BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Patricia Wiggins, Chair
BILL NO: SB 737 HEARING: 4/15/09
AUTHOR: Negrete McLeod FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/13/09 CONSULTANT: Ho
Airport Land Use Commissions
Background and Existing Law
Recognizing that land use planning around airports is more
than a purely local concern, current law requires every
county that has an airport with scheduled airline service
or a general aviation airport to establish an airport land
use commission (ALUC). An ALUC must include two county
representatives, two city representatives, two members with
expertise in aviation, and one member representing the
general public.
Each ALUC must adopt an airport compatibility land use plan
(ACLUP) for every public use airport in the county. This
plan is based on airports' long-term projections for growth
and contains policies that protect airports from
encroachment by incompatible uses and protect areas
adjacent to airports from noise and safety hazards. In
addition to preparing an ACLUP, an ALUC must review local
agencies' land use plans and airport plans for consistency
with the ACLUP.
As a result of statutory exemptions and alternative
procedures, several counties do not have ALUCs. Some
counties allow individual cities to oversee compatibility
planning for the airports within their jurisdictions.
Pilot groups and other observers want the Legislature to
repeal the exemptions and alternative procedures and
restore the countywide approach to airport land use
planning.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 737 changes the airport land use planning law
in eight ways:
I. No more exemptions . In a county with only general
aviation airports that don't serve a scheduled airline, a
county can exempt itself from forming an airport land use
SB 737 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 2
commission (ALUC) if, after consultation with airport
operators and affected local agencies and after a public
hearing, it adopts a resolution finding that there are no
noise, public safety, or land use issues affecting any
airport in the county. Senate Bill 737 repeals the
authority for a county to adopt such a resolution in lieu
of forming an ALUC.
II. Definition of aviation expert . An ALUC must have two
members with expertise in aviation. The law defines a
person with expertise in aviation as a person who has
demonstrated knowledge of the operations and functions of
airports or is an elected official of a city or county that
owns an airport. This alternative allows the mayor of a
city that owns an airport to qualify as a person with
"expertise in aviation" even if he or she has no knowledge
of aviation. Senate Bill 737 repeals the language that
allows an elected official of a city or county that owns an
airport to qualify as a person with expertise in aviation.
III. Only countywide ALUCs . State law allows for two ALUC
formats. The traditional format is a seven-member,
single-entity ALUC. Alternatively, a county may designate
an existing body, such as a council of governments, in lieu
of forming a separate ALUC if the board of supervisors and
the mayors of the affected cities each determine that the
designated body can accomplish the ALUC's functions. The
designated body must add at least two persons with
expertise in aviation into its membership if it does not
already have two such members. Senate Bill 737 specifies
that if a county designates an existing body to assume the
responsibilities of an ALUC, the designated body must be a
countywide body.
IV. Limits the alternative process . A county can use an
alternative process for airport land use compatibility
planning in lieu of forming an ALUC (AB 2831, Mountjoy,
1994). Under this alternative process, the county board of
supervisors and affected cities must each separately
determine that proper compatibility planning can be
accomplished without an ALUC. If the determination is
unanimous, the county and affected cities must adopt and
SB 737 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 3
implement specified planning policies for each public-use
airport. These policies must be approved by Caltran's
Division of Aeronautics; otherwise, an ALUC must be formed.
Senate Bill 737 eliminates the alternative process. The
bill, instead, allows a city to assume an ALUC's duties for
an airport located within its boundaries if:
Before January 1, 2010, the county board of
supervisors and the city council agree that the city
is capable of fulfilling the compatibility planning
responsibilities for the affected airport;
The affected airport meets these criteria:
o Is certified by the Federal Aviation
Administration for meeting specified standards;
o Has a noise compatibility program
approved by the Federal Aviation Administration;
o Is owned and operated by an agency that
is headquartered in another county.
By January 1, 2010, the city adopts and implements
specified planning policies.
If the Division of Aeronautics determines that the city's
planning policies are not in compliance with the law, the
affected airport will be subject to the countywide ALUC.
V. Eliminates other exceptions . A county can avoid
forming an ALUC if, by May 1, 1995, the county contracted
with the Division of Aeronautics to develop compatibility
plans for its public-use airports. State law also permits
a county that has only one public-use airport owned by a
city to follow alternative planning procedures in lieu of
forming an ALUC. Senate Bill 737 repeals both of these
exceptions.
VI. ALUC fees . Current law prohibits an ALUC from
charging fees if it has not adopted an airport
compatibility land use plan (ACLUP) by June 30, 1991, with
certain exceptions. Senate Bill 737 repeals this
prohibition and related exceptions.
