BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1141
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1141 (Negrete McLeod) - As Amended: August 2, 2010
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill provides incentives for counties to establish airport
land use commissions (ALUC) and makes several changes to the
governance of these bodies.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One time, minor administrative costs, likely less than
$50,000, to the Division of Aeronautics within CalTrans to set
up and administer a grant program to address ALUC startup
costs (special fund).
2)Potential redirection of funds from the state Aeronautics
Subaccount away from counties that continue to operate without
ALUCs or alternative planning bodies (special fund). The
magnitude of the redirection depends on how many counties
continue to operate without ALUCs, but could be as high as
$150,000 per year.
SUMMARY (Continued)
1)Requires that monies in the state Aeronautics Subaccount -
currently used for approved airport projects and maintenance -
also be available to fund ALUC startup costs.
2)Provides that, two years after these funds are made available
for startup costs, county operated airports in counties that
continue to operate without ALUCs or authorized alternative
planning bodies shall not be eligible for the $10,000 annual
funding from the Aeronautics Subaccount for approved projects,
maintenance, and operations.
SB 1141
Page 2
3)Allows an interested party in a county without an ALUC to
initiate court proceedings to postpone the effective date of a
general or specific plan amendment, if that amendment affects
use of land within one mile of the boundary of a public
airport.
4)Requires that when local officials designate another body to
assume the planning duties instead of an ALUC, this body must
be a countywide body.
5)Repeals the provisions that allow an elected official of a
local agency that owns an airport to qualify as a person with
expertise in aviation.
6)Repeals Marin County's special override provision that
currently allows a city council or the county supervisors in
Marin County to override the Marin County ALUC by majority
(instead of the normal 2/3s) vote, if the ALUC determines that
a local general or specific plan is not consistent with the
ALUC's plan.
7)Extends the existing liability immunity that applies to
publicly-owned airports to privately-owned public use airports
in cases where public agencies override ALUC recommendations.
8)Permits the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission to
continue to have the responsibility of coordinating airport
planning in Los Angeles County, and allows the San Diego
County Regional Airport Authority to continue to handle ALUC
duties in San Diego County. This bill also implicitly permits
the City of Ontario to retain its current responsibility for
planning land uses around the Ontario LA International
Airport, which is owned and operated by the City of Los
Angeles.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The purpose of this bill is to encourage counties
to use ALUCs for planning purposes. Supporters assert that the
bill is an important step in preventing incompatible land uses
around airports, and will help reduce costly litigation
between parties who disagree on compatible land use
designations.
SB 1141
Page 3
2)Background . Legislation passed in 1967 required counties
having airports with scheduled air carrier service to set up
ALUCs to plan for the areas around airports. The mandate was
later extended to counties with general aviation airports. The
rationale for ALUCs is that airport-related land issues ought
to be considered on a region-wide instead of local basis.
Otherwise, local pressures for development can place homes,
schools, and businesses dangerously close to airports
ALUCs have seven members representing cities, counties,
aviation experts, and the general
public. ALUCs must adopt "airport compatibility land use
plans" for areas around public use airports. Further, ALUCs
can determine whether city and county general plans and
particular land use decisions are consistent with the airport
compatibility plans. A city council or county board of
supervisors can overrule an ALUC's consistency determination
on a two-thirds vote (except in the case of Marin County,
where a simple majority vote is required). However, if a city
or county overrules the ALUC, state law requires that the
airport operator is immune from liability for property damages
or personal injury from the city or county's decision.
In 1993, to save money by repealing state mandated local
programs, the Legislature repealed the mandate for counties to
have ALUCs. In 1994, the Legislature restored the ALUC
mandate, but allowed local officials to avoid forming an ALUC
if they find that there are no noise, public safety, or land
use issues affecting airports. The result was that nine
counties stopped using a countywide body to plan for land use
around public use airports.
3)Previous legislation . This is the third attempt by the author
to increase county adoption of ALUCs. SB 737 of 2009 and SB
1118 of 2008 would have mandated that most counties adopt
ALUCs. SB 737 was held in Senate Appropriations and SB 1118
failed passage on the Assembly Floor. In contrast to the
earlier measures, this bill does not mandate use of ALUCs, but
rather uses financial incentives (state funding from the
Aeronautical Subaccount) to encourage adoption of ALUCs.
4)Opposition (including the County of San Bernardino) question
the fundamental premise that countywide ALUCs are an
improvement over the alternative systems used by some local
governments, which they believe have worked well in terms of
SB 1141
Page 4
achieving underlying goals of safety and compatibility in land
use decisions.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081