Lawmaker Drops Ahmanson Support

Assemblyman Keith Richman (R-Northridge) has withdrawn his support for the controversial Ahmanson Ranch mini-city and called for a new study of its effect on San Fernando Valley roadways--a review that would further delay a project stalled for a decade and raise questions about whether it will ever be built.

Richman, a mayoral candidate for the proposed San Fernando Valley city, asked Ventura County officials late Wednesday for a new study after concluding that old traffic projections are unreliable indicators of jams the project would cause on nearby roads.

The proposed 3,050-home project is just across the Ventura County line from Woodland Hills and Calabasas. Most Los Angeles politicians and many Valley residents oppose it. It was approved by Ventura County in 1992 but delayed by legal challenges and environmental issues.

Richman, whose district includes parts of Ventura County and the Valley, had been the project’s staunchest public supporter among elected officials, even writing a newspaper essay in support last September. But after declaring his mayoral candidacy in June, he said he was rethinking that position.

“I’m extremely concerned about the impact of the Ahmanson Ranch project on the surrounding communities,” Richman said in an interview. “I’m withdrawing my support until I’m confident the traffic issues have been addressed and [can be] mitigated. We need to know what the true traffic numbers are.”

Tim McGarry, a spokesman for Ahmanson Ranch owner Washington Mutual Bank, said the bank still intends to break ground next year after Ventura County approves a new study about how to protect the threatened red-legged frog and the spineflower, which was discovered on the ranch in 1999.

“Dr. Richman has his facts wrong,” McGarry said. “According to Caltrans, traffic projections in the 1992 [study] remain reasonably accurate, and a new study would not tell anyone anything they do not already know....Responsible leaders should tell the public the truth.”

In his letter to Ventura County officials, Richman, a physician, said the 1992 Ahmanson Ranch environmental study had underestimated traffic growth on key roads--such as the Ventura Freeway and Victory Boulevard--by up to 38%.

“Given the material, unanticipated change in traffic volumes before a single Ahmanson unit has been built, additional traffic mitigation measures are clearly warranted,” the lawmaker wrote.

He said he was basing his conclusions on analyses by Los Angeles city and county officials and environmental and community groups. He said he had studied nearly a foot of documents in making his decision.

“There seems to be a great degree of contention regarding the traffic numbers on the 101 Freeway, access roads and also the roads in the San Fernando Valley,” Richman said. “There’s been a significant degree of development along the 101 corridor.”

McGarry said nearly all of the freeway traffic growth was anticipated in the original 1992 traffic study, and that Ahmanson trips would be only a small part of the increasing congestion. “The problems of the 101 are the product of regional growth, not just one project,” McGarry said.

Ahmanson’s projected 37,500 vehicle trips on all Valley freeways and roads would be about half of the 72,000 daily trips created by 84 new projects built along a nearby stretch of the Ventura Freeway in the last decade, McGarry said.

In an updated analysis this year, the Ventura County transportation department concluded that the 1992 Ahmanson Ranch traffic study was still a valid assessment of future conditions on the Ventura Freeway. And the California Department of Transportation has concurred.

The difference between 1992 traffic projections for six segments of the freeway closest to the project and the actual Caltrans counts in 2000 ranges between 2.6% and 8% more traffic, said Ventura County planner Dennis Hawkins. But those same numbers can be crunched in different ways, Hawkins said. “There’s a lot of statistical manipulation that can be done to make it look better or worse,” he said.

A spokesman for opposition group Rally to Save Ahmanson Ranch said Richman’s switch represents a turning point in the campaign to stop Washington Mutual from developing its 2,800-acre project.

“There is now no elected official that publicly supports Washington Mutual’s disastrous development,” campaign director Chad Griffin said. “It’s significant because they had always held out Keith Richman as someone who believed this was a responsible development. They have constantly used his name to give their side legitimacy.”

McGarry said Richman’s switch doesn’t affect the company’s position. “We continue to believe that Ahmanson Ranch is a good project,” he said. “It should be built, and will be built.”