Index
Applicable Special Permit
Current And Proposed Uses Of The Airpark
8-15-03
TO: JAMES E. HARTL Director of Planning Department of Regional Planning
FROM: JUDITH A. FRIES Principal Deputy County Counsel Public Works Division
RE: Agua Dulce Airpark
You have asked this office about a number of issues involving the operation of the Agua Dulce Airpark. Your questions concern which land use permit(s) and conditions, if any, are currently in effect and govern the operation of the Airpark and whether certain existing and proposed activities on the property require further approval from the County.
We have reviewed the documents in County files dating from 1958 to the present, as well as additional information supplied to us by the property owner and by neighboring residents and representatives of the Agua Dulce community. As discussed more fully below, we have determined that the Agua Dulce Airpark is subject to Special Permit Case No. 1404 and its conditions, numbers 1 through 16, as amended and approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 1960. The Airpark is not subject to the conditions of Special Permit Case Nos. 1352 and 1570.
We have further determined that various activities have occurred on the Airpark property or have been proposed by the property owner that are prohibited or require further zoning approval, such as the use of the Airpark for other than propeller-driven aircraft; sales of alcoholic beverages; construction of a new hangar, a swimming pool, and soccer fields; proposed sales of memberships for recreational activities and facilities, including a swimming pool; use of the property for special events and filming; proposed sales of parcels that have not been legally created; display of banners and a freestanding sign; and gambling.
Your department is requiring the operation of the Agua Dulce Airpark to conform to the approved site plans and the 16 conditions contained in Special Permit Case No. 1404 (SP 1404). Members of the community have questioned whether some conditions of Special Permit Case No. 1352 (SP 1352), specifically conditions 8 and 9, survived the subsequent approval of SP 1404 and are also applicable to the use of the property.
SP 1352 was approved by the Regional Planning Commission on September 2, 1958. It authorized the use of the subject property for a private commercial airport subject to 11 conditions. Condition 8 reads, "That the number of aircraft be limited to a maximum of 20 planes to be stored at any one time"; and condition 9 reads, "That this use shall terminate on September 1, 1968."
The property owner subsequently applied for SP 1404 to enlarge the airport and modify some of the conditions of SP 1352. Specifically, the applicant asked to extend the runway, add hangars and an airtel, and modify conditions 6 through 9 of SP 1352. The requested modifications to conditions 8 and 9 were to "remove the limitation on the number of aircraft permitted" and "remove the time limit which limits the life of the permit"; in other words, the applicant was requesting the deletion of conditions 8 and 9 of SP 1352.
On October 27, 1959, the Regional Planning Commission granted SP 1404, which permitted the subject property "to be used to enlarge, operate and maintain an existing private commercial airport and to modify some of the conditions of Special Permit Case No. 1352, under the following [sixteen] conditions." Several of these 16 conditions are duplicates of conditions in SP 1352, many are modifications to conditions in SP 1352, and others are entirely new conditions. None of the 16 conditions mentions or otherwise addresses the provisions of conditions 8 and 9 from SP 1352.
We understand why some community members have concluded that conditions 8 and 9 from SP 1352 continued in effect after SP 1404 was approved, because of the express statement in SP 1404 that it modifies "some" of the conditions of SP 1352. Indeed, upon first receiving a copy of SP 1404 after it was granted, the applicant's attorney recognized this potential ambiguity and asked the County to clarify the Commission's intent. In a November 2, 1959, letter to the Director of Planning, Mr. Glenn Watson wrote,
"I am concerned about possible misrepresentation of the conditions of the permit in one respect in the future as personnel familiar with the matter may be changed. As you know, the application in Case No. 1404 sought amendment of the permit so as to delete Condition 8 limiting the number of aircraft, Condition 9 for termination of the life of the permit and for amendment of certain other conditions .... It was apparently intended that any conditions contained in [SP 1352] and not contained in [SP 1404] are deleted and superseded. However, the new permit does not so state, and in fact expressly provides that it is "to modify some of the conditions of Special Permit Case No. 1352." The Commission's intention could be expressed by providing that [SP 1404] is an amended permit modifying the conditions of Permit No. 1352 to read as set forth in items 1 to 16, inclusive."
"I trust that you will agree, upon reviewing the file, that it does not clearly appear that the new permit deletes and supersedes conditions contained in [SP 1352], although the Commission so intended."
