COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
645 KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
500 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012-2713
LLOYD W. PELLMAN County Counsel
September 25, 2000
Joanne Swanson, Acting Co-Chair
Nolan Henderson, Acting Co-Chair
Agua Dulce Civic Association Airport Committee
33201 - I Agua Dulce Canyon
Road Agua Dulce, California 91350
Re: Agua Dulce Airpark
Dear Ms. Swanson and Mr. Henderson:
You have asked me to review the zoning permits that have been issued for the Agua Dulce airport to determine whether any are currently in effect. You contend in your letter_ that all applicable zoning permits have expired.
You forwarded to me a number of relevant documents, including the three zoning permits that were issued by the County for the airport, namely, Special Permit Case Nos. 1352, 1404, and 1570. I have reviewed these materials as well as certain documents in the files of the Department of Regional Planning.
Special Permit Case No. 1352, as amended by Special Permit Case
No. 1404, is still in force, and it authorizes the use of the subject property as an airport subject to certain terms and conditions. I am not able to determine at this time, however, all of the terms and conditions that are currently applicable to the Operation of the Agua Dulce Airpark. I am continuing to review information from the Department of Regional Planning to ascertain which conditions of Special Permit 1352, if any, survive its amendment by Special Permit 1404 and continue to govern the airport operations today.
The airport is clearly limited to propeller driven aircraft, although with no restrictions on the number of take offs and landings. I have concluded that the expiration date of Permit No. 1352 has been eliminated by Permit No. 1404. On the other hand, it is not clear, for example, whether the permit continues to impose a maximum of 20 planes that may be stored on the site at any one time.
You have mentioned that Special Permit Case No. 1570 refers to Permit No. 1352 as evidence that permit 1352 had not been superceded. These references do not necessarily contradict Mr. Moore's opinion that this permit was "effectively" superceded by Permit 1404. Permit No. 1404 was granted as an amendment to No. 1352, so it is proper to refer to both permits from that time forward. The issue is only whether certain of the conditions in Permit 1352 were amended, or whether all conditions were amended, by Permit 1404. If No. 1404 did amend all the conditions of the earlier permit, then that permit was "effectively" superceded although the second permit was called an amendment.
In any event, Special Permit Case No. 1570 was never used within the required time and it has lapsed. Therefore, neither its authorizations nor its conditions are effective as to the airport. The filing of a plot plan in 1968 is of no importance since by 1966 the permit had already lapsed.
Very truly yours,
LLOYD W. PELLMAN County Counsel
By
JUDITH A. FRIES
Principal Deputy County Counsel Public Works Division
c: Millie Jones, Fifth Supervisorial District Barry Kirshner
Frank Meneses, Department of Regional Planning
Diane Terito, President, Agua Dulce Town Council