Airport Land-Use Law Gets Teeth : Compliance: Los Angeles County officials contend law to control building too vague, may seek legal opinion from attorney general.

For years, many local governments in California have ignored a 1970 law that requires detailed land-use plans around large airports.

Even after the law was broadened in 1984 to include most of the state’s airports, many local governments failed to comply.

But now, legislative staffers and airport officials say, a new law that puts teeth into the earlier statutes could curb development of hotels, homes and industrial parks around such airports as Los Angeles International and San Diego’s Lindbergh Field, where no plans have been completed.

State transportation officials estimate that plans have been completed for only 57% of the state’s 269 airports.

Citing the poor compliance record, state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) last summer easily won passage of a bill--which becomes law Jan. 1--to add a significant new step to ensure that developments are compatible with airports.

Under the law, if an airport does not have a plan, most construction projects--possibly as far away as 2 miles from airports--will need approval from county airport land-use commissions as well as local governments.

The developments still could get the green light but “only under very limited conditions” until comprehensive land-use plans are finished, according to a fact sheet on the law prepared by Bergeson’s Senate Local Government Committee.

The law sets a June 30, 1991 deadline for completion of the master plans. But Los Angeles County officials are questioning whether the law applies to them because of vague wording--an assertion disputed by Bergeson.

Legislative aides said the 1970 law directed the Regional Planning Commission to conduct the airport land-use study for Los Angeles County. But county officials say the section of the law that applies just to Los Angeles may be so vague that it exempts the county.

A clarifying opinion may be sought from Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, said John Huttinger, a planner with the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. But in the meantime, Huttinger said, he making plans to enforce the law.

“I can’t believe the Legislature decided that the largest county in the state should be exempt from this law,” said Fred Stewart, who oversees planning for Caltrans’ aeronautics division.

Bergeson said she was surprised by the county’s reaction, maintaining that such questions were not raised during legislative hearings. It’s “rather bewildering that would occur now,” she said.

Not complying with the law has resulted in the “erection of skyscrapers, radio towers and other tall structures in dangerously close proximity to our airports,” according to Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), a pilot who supported the Bergeson law, said it was long overdue because cities “continue to let this rapid development go unchecked around these airports.”

The law has airport managers and planners scrambling to determine its impact on commercial growth.

No plans have been completed for any of the 16 airports in Los Angeles County, according to state transportation officials. As a result, airport managers in the county predict some construction delays, but say it is too early to tell whether the law will affect any major projects--such as a 400-acre development on the north side of LAX.

“I’m not prepared to tell you now whether we have a problem or not,” said Bill Schoenfeld, deputy executive director of the Los Angeles Department of Airports.

At John Wayne Airport in Orange County, a plan has been completed, so officials say that the county’s airport land-use commission will not get final authority to make planning decisions there.

In San Diego, a study of Lindbergh Field has not been completed, according to Jack Koerper, special projects director for the San Diego Assn. of Governments, which has responsibility for the plan.

Koerper could not say what projects around Lindbergh Field might be affected. Earlier this year, the San Diego City Council approved construction of a 10-story office building 80 feet north of the approach corridor--a proposal that aroused concerns.

Planners in Los Angeles County suggested that most airports in the county are in heavily urbanized areas and won’t be affected. However, they said that among the developments that could be affected are a controversial proposal to build 52 homes and an office building under the departure pattern at Torrance Municipal Airport and the possible addition of high-rises in Century City under the Santa Monica Airport flight path.

At a minimum, the new law is expected to delay projects around airports. “The potential is certainly there for an overwhelming change” in the way airport hotels, industrial parks and other commercial structures are approved, Huttinger said.

While the law is vague on the area for which a plan must be completed, Bergeson’s committee says it would be within a 2-mile radius of airports.

In the 1960s, the Legislature began wrestling with the issue of growth around airports as land was gobbled up for homes, hotels and other buildings.

By 1970, it required land-use studies around large airports with commercial service. That requirement was extended to most of the state’s general aviation airports in 1984. But many counties ignored it, citing a lack of funds and a failure of the Legislature to provide a deadline for compliance.

Last year, Van de Kamp’s office said the only way to force the adoption of land-use plans would be a lawsuit to stop all development near an airport until local officials complied with the law.

Under Bergeson’s law such lawsuits could not be filed until land-use plans are adopted or until June 30, 1991, when the law mandates that such plans be completed.