This letter was sent by Ron Bird to various county offices to support the position that the 1961 plot plan (revised exhibit A) violated the permits already approved and should not be used as a basis for calculating aircraft storage square footage at the Agua Dulce Airport.
The questionable plan is the basis for the vast expansion now placed on hold by LA County at the airport.
Also proposes two alternative methods to properly calculate allowable square footage. Please take the time to review these documents.
July 26, 2004 Subject: Agua Dulce Airpark – 1961 Revised Plot Plan. The purpose of this document is to explain why the 1961 plot plan for the Agua Dulce Airport approves development well beyond what is allowed based on the facts of the Special Permit 1404 case. This 1961 plot plan allows for many more hangars and service space than what was proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission in the exhibit A submitted at these hearings.
I spent the morning reading the 140+ pages of public hearing transcripts for the 1404 special permit case held before the Regional Planning Commission in August 1959. What struck me in this testimony is how the majority of the people testified in opposition to this airport expansion given that only a handful had testified against the original 1352 permit the year before. Many more people testified against expansion than in favor of expansion and the Commissioners did listen.
At one point one of the Commissioners asked the airport manager, Mr. Roper what kind of time limit for the permit he was asking for. Mr. Roper said that he had not specified a time limit and the Commissioner responded by asking him what he thought would be fair. Mr. Roper replied that double the 1352 time limit of 10 years would be acceptable. The Commissioner then mentioned that in 20 years none of us will be here and later another Commissioner said that they had already granted twice the requested five year time period in SP1352.
In October 1959 the Regional Planning Commission approved SP1404 and in the preamble of this permit stated that it is “…to modify some of the conditions of Special Permit Case No. 1352”. Lengthening of the runway, allowing larger aircraft and allowing new limited commercial aviation (public use) were explicitly permitted in SP1404 and were items requested by the applicant. The Commission remained silent on the requested 20-year extension of SP1352’s sunset clause as well as the removal of SP1352’s 20-airplane limit, thus explicitly implying these SP1352 limits carried over to SP1404 by stating that SP1404 modifies some of the conditions of SP1352.
The airport owner’s attorney, Glenn Watson immediately realized they had not gotten all they had asked for. He sent Milton Brievogel, Director of Planning a letter dated November 2, 1959, asking, “We would appreciate your reissuing the October 27, 1959 permit so as to state that the conditions not contained in it are deleted or that an amendment be issued…”. Mr. Watson wanted conditions 8 and 9 (the 20 plane limit and the 1968 sunset) of SP1352 deleted as requested in the SP1404 permit application. On November 5, 1959 Chief Deputy Director of Planning wrote a response saying that it was his opinion that SP1404 is “an amended permit modifying the conditions of 1352".
This is the one letter in the County files that indicates that SP1404 is a replacement of SP1352 rather than a modifier to “some of the conditions of SP1352" as stated in the SP1404 preamble. On August 15, 2003 Judith Fries, Principal Deputy County Counsel used this letter as a basis for her opinion that SP1404 superceded SP1352. The facts of the case speak otherwise.
SP1404 was appealed in 1960 to the Board of Supervisors. Judith Fries states the materials transmitted to the Board included the above mentioned November 1959 letters. The Board of Supervisors denied the appeals, changed the wording of condition 6 of SP1404 and went on to say: “All other conditions of this case shall be complied with as approved by the Regional Planning Commission”. Having seen the suggested November 5, 1959 interpretation verbiage of the Chief Deputy Planning Director, the Supervisors chose not to include this verbiage in their June 3, 1960 amendment and let SP1404 stand as written as to it’s relationship to SP1352.
A Deputy Director of Planning’s opinion does not override a Planning Commission’s or a Board of Supervisor’s ruling of SP1404. The airport owner never petitioned for an amendment to SP1404 to delete these two SP1352 conditions. SP1404 thus worked in tandem with SP1352. Every letter in the County files up to SP1352’s sunset date of September 1, 1968 demonstrates that SP1404 did not supersede SP 1352. The 20-plane limit was enforced throughout this period.
In 1964 the airport owners submitted an application for another permit (SP1570) and in the application again asked for the 20-plane limit to be removed. When the Planning Commission approved SP1570 it again reiterated this 20-plane limit, this time explicitly. The Commission clearly demonstrates to all of us that S.P.1404 did not remove the 20-plane limit which it states in condition #22:
“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”
If SP1352 was superseded by SP1404 it could not have been referred to and made part of this new permit. Further, and most importantly, Condition #22 shows that the 20-plane limit was not removed on SP1404 because it specifically says it “includes” the 20-plane tie down limit. It does not, as Ms. Fries contends, say it “ADDS” nor does it say it “REINSTATES” the 20-plane limit.
On December 21, 1964 the airport owner signed and had notarized the acceptance letter for SP 1570, thus legally agreeing to this 20-plane limit condition.
We return to the main purpose of this letter which is to illustrate why the June 12, 1961 Revised Plot Plan approved by Regional Planning allowed excessive aircraft storage areas and other structures not proposed at the hearing nor approved by S.P. 1404. The Regional Planning stamp on this signed map asserts that this plot plan was approved based “on the facts submitted in SP1404”. The facts of this case prove that in 1961 this airport had a 20-plane limit, thus the 1961 plot plan approves far more square footage of construction than SP1404 supports!
