Ahmanson Ranch Development
January
2002
The Draft EIR for the Ahmanson Ranch development located
just north of Calabasas will be out for public review by the time you read
this. This development proposes to
build over 21,000 expensive homes, a huge golf course, etc., in pristine habitats
that support the California Red-legged Frog and San Fernando Valley Spineflower,
and other rare species. The project,
upon buildout, will increase traffic on U.S. 101 by about 20%, and add an
hour to your commute to and from Los Angeles into Ventura County.
Los Angeles County is fighting this project because of the impacts
it will have on the citizens of Los Angeles County.
Contact David Magney for up-to-date information on this project.
Read CNPS response
letter. Phone 805/646-6045.
The Ventura County Environmental Report Review Committee
(ERRC) has held two hearings and reviewed verbal and written testimony and
critiques of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR)
for Phase I of the previously (1992) approved Ahmanson Ranch development
adjacent to Calabasas in easternmost Ventura County.
The DSEIR was supposed to address new concerns regarding impacts
to rare species (San Fernando Valley Spineflower [SFVS] and California Red-legged
Frog), wetland impacts, and traffic impacts.
Rincon Consultants of Ventura were hired by the County to prepare
the EIR; however, Rincon was only to evaluate the impacts based on studies
performed by the developer’s (Washington Mutual Bank) own consultants. The ERRC decided that the DSEIR needed significantly
more work to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and to address the thousands of specific comments they received
on the DSEIR. Rincon’s budget was
increased six-fold in a recommendation by Ventura County Planning Dept.
staff to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. It will likely take Rincon a few months to
go through all the comments and prepare proper responses (as required by
CEQA) and perform the additional analysis requested by the commenters, which
included CNPS. The County will then
release a Final EIR, which will then need to be reviewed by CNPS and other
interested individuals and groups. CNPS’s
primary concern with the Ahmanson project are the direct and indirect impacts
to rare plants (including the San Fernando Valley Spineflower), wetlands,
and native plant communities such as Coastal Sage Scrub, Coast Live Oak
Woodland, and California Annual Grassland.
You can help by review the FEIR when it comes out and telling the
Ventura County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors about your concerns
with the project.
October 2002
The Final EIR for the Ahmanson Ranch development project was released at
the end of September. A quick review of the EIR found that Ventura County
and it's EIR consultant, Rincon Consultants, largely ignored CNPS's comments.
The Ventura County General Plan states that the County "shall consult"
with CNPS on all discretionary projects that may impact native plants. Did
they consult with CNPS? No! Did they consider CNPS's requests for evaluation
of nonvascular plants and locally rare species? No!
The ERRC originally scheduled a hearing on the FEIR on 9 October, but extended
it to 14 October, Columbus Day, a federal holiday. The concerned public
should attend this hearing to let the ERRC hear your thoughts on this massive
and destructive project.
December 2002
The Ventura County Planning Commission held two hearings on the SEIR in
November. The Commission voted 3-2 to approve the SEIR and recommend
that the Board of Supervisors certify the SEIR as adequate. CNPS and
many others submitted substantial comments, orally and in writing, describing
the problems with the environmental document. Surely, the project
and the CEQA process are complex and confusing, compounded by the fact that
information can be difficult to obtain (background or supporting reports
prepared by Ahmanson Land Company’s consultants). The issues that
need to be addressed under the CEQA process are: what are the resources
that may be impacted, will the impacts be significant, and is the proposed
mitigation feasible? CNPS believes that the SEIR fails on all three
accounts. It failed to adequately describe the existing biological
resources, it failed to adequately assess the project impacts on those resources,
and it failed to provide feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts
to less-than-significant levels. The issues CNPS raised include the:
· EIR’s failure to assess impacts on nonvascular plants;
· EIR’s failure to assess impacts to species of local concern;
· Inaccurate impact assessment to the San Fernando Valley Spineflower;
· Inadequate preserve design for the San Fernando Valley Spineflower;
· Misleading and inadequate plant community classification used;
· Infeasibility of transplanting rare plants as mitigation;
· Non-viability of the mitigation preserves proposed;
· Inappropriateness of habitat preservation as mitigation for direct
impacts;
· County’s failure to consult with CNPS and the Audubon Society,
as required under General Plan policy;
· Failure to adequately consider impact to rare invertebrates;
· Failure to use the most recent available information;
· Failure to evaluate impacts to wetland functions; and
· Project’s inconsistencies with the Ventura County General Plan
goals and policies.
