Proposed Conditions for 1404
Hearing reports
Findings
Conclusions
March 2, 2006
TO: Pat Modugno, Chair Esther L. Valadez, Vice Chair Leslie G. Bellamy, Commissioner Harold V. Helsley, Commissioner Wayne Rew, Commissioner
FROM: Samuel Dea Acting Section Head Zoning Permits I Section
SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 1404 - (5)
At the February 22, 2006 meeting, regarding the above-referenced matter, Commissioners Valadez, Helsley, Rew and Modugno were present. The Commission voted (3-1) to defer its final action of the Modification of Special Perrrnit 1404 (Permit) to March 8, 2006.
During the discussion of the consent item, the Regional Planning Coiimission received public comments from the representatives of the airport operator and local residents and their representative regarding the findings and modified conditimons of the Permit. The airport operator request clarification and changes to the findings and conditions. The Commission discussed the need to revise the findings and conditions to reflect the following:
• Distinguish in the findings between alleged violations and confirmed violations Additional language has been included in Finding Nos. 15 err d 20 to reflect the Commission's direction.
• Indicate in the findings the reported change in ownership of the airport
Finding No, 12 indicates the recent ownership change of the airport.
• Include additional findings to reflect the Commission's decision to reject revocation of the Permit and instead support modification of the Permit Finding Nos. 20 and 25 reflect the Commission's decision to modify the Permit.
• Make an exception from the flight school ban to allow a Civ II Air Patrol at the airport
Condition No. 39(r) has been revised as instructed.
• Convert one of the maintenance hangars to a community service hangar Conditions Nos. 38(c) and (d) have been revised accordingly.
• Extend the hours of operation of the maintenance hangar
Condition No_ 39(m) has been revised to allow the maintenance hangar to stay open until 7:00 pm.
• Include a definition of "dangerous flying' in the conditions
Condition No. 40(c) has been modified to ban careless or reckless flying, as defined in 14 CFR, rather than "dangerous flying."
• Rearrange the sequence of certain conditions Condition Nos. 39(d) through 39 (h) have been rearranged accordingly.
• Combine related conditions Condition Nos. 39(m), 39(n) and 39(o) have modified.
As requested by the Commission, staff has provided a partial transcript of the January 11, 2006 public hearing for reference regarding the Commission's adopted motion in this matter (Attachment No. 1). Staffs original proposal was to allow 25 aircraft tie down spaces and one-acre aircraft parking area (approximately 116,000 square feet). The Commission instructed staff to convert the tie-down spaces and aircraft parking area to square footage.
Condition No. 38(e) currently states "A 116,000 square feet exterior tie down area located on the northerly side of the runway to be utilized solely for the parking of aircraft."
A letter dated February 27, 2006 was received from the representatives of the airpark operator regarding the findings and conditions and is attached for your reference (Attachment No. 2). Return to index
Findings And Order Of The Regional Planning Commission County Of Los Angeles
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: January 22, 2005 and December 14, 2005
SYNOPSIS:
On August 10, 2004, the Board of Supervisors instructed the Regional Planning Commission to initiate modification/revocation proceedings and conduct a public hearing with respect to Special Permit No. 1404 (Permit), The Permit was approved by the Regional Planning Commission on October 27, 1959 to authorize the expansion, operation and maintenance of a privately owned public use commercial airport with appurtenant facilities including the modification of a number of approved conditions of the previous permit. The airport is located at 33638 Agua Dulce Canyon Road, Agua Dulce, in the Soledad Zoned District. The modification/revocation proceedings were initiated due to violations associated with the operations and development of the airport resulting from complaints received by the County.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
The Regional Planning Commission scheduled a duly noticed public hearing on October 23, 2004. The operator of the airport and representatives of the Agua Dulce community requested that the public hearing be postponed to allow additional time to meet and to address concerns expressed by the local residents of the community. Consequently the October hearing was canceled and a public hearing was subsequently rescheduled for January 22, 2005, to continue the modification/revocation proceeding on the Permit.
