BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       


           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 332|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 332
          Author:   Mullin (D)
          Amended:  7/8/03 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE  :  7-0, 7/2/03
          AYES:  Torlakson, Ackerman, Hollingsworth, Machado,  
            Margett, Perata, Soto

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  : 7-0, 8/18/03
          AYES: Alpert, Battin, Escutia, Karnette, Machado,  
            Poochigian, Speier
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Aanestad, Ashburn, Bowen, Burton,  
            Johnson, Speier

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  79-0, 6/2/03 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Airports:  land use commissions

           SOURCE  :     San Francisco International Airport


           DIGEST :    This bill requires a local agency which  
          overrides a decision made by an airport land use commission  
          to provide notice of its proposed decision to the  
          commission and Caltrans and to include in its published  
          decision responses by the airport land use commission and  
          Caltrans.

           ANALYSIS  :    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  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 332
                                                                Page  
          2

          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.

          This bill:

          1. Declares the intent of the Legislature to discourage  
             incompatible land uses near airports and to clarify that  
             school districts and community college districts are  
             also subject to a comprehensive land use compatibility  
             plan.  

          2. Provides that a local or public agency may propose to  
             overrule an airport land use commission's action or  
             recommendation affecting an airport within the  
             jurisdiction of that public agency after a hearing, by a  
             2/3 vote of its governing body, except the County of  
             Marin, which may overrule by a majority vote of its  
             governing body, if it makes specific findings that the  
             proposed actions consistent with the purposes of  
             protecting public health, safety, and welfare,  
             minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise, and  
             minimizing safety hazards within areas around the public  
             airport.

          3. Requires the local or public agency governing body to  
             provide the airport land use commission and the division  
             with the proposed decision and findings at least 45 days  
             prior to the decision to overrule the commission and  
             would authorize the commission or the division to make  
             advisory comments within 30 days of receiving the  
             proposed decision and findings.

          4. Requires that the advisory comments from the commission  
             or division be included in the final record of any final  
             decision to overrule the commission.

           FISCAL EFFECT :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

          According to Senate Appropriations Committee:







                                                                AB 332
                                                                Page  
          3


                          Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
           
          Major Provisions     2003-04      2004-05     2005-06     Fund  

          Notice requirements           annual costs of less than  
          $100k              General/
                                                            local

          Senate Appropriations staff note that this bill creates a  
          new mandate.  There are over $1 billion in unpaid mandate  
          claims at the Controller's Office and an additional $400  
          million of newly identified mandate claims.  Ongoing annual  
          mandate claims are estimated at over $500 million.  The  
          recently enacted budget defers or suspends most local  
          government mandates.

          Costs for some portion of this mandate may be recovered by  
          the fees cities and counties charge developers.  Based on  
          information provided by Caltrans, it appears that conflicts  
          between an ALUC and a local agency's development proposals  
          are fairly rare - less than five a year.  As a result, it  
          is likely that costs mandated by this bill for sending  
          notices and incorporating responses will be less that  
          $100,000 annually.

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/19/03)

          San Francisco International Airport (source)
          Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
          California Aviation Business Association
          Cities of San Diego and Santa Barbara
          City/County Association of Governments
          County of Sacramento
          League of California Aviation Professionals
          Metropolitan Transportation Commission
          Port of Oakland
          San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
          Ventura County Transportation Commission

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  6/28/03) (unable to re-verify at  
          time of writing)

          City of Burbank







                                                                AB 332
                                                                Page  
          4

          City of Claremont

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to Senate Local  
          Government Committee analysis, 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, this  
          bill 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.

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :
          AYES:  Aghazarian, Bates, Benoit, Berg, Bermudez, Bogh,  
            Calderon, Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Cohn,  
            Corbett, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dutra, Dutton,  
            Dymally, Firebaugh, Frommer, Garcia, Goldberg, Hancock,  
            Harman, Haynes, Jerome Horton, Shirley Horton, Houston,  
            Jackson, Keene, Kehoe, Koretz, La Malfa, La Suer, Laird,  
            Leno, Leslie, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal,  
            Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews, Maze, McCarthy, Montanez,  
            Mountjoy, Mullin, Nakanishi, Nakano, Nation, Negrete  
            McLeod, Nunez, Oropeza, Pacheco, Parra, Pavley, Plescia,  
            Reyes, Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Runner, Salinas,  
            Samuelian, Simitian, Spitzer, Steinberg, Strickland,  
            Vargas, Wiggins, Wolk, Wyland, Yee, Wesson


          LB:sl  8/19/03   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****