A copy of CNPS’s and David Magney Environmental Consulting’s (on contract
to the City of Calabasas through LSA Associates (an environmental consulting
firm headquartered in Richmond, CA) comment letters can be downloaded here
(insert download link to CNPS letter here; insert download link to DMEC
comment letter here). The transcript (draft) for the first day of
the Planning Commission hearing can be downloaded here (Planning
Commision Comments), just remember, they are an unedited version,
which contains numerous errors.
The first day of hearings on the SEIR for Ahmanson Ranch by the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors was held on 10 December 2002. Approximately
500 people attended the overflowing hearing room, consisting of both supporters
and opponents. Supervisor Flynn disclosed the President Bill Clinton,
Vice-President Al Gore, and others had called him expressing their concern
about the impacts the project would have on the environment. The issues
are the same as heard by the Planning Commission. What the Supervisors
need to know is whether the SEIR adequately addresses the new environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the original 1992 EIR. As presented
in earlier comments, CNPS does not believe so.
CNPS submitted a comment
letter to the Board of Supervisors addressing a few of the key points,
and will testify on the 17th. Due to the large number of people wishing
to testify, it is unlikely that the hearings will be completed on the 17th.
David Magney, representing CNPS, talked briefly on KCLU’s Cross Talk program
the morning of 11 December 2002 about the inadequacy of the preserve design
for the San Fernando Valley Spineflower.
Ventura County OKs Ahmanson study, giving builder the go-ahead to seek permits.
By Massie Ritsch, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer – 20
December 2002
The developer of Ahmanson Ranch secured a crucial but mixed blessing Thursday
from Ventura County supervisors, who agreed the proposed community abutting
Los Angeles County admirably balances the region's housing needs and environmental
concerns. The board's 4-1 vote gave owner Washington Mutual Bank the
green light to seek the state and federal permits required before construction.
But waiting at those agencies and in court will most likely be a persistent
coalition of environmentalists, celebrities and neighboring cities opposed
to the project. "We always hope there won't be litigation, but
that might be a false hope here," said Steve Weston, the developer's
chief attorney.
Indeed, almost immediately after the Board of Supervisors voted to certify
a second environmental study of the 3,050-home project, officials in Calabasas
and the city and county of Los Angeles said they will probably file legal
challenges next month to overturn the supervisors' decision. Atty.
Gen. Bill Lockyer said he remains concerned the project would degrade the
surrounding environment. The project's neighbors contend the updated
study is flawed because it did not update 10-year-old traffic studies or
fully consider the recent discovery of a contaminated well near the property.
Ventura County "has clearly shown blatant disregard for its neighbors
and their best interests," Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine
said. "This project is a disaster in the making."
Ahmanson Ranch's critics say they would prefer to meet the developer at
the negotiating table, not in a courtroom, to craft a deal preserving the
ranchland as a park. "We believe that it is not only in the best
interest of the public but in the best business interest of Washington Mutual
Bank to sell this land to a conservancy at a fair price," said Chad
Griffin, campaign manager for Rally to Save Ahmanson Ranch.
Thursday's vote maintains, if not boosts, the enormous value of the ranch's
2,800 undeveloped acres. Estimates range from $100 million to $500
million, but Washington Mutual insists it has no intention of selling.
"Our plans are the same as they always have been," Weston said.
The proposal to develop Ahmanson Ranch was first approved in 1992 by a different
group of Ventura County supervisors. As part of the deal, the National
Park Service and the state Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy became owners
of 10,000 acres of Ahmanson and adjacent ranches, preserving the grassy
hills and oak savanna overlooking the San Fernando Valley.
That did not satisfy open-space activists, who have unsuccessfully challenged
the project in court and before government boards ever since. Their
cause got a lift in recent years from film director Rob Reiner and friends,
who have bankrolled the campaign and enlisted state legislators, members
of Congress and even Bill Clinton and Al Gore to oppose the $2-billion development.
Ventura County Supervisor Judy Mikels said Thursday the "very slick"
campaign failed to change her mind on Washington Mutual's "exceedingly
good project." "I'm very disconcerted by outside officials
getting into local issues," she said. "They'll get their chance."
