TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California

DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General

______________________________________

OPINION : : No. 97-1209 of :

: May 28, 1998 DANIEL E. LUNGREN : Attorney General :

: ANTHONY M. SUMMERS :

Deputy Attorney General :

:

______________________________________________________________________
THE HONORABLE TOM J. BORDONARO, JR., MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY, has requested an opin ion on the following question:

When a tentative map has been validly "deem ed approved" under th e Subdivision Map Act by the failure of the legislativ e body of a city or county to take timely action to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove it, is such map entitled to be treated in the same manner as a tentative map that has been approv ed by a vote of the legislative body?

CONCLUSION

When a tentative map has been validly "deem ed approved" under th e Subdivision Map Act by the failure of the legislativ e body of a city or county to take timely action to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove it, such map is entitled to be treated in the same manner as a tentative map that has been approved by a vot e of the legislative body, provided that the map complies with all applicable prov isions of the Subdivision Map Ac t and local ordinances enacted thereunder.

ANALYSIS

The Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §§ 66410-66499.37; "Act") Footnote No. 1 provides the legislative body of a city, c ounty, or city and c ounty, with the power to regulate the design and improvement of subdivisions within its jurisdiction. (See The Pines v. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29 Cal.3d 656; Associated Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal.3d 633; Benny v. City of Alameda (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 1006.) A pe rson proposing a subdivision creating five or more parcels must prepare a nd obtain approval of both a tentative and finalsubdivision map. (§ 66426.) The tentative map mu st be considered and approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved by either an advisory agen cy authorized to make the decision, or by the legislative body, within specified time limits. (§ 66452.2.) When these time limits are not met, the tentative map is "deemed approv ed" under the terms of section 66452.4:

"If no action is taken upon a tentative map by an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approv e, or disapprove the tentative map or by the legislative body within the time limits specified in this chapter or a ny authorized extension thereof, the tentative map as filed, shall be deem ed to be approved, insofar as it complies with other applicable requirements of th is division and local ordinance, and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the legislative body to certify or state his or her approval."

We are asked whether a tenta tive map that has been validly Footnote No. 2 "deemed approved" because it was not approved, condition ally approved, or disapproved by timely action of the legislative body of a local agency is entitle d to the same treatment as a map that has been approved in a timely manner. We conclude thata deemed approved map is entitled to equal treatment provided that it complies with all applicable requirements of the Act and local ordinances enacted thereunder.

We note initially that a tentative map that has been approved or conditionally approved generally expires 24 months after approval or conditional approval. (§ 66452.6, subd. (a).) An approved or conditionally approve d map may be extended for vari ous reasons, which may result in the map having a life of over 10 years. (See Griffis v. County of Mono (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 414, 428.) Extensions of tentative maps are authorized by sections 66452.6, 66452.11, 66452.13, and 66463.5, and each of these statutes refers to extensions of appr oved or conditionally approved maps. For example, subdivi sion (c) of section 66463.5 provides:

"Upon application of the subdivider filed prio r to the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map, the time at which the map expires may be extended by the legislative body or by an advisory agency au thorized to approve or conditionally approve tentative maps for a period or periods not exceeding a total of five years. . . ."

No express mention is made in these statutes of a "deemed approved" map. Is such a map eligible for equal treatment by being included with in these statutes as an "approved" tentative map?

In interpreting the Act, we rely on well-estab lished principles of statutory construction. The words of a statute are to be given "t heir usual and ordinary meaning." ( DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc

. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601.) When "statutory langua ge is . . . clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it." ( Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 73.) The plain meaning of words in a statute ma y be disregarded only when that meaning is "'repugnant to the general purview of the act,' or for some other compelling reason. . . ." ( Tiernan

v. Trustees of Cal. Stat e University & Colleges (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211, 219.)

The term "deemed approved" with respect to a tentative map plainly means that the map is to be considered as having been approve d. The words "deemed" and "considered" aresynonymous. (See Webster's Third New Internat . Dict. (1971) pp. 483-484, 589.) That being the case, there is no reason why a "deemed approved" map should not be treated in the same manner as one that has actually been approved. Courts ha ve determined that "deemed approval" is the legal equivalent of actua l approval in a variety of circumstances. (See Ciani v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1604, 1613 ["a 'deemed approved' permit is a permit which bears all the legal entitlements of a tangible permit issued by the agency"]; Orsiv. City Council (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1576, 1588; Griffis v. County of Mono

, supra , 163 Cal.App.3d at 428-429; see also 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 233, 243 (1979).)

Section 66452.4, however, specifies that a tentative map is deemed approved only "insofar as it complies with all applicable requirements of [the Act] and local or dinance." Accordingly, a tentative map must conform to a ll applicable provisions of the Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto if it is to qualify as be ing deemed approved under the statute. (See Pongputmong v. City of Santa Monica (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 99, 105; Ciani v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank

, supra , 233 Cal.App.3d at 1618-1620; Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 403, 408-410.)

We conclude that when a tentative map has been validly deemed approved under the Act by the failure of the legislative body of a city or county to take timely action to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove it, such map is entitled to be treated in the same manner as a tentative map that has been approved by a vot e of the legislative body, provided that the map complies with all applicable prov isions of the Act and local or dinances enacted thereunder.

* * * * *

Footnote No. 1 All references to the Government Code her eafter will be by section number alone. Footnote No. 2 We assume that the approval has met constitutional re quirements such as prior notice and hearing. (See Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612-616; Selinger v. City Council (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 259, 270.)