BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1119|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1119
Author: Rendon (D)
Amended: 5/11/15 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/16/15
AYES: Hueso, Fuller, Cannella, Hertzberg, Hill, Lara, Leyva,
McGuire, Morrell, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/8/15
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach,
Pavley
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Public utilities: municipal corporations: rights of
way
SOURCE: County of Los Angeles
DIGEST: This bill provides that a county has the right to
require an agreement on the terms and conditions for a proposed
utility infrastructure project that is owned, constructed and
operated by a municipal corporation within unincorporated county
territory.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Grants to every municipal corporation the right to construct,
AB 1119
Page 2
operate, and maintain utility infrastructure (including water
and gas pipes, mains conduits, electric light and power lines,
telephone and telegraph lines, sewers and sewer mains) across,
along, in, under, over, or upon any road street alley avenue,
or highway, and across, under, or over any railway, canal
ditch, or flume which the route of the works intersect crosses
or runs along. (Public Utilities Code §10101)
2)Requires municipal corporations exercising their rights under
Public Utilities Code Section 10101 to restore the street,
alley, avenue, highway, etc. to its former useful state and
shall locate its use to interfere as little as possible with
other existing uses. (Public Utilities Code §10102)
3)Requires a municipal corporation, before using a street,
highway, etc., within any other municipal corporation to first
request an agreement on the location of the use and terms and
conditions. (Public Utilities Code §10103)
4)Provides that if the two municipal corporations are unable to
agree on the terms and conditions and location within three
months after a proposal, the municipal corporation proposing
the project may bring action in the superior court of the
county of the proposed project. (Public Utilities Code
§10104)
5)Provides that a grant of authority is not necessary when the
proposed works is in unincorporated territory and is a
necessary and convenient part of the route of the project.
(Public Utilities Code §10105)
This bill:
1)Requires that a county has the same rights to require an
agreement should a municipal corporation propose a utility
infrastructure project that is owned, constructed and operated
within county territory.
2)Provides that if an agreement hasn't been reached within three
months, the municipal corporation can bring action in superior
court to define the terms and conditions of an agreement.
3)Repeals language that stipulated a municipal corporation did
not need authority or an agreement from a county for a project
AB 1119
Page 3
located in unincorporated county territory.
Background
Under the existing Public Utilities Code, a county is not
afforded the same rights as a municipal corporation in relation
to the siting of utility infrastructure projects in neighboring
territory. Specifically, there are current statutes in the
Public Utilities Code that date back to the early 20th Century
which stipulate that municipal corporations do not need
authority or an agreement from a county when the municipal
corporation proposes a utility infrastructure project within the
county territory.
The distinctions between county and city rights became apparent
in a legal case between the City of Los Angeles and County of
Los Angeles related to the siting of a sewer line in
unincorporated county territory. The City of Los Angeles
selected a route for the project that would require construction
within the unincorporated areas of the county affecting the
community of Marina Del Rey. Los Angeles County brought legal
suit in superior court to challenge the City's decision.
However, the appeals court sided with the City of Los Angeles
stating that the statute expressly excuses a party from
obtaining an agreement for a project that extends into
unincorporated county territory.
This bill proposes to change the law in order to affect future
decisions related to proposed utility projects. This bill will
not affect the outcome of the specific legal case noted above.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified7/9/15)
County of Los Angeles (source)
California State Association of Counties
Urban Counties Caucus
OPPOSITION: (Verified7/9/15)
AB 1119
Page 4
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In proposing this bill, County of Los
Angeles seeks parity with the City of Los Angeles and other
municipal corporations to require an agreement on the terms and
conditions for a proposed utility project within county
territory. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
indicates that this bill will "balance the interests of local
public entities to build utility projects using streets and
highways, including those located within other jurisdictions,
with the interests of residents and businesses that may be
impacted by projects initiated by officials in another
jurisdiction who do not represent them."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/18/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez,
Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian,
Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark
Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,
Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Kim, Mathis, Melendez
Prepared by:Nidia Bautista / E., U., & C. / (916) 651-4107
7/10/15 14:06:08
**** END ****
AB 1119
Page 5