AGUA DULCE AIRPARK ISSUE
ACTION PLAN OUTLINE:
GENERAL
INFORMATION
AGUA DULCE TOWN COUNCIL INTENT & PURPOSE:
At the Town Council
meeting of February 23, 2005, the ADTC unanimously approved a proposal to
request an Action Plan from each of the groups, organizations, and individuals
that have stated a public position on the Agua Dulce Airpark issue.
The entire Agua Dulce
Community, including the Town Council, deserves to receive a thorough,
thoughtful, but concise outline of each group’s Plan of Action (POA) that
states the group’s, organization’s, or individual’s (hereinafter: “Group”)
goal(s), and the methods they intend to use to achieve them. It is not the Town
Council’s intention to force any entity to divulge tactical information that
would jeopardize the Group’s desired end result. However, the ADTC and
Community need to know your Plan, and the answers to the following points,
before considering support for any Group’s position.
WHO SHOULD PARTICIPATE:
The ADTC has approved an Action Plan Outline
that has been sent to each of the identified groups involved in the Airpark
issue (a copy follows.) Any other group/organization/individual that feels they
have a unique position or point of view that is not covered by the
organizations listed below may also complete and submit the Action Plan
Outline.
Identified
Groups
TOWN COUNCIL ACTIONS:
In
order to be flexible, since we understand the demands on busy organizations,
groups and individuals, we encourage each to submit its Action Plan as soon as
possible. Communication must be via email Word document attachment sent to AguaDulceCouncil@aol.com.
February
23, 2005 – Unanimous approval by the ADTC of Action Plan proposal
February
25 – Action Plan submission materials available on the ADTC website and via
email
March
7 – Submissions available for viewing on the ADTC website - midnight
March
12 – Submissions published in the Agua Dulce/Acton Country Journal and other
media, if available.
March 16 – Regional Planning Hearing
Following
receipt of the submissions, the Town Council will provide copies of all Action
Plans received via email to community organizations for distribution to their
membership. The Action Plans will be posted on the ADTC website (http://www.aguadulce-ca.com) by
midnight on Monday, March 7th. Submissions will be forwarded to
local media for publication in the next available edition.
The
ADTC reserves the right to delay the posting and publication of submissions at
its discretion. If a group chooses not to participate, or has not submitted
their Action Plan by the publication date, the community will be advised.
AGUA DULCE AIRPARK ISSUE
ACTION PLAN OUTLINE:
DATE SUBMITTED:
NAME OF GROUP/ORGANIZATION OR
INDIVIDUAL:
Agua Dulce Civic Association,
Inc.
CONTACT PERSON:
MAILING ADDRESS:
33201-1 Agua
Dulce Canyon Road
Agua Dulce,
CA. 91390
EMAIL ADDRESS:
www.aguadulceupdate.com
TELEPHONE CONTACT NUMBERS:
661.268.8628
At Supervisor
Antonovich’s suggestion, the Town Council along with representatives from the
Civic Association and the Concerned Citizens of Agua Dulce, met with
representatives of the Agua Dulce Airpark in an effort to resolve our long
standing issues with both the operation of the airport and the county’s
enforcement of the airport’s special permit. The Airport Planners presented to
us “Discussion of Issues and Proposed
Corrective Measures Related to Modification of Special Permit No. 1404-(5), at
the first meeting.
Based on these
discussions and discussions with other community members, the airport planners
have presented us with a compromise proposal entitled “Proposed Corrective
Conditions Related to Modification of Special Permit NO. 1404-(5) for the Agua
Dulce Airport” Draft #8. You can
download the entire proposal on our web site www.aguadulceupdate.com.
The Civic Board is
conducting a vote of its membership to determine membership support. Two
Hundred and Twenty Two (222) ballots went out February 27th. The
ballots are due March 9, 2005. The ballots will be forwarded to the Regional
Planning Commission for inclusion in their packets prior to the next public
hearing on this matter, Wednesday, March 16, 2005.
