New Deadline Set for Ahmanson Ranch Input

Responding to pressure from state agencies, an advisory panel considering the Ahmanson Ranch housing development agreed Wednesday to extend through mid-June its deadline for receiving public comments.

The 4-1 vote by the Ventura County Environmental Report Review Committee followed a three-hour hearing during which opponents continued to raise long-standing concerns about how traffic, water and wildlife would be affected by the 3,050-home project planned at the county’s eastern edge north of Calabasas.

The extension of the May 1 deadline gives the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other agencies until June 19 to weigh in on whether a supplemental environmental report released by the county earlier this year sufficiently addresses the concerns.

The regional water board, the state Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service all have told county officials they needed the additional time to analyze the document and comment.

Representatives for Washington Mutual, the developer of Ahmanson Ranch, said the extension would not throw the project off schedule because they had expected the panel would take several weeks to issue an opinion on whether the report meets state environmental requirements.

Project attorney Steve Weston said it is still possible county planning commissioners could take up the report sometime in July and have it to the Board of Supervisors in September for a final vote.

Supervisors approved the project in 1992, but it has been slowed by a series of lawsuits and the discovery three years ago of a rare frog and a species of flower previously thought extinct. The board must now decide whether the supplemental environmental review is sufficient or whether further study is needed.

But additional delays could jeopardize the project. Thousand Oaks Councilwoman Linda Parks, an ardent critic of Ahmanson Ranch, joins the board next year, replacing Supervisor Frank Schillo, who is retiring.

Wednesday’s hearing was continued from last week because such a large number of critics and supporters signed up to speak. A title insurance executive from Simi Valley, who supports the project, and 13 opponents returned to make their comments.

Leslie Mintz, an attorney for the environmental group Heal the Bay, said the supplemental environmental review relies too heavily on data provided by the developer. John Buse, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center office in Ventura, said the review falls short of state requirements that the project be consistent with the county’s General Plan and that a broad range of environmental effects be disclosed.

One critic said the county should devote more research to the effect of the project’s proposed golf courses on the California red-legged frog found on site. Another called for an updated traffic study.

Another dismissed the developer’s assurances that the water supply could not be contaminated by Rocketdyne’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory, a former nuclear test site located miles away.

“We heard ‘We took samples. It’s clean,’ ” said Liz Crawford of Encino. “But the tests that were done were private ... and laughable.”

Project consultants, scientists and lawyers defended their research.

“Our opinions cannot be bought, and I resent any implications to that effect,” said Marie Campbell, a consultant with Sapphos Environmental Inc., which is contracted by the developer.

Peter Hayden, another consultant who oversaw testing for any contaminants on the Ahmanson site, said small levels of pollution were at normal levels and suggested no link to Rocketdyne. “There are contaminants in my backyard, in your backyard and under this building,” he told panel members.