Laserfiche WebLink
346 EAST BAY MUN. UTILITY DIST."O.W EAST <br />• RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AGENC'jV�� RICHN <br />93 Cal.App.3d 346:-- Cal. Rptr. Q3 Cal., <br />for tht <br />Rouse <br />[Civ. No. 41715. First Dist., Div. Two. May 23, 1979.1 <br />og <br />EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, <br />HEAD <br />Plaintiff and Respondent, v. <br />RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., <br />Classifl, <br />Defendants and Appellants. <br />SUMMARY <br />A municipal utility district brought an action against a redevelopment-g <br />agency and a city to recover the costs of relocating its underground <br />(2) <br />facilities in order to make way for a redevelopment project. While, <br />concedinc, that its right to the water utilities at issue were but a statutory <br />franchise or easement (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 10101, 12808), the utility <br />contended that it was entitled to reimbursement of its relocation expenses <br />under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. <br />Code, § 33000 et seq.). The trial court concluded that such costs could not <br />be imposed on the utility and entered judgment in its favor. (Superior <br />Court of Contra Costa County, No. 138703, Thomas F. McBride, Judge.) <br />(3) <br />The Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that the common law <br />implied obligation of a utility to pay its own relocation expenses was not 4tl- <br />- <br />abrogated by the Community Redevelopment Law, noting that, at best, <br />the legislation set up a framework by which redevelopment agencies were <br />authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain. At the same time, <br />however, the court held that the law failed to provide <br />de the requisite <br />specific legislation with respect to the allocation of costs necessitated by <br />the transfer of utility facilities from municipal streets. The court held that <br />since the redevelopment agency had not exercised its governmental <br />powers under the law to secure abandonment and relocation of the water <br />mains at issue, 'it was not obligated to reimburse the utility for its <br />relocation expenses. The court also held that since the city's vacation of <br />public streets to enable the removal of urban blight and substandard <br />conditions was a proper exercise of its police powers, neither was it liable <br />[Nlav 19791 [Ma, <br />