VII. Supermajority in Marin County . If an ALUC determines
SB 737 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 4
that a land use plan or airport plan is inconsistent with
the ACLUP, the requesting agency can overrule the ALUC with
a 2/3 vote if it makes specific findings that the action is
consistent with the statute's purposes. In Marin County, a
public agency can override the ALUC by a majority vote.
Senate Bill 737 repeals the authority for a public agency
in Marin County to overrule the county's ALUC by a majority
vote.
VIII. Technical changes . The bill makes conforming
changes to the airport land use planning statute and
repeals obsolete provisions.
Comments
1. Clear skies ahead . As the state's population continues
to increase, there is mounting pressure in local
communities to develop the once-open land in the vicinity
of airports. Encroaching development near airports invites
noise and safety problems that often lead to political
pressure to restrict or even close the facilities. At the
same time, airport operators are under constant pressure to
expand their facilities and operations because of the
increasing demand for air service and new security
requirements. Countywide ALUCs exist to balance the
competing interests of airports and their neighbors.
However, as a result of statutory exemptions and
alternative procedures, several counties disbanded their
ALUCs and shifted the ALUC duties to individual cities.
The absence of an ALUC creates the opportunity for local
economic interests to outweigh broader regional and
statewide interests in maintaining public airports. Often,
the officials making land use decisions are the same ones
preparing airport compatibility plans. SB 737 improves
land use oversight around public use airports by restoring
the countywide review that the Legislature intended when it
created ALUCs. Because most counties have kept their ALUCs
operating, they will see few changes because of SB 737.
But in the counties that disbanded their ALUCs, local
officials and airport operators will need to return to
countywide discussions.
2. Unnecessary turbulence . Because of SB 737, nine
counties must change how land use planning and regulation
SB 737 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 5
occurs around their public use airports. Many cities will
lose the direct control over land use around airports that
they enjoy under current law. Proponents of SB 737 cite
two cities in counties without ALUCs for approving
incompatible land uses around their airports. However, an
ALUC cannot guarantee airports full protection from
encroaching development. Even in counties that have ALUCs,
there are instances when local officials approved
incompatible land uses around airports. Encroachment is
possible because local agencies can override ALUC decisions
with a 2/3 vote and by making specific findings. Opponents
say that the current alternative procedures have worked
well for the nine counties. These counties and affected
cities wonder why they must create a new layer of
bureaucracy if there is no evidence that countywide ALUCs
are any more capable of balancing the competing interests
between airports and their neighbors than individual
cities. The Committee may wish to consider whether SB 737
unduly punishes nine counties for the poor decisions made
by two cities. The Committee may also wish to consider
whether SB 737 will lead to better land use choices.
3. Three remaining exemptions . While the intent of SB 737
is to close the existing statutory loopholes and restore
countywide ALUCs, the bill does not affect two existing
exemptions and also creates a new exception. The
Legislature specifically gave the Los Angeles County
Regional Planning Commission the responsibility of
coordinating airport compatibility planning in Los Angeles
County; SB 737 does not change that assignment. The
Legislature assigned the ALUC duties in San Diego County to
the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority; the bill
doesn't change that assignment. SB 737 also implicitly
permits the City of Ontario to retain its responsibility
for planning land uses around the Ontario LA International
Airport, which is located in San Bernardino County but
owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles.
4. State mandate, local fees . The California Constitution
requires the state to pay for new or expanded state
mandated local programs. Because SB 737 requires counties
that currently don't have ALUCs to establish ALUCs,
Legislative Counsel says that the bill expands a state
mandate. The bill, however, disclaims state payment
because ALUCs can recover their costs by charging service
fees to those who submit actions, regulations, or permits
SB 737 -- 4/13/09 -- Page 6
to the commission for review.
5. Second takeoff . SB 737 is similar to SB 1118 (Negrete
McLeod, 2008), which the Committee passed by the vote of
5-0. The bill failed on the Assembly Floor by the vote of
27-25. The final version of SB 1118 contained an exception
for Santa Cruz County, which does not appear in SB 737.
Support and Opposition (4/9/09)
Support : Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
Association of California Airports, California
Transportation Commission, National Business Aviation
Association, Inc., San Carlos Airport Association,
Southwest Chapter of the American Association of Airport
Executives.
Opposition : City of Highland, City of Upland, City of
Watsonville, County of San Bernardino, League of California
Cities (Inland Empire Division).