Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: SE requirements (LA high rises)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 10:17 AM 10/13/97 +0500, you wrote:

snip

>Does anyone know what the legal basis would be to challenge a local 
>requirement to use an SE?
>
>Tom VanDorpe, P.E.
>VCA Engineers
>Orange, CA
>

Without expressing an opinion as to the merits, the issue would be
preemption or conflict with the general laws of the state. Article XI,
section 7, of the California Constitution provides: "A county or city may
make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other
ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." But note, the
City of Los Angeles, as a charter city under the state Constitution, may
enact and enforce laws that conflict with general state laws, as long as the
city regulates a "municipal affair" rather than a matter of "statewide
concern." The question is: Is who is permitted to design high rises in Los
Angeles a "municipal affair" rather than a matter of "statewide concern?"
The fact, standing alone, that the Legislature has attempted to deal with a
particular subject on a statewide basis is not determinative of the issue as
between state and municipal affairs, nor does it impair the constitutional
authority of a home rule city or county to enact and enforce its own
regulations to the exclusion of general laws if the subject is held by the
courts to be a municipal affair rather than of statewide concern  Ask
yourself this question: "What paramount interest could the state have in
insisting that Engineers with less 'demonstrated' knowlegde and ability be
allowed to design high rise structures in an area of high seismic activity?"
On the other hand, as Chuck noted, can a local government narrow the
privileges granted by state law to the holder of a state-issued license.
Because further discussion of this area would take too much space, those
that desire more insight should read Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389
[14 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 841 P.2d 990].

Robert