Note: 2005 editorial comments and clarifications are in green. When you read this 46 year old testimony, please take note as to how things have not changed much at all.
SP 1404 Testimony August 17,1959
Mr. Rodich (RP Staff Member)
from page 1 – "The existing and proposed plans of development are shown on the plot plan marked Exhibit "A". It is proposed to add a 1000 foot extension to the existing 4000 foot runway, a 50 by 120 foot hangar and a 60 by 90 foot hangar."
From page 2: "In addition, modification of the following conditions of Special Permit No. 1352 is requested:
No. 6 by ‘..Grant permission for an aircraft repair station, major repair, heavy engine major overhaul excepted.’
No. 7 by ‘..Increase the size of aircraft permitted to twin engine transport planes including forestry and/or fire department water bombers.’
No. 8 by ‘..Remove the limitation on the number of aircraft permitted.’
No. 9 by ‘..Remove the time limit which limits the life of the permit.’"
Mr. Baum (Planning Commissioner): from page 7 – "That’s what he is asking for, so, if any of the controversy is in regards to jets or anything (inaudible) to this, the testimony will be unnecessary to hear".
Dr. Dunlap (adjacent neighbor in favor) from page 10-11 – "We believe that this is rather virgin territory, where the disadvantages of an airport would inconvenience a minimum number of people. That the actual residential use of land is minimal and that the glide path lies principally over unoccupied territory." …
Mr. Abernethy (Planning Commissioner): "… but the request for M-1 property did include your property?" Dr. Dunlap: "Yes, that is true".
Clyde Barnett (Director of CA Aeronautics Commission which is now know as CA Division of Aeronautics)
from page 15 – "True, these things sometimes aren’t very nice to live with, but neither is a railroad, neither is a street car or anything that makes any kind of noise, including trucks…"
from page 17 – "Gentlemen, this is really a very sparsely settled area at the moment. As a matter of fact, I’m somewhat amazed that they can shake this many people out of it to come to such a hearing."
from page 18 – "May I make it very clear here, there is no question, that there are going to be people inconvenienced in this matter. And I don’t think there’s any further question, but that you have the right to insist that Mr. Roper (who is the airport applicant) if there are particular hardship cases here, I think that he should have to take care of them one way or the other. Either buy them, buy their air rights or in some way settle it." …"Well, gentlemen, unfortunately this airport problem is something like trying to be a little bit pregnant. Either you are or you aren’t and you can’t throw it away."
Mr. Goldman (attorney for the airport opposition):
from page 22 – "I represent 180 persons who have executed this petition or documents attached thereto, in opposition to the extension and removal of conditions as to the airpark" …
from page 24 – "…the people that I represent all live in and own property in Agua Dulce. So essentially, this is a residential area." …
from page 27 – "It’s not a question of buying property adjacent thereto, because if you buy, for example, Mr. Barry’s property then Mr. Wadmann is up next to it. You’re going to have to buy all the property outside of Agua Dulce, so all you’ll have will be the airpark." "…the people that I represent feel that the operation of this airport has approached a definition of a nuisance, merely as a matter of law." "…For reasons of safety, dust, damage to property and persons, they feel this petition (1404) should be denied.
John Clark (local resident) from page 29 – "The airport is less than one half mile from the center of Agua Dulce. The center of the community lies directly under the air space used for take-off or landing."
from page 30 – "The airport lies in a wash with no available fall out zone passing under the runway" …"The hills, that raise to the north, west and southeast side of the airport, add another element of hazard not normally found at an airport, which particularly comes into effect at times of cross wind conditions or periods of low visibility." "…The past year has seen instance like, simulated landings on private property away from the airport itself. Many instances of low flying and stunting, particularly in the immediate area of the airport; inadequate plans on take-off and landing." "…aircraft are very low over private property, outside the airport area, in numerous instances, to such an extent that a 4 foot high property fence was struck by a landing aircraft."
From page 30 – "The original permit (1352), granted merely served to legalize an airport use which began as a zoning violation."
This indicates that the airport existed before 1958, that neighbor complained about this illegal airport and then the owner then applied for an airport permit to clear up this zoning violation. It seems that not much has changed in 47 years. Build it illegally, then post facto permit the illegal activity.
