![]() (a) ), installation of landscaping and street lighting (see, e.g., Knox v. 4th 630, 644 ), installation of utilities and drainage facilities (see, e.g., Liptak v. These improvements may include widenings, closures and realignments (see, e.g., A Local & Regional Monitor v. When public agencies, planners, civil engineers, land developers, and others experienced in land-use matters speak of street "improvements," they generally mean the physical construction or repair of the street. 4th 1233, 1238, citations omitted.) Similarly, words in a contract are to be understood in their usual and ordinary sense unless used by the parties in some technical sense. their ordinary, everyday meaning." (Halbert's Lumber, Inc. When a statute does not define its operative words, "courts should give to the words. Unfortunately, neither the statute nor the permit defines the word improvement. 3 and the permit require SMWD to remove and relocate its facilities at its own expense only if the improvement of the highway necessitates relocation of those facilities. Streets and Highways Code section 1463 fn. In addition, the court's use of such nebulous and speculative findings as improvements in traffic levels, lengthening of the design life of the highway, and lower accident rates, in allocating the costs of relocation is unsupported by the law. Code, § 6297.) It does not apply in disputes, as here, between public agencies. Gas applies in disputes between a privately owned public utility operating under a franchise agreement and a public agency. The common law rule referred to in Southern Cal. ) Second, it found the completed interchange will result in significant improvement in traffic levels, lengthen the design life of the highway, provide greater emergency access, and lower the accident rate, and thus SMWD was required to pay the costs of relocation because its facilities interfered with the "improvement" of the highway. a public utility accepts franchise rights in public streets subject to an implied obligation to relocate its facilities therein at its own expense when necessary to make way for a proper governmental use of the streets." (Southern Cal. 2 First, it found construction of the interchange was a proper governmental use of the highway and thus SMWD was required to pay the costs of relocation under the common law rule that ". The trial court, sitting without a jury, held that SMWD must bear the costs of relocation. SMWD refused, and filed this action for declaratory relief, alleging FETCA should bear the relocation costs because it was the governmental entity specifically formed to finance construction and operation of the regional toll road through a combination of tolls, developer fees, and assessment districts, and the residents of SMWD should not be forced to pay a disproportionate portion of the cost of construction merely because that construction requires SMWD's pipes to be relocated. Relying on the encroachment permit, the County notified SMWD it would have to relocate its pipes at its own expense. ![]() The highway, which was reconstructed as a bridge, remains at its original elevation, while the toll road runs underneath it.Ĭonstruction of the interchange required relocation of SMWD's water and sewerage lines. At that intersection, FETCA built a grade-separated interchange which allows access to the toll road from the highway. 1 The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (FETCA), a joint powers agency which includes the county as a member, is constructing a regional transportation toll road which intersects the highway. The permit provided that SMWD would remove and relocate its pipes, at its own expense, if they interfered with the "improvement" of the highway. The Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) buried water and sewerage lines underneath the Santa Margarita Parkway, a county highway, pursuant to an encroachment permit issued by the County of Orange (the County). Chrisos, Deputy County Counsel, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, John C. Schlang as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Lagerlof, Senecal, Bradley & Swift, Andrew D. J., with Sonenshine and Rylaarsdam, JJ., concurring.) SANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. COUNTY OF ORANGE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |