (owned by Kaiser Permanente) would be zoned Hospital (H) to allow for construction and operation of a proposed hospital and related medical uses. The residential zoning would include R -7,000 (single family residential, minimum lot size 7,000 square feet), R -10,000 (single-family residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet), MDR (moderate-density residential, 8.1- 15 units to the acre), an d HDR (high-density residential, 15.1-30 units to the acre). A maximum of 2,500 residential units would be constructed for an overall density of 6.7 units per acre.
Aesthetics/Visual
Development would be guided by existing General Plan policies and zoning. Impacts to aesthetics would likely be greater when compared to development under the Specific Plan as no cohesive look would be 55 created. All new residential uses would be required to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and recently adopted Objective Design Standards. This alternative would result in greater impacts to aesthetics compared to the PVSP, although the impacts would still be less than significant.
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
Impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Specific Plan, due to similar construction activities.
Construction activities, or any new associated ground -disturbing activities would be similar to activities allowed under the Specific Plan and would cause similar sources of air pollutant emissions. All projects developed in the region would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements, and each project would implement mitigation measures to reduce their impacts. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Biological Resources
Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those under the Specific Plan , due to similar construction activities. All projects developed in the region would need to comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements, and each project would implement mitigation measures to reduce their impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Cultural Resources
Construction and ground -disturbing activities would be similar to the Specific Plan , causing potential impacts to unknown buried cultural resources. Impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level for the Specific Plan, and similarly, projects developed under this alternative would be required to develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts. T herefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Energy
All development would be subject to a pplicable local, regional, and state standards, laws, policies, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Lancaster 2030 General Plan, Municipal Code, and the California Green Building Standards Code related to energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts under this alternative may be slightly greater for energy resources when compared to the Specific Plan.
Geology, Soils and Paleontology
Development under this alternative would be subject to the same regulations and standards for construction as the Specific Plan . There would be a similar amount of ground disturbance and development causing potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources. Impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level for the Specific Plan, and similarly, projects developed under this alternative would be required to develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts.
Therefore, impacts would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
All development under this alternative would be subject to existing regulations related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, implementation of emergency response plans, and fire safety standards. There would be a similar amount of ground disturbance and development, causing potential impacts related to release of hazardous materials or unknown contamination during construction. Projects developed under 56 this alternative would be required to develop similar mitigation measure to avoid significant impacts.
Residential land uses would likely use less hazardous materials compared to commercial land uses, with the residential properties each likely storing and using small amounts of various hazardous materials.
Therefore, this alternative would have similar impacts to the Specific Plan , although perhaps slightly reduced.
Hydrology/Water Quality
All development under this alternative would be subject to existing water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, flood and drainage engineering requirements, and would be similar to development under the Specific Plan, with a different mix of land uses. Different land uses may consume more or less water, depending on the individual project. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Specific Plan, including impacts to stormwater quality and drainage. Projects under this alternative would be required to develop similar mitigation measures as the Specific Plan to avoid impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar impacts to the Specific Plan.
Land Use and Planning, and Recreation
All development under this alternative would be guided by existing General Plan policies and zoning.
Parcels within the Plan area would be rezoned to allow for a variety of housing options including R-7,000 (single family residential minimum lot size 7,000 square feet), R-10,000 (single family residential minimum lot size 10,000 square feet), MDR (moderate density residential), and H DR (high density residential).
Although these developments would contribute to the regional housing needs, this alternative would not provide as many residential units at the Specific Plan and would not achieve the non-housing related objectives set forth in the Specific Plan. This alternative would have similar impacts as the Specific Plan , but without the additional design guidance provided by the PVSP.
Noise and Vibration
All development under this alternative would be guided by existing General Plan policies and zoning.
Construction activities, and any new ground-disturbing activities would be similar to implementation of the Specific Plan and would cause similar levels of noise and vibrations. Projects would develop their own mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts, similar to the Specific Plan. However, due to the lack of commercial land uses in this alternative (with the exception of the Kaiser property ), the permanent increase in noise levels over the existing ambient levels would be slightly less than the Specific Plan but would still be within the City’s noise standards with the imposition of mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the Specific Plan, due to similar sources of noise and vibration emissions.
Population and Housing
All development under this alternative would be guided by existing General Plan policies and zoning. The area would be developed with a variety of housing density options, adding approximately 2,500 units in the City. Although these developments would contribute to the regional housing needs, this alternative would provide less housing units when compared to the buildout of the Specific Plan (4,246 units). This alternative would have similar impacts as the Specific Plan but would have fewer beneficial impacts.
