Traffic Increases of Almost 2,000% Predicted

The huge Ahmanson Ranch development proposed for the hills of eastern Ventura County would add more than 37,500 cars a day to the streets in and near the southwest San Fernando Valley, increasing traffic on some roads by almost 2,000%, according to a draft environmental impact report released Thursday.

Such predictions prompted Los Angeles County critics of the project to repeat longstanding complaints that their communities would suffer most of the adverse effects of the development while Ventura County would reap most of the benefits.

Specifically, opponents of the project said that while property tax revenues would go straight into Ventura County coffers, traffic from the proposed 3,050 dwellings would go straight onto Los Angeles County’s already congested streets and freeways.

Although the project is entirely within Ventura County--and would need approval from that county’s Board of Supervisors--the only access to the land is over Los Angeles County roads.

“It’s a disaster,” said Bill Bell of Mountain View Estates, a Los Angeles County neighborhood just outside the proposed boundaries of Ahmanson Ranch.

The environmental impact report includes a proposal for traffic improvements such as widening existing roads and building new ones, installing signals and redesigning freeway ramps to accommodate more cars.

Even so, traffic along Victory Boulevard, the proposed eastern entrance to the project, would jump from 1,250 car trips a day to about 22,000 by the year 2010, according to the report. And along Las Virgenes Road in Calabasas, daily trips would increase from current levels of 16,850 to more than 41,000--with more than half of the increase generated by the Ahmanson project, it said.

But nearly all of the proposed road improvements would need the approval of local governments in Los Angeles County--including the cities of Los Angeles, Calabasas and Agoura Hills. On Thursday, local officials said they doubted they would approve such improvements unless they are granted a greater role in the approval process.

“Who says Calabasas wants a six-lane highway?” asked Calabasas City Councilwoman Lesley Devine, referring to plans to widen Las Virgenes Road.

And an aide to Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joy Picus said Picus stands by an earlier promise to block connection of Ahmanson roads to Victory Boulevard in Woodland Hills. Picus has said she can block the connection by refusing to allow paving of a one-foot-wide strip of Victory Boulevard on which the city holds the right of way.

“It’s clear that Joy would find anything like this kind of volume down Victory Boulevard unacceptable,” Picus aide Rita Schneir said.

Siegfried Othmer, a director of Save Open Space, which opposes the project, said the development would burden “a transportation corridor that does not have the breathing room anymore.”

Ahmanson Land Co. President Donald Brackenbush said the improvements will provide “enormous capacity on these streets.”

He acknowledged that residents living on some streets would notice increased traffic, but added, “that’s part of living in the second-biggest city in America.”

Brackenbush acknowledged that he needed the cooperation of local governments. He said he hoped local officials will find the project more acceptable after reviewing the environmental report.

“I suppose if they don’t . . . they will use methods to stop it,” he said. “I hope not.”

Supporters of the project noted that it would trigger a massive conversion of private mountain property to public parkland in both Los Angeles and Ventura County. In a deal struck with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the developers have promised to donate and sell some 10,000 acres of mountain land for a below-market price of $29.5 million.

Ventura County Supervisor Maria VanderKolk, a prime architect of that deal, said that the benefits to Los Angeles County residents--especially the open space--would outweigh the traffic problems.

“I think that . . . we need to stop looking at county lines,” she said. “I understand their feeling of political impotency . . . because their elected officials are not necessarily involved in this process . . . .”

But, VanderKolk said, if the project is approved, she expects nearby residents’ property values to increase “with a large national park literally almost in their back yards, and I don’t think they’re looking at things in those terms.”

Othmer warned that the massive up-zoning sought by the developers would set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for other urban-style projects in rural areas that would intensify traffic and air quality problems. The plan calls for nearly 50 times the 68 dwelling units currently permitted on the site.

VanderKolk said the precedent would be mostly positive. “If this sets a precedent that you get 10,000 acres of land in exchange for a development, then I think that’s a good precedent,” she said.