Sustainable Ranges Initiative

Legislative

Arizona

Land Use Planning Around Military Airports
Series of laws dating back to 1978 provide statutory guidance on compatible land use planning around Military Airports. Most recent legislation includes SB 1062, 1995; SB 1514, 2000; SB 1525, 2001; SB 1393, 2002; HB 2140, 2004 and HB 2141, 2004 that set forth the following:

• Established “high noise or accident potential zone” (generally the noise contours and the arrival departure corridors) around each military airport and their ancillary military facility and its requirements:
  • Cities, towns and counties shall adopt and enforce zoning regulations to “assure development compatible with the high noise and accident potential generated by military airport and ancillary military facility operations that have or may have an adverse effect on public health and safety.”
  • Defined “compatible” land use matrix (A.R.S. 28-8481 (J)) within high noise or accident potential Zones. (One military airport is to use their Joint Land Use Study in order to determine compatibility.)
  • By December 31, 2005 cities, towns and counties must identify these boundaries within their general/comprehensive plan.
  • Cities, towns and counties must send a copy of general/comprehensive plan or an element or major amendment of the general plan to the attorney general at least 60 days prior to adoption.
  • Cities, towns and counties must provide notice to the attorney general within three days of approval, adoption, or readoption of the general/comprehensive plan.
    • The attorney general has 25 days after receipt of the plan to determine if it is compatible with the land use matrix set forth in ARS 28-8481 (J).
    • Governing body has thirty days after receipt of notice from attorney general to reconsider their actions. If actions are reaffirmed, the attorney general may institute a civil action.
  • In order to facilitate development set forth in the compatibility land use matrix (ARS 28-8481 (J)) a county may approve transfer of development rights and inter into an intergovernmental agreement with another political subdivision.
  • Provides a “fair market value” of minimum one residential dwelling unit per acre for political subdivisions, state or an agency or instrument of the United States when purchasing land or development rights.
  • Prohibits local jurisdictions from permitting or approving new divisions of land zoned for residential use if the division would result in a lot, parcel or fractional interest of four acres or less. A waiver may be granted.
  • Applications for public reports must include a statement that the property is located in a high noise or accident potential zone. (This is in addition to a statement that the property is located in a territory in the vicinity.)
• Established “territory in the vicinity” (a larger area designed to capture major military operating areas) requirements for military airports and ancillary military facilities:
  • The State Land Department is to prepare a map with legal description of the territory in the vicinity of ancillary military facility and the accompanying high noise or accident potential zone, accident potential zone ones and two. This information is to be sent to the appropriate county, made available to the public at the State Land Department and the Department of Real Estate.
  • Establishes sound attenuation requirements for: new residential development; portions of buildings where the public is received; office areas in new buildings; schools; libraries and churches. Beginning December 31, 2004 this requirement will also apply to ancillary military facilities.
  • Cities, Towns and Counties must:
    • Provide the military airport notice an opportunity to provide comments on general and comprehensive plans or amendments prior to adoption.
    • Provide the military airport notice of public hearings for zoning changes. If the military airport provides comments concerning the compatibility of the proposed rezoning prior to the first hearing, the governing body must hold a public hearing and consider the comments before a final decision is made. (This insures that plans are not adopted on a consent agenda.)
    • Consider military airport or ancillary military facility operations with land use element.
  • The School Facilities Board must notify military airports of hearings regarding any applications for School Facilities Funding. Any comments or analysis received from the military must be consider and analysis prior to a final decision. Beginning December 31, 2004 this requirement will also apply to ancillary military facilities.
  • Department of Real Estate and local government shall request and maintain map of military operations and military airport contact information and make available to the public.
  • Disclosure regarding transfer or sale of land. For residential property, statement must be on first page of public report and includes, if available, map of military operations. Beginning December 31, 2004 this requirement will also apply to ancillary military facilities.
  • The Department of Real Estate shall execute and record a document for with the appropriate county recorder for land with the following disclosure : “this property is located within territory in the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility and may be subject to increased noise and accident potential.”
  • ARS 28-8480 provides that a political subdivision “may acquire, by exchange, purchase, lease, donation, devise or condemnation, land or interests in land for the continued operation of a military airport or ancillary military facility.”

SB 1514, 2000

SB 1525, 2001

SB 1393, 2002

HB 2140, 2004

HB 2141, 2004

California

Enhanced Planning Notification

California Pub.Res.Code ß 21098 (AB 1108, 2002) amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide notice to the military of projects within two miles of installations, underlying training routes and special use airspace. The military must notify the lead agency and provide information such as contact information and “specific boundaries of a low-level flight path, military impact zone, or special use airspace.” The military will receive notice of projects within the boundaries that relate to either a general plan amendment; are statewide, regional, or area-wide significant; or referred to the airport land use commission, or appropriately designated body.

