SU0000694 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r J 178 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS [VOLUME 62 and the latter as permissive. (See Hogya v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal. App, 3d 122, 133 fn. 8; National Automobile etc. Co. v. Garrison (1946) 76 Cal. App, 2d 415, 417.) In light of these principles, we construe section 66411.1 as allowing a local agency to require the completion of the necessary improvements within a reasonable time after the parcel map has been approved' if no agreement has been reached setting an earlier date of completion pursuant to a duly adopted ordinance authoriz- ing such agreements. ti The second question deals with whether a local agency may demand security from the subdivider to insure that the improvements under section 66411.1 are ; constructed. Since construction cannot be required before recordation of the parcel map and the subdivider may sell the parcels after recordation, a situation may arise where a subdivision is without improvements and no longer in the hands of the subdivider. We conclude that security may be required of the subdivider to insure the construction of necessary improvements in subdivisions of four or less parcels. In subdivisions of five or more parcels, the Legislature has expressly provided that security be given by the subdivider to insure construction of the required improvements. As a condition for approving the final map where the improvements have not been completed, the local agency "shall require that performance . . . be guaranteed by the security specified in [sections 66499-66499.101." (§ 66462, subd. (c).) Although no similar statutory mandate can be found regarding security for divisions of four or less parcels, we note that section 66499 provides: "Whenever a local ordinance authorizes or requires the furnishing of security in connection l with the performance of any act or agreement, such security shall be . . . (a) Bond a or bonds . . . (b) A deposit . . . of money or negotiable bonds . . . (c) An instrument of credit. . . ." We believe that pursuant to an authorizing local ordinance a local agency may demand security from a subdivider to insure construction of improvements required under section 66411.1 inasmuch as (1) it would further the agency's mandated responsibilities of "[r}egulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions" (§ 66411), (2) it would be incidental to its power of requiring the construction of the improvements under section 66411.1, and (3) it would be pursuant to the implied authorization for demanding such security under section 66499. Moreover, as with the improvements for divisions of five or more parcels, a local agency may have a duty to maintain the section 66411.1 improvements and thereby "be entitled to demand a bond guaranteeing that the work of improvement would be done by the subdivider . . . ." (Evola v. Wendt Construction Co. (1959) 'Ordinarily, a parcel map with the required certificates and security is recorded by the county recorder within 10 days after approval (S,;(� 66464-66468.) If the 10 days for recorda- tion is extended by mutual consent of the subdivider and agency under section 66451.1, it would be possible for the construction to be completed before the map was actually recorded. �I