Agencies Use Suits to Force Ahmanson Concessions : Housing: Litigants admit their goal is to win revisions from the developer, including added traffic controls and funds for roads and a library.

By AARON CURTISS

Jan. 17, 1993 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

In the month since the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved construction of the massive Ahmanson Ranch housing project, an avalanche of lawsuits have been filed against the project that must be settled before the developer can build the mini-city in the Simi Hills.

A collection of seven public agencies, environmentalists and homeowners have launched legal challenges contending the supervisors did not follow proper procedure in approving the 3,050-home project and that the report assessing the development’s environmental impacts was inadequate.

But environmental concerns are not the major consideration in many of these actions. Despite the high legal tone of the various lawsuits, interviews with the litigants reveal that many are simply trying to extract concrete concessions from the developer such as:

* More money. Calabasas officials and Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed Edelman continue to negotiate with Ahmanson Land Co. executives for more funds for road improvements and a new public library.

* Less traffic. Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joy Picus wants a gate at the west end of Victory Boulevard to prevent traffic from the project from flooding streets in her district. Calabasas officials also want guarantees that fewer cars will use their roads.

* Less development. Although Ahmanson executives have offered to reduce the project’s 400,000-square-foot commercial center by 20%, the environmental group Save Open Space and two homeowner groups want even less building to take place on the former sheep ranch.

Additionally, each of the plaintiffs have their own agenda--sometimes in direct conflict with the others. And although they march under the banner of environmental defense, the fight is as much about politics as it is about land-use.

“I do find it fascinating,” said Ventura County Supervisor Maria VanderKolk, remarking on the lawsuits. “I think everyone is hypocritical in this--except, of course, me.”

Officials from the cities of Calabasas, Los Angeles and Malibu as well as Los Angeles County admitted that lawsuits are little more than procedural measures to keep the Ahmanson Land Co. at the negotiating table until further concessions can be extracted.

Once those concessions are made, the four will probably drop their challenges.

“If we get something that our city could live with, we could discuss a settlement,” Calabasas Councilwoman Lesley Devine said. “If there were an offer that made sense, people would look at it. But at this point in time, it’s not there.”

Picus and Edelman expressed similar sentiments.

Several public officials and leaders of homeowner groups watching the battle commented that the suits in many cases are intended to score political points with west Los Angeles County residents. They point out that:

* Malibu and Calabasas are relatively new cities with councils eager to demonstrate their independence.

* Picus is running for reelection.

* And Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed Edelman has represented the area only since 1991 and wants to curry favor with his new constituents, many of whom are distrustful of county government.

Few of Ahmanson’s opponents believe they will be able to stop the project with their suits and it is expected that only the environmental group Save Open Space and two homeowner groups will pursue their challenges all the way to court to either kill the plan outright or scale it back considerably.

For the public agencies, suing is a calculated risk because the plaintiffs could win fewer concessions from a judge than Ahmanson already has offered in negotiations. Homeowners and environmentalists share the opinion that they have nothing to lose.

For their part, Ahmanson executives said they want to continue negotiating with their opponents. But, they added, there comes a point when it is cheaper to fight the suits in court than write another check.

“We have certain economic limits,” Ahmanson Land Co. President Donald Brackenbush said. “We can’t give everybody everything they want . . . This project is going from a profitable one to a marginal one.”

Brackenbush said Friday that none of the challenges so far contained anything that would jeopardize the project.

Although the project would be built entirely within Ventura County, its only access would be along Los Angeles County roads-- Thousand Oaks Boulevard in Calabasas and Victory Boulevard in West Hills--and would dump about 37,000 additional vehicles a day onto already congested streets.

Los Angeles County officials protested the project at every turn, contending they would bear the brunt of the development’s negative effects such as traffic and smog, while Ventura County would reap all the financial benefits.

But their concerns were overruled by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, which cited the acquisition of more than 10,000 acres for public parkland as a benefit that outweighs the project’s drawbacks.

As part of the project approval, the land, which is considered a crucial wildlife corridor, will be sold in a complicated deal to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for $29.5 million.

If Ahmanson loses any of the suits, the land deal would be affected only slightly. Once more than 7,000 acres are sold to the conservancy later this week, they cannot be taken back. Another 3,000 or so acres become public parkland after the project is finished.

Shortly after the approval, opponents vowed to sue and by Friday afternoon the cities of Calabasas, Los Angeles and Malibu, Los Angeles County, the Malibu Canyon Homeowners Assn. and the Mountain View Estateowners Assn. had filed lawsuits in Ventura County Superior Court against the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. Save Open Space is expected to file its challenge Tuesday.

Ahmanson will foot the bill to defend Ventura County against the suits, but Brackenbush refused to reveal how much the developer had budgeted for legal costs.

The suits are all similar in that they challenge the adequacy of the environmental impact report and allege that Ventura County officials violated the procedural rules of the California Environmental Quality Act.

None of the suits seek specific damages, but interviews with the litigants reveal the point at which most are willing to drop their challenges. Although most want to reduce traffic on local streets, some have conflicting goals that complicate the negotiation process.

Picus wants to stem the potential flood of cars from streaming down Victory Boulevard. Of all the demands, hers is the cheapest because it could be accomplished by building a gate to prevent commuters from cutting through the project as an alternative to the Ventura Freeway.

“I believe that our goal right now is to put up a gate on Victory Boulevard,” Picus said. “We also need to gate the road leading in from the west. That would solve my problem.”

Edelman, likewise, fears his district will be overrun by traffic from the project. In negotiations with Ahmanson, Los Angeles County public works officials have asked for as much as $18 million in road improvements to handle the increased traffic.

But adding to the confusion, county Public Works Director Thomas Tidemanson disagrees with Edelman and Picus over building a gate at either end of the project. Tidemanson is opposed to gating the project because he wants the roads to be used by the general public as freeway alternatives.

The Calabasas City Council also wants more money for roads and a little extra for a new library. Ahmanson has offered to reduce its 400,000-square-foot commercial component by 20% to alleviate traffic and to contribute up to $7 million for street improvements and a public facilities fund that could help pay for a library.

One of the concessions negotiated by Calabasas was that plans for the construction of a new street down Gates Canyon be abandoned. But that would direct all of the project’s traffic onto Thousand Oaks Boulevard through the heart of the Malibu Canyon neighborhood.

So the Malibu Canyon Homeowners Assn., which initially had said it might join Calabasas in a lawsuit, decided instead to file its own.

Leaders of Mountain View Estateowners declined to comment on their suit. Malibu officials could not be reached late last week.

William Fulton, publisher of the California Planning and Development Report, said the flurry of lawsuits points up the lack of cooperation among local agencies on both sides of the county line.

“Suing . . . is the only useful mechanism to get effective regional planning, which is pretty ineffective,” Fulton said. “Litigation becomes an extension of the political process. Everybody is going to go away when they get what they want. They’re using the court system to get political leverage.

“It illustrates how ludicrous it is not to have some sort of useful political forum in which regional political issues can be worked out,” Fulton continued. “It’s nuts.”