From page 32 – "Mr. Baum: And they object to the extension of the runway, is that right? Mr. Clark: Yes. Mr. Baum: And the additional hangars? Mr. Clark: If additional hangars were a part of the permit, yes. Mr. Baum: …remove the limitation for the number of aircraft permitted, is that right? Mr. Clark: Yes, that is right.
E.W. Weeks (real estate appraiser): from page 39 – "I consider the resident a rural residential community. And it is my opinion that there are certain properties adjacent to the airport now, that have suffered loss in value and further it is my opinion, that any expansion of the field will create value loss on additional property adjacent thereto."
Mrs. Barry (adjacent neighbor): from page 42 – "In the year that the airport has been in use, we in opposition just off of the end of the runway have been burdened with noise, frightened by low flying and dusted by airplanes warming up next to our property lines. Airplanes have frequently passed over our property, less than 50 feet above the ground, while landing and stopping. This summer one plane passed between our house and garage about 50 feet above the ground headed west, definitely out of the pattern."
Gladys Mosher (local resident): from page 44 – "One of the community attractions, Vaschis Rock (Vasquez Rocks), famed as a historical and picnicking area, was properly zoned for recreation. …Any expansion of this airport would flout the development of this basin, because of the hazards and the extreme noise reverberations in this mountainous area and would therefore ruin the whole structure of our present zoning…".
J.L. Wadmann (local resident): from page 46 – "Yes, but do you understand that they have already extended it?" Mr. Baum: You mean another 1000 feet? Mr Wadmann: Yes, a lot of that has been done… It’s extended.
The 1000 foot runway extension request in 1404 was accomplished prior to the 1404 hearing on leased land not owned by the airport or part of the 1352 permit.
Colin Stewart (local resident): from page 51 – "The primary purpose, as I understand it, of this Planning Commission is to protect, developed and undeveloped property by properly zoning and working with the laws that can not be overcome by the public and violated. Now I believe that Agua Dulce deserves this zoning program more than any other place that I can think of, because it has, as I say, this wonderful future…. We don’t want airports in Agua Dulce, in any sense of the word.
Earle Roper (1404 permit applicant): from page 62 – "This 60 by 90 hangar, we spoke of, is merely a maintenance hangar for aircraft." Mr. Baum: "And then you want another hangar, 50 by 120 feet is that the…." Mr. Roper: "That is not even a hangar building. It is a storage building. It’s not even built as a hangar".
Add that up folks, the applicant was asking for one 60x90 foot maintenance hangar and another 50x120 foot storage hangar for a total of 11,400 square feet.
Mr. Baum: from page 63 – "Well, the only thing, Mr. Roper, that I think, you’ve developed a lot of opposition out there since you’ve been operating. Unfortunately, there was very little people here objecting to the establishment of this aviation, but now you’ve developed considerable opposition. You haven’t met the conditions set forth by the Commission a year ago… Now you are asking for more conditions and setting aside a number of the conditions, in the hopes of expanding your airfield without taking care of the original permit."
This sure blows away the airport’s argument that the airport was established when nobody lived and had no opposition. This airport has always operated with significant opposition.
Mr. Baum: from page 66 – "It is customary in a Special Permit to have some kind of time limit on it." Mr. Roper: "Well, at this time could we ask to double that limit?"
Mr. Baum: "You’re asking for 20 years then."
Mr. Roper: "And then if everything is in order and in line, operating smoothly…"
Mr. Baum: "I don’t think that we’ll be here 20 years from now, this Commission, I can’t promise you what the next Commission will do. That’s a long ways from now."
Mr. Abernethy (Planning Commissioner): from page 67 – "Mr. Roper, I just want to state to you, that you’ve placed this Commission in a rather difficult position…"
Mrs. Baca (Planning Commissioner): from page 69 – "Mr. Roper, Mr. Abernethy covered one of my questions and you stated that you were working on the airstrip. It seems to me that you just add insult to injury by continuing to violate your Special Permit. You should have waited until you had applied for this permit to do anything about the additional airstrip." Referring to the 1000-foot runway extension.
Mrs. Baca: from page 70 – "It seems to me, I may be mistaken in this, but it seems to me that you were agreeable to even five years and I think the Commission, itself, granted the ten years, I think we were extra generous.
Two commissioners have just questioned the applicant’s request to remove the permit’s time limit. One said that permits normally have a time limit and the other said that the original permit’s time limit of ten years was extra generous. This leaves little doubt that when they wrote 1404 and failed to modify 1352’s time limit that was a conscious decision on their part. SP1404 therefore expired in 1968.
