Existing law grants to every municipal corporation the right to construct, operate, and maintain electric light and power lines 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 intersects, crosses, or runs along. Under existing law, before any municipal corporation uses any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation, it is required to request the other municipal corporation in which the street, alley, avenue, or highway is situated to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. Under existing law, if the 2 municipal corporations are unable to agree on the terms and conditions and location of a use within 3 months after a proposal to do so, the municipal corporation proposing to use a street, alley, avenue, or highway is authorized to bring an action in the superior court against the other municipal corporation to have the terms and conditions and location determined, as prescribed.

This bill would require a municipal corporation, before using any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation or county, to request of the municipal corporation or county that has control over the street, alley, avenue, or highway to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. This bill would authorize the municipal corporation proposing to use the street, alley, avenue, or highway within a county to bring an action in the superior court against the county if the municipal corporation and the county are unable to agree on the terms and conditions and location of the use within 3 months after a proposal.

Existing law provides that a grant of authority from or agreement with another municipality is not necessary if the street, alley, avenue, or highway proposed to be used is a necessary or convenient part of the route of the proposed works and at the time construction was commenced or the plans adopted was located in unincorporated territory.

This bill would repeal these provisions.

Existing law grants to every municipal corporation the right to construct, operate, and maintain electric light and power lines 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 intersects, crosses, or runs along. Under existing law, before any municipal corporation uses any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation, it is required to request the other municipal corporation in which the street, alley, avenue, or highway is situated to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. Under existing law, if the 2 municipal corporations are unable to agree on the terms and conditions and location of a use within 3 months after a proposal to do so, the municipal corporation proposing to use a street, alley, avenue, or highway is authorized to bring an action in the superior court against the other municipal corporation to have the terms and conditions and location determined, as prescribed.

This bill would require a municipal corporation, before using any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation or county, to request of the municipal corporation or county that has control over the street, alley, avenue, or highway to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. This bill would authorize the municipal corporation proposing to use the street, alley, avenue, or highway within a county to bring an action in the superior court against the county if the municipal corporation and the county are unable to agree on the terms and conditions and location of the use within 3 months after a proposal.

Existing law provides that a grant of authority from or agreement with another municipality is not necessary if the street, alley, avenue, or highway proposed to be used is a necessary or convenient part of the route of the proposed works and at the time construction was commenced or the plans adopted was located in unincorporated territory.

This bill would repeal these provisions.

Existing law grants to every municipal corporation the right to construct, operate, and maintain electric light and power lines 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 intersects, crosses, or runs along. Under existing law, before any municipal corporation uses any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation, it is required to request the other municipal corporation in which the street, alley, avenue, or highway is situated to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. Under existing law, if the 2 municipal corporations are unable to agree on the terms and conditions and location of a use within 3 months after a proposal to do so, the municipal corporation proposing to use a street, alley, avenue, or highway is authorized to bring an action in the superior court against the other municipal corporation to have the terms and conditions and location determined, as prescribed.

This bill would specify that for these purposes the terms municipal corporation and municipality include a county. This bill would require a municipal corporation, before using any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation, corporation or county, to request of the municipal corporation or county that has control over the street, alley, avenue, or highway to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. This bill would authorize the municipal corporation proposing to use the street, alley, avenue, or highway within a county to bring an action in the superior court against the county if the municipal corporation and the county are unable to agree on the terms and conditions and location of the use within 3 months after a proposal.

Existing law provides that a grant of authority from or agreement with another municipality is not necessary if the street, alley, avenue, or highway proposed to be used is a necessary or convenient part of the route of the proposed works and at the time construction was commenced or the plans adopted was located in unincorporated territory.

This bill would repeal these provisions.

Existing law grants to every municipal corporation the right to construct, operate, and maintain electric light and power lines 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 intersects, crosses, or runs along. Under existing law, before any municipal corporation uses any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation, it is required to request the other municipal corporation in which the street, alley, avenue, or highway is situated to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject.

This bill would specify that for these purposes the terms municipal corporation and municipality include a county. This bill would require a municipal corporation, before using any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation, to request of the municipal corporation that has control over the street, alley, avenue, or highway to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject.

Existing law provides that a grant of authority from or agreement with another municipality is not necessary if the street, alley, avenue, or highway proposed to be used is a necessary or convenient part of the route of the proposed works and at the time construction was commenced or the plans adopted was located in unincorporated territory.

This bill would repeal these provisions.

