SMA Section 66452.24 - Long term intent??

[Tom Herrin]

If you read part (a) of each of sections 66452.21, 66452.22, and 66452.23, it is clear that these sections provide for an automatic extension of subdivision map expiration dates that applies only to maps from a specific window of time. When looking at 66452.24 (a), however, the language has been changed from these earlier sections, and through a strict reading of the language, it does not appear to be limited to a specific window, but rather to all maps that have been approved after 1/1/2000, and not expired as of the date that section became effective (7/11/2013). If a map were approved today, would this section still apply? A case could be made that the map had 'not expired' prior to 7/11/2013, and that it was approved after 7/1/2000, thereby meeting the conditions of 66452.24.

For reference:
66452.24. (a) The expiration date of any tentative map, vesting tentative
map, or parcel map for which a tentative map or vesting tentative map, as
the case may be, that was approved on or after January 1, 2000, and that
has not expired on or before the effective date of the act that added this
section, shall be extended by 24 months.

Was the intent of this section only to apply to maps that were created prior to 7/11/2013, or do we now have a permanent, automatic 2 year extension until this is cleared up? Or am I just missing something here?

[Warren Smith]

I have read this to apply to tentative maps which had been approved prior to the 7/11/2013 date. Legislation cannot be prospective, unless explicitly stated. After all, the passage of 66452.25 picked up the next round of extensions for specified counties. San Joaquin and San Bernardino didn't meet those criteria.

[Warren Smith]

Tom,

There was an interesting thread on this topic called "SMA expiration dates" started on July 9 last year.

[Tom Herrin]

Thanks for the heads up on the other thread.

My question on 66452.24 is why the change in language? When looking at the the language for AB116, the assembly bill that pushed through 66452.24, it states "This bill would extend by 24 months the expiration date of any approved tentative map or vesting tentative map that was approved on or after January 1, 2000" with no further qualification. If the intent was to have the extension sunset at some point, why not continue to use the old language, which worked fine? Was the change for a purpose or was it just careless in its wording?

" Legislation cannot be prospective, unless explicitly stated" - I am still digesting this one.

Thanks again Warren.

[dedkad]

" Legislation cannot be prospective, unless explicitly stated" - I am still digesting this one.

Thanks again Warren.

I am trying to figure what Warren meant on that one too.

Our agency interprets the language to apply only to those maps that were in existence prior to 7/11/13. A map approved today would not get the automatic extension because that would mean that all maps would get a 4-year initial life, which is in conflict with 66452.6.

Attached is a calculator someone in my office created to help with the analysis of tentative map expiration dates.

[Warren Smith]

Prospective legislation would be an act which reaches into the future. If 66452.24 had intended to affect all maps not yet in existence at the time of its effective date, it would have required specific language to that effect. The mere presence (in context) of the reference to all tentative maps which had been approved after 2000 cannot be construed to speak to those which have not been submitted prior to the chaptering of the bill. As emergency legislation, certain findings must be made, and prospective effect was not among them.

There is case law dealing with County boundary adjustments which speak to this aspect of legislation. See 142 Cal. 50 (1904).