Simi Council Seeks Early Ruling on Hope Land Annexation

The Simi Valley City Council has decided to petition a five-member county planning commission for a tentative ruling on whether the annexation of 5,800 acres of adjacent land owned by entertainer Bob Hope is feasible.

Council members decided late Monday that they want the Local Agency Formation Commission, the state-established agency that rules on annexations, to review the annexation proposal and give some direction to the city before it begins the lengthy and costly process of amending its general plan to include the Hope property.

While city officials have declined to disclose whether they will eventually support or oppose annexation of the land, they have expressed willingness to consider the proposal as an alternative to converting a portion of the property into a garbage dump.

Amendment of the city’s general plan, which city officials said will take about two years to complete, is necessary before a formal application for annexation is filed with the commission. An environmental impact report on a controversial subdivision planned for Hope’s Jordan Ranch would also have to be amended.

“We don’t want to have two years of public hearings, and spend a lot of time and energy and effort . . . and have LAFCO in fact say no,” Mayor Greg Stratton said.

Robert L. Braitman, executive director of LAFCO, said the agency in the past has not reviewed annexation proposals by cities until they have finalized the preliminary work, such as general plan amendments. However, Braitman said there is no law prohibiting the agency from doing so.

He said the agency is scheduled to meet on Sept. 5, at which time LAFCO will consider the request.

Port Hueneme Mayor Dorril B. Wright, who is a member of LAFCO, said the agency will have to decide whether it wants to abandon standard procedures for reviewing annexation proposals.

County Supervisor Madge L. Schaefer, another member of LAFCO, said she thinks that Simi Valley officials made the right decision to “test the waters” with the agency before trying to amend the city’s general plan.

“I think that’s good judgment,” Schaefer said. “They don’t want to go through all of this expense, and have the plan not fly.” However, Schaefer declined to say how she would vote on the issue.

Schaefer’s defeat in the June election by slow-growth advocate Maria K. VanderKolk is believed to have killed the chances of the Hope deal being approved by the Board of Supervisors. County officials believe that VanderKolk would provide the swing vote against the Jordan Ranch project.

One reason that the annexation proposal could be rejected by LAFCO focuses on the geographical location of Jordan Ranch. It is cut off from Simi Valley by rolling hills to the south, which would make it difficult for the city to provide services to the area.

Stanley E. Cohen, an attorney for Bob Hope, told the council that a study is under way to see what can be done to address the problem. He would not elaborate.

If annexation were approved by LAFCO, Simi Valley would have jurisdiction over the Hope property and the final say over the planned housing project.

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

Under the proposal, the National Park Service would swap 59 acres of parkland, which are needed for an access road to the subdivision, 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, an amount said to be below market value.

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.