SU0000694 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTORNEY79 GENERAL'SGENERAL'S OPINIONS I 19793 ,pgr1, .70 Cal. App. 2d 21, 25.) As was stated in Hoover v. County of Kern (1953) 118 , App. 2d 139, 142: "One of the main purposes of the Subdivision Map Act xems to be to require the subdivider to do the original work of placing the streets aaintenance thereof is taken over by a city or a proper condition before the m county, and to relieve the public to this extent of the burden that would otherwise k i The general conditions and restrictions covering security arrangements under the Act (§§ 66499-66499.10) would of course be applicable to such demand. ' The conclusion to the second question, therefore, is that a local agency may require that the construction of offsite and onsite improvements pursuant to the provisions of section 66411.1 be secured as provided by the terms of sections I 66499-66499.10. The third question concerns whether a local agency can withhold approval for j "development of parcels where (1) the construction of the section 66411.1 improve- ments has not been completed, (2) the construction is not secured under the pro- visions of the Act, (3) the parcel map has been recorded, and (4) the subdivider is no longer the owner of the property and is unavailable. We conclude that under such circumstances, approval of development can be withheld until the improve- i a amens have been completed. j 66411.1 speaks in general terms concerning when the First,we note that section i r� _improvements must be made: "Fulfillment of such construction requirements shall not be required until such time as a permit or other grant of approval for develop issued b the local agency . . . . The statute only limits the went of the parcel is Y t be made, thus it does not prohibit the time within which the improvements mus Local agency from requiring completion of the construction by whomever seeks to ' L $evelop the parcels. i ' Second, any person who has purchased a parcel from the subdivider would { ing what improvements were necessary. As pre have constructive notice concern iously noted, section 66411.1 states in part: "Requirements for the construction �+ of such offsite and onsite improvements shall be noticed by certificate on the parcel ;map, on the instrument evidencing the waiver of such parcel map, or by separate instrument and shall be recorded on, concurrently with, or prior to the parcel map i or instrument of waiver of a parcel map being filed for record" Accordingly, put- "chasers of the parcels may nor reasonably claim ignorance of the recorded improve r. 'Ment requirements. Rather, they would be the successors in interest to the sub- nvider and subject to the recorded improvement restrictions placed upon the parcels. Third, purchasers of the parcels who seek development permits would be the j actual beneficiaries of any improvements made. A similar situation was presented in I Keizer v. Adams (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 976, 981, where the Supreme Court indicated that it would be equitable for a local agency to require the construction of necessary improvements by the purchasers"as a condition to the issuance of a building permit" ail -J I�1