Law Offices Of Schuster & Associates
July 1, 2003
The Honorable Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor, Fifth District County of Los Angeles
Re: Agua Dulce Airpark Ranch
Dear Supervisor Antonovich:
Please be advised that my office represents Ms. Park Overall and certain persons concerned with the operation, use and development of the airport in Agua Dulce, California, commonly referenced as the "Agua Dulce Airpark Ranch" (the "Airpark").
As you may know, operation of an airport in Agua Dulce has been a community concern since 1958, when Special Use Permit 1352 was established "to operate and maintain a private airport on a 102 acre parcel of land." Since that time, additional permits were issued and the airport operated at times as a private and at times as a public access site.
Operations often constituted a nuisance to neighboring landowners, who prevailed in litigation against the airport’s owners. Expressed land use policy included the following statement:
Agua Dulce Airport is recognized on the Land Use Policy Map as a low intensity airport given over primarily to transient use of aircraft on recreational flights. It is the intent of this Plan that neither the intensity of development nor the level of use of the Airport shall be permitted to increase to the point where the community is adversely affected because of noise, pollution, traffic or aircraft hazards or problems.
For several years, the airport was closed, leaving residents to believe that the permits issued therefore were void pursuant to Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, then applicable to Special Use Permits.
Subsequently, the Airpark was developed in what my clients believe is derogation of the prior permits, zoning ordinances and applicable statutes.
Presently, there are concerns regarding commercial exploitation and use of the Airpark.
Recent and planned Airpark operations (advertised on Owner Barry Kirshner’s Airpark website and in other places) boast of marathons, rodeos, truck exhibits, motorcycle shows, fireworks shows, and a "beer fest" and other events which appear to have no nexus to permitted land use. Obviously, there are safety concerns presented when mixing a fly-in community with alcohol and/or using fireworks in an area with such a significant potential for fire disaster. My clients contend prior requests to your office to halt such events have not been heeded.
A flyer Mr. Kirshner apparently mailed boasts of club membership to include "pool use from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 7 days a week, Jacuzzi, Club House, Basketball, Sand Volleyball [and a] Riding Arena."
Additionally, and dismissing for the moment the concerns regarding low-flying aircraft (addressed by separate letter to Mr. Kirshner and Counselor Fries), Mr. Kirshner admitted during the June 25, 2003 Agua Dulce town council meeting that he presently has 35 aircraft based at the Airpark. There is no language in Special Permit 1404 allowing for expansion of the 20 aircraft limit and, most notably, when Special Permit 1570 was issued during December, 1964, the limitation was retained over the applicant’s objection and request for expansion, full commercial use and jet aircraft access.
Despite these clear limitations, I am informed that Mr. Kirshner recently attempted to exploit the Airpark and surrounding community through a film project which would have made use of a Learjet. I understand that project was canceled "at the eleventh hour," but there remain a host of planned activities which appear to be in contravention of permit restrictions and land use policy statements.
Planned fireworks for July 4, 2003, which residents requested be canceled in the interests of fire safety, continue despite the conflicts with prior Special Use Permits, the conflicting opinions of County Counsel and the lack of a nexus of fireworks to aviation or airport operations. It would appear that many County Departments have either turned a blind eye toward the Airpark and/or are engaged in a scheme to allow "midnight development" without the requisite hearings or approvals. Buildings have been erected, events have been held and the Airpark has expanded – despite repeated outcries from your constituents.
My clients believe your office is charged with supervision of their district and should take responsibility to ensure that the nuisances presently occurring and harm threatening your constituents is abated.
Unfortunately, you were not in attendance at the June 25, 2003 Agua Dulce town council meeting, although I am informed that you sent a deputy to view the "standing room only" event. If you had attended or received a full report, you would understand that community concerns include impact upon the environment and aquifer, noise/nuisance, low-flying aircraft and safety considerations, endangerment to the Agua Dulce Elementary School pupils and staff, permit issues and a host of other concerns. I believe the town council is preparing a summary, which we can expect to be linked to the community news/information website being developed at www.aguadulceairport.org.
My clients contend Mr. Kirshner has flagrantly disregarded the limitations of the prior-issued permits and provisions which preclude him from violating any condition thereof as well as any statutes, laws or ordinances (acts which void the permits).
I left messages for County Counsel Judith Fries on June 12 and June 16, 2003, but none of my calls were returned. I have written Counselor Fries as of this date and have provided a copy of my letter for your review.
Understand that these concerns will not "quiet down" or go away unless appropriate action is taken.
At this juncture, I believe and my clients assert that it is imperative for you to personally involve yourself in these matters. My clients would naturally like to resolve their concerns without litigation or court process but, if their pleas are ignored or the County and/or its officials fail or refuse to perform their duties as charged, I suspect they will not hesitate to seek declaratory and other relief through proceedings which, based upon my preliminary research, would undoubtedly prove an embarrassment thereto.
In closing, please note that this letter is written under a reservation of all rights and remedies and addresses only those limited, specific concerns as and to the extent noted herein; it does not and is not intended to constitute a comprehensive history or list of concerns facing the Agua Dulce community or my clients.
Correspondence regarding this matter should be directed to my Long Beach, California address.
Thank you for your attention hereto.
Sincerely yours, Jeremy G. Schuster