BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
737 (Negrete-McLeod)
Hearing Date: 05/28/2009 Amended: 04/21/2009
Consultant: Mark McKenzie Policy Vote: Loc Gov 5-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY:
SB 737 would repeal specified exemptions from the requirement
for counties that contain an airport to establish an Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC).
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Re-establish ALUCs unknown mandated costs
(state-reimbursable) General
(local mandate) for exempted entities to re-establish an
ALUC
-----------(see staff
comments)----------
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
The State Aeronautics Act requires each county in which an
airport is located to establish an ALUC to formulate a
comprehensive land use compatibility plan (CLUCP), which
provides for the orderly growth of the airport and the area
surrounding the airport, and for the general protection of the
inhabitants within an airport's vicinity. ALUCs review
amendments to local agencies' general plans to ensure
consistency with the CLUCP. Local agencies can overrule an ALUC
finding of inconsistency with a 2/3 vote of its governing body,
but public agencies in Marin County can overrule such a finding
with a majority vote. Existing law provides for specified
exceptions to requirements for the establishment of an ALUC.
SB 737 would do the following:
Repeal the authority of a county to exempt itself from the
requirement to establish an ALUC.
Repeal language allowing an elected official of a city or
county that owns an airport to qualify as a "person with
expertise in aviation" for purposes of ALUC membership.
Specify that if a county designates an existing body to assume
responsibilities of an ALUC, that body must be a countywide
body.
Repeal a specified alternative process for establishment of an
ALUC, and instead allows a city to assume ALUC duties for an
airport located within its boundaries under certain
circumstances.
Repeal the exemption for the requirement to set up an ALUC in
counties that contract with Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics
for preparation of a CLUCP.
Repeal the authority of Marin County to override an ALUC
finding of inconsistency with the CLUCP by a majority vote.
Delete obsolete provisions and make conforming changes.
Page 2
SB 737 (Negrete McLeod)
This bill would require nine counties that are not using ALUCs
to change how land use planning and regulation occurs near
airports. By eliminating and limiting exemptions from
requirements for counties to establish an ALUC, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program by requiring a higher
level of service. Local agencies have the authority to charge
fees to cover costs for preparation and revision of land use
plans and policies. Specifically, Public Utilities Code Section
21671.5 authorizes an ALUC to establish a schedule of fees
necessary to comply with the airport land use planning law and
charge fees on proponents of actions, regulations, or permits.
Staff notes, however, that the Commission on State Mandates
(COSM) has determined that this fee authority does not disclaim
state responsibility to reimburse local entities for costs
related to the establishment or re-establishment of an Airport
Land Use Commission (see COSM final decision CSM 4507, which
provides for reimbursement of costs relative to AB 2831
(Mountjoy), Chapter 644 of 1994 and subsequent legislation).
While this mandate has been suspended in each Budget Act from
2005-06 to 2008-09, costs incurred in fiscal years 1997-98
through 2004-05 were $10,825,000.
The State Controller's Local Agencies Mandated Costs Manual
provides guidance to local government entities for reimbursable
mandates. As it pertains to the ALUC mandate, the 2007-08
manual specifies that claimants will be reimbursed for the
increased cost incurred for analysis and coordination related to
selecting one of four specified methods for compliance,
activities related to the establishment of the specified method,
activities related to re-establishing a method if an exemption
no longer applies, and specified per diem charges. The
guidelines explicitly state that ALUC activities related to
certain land use planning processes are not reimbursable because
any costs incurred are recoverable from fees. Furthermore, any
offsetting saving or reimbursement the claimant received from
any other source, including federal or state funds and fees
collected, as a direct result of this mandate would be deducted
from a reimbursement claim.
Staff notes that to the extent SB 737 would require the nine
affected counties to incur costs related to the establishment or
re-establishment of an ALUC, this bill would appear to impose a
reimbursable state-mandated local program, despite language in
the bill that disclaims state reimbursement due to local fee
authority. Potentially reimbursable costs are unknown, but if
each eligible local entity successfully filed a claim with the
COSM for $10,000 each, this bill would have a General Fund
impact of $90,000.
SB 737 is similar to SB 1118 (Negrete McLeod), which failed
passage on the Assembly Floor last year.