The Regional Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing at the High Desert School in Acton. All Commissioners were present. The Regional Planning Commission heard the staff report and testimony from the operator of the airport and his representative. Members and representatives of the Acton Town Council, the Agua Dulce Civic Association, the Concerned Citizens of Agua Dulce and the Federal Aviation Administration also testified regarding the revocation/modification proposal. The airport operator presented a set of proposed conditions to address concerns expressed by the residents of the community. Supporting and opposing testimony was also received from local residents, local business owners and patrons of the Airpark. Approximately 400 people attended the public hearing. After receiving testimony, the Commission discussed various issues presented at the public hearing and directed the operator of the airport and his representative to meet with local residents and community groups to discuss the proposal in an effort to reach an agreement. Consequently, the Regional Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 16, 2005, to allow additional time
for a tour of the site and to obtain input from local residents regarding the airport operator's proposal.
The Regional Planning Commission participated in an agendized site tour of the airport on March 5, 2005. Commissioners Bellamy, Helsley, Rew and Modugno were in attendance during the visit to the subject property. County staff gave the Commissioners a tour of the airport. At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Commission also observed flight demonstrations and heard associated noise levels involving six different aircraft at the homes of two local residents located near the airport. Representatives from the Department of Health Services were present during the demonstration to measure the noise level of various aircrafts at these locations. A representative from the County Department of Public Works Aviation Division was also present.
At the March 16, 2005 continued public hearing, all Commissioners were present. The Regional Planning Commission received additional verbal and written testimony from the airpark representatives, local residents, representatives of the Acton Town Council, the Agua Dulce Civic Association, the Concerned Citizens of Agua Dulce, the Agua Dulce Pilot's Association and the Overall/Brink Group. The Commission discussed the possibility of modifying or revoking the Permit as well as need to retain the public use status of the airport. The Commission determined that the modifications as proposed by the operator did not address the concerns of the Community. The Commission closed the public hearing and directed staff to prepare potential reasons for revocation of the Permit.
On April 20, 2005 meeting, all Commissioners were present. The Regional Planning Commission considered modification and revocation of Special Permit 1404 pursuant to Part 13 of Chapter 22.56 of the Los Angeles County Code and voted for modification of the permit. The Commission finds that the alleged violations of acrobatic flying, allowing jet aircrafts at the airport, serving alcoholic beverages without permit were either unsubstantiated, not in the control of the operator, or disputable. However, the Commission also finds the confirmed violations of constructing a pool without a permit, selling membership to a recreational club, construction of an aircraft tie-down area without approval, the inconsistency of the hangar height and holding special events without permit, and the concerns expressed by local residents demonstrated the need for modification of the Permit. The Commission acknowledged that the airport is operating under a permit with antiquated conditions and that the revocation/modification proceeding has provided substantial evidence to modify the permit. The Commission voted for modification of the Permit and instructed staff to prepare conditions as such for modification of the Permit. On November 3, 2005, the Commission decided to re-open the public hearing in order to allow public testimony on the draft modified conditions of the
Permit. A public hearing was scheduled on December 14, 2005 to allow public comments on the draft modified conditions of the Permit.
At the December 14, 2005 public hearing, all commissioners were present but Commissioners Valadez and Modugno left prior to the conclusion of the item. The Regional Planning Commission received verbal and written testimony from the airpark representatives and the operator of the airport (18 local residents and airpark patrons regarding the proposed modified conditions and airpark related issues. Approximately 150 additional people attended the hearing but did not testify. The Commission continued the public hearing to January 11, 2006 to allow additional public testimony and the airpark operator to provide clarification regarding the operation and maintenance of the facility.
At the January 11, 2006 continued public hearing, all Commissioners were present. The Regional Planning Commission received additional written and verbal comments from local residents in support of the continued operation of the airport and regarding the proposed modifications. Some residents expressed continued concerns regarding the airport's potential impacts. The airport operator and his representatives addressed issues raised during hearing and responded to questions posed by the Commission.
The airport operator indicated his willingness to impose voluntary conditions pertaining to the flight operations of the airport and requested that the Commission make certain changes to the proposed conditions. The airport operator stated that it was his intent to address to the extent possible the issues raised by the local residents. The letter to the Commissioners from counsel for the operators, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP and Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP, dated January 4, 2006, indicated that the permittee would agree to voluntarily impose conditions that would be enforceable by the County. The conditions include: limiting the airport use to propeller driven aircraft and rotor aircraft and prohibiting jet aircraft; limiting use to pleasure and executive type aircraft not exceeding light twin engine in weight; prohibiting acrobatic flying, parachute jumping and other dangerous flying; allowing use by emergency aircraft and aircraft operated by government agencies; and implementation and enforcement procedures.