Public Services and Utilities
All development under this alternative would be guided by existing General Plan policies and zoning. The area would be developed with a variety of housing density options, adding approximately 2,500 units, 57 which is less than under the buildout of the Specific Plan. Each project would be evaluated individually to determine how utilities and public services would be provided to each development . Because there are less units proposed, there would be less demand for public services and utilities, and therefore, development under this alternative would result in slightly reduced impacts when compared to the Specific Plan.
Transportation
All development under this alternative would be guided by existing General Plan policies and zoning. The area would be developed with a variety of housing density options, adding approximately 2,500 units, which is less than the Specific Plan . With less housing units, there would be less cars on the roadway accessing the area, and potential impacts would be less when compared to the Specific Plan. Additionally, there would be fewer beneficial impacts related to pedestrian and bike -friendly infrastructure wh ich connect areas of the community and promote alternative modes of transportation.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, construction and ground-disturbing activities would be similar to the Specific Plan, and therefore, impacts would be similar to the Specific Plan.
Finding: The All Residential Alternative would not increase or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts (project-specific and cumulative operational air quality) of the proposed project. While this alternative would result in similar impacts in many topical areas as the proposed project, this alternative would result in slightly increased impacts in regard to aesthetics/visual impacts and energy impacts and result in a slight reduction in impacts with respect to hazardous materials. Further, this alternative would achieve the project objectives to a lesser degree than the proposed project as an all residential alternative would not achieve the desired mixed-use master planned community and would not provide business and employment opportunities. As such, the City finds this alternative to be less preferable than the proposed project.
7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declared that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the proposed project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts are considered “acceptable”.
The City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR and F inal EIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for the significant and unavoidable impacts discussed herein. The City Council identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts despite implementation of existing regulations and mitigation measures:
• Air Quality
Project-specific operational air quality emissions
Cumulative operational air quality emissions
58 The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended to the City are not to be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the project that would prohibit the realizatio n of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the project, all other alternatives set forth in the Final EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the project objectives and/or specific economic, social, or other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the project, to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the project and having weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable significant impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the social, economic and environmental benefits of the project outweigh the potential unavoidable significant environmental impacts and render those potential significant impacts acceptable based on the following considerations:
A. The proposed project would encourage development of a mixed -use master planned community with a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, recreational (including an aquatic center), and medical uses on 435 underutilized acres in the central portion of the City.
B. Buildout of the project would result in up to 4,246 additional dwelling units within the City and contribute towards meeting the City’s housing goals. These dwelling units would provide additional types of housing in the City at higher densities than currently permitted in support of the needed housing Statewide.
C. Buildout of the plan would provide 27.8 acres of parks and recreational facilities for the residents of the plan area and the community at large. In addition, the Plan would accommodate a future aquatic center which would be useable by all residents of the Antelope Valley and support the aquatics/swim programs of the Antelope Valley Union High School District.
D. The project would generate new job opportunities for the local workforce within Lancaster, creating a more equal jobs -housing balance in the Antelope Valley. These jobs would be created through the additional medical facilities (including a potential Kaiser hospital), live - work units, and additional commercial uses along 10
th Street West and Avenue L.
E. The project would allow for a new transit center promoting alternative modes of transportation.
F. New residences and businesses encouraged by the project would contribute towards the City’s economic development while reducing the need for residents to commute outside the area for employment.
59 G. The proposed project would provide for uses that generate tax revenue for the City, such as increased property tax, to support the City’s ongoing municipal operations.
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City of Lancaster has reviewed the project description and the alternatives presented in the EIR and fully understands the project and project alternatives proposed for dev elopment. Further, this City Council finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the F inal EIR, and public testimony. This City Council also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document and finds that approval of the project is appropriate.
This City Council has identified economic and social benefits and important policy objectives which result from implementing the project . The City Council has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the effects of the project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that will accrue from the p roject, this City Council finds that the benefits identified herein override the unavoidable environmental effects.
California Public Resource Code 21002 provides: ‘In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasib le such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite o f one or more significant effects thereof.’ Section 2 1002.1(c) provides: ‘In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at th e discretion of a public agency .. .’ Finally, California Administrative Code, Title 4, 15093(a) states: ‘If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable.’ The City Council hereby declares that the proposed project would result in project -specific and cumulatively significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The City Council also declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the project outweigh the identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the project.
The City Council finds that each of the project benefits outweighs the unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR and therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
AIR QUALITY
1 Operational Area Source Emission
Reduction Plan. The PVSP shall implement
energy-efficient heating and cooling
systems to decrease reliance on natural gas.
This shall include using electric alternatives
in residences, including installing electric
hearths and stoves instead of natural gas or
wood stoves and hearths. Additionally, the
project owner shall utilize low VOC paints
and cleaning supplies , as defined by the
AVAQMD, where applicable.
