A district that has approved or built well over 15,000 homes in recent years spent most of 2026 trying to stop 398 more. What explains that? Councilmember Bob Blumenfield gave that 15,000 figure for the 3rd Council District when he described his record. His office spent the year fighting the proposal at the Woodland Hills Country Club.
The answer has little to do with whether Woodland Hills wants housing. It comes down to which approval process a parcel falls into. Warner Center runs on a specific plan that sends large projects through staff-level review against rules written years ago. The country club site at 21150 Dumetz Road had no such plan. The fight over it has been about which process applies, and the developer has already said it will take that question to court.
Three tracks, one neighborhood
The phrase "by-right" gets used loosely in Woodland Hills. There are really three distinct paths in play.
- Administrative Clearance under the Warner Center 2035 Specific Plan. The plan calls this "ministerial in nature." The Planning Director signs off if the project complies with the plan and its mitigation table. It covers smaller work, such as projects with fewer than 50 dwelling units.
- Project Permit Compliance, also under the specific plan. Any project adding 50 or more net new units, or any multiple-phase or master-planned project, is excluded from Administrative Clearance and goes here. The plan text describes this track as "discretionary in nature," though it remains a staff-level review.
- State fast-track approval under AB 2011. The law gives a faster ministerial process for multifamily projects on certain commercial corridors, and it took effect in July 2023. Blumenfield's office says that under this route, community input, environmental impacts and fire safety cannot be considered before approval.
Blumenfield has described Warner Center as a place where large projects are "approved through a simple administrative clearance process." For the biggest projects, the ordinance says otherwise. Both of Warner Center's headline proposals are in the second track.
How a golf course qualified for the fast lane
In November 2025, Newport Beach-based Arrimus Capital filed plans with the Department of City Planning for the northern part of the country club, at 4868 N. Canoga Ave. The Daily News reported 175 single-family homes, 126 apartments and 97 affordable units, with about 835 parking spaces. The single-family homes would rise up to three stories and the apartment buildings up to four. A September commentary in the Orange County Register gave a different breakdown: 175 for-sale homes, 223 rentals, and 61 income-restricted units. The rental totals match. The affordable counts don't, and the public record doesn't settle the difference.
A golf course in an A-1 agricultural-residential zone could qualify for a commercial-corridor law because of a parking rule. Los Angeles allows parking in A zones with a conditional use permit. AB 2011 originally required parking to be a principally permitted use without a CUP. AB 2243 removed that restriction from the eligibility test, and that opened the ministerial route for this site. Blumenfield's office put the city's response in one line:
"The ICO is very narrow and is meant to close the unintended loophole created by the city's rule that allows parking lots on A zones through a conditional use permit."
The Orange County Register commentary was written by Jon Rawlings, a chapter leader with YIMBY Los Angeles. It lists the city's other attempts. One asked the state to define "vacant site." Another proposed narrowing Canoga Avenue so it would no longer count as a commercial corridor. A third targeted the parking rule in every agriculturally zoned property in the city. Housing groups including the Housing Action Coalition, Abundant Housing LA and YIMBY Law criticized the effort. On the other side, Blumenfield credited the Woodland Hills Neighborhood Collective, the Woodland Hills Landwise Alliance, the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council, the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.
What the August decisions settled, and what they left open
The turning point did not come from a council vote. City Planning determined that the site is wildlife habitat for mountain lions, citing documentation from neighbors and research from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and other experts. That made the project ineligible for AB 2011 processing and put it on a discretionary path. Blumenfield announced the ruling Aug. 20 and posted it Aug. 22. His office wrote that the earlier arguments had not been enough on their own. The site's fire-zone designation and the point that it is not on a commercial corridor both failed to secure discretionary review.
On Aug. 26, the City Council unanimously approved an amendment to the A-1 zoning code. A separate interim control ordinance was still to come. It would bar permits for public parking areas on A-1 parcels near sensitive areas, last 45 days if adopted, and could be extended for a year. As of early October, here is what the record shows:
- The parking ICO: The City Clerk's file for CF 26-0290 records a direction to prepare an ordinance and ICO. Its last change is dated Aug. 25, and it shows no later ICO vote.
