Letter sent by Agua Dulce Civic stating their position re the Airport
Here is a link to their 1995 position
January 10, 2005
Mr. Jim Hartle Director
Department of Regional Planning
320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA. 90012
Dear Mr. Hartle,
We are writing at this time in an effort to have our concerns reflected in the staff report for the upcoming Revocation/Modification Hearing scheduled for January 22, 2005 for the Agua Dulce Airpark Special Permit 1404-5.
While we are participating in discussions with Airport representatives in an attempt to resolve our differences in the operation of the facility, this organization has 45 years of files and long term residents with pent up frustration with what has been decades of disputes over both the manor of the airport’s operation as well as our long term disagreement with the county planning staff over the validity and interpretation of the permits.
We believe that the record meets the burden of proof under Los Angeles County Code Title 22 Zoning and Permits Part 13 for revocation.
1. The Dept. of Regional Planning cannot rely on S.P. 1404 as the sole remaining permit because under its own terms and conditions it is unenforceable; its conditions have never wholly been met; and in one condition it is preempted by Federal Law and must lapse. We enclose this letter from our counsel to which you have never responded.
Exhibit 1
2. All of the Special Permits issued to the airport have expired. Resurrecting S.P. 1404 as the sole operating permit years after County Counsel Joe Ben Hudgens’ 1968 opinion, which was signed off by everyone in Regional Planning including the Director, and widely circulated within the community of Agua Dulce is an abuse of the public trust. Arranging for the City of L.A. to lease the airport starting the day that S.P. 1352 expired was a further abuse of the good citizens of Agua Dulce. The records show that the County was self dealing an effort to keep the airport open until they could purchase it.
Exhibit 2
3. The Regional Planning Commission has never approved more than a 20 plane limit at the airport.
a. There is not one letter in the file prior to S.P. 1352’s expiration date of 9-1-68 that says that 1404 superseded 1352 and/or deleted either the expiration date or the 20 plane limit. On the contrary ALL correspondence during this time says that 1352 and 1404 work together to govern the airports existence. Permit 1404 explicitly states that it was issued to “Modify some of the conditions of S.P. 1352.”
Exhibit 3
4. S.P. 1404-5 is non-modifiable due to its condition stating that it is non-severable.
5. County Counsel’s reliance on the 6/13/61 stamped “Revised Plot Plan” to determine that the number of based aircraft is limited to the square footage of hangar space depicted and ground available for tie towns is flawed.
a. The map was a fulfillment of condition #1 of S. P. 1404-5 which states that the map is to show the “LOCATION OF THE HANGARS AND AIRTEL”. The map shows that the airport wished to locate hangars in either location. The hearing testimony by the airport mgr. and their attorney Watson, as well as the Exhibit A Map from the hearing clearly state the number of hangars they wished approved as well as the maintenance hangars requested. The 1961 map interpretation by County Counselor Fries does not reflect what was requested by the applicant at the public hearing.
b. Decades of history show that the actual development at the airport followed the Exhibit A maps in S.P.1404 and S.P.1570 (the last permit issued which reiterated the 20 plane limit) and NOT the 1961 Rev. Plot Plan. The public process provides that Exhibit A maps for hearings are presented for public scrutiny and comment. The condition providing for Revised Exhibit A map to be submitted does not allow the applicant to exceed what grants were given at the hearing. The testimony clearly does not allow this much development of hangars and maintenance hangars. Condition #22 of S.P. 1570 clears ALL ambiguity as to the grants given or in this case NOT given wherein it states:
“Except as herein modified, the Conditions set forth in Special Permit No.1352 and Special Permit No. 1404 are binding; including but not limited to 20 tie downs;”
This condition proves that S.P. 1404 did not supersede S.P. 1352 nor did it grant more than 20 tie downs and thus did not provide for 55 aircraft hangars.
Exhibit 4
6. The airport was closed in 1992 so that it could operate as a movie ranch and not suffer the interference of aviation activity.
a. The lapse in the property’s use as an airport triggers a CEQA review using the new base line of the year 1999 when the airport use resumed.
b. The airport does not have the required CUP to operate as a movie ranch. The airport far exceeds the number of TUP’s allowed under County Code to conduct this level of filming activity without a CUP authorizing this use.
Exhibit 5 & 6
7. The 2004 construction of the “ New Tie Down Area” and access road south of the runway is violation of S.P. 1404
a. Is not wholly within the the legal description of S.P. 1404.
b. Was constructed within the Agua Dulce Canyon Creek, an identified blue line stream.
c. Was constructed without CEQA review. Nor approval from County Engineer.
d. Did not receive prior Regional Planning approval nor, FAA or State Div of Aeronautics review for obstructions.
e. Construction was completed and the area was used by the airport numerous times despite verbal and written instruction by L.A. County Zoning Enforcement not to use until it received county approval.
8. The airport has numerous violations and stop work orders for building hangars in excess of permitted height and without prior FAA and State approval. Construction of a pool without first obtaining a building permit; construction of the aforementioned new tie down area without approval by Regional Planning as well as hosting events without TUP’s. We believe that the Airport Management has consummated the sale of at least one the new hangars which may be a violation of the State Subdivision Map Act. All of these repeated violations and infractions have violated the terms of the Special Permit thus rendering the permit unenforceable by the county.
9. The Zoning Enforcement file will show decades of violations since the inception of the airport permit in 1958. This past behavior is the best predicator of future behavior and demonstrates that the airport owners, current owner included are unlikely to conform to any permit issued by the county.
10. The use of the property known as the Agua Dulce Airpark as an airport has been proven to be by a Court of Law and is continuing today to be a nuisance.
Exhibit 7
11. The use of the property known as the Agua Dulce Airpark is a continuing health and safety hazard to the community. The facility does not meet the minimum design standards for an airport and would not be allowed to locate on the present site. The facility has a higher than average accident rate.
Exhibit 8
Further our grammar school’s location 6000’ off the end of the runway is a continuing safety hazard to approximately 400 children daily.
Exhibit 9
It is clear that the use of the property as an expanded airport is not in the best interests of the citizens of Agua Dulce and that the evidence shows that the airport permit meets the burden of proof under Title 22 Planning and Zoning Part 13 for Revocation.
It is our opinion that the community would support an airport along the lines of what they approved in 1958. To comply with the condition limiting aircraft to propeller driven aircraft changes in Federal law would require that the airport obtain a state permit for a Restricted “Special Use” Private Airport. Under proper management and concern for its neighbors, it may be possible for the facility to be conditioned to operate as not to be a nuisance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this most controversial and long-standing issue.
Sincerely,
Joanne Swanson
Chair
The Agua Dulce Civic Association Airport Committee
Ron Bird. Virginia Applan. Kaye Kirkwood, Pat Jackson ,Peg Spry, Bob Owens, George Naas Justine Turner, and Cindy Love
Airpark permit/revocation Issues Index
Vanguard News Home page