Opponents Seek Veto of County’s Exemption to Airport Growth Law : Development: Legislature passes bill exempting L.A. County from growth restrictions. Foes argue that planning is needed for air safety.

Opponents of a bill exempting Los Angeles County from a new law aimed at controlling growth around California’s airports are launching a last-ditch effort to persuade Gov. George Deukmejian to veto the legislation.

Caltrans, the city of Los Angeles and an airport advisory panel created by the Legislature all plan to recommend a veto of the bill, which is bound for Deukmejian’s desk after clearing the Assembly on Wednesday on a 51-18 vote. The measure passed the Senate last month.

The bill, by state Sen. Robert G. Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach), would exempt the county from a 7-month-old law that puts teeth into statutes designed to ensure that new development is compatible with the state’s 269 airports.

Without the exemption, far-reaching regulations could be placed on development near Los Angeles International Airport, as well as airports in other parts of the county, including Santa Monica, Torrance, Hawthorne and Catalina Island.

The law that took effect earlier this year requires regional land use plans to be drafted for property surrounding the state’s airports by June 30, 1991--except in Los Angeles County, which won an extension until Jan. 1, 1992.

In counties that fail to meet the deadline, citizens can file lawsuits to block development within a mile of an airport’s runways.

Supporters of Beverly’s bill to give Los Angeles County a complete exemption from the land-use law say the county is special because in all but a few cases, the land around its airports is already densely developed. Led by the Los Angeles County branch of the League of California cities, the supporters also object that the law will force cities to yield to a countywide airport planning agency.

Beverly says he expects such arguments to carry weight with Deukmejian. “There’s been some modest opposition, but I feel confident he’ll sign it,” the senator said.

But foes of an exemption for Los Angeles County argue that regional airport planning is needed to promote air safety and minimize the exposure of homes and businesses to aircraft noise. They say such problems have led to the closure or conversion to private use of 18 airports in the state during the last 10 years--a time of growing demand for air service.

Among those planning to make these arguments to Deukmejian are the California Department of Transportation, the California Commission on Aviation and Airports and the city of Los Angeles, which wants planning mechanisms in place as it moves to develop a public airport in Palmdale.

“No one wants an airport in their back yard,” said Anne Blue, one of the city of Los Angeles’ lobbyists in Sacramento. “So if you leave this planning up to the local governments, they’re going to be responsive to their constituents and limit the expansion and siting of airports.”