If the majority votes
to support the compromise proposal, we will proceed to negotiate Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) that would essentially be a contract with the Airport and the
Civic and hopefully the Town Council that we could record with the County. The
contract would outline our agreement on the conditions of the airport’s use and
legal enforcement above the level of the county’s zoning enforcement process.
Many of us have found county enforcement laboriously slow and without
meaningful repercussion.
After 45 years of
fighting over expansion of this airport, we look forward to ending the
long-standing acrimony and distrust to move forward in a positive manor.
The Agua Dulce Civic
Association was organized July 13, 1956, and incorporated on April 29, 1957 as
a non-profit corporation.
Article ll Purpose
The purpose of this
Association of civic minded persons shall be: to identify, research and report
to the community of Agua Dulce on issues of membership interest, and as deemed
necessary by the general membership, to participate in and take a position on
those issues; to preserve the rural lifestyle of Agua Dulce by promoting
controlled growth; and to promote the enforcement of the Agua Dulce Community
Standards District Ordinance.
The Civic Association
will take a formal position when the membership’s votes are counted.
Attached is a comparison from the airport’s planners of what the county considers the airport’s allowable uses under its existing permit versus the reduction in uses the airport is proposing for modification of the permit. Key in the proposal is the conversion of the airport from a “public use” to a “special use” airport. The State of California Division of Aeronautics who issues the airport a permit (after the county determines and conditions the land-use for airport purposes) defines a special use airport as: An airport not open to the general public, access to which is controlled by the owner in support of commercial activities, public service operations, and/or personal use.
The airport would not be open to the general flying public and there would be limits on the number of guest flights. Only 65 aircraft will be allowed to lease hangars. Federal law prevents banning jets at any airport if it has a “public use” permit. Converting the airport to “special use” allows the airport owner (not the feds) to control the access to the airport. You will see in the proposal that the airport is willing to ban jets and any aircraft over 12,500 lbs and 55’ wingspans. The current permit allows planes up to 30,000lbs!!! Also, there would no longer be the ability to locate maintenance/overhaul industrial businesses or flight training.
Some
think that the airport should maintain “public use” status and simply institute
a landing fee to keep the jets and all the outside traffic out, however the
Feds i.e. the FAA view any landing fee above the need for compensation for
runway wear and tear as discriminatory and therefore illegal! If the airport
retains a “public use” permit jets will become a reality and the number of
based aircraft and itinerant/transient aircraft operations will grow to
whatever the market demands!!!
Alternatively, some may wish to “revoke” the airport’s permit. However, county staff has told us that they intend to modify and not revoke the permit. Even if the Commissioners voted to revoke, this does not mean that the airport will close. The airport would apply for a new permit and the county could allow the airport to function during the process. Also, if we push to revoke the permit, the airport would be under no obligation to offer the community the compromises in their current proposal. They could get a new “public use” permit and the jets won’t be far behind!
In
the past year close to $20,000 has been spent consulting with an aviation
attorney and a land use attorney exploring various options, including
revocation of the permit. It has been our attorneys’ opinion that an effort to
revoke the permit will require court action and could easily cost over one
hundred thousand dollars! It could drag on for years with an uncertain outcome.
Presently, the Civic Association does not have the resources to pursue this
course of action.
Our
aviation attorney believes that the proposed modifications are a good
compromise for the community.
The airport compromise proposal has been forwarded from our airport committee to the Board of Directors. The Chair of the Airport Committee sits on the board, as do 4 other members of the airport committee.
We
are fortunate to have respected aviation attorney Barbara E. Lichman PhD.
representing us. Ms. Lichman specializes in aviation and she holds a PhD in
land-use from USC. Some of you may remember Barbara from our 10-year fight
opposing the County purchase of the Agua Dulce Airpark to serve as the Santa
Clarita Regional Airport. Thanks to her skilled representation and advice we
were able to stop that proposal.
