County Planners Say No to Ahmanson Traffic Study Update

Ventura County planners have again refused to update 9-year-old traffic projections for the Ahmanson Ranch development, but one supervisor is now calling for a board vote on the issue.

Supervisor Frank Schillo said Wednesday he wants the board to revisit the possibility of a new traffic study for the 3,050-home project. He said traffic projections from different agencies are “confusing and conflicting.”

“The board should have to decide” on a new study, Schillo said.

Opponents of the housing development, including Los Angeles County and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), have urged Ventura County to update traffic effects again.

And officials at Caltrans, who will meet with Ventura County planning and transportation officials this afternoon, have publicly urged the county to reconsider.

Ventura County is seeking about $4.6 million from developer Washington Mutual to cover costs associated with traffic generated by the project. Critics, however, say traffic will be up to 20% higher than projected in 1992 when the project was approved.

County planners argue that while traffic on the Ventura Freeway has increased in the past nine years, the projections of car trips the housing project will generate have not changed.

*

In fact, a new study could reduce the amount of traffic fees the developer would have to pay because the project’s percentage of the total traffic volume could shrink, said Dennis Hawkins, chief county planner.

Ventura County supervisors, when they unanimously approved a supplemental environmental report on the Ahmanson project in October, declined to seek a new traffic study despite urging from the public.

But Schillo said Wednesday he now believes a new traffic study may be necessary, saying the county’s traffic projections for the Ventura Freeway were as much as 20% lower than Los Angeles County’s numbers.

“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. At the October meeting he asked for an explanation to be brought back, but sad he will ask again today.

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

“The project has gone through so many studies,” Flynn said. “You either vote something up or down, and we voted it up.”

Supervisors Kathy Long and Judy Mikels and Supervisor-elect Steve Bennett did not return calls Wednesday.

Flynn said he believes the new makeup of the board--with Bennett, architect of the county’s slow-growth initiative--would support a new traffic study.

But even if a new study found more traffic problems, Hawkins said no additional developer fees from Washington Mutual could be sought. The 1992 development agreement prohibits the county from imposing new traffic fees, he said.

“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.

Katherine Stone, an attorney for Calabasas, which opposes Ahmanson Ranch, disagreed.

“They are flat wrong there,” Stone said.

In a Nov. 28 letter to the California Department of Transportation, Ventura County Planning Director Keith Turner said the 1992 study already shows the home development, proposed for a hilly site near the Los Angeles County-Ventura County border, “would result in significant congestion” on the Ventura Freeway.

*

The study shows that by 2010, Ventura Freeway “capacity would be exceeded and that the freeway would need to be widened from 8 to 12 lanes.”

“We just want them to take a fresh look at this,” said Steve Buswell, a Caltrans program manager who works on environmental quality issues.

Ventura County is preparing a supplemental environmental study that was prompted in part by the discovery of two endangered species at the site near Calabasas. This follow-up report will look at air quality, endangered species and many other issues but not traffic.

The supplemental environmental study, which may be completed by February, will update the first environmental report that was approved in 1992 by Ventura County supervisors at the same time as the project.

Ventura County officials are confident the 1992 traffic data are sufficient.

“Based on information we received to date, we are pretty firmly convinced that an additional traffic study is not needed,” Hawkins said. “But the process is still open.”

Tim McGarry, a spokesman for Washington Mutual Inc., said public hearings after the follow-up environmental report is completed will also allow the public to comment on 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 EIR is valid and on target.”

Sherman, an outspoken Ahmanson Ranch foe, said he wants today’s meeting with Caltrans to continue to put a 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 warned. “They are a statewide agency and to decide with the developer against Caltrans is not what I recommend.”