Don’t Annex Hope Land, Council Urged : Growth: Speakers tell city officials that development on Jordan Ranch property would increase traffic and pollution in the region.

About 25 people from east Ventura and west Los Angeles counties spoke out Monday night against a proposal that Simi Valley annex 5,800 acres of surrounding mountain property owned by entertainer Bob Hope.

The speakers told the Simi Valley City Council that a development planned on Hope’s Jordan Ranch, southeast of the city, would increase traffic and pollution in the region.

“Ventura County can’t meet air quality standards as it is,” said Frank Littman of Oak Park. “This is only going to make it worse. I moved out to Oak Park to get away from the urban sprawl of the San Fernando Valley.”

Rosemary Frazho of Thousand Oaks said her city, along with Agoura and Westlake Village, will be more affected than Simi Valley by the planned development. Therefore, she said, the site “should remain under the planning jurisdiction of Ventura County and should not be annexed by Simi Valley.”

“This request for annexation is a desperate attempt by the developer to further confuse complex development issues to get approval,” Frazho said.

Only two people spoke in favor of the annexation. One of them, Gary Mueller of Agoura, said he favors the proposal because, under a complicated land swap, 5,700 acres would be donated or sold for parkland.

The opportunity to gain 5,700 acres of open space outweighs the negative impacts of the development, Mueller said.

The council was not expected to take any action on the proposal Monday night.

The 5,800 acres that would be annexed include 2,308 acres of Hope’s Jordan Ranch and 3,495 acres in Runkle Ranch, northeast of the city. Hope and Potomac Investment Associates, which has an option on the Jordan Ranch, have proposed to build 750 residences and a golf course on 1,208 acres there.

If annexation were approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission, the state-established agency that rules on annexations and incorporations, Simi Valley would have jurisdiction over the property and the final say over its development.

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

The Hope proposal has been praised by some conservationists as the best deal possible, considering the shortage of public funds to buy parklands, but the plan has been denounced by critics who say that Jordan Ranch should not be developed because it is within the boundaries of a national recreation area.

Meanwhile, Hope’s attorneys and representatives of the developer have said that Simi Valley stands to gain a lot if annexation is approved.

In addition to preserving 5,700 acres of surrounding wilderness, the city would receive tax revenue from the Jordan Ranch development. The annexation would also prevent Blind Canyon, part of the Runkle Ranch property, from being sold to the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, which is considering the site for a landfill.

Still, there are a number of obstacles to annexation. The city would have to amend its general plan, and the environmental impact report on the housing development would also have to be amended.

The processing of those actions could take up to two years, city officials have said.