Gladys Mosher (local resident): from page 44 – "Mr. Roper and his family rented a house and moved into our community and were very friendly. After they were established, Mr. Roper approached the people, stating categorically, that he had purchased the grounds and decided to build a home here, he could have a landing strip so he could fly his planes back and forth to his work. We foolishly believed him. Imagine our shock and embarrassment when we learned that not Mr. Roper, but the Agua Dulce Airpark had received a permit for a private commercial airport, issued in the names of R.W. Liligridge and Errol Williams of Sepulveda… As far as we can ascertain, Mr. Roper was only the manager.
So the airport told the neighbors they just wanted a small private airport, so they could fly to work. They then took this County permit (SP1352) to the State and got a State public use airport permit, so that all pilots could fly into Agua Dulce. Only the names have changed in 47 years. The MO is the same.
During this past year, little or nothing was done to the runway. When the citizens harassed by dusting, asked Mr. Roper how soon they would oil the runway, he claimed the operators were financially embarrassed. They did, however build a café and pilots lounge. This building had nothing to do with their permit obligations, but since the last hearing the airstrip has been a beehive of activity. The airstrip has been surfaced and oiled, including the extra 1000 feet…
Now this is what puzzles me. Why are these two real estate brokers backing the airport against the majority of the people, the property owners, in the Agua Dulce basin? And why does the airport management desire an adjacent industrial zone, unless they intend to develop the airpark as industrial rather than recreational as originally proposed.
As you well know a well planned community does not happen by chance. And for that reason, 90% of the property owners in the Agua Dulce basin are petitioning you for the opportunity to proceed with natural development of this properly zoned residential-recreational area."
Charles Held (neighbor): from page 53 – "Now, I believe, that this Board should see or try to make this airport get together with the Flood Control and see what can be done to satisfy us people. The airport don’t mean nothing to me. It won’t hinder me or do anything to me, but what are they going to do with that water?
Colin Stewart (local resident): from page 54 – "Now I want to say, that I have listened to these witnesses. I know that the CAC (now called the California Division of Aeronautics) representatives are paid with our tax money to fight us. And I don’t like that position…
The money invested up there, I think, can be withdrawn if the property is cut up into subdivisions and sold. And I think that it would be worthwhile if that is considered by this Board…
Now in regard to the permit. They have violated about every rule and regulation in the book, in governing the airfield. And we have suffered up at our house with planes flying 50 feet over the roof of our house. The horses, the cats, the dogs, everybody runs for cover. And the noise is terrific. Now, if you think people can live under those conditions, why there is something wrong…
This airplane field and their activities are going to ruin values in that area."
Mrs. Harry Finley (neighbor): from page 61 – "We have a friend who owns a light plane. About a year ago…, hearing that we had an airport in Agua Dulce, he said I’ll fly up… Talking about his landing at this field, he was telling us his experience. He fly's a small Wascam. He came in to make a landing and as this airport lays between two hills, there could never be an east and west take-off, so he came in from the south to land.
The up draft from this gully was so strong his airplane merely stood. He went out and circled and for a second time he could not land because of the up draft against the light plane. The third time he came in he wing-slipped it sideways, whatever you call it, and made his landing. We had a nice visit and he said good-by and he said in an emergency I might use it again, but that’s sure a hard one to get into."
Irma Dotson (neighbor): from page 65 – "But the thing that I am interested in is our fire protection up there. If big planes come in there and should crash, how would our property be protected? We do live out in a fire hazard area and I am against the airport expansion.
Mr. Watson (attorney representing the airport): from page 69 – "Now with respect the hangars, the lady asked about; there are now on the ground, neatly stacked, the necessary supplies and building materials to build two buildings, one story high, called T-hangars, which will house some 21 planes, and if your Commission should approve this, there will be additional inside storage facilities. They are all on the diagram before…two buildings that we’ve asked approval of. One is 50 by 120, well they show on the map. Those are for inside work on aircraft.
So all the airport was asking for was hangars to store 21 planes. It is very obvious that the Planning Commission gave the applicant everything he asked for with the exception of increasing the 20-plane limit and extending the permit’s time period. SP1404 mentions all of the other applicant requests, but is silent on the time extension and the plane limit, because this modified permit did not change these two SP1352 conditions.