Growing Pains:
Airport Expansion and Land Use
Compatibility Planning
in California
By Grant Boyken, Senior Research Specialist
ISBN 1- 58703- 216- 3
Revised Edition
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Charlene Simmons, Assistant Director of the California Research Bureau and Dean Miscynski, Director of the California Research Bureau, for their thorough and thoughtful review of earlier versions of this paper.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the following persons for giving their advice and information: Mary Frederick, Chief, CalTrans Division of Aeronautics, Terry Barrie, Senior Transportation Planner, CalTrans Division of Aeronautics, staff from the airport land use commissions that gave their input by responding to the survey or by speaking with me directly, and staff from the fifteen airports that graciously responded to my repeated requests for information. Thank you also to Patricia Kinnard, Brian Cote, and Megan Quirk for their assistance in the publication of this report.
INTERNET ACCESS
This paper is available through the Internet at the California State Library’s home page ( http:// www. library. ca. gov/) under California Research Bureau Public Policy Reports.
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. 1
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT......................................................................................... 2
KEY FINDINGS................................................................................................................ 2
I. AIRPORT LAND USE REGULATION AND GUIDANCE.................................... 5
FEDERAL REGULATION AND GUIDANCE....................................................................... 5
Regulations with respect to the height of structures................................................... 5
Regulations related to airport noise........................................................................... 5
Regulations requiring notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions ( curfews)..................................................................................................................... 5
CALIFORNIA COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIONS.......................................... 6
Appointment of airport land use commissions............................................................ 7
Developing airport land use plans.............................................................................. 7
Compatibility policies for safety and noise................................................................. 8
ALUC review............................................................................................................. 10
California noise regulations for “ noise problem” airports..................................... 10
Airport influence area disclosure............................................................................. 11
THE COURTS................................................................................................................. 12
ALUC compatibility planning and review................................................................ 12
State and local government regulation of noise and other airport impacts............. 13
Liability for airport impacts...................................................................................... 14
COMPATIBILITY PLANNING IN ARIZONA AND OREGON............................................. 15
Arizona...................................................................................................................... 15
Oregon...................................................................................................................... 16
II. AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING IN CALIFORNIA.... 17
ALUC CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................... 17
Respondent title or position...................................................................................... 17
Type of ALUC........................................................................................................... 17
Number of airports for which ALUCs have planning responsibility........................ 20
COMPATIBILITY PLANNING......................................................................................... 21
Compatibility plan updates....................................................................................... 21
Reasons for not updating compatibility plans.......................................................... 22
ALUC funding, staffing, and costs of compatibility plans........................................ 23
NOISE POLICIES............................................................................................................ 25
CURRENT ISSUES.......................................................................................................... 28
Local general/ specific plan consistency................................................................... 28 California Research Bureau, California State Library i
CEQA compliance..................................................................................................... 29
Defining “ Airport Influence Areas”......................................................................... 30
Conflicts and litigation............................................................................................. 31
III. AIRPORT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES: MANAGING AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND EXPANSION.............................................................................. 32
AIRPORT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES........................................................................ 35
Airport ownership..................................................................................................... 35
Airport governance................................................................................................... 36
THE NEED FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT........................................ 37
Growth in passenger and cargo demand.................................................................. 37
Outdated or inadequate facilities.............................................................................. 38
RECENT AND PLANNED AIRPORT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS......... 39
CONFLICTS RELATED TO AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT..................... 40
Community opposition to airport development projects........................................... 40
Curfews and other operating restrictions................................................................. 41
Existing development and natural features of the terrain........................................ 41
REGIONAL STRATEGIES AS A SOLUTION?................................................................... 42
APPENDIX A – AIRPORT GOVERNANCE.............................................................. 45
OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORTS........................ 45
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...................................................................................... 46
The FAA.................................................................................................................... 46
The TSA..................................................................................................................... 47
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA......................................................................................... 47
AIRPORT OPERATORS.................................................................................................. 49
SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION..................... 49
Federal Airport Improvement Program.................................................................... 51
State of California Airport Funding Programs........................................................ 52
Airport Revenue Bonds............................................................................................. 55
APPENDIX B – AIRPORT SUMMARY TABLES.................................................... 57
Table B- 1. Airport Ownership ( Burbank, Fresno, John Wayne, Long Beach, Los Angeles)..................................................................................................................... 57
Table B- 2. Airport Ownership ( Oakland, Ontario, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Portland)................................................................................................................... 58
Table B- 3. Airport Ownership ( Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara).......................................................................................................... 59
Table B- 4. Airport Boards and Commissions ( Burbank, Fresno, John Wayne, Long Beach, Los Angeles).................................................................................................. 60 ii California Research Bureau, California State Library
Table B- 5. Airport Boards and Commissions ( Oakland, Ontario, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Portland).................................................................................................... 61
Table B- 6. Airport Boards and Commissions ( Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara)....................................................................... 62
Table B- 7. Airport Management ( Burbank, Fresno, John Wayne, Long Beach, Los Angeles)..................................................................................................................... 64
Table B- 8. Airport Management ( Oakland, Ontario, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Portland)................................................................................................................... 65
Table B- 9. Airport Management ( Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara)................................................................................................ 66
Table B- 10. Airport Operations ( calendar year 2005) and Revenue ( fiscal year 2004/ 2005) – ( Burbank, Fresno, John Wayne, Long Beach, Los Angeles).............. 67
Table B- 11. Airport Operations ( calendar year 2005) and Revenue ( fiscal year 2004/ 2005) – ( Oakland, Ontario, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Portland)...................... 69
Table B- 12. Airport Operations ( calendar year 2005) and Revenue ( fiscal year 2004/ 2005) – ( Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara). 71
Table B- 13. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans and Policies ( Burbank, Fresno, John Wayne, Long Beach, Los Angeles)................................................................... 73
Table B- 14. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans and Policies ( Oakland, Ontario, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Portland)............................................................................ 74
Table B- 15. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans and Policies ( Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara).................................................... 75
APPENDIX C. AIRPORT PROFILES: GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, REVENUES AND EXPANSION...................................................... 77
BURBANK...................................................................................................................... 77
FRESNO......................................................................................................................... 81
JOHN WAYNE............................................................................................................... 83
LONG BEACH................................................................................................................ 84
LOS ANGELES............................................................................................................... 86
OAKLAND...................................................................................................................... 90
ONTARIO....................................................................................................................... 92
PALM SPRINGS.............................................................................................................. 95
PHOENIX....................................................................................................................... 96
PORTLAND.................................................................................................................... 98
SACRAMENTO............................................................................................................. 100
SAN DIEGO.................................................................................................................. 103
SAN FRANCISCO......................................................................................................... 107
SAN JOSE..................................................................................................................... 109
SANTA BARBARA........................................................................................................ 111 California Research Bureau, California State Library iii
APPENDIX D. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION SURVEY INSTRUMENT..................................................................................................................... ................... 113
NOTES.......................................................................................................................... 117
iv California Research Bureau, California State Library
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What motivates this Council on the airport issue is simple. It is our duty to protect the quality of life in the city we all love. That means balancing economic benefits and transportation convenience against the negatives we all know far too well. It's not an easy thing to do, which helps to explain why the issue has become so controversial.
Dave Golonski
Former Mayor ( City of Burbank)
June 16, 19981
Aerial image of Burbank’s Bob Hope airport. Photo by Norm Vargas/ Ross Olson. © www. pilotage. com.
Senator Christine Kehoe requested that the California Research Bureau ( CRB) analyze airport land use planning and airport governance in California; and examine issues relating to land development near airports, and airport expansion. Our review finds that land development in the vicinity of airports is governed primarily by state laws that establish county airport land use commissions ( ALUCs), and by local jurisdictions that are guided by ALUC airport land use compatibility plans. These plans contain compatibility policies related to airport noise and safety issues that define the types of new structures and land uses that may be developed in various zones surrounding an airport. ALUCs have no authority over airport expansion, but base their compatibility policies on airports’ long- term projections for growth. Because ALUCs have no enforcement authority, they generally serve in an advisory, as opposed to regulatory, capacity.
In contrast, development within the airport gates is the province of airport operators. Airport governance structures vary, but are generally city or county departments that receive direction from an appointed board, from elected officials of the local jurisdiction’s legislative body, or both. Airport operators plan for growth and fund and manage the construction of airport facilities.
ALUCs and airport operators respond to two opposing forces that significantly shape airport operations and expansion: ( 1) the pressure to develop once- open land in the vicinity of airports; and ( 2) the continuous need to make improvements and expand airport capacity. Encroaching development diminishes the buffer between airports and the communities they serve, and can hinder airport growth as landowners’ complaints about noise lead to litigation. At the same time, airports are under pressure to expand their facilities and operations due to factors such as the increasing demand for air service, post- 9/ 11 security requirements, and the need to accommodate a new generation of wide- body passenger jets. To expand, however, airport operators must negotiate the often- conflicting goals of minimizing congestion and delay in the terminals and on the tarmac,
California Research Bureau, California State Library 1
and minimizing the negative impacts that airport operations can have on surrounding communities.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
Part I provides an overview of federal and state regulation and guidance with respect to airport land use- compatibility planning.
Part II explores the actual practice of airport compatibility planning in California by presenting the results of a CRB survey of Airport Land Use Commissions throughout the state.
Part III examines airport governance and conflicts related to the operations and development of California’s major commercial airports as well as Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, and the Portland ( Oregon) International Airport.
Appendix A provides an overview of the governance, regulation and management of airports at the federal, state and local levels.
Appendix B contains tables that summarize key information about the airports. The tables in Appendix B include information including:
• Airport ownership
• Governance
• Management
• Operations and Revenues
• Airport land use compatibility planning
Appendix C presents narrative profiles of each of the fifteen airports considered in the report.
Appendix D includes a copy of the CRB survey administered to Airport Land Use Commissions.
KEY FINDINGS
Regional and national benefits, local costs. Although the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) and California’s Division of Aeronautics regulate some aspects of airport operations and design, and provide some funding for airport projects, crucial decisions about airport development and policies are made at the local level by elected 2 California Research Bureau, California State Library
city or county officials or their appointees.* This may have some bearing on airport policies and strategies because:
• The benefits and burdens conferred by airports have an uneven geographic distribution. While the economic impact of airport operations can reach the regional, statewide, or even national level, the majority of negative impacts such as noise are heavily concentrated within a relatively small radius around airports.
• The research literature on ports and airports suggests that compared to more autonomous, regional authorities, airports controlled by localized governance structures are likely to be more sensitive to local politics, and less able to pursue long- term strategies aimed at increasing regional benefits. 2
Despite some federal and state regulation and guidance, airport land use compatibility planning and review is largely under local control.
• The FAA controls airways and air traffic, but has no direct authority over local land use, and cannot determine land use compatibility criteria.
• The California Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics issues guidelines for airport land use compatibility planning, but county airport land use commissions ( ALUC) determine the actual policies adopted for the land around each airport.
• Because ALUCs have no enforcement authority, compliance with ALUC plans and review decisions are the responsibility of local jurisdictions. Conflicts are decided in the courts.