Before it can build its community, Washington Mutual must secure permits
from the state Department of Fish and Game, state Regional Water Quality
Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. To varying degrees, all of those stops are potential roadblocks.
The environmental study Ventura County supervisors evaluated Thursday was
a supplement to the original 1992 analysis. It was primarily a plan
for protecting the endangered red-legged frog and San Fernando Valley spineflower,
which were discovered on the property three years ago. But the development's
opponents used the public hearing to reexamine traffic projections and other
effects. They also asked supervisors to order a study of perchlorate,
a cancer-causing component of rocket fuel, that was detected in July in
a well proposed for irrigating the development's two golf courses. The opponents
cited bygone rocket-testing at Boeing's Santa Susana Field Laboratory as
the likely source of the contaminant. Scientists at the lab dispute that
argument.
After a three-day parade of experts hired by opponents and the developer,
supervisors expressed concern over perchlorate contamination in California
but doubted the chemical poses any danger to the Ahmanson project.
Just destroy the well, the supervisors told the developer, and find another
way to water the project's golf courses and don't tap any nearby wells if
they are contaminated. Opponent Griffin said the supervisors had ignored
an opportunity to protect the public from perchlorate. "They
chose to pass the buck" to state and federal agencies, he said.
The supervisors' decision followed 16 hours of testimony. So voluminous
were the documents that Supervisor Frank Schillo could barely be seen over
boxes of paper as he explained his support for the development. Schillo
is leaving office in 17 days, and Ahmanson's opponents had hoped to delay
the supervisors' vote until the inauguration of his successor, slow-growth
ally Linda Parks. As it turned out, the 4-1 vote suggested the delay
would not have helped the opposition. Board Chairman John Flynn and
Supervisor Kathy Long joined Schillo and Mikels in certifying the environmental
study and a tract map of the development's first phase. The lone dissenter,
Steve Bennett, said he wanted to see an updated traffic study. Traffic
has not been measured since the 1992 analysis, and Washington Mutual maintains
the projections are close enough to today's reality.
In an unusual move Thursday, the supervisors added to their approval a requirement
that the developer "consider" ways to assist Ventura County in
creating affordable housing for its many farm workers. "We need
your help," said Flynn, who proposed the requirement.
January 2003
The Ventura County Environmental Report Review Committee (ERRC) held a hearing on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) on the Ahmanson Ranch (Phase 1) development project in October 2002. The ERRC found the FSEIR adequate and forwarded it for certification to the Ventura County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held two days of hearings on the EIR in mid-November, voting 3-2 to recommend certification and approval to the Board of Supervisors; the Board of Supervisors approved the project 4-1 after hearing testimony over 3 days. Only Supervisor Bennett (District 1) voted against certification.
CNPS provided written comments at the ERRC, Planning Commission, and Board hearings, expressing great concern over the inadequate descriptions of the existing conditions and impact assessments, and lack of feasible mitigation measures. Unfortunately, almost all CNPS’s comments were ignored, with only minor or unsatisfactory comments provided. It did not appear that the ERRC, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors were at all concerned with the significant issues raised by CNPS.
It is vitally important that all CNPS members tell your Supervisor how you feel about their decision on the Ahmanson Ranch development project, both over concerns about the lack of adequate identification of existing biological resources and the inadequate review of project-related impacts to these resources. Furthermore, the mitigation measures proposed are inadequate or will fail because of poor or flawed design. CNPS is now considering filing a CEQA lawsuit on the EIR, which must be filed by mid-January.
June 2003
CNPS and several other environmental
organizations’ lawsuit against the County of Ventura and Ahmanson Land Company/Washington
Mutual Bank are in the record-gathering stage, which will take months.
No new actions or activities have occurred on this project, but stay
tuned. Ken Niessen
Get more info from various websites, for and against the project. -
David Magney
Three comments on the FSEIR can be downloaded here:
David Magney Environmental
Consulting provided comments on the FSEIR on behalf of the City of Calabasas
through LSA Associates
CNPS submitted two comment letters on the FSEIR,
one from CNPS Vegetation Ecologist Julie Evens, and the other
from Channel Islands Chapter Conservation Chairman David Magney.
Links to other Ahmanson sites: