BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  SB 1141|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                      VETO


          Bill No:  SB 1141
          Author:   Negrete McLeod (D)
          Amended:  8/16/10
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE  :  4-1, 4/7/10
          AYES:  Cox, Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price
          NOES:  Aanestad

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  6-4, 5/27/10
          AYES:  Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Price, Wolk, Yee
          NOES:  Denham, Leno, Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Cox

           SENATE FLOOR  :  25-10, 6/2/10
          AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Cox,  
            DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Harman, Kehoe,  
            Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley,  
            Price, Romero, Simitian, Steinberg, Wolk, Wright, Yee
          NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Denham, Dutton, Hollingsworth,  
            Huff, Runner, Strickland, Walters, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED: Cogdill, Oropeza, Wiggins, Vacancy,  
            Vacancy

           SENATE FLOOR  :  21-13, 8/30/10 (Concurrence)
          AYES:  Alquist, Blakeslee, Calderon, Corbett, Correa,  
            DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu,  
            Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Price, Romero,  
            Steinberg, Wolk, Wright, Yee
          NOES:  Aanestad, Ashburn, Cogdill, Denham, Dutton,  
            Emmerson, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner,  
            Strickland, Walters, Wyland
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          2

          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Cedillo, Oropeza, Pavley, Simitian,  
            Wiggins, Vacancy

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  50-25, 8/30/10 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Airports:  airport land use commissions

           SOURCE  :     Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association


           DIGEST  :    This bill (1) makes various changes to the  
          general statutory requirement that each county form an  
          airport land use commission (ALUC), (2) authorize the  
          Division of Aeronautics at Caltrans to establish a fund to  
          provide grants to counties for the establishment of an  
          ALUC, and (3) prohibit airports in counties that have not  
          established an ALUC from receiving state Aeronautics  
          Account funds if an ALUC has not been established in that  
          county, as specified.

           Assembly Amendments are clarifying and minor.

           ANALYSIS  :    State law requires every county that has an  
          airport with scheduled airline service or a general  
          aviation airport to establish an ALUC.  Each ALUC must  
          adopt an airport compatibility land use plan (ACLUP) for  
          every public use airport in the county.  This plan contains  
          policies that protect airports from encroachment by  
          incompatible uses and protects areas adjacent to airports  
          from noise and safety hazards.  Because of statutory  
          exemptions and alternative procedures, several counties do  
          not have ALUCs.  Some counties allow cities to oversee  
          compatibility planning for the airports within their  
          jurisdictions.  

          This bill:

          1. 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. 

          2. Requires that when local officials designate another  
             body to assume the planning duties instead of an ALUC,  







                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          3

             this body must be a countywide body. 

          3. Allows a city to assume an ALUC's duties for an airport  
             located within its boundaries if, before January 1,  
             2011, the county board of supervisors and the city  
             council agree that the city can provide proper land use  
             planning, and the airport: 

               A.     Is certified by the Federal Aviation  
                 Administration for meeting specified standards; 

               B.     Has a noise compatibility program approved by  
                 the Federal Aviation Administration; and, 

               C.     Was owned and operated, prior to January 1,  
                 2010, by an agency that is headquartered in another  
                 county. 

          4. Requires a city council who meets the criteria listed  
             above in #3, subject to the review and approval by the  
             Division, to do all of the following: 

               A.     Adopt processes for the preparation, adoption,  
                 and amendment of the airport land use compatibility  
                 plan for each airport that is served by a scheduled  
                 airline or operated for the benefit of the general  
                 public; 

               B.     Adopt processes for the notification of the  
                 general public, landowners, interested groups, and  
                 other public agencies regarding the preparation,  
                 adoption, and amendment of the airport land use  
                 compatibility plans; 

               C.     Adopt processes for the mediation of disputes  
                 arising from the preparation, adoption, and  
                 amendment of the airport land use compatibility  
                 plans; 

               D.     Adopt processes for the amendment of general  
                 and specific plans to be consistent with the airport  
                 land use compatibility plans; and, 

               E.     Designate the agency that shall be responsible  







                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          4

                 for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of each  
                 airport land use compatibility plan. 

