Agenda Item Wording:
title
Subdivision streamlining ordinance discussion - Provide staff direction toward initiating a zone text amendment within Visalia Municipal Code Title 16 (subdivision ordinance) based on multiple factors including, but not limited to, changes in planning and zoning law; consistency with zoning ordinance changes; streamlining of subdivision review. This item is scheduled for the Work Session; if not completed, it may be continued during the Regular Session portion of this meeting.
body
Agenda Date: 03/02/2026
Prepared by:
Jarred Olsen, AICP, Principal Planner, jarred.olsen@visalia.gov, (559) 713-4449
Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, paul.bernal@visalia.gov, (559) 713-4025
Department Recommendation:
Receive staff report and presentation and provide staff with direction on a subdivision streamlining ordinance.
Summary:
The State of California Housing and Community Development Department (“HCD”) is encouraging local agencies to find ways to reduce government constraints on the supply of housing, and is offering grants to local agencies that qualify for a “Prohousing Designation” by HCD. In seeking ways to facilitate housing by reducing “barriers” to housing developments, staff has identified methods to streamline the subdivision mapping process and would like Council’s input and direction on whether to prepare an ordinance to implement some or all of these methods. Staff is seeking direction from Council on the following:
1. Would Council support an amendment to the subdivision ordinance to subject the following types of subdivisions to a streamlined process?
a. Residential tentative maps of 80 lots or 80 units or less, that do not require a General Plan Amendment, annexation (prezone), change of zone, conditional use permit, variance, or a planned unit/residential development permit (“other discretionary permits”).
b. Non-residential tentative maps (i.e., parcel maps for commercial/industrial developments), that do not require other discretionary permits (CUP, Variances, etc.).
2. Would Council support identifying a designated official as an administrative staff-level advisory agency for the streamlined process?
3. Would Council support establishing an administrative hearing process where noticing is limited to nearby property owners and residents?
Staff and Planning Commission recommend that City Council initiate a streamlining ordinance based on information provided in the staff report.
If authorized to proceed, staff will commence with outreach to stakeholders to inform them of this update as a draft ordinance is being worked on and prior to scheduling the proposed ordinance for public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council.
Background Discussion:
The California legislature has made several changes to the process of regulating the design and improvement of residential subdivisions with the intent on streamlining the process for “missing middle” housing that is, housing that meets the density identified in the General Plan but may have difficulty developing due to a site’s small size. “Missing middle” housing can consist of duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, zero lot line homes, and townhouses. These include “urban lot splits”, duplexes on single-family lots, and small lot starter homes.
The State has also been asking local jurisdictions to reduce governmental constraints to housing developments. As part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, staff identified new policies and programs to help further promote the development of housing. These are as follows:
• HE Policy 1.4 - The City shall encourage a mix of residential development types in the city, including single family homes, on a variety of lot sizes, as well as townhomes, row houses, live-work units, planned unit developments, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family housing.
• HE Policy 5.8 - The City shall work to remove governmental constraints to housing development.
• HE Program 1.3 Conditional Use Permit Process - “[…] In response to current constraints identified by stakeholders related to multi-family development on large lots, the City shall amend the zoning code to establish objective design standards and increase the maximum unit threshold for by-right processing from 80 units to 200 units.”
• HE Program 3.17 Planning for Large Sites - “[…] adopt incentives to encourage the development of large RHNA sites (over 10 acres) potentially including, but not limited to, expedited approval of lot splits or creation of new parcels; waiving of the public hearing requirement related to parcel maps […]”
Consistent with HE Policy 5.8, staff has identified a potential avenue to reduce governmental constraints to housing developments by streamlining the subdivision process by eliminating review for certain types of mapping projects from a public meeting.
On January 12th and February 9th, staff provided Planning Commission with a Work Session staff report and presentation regarding direction and input on a potential Subdivision Streamlining Ordinance and process that could be drafted and potentially considered for Council adoption.
During these Work Session discussions, several items were discussed, as noted below:
1. Would Planning Commission support a Subdivision Streamlining Ordinance to streamline:
a. Residential tentative maps of no greater than 80 lots or 80 units, without other discretionary permits?
b. Nonresidential tentative maps, without other discretionary permits?
c. Tentative maps of any size, consistent with an applicable Specific Plan?
d. Minor modifications to approved tentative maps?
2. Would Planning Commission support identifying a designated official as an administrative staff-level advisory agency for the streamlined process?
3. Would Planning Commission support a streamlined process that limited noticing to nearby property owners and residents?
At the February 9, 2026 meeting, Commissioners voted 4-0 (one Commissioner absent) to put forth a recommendation to such a streamlining process with respect to questions 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. While their vote was unanimous, some Commissioners shared concerns regarding this type of process and the impacts it could create by potentially eliminating the public hearing process. Concerns raised by some Commissioners include:
1. Delegating the approval process to a designated official could be demanding on that staff person especially if that designated official has a significant workload.