"We would appreciate your reissuing [SP 1404]. .. and notify all parties concerned prior to the expiration of the appeal period in order that there will be no question as to the Commission's action."
As requested, the Director of Planning responded by letter of November 5, 1959, and clarified the Commission's intention, using the wording suggested by Mr. Watson,
Reference is made to your letter of November 2, 1959, requesting clarification of the letter of grant stating that approval of Special Permit Case No. 1404-(5) is "to modify some of the conditions of Special Permit Case No. 1352-(5)".
The October 27, 1959, action of the Commission, approving Special Permit Case No. 1404-(5) is an amended permit modifying the conditions of Special Permit Case No. 1352-(5) to read as set forth in items 1 to 16 inclusive in the letter of grant dated October 28, 1959.
This letter makes clear that SP 1404 modified SP 1352 to read "as set forth in items I through 16." This means that none of the conditions of SP 1352 continues to apply unless it is contained in "items 1 through 16" of SP 1404, as some of them are. In other words, items 1 through 16, which modify some of the earlier conditions, reiterate others, and add new conditions, constitute all of the conditions imposed by SP 1404.' The Planning Director's clarification is consistent with the original wording of SP 1404, which states that it modifies "some of the conditions" of SP 1352. We note that conditions 8 and 9 of SP 1352 are deleted by the new permit; this is the modification to those conditions that was requested by the applicant.
SP 1404 was subsequently appealed by several parties to the Board of Supervisors, but the grounds for appeal did not relate to the deletion or inclusion of condition 8 or 9 of SP 1352. The materials transmitted to the Board included the two November 1959 letters referenced above. On May 24, 1960, the Board of Supervisors took the following action:
(1) denied the appeals;
(2) amended condition 6 of SP 1404; and (3) ordered that, "All other conditions of this case shall be complied with as approved by the Regional Planning Commission." If there remained any doubt as to the continuation of conditions 8 and 9 from SP 1352, the Board of Supervisors' action dispelled that doubt by ratifying the Commission's approval as presented in the Planning Director's letter of November 5, 1959.
In summary, SP 1404 modified SP 1352 to read as set forth in its attached conditions I through 16, with condition 6 to read as further amended by the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, the conditions of SP 1404 consist of these conditions I through 16, and they do not include a termination date or a storage maximum of 20 planes, as had been provided previously in conditions 8 and 9 of SP 1352.
'In effect, as we stated in an earlier letter to your department, the conditions of SP 1404 effectively superseded the conditions of SP 1352. See letter of July 6, 1992, from Charles Moore to John Schwarze. A contrary conclusion was reached by Joe Ben Hudgens, Deputy County Counsel, in an October 29, 1968, memorandum to O. K. Christenson, but he based his opinion on the original wording of SP 1404, and there is no evidence that he was aware of the November 1959 correspondence clarifying the intent of SP 1404. His memorandum has not been relied upon by your staff; the file contains a copy of his memorandum with a note, dated 1984, which states, "Void - see 11-5-59 letter from Gebhart Watson."
It has been suggested that SP 1404 has expired for nonuse, but there is no evidence to suggest that this has occurred. Although for a number of years, beginning in 1968, the City of Los Angeles leased the property for municipal airport uses, it appears that throughout that period the property owner continued to use the property as a private commercial airport, collecting rent from individuals who stored and used their planes at the Airpark.
Finally, the approval on December 1, 1964, of a third Special Permit, SP 1570, does not supersede or otherwise affect the terms and conditions of SP 1404, although it refers to SP 1352, contains a termination date, and reinstates the 20-plane limit. The property owner was notified in 1966 that SP 1570 had become null and void because it was not used within one year of its approval as required by the permit. Since SP 1570 was not timely used, its terms and conditions never took effect. Therefore, SP 1404 is the applicable permit which governs the operation of the Agua Dulce Airpark. To the index
Your department recently cited the owner of the Agua Dulce Airpark for various zoning violations, and he has questioned whether some of the citations were made in error for permitted activities. Several other potential zoning violations have been brought to our attention as well. The subject property is located in the A-2 zone. The activities in question are as follows: storage of more than 20 planes on-site at one time; use of the airpark for other than propeller-driven aircraft; sales of alcoholic beverages; construction of a new hangar, swimming pool, and soccer fields; proposed sales of memberships for recreational activities and facilities, including a swimming pool; use of the property for special events and filming; proposed sales of parcels that have not been legally created; display of banners and a freestanding sign; and gambling.
