Click here if you prefer to read this document using Microsoft Word.
|
AGUA DULCE AIRPORT HEARING HISTORY
HISTORY OF AIRPORT’S SPECIAL PERMITS AND PLANS Ø September 2, 1958 - Regional Planning Commission (“RPC”) initially approves Special Permit (“SP”) No. 1352, authorizing the use of the subject property for a private commercial airport.
Ø October 27, 1959 – RPC approves SP No. 1404, which superceded/replaced terms of SP 1352 (SP 1404 deleted prior conditions of SP 1352 which had limited the airport to 20 based aircraft and had established a termination date on the permit; SP 1404 also imposed new conditions allowing an elongation of the airport runway, construction of additional hangars, and construction of a 20-room airtel with restaurant and swimming pool).
Ø May 24, 1960 – County Board of Supervisors denies opponents’ appeal of RPC’s approval action for SP 1404 and sustains RPC’s approval with a modification to condition no. 6 of the RPC’s grant; SP 1404 deemed valid operational permit for Airport.
Ø June 12, 1961 – Private commercial airport established as indicated on Regional Planning Department-approved Exhibit “A”, including: * 110,000 sq. ft. of hangar space for aircraft storage in 55 aircraft hangars; * 36,000 sq. ft. of hangar space for aircraft maintenance (in two 18,000 sq. ft. hangars); * 36,000 sq. ft. of hangar space for community aircraft storage (in four 9,000 sq. ft. hangars); * 250,000 sq. ft. exterior aircraft tie-down area; * Airtel with 20 rental guestrooms and accessory restaurant and pool; * Flight school with 2 training planes (w/operations Fri-Sun from 8 a.m. – 4 p.m.); and * Prohibition on jet aircraft operations at Airport.
Ø December 13, 1987 – Revised Exhibit “A” approved allowing for the construction of 20 hangars along northerly perimeter of runway.
Ø September 27, 2003 – Revised Exhibit “A” approved for swimming pool, a parking area and a 600 sq. ft. expansion to a utility building/hangar.
Ø October 31, 2003 – Revised Exhibit “A” approved authorizing construction of 20-unit airtel and 9 - 50’ x 60’ hangars.
Ø The Airport has been in continual operation on the Property pursuant to the terms and conditions of SP 1404-(5) since its initial establishment on the site in 1961.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Ø June 27, 2003 – Notice of Violation (“NOV”) issued by County Department of Regional Planning (“DRP”) to prior owner of the Airport, Barry Kirshner, for six (6) alleged violations. The only violations cited in the NOV which were established and substantiated were (1) the start of construction of the pool without a final permit and an approved site plan; (2) the selling of memberships to a private recreational club; and (3) placing banner signs on property. (These three valid violations were remedied by prior owner within the 30-day cure period provided for in the NOV and SP 1404. The other alleged violations were proven to be unsubstantiated and patently erroneous.)
January 8, 2004 – NOV issued by DRP to prior owner of the Airport for four (4) alleged violations. This NOV dealt with alleged violations of a Temporary Use Permit (“TUP”) issued to the prior owner in conjunction with a “Wild West Days” community event. Prior owner appropriately responds in writing to County regarding the NOV within the 30-day “Order to Comply” period provided in NOV. One alleged violation cited in NOV (unsafe flying) was proven totally unsubstantiated.
Ø May 20, 2004 – Final Enforcement Order issued for following two (2) alleged violations: -Reports of aerial acrobatics, dangerous flying (alleged and unproven); and -Construction of an exterior aircraft “tie-down” area in southern end of airport without Regional Planning Department’s prior approval of a Revised Exhibit “A”. Prior owner appropriately responds in writing to County regarding the NOV within the 30-day “Order to Comply” period provided in NOV.
Ø June 24, 2004 – Final Enforcement Order issued for following two (2) alleged violations: -Report of grading activity without a grading permit; and -Heights of new hangars are inconsistent with approved site plan. Prior owner appropriately responds in writing to County, clarifying hangar height discrepancy and describes how he was in the process of correcting minor grading discrepancy with the County Division of Building & Safety. Ø July 8, 2004 – NOV issued by DRP to prior owner for three (3) alleged violations to T.U.P. No. 04-171, issued in conjunction with “4th of July” community event at Airport. Prior owner appropriately responds to DRP regarding NOV within the 30-day “Order to Comply” period cited in NOV; prior owner clarifies circumstances and disputes alleged, unproven violations cited by staff in NOV.