The Commission discussed various issues presented at the public hearing including the operator's proposed self-imposed conditions and directed staff to make changes to the proposed conditions. The Commission also discussed the merits of the proposed conditions and considered potential limitations to curtail the expansion of the airport. The Commission determined that the proposed conditions would address a number of concerns raised during the public hearings and the violations. The Commission extended the hours of operation for the restaurant within the airtel and modified the condition to restrict the size of the aircraft parking area rather the number of aircraft as proposed.
There being no further testimony, the Regional Planning Commission voted (3-2) to close the public hearing, indicated its intent to approve the proposed modification to the Permit, and directed staff to prepare the final environmental documentation and findings and conditions for approval with modifications as discussed. Return to index
1. Pursuant to Section 22.56.1780, Subsections D and E, Title 22, of the Los Angeles County Code, the Regional Planning Commission considered revocation or modification of conditions of approval of Special Permit 1404-(5). Special Permit No. 1404 was approved by the Regional Planning Commission on October 27, 1959 to supersede and authorize the modification of a number of approved conditions of the previous permit and to allow the expansion, operation and maintenance of a privately owned public use commercial airport with appurtenant facilities located at 33638 Agua Dulce Canyon Road, Agua Dulce, in the Soledad Zoned District.
2. The subject property has access to Agua Dulce Canyon Road via an access driveway to the west and Darling Road to the south. The subject property is located approximately three-quarters of a mile south of S ierra Highway and approximately two miles westerly of the Antelope Valley Freeway (14).
3. The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel approximately 110 acres in size and located at the eastern terminus of Darling Road, cm the east side of Agua Dulce Canyon Road and south of the Agua Dulce Vineyard. The topography of the site varies from flat to gently sloping mesas and steep hillsides in a southeasterly direction. An existing drainage course currently bisects the southeastern portion of the property along and south of the existing runway.
4. The subject property is currently developed with a runway, an aircraft tie-down area, twenty-eight (28) hangars in various stages of construction, a swimming pool, fuel storage and dispensing area, and a building which consists of a pilot's lounge, an office and a café. There are 62 designated veh icle parking spaces on the subject property. The subject property is comprised of three (3) parcels, assessor parcel numbers 3213-021-017, 3213-031-002 and 3213-022-026.
5. Zoning on the subject property is A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural -one acre required area) and A-1-10,000 (Light Agricultural-10,000 square foot required area). Surrounding zoning consists of A-1- 1 0,000 to the north andmast; and A-2-1 and A-1-10,000 to the south and west.
6. Surrounding land uses consist of single-family residences and vacant properties to the north, south, east and west.
The subject property is designated as Airport (AP) and Non-Urban 1 (N1 ) in the Land Use Policy map of the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan (SCVAP). Approximately 85 acres of the southeasterly quadrant of the subject property, encompassing the runway and appurtenant structures, are within the Airport land use classification. The remaining undeveloped area located along the northwesterly and southerly property boundary is within the Non-Urban 1 land use classification. The SCVAP does not have any development policies pertaining to the Airport land use designation. However, the SCVAP land use policy map does distinguish the airport as an existing facility. The Countywide General Plan depicts the property with a Public and Semi-Public Facilities land use designation which includes airports and other major transportation facilities.
8. The Commission initially approved Special Permit No. 1352 (SP 1352) on September 2, 1958. The permit authorized the use of the subject property for a private commercial airport. SP 1352 had a 20-plane storage capacity and a 10-year termination period.
9. On October 27, 1959, the Regional Planning Commission approved Special Permit No. 1404 to authorize modification of some of the conditions of Special Permit No. 1352 including the extension of the runway and development of additional hangars as well as a 20-room airtel with a restaurant and a swimming pool. Additional area was added to the airport as a result of the runway extension (approximately 8 acres). SP 1404 also eliminated the limitation on plane storage and the expiration of SP 1352. SP 1404 does not have an expiration date. The decision of the Commission was appealed to the Board of Supervisors by several community groups. The Board of Supervisors on May 24, 1960, denied the appeal and upheld the Commission's decision to approve the airport with minor revisions.
