California Surveyors Forums

I am looking for a list of the assembly bills that extended the Tentative Map expiration dates starting in 2008. I have a map that was approved in Sept. 2009 and I need to determine the current expiration date. The SMA doesn't list the AB associated with the extensions (at least not that I recognize). Does any one have a list by AB No's. and dates you could share?

You will want to look at the chaptered bills which comprise sections 66452.22, 66452.23, and 66452.24 to tally up the applicable extensions to your 2009 map.

The AB designation is useful for looking up legislative history. For example, AB 1303 is currently winding its way through committee as an extension which will impact only severe economically impacted Counties.

SB 1185 of the 07/08 session
AB 333 & 1084 of the 09/10 session
AB 208 of the11/12 session

Warren & Steffan,
Thank you both for replying. The problem I'm having is with Sec. 66452.24. I can't find an AB for the 24 mo. extension that took effect with the 2015 SMA. I have a county official that insists that Sec 66452.24 doesn't apply because I can't cite the AB that created it. Am I missing something? Moreover, is it my responsibility to cite the legislation that led to the SMA being amended? It seems that citing the applicable SMA section would suffice.

AB 116 per 13/14 session

Once the bill is chaptered, it is codified. In these cases, they were deemed emergency measures and became effective immediately.
You need only reference the applicable section of the SMA.

Thank you Warren. There seems to be some confusion among city and county planners how to interpret expiration date extensions.

This may help.

Note: In this chart, the "Original Expiration Date" is based on the State's 24 months and the local jurisdiction's ordinance allowing an additional 12 months per 66452.6(a)(1).

Nice matrix, Jon! However, I read AB 116 to add 24 months to any tentative map which had not expired prior to its effective date (7/11/13). On the other hand, if a tentative map was approved after that effective date, the extension would not apply.

So, unless another extension is granted this session, at some point expiration dates will get back to normal.

Warren Smith wrote:............. On the other hand, if a tentative map was approved after that effective date, the extension would not apply.

So, unless another extension is granted this session, at some point expiration dates will get back to normal.

Warren, I'm curious where you feel your statement is gleaned from 66452.24 (or AB 116)? 66452.24 doesn't have an end date termination clause as is found in the other extension sections (66452.21 et seq), which would lead to the interpretation that it is in effect in perpetuity until and unless future legislation is added to repeal or amend 66452.24.

Someone gave me the attached spreadsheet to calculate the expiration dates. It has been very helpful and I haven't found a mistake in it yet.

William Magee wrote:

Warren Smith wrote:............. On the other hand, if a tentative map was approved after that effective date, the extension would not apply.

So, unless another extension is granted this session, at some point expiration dates will get back to normal.

Warren, I'm curious where you feel your statement is gleaned from 66452.24 (or AB 116)? 66452.24 doesn't have an end date termination clause as is found in the other extension sections (66452.21 et seq), which would lead to the interpretation that it is in effect in perpetuity until and unless future legislation is added to repeal or amend 66452.24.

But it does have a start date, so it would not apply to any maps that are approved after 7/11/13. So eventually things will get back to normal.

dedkad wrote:
But it does have a start date, so it would not apply to any maps that are approved after 7/11/13. So eventually things will get back to normal.

I'm not clear on where you find that the effective date of the law somehow terminates the law itself? The legislature was careful to put in drop dead dates on the other extension sections (66452.21 -66452.23). They choose not to in 66452.24 either by will or by accident. Regardless, I find nothing that creates a termination of the law for any maps approved after the effective date of enactment. Creation of a start date does not by and of itself somehow also create a termination date as you state.

It certainly is an awkward construction. I can see a case being made that a tentative map approved after July 11, 2013 did not expire prior to that date and, hence, qualify for the extension.

It's almost the reverse of ex post facto ...

It would be less termination of the statute, as inapplicability.

Warren Smith wrote:It certainly is an awkward construction. ...

Not necessarily. It may well have been by design. With the number of extensions that have been granted the last few years, the legislature may very well have decided to let this one ride on the books with no end date.

It's interesting that AB 116 was introduced in January 2013 with a limiting clause which applied only to those tentative maps which had been approved and would expire prior to January 1, 2016. That was amended to its final form at the request of various building industry associations while in committee.

Urgency statutes require a two-thirds approval, and this received unanimous votes throughout its journey.

So would you agree it is in perpetuity and by design?

My impression is that it is an unintended consequence and, while capable of being interpreted to apply to tentative maps filed after its effective date (which have not expired prior to its passage) seems a bit of tortured logic. It is, after all, difficult to have an expiration date that precedes a map's existence. That is, the statute extended the life of approved tentative maps - not so much the yet-to-be-born ones.

Not at all. The U.S. went through a big economic downturn and the legislature started granting extensions on a continuous basis. In 2013 there was still a strong argument that the continued "recovery" warranted further extensions. After having already granted (3) 2-year extensions back to back, it is easy to understand a legislature that decided what the heck, why put an end date on it. The legislative history you quoted above provides evidence that the open ended period was by design. They purposely removed an end date.

Not only is the law to be interpreted in its plain language reading, the legislative history provides more than sufficient proof of intent.

I still view it in the overall context of the bill's purpose. In the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, the analyst wrote: "The author argues AB116 will keep currently approved construction projects and the jobs they create alive during these difficult economic times. The author points to previous efforts in 1993 and 1996, when the Legislature took emergency action to extend tentative tract [sic] maps and, as a result of those bills, homebuilding experienced a steady and level recovery beginning in the latter 1990s. The author adds homebuilders were able to return to their dormant subdivision maps and move forward with their projects and avoid having to begin anew an expensive, time consuming and complicated entitlement process."

When I say unintended consequence, the requested amendment was to limit the extension to those approvals after January 2000. Special findings for those older approvals that relate to General Plan updates must be complied with.
The striking out of the specified expiration date was addressed by subdivision (c) which brings forward all the preceding extensions. It remains consistent that it brings forward existing approvals - not those subsequent ones.

I've got a tentative map that WAS approved on 6/1/2015. It WAS approved after 1/1/2000. So 66452.24 would apply.

To follow your logic, certainly I'm not asking for recognition of the extension for a future tentative map for which I'm anticipating approval to come at the planning commission meeting on 8/1/2015.

I'll have to wait until 8/2/2015 to recognize the applicability of the extension to that particular map. ;-)

William Magee wrote:I've got a tentative map that WAS approved on 6/1/2015. It WAS approved after 1/1/2000. So 66452.24 would apply.

To follow your logic, certainly I'm not asking for recognition of the extension for a future tentative map for which I'm anticipating approval to come at the planning commission meeting on 8/1/2015.

I'll have to wait until 8/2/2015 to recognize the applicability of the extension to that particular map. ;-)

Maybe I've read too many legal documents and have become somewhat accustomed to the construction of them, but I don't see any issues or conflict regarding the language. It's very clear that in order to qualify for the extension granted by 66452.24, the tentative map needs to meet two criteria:

1. Map was approved on or after January 1, 2000; AND
2. Has not expired on or before the effective date of the act that added this section.

The effective date of that law was 7/11/13. It's ludicrous to argue that a map qualifies because it didn't exist on 7/11/13 and therefore was not expired.

The qualifier that the law only pertains to maps that haven't expired prior to 7/11/13 is for the purpose of excluding the argument for maps arising from the dead. No one is making an argument one way or the other regarding life of maps that expire after 7/11/13 as that is not an argument either pro or con. The debate is solely in regards to map approval date.

So the consensus is that my map approved on 8/13/2013 is extended by 66452.24. I'm trying to get that in writing from the planner