Ø September 21, 2004 – Second Notice of Noncompliance and Fee issued for prior owner’s unauthorized use of exterior aircraft tie-down area for filming activities. Prior owner again appropriately responds in writing to staff, within the “Order to Comply” period stipulated in the NOV, clarifying circumstances regarding use of the tie-down area and paying the requested fee.
Ø March 11, 2005 – NOV issued by Building and Safety for filming at the airport without obtaining a film permit. This NOV was proven to have been issued in error by Building & Safety, inasmuch as it was proven that a Film Permit was not required for the alleged violating activity because no film production had occurred on the Property (only testing of camera equipment had taken place, which does not require a Film Permit). NOTE
All the above NOV’s were issued to the prior owner of the Airport, Mr. Barry Kirshner. In approving modifications to the conditions of SP 1404 (5), the Regional Planning Commission made a formal finding that various of the purported violations cited in the NOV’s were unproven and unsubstantiated, and that the minor nature of the proven violations of the prior owner do not rise to the level of substantiating revocation of the Airport’s longstanding operating permit.
Since Mr. and Mrs. Wayne and Connie Spears purchased the Property and assumed management of the Airport on October 24, 2005, community complaints regarding the Airport have dropped significantly and no violation notices have been issued by the County regarding the Airport. PERMIT REVOCATION/MODIFICATION PUBLIC HEARING
Ø August 10, 2004 – Board of Supervisors, upon motion by Supervisor Antonovich, direct the RPC to initiate a Revocation/Modification hearing against the Airport to determine whether cause exists to revoke the Permit or modify conditions of SP 1404-(5) due to potential impacts related to noise, filming, traffic, storm-water runoff and dust. Motion also cites NOV’s issued against prior Airport owner as a chief reason for initiating revocation/modification action.
Ø January 22, 2005 – RPC holds initial public hearing on a Saturday morning at High Desert School in Acton in order to allow local participation. Hearing continued to March 16, 2005. Ø March 5, 2005 – RPC conducts field trip to Property to survey grounds and Airport improvements. RPC also visits two nearby residential properties to witness flight demonstrations in order to compare noise impacts at residences of piston-driven and turbo-prop planes. These flight observations reveal that turbo-prop planes are, on average, quieter at these nearby residences during approach and takeoff from the Airport than conventional piston-driven propeller planes. Ø March 16, 2005 – Hearing held downtown in RPC hearing room; continued to April 20, 2005.
Ø April 20, 2005 – RPC finds that insufficient cause exists to revoke SP 1404-(5) and votes unanimously not to revoke the Permit; rather, RPC directs its staff to bring back modified Permit conditions for consideration.
Ø October 24, 2005 – Mr. and Mrs. Wayne & Connie Spears purchase Property from Mr. Kirshner, and assume full management control of Airport.
Ø December 14, 2005 – Hearing held after RPC decided to re-open hearings for additional public comment. Approximately 120 supporters and 20-to-30 opponents attended. Hearing continued until January 11, 2006.
Ø January 11, 2006 – Hearing held. RPC voted to close hearings with the intent to approve modified conditions to SP 1404-(5).
Ø March 8, 2006 – RPC takes final vote modifying the conditions of SP1404-(5). RPC imposes numerous new conditions controlling filming, special events and public/community interaction and noticing at Airport. The modified Permit conditions are responsive to public testimony received by RPC in favor of strengthening controls regarding hosting of special events and filming at the Airport; these new conditions also respond directly to the Board’s intent in initiating the revocation/modification proceeding (inasmuch as the Board’s motion initiating the Permit revocation/modification proceeding cited potential filming impacts as a key community concern related to the Airport). RPC also adds numerous conditions “updating” the Permit to conventional County land use permitting standards and eliminates Permit condition allowing Airport to operate a flight school on the Property.