10. As authorized under SP 1404-(5), the applicant established a private commercial airport on the subject property. The permit authorized the airport with incidental facilities and prohibited jet aircraft. As indicated on the approved Exhibit "A" dated June 12, 1961, SP 1404 authorized 110,000 square feet of hangar space for aircraft storage, 72,000 square feet of hangar space for aircraft maintenance and 250,000 square feet of aircraft tie-down area. The permit also allows a flight school (two-planes only), an emergency landing field, aircraft repair shops (excluding engine overhaul), storage for aircraft parts and temporary airfield for aircrafts used for safety related activities such as fire fighting. The permit restricts the facility to aircraft parts to be stored within the hangars, damaged parts must be removed within 30 days; and aircraft wrecking, stunt flying and parachute jumping are prohibited.
11. There have been three (3) Revised Exhibit "A"s approved on the subject property since the approval of SP 1404 which are in conformance with the original Exhibit "A". A Revised Exhibit "A" was approved in December 13, 1987, for the construction of twenty (20) hangars along the northerly perimeter of the runway. This exhibit depicts the location of the new hangars and all the existing improvements of the airport comprised of hangars located at the western end of the runway, a caretaker mobile home (this was never utilize), a café, two fuel pumps and 250„000 square feet of aircraft tie-down area along the northerly perimeter of the runway.
A Revised Exhibit "A" was approved on September 27, 2003 for a swimming pool, a parking area and a 600-square foot expansion to a utility building/hangar. This exhibit shows the location of the pool, utility building/hangar and parking area. The location of all existing development is also depicted. The pool was built prior to the approval of this Revised Exhibit "A" but originally shown appurtenant to the airtel on the 1961 Exhibit "A."
A Revised Exhibit "A" was approved in October 31, 2003, to authorize the construction of a 20-unit airtel and nine (9) 50'x60' hangars. This exhibit shows the location of the new hangars and airtel and all existing improvements. However, this approved Exhibit "A" did not reflect the location of the original aircraft tie-down area.
12. The Commission received a letter dated December 6, 2005 from Wayne Spears stating that, as of October 24, 2005, he and his wife Connie Spears are the new owners of the Airpark. Mr. Spears also testified at the December 11 ,2006 public hearing that he is the new owner of the airport.
13. Agua Dulce is considered a rural community comprised mostly of residential development limited to one unit per two acres by the General Plan. The community has historically emphasized the importance of maintaining the rural character of the area; and has expressed concerns related to growth and associated impacts on the limited groundwater supplies in the area. Many residents of the Agua Dulce community have expressed concern regarding the operation of the airport. Residents testified that the airport has allowed non-aviation related activities and events such as fundraisers, community meetings, auto shows and film productions at the airport which lead to the intensification of use. The residents testified that these events and activities have impacts on local traffic patterns and increase noise level of the community. The residents also testified that the conditions of SP 1404 did not specifically address the appurtenant uses of the airport such as the pool, airtel and restaurant nor did they mitigate or will mitigate the impacts to the community as a result of the expansion it authorized.
14. The proprietor of the airport (Airpark) has extensively promoted the facility for film production, special events such as fundraisers, community meetings, air and auto shows. Also, fee memberships to the airport's recreational facilities were offered to the general public. The airport has significantly expanded non-airport activities, resulting in significant assertions of disruption to the community and intensification of land use of the subject property. SP 1404 did not give the airport specific guidelines under which to operate its appurtenant uses.
5. The Department of Regional Planning Zoning Enforcement Section has investigated a series of alleged violations of County codes and regulations at the subject property and issued Notices of Violation and Final Enforcement Orders, as summarized below:
On June 27, 2003, a Notice of Violation was issued to the Airpark for the following violations:
• More than twenty (20) planes were stored at the subject property_
• The airport is restricted to propeller driven aircraft (it was reported a jet aircraft attempted to land at the airport).
• Construction of a pool without a permit from Building and Safety and failure to submit the required revised site plan,
• Serving alcoholic beverages without permits.
• Selling and advertising membership to a private recreational club without a conditional use permit.
• Placing banner signs on the subject property.
The Airpark operator submitted a letter dated July 18, 2003, responding to the Notice of Violation. The letter indicated that the facility is not subject to the 20-plane limitation as this restriction was part of SP 1352, that the Airpark was not utilized by non-propeller aircraft and that no jet aircraft landed at the Airpark; an application for a pool permit has been submitted; serving of alcoholic beverages was part of two fundraising events held at the Airpark; both events have Day-Use permits to serve alcohol; and the airport has discontinued selling and advertising memberships to a private recreational club. The violations established by County staff and/or admitted by the airpark operator (namely, the construction of the pool without a permit, the selling of memberships to a private recreational club and placing banner signs on the subject property) were remedied within the 30-day period provided in the Permit. The investigation revealed that the airport operator began the construction of a pool without an approved site plan and permit, thereby violating the conditions of the Permit and the County code.
