Vacations - Easements, Reserves, Streets, Walkways - 1979-1981 pt1

Home

A om �i EAST BAY MUN. UTILITY FIST. V. RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 93 Cal.App.3d 346: —Cal. Rpm — 353 the police power. They have, as we have seen, supra, their delimitations. The terms, `real property' `interest or interests therein,' `lands,' `rights,' `easements' and franchises' as used in the enabling act prior to its last amendment are not sufficiently apt to support the claim of the defendant utilities." (P. 716, italics added.) See to the same effect N. Y. City Tunnel Authority v. Consolidated Edison Co. (1946) 295 N.Y. 467 [68 N.E.2d 445].)' Finally, and even more importantly, the very issue raised in the present case was presented for determination and was decided in a recent case, Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Redevelopment Agency (1977) 75 Ca1.App.3d 957 [142 Cal.Rptr. 584] (hg. den.). Akin to the case at bench, in Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. the City Council of the City of Redlands approved a redevelop- ment plan which included the construction of a shopping mall in a blighted downtown area and called for the city's cooperation in the vacation of streets, alleys and other public ways and the relocation of sewers, water mains and other public facilities. The project required the vacation of two streets in which Pacific Telephone maintained under- ground long distance telephone cables. The city redevelopment agency notified Pacific Telephone of the proposed vacation of the streets and the necessity of relocating the company's facilities to other streets. Pacific Telephone was willing to relocate only upon the payment of relocation costs. The city turned down the request and adopted a resolution vacating and abandoning the streets without reserving public utility easements therein. Thereafter, the com- pany relocated its facilities under protest, and claimed reimbursement from the city. When its claim was rejected, it commenced an action against both the city and the redevelopment agency to recoup the costs of relocation of its facilities occasioned by the redevelopment project. In concluding that sections 33390, 33391 and 33395 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (the very sections relied on by respon- dent here) do not constitute specific legislation abrogating the common- law implied obligation of the utility to pay the expenses of relocation of its street facilities and do not either singly or in combination, manifest a legislative will that the utility be compensated for relocating its facilities in public streets, the court stated as follows: "In light of the nature of the utility's franchise or privilege, sections 33391 and 33395 cannot be construed to mean that relocation may be required only through exercise of the power of eminent domain or that compensation must be paid as though [May 19791