The Civic Association can only speak for its membership, which is limited to residents and property owners of land in Agua Dulce.
Previously stated, however the Civic Board would like to see how the community at large feels abut the compromise proposal and may determine to conduct a survey of all resident property owners.
The Civic Board would
like the Town Council to support the compromise proposal so that they can join
the Civic as a signatory to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). We would like to see the Town Council
take a vote on this issue and report the findings of that vote at the Regional
Planning hearing March 16, 2005.
We would like the
community to go the www.aguadulceupdate.com
and download the proposal and email us their comments, which we will forward to
the Regional Planning Commission.
We believe that the Commissions should adopt the
compromise proposal for modification of the permit.
If
the Regional Planning Commission acts outside of the compromise proposal we
will look to our County Supervisor Mike Antonovich to support the compromise
proposal by adding or deleting conditions inconsistent with the compromise
proposal.
100%
Previously Stated.
Previously Stated
Aviation Land-Use
Attorney on retainer
Donations by the
members of the Agua Dulce Civic Association and community-at-large
Attorney(s) report to
the Civic Assn., Board of Directors
Anticipated costs thru a Board of Supervisors Appeal and negotiation of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) anticipated in the range of $15,000 for all categories.
Historically, all
community surveys and membership votes surrounding the airport issue have been
conducted by mail. We now have a professionally designed web site www.aguadulceupdate.com as
an additional vehicle for communication. In the past we have also utilized
full-page advertising and flyers in the Country Journal and may do so in the
future.
Plans
to work around obstacles will be developed as deemed necessary and which
receive support from the membership. If the County issues the airport a
modified permit for a “public use” airport, the Civic with the advice from
counsel will ask its membership for direction on action.
The
majority of the membership of the Civic Assn. must support the compromise
proposal.
The
Town Council must support the compromise proposal.
The
Regional Planning Commission should adopt the compromise proposal.
The
Supervisors Office must support the compromise proposal.
NO
If the airport is converted to a “special use” airport it
will no longer be open to the general flying public. We will see a decrease in
the number of take off and landings from what we experienced the last several
years. Plus, the overwhelming majority of pilots using this airport will be
based here and be aware of the flight pattern, wind conditions, density
altitude concerns and noise sensitive neighborhoods. Over-flights of the school
will cease. We will no longer have to worry about airport expansion, night
operations, student flight training or jet operations! There will be no fears
of the airport having commercial/industrial business (FBO’s). Those residential
properties closest to the airport will not be devalued due to noise and safety
concerns.
The community members, who want the airport closed, oppose
the compromise proposal. The airport is issued either a special use or public
use permit and a group of citizens files suit to revoke the permit. The
airport’s permit is deemed lapsed. The airport files for a new permit, conducts
environmental studies that show minimal impact that can be mitigated or it is
deemed that because the airport is part of the national air transportation
network that the overall public benefit overrides the negative impact that will
be born by this community. The county then issues the airport a new permit for
a public use airport and the community misses the opportunity to have the
compromises offered today. See worst-case scenario below for the rest of the
story!
The
airport stays a "public use" facility with
commercial/industrial-based businesses. There are a minimum of 150-based
aircraft, student flight training, cheap gas, lots and lots of take off and
landings including helicopters, turboprops and pure jets. Properties at either
ends of the runway have avigation (aviation/navigation) easements placed on
their titles making their property values depreciate. Properties contiguous to
the airport file for zone changes to industrial use. The airport’s use overruns
the community making Agua Dulce, as we know it, a thing of the past.
The Civic Association, thru the tireless work of its property owner members, has worked too hard to see this happen.
