Letter sent by this paper formalizing the position stated by Park Overall, her neighbors and researched by Ron Bird concerning the Airport
Here is a link to my 1995 position
January 9, 2005
James Hartl Director of Los Angeles County
Department of Regional Planning
VIA: E-mail and FAX
Dear Mr. Hartl,
I would like these comments to be reflected in the staff report for the revocation hearing for Permit #1404 for the Agua Dulce Airport scheduled for January 22, 2005. I would also like to formally request a, preferably electronic, copy of the staff report to publish on my newspaper website vanguardnews.
We have been closely following the airport’s continued violations of its permit since a local resident, Ms Park Overall, spent over $25,000 of her own money because the airport was harassing her and her animals by their aircraft operation.
As you know the County’s effort to purchase the airport in 1995 to change it from a private airport to a public airport and to expand its operation was defeated on the local ballot by nearly a 66% vote of the residents of Agua Dulce. This, due to the courtesy of Michael Antonovich, was placed on the regular county election ballot, as opposed to the phony and bewildering elections for the various local community groups.
During our process of covering the airport, we have placed nearly 100 pages (http://www.vanguardnews.com/adtc/Airpark/Index.htm) of data on our website and have received over ten thousand hits by people reading these stories.
There are numerous studies showing huge losses of property values and its related tax base because of the proximity of an airport. These numbers range from 20% to 50% of property values. While most of these studies concern larger airports, the indices of property value reduction is the increase of airport noise over ambient noise. As the ambient noise level in Agua Dulce is so low, propeller driven aircraft and turbine driven helicopters provide a far greater disturbance to the community as opposed to jet operations over a noisy city such as Van Nuys.
With no airport, federal regulation FAR 91-119 requires all aircraft remain at least 1,000 feet above ground level. With any airport, be it private or public, the FAA allows all aircraft, whether they intend to land or just sight see, to fly as low as the pilot deems it to be safe, which the airborne terrorists, who attack residents in Agua Dulce, define to be that their wheels clear the roof tops.
Up until recently, the airport has operated by aggressively harassing anyone who complained about the airport by what amounted to having pilots dive-bomb and strafe peoples’ homes and their livestock. We have video images showing these actions along with recorded radio comments such as "I got that bitch this time". The airport management has attempted to bribe the community by building an illegal soccer field and other recreational facilities within the runway exclusion zones.
They were a total nuisance by invasive filming permits that culminated with a wing-walking stunt flying within a few hundred feet of residential roofs. Other invasive filming included full loads of automatic weapons firing all night long. One of noisiest ideas was to film the special effects for the movie "Twister" using jet engines as wind machines running all night long. Fortunately, the production company cancelled the shoot after our paper headed an effort to block it.
The airport has a 46-year history of thumbing its nose at the community and the Regional Planning Commission. In fact, their first Permit #1352 was issued solely to legalize an airport that had been Illegally constructed without any permits.
The airport then applied for Permit #1404 to extend the runway and to increase the number of aircraft, again after the fact, because at the time of the hearing the testimony shows that they had already extended the runway without waiting for approval. In fact, Mr. Daum, a planner for your department, stated in the hearing for Permit # 1404 "you haven’t met the conditions set forth by the Commission a year ago (1352)…and … hopes of expanding your airfield without taking care of the original permit". Mrs. Baca, a planning commissioner in the same hearing states "It seems to me that you just add insult to injury by continuing to violate your special permit".
The tortured history of these permits, culminating with the bizarre claim that helicopters are permitted because your Director of Planning, Milton Breivogel, wrote a letter on June 26, 1967 stating "that helicopters were propeller driven airplanes".
The Regional Planning Commission must revoke Permit #1404 under Condition 16, which states:
16. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated or if any other law, statute or ordinance is violated the permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed for a period of 30 days to do so.
And just in case your legal counsel thinks for some bizarre reason that that condition is unenforceable, then Condition 15:
15. It is hereby declared to be the intent that if any provision of this permit is held or declared to be Invalid the Permit shall be void and the Privileges granted hereunder shall Lapse.
requires the Commission to lapse the permit because Condition 16 would not be enforceable.
This permit is so old, CEQA did not even exist when it was issued. There has never been any analysis on the environmental impact of this airport on the community.
The Commission cannot consider any expansion in the scope or operation of the airport because this hearing is solely for revocation and reduction. The Commission must find that the airport has routinely "violated law, statute or County ordinance" . The Airport has violated the law from its inception in 1959 by first operating the airport without any permit and then by making additions and expansion without obtaining the necessary new permits or having public hearings..
The permit violations (see http://www.vanguardnews.com/adtc/Airpark/Index.htm#violations ) in the last 2 years are well documented and these recent violations, by themselves, are sufficient under the language of their permit to require the Commission to terminate the permit.
I can assure you that there are people within the community that would take action through a writ of mandate to force the County to cancel the permit as is called for in the plain language of the permit.
If the airport wishes to re-establish a new permit, then it should file for new CUP and prepare the necessary environmental documents to support an airport.
I would also like to incorporate, by reference, the hundreds of pages of comments and information concerning the airport on my website.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Brink
Airpark permit/revocation Issues Index
Vanguard News Home page