HOUSING - Los Angeles has a housing crisis. It also faces mounting pressure over water, wildfire safety, and open space. The debate over the future of the Woodland Hills Country Club makes the city grapple with all four issues simultaneously.
The project is sizable, proposing 398 housing units on roughly 20 acres of the 93-acre property, including 223 rental units, 32 of them designated for senior citizens. Los Angeles needs more housing, and privately owned golf courses cannot be considered untouchable simply because they are established.
But the need for housing should not end the question of whether a specific piece of land can accommodate development safely, responsibly, and with a full accounting of what the community could gain and lose.
Golf Is More Than a Green Space
The economic value of golf also deserves a place in this debate. California's golf industry generates an estimated $15.5 billion in annual economic activity, according to the California Alliance for Golf. The state's golf courses support businesses, jobs, tourism, recreation, and local economic activity far beyond the boundaries of individual properties.
Los Angeles County provides an especially clear example of golf's broader community role. The County operates the largest publicly owned golf course system in the nation, with 20 courses at 18 facilities. The system offers affordable greens fees and attracts more than a million rounds of golf each year.
That does not mean every golf course should be preserved simply because golf has economic value. It does mean redevelopment decisions should account for the economic and recreational activity that could be lost as well as the housing that could be gained.
Golf's water use also deserves a more precise discussion. California's golf courses use less than 1% of the state's potable water, according to the California Alliance for Golf. That does not make water conservation irrelevant, particularly in a state facing long-term water pressures. But it does challenge the idea that eliminating golf courses, by itself, would meaningfully resolve California's water problems.
Woodland Hills Is Not an Ordinary Development Site
The most important element of this development proposal is not the number of houses but its location. The proposed development is located in a very high fire hazard severity zone next to a hillside community where wildfire evacuation has become a significant concern.
The development is being reviewed by City Planning to determine whether the project meets the requirements for a ministerial approval process under the amended AB 2011.
This legal issue matters because a qualifying ministerial process would limit the amount of discretionary review available to the city and the public.
California needs to approve housing faster. But speed should not replace a thorough assessment of whether a particular site can safely support new residents.
If nearly 400 additional housing units can be safely served, the project should be able to demonstrate that through credible analysis of evacuation capacity, emergency access, and infrastructure. If significant risks remain, Los Angeles should not be expected to overlook them simply because the approval process is designed to move quickly.
Open Space Has Value Beyond the Fairway
Another mistake would be to assume that private ownership means the land has little public value.
The Woodland Hills Country Club is private, but that does not mean its broader community value should be ignored when its future is being considered.
Golf courses can provide recreation, shade, green space, stormwater-management benefits, and potential wildlife habitat. Those functions should be considered when comparing the benefits of redevelopment with what could be lost through conversion from green space to residential development.
The question is not whether a golf course is more valuable than housing. It is whether the full value of the existing land has been weighed against the full benefits and costs of replacing part of it with housing.
Los Angeles Should Demand a Better Bargain
There is no need for the city to choose between refusing development and approving every housing proposal. Los Angeles can demand a better bargain.
Any redevelopment in Woodland Hills should demonstrate that emergency access and evacuation plans can accommodate both existing and future residents, that habitat concerns are properly assessed, and that infrastructure can support the resulting population. It should also preserve green space where feasible and incorporate drought-tolerant landscaping.
If the golf course remains, its future should come with clear expectations for water efficiency, including recycled-water use where feasible, reduced irrigated acreage, and more efficient irrigation.
The economic value of the existing property should be part of the calculation as well. The question should not simply be how many housing units can be added to the site, but what economic, recreational, environmental, and community functions could be lost in the process.
This is not an argument that a golf course should be preserved simply because it is a golf course. It is an argument that redevelopment should account for everything the land currently does — and everything the new development would require.
Los Angeles needs more housing. But building more homes should not mean turning off the questions that make development responsible in the first place. If Woodland Hills can safely accommodate nearly 400 additional housing units, Los Angeles should have the evidence to show it. If significant risks cannot be adequately addressed, those risks should not disappear simply because a faster approval process is available.
(Sean Petersen, founder of Golf Trip Junkie, brings a perspective shaped by his experience in the golf travel industry and his work with golf destinations across the United States. His experience has given him insight into how golf courses intersect with changing community needs, local economic interests, recreation, and environmental considerations.)