SUMMARY:
The
Civic is responsible for 50 years of work to preserve our beloved lifestyle. It
was the work of our members who developed the Agua Dulce Community Standards
District, the first ordinance of its kind in the County of Los Angeles, which
limits density to 2.5 (gross) acre parcels. We kept out the wind farms; the
racetrack; the state prison; and the condos and tract houses, along with their
sewers. We waged a 10 year battle with the county to keep them from making the
airport the “Santa Clarita Valley Regional Airport” with 300 based aircraft and
24 hour landings…they said “you can’t beat the county”…but we did! We have had
extraordinary support from Supervisor Mike Antonovich. We started the
Town Council to give the community a broader representative voice downtown.
We have been working
hard to see this airport issue finally resolved so we can enjoy this life we
have all created. If we work together and remain flexible…we can accomplish
anything. Remember, all of us who have chosen this lifestyle, have more in
common than not. Compromise requires all of us to give up some of what we
desire…alternatively, if we refuse to compromise we could lose everything.
Comparison from the airport’s planners of what the county
considers the airport’s allowable uses under its existing permit versus the
reduction in uses the airport is proposing for modification of the permit (Through 8th. Draft
EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS PER SPECIAL
PERMIT 1404-(5)
v
“PUBLIC-USE” AIRPORT
ALLOWING UNRESTRICTED ITINERANT/TRANSIENT FLIGHT OPERATIONS
v
250,000 SQ. FT. OF
LEASEABLE EXTERIOR AIRCRAFT “TIE-DOWN” AREA (WHICH COULD ACCOMMODATE IN EXCESS
OF 150 PLANES)
v
110,000 SQ. FT. OF STORAGE
HANGAR FLOOR AREA (55 STORAGE HANGARS
EACH UP TO 2,000 SQ. FT. IN SIZE)
v
36,000 SQ. FT. OF
SERVICE/“COMMUNITY” HANGARS (IN FOUR 9,000 SQ. FT. HANGARS)
v
36,000 SQ. FT. OF AIRCRAFT
MAINTENANCE AREA (IN TWO 18,000 SQ. FT. HANGARS)
v
ONE 20-ROOM AIRTEL W/
ACCESSORY POOL AND RESTAURANT
v
2,400 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR
FLIGHT SCHOOL (PLUS STUDENT TRAINING FLIGHT OPERATIONS)
v
3,150 SQ. FT. CAFÉ/PILOTS’
LOUNGE
v
1,500 SQ. FT. MANAGER’S
RESIDENCE
v
FUEL STORAGE AREA W/ 600
SQ. FT. OFFICE/SHOP
v
ONE (1) CARETAKER’S TRAILER
W/ WATER PUMP
v
ONE (1) 2,400 SQ. FT.
UTILITY BUILDING
v
NO LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF
“LARGER” TURBO-PROP AIRCRAFT (UP TO 12,500 LBS AND 55-FOOT WINGSPAN)
BASED/OPERATED AT AIRPORT
CHANGES TO EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS PER
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
v
CONVERSION TO A RESTRICTED
“SPECIAL-USE” AIRPORT. LIMITS ON ITINERANT/TRANSIENT FLIGHT OPERATIONS.
v
NO LEASEABLE EXTERIOR
AIRCRAFT “TIE-DOWN” AREA
v
NO MAINTENANCE HANGARS
v
NO STORAGE/“COMMUNITY”
HANGARS
v
ELIMINATE 20-ROOM AIRTEL
FROM PLAN (SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY SUPPORT OF PRIVATE SWIM CLUB AND BEER &
WINE SERVICE CUP)
v
A MAXIMUM OF 65 BASED
AIRCRAFT
v
A MAXIMUM OF 55 STORAGE
HANGARS EACH UP TO 3,000 SQ. FT. IN SIZE (MAXIMUM OF 164,000 SQ. FT. OF STORAGE
HANGAR FLOOR AREA)
v
ONE (1) “MULTI-PURPOSE”
HANGAR (MAXIMUM OF 18,000 SQ. FT.)