          5. Requires the Division to review and approve those  
             alternative planning processes. 

          6. Provides that if the city does not comply with the above  
             requirements by January 1, 2011, then the affected  
             airport is subject to the ALUC within 90 days of the  
             Division's determination of noncompliance. 

          7. Repeals Marin County's special override provision which  
             allows a city council or the county supervisors in Marin  
             County to override the Marin County ALUC by majority  
             vote, if the ALUC determines that a local general or  
             specific plan is not consistent the ALUC's plan. 

          8. Extends the existing liability immunity that applies to  
             publicly-owned airports to privately-owned public use  
             airports. 

          9. Adds a general or specific plan amendment that directly  
             affects the use of land within one mile of the boundary  
             of a public airport within the county to the list of  
             items an interested party, in any county in which there  
             is no ALUC or other body designated to assume the  
             responsibilities of an ALUC, or in which the ALUC or  
             other designated body has not adopted an airport land  
             use compatibility plan, may initiate proceedings in a  
             court of competent jurisdiction to postpone the  
             effective date of. 

          10.Defines "authorized alternative planning body" as an  
             entity that is authorized to adopt an airport land use  
             compatibility plan that is not an airport land use  
             commission, and includes each of the following: 

               A.     An appropriately designated body countywide, so  
                 designated by the board of supervisors and the city  
                 selection committee of mayors in the county; 

               B.     A city when undertaking planning pursuant to  
                 the requirements set forth in comment # 3; 








                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          5

               C.     A county, when the county has contracted with  
                 the Division if the Division for the preparation of  
                 an airport land use compatibility plan; 

               D.     The county regional planning commission of the  
                 County of Los Angeles as applicable; and, 

               E.     The San Diego Regional Airport Authority as  
                 applicable. 

          11.Specifies that an "authorized alternative planning body"  
             does not include a county or city that makes a  
             determination that proper airport land use compatibility  
             planning can be accomplished without the formation of an  
             ALUC. 

          12.Requires, when the Division determines that funding is  
             sufficient, it must inform counties that do not have an  
             operating ALUC or authorized alternative planning body  
             of the availability of funds for ALUC startup costs, and  
             may grant fund moneys for that purpose to counties that  
             apply for funding. 

          13.Provides that, upon the second anniversary of the  
             Division providing notice of the availability of startup  
             funds, a county owned or operated airport in a county  
             that does not have an operating ALUC or authorized  
             alternative planning body shall not be eligible for the  
             $10,000 funding credit from the Aeronautics Account in  
             the State Transportation Fund until that county  
             establishes an operating ALUC or authorized alternative  
             planning body. 

          14.Provides that, if an operating ALUC or authorized  
             alternative planning body is thereafter established in  
             that county, each county owned or operated airport in  
             that county shall be eligible for prospective funding  
             from the Aeronautics Account in the State Transportation  
             Fund and for not more than twenty thousand dollars  
             ($20,000) of credited funds. 

          15.States that upon the second anniversary of the Division  
             providing notice of the availability of startup funds,  
             the Division shall not credit more than twenty thousand  







                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          6

             dollars ($20,000) to the individual revolving fund  
             subaccount of a county owned or operated airport in a  
             county that does not have an operating ALUC or  
             authorized alternative planning body. 

          16.States that, if an operating ALUC or authorized  
             alternative planning body is thereafter established in  
             that county, the Division shall prospectively resume  
             crediting of funds to the individual revolving fund  
             subaccount of each county owned or operated airport in  
             that county. 

          17.Deletes obsolete provisions and make conforming changes.  


