The Land Use Committee discussed a pilot program Monday morning that would allow property owners to transfer unused housing density between properties along the University Avenue corridor, potentially unlocking development on 14 long-vacant city-owned lots.
The Land Use Committee discussed a pilot program Monday morning that would allow property owners to transfer unused housing density between properties along the University Avenue corridor, potentially unlocking development on 14 long-vacant city-owned lots.
The University Avenue Residential Density Transfer Pilot Program would enable property owners to move residential development rights from "donor sites" with unused capacity to "receiving sites" that could benefit from additional housing units, Assistant Planner Marisol Ramirez told the committee.
"A density transfer would allow the receiving site to increase its residential capacity from what is currently permitted based on the underlying zone and land use designation, allowing more housing units to be developed on the receiving property," Ramirez said.
The program targets the University Avenue Specific Plan corridor, which contains 138 parcels with only about 900 housing units despite approval for up to 6,819 units. The corridor includes 14 vacant city-owned surplus properties that have struggled to attract developers because of low permitted housing capacity.
Three of the surplus properties allow fewer than 10 units each, while all 14 permit fewer than 30 units per property, according to Ramirez. Combined, the surplus properties can accommodate only 210 housing units under current zoning.
Donor sites would permanently forfeit their residential development rights through deed restrictions after transferring capacity to receiving properties, ensuring the overall housing capacity within the specific plan area remains unchanged.
Staff presented three program models: a 1-to-1 direct transfer between properties with similar development standards, transfers between properties with different zoning classifications, and a credit bank system where unused density can be deposited and withdrawn by developers.
City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, whose ward includes much of University Avenue, supported the concept.
"The open parcels in University that are city owned have been a lot of work in my four years to definitely try to see how we could develop and be creative with trying to get developers to come in and hopefully build," Cervantes said. "Some of them are very small."
Committee Chair Sean Mill also expressed enthusiasm for addressing the vacant lots.
"As you go down University Avenue, one of the things that drives me the craziest is you see these lots but it has like a for sale sign and it's our for sale sign," Mill said.
Staff recommended starting with a credit bank model focused on city-owned surplus sites, particularly the 11 vacant properties designated as housing element sites under state requirements. The city could seed the bank with unused residential capacity from underutilized properties.
The program would operate within a high-quality transit corridor as defined by state law. Properties in this area are exempt from parking requirements under Assembly Bill 2097, potentially giving developers more flexibility.
"Since there is no code requirement for parking, we can consider alternative arrangements because at that point it's really a market question," a staff member said.
Cervantes raised concerns about parking impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
"The reality is we still live in Southern California where even if, and I love the concept of people walking up in University, going to use RTA line, going to the Metrolink, you know, and using that to get to their destination of work. But if they still are again working here in the region, they're going to likely need a car," she said.
The committee discussed implementing a hybrid approach allowing both direct transfers between property owners and withdrawals from a city-managed credit bank.
Malissa McKeith, a caller representing CURE, supported the concept but raised concerns about long-term complications.
"The idea of being able to transfer and then transfer back I think would make for some long term planning complications potentially because someone could transfer density credits on let's say 20 acres in the greenbelt that we then assume is the city is never going to be developed and then 10 years later gets transferred back," McKeith said.
Staff acknowledged the concern and indicated they could explore program design elements to limit such reversals, pending legal review.
The committee directed staff to prepare the proposal for full City Council consideration rather than returning to the Land Use Committee. Staff will include examples from other cities that have implemented similar programs.
