SU0000694 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RE WELTY &ASSOC. FAX 209-5237-33K-3 PAGE 07 2. Requiring Installation of Improvements By Agreement As indicated in response to the first question, a subdivider may agree to construct onsite and offsite improvements under the terms of section 66411.1. Such an agreement might specify that the improvements are to be constructed at a particular time, including prior to the approval of the parcel map. Does section 66411.1 allow the local agency to require such an agreement between the subdivider and a water district for the construction of irrigation facilities? We conclude that it does not. We are to interpret statutes so as to "effectuate legislative intent." (Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562.) "In determining intent, we look first to the language of the statute, giving effect to its `plain meaning." ()Ummel v. Goland (1990) 51 Cal-3d 202, 208.) "If a statute's language is clear, then the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs." (Kizer v. Hanna '(1989) 48 CaUd 1, 8.) An "agreement" is commonly defined as "the act of agreeing or coming to a mutual arrangement . . . harmonious understanding . . . ." (Webster's Third New Internat. Dict (1971) p. 43.) The term is not ordinarily understood to involve involuntary or forced consent. We find nothing in the statute suggesting that a local agency may impose an agreement upon a subdivider. Indeed, the language supports the contrary conclusion by indicating the course of action a local agency may take if an agreement cannot be reached with the subdivider ("in the absence of an agreement, a Iocal agency may . . . ."). The Iegislative history of section 66411.1's most recent amendment in 1994 supports the determination that an agreement may not be forced upon the subdivider. The report of the Senate Committee of Local Government dated July 6, 1994, indicates that "jc]onstmction of improvements are not required until development of the property, unless the city or county determines they are necessary because of health and safety reasons." No suggestion is contained in the committee reports that a local agency may require construction of improvements by imposing an agreement upon the subdivider. In 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 344, 346-349 (1988), we concluded that a city and a county were not required to reach an agreement regarding the transfer of property tax revenues in a city annexation proceeding, since the statute in question only required them to "commence negotiations." Here, under the terms of section 66411.1, the Legislature has not even required negotiations. 6. 94-809