2. A streamlined process could deprive the public of the opportunity to comment on a project or could limit the public’s ability to engage in ensuring the project’s impacts are adequately addressed.
3. The ability to have the designated official remain impartial.
Staff’s analysis and response to these concerns are discussed below. Staff intends to return to Planning Commission to further discuss questions 1c and 1d, at a later date, as staff concluded, based on comments received by the Commission, that staff’s effort on a potential streamlined approach for residential subdivision maps and nonresidential tentative maps should focus on these types of projects that are “simplistic” and do not have other entitlements associated with them.
Based on information provided below, staff would seek direction from the Council on the following questions:
Question 1a: Would Council support an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to subject residential tentative maps of 80 lots or 80 units or less, that do not require a General Plan Amendment, annexation (prezone), change of zone, conditional use permit, variance, or a planned unit/residential development permit (“other discretionary permits”), to a streamlined process?
Question 1b: Would Council support an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to subject nonresidential tentative maps, without other discretionary permits, to a streamlined process?
Staff Analysis: Currently multifamily development projects in multifamily zones are approved administratively if the development is equal to or less than 80 units and comply with the City’s General Plan and Zoning requirements. Multifamily projects larger than the 80 unit threshold, or seek deviations from standards, require a Conditional Use Permit and a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission.
Staff reviewed this 80 unit metric for housing and concluded that by applying the same or similar standard to residential subdivisions (i.e., 80 lots/units or less), it could help facilitate an incentive to developers to develop long-forgotten infill sites, and to encourage developers to submit development proposals that don’t require other discretionary permits.
Over the past decade, staff has identified 10 residential subdivisions, averaging approximately 34 lots per subdivision, that would have benefited from such a process. These identified subdivisions are included in Exhibit “A”. Because these tentative maps were simplistic, did not have any other entitlement request associated with the maps, and complied with all adopted and/or codified standards, staff concludes these types of maps could have benefited from a “streamlined” process.
With respect to non-residential tentative maps, staff has identified three non-residential maps as examples which are included in Exhibit “B”. It is estimated that there are twenty non-residential maps processed during this same timeframe that could have benefited from a “streamlined” process as well.
Most non-residential projects are not subject to a discretionary process; however, the subdivision of land typically is. The City has historically required a public hearing for these projects, which adds additional layers of staff time and preparation. These projects, like the residential subdivision projects described above, do not request other discretionary permits that would warrant Planning Commission’s review and approval (i.e., CUP, variance, PRD, etc.). These non-residential parcel splits generally consist of subdividing existing developed commercial, office or industrial land for the purpose of sale, lease, or finance. If a non-residential development was seeking to subdivide land that required a discretionary permit, such non-residential parcel splits would not be subject to a streamlining process and would require Planning Commission’s review and approval.
Essentially, the criteria for these small and simple maps would be as follows:
1. The site is located within City limits, and thus does not need an annexation;
2. The proposed land uses and densities/intensities are consistent with the General Plan, and thus do not need a General Plan amendment;
3. The proposed uses are permitted in the applicable zoning district, and thus do not need a change of zone or Conditional Use Permit;
4. The project meets the City’s adopted standards for lot area, width, depth, public street frontage, and development engineering standards, and thus did not need a variance, exception to objective design standards, or planned unit/residential development permit; and,
5. With respect to the residential tentative subdivision maps, authorized development of a unit count equal to or less than the City’s by-right approval limit of 80 dwelling units in multifamily zones.
Recommendation: Direct staff to consider drafting an ordinance, for future consideration, on a streamlining process to facilitate the review and approval process for these small and simple subdivisions because they do not require permits that would otherwise require Planning Commission’s approval.
Please note Planning Commission was split on these questions, and their concerns revolved around staff demand, the ability to remain impartial, and concern of considering comments received by the public. Staff’s response can be found below under the “concerns from Planning Commission” section of the staff report.
Question 2: Would Council support identifying a designated official as an administrative staff-level advisory agency for the streamlined process?
Staff Analysis: The Subdivision Map Act allows City Council to delegate subdivision decision-making to an advisory agency, which is defined as “a designated official or an official body charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on the design and improvement of proposed divisions of real property, the imposing of requirements or conditions thereon, or having the authority by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove maps.” City Council currently does this by delegating this task to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that a designated official could be designated as the advisory agency for review and approval for small and simple subdivisions and/or simple non-residential tentative parcel maps. The benefit of having a “designated official” as the decisionmaker is their technical expertise and availability. A designated official could be the City Manager or their designee (ex. Assistant City Manager, or Director) . Allowing a designee is important as impartiality is a requirement-a staff person could be disqualified if a conflict of interest arose (i.e. owned property near the project site). Given that no additional permits are needed for these types of tentative maps, the “designated official” could make decisions on these applications. These decisions would be made administratively, which means that decision is rendered in writing, not at a scheduled public meeting.
