SU0000694 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

19791 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 177 I governing bodies. Significant to our discussion are the restrictive provisions i ling necessary improvements in subdivisions of four or less parcels. Che first question concerns whether a local agency can require that improve- ; in such smaller subdivisions be completed prior to the recordation of the 1 priate parcel map. Since sale of the parcels is generally dependent upon iacion of the map (§ 66499.30, subd. (b) ), such a requirement would insure :he improvements were made before sale. On the other hand, it may be d that a landowner should not be required to make the necessary improve- s until he is ready to develop the property. Based upon an examination of the olling statute, section 66411.1, we conclude that completion of the improve- s may not be required prior to the recordation of the parcel map. Section 66411.1 provides that in divisions of land into four or less parcels, i mprovements required by local ordinance must be limited to "the dedication a ghts-of-wav, easements, and the construction of reasonable offsite and onsite I� ovements for the parcels being created." under the statute, notification of :onstruction requirements must be "by certificate on the parcel map, on the ! ument evidencing the waiver of such parcel map, or by separate instrument ; shall be recorded on, concurrently with, or prior to the parcel map or instru- I s of waiver of a parcel map being filed for record:' Although the improvements can be specified and their description recorded to the recordation of the appropriate parcel map, the Legislature has further ided in the statute that: "Fulfillment of such construction requirements shall not be required 3` until such time as a permit or other grant of approval for development of the parcel is issued by the local agency or, where provided by local 4 ordinances, until such time as the construction of such improvements is required pursuant to an agreement between the subdivider and the local agency, except . . . that in the absence of such an agreement, a local agency may require fulfillment of such construction requirements within .IIs a reasonable time following approval of the parcel map and prior to the Elk issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for the development of �It a parcel upon a finding by the local agency that fulfillment of the con- struction requirements is necessary for reasons of . . . public health and safety; or . . . orderly development of the surrounding area." (Emphasise added.) While it is true that the words "shall" and "may" are mandatory or permissive .ending upon the legislative intent (see Jacobs v. State Bar (1977) 20 Cal. 3d I�{ 198), ordinarily "shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive. (California I :chess Assn. v. Governing Board (1977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 833, 842; County of ramento v. Superior Court (1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 469, 472; Parks v. Superiors un (1971) 19 Cal_ App. Ad 188, 191.) When a statute contains both the words all" and"may;' it has been held that the former must be construed as mandatory '. i i