10b
25-88672
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program 1) Motion to initiate code amendment related to transfer of development rights (TDR) program, and provide direction on program parameters;
2) Motion to note and file report.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for February 24, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council to initiate a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow unused development potential from underutilized City- owned properties—such as parking lots or remnant parcels—to be sold and transferred to private developments in designated high-growth areas such as the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) or Tropico. This program aims to increase housing production, generate revenue, and manage future development by creating a regulated marketplace for transferring density, while maintaining inclusionary zoning and other development standards. This will also assist in directing growth into preferred areas of the City.
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council review this report and provide direction regarding TDR.
ANALYSIS
In prior Council sessions, discussions have been had regarding creating a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. This has been considered in regards to consolidating development potential amongst private sites, to serving as a tool for revenue generation for the City and opportunities to achieve housing goals established within the Housing Element. The report before Council considers the opportunity of utilizing and transferring through sales, untapped development potential across City owned properties. The transfer and sale of such potential could enhance overall housing production while also generating much needed revenue for the City. 10b2
25-88672
6 6
4 3
A TDR program works through the transfer and sale of unused development potential, and allowing it to be built at an alternatively approved location. These are known as receiver and donor sites. The sites transferring potential away are donors and the sites building the transferred potential are receivers. TDR programs have been used in cities such as San Jose, Cupertino, and Palo Alto and in various counties across the State and region. These programs have been used to protect agricultural land, sensitive natural environments, and historic sites while also operating to comply with housing requirements and/or to generate revenue. TDR programs have also been identified by the California Air Resources Board as a tool to support greenhouse gas reduction through optimized infill development. TDR programs can be utilized where both donor and receiver are property owners, or where the donor is a government entity with the receiver being a private deveoper.
Currently, the City owns a substantial amount of property for various uses and needs.
This includes surface parking lots, civic service buildings, and remnant undeveloped parcels. In most of these cases, the City has little to no interest in significant changes or future development, such as highly used parking lots, fire stations, public utility yards, or irregular shaped lots that have a low chance of development. Regardless, many of these have existing zoning or proposed zoning that exceeds the current build out, or future plans. These represent opportunities to transfer and sell this unused potential to private developments that could assist in housing production or to make a proposed development more viable.
For example, a parking lot of 50,000 square feet may have the potential for 100 residential units to be built. Financial dynamics, community sentiment, or City interest may preclude seeking a development on the site but represent a missed opportunity for residential dwelling units or much needed revenue. A developer at a receiving site may desire to include additional units, above the existing by-right development capacity. The receiving developer could have the opportunity to purchase all or some of the 100 unbuilt units on the City owned parcel and include them in a new proposed development. This transaction is often sold by a cost per square foot basis. This revenue is transferred to the City through a sale agreement, and the private developer may include this additional development potential and units as part of their new project.
This transaction is recorded through a legal instrument, such as a covenant or development agreement. This ensures that the private developer does not exceed the agreed upon amount outlined in the transaction, and the potential parcels that could once be built on (City-owned property) is now encumbered to another lot, legally binding both parties to the agreement. The private developer can build more on the receiver site, while the City is now restricted with the benefit of the revenue from the sale. 10b3
25-88672
6 6
4 3
Through this process, the City would establish a market place and a bank of unbuilt potential across City owned parcels. A base level price per square foot or dwelling unit would be established, with the amount reevaluated based upon market conditions every few years. This ensures that the price for each unit sold is representative of the market conditions and not below market.
In addition to identifying properties and price, the City would also want to establish other elements that would serve as a regulatory framework. These variables include:
The areas of the City that would have eligible receiving properties. The total amount that could be sold and transferred to a single receiving site. Requirements regarding affordable housing.
Relationship to existing development standards.
Approval authority and process for the sale and transfer.
Staff is seeking direction regarding these policies, as they relate to a TDR program.
Staff recommends that receiving properties be limited to high growth areas such as downtown and Tropico, that the total limit for transfer is no more than a 10 to 25% increase over the allowed density of any receiving site, that the City’s inclusionary zoning policy apply to the transferred area, that all development standards be retained with the exception of modest increases to height as it relates to the additional buildable area, and that staff reviews and approves based on this criteria and ultimately recorded through a covenant or development agreement.
This program would be applicable where City properties are the donor sites, and not applicable between private developers and transactions. Additionally, staff had received prior direction from Council to develop a program that would allow for the transfer between properties that are under common ownership. Staff requests that this alternative be included as it can assist in guiding and directing growth, particularly near sensitive or low-density areas. The City could charge a modest administrative fee for the process.
Staff is not proposing that this be considered for properties under consideration as part of the update to the Land Use Element. While a meaningful tool that could restrict development in those areas through displacement to preferred areas, staff believes that the consideration and conversation regarding the Land Use Element should be concluded before apply such policy. This could be addressed at a later date.
Additionally, staff believes that this could be applied as a mitigating measure to State legislation such as SB79, which can also be considered at a later date 10b4
25-88672
6 6
4 3
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Revenue would be generated from the sale of undeveloped potential. This amount would be determined following a study of its value. Revenue could also be developed through an administrative fee for common ownership transfer for the process of recording and reviewing the transfer.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Not applicable. The need for environment review will be assessed during development of the TDR program.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Council may elect not to provide direction on developing the TDR program and the regulating parameters.
Alternative 2: The City Council may elect to note and file the report.
Alternative 3: The Council may consider any other alternative not presented by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.