Impact Study on Project Called Invalid : Ahmanson: Lawyers tell judge that revised environmental report on the development is not adequate. One labels project a ‘closed-door deal.’

The environmental impact report on the giant Ahmanson Ranch development was no longer valid after the project grew in size from 1,850 houses to a 3,050-dwelling golf course community and a new report should have been ordered, attorneys argued in court Tuesday.

Instead, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors relied on an amended environmental document that did not adequately address the project’s impacts on surrounding communities, said Mark Weinberger, an attorney representing the city of Malibu in a lawsuit filed against the project.

Other plaintiffs in the case include Los Angeles County, the cities of Los Angeles and Calabasas, and several homeowner and environmental groups.

“This was a closed-door deal pushed through by developers,” Weinberger said after a hearing on the lawsuits Tuesday in Ventura County Superior Court. “Hopefully, we will get the project back before the community and in a forum where significant issues like traffic impacts can be thoroughly addressed.”

During the hearing, attorneys representing Ventura County and Ahmanson Land Co. said the project’s environmental impact report had met all of the requirements outlined by the California Environmental Quality Act.

They also argued that the supervisors had approved the project--planned in the rolling hills south of Simi Valley--after deciding that the prospect of receiving nearly 10,000 acres of public parkland included in the deal outweighed the environmental damage.

“The public not only had an opportunity to participate, but the record suggests that it had significant participation,” attorney Steve Weston said, referring to the nearly 500 pages of public comments that were submitted on the project.

Weston pointed out that after the project was increased in size to 3,050 dwellings, the Board of Supervisors recirculated the environmental impact report for 45 days to give the public a chance to comment on the changes.

“I believe the county acted properly,” he said. “To ask the county to go back and start all over again would be potentially devastating.”

But Rosemary Woodblock, an attorney representing the environmental group Save Open Space, argued that 45 days was not sufficient to review an environmental impact report that included more than 1,000 pages. She said the public did not have ample time to determine whether the 10,000 acres of parkland was sufficient compensation for the environmental effects.

“In order to have a valid statement of overriding consideration, you have to have a valid environmental impact report,” she said. “And the facts in the environmental impact report are not valid.”

Richard Weiss, an attorney representing Los Angeles County, argued that additional mitigation measures should have been required of the developer to help reduce traffic impacts on the Ventura Freeway.

“We believe they should shoulder some of the costs” of improvements on the freeway, he said.

Steven Vining, another Ahmanson attorney, said the developer had already planned to spend about $19 million to reduce traffic impacts throughout the region. He said the improvements include building new on- and off-ramps to help ease the flow of traffic on the freeway.

The Board of Supervisors approved the Ahmanson project in December, 1992, on condition that Ahmanson Land and its partners turn over to state and federal park agencies 10,000 acres of mountain land--most of it owned by entertainer Bob Hope. So far, only about 3,000 acres--including Hope’s 2,308-acre Jordan Ranch--have been acquired as parkland.

Ahmanson, which has agreed to dedicate 2,633 acres of its ranch as open space, must also deliver two other Hope properties to park agencies before it can go forward with its development. These include Hope’s 4,369-acre Runkle Ranch near Chatsworth and his 339-acre Corral Canyon tract in Malibu.

Under its agreement with the county, Ahmanson has about two years left to acquire Hope’s land. But the developer, concerned about potential financial impacts from the lawsuits, has put its plans on hold indefinitely.

Following Tuesday’s hearing, attorneys for both sides said they were confident about Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Lane’s ruling.

“I think the judge gave us a full hearing today on how much the county short-circuited the public’s right to fully participate” in the environmental review process, Weinberger said. “We hope the judge will take the hands of the developers back out of the cookie jar.”

Both sides were reluctant to say if they would appeal the judge’s decision if she ruled against them.

“I don’t know about an appeal,” Weston said. “All I can say is that the developer feels very strongly about its project.”

Joseph T. Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which stands to gain thousands of acres of parkland from the Ahmanson deal, said he is worried that the lawsuits may prompt Ahmanson to withdraw from its original parkland-for-development deal with the county. He said he fears that Ahmanson may try to go back to its initial 1,850-house proposal if the county is willing to release the developer from its obligation to deliver Hope’s two other properties.

“That’s my biggest concern,” Edmiston said.

Lane said she will probably have a decision on the case in about three weeks.