Alternatively, and not recommended by Planning Commission or staff, an official body or committee could be formed, that could consist of anyone, such as staff, community members, planning commissioners, councilmembers, or other technical experts. Committees, with multiple persons serving, potentially offer a wider range of opinions, and a quorum can still be established in the event of a conflict of interest, which could ensure decisions are made without delays. However, finding members to sit on the committee, scheduling (and rescheduling) the committee, establishing sufficient quorum to start the meeting, making the meeting open to the public to allow for the viewing of the committee’s deliberation in order to comply with the Brown Act, and the staff resources necessary to carry out those tasks, runs counter to the intent of streamlining the process and could be viewed that this committee would be no different than having these types of maps heard by the Planning Commission.
Recommendation: Direct staff to consider drafting a streamlining subdivision/parcel map ordinance that includes a “designated official”, preferably listing the City Manager or their designee, as the decisionmaker to review and approve simple subdivision maps and non-residential tentative parcel maps.
Question 3: Would Council support establishing an administrative hearing process where noticing is limited to nearby property owners and residents?
Staff Analysis: Reviewing jurisdictions who have a process that codifies “simple” mapping processing and delegates the approvals to a “designated official”, staff has outlined a preliminary review of how this process could be reviewed through an administrative hearing process that does not require a public meeting. Below is the process, which also includes deviations to the current existing “mapping” process which are noted in italicized font:
1. A subdivision proposal is received and reviewed by Site Plan Review staff.
2. Once Site Plan Review staff issues a “Revise and Proceed”, the applicant prepares and submits a Tentative Map application and its associated exhibits, documents, and any additional material as required.
3. Staff formally reviews the proposal and verifies the application for completeness within 30 days (which is consistent with Permit Streamlining Act [Government Code Section 65920]). Once the application has been determined to be complete, the applicant is notified.
4. Staff conducts the necessary environmental analysis and the necessary project analysis/evaluation along with conditions of project approval.
5. Notice is sent out to the applicant and nearby property owners and residents within 300 feet of the property about the tentative map, its environmental impact determination under CEQA, and a pending decision. Ten (10) days (20 to 30 days if not exempt from CEQA) are given to the applicant or any interested individuals or parties to review the proposal and staff’s analysis on the City’s website, provide comment, and request notification of the decision (if desired). No notice is placed in the newspaper which is authorized under CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(b)(3).
6. After the above notification time has elapsed, the designated official considers:
o the proposal,
o staff’s analysis, including environmental analysis, and
o comments received from the applicant and the public.
Once all information is reviewed, the designated official makes an administrative decision. A resolution of that decision and the findings made by the designated official would be prepared. A notice is sent to the applicant and those that requested notification of the decision and their findings. A 10-day appeal period would then commence.
7. Similar to the Site Plan Review appeal process, any appeal received during the 10-day period would be referred to the Planning Commission for review (Section 17.28.050 of the Zoning Ordinance). Notice of a public hearing would be provided to the applicant, mailed to property owners and residents with 300-feet of the project site or interested parties that requested to be notified if a decision is appealed, and noticed in the local newspaper. The process of appeals to City Council would remain the same as defined in Section 17.02.145 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The primary difference between this “streamlined” approach and what is currently practiced is the method of noticing and hearing. This process avoids costly newspaper notices (approximately $500 to $700 per project) that generally carry a six day lead time before it appears in the newspaper, which needs to be considered by staff in coordinating the dates for publishing notice with the date of the public hearing. Under this proposal the hearing would be conducted in writing, rather than in a public meeting. As noted below under the proposed benefits, City staff anticipate that the proposal would reduce the processing time for qualifying projects by as much as thirty days.
If an individual that receives a notice is not interested in the project, they need not respond to the notice. They will not receive notification of the decision. This is akin to receiving a public hearing notice now.
If an individual wishes to provide a comment, they can do so up until the time of the decision being made. This is akin to attending a public hearing now.
If an individual wishes to appeal the decision, they can do so up until the 10th day after the decision is made. This is akin to appealing a determination by the Site Plan Review staff.
The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to this approach.
Concerns from Planning Commission
Additional Demand on Staff:
In the past 10 years, staff identified about 10 residential subdivisions totaling 344 dwelling units (or 34 dwelling units per year) that would have benefitted from such a streamlining provision. In the same time period, subdivisions totaling approximately 6,200 dwelling units were approved. Less than six percent of the housing units constructed would have been streamlined.
With respect to non-residential parcel maps, the majority of these applications are noncontroversial as they generally seek to subdivide previously developed land for sale, lease, or finance, and only under rare circumstances would authorize development (and are not proposed for streamlining.) The majority of staff’s time is spent ensuring that adequate access is provided to each parcel and maintenance of common spaces is required.
