BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1119
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1119 (Rendon)
As Amended May 11, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
|Utilities |14-0 |Rendon, Patterson, | |
| | |Achadjian, Bonilla, | |
| | |Burke, Dahle, Eggman, | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Hadley, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Ting, Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
|Local |9-0 |Maienschein, | |
|Government | |Gonzalez, Alejo, | |
| | |Chiu, Cooley, Gordon, | |
| | |Holden, Linder, | |
| | |Waldron | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This bill provides counties with the same rights as
AB 1119
Page 2
municipal corporations when it comes to their legal authority to
challenge and engage with a utility project owned, operated, or
being constructed by another municipal corporation in or over a
street or highway located in unincorporated county territory.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides "municipal corporations" with rights to build or
maintain a utility project, such as sewers and electrical lines,
in a street or highway within another jurisdiction. (Public
Utilities Code Section 10101)
2)Provides that when a municipal corporation proposes a project
located within another jurisdiction, the municipal corporation
proposing the project must obtain an agreement from the other
jurisdiction. (Public Utilities Code Section 10103)
3)Provides that a grant of authority from another municipality is
not necessary if the area proposed for project use is a
"necessary or convenient" part of the route of the proposed
project. (Public Utilities Code Section 10105)
COMMENTS:
AB 1119
Page 3
1)In response to recent legal case: In a recent Appellate Court
decision, the court held that a county does not qualify as a
"municipal corporation," and is therefore not entitled to the
same protections that a city would be entitled to under existing
law. This case arose from Los Angeles (LA) County's challenge
to LA City's plan to install portions of a sewer line outside of
its territorial limits in an unincorporated area of LA County.
LA City did not have to obtain either an agreement from county
officials or any legal determination of its right to do so. LA
County argues that the court decision misinterprets the
legislative purpose of existing statutes by depriving the county
of an adequate right to challenge projects by cities that
encroach into its unincorporated territory.
This bill will create a process for counties to challenge
infrastructure projects that take place on county-controlled
land, projects which would potentially affect or displace large
populations and cause future conflicts. This bill will provide
counties with the same rights as cities when it comes to their
ability to contest infrastructure developments in unincorporated
county territory.
2)No retroactive impacts: This bill will not affect the LA City
legal case. This bill will not influence the result of the
legal decision, or any subsequent infrastructure developments or
proceedings relating to the case. It will simply clarify
municipal rights to prevent unnecessary conflicts in the future.
3)New amendments: This bill was amended in the Assembly Local
Government Committee to clarify the intent of this bill and
avoid unintended consequences that the original language
triggered. The new language does not redefine "municipal
corporation" to include counties, but instead simply says that
municipal corporations and counties have the authority to engage
with and challenge infrastructure projects that encroach on
unincorporated county territory.
AB 1119
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by:
Allegra Roth / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN:
0000354