 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, 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 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.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/9/15)

County of Los Angeles (source)

California State Association of Counties

Urban Counties Caucus

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/9/15)

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 ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

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 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

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

Support and Opposition

(7/2/15)

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

Opposition: Unknown.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Ben Hueso, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1119 Hearing Date: 6/16/2015

SUBJECT: Public utilities: municipal corporations: rights of way

DIGEST: This bill would provide 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, 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 §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 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 20^th 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 LA selected a route for the project that would require construction within the unincorporated areas of the county affecting the community of Marina Del Rey. LA County brought legal suit in superior court to challenge the City’s decision. However, the appeals court sided with the City of LA 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.

Double referral. Should this bill be approved by the committee, it will be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance for its consideration.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

ASSEMBLY VOTES:

Assembly Floor (77-0)

Assembly Local Government Committee (9-0)

Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee (14-0)

SUPPORT:

County of Los Angeles (Source)

California State Association of Counties

Urban Counties Caucus

OPPOSITION:

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In proposing this legislation, Los Angeles County 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 would “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.”

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1119

Author:(Rendon)

As Amended Ver:May 11, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: This bill provides counties with the same rights as 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:

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.

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Roth / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083 FN: 0000354

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Brian Maienschein, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1119

Author:(Rendon) – As Introduced Ver:February 27, 2015

SUBJECT: Public utilities: municipal corporations: rights of way.

SUMMARY: Grants counties the same right to construct, operate, and maintain utilities that is granted to municipal corporations under current law. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides, for the purposes of existing law that grants municipal corporations the right to construct, operate, and maintain utilities, that the terms “municipal corporation” and “municipality” include a county.

2. Requires, before any municipal corporation uses any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation for the purposes outlined above, that the municipal corporation request of the municipal corporation that has control over the street, alley, avenue, or highway to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject.

3. Repeals a section of law providing that a grant of authority from or agreement with another municipality is not necessary in any case where the street, alley, avenue, or highway, or portion thereof, proposed to be used is a necessary or convenient part of the route of the proposed works and at the time construction was commenced or the plans adopted was located in unincorporated territory.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Grants to every municipal corporation of the state the right to construct, operate, and maintain water and gas pipes, mains and conduits, electric light and power lines, telephone and telegraph lines, sewers and sewer mains, all with the necessary appurtenances, 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 such works intersects, crosses, or runs along, in such manner as to afford security for life and property. (PUC 10101)

2. Requires a municipal corporation exercising its rights under the provision outlined above to restore the road, street, alley, avenue, highway, canal, ditch, or flume so used to its former state of usefulness as nearly as may be, and to locate its use so as to interfere as little as possible with other existing uses of a road, street, alley, avenue, highway, canal, ditch, or flume. (PUC 10102)

3. Requires, before any municipal corporation uses any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation for the purposes outlined above, the municipal corporation to request the municipal corporation in which the street, alley, avenue, or highway is situated to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject. (PUC 10103)

4. Provides, if the two municipal corporations are unable to agree on the terms and conditions and location of a use within three months after a proposal to do so, the municipal corporation proposing to use a street, alley, avenue, or highway may bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the street, alley, avenue, or highway is situated against the other municipal corporation to have the terms and conditions and location determined. The superior court may determine and adjudicate the terms and conditions to which the use of the street, avenue, alley, or highway shall be subject, and the location thereof, and upon the making of the final judgment the municipal corporation desiring to do so may enter and use the street, alley, avenue, or highway upon the terms and conditions and at the location specified in the judgment. (PUC 10104)

5. Provides that a grant of authority from or agreement with another municipality is not necessary in any case where the street, alley, avenue, or highway, or portion thereof, proposed to be used is a necessary or convenient part of the route of the proposed works and at the time construction was commenced or the plans adopted was located in unincorporated territory. (PUC 10105)

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill grants to counties the same right to construct, operate, and maintain utilities that is granted to municipal corporations under current law. This bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

2. Author's Statement. According to the author, "The purpose of the bill is to clarify the Public Utilities Code to define that the term 'municipal corporation' includes counties. This would provide counties with the same rights as cities when it comes to their ability to challenge a utility project by another public entity in or over a street or highway located in unincorporated county territory."

3. Background. In 2010, the County of Los Angeles (County) filed a suit against the
   City of Los Angeles (City) over the City's plans to install a sewer pipe through an unincorporated area of the County. The decision of 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, specifically the protections contained in PUC 10103, which states:

"Before any municipal corporation uses any street, alley, avenue, or highway within any other municipal corporation (for the purposes of installing utility infrastructure), it shall request the municipal corporation in which the street, alley, avenue, or highway is situated to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and conditions to which the use shall be subject."

The 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."