          This bill authorizes the Division to establish an Airport  
          Land Use Commission Establishment Fund and allocate money  
          under its control to the Fund for use as grants to counties  
          that have not established an ALUC or alternative planning  
          process.  

          This bill prohibits the Division from allocating  
          Aeronautics Account funds to any public entity within a  
          county that has not established an ALUC or established an  
          alternative planning body.  This prohibition would only  
          apply after the Division notifies counties that funding is  
          available for ALUC startup costs, as specified.  

           Comments
           
          As California's population increases, pressure mounts in  
          local communities to build on undeveloped land around  
          airports.  Encroaching development near airports invites  
          noise and safety problems that can lead to political  
          pressure to restrict or even close the facilities.  At the  
          same time, airport operators want to expand facilities and  
          operations because of the 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 planning duties to individual cities.  
           The absence of a countywide ALUC allows local economic  
          interests to outweigh the broader regional and statewide  







                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          7

          interests in maintaining public airports.  This bill  
          improves land use oversight around public use airports by  
          promoting the countywide review that the Legislature wanted  
          when it created ALUCs.  Because most counties have kept  
          their ALUCs operating, they will see few changes because of  
          this bill.

           Prior Legislation
           
          This bill is the third attempt in three years to restore  
          countywide ALUCs.  The Senate Local Government Committee  
          passed the similar SB 737 (Negrete McLeod, 2009) by the  
          vote of 5-0, but the bill died in the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee.   SB 737 was similar to SB 1118 (Negrete McLeod,  
          2008), which the Committee also passed 5-0; that bill  
          failed on the Assembly Floor.

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

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 

                          Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions                2010-11     2011-12     
           2012-13   Fund  
          ALUC grants                                            cost  
          pressures in the range of $150 to use                   
          Special*
                              use existing funds for ALUC grants

          * Aeronautics Account in State Transportation Fund

          SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/30/10)

          Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (source) 
          Association of California Airports
          California Pilots Association
          Southwest Chapter of the American Association of Airport  
          Executives
          California Transportation Commission

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  8/30/10)








                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          8

          Cities of:
            Chino
            Highland
            Upland
            Watsonville
          County of San Bernardino

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    Supporters argue that existing law  
          allows ALUC functions to be administered inconsistently  
          throughout the state and in some counties not at all.   
          Supporters believe that this bill is an important step in  
          precluding and preventing incompatible land uses around  
          airports.  This bill is seen as a tool that will help  
          reduce costly litigation between parties who disagree on  
          compatible land use designations.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :     Opponents believe that "SB  
          1141 is unnecessary, duplicative and seeks to modify an  
          extremely effective and proficient planning process which  
          is allowed under existing law?cities, counties,  
          constituents and airports have expended a great deal of  
          time and resources to ensure the current process represents  
          the interest of all the stakeholders.  SB 1141 would negate  
          these efforts."  
           

           GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
           
               "I am returning Senate Bill 1141 without my signature.  


               SB 1141 makes public entities ineligible for State  
               Aeronautics Account money if they choose not to create  
               a countywide land use bureaucracy. 

               I am concerned that this bill is unnecessary and  
               subversive of local control over land use decisions.   
               Existing law provides local officials sufficient land  
               use tools to protect their airports from encroaching  
               development and to protect the public. 

               In effect, the bill fiscally punishes those local  
               governments who believe they can make good land use  
               decisions on their own accord without countywide  







                                                               SB 1141
                                                                Page  
          9

               airport land use commissions. 

               For these reasons I cannot sign this bill."


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles  
            Calderon, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,  
            Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani,  
            Garrick, Gatto, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,  
            Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,  
            Monning, Nava, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin,  
            Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson,  
            Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez
          NOES:  Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,  
            Conway, Cook, DeVore, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Gilmore,  
            Hagman, Harkey, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello,  
            Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran,  
            Villines
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Carter, Jeffries, Torres, Vacancy,  
            Vacancy


          AGB:nl  10/5/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****