Newhall Ranch Decision Raises Hopes for Foes of Ahmanson Plan

A judge’s decision last week temporarily blocking Newhall Ranch--the largest residential project in Los Angeles County--has boosted the hopes of those seeking to halt the Ahmanson Ranch project planned for southeastern Ventura County.

Both projects abut the Ventura-Los Angeles county border and have fueled battles between the counties over potential detrimental impact on traffic, endangered species and open space.

“What we’re seeing in Newhall is cause for renewed hope relative to Ahmanson Ranch,” said Los Angeles Councilwoman Laura Chick, whose 3rd District would bear the brunt of increased Ahmanson traffic into the west San Fernando Valley.

“This decision is an example of considering the long-term impacts on surrounding areas before a development goes forward, not just focusing on the economic impact in the immediate area,” Chick said.

Last week’s ruling by Kern County Superior Court Judge Roger D. Randall has no immediate bearing on Ahmanson Ranch, a 3,050-home development approved by Ventura County supervisors in 1992.

Washington Mutual, the Seattle-based banking giant seeking to develop Ahmanson Ranch, has beaten back more than a dozen legal challenges.

Still, opponents said Randall’s ruling could potentially benefit their cause. First, a favorable appeals court ruling, should it get that far, could set a precedent affecting other large developments, although Los Angeles County officials have not yet discussed whether to appeal.

Ahmanson foes said Randall’s willingness to call for an additional environmental study on a county-approved project, while not binding, could be cited by other judges.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), an outspoken opponent of Ahmanson, said a favorable appellate ruling “can be a source of precedence that we can use to argue” for a new Environmental Impact Report.

Washington Mutual has agreed to a supplemental environmental study for Ventura County, a company spokesman said Friday. A supplemental study would be far narrower in scope than the new study sought by Sherman and other opponents.

Last month, Sherman called on Ventura County planners to order an entirely new environmental report because of the recent discovery on Ahmanson land of an endangered flower and frog--neither of which was listed in the current environmental study approved in 1992.

Tim McGarry, a Washington Mutual vice president, said his company has agreed to a supplemental study of Ahmanson Ranch to include the two threatened species: the San Fernando Valley spineflower and the California red-legged frog.

Ahmanson Land Co. is cooperating fully with Ventura County and other agencies on that review and on the conservation of these species, he said.

“The Ahmanson Ranch environmental impact report has successfully withstood a number of court challenges,” McGarry said. “There have been some 15 lawsuits involving Ahmanson Ranch. And the Ahmanson Ranch Land Co. has prevailed in each instance.”

McGarry said his company opposes the new report sought by Sherman, Los Angeles County and the city of Calabasas.

The Ahmanson development is dwarfed by Newhall Ranch--a community of 22,000 homes on 12,000 Los Angeles County acres straddling the Santa Clara River north of Six Flags Magic Mountain.

But environmentalists and other opponents have contended that the Ahmanson development would send up to 45,000 additional cars streaming daily through the West Valley. Ahmanson officials say its construction will bring $1.2 billion in benefits to Los Angeles city and county.

The Newhall ruling might provide a new legal tack, said Mary Wiesbrock, director of Save Open Space, a group of Ventura and Los Angeles County residents that has sued Washington Mutual over Ahmanson Ranch in Ventura County courts.

“This gives us the message,” said Wiesbrock, an Agoura Hills resident. “We’ve been in the wrong jurisdiction; we need to go to a neutral county for our next round of lawsuits.”

Nick Quidwai, director of Concerned Citizens of Thousand Oaks, said the Newhall ruling is proof that “the tide is turning against the developers and people who were pouring concrete in Southern California without any recourse by the justice system.”

The mirror-image possible impact on a neighboring county has long created complications for politicians who have supported one project but opposed the other.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a strong opponent of Ahmanson Ranch in the past who voted to approve Newhall Ranch, declined comment Friday on the ruling.

Frank Schillo, the Ventura County supervisor whose district includes Ahmanson Ranch, said the developer has complied with numerous follow-up environmental studies to study the impacts on traffic and habitat.

The two projects--Newhall and Ahmanson--are separate and can’t be compared, he added, and he doubted that Los Angeles County, Calabasas and environmentalists could halt Ahmanson Ranch.

Sherman, however, said Ventura County officials are hypocritical in approving a project that affects Los Angeles County, but opposing a project that might negatively affect their county on similar grounds.

“If we could get the music of Ventura County arguments on the Newhall Ranch piped into the stereo system of the Ventura County Planning Department on days they look at Ahmanson, I think that could get them to sing our song,” Sherman said.