We are residents and neighbors of Woodland Hills (91364) concerned about the fast-tracking and potential CEQA-exemption regarding the proposed 398-unit development at Woodland Hills Country Club, 21150 Dumetz Ave (4868 N. Canoga Ave on application) under AB 2011 / AB 2243.

We have established an IRS-registered 501(c)(4) non-profit. Meaning we are a tax exempt public benefit corporation (also called civic leagues or social welfare organizations)

Note: A 501(c)(4) is not a 501(c)(3) - you will not be able to write off your donation. There are other positives to being a 501(c)(4) and this was a choice carefully considered. The IRS itself is best to explain the difference between the two, can pick that up starting here: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations

Do speak with an accountant if you have additional questions.

Community Resources:

Our online resource hub: https://www.wh-neighborhoodcollective.org
Our online petition: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-398-unit-woodland-hills-canyon-project-from-being-fast-tracked-under-ab-2011

Note: Do not give money to change.org - we cannot access those funds. Those funds only go to improve change.org.

What’s Being Proposed

A developer is seeking to build 398 housing units at 21150 Dumetz Ave (4868 N. Canoga Ave on application) and is trying to use AB 2011, a state law meant to streamline housing on appropriate commercial corridors, to get:

Ministerial approval (no public hearing, no discretionary review)
Exemption from CEQA, meaning no full environmental review of fire danger, traffic, evacuation, and neighborhood impacts
We believe this location does NOT qualify for AB 2011 and should NOT be processed as a fast-tracked project.

What We’re Asking the State and City to Do

Confirm whether the City has adopted the enhanced wildfire protections required for AB 2011 projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Determine whether A1-1XL / Open Space zoning truly qualifies as a “commercial corridor” under AB 2011 (we believe it does not).
Independently verify all eligibility claims made in the application.
Reclassify this as a discretionary project and require full CEQA review, including wildfire evacuation and public safety impacts.

Why This Site Is the Wrong Place to Fast-Track

1. This Is a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)
The developer’s own application admits the site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Under AB 2011, sites in these extreme fire zones are only allowed if the city has adopted special, enhanced wildfire safety measures for new housing in these areas.

The application only references basic building code requirements, not the enhanced local wildfire protections AB 2011 requires. If the City hasn’t adopted those stronger standards, this site should not qualify for AB 2011 fast-tracking and must go through full environmental review.

2. Serious Evacuation & Public Safety Risks
This project would add hundreds of new residents into a canyon area that already has:

Limited access in and out via Canoga Ave
Known evacuation bottlenecks during fire events
Steep hillside topography that accelerates fire spread
Increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires
The application includes no wildfire evacuation study and no analysis of whether 398 more households can safely evacuate during a fast-moving fire.

State law allows denial of a housing project if it creates a specific, unmitigable threat to public health and safety. Cramming this many units into a high-risk canyon with poor evacuation options may be exactly that.

3. Zoning & Open Space Concerns
The property is zoned A1-1XL and designated Open Space in the Community Plan.

The developer is trying to argue that because there are some golf-course-related retail uses, the site should count as a “commercial corridor” under AB 2011.

But AB 2011 was intended for land primarily zoned for office, retail, or commercial use—not open space and canyon land. If the site fails the fire-safety test, AB 2011 does not override the underlying open space zoning.

4. Loss of Trees & Open Space
The proposal calls for removing 117 trees (even if classified as “non-protected,” they still provide shade, habitat, and fire buffering in an already fragile canyon environment).

In a high-fire-risk area with precious open space, this level of tree removal deserves full CEQA review—something we will not get if the project is rubber-stamped under AB 2011.

Legal Fund for Woodland Hills Neighborhood Collective

By Woodland Hills Neighborhood Collective

Legal Fund for Woodland Hills Neighborhood Collective

For legal expenses to Stop the 398-Unit Woodland Hills Canyon Project from Being Fast-Tracked Under AB 2011.

Team Members