Ahmanson Ranch Opponents Crank Up Efforts By JACQUELINE FOX Staff Reporter Pending lawsuits coupled with anticipated standing-room-only crowds threaten to delay a vote Dec. 10 by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors on whether to approve plans for the beleaguered 3,050-home development proposal known as Ahmanson Ranch. Postponement of the vote could bode well for opponents of the project who want to preserve the 2,800-acre site just west of Woodland Hills and a few miles from the L.A. County line where developers of the proposed mini-city want to build. So far, only one Ventura County supervisor, Judy Mikels, has gone on the record in support of the project and one, Steve Bennett, has openly opposed it. Supervisors Frank Shillo, Kathy Long and John Flynn have expressed concerns about the project in the past without taking a formal position. However, come January, incoming Supervisor Linda Parks, considered a staunch slow-growth advocate and outspoken opponent of the Ahmanson project, replaces Shillo. Many predict it would take little for her and Bennett to garner a 3-2 majority in opposition. If the supervisors do not vote Tuesday, the hearing could be rolled over to Wednesday. If no decision is made by the end of the week, there would be only one calendar day for the board to reconvene, Tuesday, Dec. 17, before it breaks until January. Parks and Bennett join a long list of residents and officials in both Ventura and Los Angeles counties who want the supplemental EIR to include updated studies on the potential impact on traffic along the 101 corridor, as well as air and water quality in the area. So far, officials from Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc. (WAMU) have declined to pay for the study, although they have offered to help fund mitigation programs to accommodate increases in traffic. Estimates are that roughly 50,000 new car trips per day would be generated by the development, which includes two country clubs, a golf course and a luxury hotel. Although the board initially approved an environmental review of the project in 1992, it later requested a supplemental study following the discovery in 1999 of two endangered species on the land: the San Fernando Valley spineflower and the California red-legged tree frog. The supplemental environmental review was submitted and approved Nov. 22 by the Ventura County Planning Commission in a 3-2 vote, clearing the way for developers of the proposed mini-city to re-present their plans to the board of supervisors and move into the first phase of development. Meanwhile, threats by the city of Los Angeles to also file a suit against Ahmanson loom. If the Ventura County supervisors vote to approve the project Dec. 10, the Los Angeles City Council is poised to approve a motion proposed last month by Councilman Dennis Zine the following day directing the city attorney to file suit against Ahmanson if the supervisors approve the supplemental EIR without asking for a traffic and air and water quality study. Tom Henry, planning deputy for Zine, said his boss, representatives of the City Attorney’s office and Deputy Mayor Brian Willams are among the Los Angeles representatives planning to attend the Tuesday hearing. The meeting isn’t scheduled to begin until 1:30 p.m., which doesn’t leave much time for deliberations considering the anticipated number of public speakers expected. “Most people are thinking that the board of supervisors won’t finish getting through all of the public comments before the end of the day,” said Henry. “They could move it to Wednesday, in which case we would postpone the council decision until Thursday. From there, we’d just see what happened next.” Once the council votes to approve Zine’s motion, as expected, the city has 30 days to file a suit. Otherwise, a new motion would have to be introduced. Although the board of supervisors could hold a special meeting on the Ahmanson issue, the clock will be ticking elsewhere. A suit filed by the city of Calabasas and another by two private citizens earlier this month seeks to overturn the planning commission’s initial vote to approve the supplemental EIR. Both cases were expected to be heard Friday. Both charge the panel violated the state’s open meeting laws because several planning members met with Ahmanson officials and lawyers for the project on the proposed ranch site without notifying other interested parties. WAMU spokesman Tim McGarry declined to comment on the pending litigation, potential vote delays or what they may mean for the project. “The timing is up to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors,” McGarry said.