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.