Prior to issuance of
building permits
and during
construction
During building
plan check and
field inspection
Community
Development
Department
(Building and
Safety, Planning)
2 Control On -Site Off -Road Equipment
Emissions. The project owner, when
entering into construction contracts or
when procuring off -road equipment or
vehicles for on -site construction or
operation & maintenance (O&M) activities,
shall ensure that only new model year
equipment or vehicles are obtained. The
following measures would be included with
contract or procurement specifications:
• All construction diesel engines not
registered under California Air
Resources Board’s Statewide Portable
Equipment Registration Program, with
a rating of 50 horsepower (hp) or
Prior to issuance of
building permits
and during
construction
During building
plan check and
field inspection
Community
Development
Department
(Building and
Safety, Planning)
and Antelope
Valley Air Quality
Management
District
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
higher shall meet the Tier 4 California
Emission Standards for Off- Road
Compression-Ignition Engines, as
specified in California Code of
Regulations, Title 13, Section
2423(b)(1), unless a good faith effort
demonstrates that such engine is not
available for a particular item of
equipment. In the event that a Tier 4
engine is not available for any off-
road equipment larger than 100 hp, a
Tier 3 engine shall be used or that
equipment shall be equipped with
retrofit controls to reduce exhaust
emissions of NOx and DPM to no more
than Tier 3 levels unless certified by
the engine manufacturers that the
use of such devices is not practical for
specific engine types.
• All diesel- fueled engines used during
construction shall have clearly visible
tags showing that the engine meets
the standards of this measure.
• All equipment and trucks used during
construction shall be properly
maintained and the engines tuned to
the engine manufacturer’s
specifications.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
• All diesel heavy construction
equipment shall not idle for more
than five minutes. Vehicles that need
to idle as part of their normal
operation (such as concrete trucks)
are exempted from this requirement.
3 Valley Fever Awareness and Prevention.
Prior to ground disturbance activities, the
project operator shall provide evidence to
the Community Development Director that
the project operator and/or construction
manager has developed a “Valley Fever
Training Handout”, training, and schedule of
sessions for education to be provided to all
construction personnel. All evidence of the
training session materials, handout(s) and
schedule shall be submitted to the
Community Development Director within
24 hours of the f irst training session.
Multiple training sessions may be
conducted if different work crews will come
to the site for different stages of
construction; however, all construction
personnel shall be provided training prior to
beginning work. The evidence submitted to
the Community Development Director
regarding the “Valley Fever Training
Handout” and Session(s) shall include the
Prior to any ground
disturbing activities.
A copy of all
training session
materials,
handout(s), and
schedule shall be
provided to the
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
following:
• A sign- in sheet (to include the printed
employee names, signature, and date) for
all employees who attended the training
session.
• Distribution of a written flier or brochure
that includes educational information
regarding the health effects of exposure
to criteria pollutant emissions and Valley
Fever.
• Training on methods that may help
prevent Valley Fever infection.
• A demonstration to employees on how to
use personal protective equipment, such
as respiratory equipment (masks), to
reduce exposure to pollutants and
facilitate recognition of symptoms and
earlier treatment of Valley Fever. Where
respirators are required, the equipment
shall be readily available and shall be
provided to employees for use during
work. Proof that the demonstration is
included in the training shall be
submitted to the county. This proof can
be via printed training materials/agenda,
DVD, digital media files, or photographs.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
The project operator also shall consult with
the Los Angeles County Public Health to
develop a Valley Fever Dust Management
Plan that addresses the potential presence
of the Coccidioides spore and mitigates for
the potential for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley
Fever). prior to issuance of permits, the
project operator shall submit the Plan to
the Los A ngeles County Public Health for
review and comment. The Plan shall include
a program to evaluate the potential for
exposure to Valley Fever from construction
activities and to identify appropriate safety
procedures that shall be implemented, as
needed, to minimize personnel and public
exposure to potential Coccidioides spores.
Measures in the Plan shall include the
following:
• Provide HEP -filters for heavy equipment
equipped with factory enclosed cabs
capable of accepting the filters. Cause
contractors utilizing applicable heavy
equipment to furnish proof of worker
training on proper use of applicable
heavy equipment cabs, such as turning on
air conditioning prior to using the
equipment.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
• Provide communication methods, such as
two-way radios, for use in enclosed cabs.
• Require National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) -
approved half -face respirators equipped
with minimum N -95 protection factor for
use during worker collocation with
surface disturbance activities, as required
per the hazard assessment process.
• Cause employees to be medically
evaluated, fit-tested, and properly trained
on the use of the respirators, and
implement a full respiratory protection
program in accordance with the
applicable Cal/OSHA Respiratory
Protection Standard (8 CCR 5144).
