BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
                         Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

                              
          
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Bill No:  |AB 1119                          |Hearing    |7/8/15   |
          |          |                                 |Date:      |         |
          |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
          |Author:   |Rendon                           |Tax Levy:  |No       |
          |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
          |Version:  |5/11/15                          |Fiscal:    |No       |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant|Favorini-Csorba                                       |
          |:         |                                                      |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

                PUBLIC UTILITIES: MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS: RIGHTS OF WAY



          Repeals cities' ability of cities to locate utilities in public  
          rights of way in unincorporated territory without the affected  
          county's agreement.


           Background and Existing Law

           The Public Utilities Code allows cities to construct, operate,  
          and maintain utility infrastructure, such as pipes, power lines,  
          and telephone lines, through streets, highways, and other public  
          rights of way outside of its territory.  In doing so, cities  
          must locate this infrastructure so as to interfere as little as  
          possible with other existing uses, and must restore the right of  
          way to its former condition.  If the utility infrastructure  
          would go through territory that belongs to another city, the  
          city proposing the project must request an agreement with the  
          affected city that describes the location of the project and any  
          terms and conditions of the use of the right of way. If they  
          cannot agree, the city proposing the project can ask a court to  
          set the location of the project and the terms of the agreement. 

          A county is not afforded the same rights as a city under this  
          section of the Public Utilities Code.  Specifically, the code  
          states that a city does not need an agreement from a county when  
          a "necessary and convenient" route takes a utility  
          infrastructure project through a public right of way in  







          AB  1119 (Rendon) 5/11/15                               Page 2  
          of ?
          
          
          territory that is unincorporated at the time the project is  
          constructed. 

          This provision of law was tested in January 2010, when the City  
          of Los Angeles approved the installation of a sewer line under  
          several streets in unincorporated territory within the County of  
          Los Angeles.  Prior to the City's decision, the County expressed  
          concern that the proposed route would disrupt residents in the  
          unincorporated area and potentially affect work on an ongoing  
          county redevelopment project.  The County filed suit to halt the  
          project in February 2010. Although the trial court ruled in 2011  
          that the City required permission from the County, in 2013 an  
          appeals court overturned that ruling and held that the plain  
          language of the Public Utilities Code expressly excuses a city  
          from obtaining an agreement for a project that extends into  
          unincorporated areas.  The County did not appeal the decision.

          These sections of the Public Utilities Code have rarely been  
          used as the basis to resolve disputes between local governments  
          over the siting of utility infrastructure.  According to  
          available court opinions, prior to the 2010 case, these sections  
          had only been used once, in 1939, to address challenges between  
          the City of Los Angeles and the Cities of Huntington Park and  
          South Gate.  Nonetheless, some county officials want to require  
          that a county agree before a city can construct utility  
          infrastructure in public rights of way in unincorporated  
          territory. 


           Proposed Law

          Assembly Bill 1119 gives counties the ability to protest the use  
          of rights of way within their territory. Specifically, AB 1119  
          repeals the ability of cities to site utilities in public rights  
          of way in unincorporated territory without an agreement with the  
          affected county.  The bill also requires a city to request an  
          agreement with the affected county that describes the location  
          of the project and any terms and conditions of the use of the  
          right of way. If the city and the county cannot agree, the city  
          proposing the project can ask a court to set the location of the  
          project and the terms of the agreement. 

           State Revenue Impact









          AB  1119 (Rendon) 5/11/15                               Page 3  
          of ?
          
          
           No estimate.


           Comments

           1.  Purpose of the bill  .  Under current law, cities may construct  
          utility infrastructure such as sewer lines along streets and  
          highways in unincorporated territory without requiring the  
          agreement of the affected counties.  As a result, residents that  
          may be impacted by construction have no opportunity to weigh in  
          on the proposed route of the project.  This inability to affect  
          utility siting decisions persists, even though for some projects  
          the number of impacted county residents is greater than the  
          number of city residents who avoid being inconvenienced by the  
          choice to route these projects through unincorporated territory.  
           AB 1119 addresses this problem by providing counties with some  
          measure of parity to cities and ensures that cities must  
          negotiate with counties to reach a mutually agreeable solution,  
          while preserving the right of cities to ask a court to determine  
          an equitable route.

          2.   Legitimate preference for cities  .  Current law represents a  
          careful balancing act by the Legislature to ensure that cities  
          have access to necessary utility services, such as water, sewer,  
          gas, and electricity. Cities, by their very nature, are often  
          islands of incorporated territory surrounded by larger swaths of  
          unincorporated areas.  As such, cities inevitably need to cross  
          unincorporated territory that is controlled by county  
          governments. In order to preserve the ability of cities to  
          negotiate the siting of utility projects with counties on even  
          footing, existing law provides cities with the authority to  
          proceed without agreement as a last resort.  AB 1119 shifts the  
          balance in favor of counties.

          3.  Incoming!  The Senate Energy, Utilities, and Commerce  
          Committee approved AB 1119 by a vote of 10-0 on June 16, 2015. 


           Assembly Actions

           Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee    14-0
          Assembly Local Government Committee             9-0
          Assembly Floor                               77-0









          AB  1119 (Rendon) 5/11/15                               Page 4  
          of ?
          
          
           








          Support and  
          Opposition   (7/2/15)


           Support  :  County of Los Angeles; California State Association of  
          Counties.

           Opposition  :  Unknown.



                                      -- END --