Despite ALUC planning and review activities intended to mitigate airport impacts and “ provide for the orderly development” of airports, 3 conflicts over airport noise and other impacts have had a significant affect on airport operations and development in California.
• Concerns about increased traffic, noise, and other environmental impacts have given rise to opposition that has halted major airport expansion plans. Recently, Los Angeles International’s Airport Master Plan was dramatically scaled back.
• Eight of California’s thirteen primary commercial airports have adopted nighttime noise curfews in response to community concerns about airport noise impacts.
• Existing development and environmentally sensitive land have significantly curtailed operations and the potential for growth at a number of California’s major airports. San Francisco International Airport abandoned plans to add two new runways.
* The exception among the airports considered in this report is Portland International Airport ( PDX). The nine members of the Port of Portland Commission that governs PDX are appointed by the state’s governor and reside in a three- county region that surrounds the airport and Port.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 3
Several factors limit the ability of ALUCs to prevent conflicts related to airport operations:
• ALUC activities are limited to new development. Existing development and airport operations are beyond the scope of ALUC planning and review.
• ALUC compatibility plans are often out- of- date because the planning process is costly. ALUCs have limited resources and, in a California Research Bureau survey conducted for this report, they express the desire for more funding to update plans.
• Local conflicts or litigation can effectively alter ALUC compatibility plans and decisions, leading to land development that ALUC policies would otherwise have considered to be incompatible.
The research literature suggests that autonomous airport governing bodies such as regional authorities are more effective for airports that play a significant role in regional and national economies. This is because they tend to insulate airports from political interference, and are more adept at long- term planning than more politicized local governance structures. 4 For the same reasons, however, autonomous airport authorities are vulnerable to criticisms that they are not responsive to local concerns about airport impacts. In Burbank, for example, city officials and residents feel that the Airport Authority, the majority of whose commissioners represent cities that do not experience the impact of airport operations to the same extent, tends to ignore the interests of Burbank and has acted with too much independence. 5
Regional strategies to redistribute air traffic among existing airports have been proposed as a possible alternative to airport expansion and the development of new airports. Regional coordination and planning efforts among airports have been discussed in the past, but have not been implemented to a significant degree in California. 6 Nonetheless, the idea of developing regional airport strategies to more efficiently distribute the demand for air service, and the benefits and burdens of airport operations, appears to have gained some traction recently.
4 California Research Bureau, California State Library
I. AIRPORT LAND USE REGULATION AND GUIDANCE
FEDERAL REGULATION AND GUIDANCE
The role of the federal government in airport land use planning is limited. Although the FAA controls airways and air traffic, it has no direct authority over the operation and management of airports or local land use, and cannot dictate land use compatibility criteria. Nonetheless, several FAA- issued regulations are directly related to compatibility planning.
Regulations with respect to the height of structures
For the purpose of maintaining safe airspace around an airport, the FAA issues regulations that define standards for determining whether a structure constitutes an obstruction to navigable airspace, and establish notification requirements and procedures for conducting studies and obtaining a determination from the FAA regarding potential obstructions. 7 Even though the FAA cannot prohibit the construction of structures determined to be obstructions, it can enforce flight procedures and aircraft operational limitations that mitigate potential hazards.
Regulations related to airport noise
FAA- issued regulations also provide guidance for managing aviation noise compatibility on and around airports. 8 Regulations contained in Part 150, Title 14 of the U. S. Code of Federal Regulations provide for the following:
• Establish standard methodologies for measuring airport noise.
• Identify land uses which normally are compatible or incompatible with various levels of airport noise.
• Provide for voluntary development of noise exposure maps ( NEMs) and noise compatibility programs ( NCPs) by airport operators.
• Require review and approval of NEMs and NCPs submitted to the FAA.
• Establish procedures and criteria for making projects eligible for funding as noise abatement projects through the Airport Improvement Program.
Although the Part 150 regulations are voluntary, an approved NCP is a requirement for airports seeking federal grants for noise abatement projects. NCP approval also fulfills the FAA’s requirements for evaluating the impacts of proposed restrictions on airport operations such as curfews. 9
Regulations requiring notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions ( curfews)
Airport operators sometimes institute nighttime curfews as noise abatement measures. In 1990, the U. S. Congress passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act ( ANCA) which made
California Research Bureau, California State Library 5
it more difficult to implement airport curfews. The purpose of ANCA was to reduce airport noise impacts by requiring air carriers to gradually phase out older, noisier, aircraft. As a concession to aircraft operators that would have to absorb the costs of upgrading their equipment, ANCA also included language that required a more restrictive process for approving airport curfews.
In response, the FAA created regulations that require airports to notify the FAA and obtain FAA approval of airport noise and access restrictions. 10 These regulations require airports seeking approval of a curfew or similar restriction to demonstrate the following:
• An adequate analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed restriction and alternative measures; and that
• The restriction is reasonable, non- arbitrary and non- discriminatory;
• The restriction maintains safe and efficient use of navigable airspace;
• The restriction does not conflict with any existing federal statute or regulation;
• The applicant has provided adequate opportunity for public comment on the proposed restriction; and
• The restriction does not create an undue burden on the National Aviation System.
Since the implementation of these regulations in 1990, no airport has successfully gained approval for a new access restriction. All curfews that exist today were established prior to the passage of ANCA in 1990 and grandfathered in place. In 2003, however, the FAA did approve a restructuring of San Jose International’s night curfew from weight- based to noise- based limits. 11
CALIFORNIA COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIONS
Section 21670 et seq., Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code establishes county airport land use commissions ( ALUCs). The purpose of the commissions is “ to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in California, to promote the overall goals and objectives of California airport noise standards, and to ensure the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize safety hazards.”
Commissions do not have jurisdiction over existing land uses or over the operation of any airport pursuant to state law, but are specifically charged with the following:
• Assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses,
• Coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare,
• Prepare and adopt an airport land use compatibility plan,
6 California Research Bureau, California State Library
• Review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators.
Appointment of airport land use commissions
California Public Utilities Code allows for a number of ALUC formats. The majority are single- purpose entities established according to Section 21670( b). Although the composition of airport land use commissions ( ALUCs) can vary somewhat ( e. g., where airports straddle county boundaries, or where a regional association of governments is designated as the ALUC for more than one county), single purpose commissions are generally required by law to consist of:
• Two members who represent the county, appointed by the county board of supervisors.
• Two members representing cities in the county, appointed by a committee of mayors.
• Two members with expertise in aviation, appointed by a committee of managers of all public airports within the county.
• One member who represents the general public, appointed by the other six members of the commission.
Counties may also designate another body, such as a planning agency or an airport commission, as an ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors of affected jurisdictions in a county determine that the body can accomplish the functions of an ALUC ( Section 21670.1( a)).
San Diego is unique. The designation of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ( SDCRAA) is written into state law ( California Public Utilities Code Section 21670.3). When the SDCRAA came into existence on January 1, 2003, it assumed the ALUC duties that had previously been performed by the San Diego Association of Governments.
Developing airport land use plans
Caltrans guidance for airport land use compatibility planning is contained in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, originally published in 1993 and updated in 2002. The handbook contains guidance for land use commissions in the following areas:
• Establishment of airport land use commissions, including the purpose and authority and duties of the commissions
• Preparation and adoption of compatibility plans
• Formulation of airport land use policies
• Commission review of local actions
California Research Bureau, California State Library 7
• Responsibilities of local agencies
• Compatibility issues, including
o Noise
o Safety on the ground
o Airspace protection
Caltrans is responsible for implementing a training and development program to assist the staff of airport land use commissions ( PUC Section 21674.5).
The handbook suggests that compatibility plans should reflect the anticipated growth of the airport and related safety and noise impacts at least twenty years into the future. 12 The Division of Aeronautics encourages ALUCs to review and amend compatibility plans every five to ten years to ensure that plans are consistent with changes in state laws, local land uses, airport development and activity, and current practices for achieving noise and safety compatibility. 13
Despite Division of Aeronautics guidelines that encourage ALUCs to keep compatibility plans current, plans for six of California’s 13 primary commercial airports have not been updated within the past ten years. The plan for Oakland International Airport was last updated 20 years ago in 1986. No plan exists for Ontario International Airport, which is owned by the city of Los Angeles, but located in San Bernardino County which has no designated ALUC.
According to a report by the State’s Technical Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, insufficient funding has made it difficult for many counties to develop Airport Land Use Plans, particularly as airport planning issues have become more complex and staff time and costs for handling those issues have increased. 14 In a California Research Bureau survey conducted for this report, ALUC staff agreed with this assessment.
Compatibility policies for safety and noise
Compatibility policies related to the safety of people on the ground restrict new development in the area around an airport based on residential density and non- residential intensity of use. To protect the safety of passengers and crew in flight by preventing potential obstructions to airplanes, ALUCs are guided largely by height restrictions established by the FAA in Part 77 ( et seq.), Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Plans also establish policies that define the types of land uses that are compatible with noise levels that occur within various zones, or “ noise contours,” around the airport. For example, a sixty- five decibel ( dB) community noise equivalent level ( CNEL) contour defines the geographical area around an airport that is subjected to an average noise level of sixty- five decibels. The CNEL is a cumulative measure that averages noise exposure over time, and is affected by the frequency and volume of noise events ( such as aircraft operations) as well as the time of day that the noise events occur ( e. g., aircraft noise at nighttime has a greater impact than during the daytime). According to the FAA, 65
8 California Research Bureau, California State Library
decibels is somewhat louder than normal indoor conversation, and quieter than a vacuum cleaner. 15
Image reproduced with the permission of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.
In the image above, the dashed, outer- most line represents the “ Airport Influence Area” for Santa Barbara Municipal Airport, the area for which the ALUC develops a compatibility plan. The inner- most solid line is the 65 dB CNEL contour. The solid line just outside of that is the 60 dB CNEL contour.
Land use compatibility policies related to noise limit the types of new uses allowed in a particular noise contour, and may condition the approval of certain types of land uses on the implementation of noise mitigation measures such as indoor soundproofing, or the acquisition of “ avigation” easements* in the airspace over neighboring properties. 16
* An easement is a legally enforceable use of property by someone other than the owner. Easements are commonly granted to public utilities or government agencies for uses that benefit the public at large ( e. g., streets). Airports acquire avigation easements in the airspace over neighboring properties in order to ( 1) prevent construction of buildings and towers, planting of trees, installation of lighting, or any other development that might interfere with aircraft takeoff and landing, or ( 2) protect against liability for any nuisance caused by airplanes using the airport, i. e., the impact of noise, fumes, and vibration on the “ use and enjoyment” of properties under the flight paths to and from the airport.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 9
ALUC review
In addition to developing compatibility plans, ALUCs are required to review several types of local land use actions, including:
• County or city general plans or specific plans whose boundaries include the influence area of a public use airport
• County or city proposals to adopt or amend zoning, building, and other land use ordinances and regulations that have implications for airport land use noise or safety compatibility
• Airport master plans, expansion plans, and construction plans for new airports.
