Woodland Hills committee keeps transfer-of-development-rights option in draft land-use goals; reviews design and housing guidance

The Woodland Hills Community Development Committee on May 12 reviewed draft goals and strategies for the general plan’s land-use element, voted to retain an optional transfer-of-development-rights provision in the draft goals, and discussed preferred design approaches for any future overlays or planned unit developments.

Committee Chair Kirsten Thompson opened the meeting and moved the committee into a discussion of the draft goals prepared by Daniel Jensen of Sunrise Engineering, who said the goals are intended to reflect residents’ preference for a “rural mountain community look and feel” while giving the City Council limited tools to manage where and how higher-density development could occur.

The committee voted to keep a provision describing a transfer-of-development-rights program (TDR) as an option in the draft land-use goals rather than strike it. The motion passed with four committee members voting aye and one voting nay.

The vote matters because the state law change discussed at the meeting allows development rights to be transferred across jurisdictional boundaries when all parties agree, Jensen said, and the draft goal would only present the mechanism as an optional tool the City Council could use. “It allows a transfer of development rights program to cross jurisdictional boundaries, should the various jurisdictions sign off on it,” Jensen explained. He described two variants: a private-to-private TDR and a purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) route in which a government entity buys rights and later sells them to a developer.

Why this matters: committee members said residents repeatedly prioritized preserving scenic hillsides, view corridors and trails, while still wanting limited options for housing that allow aging in place or modestly higher-density development in narrowly defined overlay areas. That tension—between preserving the community’s low-density character and creating a path for targeted, design-sensitive housing—shaped the discussion.

Key points from the discussion - Land-use direction and TDR: Jensen said the recently enacted Land Use Development Management Act (referred to in the meeting as the LUDMA/LODMA change) now permits cross-jurisdictional transfers of development rights. Committee members agreed to keep a non-mandatory TDR description in the general plan goals so the Council could consider the tool in the future. The committee emphasized that including the tool in the plan would not change current zoning or automatically authorize transfers. - Design guidance and overlays: Jensen and the committee discussed using overlays, PUDs and zoning tools to protect scenic resources and require hillside-sensitive design. Jensen noted state law limits the ability to impose architectural design guidelines on traditional single-family lots, so design guidance in the plan is aimed principally at mixed-use commercial or multifamily development proposed through overlays or PUDs. - Housing types and ‘‘village’’ preference: Committee members and public commenters stated a clear preference for village-style, mountain-oriented mixed-use development and high-quality smaller-scale multifamily (for example, manor-house or ‘‘villa flat’’ formats that resemble large single-family homes) over conventional apartment blocks or garage-dominant townhomes. Jensen said such products can provide ‘‘missing middle’’ and aging-in-place options without radically changing neighborhood character, provided they comply with local height and floor limits. - Constraints and limits: Several speakers reminded the committee that Woodland Hills’ current ordinance sets a 35-foot height limit and a two-story preference; one member cited the cost/need for additional fire apparatus if heights were raised. Committee members asked Jensen to ensure any images or examples in the public-facing draft represent only options that could meet existing limits unless the Council explicitly chooses to change the code. - Trails and amenities trade-offs: Members said a PUD-based approach that trades modestly higher density for public benefits—trail connections, open space and small parks—would be viewed more favorably by residents than stand-alone higher-density projects. - Placement of dark-sky language: Jensen said he plans to place dark-sky policies in the natural-environment element rather than land use; Carrie Malkovich, the city council liaison, noted there would be a dark-sky presentation at the council meeting the following night for committee members to review.

Decisions and next steps - The committee voted to retain the TDR language as an optional tool in the draft land-use goals. Vote record as recorded in the meeting: Laurie Thomas — aye; Brandy Johns — aye; Kirsten Thompson — aye; Chloe (note-taker, nonvoting but expressed support in chat) — aye; Severin Johnson — nay. Outcome: passed. - The April meeting minutes were moved and seconded for approval earlier in the meeting; that routine approval was recorded by the chair and treated as passed. - Jensen said he will circulate a fuller draft of the land-use section (full text rather than goals-only) to committee members later in the week and requested written comments back by May 31 so marketing can prepare a formatted draft before the June 23 meeting. Jensen also said he would swap or edit any illustrative images that imply heights or densities that conflict with local code.

What was not decided - The committee did not adopt any code changes or new ordinances. The discussion was limited to drafting goals and guidance for the general plan; any ordinance or zoning code changes would require a separate process, Planning Commission review and Council action.

The committee adjourned at 6:00 p.m.; its next scheduled meeting is June 23, 2025.