During the public hearing process, County Counsel had opined that County does not have jurisdiction to impose conditions regulating the type of aircraft which may utilize Airport (i.e., jets), or to impose conditions that would have the effect of reducing Airport flight operations or regulate aircraft noise. Nonetheless, during public hearing process, Mr. and Mrs. Spears voluntarily agree to continue to prohibit jet operations at Airport and to continue a weight limitation for planes which use Airport, among other voluntary restrictions.
During the public hearing process (via written correspondence and in testimony before RPC), Airport ownership describes to RPC that the County of Los Angeles owns and operates five (5) airports (El Monte Airport in the 1st District; Compton/Woodley Field in the 2nd District; Whiteman Airport in the 3rd District; and Brackett Field and Fox Field in the 5th District), each of which maintains expansive exterior aircraft tie down and hangar areas. Moreover, each of the County’s own airports generate community complaints due to aircraft noise or other issues typically associated with airport operations; however, unlike in the case of the Agua Dulce Airport (in which typical community complaints regarding the Airport go to the County offices), community complaints regarding the County’s five airports are typically lodged with the city staffs in which the County’s airports are located (i.e., the cities of El Monte, Compton, Los Angeles, La Verne and Palmdale). Airport ownership also points out to RPC the possible anti-competition implications of its potentially acting to reduce the Agua Dulce Airport’s hangars, exterior aircraft tie-down area or other improvements when County is simultaneously expanding such improvements at the five airports it owns and operates. Based on all the record evidence, the RPC ultimately acts to leave intact existing Permit conditions regarding the number and size of permitted aircraft hangars, aircraft tie-down area and airtel, finding that insufficient cause/nexus exists to modify and/or delete conditions regulating these improvements.
Planning staff reported that, during the time frame of the above public hearings, there were approximately 400 opposition letters/emails. During that same time, staff reported there were approximately 3,700 letters/emails in support of the Airport.
It is generally accepted that there are about 20 hard-core opponents of the Airport in the community, who have -- and will most likely continue to -- vehemently fight as long as the Airport continues its longstanding operation in Agua Dulce.
It is also widely accepted that many of the complaints have been exaggerations or even fabrications, made by a small, but very vocal, minority in the community (i.e., up to approximately 10 – 15 very vocal Airport opponents).
Since October of 2005, when Mr. and Mrs. Spears assumed ownership and operation of the Airport, there have been no violations issued against the Airport by the County. Since the Spears’ purchase of the Property, community complaints regarding the Airport have been significantly reduced.
CURRENT AIRPORT OWNERSHIP
As the new owners, the Spears’ have operated the Airport in a responsible fashion, as evidenced by the fact that Airport-related complaints have dwindled significantly. During the past few months, the Spears’ have received well-documented support for the Airport in both public hearing attendance and from letters and emails written to County officials. To show their good faith, the Spears’ have voluntarily agreed to continue prohibiting jet aircraft at the Airport (even though it is acknowledged by the County that it cannot force the Spears’ to do so). Supervisor Antonovich, himself, has refused to meet with Mr. Spears or his representatives, even though the Supervisor has met personally with opponents of the Airport and their legal counsel on at least one occasion.
HANGAR BUILDING PERMIT SUSPENSION ISSUE
On five separate occasions between April 2005 and April 2006, the prior owner of the Airport (Mr. Kirshner) and the current owners of the Airport (the Spears’) caused their attorneys to write letters to Building Superintendent Patel, Planning Director Hartl and/or Assistant County Counsel Weiss. These letters set forth the legal arguments as to why the Airport ownership believes the County’s continuing refusal to lift a previously issued building permit suspension order relating to lawful building permits issued to Airport ownership by the County, and the County’s continuing refusal to process Revised Exhibit “A” application(s) submitted by the Airport management, all such permits and exhibits relating to 10 partially-constructed aircraft hangars and related improvements on the Property, is unlawful.
Having received no formal response from the County managers regarding their repeated inquiries on this issue, the Spears’ on April 4, 2006, caused their attorneys to write directly to Supervisor Antonovich and County Counsel Fortner, requesting them to investigate the issues and to provide them a timely response regarding their findings. To date, the Spears’ have not received a response from either Supervisor Antonovich or County Counsel Fortner regarding their April 4 letter.
|