4. Municipal Corporations and Utilities. PUC sections 10101-10105 govern the rights of a "municipal corporation" to build a utility project in a street or highway, including a street or highway within another jurisdiction. Section 10101 grants to municipal corporations the authority to construct, operate and maintain utilities such as sewers, water and electric lines, within any road. Section 10103 provides, however, that when a municipal corporation proposes to use a road located within another municipal corporation, the municipal corporation proposing the project must obtain an agreement from the other municipal corporation.

Section 10104 provides that if the two municipal corporations don’t agree, the municipal corporation proposing the project can obtain an adjudication in superior court regarding the location, terms and conditions of the use of the road. Section 10105 qualifies sections 10103 and 10104 in cases "where the [road] . . . proposed to be used is a necessary or convenient part of the route of the proposed works and at the time construction was commenced or the plans adopted was located in unincorporated territory."

These statutes balance the interests of municipal corporations in being able to build utility projects using streets and highways, including those located within other jurisdictions, with the interests of residents who may be impacted by a project that is initiated by officials in another jurisdiction who do not represent them. They do this by requiring the municipal corporation initiating the project to obtain the consent of the officials representing the residents of the jurisdiction in which they want to build the project, or to obtain an independent judicial determination that weighs the rights and interests of both jurisdictions.

5. The Case in Question. In its opinion, the Court held that the County is not a "municipal corporation" for purposes of PUC sections 10101-10105. Therefore, the County is not entitled to the same protections that a city would be entitled to under sections 10103 and 10104 (to require a city proposing to construct a utility project within its street or highway to obtain either an agreement from County officials or an independent judicial determination
   of its right to do so). Instead, the Court determined that the only restriction on a city's use
   of a county highway is that the city, in its own discretion, must find that the use of that road is a "necessary or convenient part of the route" of the proposed project (under section 10105). The city's decision can only be overturned if it is "arbitrary or capricious."

According to the sponsor, "the purposes of sections 10103 and 10104 apply with equal force in the unincorporated territory as they do in a city – i.e, protecting the residents from decisions by officials of foreign jurisdictions who are not elected by and are not accountable to the residents who will be impacted. Treating counties differently from incorporated cities deprives unincorporated area residents of the protections afforded by sections 10103 and 10104.

"The bill would amend the statute to define the terms 'municipal corporation' and 'municipality' to include the County for purposes of sections 10101-10105. This will provide counties with the same rights as cities when it comes to the ability of a public entity to install a utility project in or over a street or highway, including a street or highway located in another jurisdiction.

"The bill would also clarify that the County has the same rights as cities to construct its own utility projects within streets and highways, including those streets and highways that are within city boundaries. Having the same rights to construct a utility in a City highway is a matter of equity just as important as the ability of a governing body (or having an adjudication occur) in order to grant approval to another municipal corporation."

6. Policy Consideration. Given the stated intent of the bill to remedy the Court’s decision by giving counties the same rights as cities when a dispute arises, the Committee may wish to consider whether it is necessary or appropriate to also grant counties the same rights as cities to construct, operate, and maintain utilities.

7. Arguments in Support. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, sponsor of this bill, writes, "The County's Department of Public Works and County Counsel indicate that
   AB 1119 would 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 other jurisdictions who do not represent them. AB 1119 would require the local entity to either obtain the consent of the officials representing the residents of the jurisdiction in which they want to build the project, or to obtain an independent judicial determination that weighs the rights and interests of both jurisdictions."

8. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

9. Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Utilities and Commerce Committee on
   April 13, 2015, where it passed with a 14-0 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors [SPONSOR]

California State Association of Counties

Urban Counties Caucus

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE

Anthony Rendon, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1119

Author:(Rendon) – As Introduced Ver:February 27, 2015

SUBJECT: Public utilities: municipal corporations: rights of way

SUMMARY: Provides counties with the same rights as cities when it comes to their legal authority to challenge a utility project by another municipal corporation in or over a street or highway located in unincorporated county territory. Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies the Public Utilities Code to include counties in the term “municipal corporation.”

2. Clarifies that the municipal corporation that is granting permission for use of land must only have control over the area that is being proposed for development, replacing the current requirement that the area must be within the territory of the municipal corporation.

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)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement: “The recent legal case in Los Angeles (LA) County shows that we need to rethink the rights that counties have over infrastructure in their own territory. AB 1119 will simply provide counties with the same tools that cities have to challenge and engage with infrastructure developments in their own territory.”

2. 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 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. The 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.

AB 1119 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.

1. No retroactive impacts: AB 1119 will not affect the LA City legal case. The 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. Double referral. This bill is double referred to the Committee on Local Government.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Los Angeles County (Sponsor)

Urban Counties Caucus

Opposition

None submitted

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Roth / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083