The proposed Woodland Hills Country Club housing development continues to be the subject of great concern and consternation in our community, and I am writing to give you the latest update from my vantage point. Like many of you, I have been aghast that nearly 400 units of high density housing could be built with a minimal “ministerial” review in a very high fire hazard severity zone rather than the normally required discretionary process. By taking advantage of new state laws including the recent amendments to AB 2011, there would be no community input or public hearings.
In response to my concerns and those raised by neighbors, and as a strategy to mitigate their risk given the certainty that even if the City ministerially approves their project they will be sued and could lose in court, representatives of the land owners approached me with a creative idea. They suggested that they might be willing to pursue a modified discretionary review process for a much less dense project that would be spread out over the full 92 acres, rather than the 19.5 acres of their proposed project. They said that such a project would produce homes that are similar in square footage and lot size to homes already in the area and that such a project would be subject to CEQA review as are all discretionary projects.
However, their willingness to consider a less dense project would be contingent on my willingness to support a zone change and general plan amendment that would be needed for such a project. I, of course, have been clear that I do not support such a zone change/general plan amendment and would not, unless the community was firmly in support of such a modified project or felt that allowing such a project was better than taking the risk that the high density project would be approved and enable future dense projects on the remainder of the land.
Figuring out what a less dense project could look like, and gaining community support for it, would be a Herculean task. Under the best of circumstances it would take weeks of community discussion and negotiation with the developers. Then the normal discretionary public hearing and environmental review would be needed.
The developer made clear that they would only go down the pathway of considering a modified discretionary project if the legal deadlines for Planning Department approval and for related lawsuits were paused (or tolled) during consideration. That would allow them to hedge their bets, to maintain the option for the original proposal if an agreement could not be reached with the community to support a lower density project.
Deciding whether to go down such a road is a decision that I feel needs to be made by the community that is most impacted by the proposed development. Consequently, I immediately put together a meeting with leaders of the Woodland Hills Neighborhood Collective, Woodland Hills Landwise Alliance, the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council, the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority — all of the groups that have been most vocal about the project. I let them know of the developer’s alternative idea and I assured them that I would only even think of pursuing such a modified project/zone change if there was a strong consensus from the community — not just a majority consensus.
We talked about what such a negotiation with the developer could include. For example, we could negotiate what percentage of the land would be turned into parkland, we could negotiate ingress and egress issues, we could negotiate how many units would be allowed and how big the lot sizes could be, we could negotiate special fire mitigation and other community protections. And, of course, we would need to make sure — especially before any zone change or general plan amendment was granted — that any agreed upon project could not be changed after a zone change was granted. We talked about the pros, cons and risks.
For most of the community members in the meeting the question was one of risk analysis. A modified project would be less impactful than the developer’s proposed 398 unit high density project, but it would be more impactful than a project without a zone change and general plan amendment that would not be able to take advantage of the new State laws.
After several days of consideration, the consensus of the groups was not to negotiate with the developers for a modified project. People felt that even a modified project would be dangerous in a high fire severity zone and that pursuing a negotiated compromise project was not worth the risk. Further, they believe that reason will prevail and that in litigation the Courts will not force the City to apply the new State law to this project. Potentially the Court ultimately could prioritize the fact that the project runs on the habitat of endangered species such as the Mountain Lion and not require the City to apply the new State law here. The fact that Mountain Lions use this property is well documented, and I believe it to be true, but the habitat designation is something the developer is fighting against.
Consequently, the prospect of a zone change/general plan amendment modified project is off the table. The Developer’s proposed 398 unit project application is now being considered by the Planning Department to see if the proposal meets the State’s ministerial process requirements.
They have to decide whether the State law must be applied and specifically whether the endangered species habitat issue makes it ineligible for the State law application. While I have made clear that I believe the evidence submitted by the community and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy shows that the golf course is habitat and is ineligible for the State’s ministerial process, I don’t get to make that decision. Whatever they decide, it will inevitably be litigated and a judge will ultimately make the decision.
Thus there are a lot of unknowns and it may be a long time until this issue is settled. A judge could restrict development or could enable hundreds or even thousands of units to be built in a high-fire corner of our community. This likelihood of costly lengthy litigation was one of the reasons that I wanted to talk with community leaders about whether they wanted to pursue a modified/compromise process that might avoid costly court battles. I was not pushing the modified/compromise path as it has negative consequences as well. I respect the community’s decision and share their concerns and will continue to do all I can to advocate that this project is subject to discretionary review because of its location in a very high fire hazard severity zone.
In the meantime, I will do my best to keep you informed of any updates on this application and will continue to work together with the community in hopes that public safety and other concerns can be addressed despite the streamlined approval process of the amended AB 2011. For more background on this site, click here.