Staff estimate that this proposal would reduce demands on city staff. Approximately five hours of staff time per application would be saved if a public hearing was not required, and therefore staff disagrees that a streamlining process would be burdensome. For these reasons, staff recommends that a streamlined process includes, at minimum, the projects discussed in Question 1a and 1b.
Staff Impartiality
Planning staff are employees who make or influence governmental decisions and thus are required under the California Fair Political Practices Act to submit a Statement of Economic Interest, also known as the Form 700. The Form 700 provides transparency and ensures accountability in two ways:
1. It provides necessary information to the public about an official’s personal financial interests to ensure that officials are making decisions in the best interest of the public and not enhancing their personal finances.
2. It serves as a reminder to the public official of potential conflicts of interest so the official can abstain from making or participating in governmental decisions that are deemed conflicts of interest.
Staff is already required to acknowledge conflicts of interest when assigned to a project. As discussed under Question 2, the administrative hearing process would allow for the designated official to delegate their decision-making responsibility on a case-by-case basis to avoid conflicts of interest.
For this reason, staff recommends that a streamlined process includes, at minimum, the projects discussed in Question 1a and 1b and a designated official as described in Question 2.
Receptiveness to Public Comment
No matter who the designated official is, they are required to receive public comment, whether that comment is received at a public meeting or in written format, and that a decision is made after receiving and considering those comments. The proposed process under Question 3 would allow the public to review the application and staff’s analysis for ten days prior to the decision being made. This amount of time is already afforded to the public. Comments would be received in written format, which would be forwarded to the decisionmaker for consideration.
For this reason, staff recommends that a streamlined process includes, at minimum, the projects discussed in Question 1a and 1b, a designated official as described in Question 2, and a written administrative hearing process as described in Question 3.
Benefits
Reduced Processing Time. For these small and simple maps, staff anticipates reducing the timeframe to approval by about a month, given that staff can initiate an administrative hearing without worrying about the typical twice-per-month Planning Commission schedule.
Housing Accountability Act. This housing provision requires that the City make a determination for small housing projects that they comply, conform, or are consistent with all applicable plans, regulations, programs, ordinances, etc. within 30 days of the complete development application, or else the application is deemed to comply, conform, or are consistent with said requirements [Gov. Code § 65589.5 subdivision (j)(2)(A)(i)]. A more streamlined process can help staff make that determination more quickly.
Compliance with Processing Timeframes. The Subdivision Map Act requires that a tentative map be decided on within 50 days of a complete application, which begins once a project has completed its environmental review, or else it is deemed approved. With projects that are exempt from CEQA, which small projects are more likely to be, that timing is even more critical.
Prohousing Designation. While the City has not pursued this, efforts such as this would increase the likelihood of receiving a Prohousing Designation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. A benefit of this designation, aside from additional points for grants for affordable housing in the City, is that the City would be eligible to receive over $750,000 in planning and implementation grants to help promote and construct affordable housing. In 2024, Tulare County received its designation and was awarded $1.1 million in grants.
Next Steps
Should City Council direct staff to move forward with a subdivision streamlining ordinance, staff will conduct outreach to local stakeholders to discuss the finer details with respect to the types of subdivisions to be streamlined, and the procedures for processing and noticing. Once complete, staff will begin drafting an ordinance which will be available for public comment prior to scheduling any future public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption.
Fiscal Impact including annual maintenance and operating costs: None at this time. If an ordinance was adopted, staff anticipates operational cost savings on a per-application basis, although the streamlining measure could encourage the submittal of more applications.
Prior Council Action:
On December 1, 2023, City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, which included the aforementioned HE Policy 5.8.
Alternatives: Per Council direction.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
recommendation
I move to direct staff to begin the preparation of a subdivision streamlining ordinance for future consideration that will also address:
1. Residential tentative maps of 80 lots or 80 units or less, that do not require a general plan amendment, annexation (prezone), change of zone, conditional use permit, variance, or a planned unit/residential development permit (“other discretionary permits”).
2. Identifying a designated official as an administrative staff-level advisory agency for the streamlined process.
3. Includes provisions establishing an administrative hearing process where noticing is limited to nearby property owners and residents.
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: The requested action, directing staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for review, would be considered not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the proposed subdivision ordinance amendment would not cause either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Once an ordinance amendment is brought back to City Council, it be reviewed for environmental impacts under CEQA. It is assumed, at this point in time, that the ordinance amendment would not be considered a project under CEQA because the City would continue to have the discretion and authority to mitigate environmental impacts of each individual project under CEQA, where discretion is afforded to the City.
Deadline for Action: N/A
Attachments:
1. Exhibit “A” - Residential Tentative Subdivision Maps
2. Exhibit “B” - Nonresidential Tentative Maps
Strategic Goal:
