City of Livermore v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 1·51 Cal. App. 4th 1410·59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 852·97 Daily Journal DAR 172·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 162
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 1997A070278California2,659 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

When a municipal street-widening project is financed partly by assessment district funds and partly by fees imposed on development throughout the city, who must pay the cost of relocating utility poles to accommodate the new lanes of traffic? We conclude the utility company must pay.

Background

The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) operates its equipment in the streets of Livermore under a franchise granted by the city under the Franchise Act of 1937 (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 6201-6302). The circulation element of Livermore’s general plan, dated April 1989, projected that First Street would require widening from two to six lanes between Interstate 580 and Portola Avenue by the year 2010. In October 1989, Livermore approved a shopping center development at First Street and Las Positas Road, which is in the segment of First Street slated for widening. Livermore later approved a residential subdivision and another shopping center in the same area. As a condition of approval, Livermore required all three developers (collectively, the First Street Developers) to widen First Street along their frontages from two to six lanes.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.