Over time, the law has been amended to emphasize ALUC’s role in reviewing plans rather than individual development projects. 17 According to the Division of Aeronautics’ Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the review of individual projects was found to be burdensome for airports located in high growth areas. 18 Currently, individual land use development projects within an airport’s influence are exempt from ALUC review unless the ALUC has not yet adopted a land use plan for the airport, or the local agency with jurisdiction over the project has not revised its general or specific plan to be consistent with the plan and has not overruled the ALUC’s determination that its general or specific plans are inconsistent.
A local agency may overrule ALUCs’ findings of inconsistency “ by a two- thirds vote of its governing body if it makes ‘ specific findings’ that the proposed action is consistent with” the legislatively intended purposes of land use compatibility planning. 19 An appellate court ruling in 1992 found that “ specific findings” of consistency means that facts and evidence must support the conclusion that a land use minimizes public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards in the airport area. 20
In 2003, the legislature established notification requirements for local agencies that overrule ALUCs ( AB 332). A local agency that proposes to overrule an ALUC must first provide the ALUC and the State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, with the proposed decision at least 45 days prior to the decision. Any comments by the ALUC or Division of Aeronautics must be included in the final record of the local agency’s final decision to overrule the ALUC.
California noise regulations for “ noise problem” airports
In addition to requiring airport compatibility plans, the State Aeronautics Act also encourages compatible land uses around airports by establishing standards for aircraft- generated noise. 21 The standards require “ noise problem” airports to eliminate all incompatible land uses within the sixty- five decibel “ community noise equivalent level” ( 65dB CNEL) noise contour.* Incompatible uses include all residential uses, public and
* A sixty- five decibel community noise equivalent level ( CNEL) contour defines the geographical area around an airport that is subjected to an average noise level of sixty- five decibels.
10 California Research Bureau, California State Library
private schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of worship ( unless mitigation measures are taken such as the acquisition of avigation easements and the use of acoustical insulation). 22
By resolution forwarded to the Division of Aeronautics, County Boards of Supervisors may designate an airport as having a “ noise problem.” 23 Noise problem airports that have not been able to eliminate incompatible uses within the 65 dB contour must apply to the Division of Aeronautics for a variance from the standards. In granting variances, the State requires the airports to develop and implement strategies to reduce the noise impact area to zero ( i. e., no incompatible uses). There are nine primary commercial airports in the state that are designated “ noise problem airports,” and that operate with a variance from the Division of Aeronautics. These are:
• Bob Hope Airport ( Burbank)
• John Wayne Airport- Orange County
• Long Beach- Daugherty Field- Airport
• Los Angeles International Airport
• Metropolitan Oakland International Airport
• Norman Y. Mineta- San Jose International Airport
• Ontario International Airport
• San Diego International Airport
• Van Nuys Airport
In 2002, San Francisco International Airport achieved a zero noise impact area and no longer requires a variance. 24
Airport influence area disclosure
With the passage of AB 2776, as of January 1, 2004, California law requires residential property owners to disclose to prospective buyers that the property is in the “ vicinity” of an airport under three circumstances: ( 1) when a new subdivision is created ( Business and Professions Code § 11010( a)( 12); ( 2) when a new common- interest development such as a condominium is created ( Civil Code § 1353); and ( 3) when a “ natural hazard disclosure statement” is prepared in connection with the transfer of property ( Civil Code § 1103.4). 25
The law uses the term “ airport influence area” interchangeably with “ vicinity” and defines the “ influence area” as “… the area in which current or future airport- related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission.” The required notice that must be included is as follows:
California Research Bureau, California State Library 11
Notice of Airport in Vicinity
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations ( for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.
With respect to the resale of residential property, Section 1102 of the California Civil Code requires sellers to complete a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement. The statement requires sellers to disclose whether they are aware of “ neighborhood noise problems or other nuisances.” In addition, under Section 1102.6 of the California Civil Code, a city or county may require that the seller provide specific information about the neighborhood or community. If a city or county adopts a different or additional disclosure form regarding the proximity or effects of an airport, the statement in that form must contain the information in the statement “ Notice of Airport in Vicinity.” If a city or county does not adopt a different or additional disclosure form, then the seller must provide the “ Notice of Airport in Vicinity” disclosure, or if there is not a current airport influence map, a written disclosure of an airport within two miles of the property.
THE COURTS
The courts have rendered a number of decisions in cases related to airport land use compatibility issues in California.
ALUC compatibility planning and review
With respect to ALUC compatibility planning and review activities, the courts have addressed questions related to: ( 1) standards or requirements for compatibility plans; ( 2) findings required by local jurisdictions that overrule ALUC decisions; and ( 3) ALUC compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) guidelines.
The decision in City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission ( 1989), addressed the requirements ALUCs must meet to ensure that compatibility plans qualify as valid. 26 The court determined that compatibility plans must be reasonably related to the minimization of noise and safety hazards caused by airports and held that the local ALUC’s compatibility plan was not valid because it “ did not contain any study contemplating the growth of the airport over the next 20 years and did not include, incorporate, or even refer to a study that might be deemed a long- term master plan.”
Decisions in several cases have addressed the criteria that local jurisdictions must meet when overruling ALUC compatibility determinations. The courts have held that the burden is on the local jurisdictions to provide specific findings that a plan or a project is consistent with existing airport land use plans and policies.
12 California Research Bureau, California State Library
In California Aviation Council v. Ceres ( 1992), an ALUC reviewed a city ordinance and found that development allowed by the ordinance was inconsistent with the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( ACLUP). 27 The city overruled the ALUC’s findings. Ruling against the city, the appellate court held that the law required the city to present specific findings supported with evidence. It was not sufficient for the city merely to declare that the ordinance was consistent with the ACLUP.
In two additional cases in the 1990’ s, courts similarly held that some form of specific evidence is required to determine whether projects or plans are consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In California Pilots Association v. County of Butte ( 1999) the court held that the county's approval of a housing development near the Chico airport was supported by substantial evidence and thus consistent with the law. 28 In PAH/ Stanley Ranch v. County of Napa ( 1999), an ALUC determined that a proposed housing development was inconsistent with the airport land use plan. 29 The court ruled in favor of the ALUC, finding that the commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
A case currently pending before the California Supreme Court raises questions about ALUC compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) guidelines. In Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission ( 2005), a developer sued the ALUC claiming that the Travis Air Force Base airport land use compatibility plan was adopted without preparing an Environmental Impact Report. 30 The ALUC argued that the compatibility plan is exempt from CEQA because it is not a “ project” as defined by the Act. The plaintiff argued that the compatibility plan is subject to CEQA because its adoption might create a displacement effect, pushing proposed development within the ALUC’s planning area into other parts of the county. The appellate court found that the compatibility plan is subject to CEQA, and set aside the plan’s adoption. The anticipated Supreme Court decision will likely determine the approach that ALUCs take with respect to California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) guidelines.
State and local government regulation of noise and other airport impacts
On the question of whether state or local governments can regulate aircraft noise or other impacts, the courts have generally held that the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency preempts the powers of state and local authorities. This standard can be traced to City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal ( 1973), in which the U. S. Supreme Court invalidated a noise control ordinance the city tried to impose on the airport. 31 Several years later, however, in National Aviation v. City of Hayward ( 1976), a U. S. District Court held that jurisdictions that own airports may use their proprietary powers to limit airport impacts on surrounding communities. 32
These rulings have guided the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on a number of subsequent California cases. In San Diego Unified Port District v. Giantruco ( 1981), the State of California required San Diego International Airport to extend its nighttime curfew as a condition of granting the airport a variance from the state’s noise
California Research Bureau, California State Library 13
regulations. 33 The court held that the application of the regulations violated the federal supremacy clause in the U. S. Constitution, and that because the state was not the proprietor of the airport, it was not entitled to impose conditions on flight operations.
At issue in Burbank- Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Los Angeles ( 1992) was an ordinance enacted by the Los Angeles City Council that required City Planning Commission approval for any proposed airport development project. 34 The airport wanted to extend a taxiway at a portion of the airport located within the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. The court held that a “ non- proprietor municipality may not exercise its police power to prohibit, delay, or otherwise condition the construction of runways and taxiways at a non- city- owned airport.” The logic in this case is that because “ the regulation of runways and taxiways is thus a direct interference with the movements and operations of aircraft, it is preempted by federal law.”
Liability for airport impacts
In general, the courts have found that federal preemption in the field of aviation noise control does not shield airport proprietors from liability in claims related to airport noise impacts. Individuals can recover damages for airport noise if they show that after acquiring a property interest, there was significant change in the type or frequency of airport operations, the airport layout, flight patterns, nighttime operations, or the extent of noise damages. 35 To the extent that airports provide sufficient notice of development plans, however, landowners may not be able to recover damages. 36 And, due to the difficulty in showing a direct relationship between airport noise and lower real estate values, claims related to noise impacts from airport expansions have not been particularly effective. 37
In Aaron v. City of Los Angeles ( 1974), California’s Second District Court of Appeals held that federal control of airspace is no defense for an airport proprietor’s failure to purchase adequate air easements, and does not preclude landowners from seeking damages for over- flights that constitute a taking of property. 38 In Andrews v. County of Orange ( 1982), the court upheld the right of homeowners to introduce evidence about what the county could have done to minimize aircraft noise from John Wayne airport. 39
As a defense against liability in nuisance claims, airport proprietors in some cases have argued that they have a “ prescriptive” easement for the airspace above properties that surround an airport. The theory is that by using the airspace for a sufficient period of time, the airport has acquired an easement, or a right, to use that airspace in the same manner without risk of liability. In contrast to courts in many other states, which have held that avigation easements cannot be acquired by prescription, California courts have not definitively answered this question. 40
In Institoris v. City of Los Angeles ( 1989), the property owner stipulated to the fact that the City had acquired an avigation easement by prescription. 41 The issue in the case was how the avigation agreement affected the plaintiff’s causes of action for nuisance and inverse condemnation. No decision was made on the issue of whether avigation
14 California Research Bureau, California State Library
easements can be acquired by prescription because the appellate court accepted the easement without questioning whether it was legal.
In Baker v. Burbank- Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority ( 1990), the court held that statutes of limitation prohibited plaintiffs’ actions for inverse condemnation and nuisance, and argued that, “ having acquired the right to interfere with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties by prescription, [ the airport owner] was not required to compensate them for the easement.” 42
A recent California trial court decision restricts airport proprietors’ ability to claim that they have acquired prescriptive avigation easements that protect them from liability. The court in Cole et al. v. City of Santa Monica ( 2001) ruled against plaintiffs’ claims of inverse condemnation because there was not sufficient evidence of diminished property values. 43 The decision, however, also denied the city’s claim of a prescriptive easement in the air above the plaintiff’s property, arguing that by promising to minimize aircraft noise, the city had often recognized plaintiff’s property rights.
COMPATIBILITY PLANNING IN ARIZONA AND OREGON
Later sections of this report examine expansion and land use issues at the international airports in Phoenix, Arizona and Portland, Oregon as well as California’s primary commercial airports. For this reason, a brief overview of airport land use compatibility planning in Arizona and Oregon is included here.
