The HCD’s letter marks an initial move in a process that could result in the country club suing the city for damages. The club’s attorney, Dave Rand, stated to HousingWire TBD that he is preparing to send the city a letter threatening legal action regarding the denial.

“We’ve had to sue the city of L.A. multiple times over various projects, and we’ve always won because the city often responds to political pressure and unlawfully denies housing developments,” Rand explained.

His correspondence will also include a government claim for damages, a first for him, enabled by a recent state appellate court ruling.

Clashing Loopholes

Los Angeles Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, whose district includes the country club, framed the issue differently from Rand, asserting that the developer sought to bypass necessary review processes. In an Oct. 4 commentary in the Orange County Register, he emphasized that the city’s decision did not terminate the project.

“It remains eligible for a comprehensive review encompassing fire safety, evacuation routes, and other factors associated with the California Environmental Quality Act before a zone change can be granted,” Blumenfield noted, highlighting that the country club is situated within a high fire hazard zone, surrounded by narrow hillside roads.

Blumenfield also countered the loophole argument, stating that the property owner first approached him for development in 2020, but he encouraged them to seek community feedback. Instead, Blumenfield claimed, the owner opted to send lobbyists to Sacramento. After Governor Gavin Newsom signed amendments to AB 2011, “they seized the opportunity to exploit what appeared to be a loophole in the process,” he wrote.

Clarifying Habitat

While Blumenfield asserted that the matter runs deeper, the city’s denial hinges on its interpretation of habitat. Assembly Bill 2011, which took effect on July 1, 2023, excludes areas that serve as habitats for certain protected species, including those considered candidates for threatened or endangered status, or classified as sensitive or protected by specific laws.

The denial on August 20 mentioned “substantial evidence of habitat for protected species,” referencing a memo from the city’s certified senior ecologist, Kat Superfisky.

Superfisky stated that the site “provides habitat functions relevant to the Southern California mountain lion,” which is classified as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. HCD’s assistant deputy director for housing accountability, Melinda Coy, pointed out that Superfisky’s arguments are based on legal language not used in the law.

“The exemption applies only to parcels actively serving as habitat,” Coy specified. It does not pertain to “parcels that merely might serve or theoretically provide ecological benefits.” She noted that the city’s memo contradicted its own conclusion, given a lack of tracking data does not prove that mountain lions have never utilized the site. However, it also does not prove that they have, Coy asserted.

The memo characterized the golf course as “a managed urban landscape,” admitting there were no documented GPS locations for mountain lions on the property and acknowledging the absence of a continuous, intact wildlife corridor through it.

The country club had submitted two biological assessments indicating there was no evidence of the site functioning as significant wildlife habitat. One assessment, dated July 17, was from South Environmental, a consultant approved by the city.

The HCD’s letter concluded that the applicant’s reports met the evidentiary threshold set by AB 2011. This criterion mandates substantial evidence that enables a reasonable individual to determine that a project aligns with objective standards, indicating that the project still qualifies for streamlined approval.

Next Steps

HCD has given Los Angeles until November 25 to respond, warning that they may escalate the issue to the state attorney general.

The letter also referenced AB 712, effective January 1, which escalates potential penalties imposed by courts on local governments if they receive a written warning prior to a lawsuit being initiated. The letter serves as that notice, as per HCD.

However, the upcoming mayoral election on November 3 could shift the dynamics. City Councilmember Nithya Raman is running against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass.

“Yes-in-my-backyard” (YIMBY) advocates have thrown their support behind Raman for her commitment to aggressively pursue more housing development. YIMBY proponents have critiqued Bass for her comparatively slower approach. Rand is among Raman’s supporters.

“Whenever cases were brought before the city council, Nithya Raman was consistently on the right side of the issue,” he remarked.