Laserfiche WebLink
Creek, 4 Cal. 3d 633 (1971). upholding park land dedication, <br />clearly indicated that cities now have much greater power <br />than they had previously. <br />In Soderlinq v. City of Santa Monica, 142 Cal. <br />App. 3d? 501 (1983), the court used these broader <br />definitions to uphold the validity of conditions attached, <br />through the subdivision prDcessand° i condominium installation ofsmrsion <br />oke <br />requiring building repairs <br />detectors. The court pointed out that under these <br />definitions and in order to achieve one of the objectives of <br />the city's general plan "to we <br />re valid housing andtepowerto <br />safe fl <br />these conditions in themselves <br />impose them need not be exercised by the specific enactment <br />of an ordinance or a promulga-ion of a regulation. <br />Thus it follows, because of the expanded <br />definitions of "design" and "improvement", with proper <br />general plan element language and appropriate enabling local <br />regulation either by ordinance or resolution, if necessary, <br />the City, under groper circumsncesia d uOd as a fees condition inlieu <br />of subdivision approval, require <br />thereof for the following improvements: child day care <br />centers, public art police stations, fire stations, <br />libraries and other such public fiofties thesenot <br />willmentioned <br />depend on <br />the Map Fact. Obviously, the extent <br />the size of the subdivision. In addition, the City could <br />require that certain dwelling units �estriction6 imposed e set aside for low and <br />so <br />moderate income housing and deed <br />that they remain so for a number of years. This is based on <br />the principle that if the City's general plan requires these <br />type of improvements the en subdivision <br />i moon since i t wust so illide or <br />not be <br />otherwise the City must y P <br />consistent with the general plan (S 66474). <br />obviously, if the city has the power to deny a map <br />because it is not consistent with the general plan, it can <br />again be argued that the city <br />himpose ecrap c r�fo®ms to the <br />map approval which would assure that <br />general plan. This is on the theory that the power to <br />reject for given fact implies hatp°wer to factor. See accept with <br />ic�� <br />conditions arrived at obviating <br />$era Park v, E a: +r, au r a e <br />4. 'diming of conditions and subsequent <br />conditions. <br />A city may impose only those conditions which it <br />has in effect at the time the application for the tentative <br />or parcel map has been completed pursuant to Section 65943. <br />Basically that is the time when the application has been <br />determined complete as filed pursuant to Permit Streamlining <br />-22- <br />