Arizona
The State of Arizona does not “ directly implement and administer general- purpose land use regulations,” nor does it “ mandate the establishment of planning commissions, agencies or departments in municipalities.” 44 Without the requirement of comprehensive airport land use plans drafted by a county commission, planning responsibility lies with local jurisdictions within the impact area of an airport. In the area surrounding Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, land use regulation is the separate responsibility of Maricopa County and the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa, as well as the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community. 45
In 1987, the cities of Phoenix and Tempe voluntarily initiated an airport noise study. 46 Under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, such a study is required to receive federal funds for soundproofing and other noise abatement measures. 47 The study includes guidelines and policies to mitigate the impact of airport noise. It was updated most recently in 2001.48
In addition to noise policies, the City of Phoenix passed an ordinance in March 2006 that restricts development that could potentially interfere with air traffic. For planning purposes, the city has, historically, relied on Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 which addresses objects that affect navigable airspace. 49 The new ordinance formalizes this policy and requires the FAA’s determination that a project will not obstruct Sky Harbor flight paths before a building permit can be issued.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 15
Phoenix city officials view the new ordinance as a means to protect the airport’s ability to operate efficiently and to grow. 50 But because there is no single comprehensive airport land use compatibility plan for the entire impact area around Sky Harbor, there is no guarantee that other communities in the airport’s vicinity will adhere to policy outlined in Phoenix’s new ordinance. There is some uncertainty, for example, as to whether the city of Tempe, which borders Phoenix to the east, will prohibit construction of a planned high- rise condominium project if the FAA decides the structures would pose a hazard to air traffic. 51
Oregon
As is the case in Arizona, airport land use planning in the State of Oregon is the responsibility of the local jurisdictions that surround an airport. Oregon does not require a county or regional commission to develop land use plans for airports. Under the state’s “ Airport Planning Rule” ( APR), however, cities or counties with planning jurisdiction that includes airports or areas within airport safety and compatibility zones are required to adopt comprehensive plans and land use regulations that are consistent with the state’s Aviation System Plan. 52 To assist local governments in meeting the requirements of the APR, the Oregon Department of Aviation published the Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook in 2003.
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality requires operators of airports within the state to submit a noise abatement plan to the State Environmental Quality Commission for review and approval, and to submit reviews and revisions of the plan to the Commission every five years. 53 Since 1983, the Port of Portland has used the FAA Part 150 process to study airport noise and develop noise abatement plans. Appointees from local cities and counties serve on an advisory committee that provides input for the airport noise compatibility plan. 54 Although the FAA and the Port of Portland work with Portland, the nearby city of Vancouver ( Washington), and other local governments to implement the noise abatement plan’s recommendations, participation is voluntary. 55 The most recent update of the Part 150 noise study was completed in 2005. The cities of Portland and Vancouver also enforce height restrictions in their building codes that prohibit new development that could obstruct air traffic to and from Portland International Airport. 56
16 California Research Bureau, California State Library
II. AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING IN CALIFORNIA
The ALUC found it [ a proposal to develop land near the boundaries of the airport Safety Zone] incompatible with our Policy Plan, but then after much back- room political strong- arming, the project again came before the commission and, what do you know, was found to be compatible with our plan… don't get me started!
California Research Bureau Survey Respondent
In order to better understand the actual practice of airport land use compatibility planning in California, the California Research Bureau conducted a survey of airport land use commissions ( ALUCs). The survey examined ALUC characteristics, planning activities, and approaches to compatibility planning. ( The survey instrument is contained in Appendix D of this report.)
The survey was conducted using an Internet- based survey tool ( surveymonkey. com). On June 9, 2006, an announcement with a link to the survey was sent to all ALUC contacts on a list maintained by the Division of Aeronautics. The survey was closed to responses on June 23, 2006. The survey link was sent to 52 potential respondents and generated 23 responses.
ALUC CHARACTERISTICS
Respondent title or position
Twenty- one of 23 respondents reported their title or position. One- third of those responding identified themselves as executives or managers, while the remainder are “ planners” or some other type of staff position.
Type of ALUC
California Public Utilities Code prescribes several organizational types of ALUCs. The majority are created as single- purpose entities established according to Section 21670( b) of the California Public Utilities Code. Counties may instead designate another body, such as a city or county planning commission, a regional association of governments* ( or an airport governing board or commission) as an ALUC if the board of supervisors and the mayors of affected jurisdictions in a county determine that the body can accomplish the functions of an ALUC ( Section 21670.1( a)). Additionally, Section 21670.1( c) provides for an “ alternative process” that essentially eliminates the need for a County ALUC and allows each jurisdiction affected by airport impacts to adopt separate compatibility plans and policies.
* For example, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG), an association of local governments that includes four counties and fifteen cities, has been designated as the ALUC for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 17
Only one county surveyed used the alternative process:
The County… uses the alternate procedures for ALUC as permitted pursuant to the Pubic Utilities Code Section 21670.1. As such, the Planning Commission within each jurisdiction in which an airport is located… acts as the ALUC for that area. [ California Research Bureau Respondent]
Figure 1 ALUC Organizational Type91166Single- purpose ALUCRegional Governing Association Planning CommissionAirport CommissionAlternative Process
County representation
Although representatives from 23 ALUCs replied to the survey, 26 counties are represented. This is because some of the ALUCs have planning responsibilities for more than one county. Figure 2 illustrates the counties that are represented in the survey.
18 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Figure 2
Counties Represented in the CRB Survey of ALUCs
California Research Bureau, California State Library 19
Number of airports for which ALUCs have planning responsibility
All respondents answered a question about the number of airports for which they have planning responsibilities. While the majority have planning responsibility for four or fewer airports, six ALUCs develop compatibility plans for thirteen or more airports. These totals include military airports and smaller airports that provide little or no commercial service.
Figure 3 493100420246810Number of ALUCs1- 23- 45- 67- 89- 1011- 1213- 1415- 16Number of Airports within Planning Area Distribution of ALUCs by the Number of Airports within Planning Area
ALUCs reported a much smaller number of commercial service airports within their planning jurisdictions.
Figure 4 612301024681012Number of ALUCs 01234Scheduled Commercial Service Airports within Planning AreaDistribution of ALUCS by the Number of Scheduled Commercial Service Airports within Planning Area 20 California Research Bureau, California State Library
COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
Most of the ALUCs surveyed have compatibility plans for all airports within their planning areas. Five, however, reported that there were no compatibility plans for at least some airports for which they have planning responsibility. In one county, “ no compatibility plans [ have been] prepared yet for [ the] two most prominent private- use airports.” 57
Only two of the five respondents who reported that plans were not developed for all airports offered explanations. In a follow- up question, both reported that plans were currently being developed for all airports. One respondent also explained that two of the airports without plans were currently inactive.
Compatibility plan updates
The Division of Aeronautics encourages ALUCs to periodically review and update compatibility plans as conditions at the airport and in the surrounding community change. As a guideline, the Division suggests that plans should be reviewed every five years. As one survey respondent explained:
There is no time requirement to update the compatibility plans. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook does encourage jurisdictions to “ review and, when appropriate, to update their compatibility plans at least every five years.” However, it is not a requirement.
The CRB survey asked ALUCs to report about the most recent updates to their compatibility plans. Eighteen responded. Although nearly half of the most recent updates occurred within the last five years, some plans have not been updated for more than ten or fifteen years.
Figure 5 333512024681012Number of Plan Updates86-' 8990-' 9394-' 9798-' 0102-' 05YearMost Recent ALUC Compatibility Plan Updates California Research Bureau, California State Library 21
Reasons for not updating compatibility plans
Survey respondents offered several reasons to explain why plans have not been updated within the past five years as the Division of Aeronautics recommends. Chief among these was the lack of funding to carry out a plan update. Some respondents also suggested that there was no need to update plans because little had changed. Others cited procedural or logistical reasons, suggesting that airport land use compatibility planning would go forward after airport master plans or local general plans were completed.
Figure 6 Reasons Given for not Updating Plans1043Lack offunding/ staffNot necessary/ oldplans still adequateProcedural reasons
More detailed comments support the importance of these factors on plan updates:
The plan has not been significantly updated because the policies are sound and remain effective and because the County Planning Department bares all costs associated with the operation of the ALUC and does not have adequate funding for a comprehensive update of the plan.
Since the publication of the new state Handbook, [ the] County has recognized the need to update all of its plans. However, for the past three years, the County has been in the process of updating our entire General Plan, Development Code, and establishing 13 new community plans. Consequently, staff and funding have not been dedicated to update the airport plans. We anticipate that the General Plan Update project will be completed by early 2007. Once this happens, the County will be able to complete the task of updating all airport compatibility plans.
Shortage of funding availability plus the ongoing airport master plan and Part 150 updates for each of the county airports.
Lack of demand or changes to individual airport operations haven't changed enough; also lack of funding to update plans. 22 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Awaiting input by local cities on their updates for their Airport Master Plans and impact on the existing Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as well as a lack of funding from State Aeronautics for this work.
Lack of funds and support staff time.
County has growth controls in place and not much has changed over recent years.
ALUC funding, staffing, and costs of compatibility plans
Survey respondents are clear that a lack of resources is a major obstacle to updating compatibility plans. Some ALUCs have neither a separate budget, nor a dedicated full- time staff position for airport land use compatibility planning and review activities.
Eleven respondents report having no separate budget for ALUC activities. Of the nine ALUCs that reported having a separate budget during the current fiscal year:
• Budgets ranged from a low of $ 1,000 to a high of $ 252,950 ( which included consultant costs for ongoing plan preparation);
• Reported ALUC budgets averaged $ 58,710, with a median of $ 32,000.
ALUC staff tend to be employed within planning departments. The majority of ALUCs had less than one full- time staff position dedicated to ALUC activities.
Figure 7 ALUC Budgeted Staff Positions1103423Four full- time positionsThree full- time positionsTwo full- time positionsOne full- time positionFewer than one full- time positionNo response California Research Bureau, California State Library 23
The CRB survey asked about the cost of the most recent compatibility plan updates. Sixteen of respondents answered. Four explained that the cost was unknown because the plans had been updated a long time ago, in some cases before the current staff were hired. The 12 respondents who did answer reported costs that ranged from several thousand dollars for staff time and printing costs to $ 1.5 million. The median cost was $ 97,500.
As responses to the following survey question illustrate, most ALUCs hire consultants to prepare plan updates.
Figure 8 Was a consultant hired to prepare the mostrecent compatibility plan update? 1265No responseNo Yes
Respondents were also asked to explain how the most recent compatibility plan update was funded. Most were funded through some combination of ALUC, local, state and federal funding. Fifteen of 23 ALUC contacts responded to the question and answered as follows:
Table 1. ALUC Funding for Compatibility Plan Updates
Funding source
Number of Respondents
Selected responses
ALUC budget/ no outside funding
5
“ Since the update was done in- house, it was part of usual ALUC staff support activities. No outside funding was used.”
“ The last update in 1996 was done internally by the Planning staff with input from affected cities, airport staff, and the military .”
State and Federal funding
7
“ The state division of aeronautics provided a grant of $ 80k to pay consultant costs.”
