restrictions proposed
While an environmental review has found that no additional traffic impact study is needed for the proposed Ahmanson Ranch development, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board proposes restrictions on grading.
By P. G. O’Malley /Special to The Malibu Times
In the continual seesaw between agencies that has characterized the debate about Ahmanson Ranch, the Ventura County Environmental Report Review Committee (ERRC) has agreed there is no need to study increased traffic impacts from the 3,050 home development. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has called for more stringent controls on grading.
The control board, which regulates effluent discharge from the Tapia sewage treatment plant in Malibu Canyon and has sparred with the city over septic tanks, is no stranger to Malibu residents. The control board has requested that grading at the Ahmanson site, located 15 miles inland from Malibu at the headwaters of Las Virgenes Creek, be prohibited during the winter rainy season.
The proposed restrictions reflect those imposed on the Tapia plant, which is prohibited from discharging water into Malibu Creek during winter and spring. In a long-awaited letter to the ERRC as part of its review of a supplement to the original Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the project, the control board expressed concerns. Given the amount of grading required to build the homes, golf courses and commercial space, winter storms could overwhelm local waterways with mud. Current estimates put the amount of dirt that will have to be moved to accommodate the project at more than 45 million cubic yards, which opponents say amounts to reworking more than 40 football fields.
While some construction experts have speculated that the control board’s prohibition could raise project costs by one-third or more, Washington Mutual spokesperson Tim McGarry discounted the estimate.
“It’s premature to speculate on any financial ramifications,” said McGarry, “especially from people who aren’t intimately involved in the project.”
The control board, which is one of four state or federal agencies that has permit authority over the project, specifically recommended that grading be prohibited from Oct. 1 through April 15. In remarks submitted by Melinda Becker, local standards chief, the control board noted that since the 1992 EIR was certified, Malibu Creek has been listed as exceeding federal water quality standards for nutrients, coliform bacteria, metals, pesticides and excessive sediment loading. In her letter to the ERRC, Becker noted that loading data supplied by Washington Mutual for the creek remains “very preliminary,” and the agency “will continue to evaluate the potential impact of the project.”
“I certainly wouldn’t make light of their concerns about erosion,” said McGarry. “I’m sure there will be more discussions.”
One of the control board’s other concerns is related to possible chemical contamination of ground water from the Rocketdyne’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory in a well Washington Mutual plans to use during construction. Testing of the water was approved by the ERRC at a recent hearing on June 19 in Ventura. At the same time, project planner Dennis Hawkins informed the committee that despite anecdotal evidence which seemed to suggest the contrary, traffic on the Ventura Freeway had actually decreased by 3 percent since the 1992 EIR, although this related only to a “20-minute commute zone” studied in 1991-92. While consultants for the city of Calabasas had argued that regional traffic had increased during that time, Hawkins noted that the original EIR has predicted the Ventura Freeway would “fail” by 2010, and the consultants’ predictions offered no new information-the requirement for amending and re-circulating the current environmental document.
The ERRC also discounted Los Angeles County traffic officials, who contended the original EIR had not taken into consideration downstream development in Los Angeles County, including increases in Z traffic through Malibu.
The project is not expected to come before the ERRC for another eight to 10 weeks, at which time it’s expected the committee will send it on to the Ventura County Planning Commission.
“The question now,” says Tsilah Burman of opposition group Rally to Save Ahmanson Ranch, “is whether the project is really financially viable.”