SB 1462

SB 1462, 2004 amends California Govt. Code ß 65352, 65404, 65940 and 65944 by adding the military to the list of entities to which cities and counties must refer action before substantially amending or adopting their general plan. Specifically, this information is to be sent to “branches of the United States Armed Forces that have provided the Office of Planning and Research with a California mailing address…when the proposed action is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, or lies within special use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path.” In order to facilitate requirements set forth in the bill, the Department of Defense must provide electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use airspace and military installations. Within 30 days after this information is deemed sufficient and acceptable by the Office of Planning and Research, the Office will send notice to cities and counties that the information is available on the Internet. Cities and counties have thirty days after receipt to comply with the notification requirement. {Ed. Note: Maps already incorporated into the California Atlas website.} State and local agencies shall require applicants to identify if the proposed project is located “within 1,000 feet of a military installation, or lies within special use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path and within an urbanized area.” Requires public agencies to send to the military completed development applications that fall within these boundaries and that are submitted after January 1, 2005. The military upon receipt of this information, may request ” consultation with the public agency and the project applicant to discuss the effects of the proposed project on military installations, low-level flight paths, or special use airspace, and potential alternatives and mitigation measures.” This requirement does not apply to projects within special use airspace or beneath a low-level flight path in urbanized areas (defined as “locations with core census block groups containing at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census block groups containing at least 500 people per square mile.”) Current law requires the Governor by January 1, 2005 to develop a process to resolve conflicts with certain planning projects. This bill includes the military by providing for mediation between “a branch of the United States Armed Forces, a local agency, and a project applicant.”

California Marine Life Protection Act

California Fish and Game Code ß 2850-2863 (AB 993, 1999) requires the Fish and Game Commission to “adopt a master plan that guides the adoption and implementation of the Marine Life Protection Program and decisions regarding the siting of new MPAs and major modifications of existing MPAs.” The Fish and Game Department is to ensure the master plan is completed. Additionally, the Department “shall confer with the United States Navy regarding issues related to its activities.”

SB 926

Office of Military and Aerospace Support
SB 926, 2004, also known as the “Military and Aerospace Support Act” makes numerous statutory changes including:

• Consolidates the state’s actives relating to “defense retention, conversion, and military support” within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.
• Establishes until January 1, 2007, the “Office of Military and Aerospace Support” within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.
• The Director of the Office of Military and Aerospace Support (OMAS) shall be appointed by recommendation by the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency by the Governor. The Director serves at the Secretary’s pleasure.
• The Office may establish a Military Advisory Committee to provide technical advice and assistance to the office.
• The Office is to “(s)erve as the primary state liaison with the Department of Defense and its installations” in California and shall assist in resolving any disputes or issues with state agencies.
• Requires the Office to apply for grants and authorizes it to seek contributions from private industry to fund its operations. Any private funds received shall be deposited into the Military and Aerospace Support Account.
• Repeals California Defense Retention and Conversion Council.
• The Office shall maintain a list of each active military’s installation’s local retention authority. If a military installation has multiple “affected local governments,” affected cities and counties may designate or establish a joint powers authority.
• Provides that local governments may seek a loan from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank for certain military infrastructure that is endorsed by the Office of Military and Aerospace Support.
• Revised the definition of “open-space” for the purposes of general plans to include “areas adjacent to military installations, military training routes, and underlying restricted airspace that can provide additional buffer zones to military activities and complement the resource values of the military lands.”

AB 2565

California Govt. Code ß 13998.5a ( AB 2565, 2004) requires the Office of Military and Aerospace Support to update and submit a strategic plan by November 30, 2004 to prepare for BRAC 2005. This plan shall identify other state’s military installations or missions that may be transferred to California. This bill contained an emergency clause.

CA – Wind Energy Coordination within the R-2508 Complex

California Govt. Code ß 65892.13 (11) (SB 1989, 2002) requires a local agency to forward a copy of an application to install a small wind energy system within the restricted airspace of “R-2515” to the governing authority of that airspace. This requirement is only applicable if the R-2515 governing authority has first filed a “detailed diagram of that restricted airspace.” The local agency shall consider written comments provided by the R-2515 governing authority before acting on such applications.