v
NO STUDENT TRAINING FLIGHT
OPERATIONS (AVIATION GROUND SCHOOL ONLY)
v
LIMIT NUMBER OF LARGER
TURBO-PROP AIRCRAFT (UP TO 12,500 LBS OR 55-FOOT WINGSPAN) FLIGHT OPERATIONS TO
A MAXIMUM OF 500 PER YEAR, OR A DAILY
AVERAGE OF ROUGHLY 1.4 FLIGHT OPERATIONS (FLIGHT OPERATION = 1 TAKEOFF OR 1
LANDING)
v
INSTITUTE A PROGRAM FOR
EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT AND INPUT INTO AIRPORT OPERATIONS (E.G., CREATION
OF AN AIRPORT STEERING COMMITTEE, REGULAR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, EXTENSIVE
REPORTING PROCEDURES FOR AIRPORT, ETC.)
v
ENSURE BROAD COMMUNITY AND
COUNTY INPUT INTO CREATION OF “AIRPORT OPERATION AND SAFETY REGULATIONS,” WHICH,
ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED NEW CONDITIONS OF MODIFIED SP 1404, WILL STRICTLY
REGULATE ALL ASPECTS OF AIRPORT OPERATION (INCLUDING DETAILED
SANCTIONS/PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE).
v
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW
CONDITIONS TO LESSEN FILMING IMPACTS TO NEARBY RESIDENCES (E.G., COMMUNITY FILM
LIAISON, NIGHTTIME FILM LIMITS AND ON-SITE MONITORING, LIGHTING CONTROLS,
BETTER ADVANCED COMMUNITY NOTICING PROCEDURES FOR FILMING ACTIVITIES, ETC.)
v
STRICT REGULATION OF
SPECIAL EVENTS AT PROPERTY (INCLUDING ADVANCED COMMUNITY INPUT PRIOR TO SUCH
EVENTS)
v
STRICT LIMITATIONS ON THE
NUMBER OF BASED PILOTS AND “GUEST PILOT” OPERATIONS
v
ALLOW A LIMITED, PRESCRIBED
NUMBER OF PUBLIC/ “COMMUNITY-SERVING” FLIGHT OPERATIONS AT AIRPORT
IMPORTANT CHANGES TO DRAFT
PROPOSAL SINCE JANUARY 22" 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING .:.
PROHIBIT THE INSTALLATION OF ANY LIGHTING FACILITIES THAT COULD ENABLE
NIGHTTIME LANDINGS AT THE AIRPORT .:. REQUIRE MINIMUM 30-DAY VACATION NOTICE TO
CURRENT HANGAR PAD LESSEES AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO AID IN SMOOTH RELOCATION OF
EXISTING HANGARS TO OTHER LOCAL AIRPORTS (FOX FIELD AND WHITEMAN) .:. ALLOW
MORE THAN ONE PILOT FROM AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY TO PILOT "FAMILY PLANE"
STORED IN AIRPORT HANGARS (E.G., FATHER AND DAUGHTER PILOTS FROM SAME HOUSEHOLD)
.:. ALLOW RESIDENT RENTERS TO BE APPOINTED TO AIRPORT STEERING COMMITTEE RATHER
THAN ONLY RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNERS .:. IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
THAT PUBLIC PILOTS BE ACCOMMODATED AT AIRPORT, ALLOW UP TO 104 ANNUAL
"PUBLICSERVING" FLIGHT OPERATIONS (1 TAKEOFF AND 1 LANDING PER FLIGHT
OPERATION) TO PILOTS FROM THE GNEREAL AVIATION PUBLIC (2 FLIGHT OPERATIONS PER
WEEK AVERAGE)
The ADTC and community need to know these answers, and
perhaps more, before considering support for any organization’s/group’s
position.
The next Regional Planning Commission hearing is scheduled
to be held on March 16, 2005. If this hearing is postponed, then the ADTC may
consider stretching out the “due dates”.
If you have any questions pertaining to the Action Plan
Outline, please contact:
Agua Dulce Town Council – AguaDulceCouncil@aol.com
Andrew G. Fried, President –
268-1519