“ Through state and federal funding but funding has not been available for the last decade.”
24 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Funding
source
Number of
Respondents
Selected responses
Local Funds
3
“ County funds”
“ Airport operator was willing to pay for full cost of plan.”
“ The local Airport District”
NOISE POLICIES
To gauge actual noise policies, respondents were asked to report the highest noise level areas, or “ contours,” * in which specific types of land uses are “ compatible” or “ conditionally compatible.” If an ALUC compatibility plan identifies a particular type of land use as compatible within a noise contour of a certain level, a local jurisdiction may allow that type of development without having to overrule the ALUC.
“ Conditional compatibility” means that an ALUC plan identifies a particular type of land use to be compatible within a noise contour provided that certain conditions are met. For example, a plan may allow new residential uses within areas that are subjected to average noise levels of 65 decibels ( 65 dB CNEL) provided that the structures are insulated to provide sufficient interior soundproofing, and that the airport operator is able to obtain “ avigation” easements for the properties. In some cases, airports pay to insulate homes and schools, often with funds provided through a grant administered by the FAA.
Seventeen of the 23 respondents answered this question. Only 15, however, reported conditional compatibility policies for residential uses, and only 16 reported conditional compatibility policies for commercial uses. It is possible that these omissions are because plan policies do not distinguish between compatibility and conditional compatibility. The identification of conditionally compatible uses adds complexity to plans as well as some flexibility in terms of the areas in which particular types of development are allowed.
* A sixty- five decibel community noise equivalent level ( CNEL) contour defines the geographical area around an airport that is subjected to an average noise level of sixty- five decibels. The CNEL is a cumulative measure that averages noise exposure overtime and is affected by the frequency and volume of noise events ( such as aircraft operations) as well as the time of day that the noise events occur ( e. g., aircraft noise at nighttime has a greater impact than during the daytime). According to the FAA, 65 decibels is somewhat louder than normal indoor conversation, and quieter than a vacuum cleaner ( Aviation and the Environment: FAA's Role in Major Airport Noise Programs. U. S. General Accounting Office, GAO/ RCED- 00- 98 ( April 2000)).
California Research Bureau, California State Library 25
As a reference, Table 2 provides the approximate decibel levels of common sounds.
Table 2. Decibel Levels of Common Sounds
120- 130 dB
110- 120 dB
100- 110 dB
90- 100 dB
80- 90 dB
70- 80 dB
60- 70 dB
50- 60 dB
40- 50 dB
30- 40 dB
20- 30 dB
10- 20 dB
0- 10 dB
Pneumatic drill
Loud car horn 3 feet away
Airport
Inside a subway train
Inside a bus
Busy residential road
Conversational speech
Living room with music or television
Quiet office
Bedroom
Recording studio
Broadcasting studio
Threshold of hearing
Source: “ Noise and Hearing,” U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, http:// www. osha. gov/ dts/ osta/ otm/ noise/ health_ effects/ soundpropagation. html.
Figure 9 416269130246810Number of ALUCs< 55 55- 60 60- 65 65- 70 Noise Level ( dB CNEL) Maximum Noise Level Compatible withSingle Family Residential Uses in ALUC PlansCompatibleConditionally Compatible 26 California Research Bureau, California State Library
For noise contours of less than 60 dB CNEL, ALUC policies tend to designate residential and non- noise- sensitive commercial and retail to be compatible uses. For ALUCs that allow residential, commercial and retail uses in areas subject to noise levels above 60 dB CNEL, policies are more likely to designate those uses as conditionally compatible.
Figure 10 218061113024681012Number of ALUCs< 55 55- 60 60- 65 65- 70 Maximum Noise Level ( dB CNEL) Maximum Noise Level Compatible with Multiple Family Residential Uses in ALUC PlansCompatibleConditionally Compatible California Research Bureau, California State Library 27
Figure 11 416148350102468Number of ALUCs55- 60 60- 65 65- 70 70- 75 75 + Noise Level ( dB CNEL) Maximum Noise Level Compatible with Non- Industrial, Non- Noise- Sensitive Commercial and Retail Uses in ALUC PlansCompatibleConditionally Compatible
CURRENT ISSUES
Local general/ specific plan consistency
State statutes require that once an ALUC has adopted or amended an airport land use compatibility plan, the county and any affected cities must update their general plans and any applicable specific plans to be consistent with the ALUC’s plan. 58 If a local jurisdiction does not do so – and does not take steps to overrule all or part of the ALUC’s plan – it is required to submit all land use development actions involving property within the airport influence area to the ALUC for review. 59 If, based on its review, the ALUC determines that a proposed development activity is inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the proposal may be amended, or the local jurisdiction may overrule the ALUC’s determination.
The survey asked about whether affected jurisdictions had updated general and specific plans to make them consistent with ALUC compatibility plans. Eighteen of 23 respondents answered. Eleven were able to give exact numbers. Based on these eleven responses, 43 of 56 affected jurisdictions, slightly more than three- fourths, had updated their general and specific plans to make them consistent with ALUC plans, or were in the process of doing so.
28 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Figure 12 Local Jurisdictions with General/ Specific PlansUpdated for Consistency with ALUC Plans( as of June 2006) 77% 23% Updated for consistencyNot updated for consistency
Of the remaining seven who responded to the question, four reported that the number of jurisdictions that had updated plans for ALUC consistency was unknown. Three responded that “ some,” “ most,” or “ all but one” local jurisdictions had updated plans.
CEQA compliance
A case currently pending before the California Supreme Court, Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, ( 2005), raises questions about the approach that ALUCs must take to comply with California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) guidelines. 60 At issue is the environmental impact that the adoption of an airport land use compatibility plan might have and whether ALUCs are required to prepare environmental impact reports prior to adopting or amending compatibility plans.
The CRB survey asked about the approach that ALUCs take with respect to CEQA. Fifteen respondents answered the question. The most common approach was the preparation of an Initial Study and a Negative Declaration as required by CEQA. Three ALUCs reported that they considered their plans to be exempt from CEQA regulation, and one respondent explained that even though “ we are going to consult with County Counsel on whether or not the Policy Plan Update qualifies as EXEMPT under CEQA.” 61 The one respondent who reported conducting an Environmental Impact Report explained that the approach taken is different for each airport.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 29
Figure 13 ALUC Approach to CEQA31011Environmental Impact ReportInitial Study/ Negative DeclarationExemptRespondent did not know
Defining “ Airport Influence Areas”
California law requires residential property owners to disclose to prospective buyers that the property is in the " vicinity" of an airport under several circumstances. The law requires ALUCS to determine what constitutes the “ vicinity” of an airport or the “ airport influence area.” The remarks below indicate the various approaches that ALUCs have taken to determine airport influence areas:
ALUC adopted the [ Airport Influence Area] boundary recommended by staff in Ocbober 2003 through the use of joint consultation with all local jurisdictions and public meetings.
Depending on airport, [ Airport Influence Area] either 2 mile radius, overflight safety zone, or other.
The County had adopted the General Plan Hazardous Overlay Maps prior to the adoption of AB 2776. When this bill was adopted, County staff reviewed each airport and plan area and processed amendments to these maps to highlight airport influence areas. The County defines airport influence areas as those areas with airport safety review areas as defined in our Development Code and each airport compatibility plan. The County requires avigation easements to be recorded for development within an airport influence area. These easements are recorded for each property developed within the area prior to issuance of a building permit. These easements will show up in the title reports for the affected parcels, giving prospective buyers full disclosure of the potential impacts of nearby airports.
All properties located within an Airport Compatibility Zone as shown on the Compatibility Maps have a combination zoning indicating the location near an airport…. County GIS maps ( available online) as well as Assessor's Parcel Maps adequately show parcels with the combination zoning. 30 California Research Bureau, California State Library
The airport land use compatibility plans were reviewed and it was determined that the airport planning areas already included in the plans met the criteria for airport influence areas as defined in AB 2776. Additionally, information was added to the Airport Land Use Commission web page showing the defined airport influence area for each airport.
Conflicts and litigation
Finally, the CRB survey asked about recent conflicts or litigation related to ALUC compatibility planning and review activities. Eighteen of 23 responded. Nine reported that there had been no litigation or significant conflict within the past five years. The comments of the nine respondents who indicated that there was some conflict or litigation are reproduced below:
Although not a direct challenge to ALUC plan, special provision in PUC 21670.2 was used by 2 jurisdictions to file impasse appeals against the City… over the [ airport] Master Plan.
[ There has been] litigation regarding [ CEQA] exemption status.
Litigation re. environmental determination at time of adoption by developer of time- share inconsistent with proposed plan. Compromise resulted in changes to development plan and compatibility plan.
The ALUC found it [ a proposal to develop near the boundaries of the airport Safety Zone] incompatible with our Policy Plan, but then after much back- room political strong- arming, the project again came before the commission and, what do you know, was found to be compatible with our plan.
The… County Airport Compatibility Plan affects land use in three different jurisdictions. In [ two of those jurisdictions], original residential project proposals have been in conflict with the policies set forth in the Compatibility Plan. After a lengthy public process, one project was modified and the density significantly decreased to where the ALUC ultimately found the project consistent. [ Another] project proposes high density residential development… in an area that penetrates navigable airspace and where at least half of the project area is within compatibility zone D that prohibits residential development. The… project is still under consideration.
Lots of conflict, no litigation to date ( although it has been threatened).
California Research Bureau, California State Library 31
III. AIRPORT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES: MANAGING AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND EXPANSION
Burbank is not alone in resisting an airport expansion which threatens the well- being of people who live and work near an airport. Residents that surround Los Angeles International Airport, John Wayne Airport in Newport Beach, Van Nuys Airport, Santa Monica Airport or the communities around the proposed El Toro International Airport in southern Orange County have all expressed similar concerns. This problem is clearly not unique to Burbank.
Dave Golonski
Former ( Burbank) Mayor
June 16, 199862
While development outside the boundaries of California’s airports is governed by ALUCs and local jurisdictions whose boundaries overlap “ airport influence areas,” development of airport facilities rests entirely with the public entities ( usually cities or counties) that own and operate airports. Although the FAA and California’s Division of Aeronautics regulate some aspects of airport operations and design, and provide some funding for airport projects ( see Appendix A for an overview), crucial decisions about airport development and policies are made at the local level by elected officials or their appointees.
The purpose of this section is to: ( 1) describe various types of airport governance structures; ( 2) examine airport capacity and the need to expand or improve California’s commercial airports; ( 3) illustrate the types of major airport expansion and improvement projects that have been recently completed and that are planned; and ( 4) highlight the ways in which airport land use conflicts have constrained airport operations and development.
