Leona Valley A great place to live. Established 1990

1. Leona ValleyA great place to live. Established 1990 Valley Vineyard’s Development A quality of life issue. http://leonavalleytowncouncil.org/default.aspx

2. History • March 2007 – Valley Vineyards was identified to LVTC • 2007 – First Public meeting requested by LVTC for Valley Vineyards Development • Packed house of residents expressed concerns of development in a straw poll • Residents overwhelmingly against Valley Vineyards development in a straw poll • Result - no significant changes to development design

3. Present Day • Applicant informs LVTC of scheduled March 2nd Regional Planning hearing. • LVTC requests Applicant to discuss the project on Feb. 14, Valentines' Day • 160 plus residents show up for Tract Home Development presentation • Number of people signed in = 118 • Estimate of people who did not sign in = 45 • The Applicant talked for 20 minutes and then opened for questions, two hours plus of questions and some answers . • Straw poll at end of presentation . • 160 plus residents vote against Valley Vineyards development as designed • No residents in favor of Valley Vineyards development as designed • One resident abstains from vote . • Election Day Survey – written survey on Feb. 15, day after meeting • Results – 6 in favor and 181 NOT in favor of present design

4. Leona Valley Town Councilhttp://leonavalleytowncouncil.org/bylaws.aspx • The Leona valley Town Council was established in 1989 at the suggestion of the 5th District Supervisor Antonovich as an advisory board. • The TC is made up of 5 members elected by the registered voters of LV • Members 2010/11 Bill Elliott, Suzy Love, Peggy Fuller, Christina Johnson, Aaron Farris • Bylaws available at:http://leonavalleytowncouncil.org/bylaws.aspx • ARTICLE 3. PURPOSE The purpose of the Leona Valley Town Council shall be to engage in such activities as may promote the common good of the community of Leona Valley and provide for the preservation of the community's values, lifestyles, and rural environment. The Leona Valley Town Council shall provide a frequent forum and/or other means of gathering community views, wishes and concerns on issues to be brought before the Leona Valley Town Council; to present community concerns to appropriate agencies; and to review public or private proposals that may affect the community. The Leona Valley Town council shall be apolitical, neither supporting nor opposing any political party or candidate. • ARTICLE 4. ORGANIZATION OF THE LEONA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SECTION 1. Duties and Responsibilities: The duties and responsibi1ities of the Leona Valley Town Council shall include the following: • A. The Leona Valley Town Council shall at all times: 1. Strive to accurately mirror in its policies and actions the positions and concerns of the Leona Valley community.2. Function as a voluntary organization of elected members who receive no remuneration. 3. Encourage the flow of information among individuals and community organizations who are working for the betterment of Leona Valley. B. Represent the Leona Valley Town Council and the community with equal authority and position. C. And, shall not borrow money nor incur any indebtedness. • Emphasis added The community is trying to ease the impact of Valley Vineyards on Leona Valley’s rural way of life. It is a Quality of Life Issue.

5. Issues • Density is too high • Closed, gated development • Roads are too wide • Sewage Treatment Plant or Public sewage system • Undersized lots • Violates Non-urban Hillside management ordinance • Does not meet Seismic Safety Management Area requirements • Restricted use areas included in residential lots • Incorrect use of clustering • Too much grading • Water uncertainty • Too much traffic • Traffic Lights • Negative impacts on viewshed • Does not preserve rural character

6. County’s General Theme for the AVLow Density

7. Density – It’s just too High! • The applicant indicates: • 133 acres are less than 25% slope • 144 acres are more than 25% and less than 50% slope • 14 acres are more than 50% slope • The Antelope Valley Areawide Plan indicates • Less than 25% Low = 1DU/5 acres; High = 1DU/2 acres • 25 to 50% Low = 1DU/10 acres; High = 1DU/2 acres • Town and Country • 1DU/20 acres • Leona Valley CSDs • 1DU/2.5 acres, Down to 1.5 acres with Hillside Management Clustering

8. Density Considerations • The Leona Valley CSDs • The General Plan Non-urban Hillside Management Density Requirements • The General Plan Land Use Element • The Antelope Valley Areawide Plan Hillside Management Density Requirements • Town and Country (updated AV Areawide Plan) • Agricultural Opportunity Area • Seismic Hazard Areas • Rural Character • Existing Densities • Nearby land division restricted

9. Proposed development ~ 300 Acres 117DUs Density Adjacent ~ 1DU/8.2 Acres Approximately 2000 acres. Existing Density defined by Bill Ford of 280 homes served by 90th Street. Density = 1DU/25 Acres Leona Valley contains approximately 12600 acres Approximately 560 single family homes Leona Valley’s Density = 1 Dwelling Unit / 22.5 Acres

10. Existing Leona Valley Growth Rate • Over the last 20 years Leona Valley has grown at approximately 4 dwelling units per year. • Assuming it takes, conservatively, 4 years to build out Valley Vineyards at 117 Dwelling Units that is a growth rate of 29.25 houses per year or approximately a 630% increase per year in the Leona Valley Growth Rate.