- Litigation: Arrimus representative Aaron Green told the Los Angeles Times the company would likely sue. He said that if the city loses, it would have to approve the project and pay "millions of dollars in fines." The Sept. 27 commentary says the developer has announced a suit. The sources reviewed do not confirm that one has been filed.
- Reversibility: Blumenfield's own post says the planning decision "could be undone in Court" and that any ruling could be confirmed or undone on appeal.
So the country club is not settled land. It is a parcel whose approval track is being contested, and the outcome depends on a court timeline that hasn't started yet.
Warner Center's track is slower than its reputation
Warner Center does say yes at scale. It doesn't say yes quickly.
| Project | Scale | Review track | Status in the latest sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rams Village, former Promenade Mall site | About 52 acres, 5.2 million+ sq. ft., 3,100+ homes; first phase is two buildings with 646 homes | Project Permit Compliance | Mall demolished by Aug. 10; no permits or new construction as of Sept. 23; construction projected for 2027 if the city approves |
| Viva, 6366–6410 N. Canoga Ave. | Four towers; 3,192 resident units plus 266 manager units | Specific Plan Project Permit Compliance | Filed May 7, 2026; case marked "On Hold" with no hearing date listed |
| Alcove, 21300 Oxnard St. | 301 units in two phases; second phase, Nova, adds 128 affordable apartments | Not specified | Nova underway as of July; completion expected spring 2028 |
Urbanize LA's account of Rams Village describes a three-story team headquarters with a public plaza and an indoor training facility with spectator seating. It also lists two entertainment venues seating 2,500 and 5,000, a 65,000-square-foot public park with a bandshell, and towers of 19, 29, 32 and 37 stories. Five percent of the units would be reserved for very low-income households. A Sept. 21 report said the full build-out would be phased over roughly a decade. Viva's developer is Wellpointe, and the city case lists George Kutnerian and 6400 Canoga LP as applicant. The project came before the Woodland Hills–Warner Center Neighborhood Council's planning committee on Sept. 17 as an applicant presentation. No recorded vote has surfaced.
The Warner Center track is predictable rather than fast. The plan sets the rules in advance and the Director applies them, imposing mitigations from the plan's table or from a project-specific environmental review. Nobody at the Promenade site is arguing over whether housing belongs there. The open questions are design compliance and timing.
What the approval map means when comparing parts of Woodland Hills
The countywide numbers are steady. For August 2026, the California Association of Realtors reported a Los Angeles County median of $946,950 for existing single-family homes, up 1.7% year over year. Median time on market was 30 days, compared with 28 days in August 2025. Neutral sources don't publish an August split between the two Woodland Hills ZIP codes, so any claim about a gap between them would be a guess.
The approval map is easier to read than the price data. Nearly all of the Warner Center pipeline is apartments, senior housing and affordable rentals, delivered in phases that stretch to 2028 and well beyond. For the next few years, it does not compete directly with single-family resale homes. A buyer near Warner Center should expect years of construction staging and phased openings. Those plans are public and reviewed against a fixed plan. A buyer near the country club faces a narrower question with a less predictable answer: whether the planning ruling survives a legal challenge that has been announced but not yet filed.
Neither situation is better in the abstract. They carry different kinds of uncertainty, and you can only see the difference in planning files and council records. Sale prices don't show it.
Two questions that come up
Is the country club project dead? No. City Planning's ruling took it off the AB 2011 fast track, and the project now faces discretionary review. Blumenfield's office has said the ruling could be reversed in court.
When will anything be built at the Promenade site? The latest report puts permanent construction in 2027, pending city approval, with the full project phased over about a decade.
If you're weighing a home near Warner Center or near the country club, Bruce Barz can help you read the planning files and council records behind that address before you write an offer. Schedule a free consultation to go through what's pending near the property you're considering.
This article is general information, not legal, tax or financial advice. Consult a qualified professional about your situation.