The focus of this section is the thirteen airports that the Aeronautics Division of the California Department of Transportation has identified as the State’s Primary Commercial Service Hub Airports. These airports include:
• Burbank “ Bob Hope”
• Fresno Yosemite International
• John Wayne – Orange County
• Long Beach
• Los Angeles International
• Oakland International
• Ontario International
• Palm Springs International
• Sacramento International
• San Diego International
• San Francisco International
• Mineta San Jose International
• Santa Barbara Municipal
32 California Research Bureau, California State Library
California’s primary commercial airports play a vital role in the economy and the transportation system of California and the U. S. as a whole. In 2001, these 13 airports served approximately 12 percent of commercial passengers who boarded airplanes at U. S. airports. 63 In 2004, more than half of California’s total exports were shipped by air, primarily from California’s commercial airports. 64 A 2002 study found that Los Angeles International alone handles almost one- sixth of the nation’s international air cargo. 65
For the sake of comparison, Phoenix ( Arizona) Sky Harbor International and Portland ( Oregon) International Airports are considered here as well. The figures below illustrate the passenger and cargo volumes at these airports.
Figure 14 Total Annual Passengers ( in millions) 20050.91.191.435.57.29.61010.713.914.417.433.441.261.5Santa BarbaraFresnoPalm SpringsLong BeachBurbankOntarioJohn WayneSacramentoSan JosePortlandOaklandSan DiegoSan FranciscoPhoenixLos Angeles
Source: These figures come from statistics maintained by each airport. Most were obtained from airport websites, some from contacts with airport representatives. Sources are referenced in the individual airport profiles in Appendix C of this report.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 33
Figure 15 Total Annual Cargo ( tons) 2005751,50018,30024,07353,22354,29876,389104,661187,706287,621333,284575,369650,977740,0312,137,188Palm SpringsSanta BarbaraFresnoJohn WayneBurbankLong BeachSacramentoSan JoseSan DiegoPortlandPhoenixOntarioSan FranciscoOaklandLos Angeles
Source: These figures come from statistics maintained by each airport. Most were obtained from airport websites, some from contacts with airport representatives. Sources are referenced in the individual airport profiles in Appendix C of this report.
34 California Research Bureau, California State Library
AIRPORT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES
The research literature suggests that governance structures may have a significant influence on airport policies and development. 66 Some scholars, for example, argue that formally autonomous governing bodies such as regional authorities and public corporations are more stable and more adept at long- term planning than more politicized local governance structures. 67 Similarly, others contend that autonomous airport authorities are more effective for airports that play a significant role in local and national economies, because they insulate airports from political interference and promote more effective management. 68
Table three provides an overview of the governance structures of the 15 airports considered in this report. More complete descriptions of the governance structure of each airport can be found in Appendix C.
Table 3. Airport Ownership and Governance Structures
Type of Governing Body
Airport Ownership
Legislative body governs directly
Board reports to a legislative body
Autonomous
airport board
City
Fresno
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Ontario
Palm Springs
Phoenix
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Barbara
Oakland
County
Sacramento
John Wayne
Multi- jurisdictional/ regional authority
Burbank
Portland
San Diego
Airport ownership
The Airports Council International- North America’s 2003 General Information Survey of 126 North American airports found that for the 90 percent of U. S. air carrier airports owned by local governments, the most common form of ownership is municipal ( 38%), followed by regional airport authorities ( 25%), single counties ( 17%), and multiple local government jurisdictions ( 9%). 69 States own five percent of the airports in the survey, and port authorities own three percent. Ronald Reagan Washington National and Dulles International airports are the only two owned by the federal government.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 35
The airports considered in this report follow a similar ownership pattern. Two- thirds are owned by cities, but not necessarily by the city in which the airport is located. Ontario International airport is located in San Bernardino County, but is owned by the city of Los Angeles. The city/ county of San Francisco owns San Francisco International Airport, which is located in San Mateo County. In addition, two of the airports, Sacramento International, and John Wayne in Orange County, are owned by counties.
A form of regional or multi- jurisdictional authority owns three of the airports. Burbank airport is owned by the Burbank- Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority, which is established by a joint powers agreement between the three cities, and codified in California Government Code, Section 6500 et seq. The Port of Portland, a port district created by Oregon state law, owns Portland International Airport. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ( SDCRAA) assumed ownership of San Diego International Airport in 2003. The SDCRAA was created by state law to operate the airport and plan for the region’s future air transportation needs.
Airport governance
Aside from ownership, the airports considered in this report also differ in terms of their policy- making structures. Airport boards or commissions consisting of appointed members oversee all but two of the fifteen airports. The exceptions are Fresno and Sacramento, which are directly governed, respectively, by a city council and a county board of supervisors. For the 13 airports that have governing boards or commissions, members are generally residents appointed from the council or supervisory districts of the local jurisdiction that owns an airport.
In the case of regional or multi- jurisdictional ownership, rules governing member appointments generally ensure geographical representation. The Burbank- Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority Board of Commissioners, for example, consists of nine members. The city councils of the three cities each appoint three members. The Governor of Oregon appoints members of the Port of Portland’s board of commissioners from each of the three counties that constitute the port district. In San Diego, the three members of the executive committee of the SDCRAA board are appointed by the Governor of the state of California, the Sheriff of San Diego County, and the Mayor of the city of San Diego. Mayors from cities throughout the county appoint the other six members.
Airport boards or commissions for the other 13 airports vary in terms of their powers and duties. Some serve the legislative body of the local jurisdiction that owns the airport in an advisory capacity, conducting studies and making recommendations as directed. Others have broader powers and act with greater independence, but report to a legislative body that has final authority for major policy decisions.
Only four of the 13 airport boards have the autonomy to make major decisions related to airport operations and development ( e. g., setting fees, issuing revenue bonds, acquiring property through eminent domain). Of these, three are the governing boards of entities that are established by state statute. These include Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport
36 California Research Bureau, California State Library
( Burbank- Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority), Portland International Airport ( Port of Portland), and San Diego International Airport ( San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). The Port of Oakland, which is established by city charter, is the exception.
THE NEED FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT
Most large commercial airports in the U. S. confront increased demand. Since 1985, the number of commercial air carrier departures at U. S. airports has increased by more than ninety- five percent. 70 Because of growth in passenger and cargo demand, post- 9/ 11 security requirements, and the introduction of a new generation of wide- body passenger jets, airports require improvements to, and expansion of, airport runways, taxiways, terminals, parking and ground access.
Officials from virtually all of California’s primary commercial airports express some need to make airport improvements and to expand capacity. The bullet points below highlight some of the reasons that airport officials cite to explain the need for expansion and improvement projects. A more thorough airport- by- airport treatment of the topic is included in the individual airport profiles presented in Appendix C.
Growth in passenger and cargo demand
• Los Angeles International ( LAX) is one of ten airports in a regional system of airports that are expected to serve approximately 170 million annual passengers by 2030, but face a 40 percent shortfall in capacity to meet the expected demand. 71
• The Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) predicts that 9 million passengers will use Burbank’s Bob Hope airport annually in 25 years, almost twice the current usage. 72
• Over the past five years, daily commercial flights at the Long Beach Airport increased from six to forty- one, and the number of annual passengers has increased from 600,000 to three million. 73 There are 20 commuter flight slots to be filled.* The airport has forecasted 4.2 million annual passengers when this occurs. 74
• Oakland International’s master plan forecasts a doubling of the demand in passenger and cargo service by 2025.75
• Based on activity at Palm Springs International during the first quarter of 2006, the number of passengers in 2006 is projected to be 7.18 percent higher than in 2005.76 The airport’s Aviation Director attributes increased passenger demand to population growth in the Coachella Valley that outpaced state and county growth trends in 2005.77
* At Long Beach, airline activity is limited by the city’s noise compatibility ordinance. Forty- one airline and twenty- five commuter flights are permitted per day.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 37
• Based on forecasts in an environmental impact statement for the airport development plan, the number of annual passengers at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International is predicted to grow by nearly 25 percent to approximately 50 million passengers in 2015.78
• Activity at the Portland International Airport is forecast to increase by more than 50 percent, from 263,253 annual takeoffs and landings in 2005 to 404,000 in 2010.79
• Traffic at Sacramento International is forecast to grow from about ten million annual passengers in 2005 to between 18 million and 20 million by the year 2020, a 15 year increase of 80 to 100 percent. 80 Airport officials claim that the airport is already operating beyond capacity because the two existing terminals are only designed to adequately serve 7.2 million passengers a year. 81
• The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority predicts that demand at San Diego International airport will exceed capacity between the years 2015 and 2022.82
• An FAA report released in 2004 concludes that even with planned expansion and upgrading of terminals and runways, demand at San Francisco International could outstrip capacity by 2015.83
• The amount of cargo handled by the Bay Area’s airports is expected to triple to 5.5 million tons by 2020.84
Outdated or inadequate facilities
• At Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport, the absence of parking or holding space for airplanes significantly limits the frequency with which airlines can schedule arrivals, and the current terminal is significantly closer to one runway than the 750 foot “ set back” that is required by the FAA. 85
• To explain the need for proposed improvement and expansion projects at Palm Springs International, airport officials cite “ landside” deficiencies such as inadequate passenger check- in and screening facilities. They also point to the necessity to “ provide a new traffic control tower to adequately address the facilities deficiencies that have occurred over time and as an outgrowth of continued airfield expansion.” 86
• The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ( SDCRAA) describes San Diego International Airport ( SAN) as the busiest single- runway airport in the U. S. 87 Due to the terrain and existing development, the runway has a “ displaced threshold” which effectively shortens the usable portion of the runway for airplanes arriving on the standard approach from the east.
38 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Photo of airplane landing at San Diego International Airport reproduced with permission of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.
• Due to San Francisco International’s ( SFO) runway configuration, the airport has one of the worst flight delay records among major U. S. airports. 88 SFO’s cargo facilities have also been described as inadequate to accommodate future demand. 89
• Santa Barbara Airport’s terminal was built in 1945, and the last significant improvements were made in 1976.90 According to a document on the airport’s website:
o Expansion is needed to accommodate new security requirements
o Airline operational space which is currently inadequate
o Improvements are needed to update deteriorating infrastructure91
RECENT AND PLANNED AIRPORT EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Phoenix ( Arizona) Sky Harbor International, Portland ( Oregon) International, and most of California’s primary commercial airports have completed a number of expansion and improvement projects in recent years. Other projects are planned for the near future. Notable exceptions are Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport and San Diego International. Due to a recent settlement with the city of Burbank, Bob Hope Airport is prohibited from expanding the existing terminal or adding new gates until 2012, and from planning a new terminal until 2015.
In San Diego, development efforts have focused more on the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s ( SDCRAA) statutory mandate to find a site for the airport to place on the November 2006 countywide ballot than on making improvements to the existing airport. The Authority’s current master plan for Lindbergh Field does propose to add ten gates to a terminal. However, the San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) has expressed concern that the master plan’s horizon extends only to the year 2015 due to
California Research Bureau, California State Library 39
SDCRAA’s expectation that the airport will either be relocated or additional improvements will be needed to meet increased demand for air service. 92 SANDAG has requested, and has been granted, a 30- day extension to the comment period on the Draft EIR for the master plan.
Descriptions of completed and planned projects are included in the individual airport profiles in Appendix C of this report. Reflecting the steady increase in demand for passenger service, many of the major projects have involved expanding existing terminals or adding new terminals and gates. New federal security requirements enacted in the wake of 9/ 11 have spurred a number of airports to expand and improve security screening areas and devices. To accommodate the next generation of wide- body jets such as the Airbus A380, San Francisco International has made improvements to runways, taxiways, passenger gates, boarding bridges and baggage carousels. Los Angeles International is in the process of making similar upgrades. Additional airport projects include the addition or improvement of cargo facilities, parking structures, rental car facilities, public transit connections, and roadways.
