BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair
BILL NO: AB 332 HEARING: 7/2/03
AUTHOR: Mullin FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 6/23/03 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIONS
Background
A county that has an airport with scheduled airline service
or a general aviation airport must have an airport land use
commission (ALUC). The ALUC must adopt an airport land use
compatibility plan for every public use airport in that
county to protect airports from encroachment by
incompatible uses and to protect areas adjacent to airports
from noise and safety hazards. Cities and counties must
amend their general plans to conform to the ALUC's airport
land use compatibility plans.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 332 changes the airport land use planning law
in four ways:
I. Overruling ALUCs . If a city or county wants to amend
its general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or
building regulations in an area covered by the ALUC's
planning area, or if a public agency that owns an airport
wants to amend its airport master plan, public officials
must refer the proposal to the ALUC for review. If the
ALUC determines that the proposal is inconsistent with the
airport land use compatibility plan, the requesting agency
can overrule the ALUC on a 2/3 vote if it finds that the
action is consistent with the statute's purposes. In Marin
County, a public agency can override the ALUC on a majority
vote without making findings.
Pilots groups and other observers contend that pressure
from developers encourages cities and counties to overrule
ALUCs' airport land use compatibility plans. They say that
anecdotes from Brawley to Butte County show that some local
officials value local development projects more than
protecting airports. Because ALUCs are part-time panels
staffed by counties, they often lack the staff and legal
AB 332 -- 6/23/03 -- Page 2
resources to fight back.
Assembly Bill 332 requires a public agency that proposes to
overrule an ALUC to tell Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics
and the ALUC and to send them the findings 30 days before
the scheduled decision. Public officials must include
comments from Caltrans and the ALUC in the public record of
the final decision.
II. Liability in Marin County . State law allows public
agencies to overrule an ALUC by a 2/3 vote if they make
specified findings. In Marin County, a city can override
the ALUC on a majority vote without making findings. If a
city or county that does not operate an airport overrides
the ALUC, state law says that the airport's operator is
immune from liability. The statutory section that creates
this immunity does not refer to the Marin County provision.
Assembly Bill 332 adds the Marin County situation to the
statute that provides immunity to airport operators.
III. Caltrans' handbook . In preparing their plans, ALUCs
are statutorily guided by the "Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook," published by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics
(AB 2831, Mountjoy, 1994). Assembly Bill 332 declares the
Legislature's intention to discourage incompatible land
uses near existing airports and that local agencies must be
guided by criteria referred to in Caltrans "Handbook." AB
332 says that these legislative intent statements must not
be construed to limit an ALUC's jurisdiction or local
officials' authority to overrule ALUCs.
IV. Schools and community colleges . The State Department
of Education and the Community Colleges Board of Governors
must ask Caltrans to review the proposed acquisition of
land within two miles of an airport runway or a proposed
runway. If Caltrans doesn't favor the proposal, schools
and community colleges can't spend state or local funds to
buy the site or build on it.
When a sanitation district built 80-foot tall structures
near an airport in violation of the height limits in ALUC's
plan, district officials asserted that the ALUC law didn't
apply to special districts. The Legislature specifically
added special districts to the agencies that are subject to
the ALUC statute (SB 1350, Senate Local Government
Committee, 2000). By listing special districts, the
AB 332 -- 6/23/03 -- Page 3
statute may imply that schools and community colleges are
exempt. Assembly Bill 332 adds school districts and
community college districts to the list of local agencies
that are subject to the ALUC statute.
Comments
1. Public policy takes off . California has a statewide
interest in protecting its public airports from
encroachment by incompatible uses and protecting adjacent
areas from airport hazards. If local officials allow homes
near airports, they invite political pressure to restrict
or even close the facilities. Worse, they invite safety
problems if aircraft crash into neighborhoods. The state
government has both substantive and fiscal interests
because airports are part of the statewide transportation
system and because state and federal money funds them. To
protect the state's interest in maintaining airports, AB
332 requires public officials to tell Caltrans and ALUCs
before they try to overrule the locally-adopted airport
land use compatibility plans. Procedural transparency
protects the wider public interest.
2. Forced landings . Current law already strikes the
proper balance between state and local decisions about land
use around airports. Guided by the Caltrans handbook,
ALUCs put together complicated airport land use
compatibility plans and state law demands that local
officials amend their general plans to conform. Once its
adopted, an ALUC's plan isn't easy to overrule --- it takes
specific findings and an extraordinary vote. These
existing procedures adequately protect against facile
attempts to thwart statewide interests in public airports.
There is no need to inject Caltrans' Division of
Aeronautics into the debate between local officials and
their ALUCs. AB 332 delays land use decisions by requiring
local officials to hold two consecutive hearings: first to
draft the findings, second to consider Caltrans' comments.
If there's a real dispute, the proper remedy will be found
in the courts not in the comments of Sacramento's
bureaucrats.
3. The sound of silence . AB 332 requires a public agency
to give 30 days notice to its ALUC and the Caltrans, and to
include their comments in the final public record. But the
AB 332 -- 6/23/03 -- Page 4
bill is silent about what happens when the ALUC or Caltrans
fails to comment before the final hearing. What happens if
the comments don't arrive until the day before the hearing?
How can public respond on short notice? Must a city or
county delay its noticed public hearing? To avoid
confusion and recrimination, the Committee may wish to
consider an amendment that parallels how state officials
comment on general plans' safety elements. Local planners
give state officials 45 days notice; state officials must
respond in 30 days. If the state fails to comment on time,
local officials can proceed without them.
4. Explicit in Marin . Special legislation in 1975 allowed
public agencies in Marin County to overrule the Marin ALUC
on a majority vote; that statute does not require findings.
AB 332 requires public officials that want to overrule the
Marin ALUC to give notice to Caltrans and the ALUC, just as
the bill does for other counties. The bill also requires
the public officials to send their proposed findings,
implying that findings are required. The Committee may
wish to consider an amendment that clearly requires Marin
officials to make the usual statutory findings if they want
to overrule the airport land use compatibility plan.
5. Technical amendment needed . In amending the special
section that applies to Marin County, AB 332 refers to the
"County of Marin governing body" which implies the Marin
County Board of Supervisors. The Committee should adopt a
technical amendment that refers to the "governing body of
the public agency in Marin County," in other words the
officials who want to overrule the ALUC.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 9-0
Assembly Transportation Committee:15-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee:25-0
Assembly Floor: 79-0
Support and Opposition (6/26/03)
Support : Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
California Aviation Business Association, Cities of San
Diego and Santa Barbara; County of Sacramento, League of
California Aviation Professionals, Port of Oakland, San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority, San Francisco
AB 332 -- 6/23/03 -- Page 5
International Airport, Ventura County Transportation
Commission.
Opposition : Cities of Burbank, Claremont, Concord.