Storage of More than 20 Airplanes. Your department's citation for storing more than 20 planes is based on the 20-plane limit that was contained in condition 8 of SP 1352. As discussed above, that condition no longer applies to the Airpark. There is no comparable condition in SP 1404; instead, the approved site plans provide the applicable limit by depicting the areas that may be used for hangars and tie-down areas.
Limitation to Propeller-Driven Aircraft .Condition 12 of SP 1404 limits the use of the airport to propeller-driven aircraft. We are informed that the property owner has proposed allowing other types of aircraft, such as jet planes, to land at the airpark. Such uses are not currently permitted and would require further zoning approval.
Sales of Alcoholic Beverages. Your department has received reports that alcoholic beverages are being served at the airpark. Alcoholic beverage sales is a use that is not permitted in the A-2 zone, except as an authorized appurtenant use, such as in a private recreation club pursuant to a conditional use permit or in connection with a temporary use for which a temporary use permit has been granted.
New Hangar. We are informed that the property owner has applied for a building permit to construct a new hangar. No building permit should be issued until your department has reviewed the proposed hangar for compliance with the approved site plans for SP 1404.
Swimming Pool. A swimming pool has been constructed on the subject property, and we are informed that the property owner would like to allow community use of the pool and has advertised the sale of memberships to use the pool. This proposal constitutes a private recreation club and would require the issuance of a conditional use permit.
SP 1404 authorizes a private commercial airport with a 20-unit airtel; a pool is not separately allowed under SP 1404. A previously approved site plan for SP 1404 depicted a proposed airtel with a pool, which is commonly an accessory to a hotel. While the approved site plan currently in effect does not depict an airtel, the property owner could submit a new revised site plan for approval, showing a proposed airtel with a pool, consistent with the conditions of SP 1404.
If a revised site plan with an airtel and an accessory pool were approved by the Director of Planning, the existing pool would be for the use of the airtel guests once the airtel is constructed. Until such time, the pool would be limited to the property owner's private use, such as by himself, his guests, and the employees of the Airpark. Any commercial or public use of the pool is currently prohibited and would require the prior issuance of a conditional use permit for a private recreation club.
Soccer Fields. Soccer fields have been constructed on the Airpark site, and we understand the property owner proposes to make them available to members of the community. Athletic fields are a use that is not allowed in the A-2 zone except pursuant to a conditional use permit.
Membership Sales. The Airpark owner has advertised the sale of memberships for various recreational activities and facilities. As discussed above, this use is prohibited unless a conditional use permit for a private recreation club is first obtained.
Special Events and Filming. The subject property has been used in the past and is proposed to be used for festivals, fairs, fireworks shows, and other similar temporary special events, as well as for filming. Your department has correctly informed the property owner that such special events cannot take place unless they have been authorized by a temporary use permit. Likewise, filming on the property requires the approval of a film permit.
Sales of Lots Within Undivided Parcels. It has been reported that the property owner has offered for sale parcels that have not been legally divided. A subdivision map must be approved by the County and recorded to divide land, which is shown on the latest equalized County assessment roll as a unit or contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease, or finance, whether immediate or future.
Banners and Signs. Banners advertising memberships for the use of the pool have been displayed on the property. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits any "strings of pennants, banners, or streamers, clusters of flags, strings of twirlers or propellers, flares, balloons and similar attention-getting devices, including noise-emitting devices," with the exception of properly displayed governmental, institutional or corporate flags, or holiday decorations in season. Your department correctly ordered the property owner to take down any banners displayed on the site.
Your enforcement staff has also noted a freestanding sign on the property for which no sign plan has been approved. The property owner should be notified that he must either submit plans for approval by the Director of Planning or remove the sign.
Gambling. Community members have reported that gambling has taken place on the premises. Gambling activities (betting and wagering) are generally prohibited by Chapter 13.20 of the County Code. The prohibition applies not only to participation in gambling, but also to attending places where gambling is taking place, as well as to permitting gambling on property under one's ownership or possession. To the index