CONFLICTS RELATED TO AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
Although a number of expansion and improvement projects have been completed or planned at the airports considered in this report, most of the airports confront significant opposition that affects their plans to develop and their current operations. The following examples illustrate these conflicts. More detailed descriptions are included in the summaries of individual airports presented in Appendix C.
Community opposition to airport development projects
In a number of cases, local jurisdictions, residents and environmental groups have successfully opposed airport expansion plans.
Burbank City officials and residents have long been at odds with the Airport Authority over noise and other impacts. In 1978, the city amended the joint powers agreement to prohibit the Airport Authority from lengthening the runways or authorizing any activity that increases the size of the 65- decibel contour. 93 Recently, the city prevailed in a legal battle over the Airport authority’s plans to build on land adjacent to the airport. The courts have upheld the city’s argument that California’s Public Utilities Code section 21661.6 requires local government approval of land acquired for the purpose of expanding or enlarging an existing publicly owned airport. 94 As a result, in 2005 the Airport Authority entered into a development agreement with the city of Burbank. Under the terms of the agreement, the Airport Authority may not add new gates for seven years and may not plan or build a new terminal for ten years. 95
At Los Angeles International, San Francisco International, and Long Beach airports, opposition to the environmental review process from community groups, environmental groups, and from local jurisdictions have halted or significantly reduced planned expansion projects. As a result, LAX expansion plans were scaled back significantly. 96 San Francisco abandoned its plans to build two new runways in the bay. 97 In Long
40 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Beach, airport officials are awaiting a decision on an environmental impact report that includes scaled- down expansion projects as well as a “ no project” alternative. 98
Curfews and other operating restrictions
Community opposition to airport impacts such as noise have had an impact on airport operations as well as expansion. Seven of the fifteen airports considered in this report have implemented some form of curfew that limits or bans takeoffs and landings during the night. These include: 99
• Burbank
• Long Beach
• John Wayne
• Palm Springs
• San Diego
• San Jose
• Santa Barbara
The curfew at John Wayne Airport is the most restrictive. It limits all commercial operations from 10 p. m. ( 11 p. m. for landings) to 7 a. m. ( 8 a. m. Sundays) and imposes fines of up to $ 500,000. Other airports’ curfews are limited to certain types of noisier aircraft, or to specific runways with fines limited to several thousand dollars. For detailed information about curfew hours, types of aircraft restricted and fines imposed, Boeing maintains an updated website of airport noise regulations at: http:// www. boeing. com/ commercial/ noise.
In addition to curfews, local opposition to airport noise has led to a number of other operating restrictions at airports considered in this report. To speed development of a third runway, the City of Phoenix, Arizona entered into an agreement with the city of Tempe whose border lies less than a mile east of Sky Harbor airport. 100 The city of Tempe had sued the FAA for approving Sky Harbor’s Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) for major projects including the runway. The agreement included a number of operating procedures designed to minimize airport noise.
Examples of other operating restrictions include:
• At Long Beach, airline activity is limited by the city’s noise compatibility ordinance. Only 41 airline and 25 commuter flights are permitted per day. 101
• Several of the airports considered in this report restrict flight patterns, particularly at night, to minimize noise impacts on surrounding communities.
• To minimize noise impacts, Ontario International designates “ preferential runways” for arrival and departure between 10: 00 p. m. and 7: 00 a. m. and restricts nighttime engine “ run ups” for maintenance. 102
Existing development and natural features of the terrain
Existing development and the natural features of the terrain surrounding an airport also constrain airport operations and growth. San Diego is a prime example. Occupying just
California Research Bureau, California State Library 41
615 acres, San Diego International is considerably smaller than other airports with similar levels of passenger traffic. Oakland, Portland, and Sacramento have fewer passengers annually, but occupy areas four to nine times the size of San Diego International. San Diego International has little room to grow. Hemmed in by hills and harbor, military facilities and a major freeway, there is little potential for acquiring additional land adjacent to the airport. Furthermore, due to a hill and a parking structure, the airport’s single runway has a “ displaced threshold” ( i. e., airplanes are required to land at a point beyond the beginning of the runway in order to ensure that the flight path steers clear of obstacles) which effectively limits the usable length of the runway by 1,800 feet on the most commonly used approach from the east. 103
Similarly, roads, freeways and existing development limit the potential for growth at Bob Hope airport in Burbank. Although there is some land adjacent to the airport that could potentially be developed for airport use, the use of the land has been contested, and the courts have upheld the city of Burbank’s argument that California Public Utilities Code section 21661.6 requires local government approval of land acquired for the purpose of expanding or enlarging an existing publicly owned airport. 104
In addition to constraints imposed by man- made development, several of the airports considered in this report are surrounded by environmentally sensitive land that limits the potential for growth. Both San Francisco International and Oakland International have considered building runways into the San Francisco Bay, but opposition from environmental groups helped to halt San Francisco’s effort, 105 and may have caused Oakland to shy away from a similar plan. 106
The land surrounding Sacramento International Airport has been identified as a habitat for giant garter snakes and Swainson’s hawks, both of which are threatened species. 107 The new Terminal A was built only after considerable litigation between county airport officials and environmental and local residential groups. 108
In Santa Barbara, approximately 400 acres of the Goleta Slough are within the airport’s boundaries. 109 Runway improvement projects have required mitigation projects to improve the slough.
REGIONAL STRATEGIES AS A SOLUTION?
Large airports that serve highly developed metropolitan areas appear to face both the greatest increases in demand and the greatest resistance to airport growth. As an alternative to expanding existing airports or building new ones, both of which can be difficult to achieve politically and economically, there have been proposals to redistribute air traffic among existing airports, shifting it to less heavily- utilized airports.
However, a significant obstacle to developing viable regional alternatives to a heavily- utilized airport such as LAX is that airlines prefer to service airports with a well- established market, well- developed infrastructure for moving passengers and cargo to- and- from the airport, and an advantageous position within the existing network of routes flown by the major air carriers. 110 Nonetheless, the idea of developing regional airport
42 California Research Bureau, California State Library
strategies to more efficiently distribute the demand for air service, and the benefits and burdens of airport operations, appears to have gained some traction recently.
With LAX expansion plans capped, focus has shifted toward strategies to redistribute air service demand throughout the region. Echoing earlier attempts to develop regional airport strategies made between 1985 and 2002, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently urged airlines to shift some domestic passenger service to other airports in the region. 111 In fact, Los Angeles World Airports ( LAWA), the city of Los Angeles’s airports department, originally acquired Ontario and Palmdale airports for this purpose. 112
In recent years, a significant portion of domestic air service has shifted to Burbank, Long Beach, and John Wayne airports. Growth at these airports, however, is constrained by physical limits, noise curfews, and other limits on operations that have resulted from conflicts with surrounding communities. 113 Ontario Airport has been viewed as the main international alternative to LAX, but passenger growth there has lagged behind that of other regional airports. 114 Even though cargo service at Ontario has increased in recent years, in 2005, the airport handled only about one- quarter of the cargo handled by LAX.
Like LAWA, the Sacramento County Airport System owns several airports, and has taken steps to distribute air traffic among them effectively. 115 In 1967, commercial service was moved to Sacramento Metropolitan Airport ( now called Sacramento International Airport), in an area outside the city with room to grow. Sacramento Executive Airport, which previously served as the region’s commercial service airport, is now the primary corporate and general aviation facility in the area. Franklin Field, acquired from the military in 1947, is also used as a general aviation airport. In 1995, when the Sacramento County Airport System reopened Mather Field, a former U. S. Air Force base, most of the cargo traffic relocated from Sacramento International to Mather.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, Oakland’s airport director recently suggested that a regional group should examine how best to use and develop the region’s airports to accommodate future growth. 116 However, this type of regional airport coordination of airport operations has not been implemented and, according to analysts, some airports have resisted such proposals. 117
Regional air traffic redistribution schemes do not appear to be the primary focus in San Diego. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s ( SDCRAA) efforts to find a solution for the lack of capacity at Lindbergh field have been aimed at finding a new site for an airport. In June 2006, the SDCRAA selected Miramar, an active U. S. Marine Corps Air Station, as the site to put before the voters in November 2006. The U. S. Department of Defense, however, is strongly opposed to civilian/ military joint use of the facility ( for more on the site selection process, turn to the discussion of San Diego International Airport in Appendix C). The emphasis on finding a new site for an airport in San Diego, as opposed to redistributing air traffic among existing airports, is consistent
California Research Bureau, California State Library 43
with the legislation that created the SDCRAA. Section 170048( h) of the California Public Utilities Code states that in developing a plan for the future development of the region’s international airport the authority shall:
… review all options of alternative sites, including, but not limited to, expansion of the existing airport site, use of current military installations that may become available for civilian or mix- use, and other development options available to address future airport needs.
Although “ other development options” might include regional strategies to utilize existing airports more effectively, the passage clearly emphasizes expansion or a new airport site.
A thorough discussion of regional approaches to managing air traffic and ground access to airports can be found in “ Regional Airport Management Study,” a report released by the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) in 2005.118 The report addresses questions about the types of regional governance mechanisms and strategies that might be used to coordinate the region’s airports and ground access.
Although the focus of the SCAG study is Southern California, it contains case studies of five exemplar regional airport and ground access governing arrangements: ( 1) Boston/ New England; ( 2) Sacramento; ( 3) Dallas- Fort Worth; ( 4) Washington- Baltimore; and ( 5) the currently inactive Southern California Regional Airport Authority ( SCRAA). The authors suggest that a Southern California Regional Airport Consortium should: ( 1) have an inclusive membership with Los Angeles World Airports taking a lead role; ( 2) adopt a “ structured” MOU approach, at least initially, to alleviate reservations that some members might have about entering into a more formal joint powers agreement; and ( 3) implement collaborative planning and marketing efforts.
44 California Research Bureau, California State Library
APPENDIX A – AIRPORT GOVERNANCE
OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORTS
The U. S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Agency ( TSA)
• Approves airport security plans
• Trains and deploys airport security screeners
The U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA)
• Operates air navigation facilities
• Controls airways and air traffic
• Establishes airport design standards
• Provides airport development funding
The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics
• Issues permits for, and inspects public- use airports
• Conducts statewide aviation system planning
• Administers noise regulation and land use planning laws
• Provides grants and loans for safety, maintenance and capital improvement projects at airports
Airport Operators
• Operate and maintain the physical elements of an airport
• Rents space to airlines, and to aviation- related and passenger service businesses
California Research Bureau, California State Library 45
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The FAA
The Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA), an agency of the U. S. Department of Transportation, regulates aircraft and aviation, issues pilots’ licenses, operates air navigation facilities, controls airways and air traffic, establishes airport design standards, and provides airport development funding. Although the FAA controls airways and air traffic, it has no direct authority over local land use and cannot dictate land use compatibility criteria.
