Laserfiche WebLink
348 EAST BAY MUN. UTILITY DIST. 1: <br />RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AGENC <br />93 Cal.App.3d 346, — Cal.Rptr. =- <br />where the agency had not exercised its governmental powers to`. <br />secure abandonment and relocation of the water mains at issue. <br />[See Cal.Jur.2d, Public Housing, §§ 3442; Am.Jur.2d, Housing <br />Laws and Urban Redevelopment, § 2.1 <br />(4) Public Housing and Urban Renewal § 5—Urban Renewal Projects — <br />Vacation of Streets . Proper Exercise of Police Power.; --A city's . <br />vacation of public streets to enable the removal of urban blight and_ <br />substandard conditions (Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq.) is a_- <br />proper exercise of its police powers and does not subject it to <br />liability for the cost of relocating underground utilities. s" <br />(5) Contracts § 46—Actions—Contract for Benefit of Third Party —Cred- <br />itor Beneficiary. —A person cannot be a creditor beneficiary unless <br />the promisor's performance of the contract will discharge some form <br />of legal duty owed to the beneficiary by the promisee. <br />COUNSEL <br />Samuel V. McGrath, City Attorney, Eugene B. Baird and Malcolm <br />Hunter, Assistant City Attorneys, for Defendants and Appellants. <br />John B. Reilley and Frank E. Howard for Plaintiff and Respondent. - <br />OPINION <br />KANE, Acting P. J.—The appeal at bench concerns the question whether <br />a publicly held utility company must bear the relocating cost of its <br />underground facilities where the relocation is necessitated by vacation of <br />streets in furtherance of a redevelopment project under the California <br />Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Saf. Code,' § 33000 et seq.). <br />The parties to this appeal are appellants Richmond Redevelopment <br />Agency (Agency) and City of Richmond (City) and respondent East Bay <br />'Unless otherwise indicated, all references will be made to the Health and Safety Code <br />of California. <br />[May 19791 , <br />,yq <br />