After four weeks of rapid organizing – petitions, packed meetings and appeals to city and state officials – opponents of a proposed housing development on a portion of the Woodland Hills Country Club say they’re still waiting for clarity about whether the project can be stopped, as city leaders point to state housing laws that may limit local control.
The proposal would allow 398 homes on roughly 20 acres at the northern portion of the 94-acre golf course property, located in the Girard Tract, a hillside neighborhood south of Ventura Boulevard that lies in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Plans called for a mix of detached single-family homes and multi-family buildings, including market-rate units and 97 rent-restricted apartments for seniors and families. The project is being proposed by Newport Beach–based Arrimus Capital, which acquired the more than 100-year-old golf course in 2020.
Filed just days before Thanksgiving, the application seeks streamlined approval under AB 2011, a process that allows certain housing projects to bypass public hearings and a full environmental review. Nearby residents have raised concerns about wildfire risks, limited evacuation routes and the loss of local discretion over a large development in a canyon area.
At the center of the uncertainty is a package of housing laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October that, in some cases, requires cities to approve projects ministerially –meaning without discretionary review by the City Council using their own judgement, or detailed environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Discretionary Review is a special planning process where city officials use judgment and deliberation, beyond just checking boxes, to approve or modify development projects, even if they technically meet basic zoning rules, often involving public hearings to protect neighborhood interests or address significant impacts. It’s a case-by-case review, unlike “ministerial” (by-right) approvals
L.A. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who represents the area, has warned that recent amendments to AB 2011, including AB 2243 and AB 893, may strip the city of its ability to review or block the Woodland Hills proposal. AB 2011 was originally designed to speed approval of 100% affordable housing and certain mixed-income projects built on eligible commercial corridors, but subsequent amendments expanded how those corridors are defined.
These changes, Blumenfield said, now define commercial corridors largely based on street width rather than existing land use, and may override zoning limits in Specific Plans that are more than 25 years old – potentially allowing projects to move forward even in areas that were previously protected.
“The state law has taken away that power,” Blumenfield told residents at a Dec. 12 community meeting. “If this moves forward under these state laws, it never comes to a vote before the City Council.”
For residents, who assumed a project of this size would require public hearings and environmental reviews, that possibility has been jarring.
“We don’t have a grid of streets — we have single-lane roads that are below modern specifications,” said Matthew Heisie, a resident who has lived in the area since 2017. “That’s why we have the Girard Tract Specific Plan, which limits density in these hillside neighborhoods.”
Blumenfield has also warned that the amended law may limit the city’s ability to apply enhanced wildfire safety measures in Very High Fire Severity Zones, depending on how a site is classified.
Under the changes, he said, certain fire-related restrictions may not apply if a property is deemed “vacant” — a provision he argued should not apply to the country club site because it includes a golf course and clubhouse.
To seek clarity, Blumenfield introduced a motion on Dec. 10 directing the City Attorney and Planning Department to analyze whether AB 2011 and its related amendments apply to the proposed development, with a report back within 30 days.
Blumenfield said legal challenges are likely if the project proceeds under a ministerial approval process.
The project’s developer disputed that characterization, saying the proposal complies with state housing laws and includes extensive fire safety measures.
“Despite some of the opinions being circulated on social media, we are confident our project complies with state laws designed to expedite the construction of housing, including the rent-restricted housing for seniors and families that this project will deliver,” project spokesperson Aaron Green said in a statement Friday.
Green added that the development would comply with “literally hundreds” of laws and regulations, including fire codes, and would include fire sprinklers in every home, remote fire monitoring systems, new fire hydrants and additional safety infrastructure.
In the meantime, residents have mobilized quickly. In just a few weeks — much of it during the holiday season — neighbors organized meetings, circulated petitions and raised money as they tried to understand what options remained.
The effort culminated in a packed community meeting on Dec. 12 at St. Mel Catholic Church, where hundreds of residents gathered to hear how the proposed development could affect their neighborhood and what leverage they still had to challenge it. Soon after, neighbors formed the Woodland Hills Neighborhood Collective, a group opposing the proposal.
More than 3,000 people have signed an online petition as of Jan. 2, and the group has raised nearly $16,000 – about 63% of its $25,000 legal fund goal. While legal options have not been ruled out, organizers say any decision would depend on how the city proceeds.
For now, organizers say they are waiting for clarity from the city on how the application will be reviewed and whether fire safety concerns will be fully evaluated.
“We’re waiting for clear guidance from the City and the Planning Department on how this application is being reviewed,” Elise Tyler, one of the lead organizers, said in an email Wednesday. “With the one-year anniversary of the fires approaching, fire prevention and safety are top of mind for the community, and neighbors are looking for reassurance that these risks are being carefully and transparently evaluated.”
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has also weighed in, sending a letter on Dec. 18 to Mayor Karen Bass and city planning officials urging the city not to process it without a full environmental review.
The Conservancy said the site lies within the Santa Monica Mountains Zone — an area the Legislature has designated as a unique and sensitive ecosystem — and argued that development there “warrants the highest level of scrutiny to protect resources to the greatest extent practicable”, regardless of the project’s attempt to proceed under AB 2011.
Tyler said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, has agreed to hold a public meeting with the community to discuss the law and its implications.
Gabriel, who voted in favor of AB 2011, has previously told KTLA that he would seek to better understand the situation, though he noted the project is currently before the city.
City Planning officials previously said the application is on hold while the department conducts a completeness review under the State Permit Streamlining Act.
If the project is ultimately deemed eligible for ministerial approval under AB 2011, state law would impose fixed timelines for city review — requiring jurisdictions to either approve or deny qualifying projects within 90 days for developments of more than 150 units— though planning officials have not yet said whether those provisions apply here.
For now, organizers say they’re continuing to push for clarity and transparency, even as they confront a process that may leave little room for local discretion.
“There is a strong sense of urgency and growing momentum,” Tyler said. “While there is frustration around the lack of clarity from elected officials, there is also increasing energy and unity as more neighbors come together around shared safety concerns.”
Tyler said the prospect of a fast-track approval has galvanized residents across the area.
“There is overwhelming support from the neighborhood, we are a unified front,” she said. “This development is so plainly wrong for our neighborhood, so it has been easy for neighbors of all backgrounds to come together and fight the fast track.”