The FAA issues Federal Aviation Regulations ( FARs) that govern all aviation activities in the United States. The FARs are part of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Components of Title 14 related specifically to airports include regulations that govern:
• Airspace, Air Traffic and General Operating Rules: Regulations define various classes of airspace and the rules and uses for each. These regulations also define general operating and flight rules and procedures for determining whether structures obstruct navigable airspace.
• Certification of airports: The FAA requires most airports with passenger- carrying operations to comply with certification requirements related to the safety and usability of airport facilities.
• Airport Noise Compatibility Planning: Part 150 prescribes requirements for airport operators to conduct studies of airport noise impacts and develop land use compatibility programs.
• Federal Aid to Airports: FAA regulations define eligibility requirements for projects at airports included in the National Airport Plan and procedures for applying for FAA funding. Regulations also prescribe the types of compliance assurances upon which funding may be conditioned.
• Notice of construction, alteration, activation and deactivation of airports: Regulations define notification requirements for airport operators to construct, alter, activate or deactivate an airport or a portion of an airport.
• Passenger Facility Charges: Regulations prescribe procedures for obtaining FAA approval of passenger facilities charges, permitted uses of revenue from passenger facilities charges, and assurances that may be required as a condition of approving passenger facilities charges.
• Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions: Regulations prescribe notice, review and approval requirements and procedures for airport operators implementing aircraft noise and access restrictions ( curfews).
46 California Research Bureau, California State Library
The TSA
The Transportation Security Administration ( TSA) was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. TSA’s mission is to protect the nation’s transportation systems by ensuring the freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA was originally located within the Department of Transportation, but since March 2003, falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. The TSA issues and administers Transportation Security Regulations ( TSRs) that are codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter XII, parts 1500 through 1699. Major provisions of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that pertain to airports establish the following:
• Passenger and air carrier fees required to pay for the costs of providing civil aviation security services
• Airports must develop and maintain a TSA- approved security program and notify the TSA of any changes that might affect airport security
• Airports are required to designate an airport security coordinator to oversee their security programs
• The deployment of TSA- trained airport screeners to replace private screeners previously subcontracted by airlines
• A TSA- maintained system of records related to the screening of passengers and property that is exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974
• Enhanced screening requirements for passengers and property
• The establishment and enforcement of specific types of secured areas within airports, and required fingerprint- based criminal history record checks and personnel identification systems for individuals who have access to secured areas.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The development and operation of aircraft and airports has been the subject of a California statute since at least 1947, and is currently regulated by the State Aeronautics Act [ Division 9, Section 21001, et seq., Public Utilities Code ( PUC)] and its subsequent amendments. In the early 1970s, the California Aeronautics Commission became the Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation. 119
The Division of Aeronautics issues regulations for airports that are contained in Division 2.5, Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. These regulations are intended to be used in conjunction with Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, FAA Advisory Circulars, and the California Public Utilities Code.
The functions of the Division of Aeronautics include:
• Issuing permits for, and inspecting hospital heliports and public- use airports California Research Bureau, California State Library 47
• Making recommendations regarding proposed school sites within two miles of an airport runway
• Authorizing helicopter landing sites at or near schools
• Conducting aviation system planning to provide for the integration of aviation into transportation system planning on a regional, statewide, and national basis
• Administering noise regulation and land use planning laws for the purpose of fostering compatible land use around airports and encouraging environmental mitigation measures to lessen noise, air pollution, and other impacts caused by aviation
• Providing grants and loans for safety, maintenance and capital improvement projects at airports120
The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics was given the responsibility to prepare and maintain a California Aviation System Plan pursuant to statues added in 1989 ( Section 21701, et seq., PUC). The California Aviation System Plan includes elements which:
• Summarize aviation activity in California and establishes goals and objectives for aviation improvement
• Address issues such as aviation safety, airport noise, airport ground access, transportation systems management, airport financing, airport land use compatibility planning, and institutional relationships
• Encompass the aviation elements of the regional transportation plans prepared by each transportation planning agency, including regional air transportation matters relating to growth, capacity needs, county activity, airport activity, and statewide activity in order to evaluate the impacts of regional activity in relation to the statewide air transportation system
• Consider statewide air transportation matters relating to growth in order to evaluate the state aviation system and to designate a sufficient number of general aviation and air carrier public use airports for state funding in order to provide an acceptable level of air service and safety
• Compare and contrast the regional plan alternative with the state plan alternative including, but not limited to, airport noise, air quality, toxic waste cleanup, energy, economics, and number of passengers served
• Describe the ten- year capital improvement plan for each airport, based on adopted master plans ( if the airport has a master plan), approved by the applicable transportation planning agency, and submitted to the division for inclusion in the California Aviation System Plan
48 California Research Bureau, California State Library
AIRPORT OPERATORS
Federal legislation defines an airport operator as “ a person that operates an airport serving an aircraft operator or a foreign air carrier.” 121 The California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1, section 5001, defines an airport proprietor as “ the holder of an airport permit issued by the department pursuant to Article 3, Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 9, of the California Public Utilities Code.”
For the purpose of this report, an airport operator is the entity responsible for the administration, management, operation, maintenance, and improvement of an airport’s physical elements such as runways, fueling facilities, aircraft parking and hangars, and passenger terminals. These responsibilities are typically carried out by employees of the airport operator and through contracts with private companies. Airport operators rent space to:
• Aviation- related businesses and to businesses that serve passengers
• Commercial passenger and cargo air carriers
• Private flying schools and executive aircraft facilities
• Car rental companies
• Restaurants and shops
As the fifteen airports examined in this report illustrate, airport operators vary in terms of type and governance structure. But in general, airport operators are cities, counties, or public agencies that are governed by a board or commission whose members are appointed by elected officials from the jurisdiction or entity that owns the airport. In some cases, such as San Francisco International, airports may be located outside the physical boundaries of the jurisdiction that owns the airport.
SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION
Major airport projects are typically funded through some combination of bonds backed by airport revenues and state and federal funding programs that vary in terms of the types of airports that are eligible. The various types of airports are defined as follows: 122
Primary/ commercial:
Commercial service airports with more than 10,000 boarded passengers annually.
Reliever:
Airports designated by the Federal Aviation Administration to relieve congestion at Commercial Service Airports, and to provide improved general aviation access to the overall system.
General Aviation:
This category includes publicly and privately owned, public- use airports that board 2,500 or more passengers annually and receive scheduled airline service.
California Research Bureau, California State Library 49
Non- NPIAS:
These are airports not included in the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS).
Inclusion in NPIAS is at the discretion of the FAA, and is limited to publicly- owned airports. Additional factors that the FAA considers for NPIAS participation include factors such as: the type of airport; whether or not commercial service is available; the number of passengers served by commercial service; the number of aircraft based at the airport; the types of approaches available; the number of aircraft operations each year; military aircraft based at the airport; and whether or not the airport is a scheduled United States mail carrier stop.
As figures A- 1 and A- 2 illustrate, federal funds primarily flow to larger commercial airports, while state funds are allocated to smaller general aviation airports and airports not included in the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS).
Figure A- 1 FAA Funds Allocated to California Airports, 2006($ 907.6 million) Reliever 4% General Aviation12% Primary/ Commercial84%
Source: 2006 - 2010 California Aviation System Plan Capital Improvement Plan, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
50 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Figure A- 2 State Funds Allocated to California Airports, 2006($ 28.6 million) Reliever 6% General Aviation18% Public airports not in the FAA's National Plan 76%
Source: 2006 - 2010 California Aviation System Plan Capital Improvement Plan, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
Federal Airport Improvement Program
The federal Airport Improvement Program ( AIP) is the FAA’s major airport infrastructure investment program. It provides grants to the nation's airports for capital projects such as runways, taxiways and major facilities. Since 1970, the majority of AIP funding has been supported by direct and dedicated user fees through the Airport Trust Fund, which is predicted to grow to more than $ 16 billion by fiscal year ( FY) 2007.
Federal airport grant programs are funded from taxes and fees specifically collected for that purpose. As of January 2000, these included a 7.5 percent domestic ticket tax and a $ 2.50 per- person per- flight- segment fee for all flights, except to certain rural airports. A $ 12.00 international arrival tax and a $ 12.00 international departure tax ( both adjusted for the annual rate of inflation, beginning January 1, 1999), a 6.25 percent tax on domestic air freight, a 4.3 cents- per- gallon domestic air fuel tax, and taxes on the fuel used in small planes and for non- commercial purposes. These revenues are credited to the Aviation Trust Fund, created by Congress in 1970 to fund improvements to airports and the nation’s air traffic control system. The FAA dispenses grants to airports out of the trust fund for projects under the Airport Improvement Program ( AIP), which had total outlays of $ 3.5 billion in 2005.
Eligible projects include improvements to enhance airport safety, capacity and security, and address environmental concerns. In general, sponsors can use AIP funds on most airfield capital improvements or repairs except for terminals, hangars, and non- aviation
California Research Bureau, California State Library 51
development. Projects related to airport operations and revenue- generating improvements are typically not eligible for funding. Operational costs— such as salaries, maintenance services, equipment, and supplies— are also not eligible for AIP grants.
In order to receive a grant under the Airport Improvement Program, airport sponsors must agree to 37 grant assurances that set out the responsibilities of the project sponsor and include compliance with all applicable federal statutes, executive orders, federal regulations, and Office of Management and Budget circulars. 123
State of California Airport Funding Programs124
All state grant programs for airports are funded from the Aeronautics Account in the State Transportation Fund. Tax revenues, which are collected on general aviation ( GA) fuel, are deposited in the Aeronautics Account. GA jet fuel is taxed at 2¢ per gallon and aviation gasoline is taxed at 18¢. These taxes generate about $ 7 million per year. 125 The Aeronautics Account has several other revenue sources ( i. e., interest that is earned on its cash balance and the sale of documents like the state aeronautics chart).
The California Revenue and Taxation Code ( § 8352.3) spells out priorities for the expenditure of funds from the Aeronautics Account. These funds are allocated: ( 1) To the State Controller and the Board of Equalization for administering the collection of fuel taxes, ( 2) For state operations ( Caltrans’ Division of Aeronautics and its staff), and ( 3) To fund grants to airports.
The Public Utilities Code ( § 21682 through § 21683.2) specifies the priorities for the allocation of Aeronautics Account funds to airports: ( 1) Annual Grants, ( 2) Airport Improvement Program ( AIP) Matching Grants, and ( 3) Acquisition & Development Grants. The majority of state funds are allocated to general aviation airports – smaller airports that generally do not have scheduled commercial service. California’s major commercial airports are only eligible for Acquisition and Development grants.
52 California Research Bureau, California State Library
Annual Grants
Purpose:
These are state grants to eligible airports for use at the sponsor’s discretion subject to applicable laws and regulations, with prior approval from CalTrans.
Sponsor eligibility:
To receive the Annual Grant, the airport cannot be designated by the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) as either a Reliever or a Commercial Service airport. The airport must be owned by an eligible public agency ( e. g., a city, county or airport district).
Uses and restrictions:
The Annual Grant can fund projects for “ airport and aviat