Lawmakers Asked to Restore Project Approval : Santa Monicas: Developers hope to revive a controversial proposal. But officials see it as a circumvention of the planning process.

Developers of a controversial housing tract in the Santa Monica Mountains are trying to persuade the state Legislature to restore planning approval for the second time on a project that the city of Los Angeles claims expired three years ago, their lobbyist acknowledged this week.

No measures have been formally introduced, but the developers of the 1,500-acre site near Mandeville and Mission canyons have spoken to several lawmakers about carrying special-interest legislation on their behalf, said their lobbyist, Les Cohen. The developers, Eastport Associates, want the Legislature to restore a tentative 500-home tract map the city says expired in 1987.

Disclosure of the effort elicited anger from state and local officials, who said they resented what they characterized as an attempt to circumvent the local planning process.

“I find it outrageous and will do everything possible to block it,” said Assemblyman Terry Friedman (D-Tarzana), whose district includes the site.

“If this can be done,” said Joseph T. Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, “then there is no project--however outrageous--that has been turned down or died of its own weight that cannot be revived.”

The conservancy has been working to preserve and eventually obtain nearby Mission Canyon from Los Angeles County. Development of the Eastport site would jeopardize those plans, because Mission Canyon has been proposed for a required access road.

Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles), whose district also includes the site, said he, too, will oppose the plan. Rosenthal said developer W. Charles Chastain, who is involved with the project, told him: “I’m not going to walk away from it, there is too much invested.”

The property lies west of the San Diego Freeway and south of Mulholland Drive, in a mountainside area with views of West Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean. Eastport is attempting to reorganize under Chapter 11 of federal bankruptcy laws.

Renewal of the tract map is considered crucial. Without it, whoever attempts to build on the site would have to start the approval process over and contend with hillside construction laws and homeowners groups that did not exist when the tract map was initially granted in 1979.

The city says its approval expired in 1987, after Eastport had received several extensions. Developers then took their case to the Legislature and succeeded in obtaining a measure, enacted in 1988, designed to retroactively extend the life of the firm’s tract map.

The city later challenged the validity of the legislation and last month a federal judge ruled that Eastport’s measure could not revive building rights that had expired.

Attorneys for Eastport have indicated that they will appeal the ruling. In the meantime, Eastport wants the Legislature to clarify its intent, said Cohen.

The original measure was sponsored by former Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier), who has since become the first California legislator in 35 years to be found guilty of corruption in office. His conviction last February did not involve the Eastport legislation.

But his sponsorship was noted by several angry officials. “Considering how this occurred the first time, through a devious, secret measure by convicted felon Sen. Montoya, I think there’s going to be much closer scrutiny of any such efforts,” said Friedman.

A spokesman for Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno) said Eastport has asked him to sponsor a new amendment and attach it to an inactive bill he introduced last year. The Costa bill, AB-1661, was written to preserve building permits issued before voters enact slow-growth measures.

But Costa has not yet studied the proposed amendment and no decision has been made, said his senior consultant Terry Reardon.

Chastain and Eastport Associates’ general partner, Donald H. Albrecht, could not be reached for comment.

Chastain, who built the high-priced Palisades Highlands tract in Pacific Palisades, was brought into the Eastport project by another developer, Ray A. Watt, because of his success in building in the Santa Monica Mountains, according to Cindy Miscikowski, administrative aide to Westside Councilman Marvin Braude.

“Clearly, we would oppose any bill that would revive and attempt to resuscitate zoning that had expired, it’s kaput, and has no validity,” Miscikowski said. “If someone wants to reapply and start over under city processes, that is available. I don’t see how anyone could reach back and revive something this dead.”

Watt, one of the state’s most powerful and politically influential developers, last summer offered $69 million for the troubled Eastport project. But in recent months Watt allowed his option on Eastport to expire, and he said again this week that he is no longer interested in the project.

Watt also denied speculation by Miscikowski and others that he was only assuming a lower profile in the Eastport project and that Chastain was really working on his behalf.

Lobbyist Cohen acknowledged business ties between himself and Watt, and between Watt and Chastain. But he, too, said Watt had withdrawn from the Eastport project.

Chastain also has experience with special-interest legislation. His firm, Headland Properties Inc., tried several times in 1979 to have the Legislature exempt Palisades Highlands from Coastal Commission control. In 1985, Chastain again appealed to the Legislature for help in changing the location of 100 moderately priced homes he had promised to build, from the entrance of the wealthy Highlands to a more commercial site in West Los Angeles. Both efforts failed.

Staff writer Myron Levin contributed to this story.