Colorado

Enhanced planning communication and notification

• Colo. Rev. Stat. ß 29-1-207, 30-28-106, 31-23-206 (Acts 2005, Chapter 59, SB 05-080) The General Assembly declares that local governments should cooperate with military installations in order to encourage compatible land use, help prevent incompatible urban encroachment upon military installations, and facilitate the continued presence of major military installations within the state. Local governments with a military installation in excess of 1,000 acres (other than the Rocky Mountain Arsenal or any facility used primarily for civil works, river or flood control projects) located partially or within its boundaries shall provide timely notification of certain actions to the military installation commander or his or her designee. Information shall include changes in the comprehensive plan or its amendments or land use regulations that if approved would significantly affect the intensity, density or use of any area within the territorial boundaries of the local government that is within two miles of the military installation. This requirement does not require information related to site-specific development applications under consideration by the local government.
• After providing the prescribed information to the military, the local government must also provide the commanding officer of the military installation (or his or her designee) an opportunity to review and comment on the military mission impact of the proposed change. Comments may include:
  • Impact on the airfields safety and noise impact set forth in their Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ);
  • Incompatibility with the Installation Environmental Noise Management Program (IENMP) of the United States Army;
  • Incompatibility with the areas Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) findings
  • If the mission will be adversely affected by the proposed actions.
• The local government when considering approval of the comprehensive plan or its amendments or its land use regulations shall review the comments and forward a copy of the comments to the Office of Smart Growth.
• This provision is effective beginning August 8, 2005 and shall apply to any requested changes in a local government’s comprehensive plan, its amendments, or land use regulations submitted for approval on or after that date.

Florida

Land Use Planning Around Military Installations
Florida’s Fla. Stat. ß 163.3175 (SB 1604, 2004) states, “(t) he Legislature finds that incompatible development of land close to military installations can adversely affect the ability of such an installation to carry out its mission.” Counties that have a military installation within its jurisdiction and each affected local government

• Send the installation commanding officer information “relating to proposed changes to comprehensive plans, plan amendments, and proposed changes to land development regulations which, if approved, would affect the intensity, density, or use of the land adjacent to or in close proximity to the military installation.”
• Provide the “military installation an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes.”
• Consider the military’s comments when making comprehensive planning or land development regulation decisions and forward a copy of the comments to the state land-planning agency.
• Include a military representative to serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member on the land planning or zoning board and will represent all installations within the political jurisdiction.

The military may provide comments on the proposed change’s impact on the mission. Comments may include:

• Impact on the airfield’s safety and noise impact set forth in their Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ);
• Incompatibility with the Installation Environmental Noise Management Program (IENMP) of the United States Army;
• Incompatibility with the area’s Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) findings
• If the mission will be adversely affected by the proposed actions.

The Commanding Officer is encouraged to provide information regarding any community planning assistance grants available through the federal Office of Economic Adjustment.

Florida’s Fla. Stat. ß 163.3177 (SB 1604, 2004): Local governments’ future comprehensive land use plan elements must address compatibility of land uses “adjacent or closely proximate” to military installations and include criteria to achieve that compatibility. This update or amendment must be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs b y June 30, 2006. The Department must consider land use compatibility issues “adjacent to or in close proximity to all military installations in coordination with the Department of Defense.”

Florida’s Fla. Stat. ß 163.3191 (SB 1604, 2004): Local governments’ evaluation of its comprehensive plan is to include an assessment of whether the criteria in the future land use plan element was successful in achieving compatibility with military installations.

Georgia

Land Use Planning Around Military Bases and Installations
Georgia’s Ga. Code Ann. ß36-66-6 (SB 261, 2003) requires planning entities to investigate and make recommendations on proposed zoning decisions on land that is “adjacent to or within 3,000 feet of any military base or military installation or within the 3,000 foot Clear Zone and Accident Prevention Zones Numbers I and II as prescribed in the definition of an Air Installation Compatible Use Zone of a military airport.” Specifically, planning entities are to determine given the proposed land use’s proximity of the military facility:

• If the proposal will permit a suitable use;
• If the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of nearby property;
• If the affected property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned;
• If the proposed use could cause safety issues to such items as streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools
• If a land use plan has been adopted and if so, if the proposed change conforms with the policy and intent of the land use plan; and
• If there are existing or changing conditions that would affect the use of nearby property.

The planning entity at least 30 days prior to the hearing must request that the military commander provide “written recommendation and supporting facts relating to the proposed land use change.” If the military commander does not submit a response by the date of the public hearing then the proposed zoning change is presumed to not have an adverse effect. Any information received shall become part of the public record.