The plot plan requests that the largest hangars be 40 feet by 50 feet in size in tee hangar format. Converting this nested tee shaped format to a rectangular format yields an equivalent rectangular area of about 40 by 40. At 1,600 square feet per plane (40x40=1600), that is a maximum of 32,000 square feet of hangar storage. This 1961 exhibit A (June 1961) approves approximately 92,000 square feet of hangar storage, an outdoor tie down area, five large service hangars, a maintenance hangar and an assortment of other smaller buildings.
This exhibit A also does not properly define the southern SP1404 boundary, which is jagged. This plot plan has this boundary as a straight line, which was not straightened out until November 1961 via a lot line adjustment. Finally SP 1404 specifically states the purpose of the revised plot plan (the 1961 revised exhibit A).
SP 1404 explicitly states under item 1 that this map “will establish the location of the hangers and the airtel”. This map was not intended nor should it be used to calculate the allowable square footage for aircraft storage at the airport. Only the facts of the SP1404 case and what SP1404 / SP 1352 approves should be used as this basis.
Why is this 1961 plot plan so important in 2004? This approved plot plan is being used as a basis to expand hangar space at this airport to well beyond what was originally intended and approved in 1959. No public hearings on this airport’s expansion have been held since 1964. Airport expansion in 2004 should not occur without either a hearing or an approved airport master plan.
No prior owner has requested to build hangar space that exceeds the SP1404 approval by such a flagrant degree. Concerns have also been expressed that an explicit airport limit cannot be stated in 2004 due to the extensive case law over the past 40 years. This is true, but also note that recent case law fully recognizes the right of a local authority to restrict the amount of aircraft storage capacity that an airport can construct.
This was the intent of SP 1404 and that intent was to limit this local rural airport to a 20 aircraft storage limit. We therefore ask, based on the facts of this case that you, limit hangar and tie-down space at this airport to 32,000 square feet of airplane storage and an additional 5,400 square feet for maintenance/service hangers until the airport owner makes proper applications for expansion. This limit is over 7,000 square feet beyond what the applicant for SP1404 requested, but would be fair based on the facts of the case.
Expansion beyond this should require public hearings and environmental review assessing the impacts this expansion will have on this residential community.
Respectfully submitted by, Ronald Bird
References:
SP1352
SP1404
November 2, 1959 Watson letter November 5, 1959
Gebhart response June 3, 1960
Board of Supervisors appeal decision August 15, 2003
Judith Fries opinion SP1570 permit application excerpt SP1570
SP1570 acceptance by owner that accepts the 20-aircraft limit October 29,
1968
Joe Ben Hudgens opinion Assessor map indicating lot line adjustment 11-61
1959 SP1404 exhibit A
1961 SP1404 plot plan
If you are unable to locate any of the above reference materials in the County files, please feel free to contact me, as I have copies of this material.
Supporting information follows: 1959 Exhibit A versus the 1961 Revised Exhibit A
1959 Exhibit A versus the 1961 Revised Exhibit A. What the 1959 SP1404 “Exhibit A” Hearing Map Proposed for Hangar/Utility Space shows two rows of tee hangars in the southwest portion of the plot plan, one 60’ by 90’ building in the northeast portion of the plot plan, and one 50’ by 120’ building in the northeast portion of the plot plan.
What Was Requested in the 1404 Hearing On August 17, 1959 the first public hearing for the SP1404 case was held. Mr. Roper, the owner/ manager of the airport testified before the Regional Planning Commission and stated: “This 60 by 90 hangar, we spoke of, is merely a maintenance hangar for aircraft”. Commissioner Baum then asked him about the other 50 by 120 foot building. Mr. Roper replied, “That is not even a hangar building. It is a storage building. It’s not even built as a hangar”. This testimony can be found on page 62 of this August 17th transcript.
This testimony pertains to the two hangars in the northeast portion of the plot plan submitted. On August 31, 1959 the second public hearing for the SP1404 case was held. Mr. Watson, the legal counsel for the Agua Dulce Airpark testified: “Now, with respect to 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”. This testimony can be found on page 69 of this August 31st transcript.
The 21 hangars he is referring to are the two rows of tee hangars in the southwest portion of the plot plan. Mr. Watson made no mention of the 60 by 90 building, which Mr. Roper on August 17th had described as the maintenance building. The 1959 Exhibit A depicts two rows of tee hangars at the southwest end of the property that encompass 16,740 square feet (the 21 tee hangars). It also is noted in overlay format that an alternative to this would be one large 150’ by 120’ foot building for a total of 18,000 square feet.
In summary this is what the 1404 applicant requested:
18,000 square feet of hangar space (or 16,740 square feet in tee hangar
format)
5,400 square feet for a maintenance hangar
6,000 square feet for a storage building without an airplane sized door
What Was Erroneously Approved in the 1961 revised exhibit A
92,000 square feet of hangar space (55 tee hangars)
18,000 square feet for a maintenance/overhaul shops – S.P.1404 f prohibits
major overhaul
36,000 square feet for service hangars (4 hangars each 90’ x 100’)
18,000 square feet for another service hanger (120’ by 150’)
An assortment of other smaller buildings not mentioned in the original 1404
plans
Clearly this does not match with what was requested or approved by SP1404!
