Simi Asked to Save Land Swap : Jordan Ranch: Backers of the development believe the city is more likely to OK the project than the county. The exchange won’t occur without project approval.

Giving up on the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, developers of the Jordan Ranch project have asked the city of Simi Valley to save a land swap involving entertainer Bob Hope by annexing about 5,900 acres of the controversial property.

If the annexation goes through, Simi Valley would have jurisdiction over the property and thus have the final say over the 750-house Jordan Ranch project in the rolling hills of southeast Ventura County.

The five county supervisors, three of whom have either pledged to vote against the development or have voted against it in the past, would lose control over the project.

Approval of the Jordan Ranch project must occur or the proposed land swap between Hope and the National Park Service will fall apart.

Under the land-swap proposal, the National Park Service would exchange 59 acres needed for an access road to the Jordan subdivision for 1,100 acres of the 2,308-acre ranch. In addition, Hope is donating and selling 4,600 acres in the Santa Monica and Santa Susana mountains to park agencies for a below-market price of $10 million.

Attorneys for Hope and for Potomac Investment Associates, which has an option on JordanRanch, proposed the annexation in a July 19 letter to the Simi Valley City Council. Thecouncil on Monday will discuss the proposal, which must ultimately be approved by the LocalAgency Formation Commission, a five-member board made up of two county supervisors, tworepresentatives of the county’s 10 cities and a public member.

The 5,900 acres that would be annexed include 2,300 in Jordan Ranch just southof Simi Valley and 3,600 acres in Runkle Ranch to the northeast, said Julie Zeidner, a spokeswoman for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which buys parkland.

Potomac officials and attorneys for Hope refused to comment Thursday on the annexation proposal. But proponents of the land swap said they support annexation because they believe the Jordan Ranch project stands a better chance of being approved by Simi Valley officials than by the supervisors.

The election of slow-growth advocate Maria K. VanderKolk to the Board of Supervisors ruined the project’s chances by providing the swing vote against it, Zeidner said. VanderKolk made her opposition to the project the centerpiece of her campaign.

If the land-swap deal is lost, its supporters say, Hope will sell part of the property north of Simi Valley to the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, which has rated some of the area as an ideal site for a landfill.

“It’s the best thing since sliced bread,” said conservancy Chairwoman Carole Stevens of annexation.

However, opponents of the project vowed to fight annexation with the same zeal they displayed while campaigning for political novice and longshot VanderKolk, who won the election against incumbent Supervisor Madge L. Schaefer by 98 votes. VanderKolk was out of the state Thursday and could not be reached for comment.

“We’ve been fighting for almost three years to save Jordan Ranch, and we’re not giving up now,” said Mary Wiesbrock, director of the environmental group Save Open Space. “It’s just totally outrageous to make Jordan Ranch part of Simi Valley when most of the impact will be felt in Agoura Hills and Oak Park.”

Part of Jordan Ranch lies on Simi Valley’s southern border. Simi Valley council members Glen McAdoo and Bill Davis--two of the five city officials who will decide whether to ask LAFCO to approve the annexation--said that if the land swap goes through, the city stands to gain a guarantee that thousands of nearby acres will be converted into parkland.

“Strictly from a selfish standpoint, the land swap would be very good for the residents of Simi Valley,” McAdoo said. “If in fact you are going to protect 4,000 acres of open space, then it behooves us to look at it.”

Simi Valley Councilwoman Vickie Howard, who represents the county’s 10 cities on the LAFCO board, and Simi Valley Mayor Gregory A. Stratton said they will reserve judgment until they learn more about the annexation proposal. Councilwoman Ann Rock could not be reached Thursday for comment.

Supervisors Schaefer and John K. Flynn are also LAFCO members. A spokesman for Schaefer said she was out of town Thursday and could not be reached for comment. Flynn, who last July unsuccessfully opposed a county study of the environmental effects of the project, said that annexation “was a giant end-run by Bob Hope” and that Hope “is becoming kind of a pain.”

Flynn said he did not see how Simi Valley could support annexation after announcing this week that it will sue the city of Los Angeles to block the massive Porter Ranch development in nearby Chatsworth. The council voted to sue Los Angeles under the Environmental Quality Act to try to block the $2-billion development, which will include 3,395 residences and 6 million square feet of commercial space.

Simi Valley officials have said that taking legal action against Porter Ranch is necessary because concerns about traffic and smog have not been adequately addressed in the environmental impact report on the project.

“It seems to me that it would be a little difficult for the city of Simi Valley to side with this proposal after its reaction to Porter Ranch,” Flynn said. “That seems inconsistent that they would even have this on their agenda.”

Both Davis and McAdoo said it is unfair to compare Jordan Ranch with the planned Porter Ranch development in Chatsworth.

“The two don’t compare at all,” McAdoo said. “This is not the monster Porter Ranch is. With Jordan Ranch you’re talking about 750 homes with a golf course; with Porter Ranch you’re talking about 6 million square feet of commercial space.”

Davis agreed, saying, “It’s like mixing apples and oranges.”

Port Hueneme Mayor Dorill Wright, who also represents the county’s 10 cities on LAFCO, said that he has not made up his mind about annexation but that he believes the land swap is a “great deal in terms of preserving open space in perpetuity. So, you’re caught in a dilemma--the question is if the preservation is worth allowing any development.”