Kentucky

Land Use Planning Around Military Bases and Installations

Kentucky’s Ky. Rev.Stat. ß 100.187 (HB 357, 2003) provides that a planning entity, when drafting a comprehensive plan, shall include provisions for accommodating military installations that are at least 300 acres and located partially, within or “abutting” the planning entity’s boundaries. The statute is intended to help “minimize conflicts between the relevant military installations and the planning unit’s residential population .”

The planning entity shall consult with the military commander to determine their needs, and shall include questions regarding:

• “installation expansion,
• environmental impact,
• issues of installation safety, and
• issues relating to airspace usage, to include noise pollution, air pollution, and air safety concerns.”

Louisiana

Land Use Planning Around Military Installations
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. ß 33:4734 and 4780.51(HB 1041, 2004) requires municipalities and parishes to provide notice to the military installation commander at least 30 days prior to acting on “an application for a zoning request or variance affecting property within three thousand feet of the military installation.”

Massachusetts

Military Ex Officio Membership

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40b, ß 4C permits planning districts to vote to allow a military commander to be an ex officio member of the district planning commission. To qualify, the commander must represent an installation that is “located, wholly or partially” within the planning district and has a resident population of at least 500 persons. The ex officio membership does not continue unless there is an annual majority affirmative vote of the commission.

North Carolina

Land Use Planning around Military Bases

N.C. Gen. Stat. ß 153A-323 and ß 160A-364 (SB 1161, 2004) requires cities and counties to provide military installation commanders written notice at least ten days (but not more than 25 days) prior to a public hearing to consider any ordinance that would change zoning or affect the permitted uses of land within five miles of a military base. Prior to making a final decision, the governing body shall consider any comments or analysis received from the military regarding the compatibility of the proposed ordinance or amendment.

South Carolina

Land Use Planning Around Military Installations
South Carolina’s S.C.Code ß 6-29-1530 (H4482, 2004) requires planning entities to provide planning information to the military installation commander 30 days prior to the public hearing and request “written recommendation with supporting facts” on land that is located within:

• a federal overlay zone
• 3,000 feet of a
  • military installation
  • Clear Zone and Accident Potential Zones Numbers I and II

The commander’s comments and the planning entity are to make recommendations and findings regarding:

• If the proposed use is suitable given the proximity of the military installation.
• If the proposal will adversely affect the existing use or usability of nearby property;
• If the affected property has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned;
• If the proposed use could cause safety issues to such items as streets, transportation facilities, utilities or schools;
• If a land use plan has been adopted and if so, if the proposed change conforms with the policy and intent of the land use plan; and
• If there are existing or changing conditions that would affect the use of nearby property.

If the military commander does not submit a response by the date of the public hearing then the proposed zoning change is presumed to not have an adverse effect. Any information received shall become part of the public record. Local governments are to “incorporate identified boundaries, easements, and restrictions for federal military installations into official maps.”

Texas

Military Preparedness Act
SB 652, 2003 established the Texas Military Preparedness Commission (previously called the Strategic Military Planning Commission) and sunsets on September 1, 2007. This office is within the Governor’s Office and reports to the Governor or his designee.
Commission duties include:

