Ahmanson hearing generates more questions than answers
By Gregory Koteles
Acorn Staff Writer

Ahmanson Land Company may have hit yet another stumbling block in its 12-year struggle to build a 3,050-house residential development and commercial site in southeast Ventura County.

Emotion and rhetoric ran rampant at an informational hearing at El Camino Real High School Saturday, hosted by state Assemblywoman Fran Pavley and state Sen. Sheila Kuehl. The event was also attended by U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Woodland Hills), L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine and Calabasas Mayor Janice Lee, as well as representatives of Ventura County, Ahmanson Ranch, various local, state and federal agencies, and hundreds of private citizens.

But when everyone had said their piece––mostly denouncing the proposal––the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) remained the best hope for opponents of Ahmanson and its parent company, Washington Mutual Bank.

CEQA is a piece of state legislation that requires an environmental impact report (EIR) on any project that results in a "significant effect on the environment."

Since the EIR for Ahmanson Ranch was conducted in 1992, two endangered species, the California red-legged frog and the San Fernando spineflower, have been discovered on the property. In addition, unexpected traffic growth, particularly on the 101 Freeway, and water runoff and air pollution problems have made the mitigation agreed to between Ahmanson Land and Ventura County insufficient to deal with the anticipated problems, according to opponents.

Said J. Stacey Sullivan, a consultant to the state Assembly, "CEQA trumps the development agreement, period." In a letter to Pavley dated Aug. 22, Bion M. Gregory, the state legislative attorney, agreed.

The result is that under the provisions of CEQA, a subsequent EIR, in effect a totally new one, may be required before the development can proceed, which would open the door to Ventura County to ask for further mitigation of its impact on surrounding areas. The county has already determined that a supplemental EIR is necessary to address the endangered species populations. However, the supplemental EIR due out in September would only require Ahmanson to alter its plans in the affected areas of the development.

After the hearing, Bruce Smith, Ventura County’s general planning manager, called the changes "relatively minor" and said that the county currently had no intention of requiring a subsequent EIR. "Substantial evidence demonstrating that the information [in the 1992 EIR] is incorrect," would be have to be provided to the county before a wholly new document would be called for, evidence which Smith said is lacking.

"We don’t believe that a subsequent EIR is necessary," said Tim McGarry, a spokesman for Washington Mutual. He maintained that there have been no specific allegations that the development agreement between Ahmanson and Ventura County is inadequate or that any specific additional mitigation is required.

Allen Lawrence, chairman of the California Transportation Commission, said, "Ahmanson will have to make a choice … is economically feasible to continue with this project?" He added that while Ahmanson Ranch is entirely within Ventura County, all access will be through Los Angeles County.

Said Agoura Hills Mayor Ed Corridori at the hearing, "The traffic mitigation proposed does not begin to address the problem."

One of the sentiments expressed by numerous speakers was that while most of the benefits (i.e., tax revenues) would go to Ventura County, many of the burdens would belong to Los Angeles County (traffic and water pollution).

Speaking at the hearing, Calabasas Mayor Pro Tem Lesley Devine called the development a "back room deal" and argued that "CEQA encourages planning by lawsuit."

"CEQA is not working because taxpayers in one jurisdiction are forced to subsidize projects in another jurisdiction," she said, calling for new "good neighbor" legislation from the state.

Bonny Herman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, and Ed Summers, chairman of the Ventura County Economic Development Association, both expressed support for the Ahmanson Ranch development outside of the hearing.

"If not here, then where?" asked Summers, arguing that a housing shortage along the "101 high-tech corridor" requires new development.

Calling the opponents of the development "hypocritical," Herman asked, "Where’s the instead of?" The environmental concerns were, in her opinion, "total grandstanding" and she insisted that the real reason the project met with so much opposition was due to the perceived "inconvenience in getting to the nearest Starbuck’s or work."

"It comes down to traffic," said Herman. Claiming that the projected numbers cited in traffic studies by Caltrans and Calabasas were "blown out of proportion" and "working on a factor of 15" trips per household per day, they both maintained that the impact on the freeway and local roads would be negligible.

"There’s going to be more of an impact without it," said Herman.

Regarding the argument that Ahmanson Ranch would provide affordable housing, Congressman Sherman responded, "I look forward to seeing where on the two golf courses this housing will be located."

Pavley also made light of the claims that Ahmanson Ranch would address the issue of affordable housing. "That could be said to be a reason to build over all of the Santa Monica Mountains," she quipped.

"The housing argument is so weak," said Sherman. "There is no shortage in our area of $800,000 homes." He added that what was really needed were more apartments that rented for less than $900 a month and homes that sold for less than $200,000.

Though both would prefer to see Washington Mutual abandon the development of the Ahmanson Ranch area altogether, Pavley and Sherman felt better planning was definitely called for before the project should proceed.

Calabasas Mayor Janice Lee said after the hearing, "We’re very concerned about this project’s impacts on the city of Calabasas.

"With a subsequent EIR, Ventura County has the discretion to amend the development agreement between them and Ahmanson for full mitigation."

However, the hostility felt by some members of the affected communities toward Washington Mutual may not be quelled by any amount of mitigation, as expressed by the statements of Joe Behar, president of the West Valley Community Coalition.

"These are the same people who’ll tell you that Yosemite can by paved over and still be mitigated," he said.