Lancaster council sends disputed Avenue L mixed‑use project back to planning commission after hours of public comment

Lancaster City Council voted unanimously to send a contested mixed‑use development proposal at Avenue L and 15th Street West back to the planning commission for additional review after a four‑hour public hearing and multiple technical appeals.

Senior planner Jocelyn Swain told the council the proposal would cover roughly 9.5–10 acres and “propose to develop the project site with a mix of uses consisting of a 181 market rate multifamily residential units in 2 buildings, a 235‑room hotel and associated clubhouse, and 12,800 square feet of commercial retail uses on 3 pads.” The applicant requested a general plan amendment (nonurban → mixed use) and a rezoning from RR‑2.5 to mixed‑use commercial; the planning commission approved the conditional use permit and tentative map and recommended approval of the general plan amendment and zone change by a 4–2 vote.

Residents, labor groups and environmental advocates filed multiple appeals and pressed the council on traffic, water, air quality and land‑use consistency. Speakers from the White Fence Farms neighborhood said the site is a rural residential enclave and argued rezoning the parcel would amount to “spot zoning” that would harm rural character, increase traffic on unpaved local roads, and strain the small White Fence Farms mutual water system. Labor and environmental appellants said the project’s environmental review—a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)—omitted technical analyses and that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. An appellants’ expert cited a vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) estimate of 43.6 VMT per person per day against the significance threshold of roughly 17.1, and a construction‑period diesel particulate health‑risk estimate above the city’s stated threshold (the expert’s toxicology analysis reported a cancer risk around 15 per million versus the 10 per million significance threshold).

Many speakers urged denial or remand. “I urge you to reject this rezoning for three critical reasons: its consistency with the general plan, its status as spot zoning, [and] its threat to our rural character,” said Kristen Boyd, who identified herself as a lifelong Lancaster resident. Jordan Sissom, counsel for Unite Here Local 11, told the council that appellants had submitted expert evidence and argued “without a correct environmental analysis” the city was not assessing feasible mitigation for traffic, air and noise impacts.

The property owner’s team, identifying themselves as Westline Partners, said they had held two public open houses, proposed mitigation measures including an electric gate at the south end of the project frontage to reduce cut‑through traffic, fencing to secure the water easement, a drainage plan to reduce existing flooding on 15th Street West, and the use of high‑efficiency (MERV‑13) filters in multifamily units because of freeway proximity. The developer also said it would explore annexation into Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40 rather than drawing on the White Fence Farms Mutual Water Company. After council members pressed the owner about labor commitments, the owner agreed to “stipulate to” efforts to work with unions and local contractors and to pursue a community workforce agreement.

Council members cited two recurring themes in deliberations: unresolved technical questions about environmental analysis and the scale and placement of a five‑story hotel and tall apartment buildings adjacent to low‑density lots. After discussion, a council member moved to send the project back to the planning commission for further study and negotiation; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Council members said the planning commission should consider — among other items — whether the MND is adequate, whether an EIR is required, additional mitigation for VMT and air quality, the hotel’s height and placement relative to nearby homes, details of water service and any community workforce agreement.

Next steps recorded on the public record: the project will return to staff and the planning commission for additional environmental and design review and to document any negotiated labor or community mitigation commitments. Several parties told the council they would continue technical exchanges; the developer said it would meet with union and community representatives to seek a negotiated resolution within weeks.

Background: Planning staff noted the applicant had agreed with several conditions of approval recommended after public outreach and a revised initial study. The appeals were filed by multiple groups, including SAFER, Creede LA, the White Fence Farms community and Unite Here Local 11; appeal grounds cited affordable housing, general plan consistency, vehicle miles traveled, biological resources, air quality and noise.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Send the Avenue L / 15th Street West mixed‑use project back to the planning commission for further review, including addressing CEQA/environmental analysis, union/labor commitments and project design changes (hotel height, buffering, water). Motion moved and seconded; outcome: referred to planning commission, passed unanimously.