Ahmanson Project’s Impact Disputed

Ventura County officials have again refused to update traffic projections for the proposed 3,050-home Ahmanson Ranch development, which Los Angeles County and other opponents say are inaccurate and years out of date.

Caltrans officials, who will meet with Ventura officials this afternoon, have urged the county to take a fresh look at the project’s effects on the Ventura Freeway and surrounding roadways.

The issue has recently split the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Frank Schillo on Wednesday called for the board to vote again on a new traffic study, calling the existing ones from various agencies confusing and conflicting.

“The board should have to decide,” Schillo said.

He also questioned why Ventura County’s traffic projections for the Ventura Freeway were as much as 20% lower than Los Angeles County’s estimates. He’s still waiting for an explanation from county planners, he said.

“I’ve always been concerned about traffic at Ahmanson, and when all the numbers turned out to be different, it made me wonder what the problem was,” Schillo said.

But Supervisor John Flynn said he opposes a new study, calling it a brilliant way for opponents to further stall the project.

Ventura County is seeking about $4.6 million from developer Washington Mutual to cover costs associated with traffic generated by the project. But critics contend that traffic problems will be much worse than were predicted nine years ago in the county study.

“We just want them to take a fresh look at this,” said Steve Buswell, a Caltrans program manager.

Ventura County officials say they are confident the 1992 traffic data is sufficient.

“Based on information we received to date, we are pretty firmly convinced that an additional traffic study is not needed,” said Dennis Hawkins, a Ventura County senior planner.

Tim McGarry, a spokesman for Washington Mutual, said additional public hearings will allow new comments about traffic.

“We’ve gone to great lengths to mitigate the traffic associated with the project,” McGarry said. “What Ventura County has shown is that the 1992 [environmental impact report] is valid and on target.”

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), an outspoken Ahmanson Ranch opponent, said he wants today’s meeting with Caltrans to keep the spotlight on traffic congestion.

“It’s a bad idea for Ventura County to get on the wrong side of Caltrans on a transportation issue,” Sherman said. “They are a statewide agency and to decide with the developer against Caltrans is not what I recommend.”

In a letter to Caltrans, Ventura County said the 1992 study already shows that the home development, proposed for a hilly site near the Los Angeles-Ventura County border, “would result in significant congestion” on the Ventura Freeway.

County officials worry that, even if a new traffic study showed the project would cause even worse traffic, they would be unable to get additional reimbursement from Washington Mutual.

The Ahmanson Ranch development agreement prohibits additional traffic fees for road improvements, according to Ventura County Planning Director Keith Turner.

“We could find ourselves in the position of saying ‘Yep, that’s a problem,’ but having no legal authority to get the applicant to fix it,” Hawkins said.