11. General Plan – Land UseNon-urban Hillside Management Areas • The scale and intensity is not compatible with the general character of the surrounding community. • The Applicant has not addressed the natural hazards • The density needs to be reduced

12. Proposed Densities • Applicant • 117 lots • County • Low density threshold – 40 lots • Mid-point density – 89 lots • Leona Valley • Lowest possible density per Town and Country.

13. Density Discussions • The Applicant and Pacific Coast Civil, Inc. have mistakenly used .5DU/Acres. • The Leona Valley CSDs requires 1 DU/2.5 acres, unless Hillside Management Clustering is used, then it allows 1.5 Acres in accordance with Title 22 Section 22.56.215 • All Land with a slope of less than 25% should be at the Minimum of 1DU/2.5 acres • The AV Areawide Plan uses a scale of 1DU to 10 to 2 Acres for Hillside Management 25% to 50% slope and 1DU/20 Acres for greater than 50% • County used T&C to establish density for VTTM 071169 • Owner asked for 1DU/5 acres • Town & Country 1DU/20 acres • County required 1DU/10 Acres • Density needs to be reduced • TR 062622 has done it right – 1DU/20 acres • TR 062622 is indicative of a low impact development • The Community of Leona Valley has not challenged TR062622’s Density

14. Leona Valley as defined by Town & Country • “The remainder of the community is considered to be a rural preserve area and has been designated as Rural Land 20 (RL20), with a maximum density of 1 residential unit for each 20 gross acres of land, or Rural Land 40 (RL40), with a maximum density of 1 residential unit for each 40 acres of land. These very low densities reflect the underlying infrastructure constraints, environmental resources, and safety constraints. Development in the rural preserve area should be limited to single-family homes on very large lots (2.5 net acres or greater), light and heavy agriculture, equestrian and animal-keeping uses, and other uses where appropriate.” The Applicant’s proposed development falls within the 1DU/20 Acres. Because this is in a hillside management area and includes a significant ridge line, T&C should define it as 1DU/40 Acres

15. Agri. Opp. Area Agricultural Opportunity Area • The Applicants development is in a Agricultural Opportunity Area as defined by the AV Areawide Plan and its Hazards and Resources Map • Requires that no lots be less than 2 acres Hazard Zone

17. Closed, gated development • During all meetings where the gated aspects were discussed with the Applicant the Residents expressed dissatisfaction with the closed, gated nature of the development. • The Gated Development is not in keeping with the existing character of Leona Valley. • The gated development in a rural setting will give people a sense that the community is not safe and lower the property values outside the gated development. • The Applicant still has not listened to the community. A gated Community will not increase the property value of homes outside the gated development

18. Roads • The Applicant has chosen private roads. • The Residents expressed to the Applicant the roads should be public roads and maintained by the County. • The Roads need to be open to the public. • To keep the traffic down on 87th the exit to 87th street should gated and used for emergency vehicles only. • Leona Valley concurs with the County staff, the roads are too wide for a rural area.

19. Public sewage system • The Applicant’s proposed sewage treatment plant, also known as a Advanced Waste Treatment System (AWTS), was selected by the Applicant, according to the Lahotan Regional Water management district, because the development site would not percolate for more than 35 homes. • This would be the first use of an AWTS in the LA county • According to Title 22.24.150 • Property in Zone A-2 may be used for:A. The following uses, provided a conditional use permit has first been obtained as provided in Part 1 of Chapter 22.56, and while such permit is in full force and effect in conformity with the conditions of such permit for: • -- Sewage treatment plants • Lahotan has identified the AWTS as a Sewage Treatment Plant • This sewage system will be precedent setting. For the future of all unincorporated areas this sewage treatment plant needs a separate CUP and an EIR.

20. Undersized lots • During the two presentation meetings made by the Applicant, other LVTC meetings, and in residents’ letters, the residents have expressed their concerns that the development is not using the CSD’s 1DU/2.5 acres

21. Violates Hillside Management Requirements • The Applicants proposed development does not meet the Hillside Management requirements in the General or AV plans. • Improper use of clustering • 70% open space is not defined by the applicant. • 70% of the 293 acres requires at least 205 acres of open space • Using CSD required 1DU/2.5 acres • 88 acres / 1DU/2.5 acres = 35 dwelling units

22. Incorrect use of Clustering • Open Space = 293 Acres X 70% = 205 Acres • The Applicants Clustering methodology does not meet the County’s requirements. • For the Applicant to use the Leona Valley’s CSD’s Clustering allowance the Applicant needs dedicated 70 percent open space • The Clustered lots need to be concentrated in one area not over the whole 292 acres.

