Laserfiche WebLink
EAST BAY MUN. UTILITY DIST. V. 347 <br />RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY <br />e�. • ,• <br />93 Cal.A .3d 346;—Cal. Rptr. — <br />for the utility's relocation expenses. (Opinion by Kane, Acting P. J., with <br />Rouse and Miller, JJ., concurring.) <br />HEADNOTES <br />Classified to California Digest of Official Reports, 3d Series <br />•;;i•,ijt:7j <br />(1) Public Utilities, § 4—Utility Districts —Use of Public Streets —Fran- <br />ehise Right. —The statutory right granted to a municipal utility <br />district to construct, operate and maintain .certain facilities in and <br />along public streets and ways (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 10 10 1, 12808), is <br />.j <br />not a vested property right, but merely a franchise. <br />(2) Public Utilities § 4—Utility Districts —Liability for Costs of Relo- <br />cating Facilities. —In the absence -of specific legislation to the <br />contrary, a public utility accepts franchise rights in public streets <br />-to its; <br />subject an implied obligation to relocate its facilities therein at <br />own expense when necessary to make.way for proper governmental <br />'J I .� <br />use of the streets. <br />' <br />(3) Public Housing and Urban Renewal § 5--Urban Renewal Projects— <br />Vacation of Streets —Liability for Costs of Relocating Utilities— <br />'I <br />Construction of Redevelopment Law. —The California Community <br />Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq.), regulat- <br />ing redevelopment projects by municipalities in blighted areas, does <br />,. <br />not constitute the specific legislation required to abrogate the <br />common law implied obligation of a utility to pay the expenses of <br />relocating its street facilities, and, although authorizing redevelop- <br />ment ager.•cies to acquire a variety of real property, including <br />franchises, by eminent domain, it does not manifest a legislative will <br />that the utility be compensated for relocating its facilities from <br />public streets vacated in furtherance of a redevelopment project. <br />I a <br />Thus, in an action by a municipal utility district against a redevelop- <br />ment agency and a city to recover- the cost of relocating its <br />underground facilities in order to make way for a redevelopment <br />project, the trial court erred in awarding such costs to the utility, . <br />[May 19791 <br />I <br />,i� <br />