On January 8, 2004, a Notice of Violation was issued to the Airpark regarding the following violations:
• Report of planes conducting acrobatic maneuvers and unsafe flying at the airport in violation of condition No. 7 of SP 1404.
• Violation of Temporary Use Permit 03-020 which forbids the taking-off and landing of aircraft during the Wild West Days event.
• Violation of Temporary Use Permit 03-020 which requires safety barricades for demolition derby.
• Santa Fly-In event was held December 14, 2003 without a temporary use permit.
The airport operator submitted a letter dated January 30, 2004 responding to the Notice of Violation. In the letter, the operator indicated that the Airpark did not condone, authorize or was aware of any occurrence of unsafe flying, an aircraft was allowed to land during a special event because the airport could not establish alternative arrangement with the pilot who is based at the airport; a moat was used as safety barricades during the demolition derby to separate the spectators and the track; and was advised by County staff that a Santa Fly-In event does not require a temporary use permit. The Airpark operator failed to prevent the occurrence of these violations during the special events and unable to address the issues relating to the violations to the satisfaction of County staff.
May 20, 2004, a Final Enforcement Order was issued to the Airpark for the following violations:
• Reports of aerial acrobatics and dangerous flying at the Airpark.
• Construction of a new "tie-down" area in the southern end of the Airpark without submitting a Revised Exhibit "A".
In a letter dated May 26, 2004, responding to the Final Enforcement Order, the operator stated that the airport is not aware of any aerial acrobatics and dangerous flying but has advised pilots to be courteous to adjacent residences. The operator also stated that he has not allowed any aircraft to tie-down on the new paved area and he will be submitting a Revised Exhibit A
Although the operator received Notice of Violations and a Final Enforcement Order, the airport initiated construction of the subject paved aircraft tie down area without an approved Revised Exhibit "A", and continued construction until the issuance of a Stop Work order by Division of Building and Safety and the Fire Department. County staff determined the location of the new "tie-down" area is not consistent with the approved site plan of the Permit and that the airport had not submitted a Revised Exhibit "A" application to authorize the use.
June 24, 2004, a Final Enforcement Order was issued to the Airpark for the following violations:
• Received report of grading activity at the airport without grading permit and enforcement staff confirmed unauthorized grading at the subject property.
• Heights of the new hangars are inconsistent with the approved site plan. The approved height is 17'-6" and the new hangars are actually 29'-2",
In a letter dated July 12, 2004, responding to the Final Enforcement Order, the airport operator stated the grading was associated with a special event and that he is working with the County Department of Building and Safety to obtain the necessary permit and the Regional Planning staff to revise the site plan to show the correct hangar height. The actions of the airport operator to initiate
unauthorized grading without approval and exceeding the approved height of the hangars are violations to the conditions of the approved Permit and of Section 22.56.1780, Subsections D and E, Title 22, of the Los Angeles County Code. The unpermitted grading further evidences a problem with holding special events at the airport.
July 8, 2004, a Notice of Violation was issued to the airport for the following violations to a Temporary Use Permit issued for an Independence Day fireworks event:
• Arrangement of event activities not consistent with the approved site plan for Temporary Use Permit No. 04-171.
• Did not comply with Fire Department safety procedures regarding. fireworks show (allowing attendees of the event into restricted area).
• Did not provide adequate security staff for the event as required by the Sheriffs Department.
In a letter dated July 12, 2004 responding to the Notice of Violation, the airport operator explained that people were only allowed in the firework staging area before the launching of any fireworks and adequate safety and security personnel were present during the event as evidenced by the absent of any incidents or injuries.
September 21, 2004, a Second Notice of Noncompliance and Fee was issued to airport for using the unauthorized aircraft "tie-down" area for filming activities.
In a letter dated September 29, 2004, responding to the Notice of Noncompliance and Fee, the airport operator indicated that there will be no further use of the unauthorized "tie-down" area. The use of the unauthorized "tie-down" area is a violation to the conditions of approval as its location is inconsistent with the approved site plan of the Permit.