• Advising the Governor and Legislature on military issues and their related economic and industrial development.
• Making recommendations regarding policies and plans to support the long-term military mission viability including best methods for communities to enhance their relationship with their military installation.
• Preparing a biennial strategic plan to assist the longevity and expand the mission of Texas military installations.
• Preparing an annual report to the Governor and the Legislature by July 1 regarding the military installations and their communities and the associated defense related business within the state. State agencies are to assist with this report.
• Coordinating annual meetings to discuss the report with state agencies and legislators whose district includes an active or former military installation.
• The Commission may solicit and accept gifts and grants.
• Military Installation Commanders may request commission assistance to coordinate with other state agencies to prepare base evaluation criteria.
• Authorizes the Commission to provide a loan of financial assistance to defense community projects that meet set criteria including enhancing “military value of a military facility located in, near, or adjacent” to the community.
• Loans must be paid within five years and may not exceed the total cost of the project.
• Creates the Texas Military Value Revolving Loan Account.
  • A community that applies for financial assistance shall prepare “in consultation with the authorities from each defense base associated with the community a defense base military value enhancement statement.”
  • A community may request financial assistance to prepare a “comprehensive defense installation and community strategic impact plan that states the defense community’s long-range goals and development proposals” includes the following elements as they relate to the military base:
    • Land use, transportation, population growth, water resources, conservation, open-space, restricted airspace and military training route element.
      • The plan should minimize encroachment and control negative effects of future growth on the military mission
      • The land use element should identify “existing and proposed regulations of land uses” and their distribution and locating that may impact the military base.
      • The open space element should identify existing areas along with an analysis of the military’s need for “open-space areas to conduct its military training activities.”
      • The restricted airspace element should create needed buffer zones between the base and the community.
      • The military training route element should identify existing routes and if needed, proposes a plan for additional routes.
• Communities that developed a comprehensive defense installation and community strategic impact plan are encouraged to develop with their military base a “planning manual based upon the proposals contained in the plan.” If changes are needed in the plan, then the community should consult with the military.
• Defense communities that determine a proposed ordinance, rule or plan may impact the military mission shall “seek comments and analysis” from the military concerning the compatibility. The community “shall consider and analyze the comments and analysis before making a final determination relating to the proposed ordinance, rule or plan.”
• An agency’s strategic plans are to also include an “analysis of the agency’s expected expenditures” related military installations or communities with military installations.
• State agencies are to consider when establishing goals the enhancement of military value to a military installation or facility. If the agency “determines that an expenditure will enhance the military value” of an installation or facility (based on the base realignment and closure criteria) the agency shall make the expenditure a priority.
• The state may sell, lease or grant easements on unused or underused state property to the United States armed forces if “after consultation with appropriate military authorities” it is determined that this property would materially assist the military in mission accomplishment.
  • The state is required to “retain all minerals it owns with respect to the land, but it may relinquish the right to use the surface to extract them.”
• The state is prohibited from the selling and leasing “of upland within 2,500 feet of a military base” unless after “consultation with appropriate military authorities” it is determined that the sale or lease would not have an adverse affect on the military.
• Prohibits prospecting in a “location within 2,500 feet of a military base, but prospectors may, from a location more than 2,500 feet from a base, look for minerals within the 2,500-foot strip.”
• “Any lease covering land adjacent to a military base shall require the lessee to forego the right to use the surface within 2,500 feet of the military base while exploiting the minerals.”

Virginia

Land Use Planning Around Military Bases, Installations or Military Airports

Virginia’s Va. Code ß 15.2-2204, 15.2-2223 15.2-2283 (H714, 2004) requires local planning commissions to provide the military ten days’ advance notice of any land use changes (including comprehensive plan or amendment, zoning map, or an application for special exception for a change in use) within 3,000 feet of a “military base, military installation, or military airport, excluding armories operated by the Virginia National Guard.”

• This notification also provides the military an opportunity to submit comments for consideration.
• Local comprehensive plans may include the location of military bases, installations and military airports and their adjacent safety areas.
• Stipulates that zoning ordinances shall provide reasonable protection against encroachment upon military bases, installations and military airports and their adjacent safety areas (“excluding armories operated by the Virginia National Guard.)

Washington

Land Use Planning Around Military Installations

Wash. Rev. Code ß 36.70A.530 (ESSB 6401, 2004) requires that cities and counties’ comprehensive plans, development regulations or their amendments “should not allow development in the vicinity of a military installation that is incompatible with the installation’s ability to carry out its mission requirements.” Cities and counties with military installations (other than a reserve center) of more than 100 personnel must notify the installation commander of their intent to amend the comprehensive plan or development regulations to “address lands adjacent to military installations to ensure those lands are protected from incompatible development”. This notice shall provide the commander 60 days to provide a written recommendation with supporting facts. If no response is received from the commander, than the local government may presume that the “implementation of the proposed plan or amendment” will not have an adverse effect on the installation’s operations.

Administration

Arizona

Coordination of Military and Civilian Airports
Established procedures to allow for communication and open lines between civilian and military airports. The State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division requires airport sponsor to include a military representative on the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). Arizona Military Airspace Group will include a member of the Arizona Airports Association, and vice versa.

California

California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission is statutorily required (SB 1389, 2002) to adopt an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years with an update every other year. The Commission is currently working on the 2004 update to this report. During the May 10 th, 2004 Commission meeting, a testifying military member requested that the military mission be taken into account and the Chairman assured that military “interests will fully be taken into account” during the planning process.

SB 1389, 2002

Integrated Energy Policy Report 2004 Update

Florida

FL- Governor’s Activities with the Military
Twice a year, Governor Bush meets with every installation commander in Florida to discuss issues impacting their troops, installations and communities.

Agency Coordination

• Every state agency has an internal military affairs liaison.
• Enterprise Florida developed a report titled, “Roadmap to Florida’s Future.” This report includes support for the military including “protection of military bases from land-use encroachments.”