2201 PACIFIC AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

�� o� x c H ��y � � � H xl '� F'�-� '� � �� Bruce Jones O May 2, 1989 o N C7 Page Two �� g In attempting to get a handle on the legal £ramework for this H scenario, I g•� :ss I would characterize the question as whether my �y�j client, as a preser.t owner of the property, without notice of the H y prior permissive grant by the City which does not appear to be a gy H matter of public record, should be responsible for the expenses of � p y restoration of the City property to its prior condition. As i see �� it, my client never accepted any benefit from this tank, Has not � aware of its existence upon City property, and was not appraised y o vi either by public record or otherwise of the prior permissive grant by the City. If the City wanted to impose the burden in such a situation upon subsequent land owners, then there should have been some public document recorded to put subsequent owners on notice that the purchaser of this parcel not only accepted the burdens and benefits of ownership of the parcel, but also accepted the burden of an offsite prior permissive use grant. The city ordinances which require restoration of the property upon termination of the permissive use don't seem to be of much assistance here. That ordinance clearly contemplates a specific permit- procedure, and in any event, was enacted in 1984, long a£ter the acquisition of the property by my client. � I have tried to determine whether we have any other statutory � � authority that might shed some light upon this issue, and I see , ' nothing in the area of franchises or easements that would assist. � It seems to me we have to call this a mere license or permissive � use by the City, and the authorities seem fairly clear to the � � effect that the grant of such a permit or license is in the nature � � of a personal right, not one that is transferable automatically to � successive owners. If the rights do not succeed to successive ' owners then certainly the benefits cannot attach to successive ' owners. If my client had, at any time within the past many years, attempted f� to fill this tank and tap into it for its present use, undoubtedly � such authorization would have been denied. Clearly, my clients �� have no right to claim some time of prescriptive right to utilize the tank, nor would they have somehow automatically succeeded to �� the prior permissive use. Since they had no right to use or benefit from the existence of this tank, they should have no �.�' obligation to pay £or its present removal. �1 My clients remain ready and willing to cooperate with the City in ' whatever manner is required to facilitate the removal of this tank, � so that progress can go Eorward with the sidewalk improvements required under the existing building permit. However, they are not willing to be responsible for the cost of removal, and feel that that is purely the City's obligation. Should you have some authority to the contrary, I would certainly like to be appraised of that. It seems to me that this is probably not a case of first