March 11, 2005, a Notice of Violation was issued to the airport by Building and Safety for filming at the airport without obtaining a film permit.
At the March 16, 2005, continued public hearing the airport representative indicated that the March 11th filming activity was only to test camera equipments only would not be consider film production, therefore, a film permit is not required and the citation was unwarranted.
16. Hearing notices were mailed to the property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property for the January 22, 2005 and December 12, 2005 public hearings. Case materials were mailed to Canyon Country Jo Anne Darcy County Library, advertisements were published in La Opinion and Acton Ague Dulce Weekly News and public hearing notices were posted at the project site at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearings.
17. During the public hearing proceedings, approximately four hundred (400) letters, signed petitions and e-mails were submitted along with supporting documents in opposition to the operation of the airport and regarding the modification to the Permit. The letters are from local residents and community groups who express concerns that the airport has not complied with the conditions of the Permit. The letters further state that there should not be any new construction and additional airport related activities authorized on the site due to potential adverse impacts such as excessive noise, decreased property values, water usage, impacts of increased aircraft and automobile traffic generated from the subject property. Numerous verbal and written complaints received by Zoning Enforcement involved flight operations, special events and filming activities held on the property and construction without proper County approval.
18. Approximately 3,700 written correspondence and a signed petition from local residents, airport patrons, and film and aeronautic organizations in support of the airport were received. This correspondence states that the airport is an asset to the Community and it is critical to the aviation infrastructure. Many local residents expressed support in the continued operation of the airport.
19. At its April 20, 2005 meeting, the Commission reviewed and discussed the modification or revocation of the Permit pursuant to Part 13 of Chapter 22.56.1780, Subsections D and E of the Los Angeles County Code. The Commission found that there is insufficient cause to revoke the Permit. During the course of hearings, the Commission obtained information that a number of concerns expressed by residents of the community such as air traffic volume and noise levels are associated with flight operations of an airport, which are pre-empted by federal regulations and thus beyond the control of enforcement by the County.
20. Based on the on the hearing record and public testimony, the Commission concluded the airport has violated the conditions of the Permit and County regulations. However, the Commission finds that the alleged violations of unsafe flying, allowing jet aircraft to land at the airport, storing more than 20 planes at the airport and serving alcoholic beverages without a permit were unsubstantiated and disputable. The Commission also finds the confirmed violations do not rise to a level that would ensue revocation of the Permit. The Commission acknowledged that the airport is operating under a permit with antiquated conditions and that the revocation/modification proceeding has provided substantial evidence to support the need to modify the permit. The confirmed violations show that the operator did not follow County code and procedures and compliance with approved conditions of the Permit. As indicated in the violation records, the construction of a swimming pool, holding special events without permit, selling membership to a recreational club without an approved Conditional Use Permit, posting banner signs at the subject property, the development of the unauthorized tie-down area without an approved site plan or grading review and the inconsistency of the hangar height are violations to the terms of approval of the Permit. These violations would support grounds for modification of the Permit as prescribed in Section 22.56 _ 1780.
21. The Commission also considered and discussed comments from the California Department of Transportation and The Federal Aviation Administration regarding airport operations. The Commission finds that the conditions directly relating to the flight operations of the airport which would be in conflict with federal regulations cannot be imposed. Conditions such as restriction on the types of aircraft, operation of aircraft, development of runway facility and hours of flight operations are preempted by Federal law. The Commission finds that the airport operator may impose such restrictions and recognizes that the airport operator volunteered to do so during these proceedings.
22. The Commission finds that, although the modification cannot include federally pre-empted conditions that directly impact the flight operations of the airport, as part of the modification proceeding, it is within the Commission's discretion to modify the number and size of the hangars and the size of aircraft tie-down area. The Commission can also determine the appropriate number of aircraft to be stored in each hangar and reduce or eliminate airport auxiliary uses and structures. The Commission finds the modification can substantially address many of the concerns of some local residents and community groups. The modified conditions are a viable option to regulate the airport and to ensure the health and safety of local residents in the Community to the extent possible.
23. Additional conditions to regulate the occurrence of temporary events and filming activities are included. Restrictions on the hours of operation for appurtenant airport uses such as the restaurant and maintenance facility have been established. An expiration of the Permit and biannual inspections are required. To address violations relating to the unauthorized "tie-down" area, the location and size of an area to accommodate aircraft parking will be identified. The modification also eliminates conditions of the previous permit authorizing the development of a flight school and a caretaker residence. The elimination the flight school was part of the prior operator's attempt to address the concerns of the community. In a proposal presented to the Commission during the January 11, 2005 public hearing, the operator proposed to operate "ground" flight school only. In a later version presented to the community, the flight school was eliminated to address the concerns of local residents. The modified conditions now authorize only the civil air patrol, but no private flight schools. The airport operator is required to submit an updated site plan depicting the location of all the approved development. Conditions regarding community input and notification of special events are also imposed.
24. In addition to the modified conditions, the airport operator also volunteered and agreed to impose the following conditions regarding the operation of the airport as part of the modification:
• Restrict the airport to propeller driven light twin-motor aircraft only
• No acrobatic flying
• Restriction to light twin-engine aircraft; heavier aircraft not to exceed
15% of annual flight ops and no flight ops for aircraft over 30,000 lbs.
• Allow emergency landing field and staging area
• Allow aircraft owned and operate by public agencies to use the airport
• Prohibit aeronautical or charter services
• Monetary penalties
25. The Commission finds that the operation of the subject airport as currently operating has been have been a regular source of disturbance and annoyance to neighboring residents. The level of disturbance has resulted in a nuisance to the neighbors and it is clear that the justification and basis for which the Permit was originally approved did not contemplate such a level of activities or such scope of development related to typical aeronautical use of an airport. Modifiaction of the Permit in the manner herein prescribed, imposing additional controls on filming activities, special events and appurtenant uses at the subject property would be appropriate to control the level of intensity from the land use standpoint and would not impede the existing operation of the airport otherwise regulated by Federal law.
26. Based on documentary evidence, including, but not limited to, inspections, Notices of Violation, Final Enforcement Orders, Notices of Noncompliance, and public testimony, the Commission finds that the Permit will require additional conditions to preclude further violations. The airport operator has violated conditions of Special Permit 1404–(5) and County procedures and regulations in the development and operation of the facility. In addition, the unauthorized activities at the Airpark have been contrary to the terms and conditions of the grant, are detrimental to the public health and safety and also constitute a nuisance. The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 22.56. 1780, Subsections D and E, that the violations and unauthorized activities at the airport provide the necessary prerequisites to modify the Permit. The unauthorized activities at the Airpark include, but are not limited to:
• The grading and paving of the unauthorized tie-down area without an approved site plan or grading review has posed a potential threat to the health and safety of the surrounding residents and a nuisance to the Agua Dulce community. The unauthorized tie-down area could disturb existing drainage patterns and impact water quality as it is adjacent to a drainage course.
• The Airpark extensively promoted the facility for film production, special events such as fund raisers, community meetings, air and auto shows. Also, fee memberships to the airport's recreational facilities were offered to the general public. These events, such as selling memberships to recreational facilities at the airport, conducting a Business Expo and a Santa Fly-In were held without an approved Temporary Use Permit and have traffic impacts and intensify the land use.
• The construction of the pool, the development and grading of an aircraft tie-down area and exceeding the approved height of the hangars without prior authorization are violations of Special Permit 1404-(5) and demonstrate that additional safeguards are needed to ensure compliance.
27. This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is within a class of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment that it meets the criteria set forth in Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3) and Class 21 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15321(a) - enforcement action by regulatory agencies) of the environmental document reporting procedures and guidelines of the County of Los Angeles. These proceedings under Section 22.56.1780 constitute enforcement action, as do the Notices of Violation and other County actions to enforce the Permit that led to the initiation of this revocation/modification proceeding. Return to index
A. That permittee of Special Permit No. 1404-.(5) is violating or has violated conditions of such permit, and that the use for which the permit was granted is being, or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval or in violation of any statue, ordinance, law, or regulations; and
B. That the use for which the approval was granted is so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to be a nuisance.
AND, THEREFORE, the information submitted by the applicant and presented at the hearing substantiates the required ground for modification of Special Permit No. 1404-(5) as set forth in Section 22.56.1780, Subsections D and E, Title 22, of the Los Angeles County Code (Zoning Ordinance).
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
1. In view of the findings of fact and conclusions presented above, Special Permit No. 1404 is MODIFIED as provided in the attached conditions.
Return to index
Airpark permit/revocation Issues Index
Vanguard News Home page