• Provide separate, clean eating areas with
hand-washing facilities.
• Install equipment inspection stations at
each construction equipment
access/egress point. Examine
construction vehicles and equipment for
excess soil material and clean, as
necessary, before equipment is moved
off-site.
• Train workers to recognize the symptoms
of Valley Fever, and to promptly report
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
suspected symptoms of work -related
Valley Fever to a supervisor.
• Work with a medical professional to
develop a protocol to medically evaluate
employees who develop symptoms of
Valley Fever.
• Work with a medical professional, in
consultation with the Los Angeles County
Public Health, to develop an educational
handout for on -site workers and
surrounding residents within three miles
of the project site, and include the
following information on Valley Fever:
what are the potential sources/ causes,
what are the common symptoms, what
are the options or remedies available
should someone be experiencing these
symptoms, and where testing for
exposure is available. Prior to
construction permit issuance , this
handout shall have been created by the
project operator and reviewed by the
project operator and reviewed by the
Community Development Director. No
less than 30 days prior to any work
commencing, this handout shall be
mailed to all existing residences within a
specified radius of the project boundaries
as determined by the Community
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
Development Director. The radius shall
not exceed three miles and is dependent
upon the location of the project site.
• When possible, position workers upwind
or crosswind when digging a trench or
performing other soil-disturbing tasks.
• Prohibit smoking at the worksite outside
of designated smoking areas; designated
smoking areas will be equipped with
handwashing facilities.
• Post warnings on -site and consider
limiting access to visitors, especially those
without adequate training and
respiratory protection.
• Audit and enforce compliance with
relevant Cal OSHA health and safety
standards on the job site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4 Nest Avoidance. A nesting bird and raptor
survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist within 7 days prior to the start of
construction/ground disturbing activities.
The qualified biologist shall survey the
entire project site and areas within a
biologically defensible buffer zone
surrounding the project site. The surveys
shall include a minimum 0.5 -mile buffer for
Prior to the start of
construction/
ground disturbing
activities and the
issuance of any
construction
related permits.
Submittal of
preconstruction
survey results
prior to the
issuance of any
construction
related permits.
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
Swainson’s hawks where suitable nesting
habitat is present. If project activities are
delayed or suspended for more than 7 days
during the nesting season, the nesting bird
and raptor survey shall be repeated. If
active bird nests are identified during the
survey, the species shall be identified, and a
no disturbance buffer shall be established
around the active nest. At a minimum, a
buffer of 0.5 miles shall be established
around any active Swainson’s hawk nests,
500 feet around active raptor nests and 100
feet around other migratory bird species
nests shall be established. Additionally,
special-status bird nests will be initially
protected with a buffer of 500 feet.
Personnel working on the project, including
all contractors working onsite, shall be
instructed on the presence of nesting birds,
restricted areas, and adherence to no -
disturbance buffers. A qualified biologist
shall monitor any active bird nests on a
weekly basis to determine if project -related
activities occurring outside the “no -
disturbance” buffer disturbs the birds and if
the buffer shall be modified. Once the
young have fledged and left the nest, or the
nest otherwise becomes inactive under
natural conditions, project activities within
the “no -disturbance” buffer may occur
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001
Mit.
No.
Mitigation Measure/
Conditions of Approval
Monitoring
Milestone
(Frequency)
Method of
Verification
Party Responsible
for Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initial
s Date Remarks
following an additional survey by the
qualified biologist to search for any new
bird nests in the restricted area.
5 Western Burrowing Owl. A pre -
construction burrowing owl clearance
survey shall be conducted no more than 14
days prior to any vegetation removal or
ground disturbing activities to avoid impacts
to burrowing owls and/or occupied
burrows. The pre -construction clearance
survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist and in accordance with the
methods outlined in the Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California
Department of Fish and Game 2012).
Documentation of surveys and findings shall
be submitt ed to the City of Lancaster for
review and file. If no burrowing owls or
occupied burrows are detected, project
activities may begin, and no additional
avoidance and minimization measures shall
be required.
If an occupied burrow is found outside, but
within 500 feet, of the development
footprint, the qualified biologist shall
establish a “no -disturbance” buffer around
the burrow location(s). The size of the “no -
disturbance” buffer shall be determined in
Prior to the start of
construction/
ground disturbing
activities and the
issuance of any
construction
related permits.
Submittal of
preconstruction
survey results
prior to the
issuance of any
construction
related permits. If
required submittal
of issued
Incidental Take
Permit for
Burrowing Owls
prior to the
issuance of
construction
related permits.
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN (Exhibit G)
General Plan Amendment No. 25-006 / Zone Change No. 25-004 Specific Plan No. 24-001