23. Taken from VV Tract Map Hazard Management Area • The Applicant has not adequately addressed the seismic safety issues for the property. • There are defined earthquake faults on the property • Earthquake induced landslide areas are not defined as Restricted Use Areas. • Restricted areas are not included in the gross vs. net area calculations • Liquefaction areas are not defined as Restricted Use Areas. • Restricted areas are not included in the gross vs. net area calculations • The property is in a Very High Fire Hazard Zone Density needs to be commensurate with safety issues!

24. Density Control in Seismic Hazard Zones • According to the AV Areawide Plan the highest allowed density in a Seismic Safety Management Area is one dwelling unit per two acres. The Tract Map indicates lots as small as 1.5 acres based on the Applicant's interpretation of the Leona Valley CSD, however, Seismic safety supersedes the CSDs. • The AV Areawide Plan goes on: “In certain instances, and only in areas shown on the Land Use Policy map, densities greater than one dwelling per 2 acres may be permitted in “infill” situations within existing residential communities provided that these higher densities are adequately served by the necessary service systems and can satisfy the appropriate health and safety codes.” • The Valley Vineyard development is not an “infill” situation and Leona Valley is not adequately served by emergency services. • The AV Areawide Plan goes further and states: “However, in these limited situations, new residential development may be permitted to only those densities prevalent within the surrounding area.”

25. Density Control in Seismic Hazard Zones • The Valley Vineyards development exceeds the existing prevalent density in Leona Valley and the intended density of the CSD of one dwelling unit to 2.5 acres. • The County has already informed the Community of Leona Valley that due to our remoteness we need to plan for up to a week without any services after an Earthquake. • Leona Valley is surrounded by earthquake induced landslide areas.

26. Grading • Grading is excessive • The first Initial Study stated 110K cu/yds of cut and fill • The updated Initial Study stated 1.2 million cu/yds • In the presentation meetings, and other LVTC meetings, the residents expressed concerns on the amount of grading. • The Hillside Management Ordinance requires the design to minimize the grading • The Applicant has maximized the grading with lots in the area that should be reserved as open space. • Reducing the Density will reduce the cubic yards of cut and fill grading

27. Traffic • During the 2007 and 2011 Valley Vineyards presentations the residents expressed concerns with traffic • VV has not adequately addressed traffic concerns • Traffic concerns can be lessened by using a lower density.

28. View Shed • The residents expressed their concern on the impacts to the landscape views at both Valley Vineyard’s presentation meeting and other LVTC meetings. • The Development’s design does not minimize the impact on the view shed. It will maximize the adverse impact to the residents’ views.

29. Rural Character Errors • During the presentations made by the Applicant, other LVTC meetings, and in their letters the residents have expressed their concerns that the development is not in keeping with the rural character of Leona Valley • Issues • Gated and closed development • Density too high • Sewage System • Grading of open space • Lowering the density would minimize some of these issues. Valley Vineyards does not satisfy “compatible with surrounding development patterns.”

30. Leona Valley has a long history • Leona Valley Community has a long history of NOT challenging Land divisions, minor or major, that complements the character of Leona Valley and does not challenge our rural way of life. • TR 39460 1DU/10 Acres 1977 • TR 062622 1DU/20 Acres Jan 2010 • TR 068295 1DU/5 Acres 2007 • TR 071169 1DU/5 Acres 2010 • TR 062789 1DU/5 Acres 2006 • TR 066871 1DU/5 Acres 2007 • Challenged • TR 045865 1DU/0.3 Acres 1987 • Ritter Ranch Late 1980s and Early 1990s • TR 066952 1DU/1.5 Acres 2011

31. The Truth of Why We are Here • We are here because the Applicant has not selected the least impact to Leona Valley • If the Applicant had selected the lowest density there would no reason for the CUP. • Title 22.56.215 • “E.2. Determination if Conditional Use Permit Required. If the density per acre of the proposed development exceeds the low-density threshold of such development obtained in subsection E1 above, a conditional use permit is required.” • The Sewage Treatment Plant requires a CUP. • The Sewage Treatment Plant is only needed by the Applicant to maximize the density.

32. The Truth of Why We are Here • We are here because of the Town and Country (Updated Antelope Valley Area Wide Plan) is reducing the Density even further than the existing adopted plans. • We are here because the Leona Valley CSDs are reducing the Density also. • We are here because the Applicant’s development is not Deemed Complete. • We are here because this is a race to get the maximum density possible before the approval of Town And Country and Leona Valley’s CSDs. • In Bill Ford’s own admission, “we will not be starting construction any time soon”. There is no reason for the County to rush this through. • Any economic benefits and jobs created by this development will not occur anytime soon. • Local schools and our volunteer Fire Department will not see any construction revenue for years.

33. Leona Valley Community’s Recommendation • Leona Valley Agrees with the County’s staff, Valley Vineyards should be denied because of all the deficiencies with county code, the adopted plans and with the rural character of Leona Valley. Denied