Jordan Ranch Developers Plan to Keep Project Alive

Developers of Jordan Ranch, who announced last month that they might abandon a proposal to build 750 houses in the southeast county, said Wednesday that they plan to keep their project alive until the County Board of Supervisors votes on it later this year.

A top official of Potomac Investment Associates, which has an option to buy entertainer Bob Hope’s 2,300-acre Jordan Ranch, said he is encouraged by the favorable response of some county supervisors Tuesday to a proposal for a scaled-down subdivision on nearby Ahmanson Ranch.

“Ahmanson is still 3 1/2 or 4 times larger than what we’re proposing, so I certainly am encouraged,” said Fred Maas, a Potomac vice president.

Maas said a complex land swap, which would turn thousands of acres in the Santa Monica Mountains owned by Hope into parkland, remains in jeopardy because the California Coastal Commission refused last month to let Potomac build 26 luxury houses on 19 acres on a separate Hope parcel in Malibu’s Corral Canyon.

But Maas indicated for the first time that the Jordan Ranch part of the deal, which includes transfer of 5,700 Hope-owned acres to public use, might still be saved.

“In Ventura County, this process has more or less taken on a life of its own,” Maas said. “We’ve been encouraged by all kinds of people who’ve asked how they can help save this. . . . We’re still working on some possible solutions.”

Potomac has not yet spoken with any Ventura County supervisors about its project, which includes 750 houses and a tournament golf course on 1,100 acres of Jordan Ranch. But four of the five supervisors have previously expressed grave concerns about the proposal.

The county is reviewing the Jordan and Ahmanson projects in tandem because of their size and proximity at the Los Angeles County line.

Ahmanson, bowing to the reality of Ventura County’s slow-growth politics, offered Tuesday to slash the number of houses in its massive project by 38% to 1,850 and the size of proposed offices and shops by 87% to 400,000 square feet.

In response, Supervisors Maggie Erickson and John K. Flynn said they thought that the move enhanced the project’s chances of approval.

“I think it stands a much better chance than it did before,” Flynn said.

Supervisor Vicky Howard said Wednesday that Ahmanson’s proposed changes can only help it before the board.

“It really is a natural extension of existing development in the San Fernando Valley,” she said. “But there’s always concern about the increase in traffic and the effect that has” on both roads and air quality.

Supervisor Susan K. Lacey, who has steadfastly opposed both developments, could not be reached for comment.

But Supervisor Maria VanderKolk, elected on a slow-growth platform last year, said she is unmoved by the Ahmanson changes.

“I don’t think there should be a development out there at all,” VanderKolk said. “But I’d be willing to talk with them about it and try to keep an open mind.”

Supervisors said they like some of Ahmanson’s changes, including dedication of 4,125 acres of the 5,477-acre ranch to the National Park Service, an increase of 1,100 acres over the original proposal. The plan would also cluster development and leave all but 10% of the ranch as open space.

However, “Ahmanson came in as big as they could and expected to be bargained down,” VanderKolk said. “So I suspect Ahmanson right now is proposing what they were really hoping they would get in the first place.”

The supervisors’ final decision on both projects is not expected until at least summer and probably much later since a county committee Wednesday directed county planners and a consultant to rework the environmental reports on the proposals.

The revamping could take three months, planners said.

The committee ordered analysts to add, among other things, an analysis of Ahmanson’s new proposal before the reports are forwarded to the Planning Commission and then to supervisors.

The original reports, which total 1,900 pages, were intended to detail the environmental consequences of each project and to suggest steps that could be taken to reduce or avoid impacts.

The county’s General Plan prohibits construction of new communities unless they are next to existing subdivisions. No Ventura County community abuts the Ahmanson or Jordan projects, although two communities in Los Angeles County are on Ahmanson’s eastern and southern boundaries.

The original environmental report on the two projects said they would have “unavoidable, significant” impacts on air quality, traffic and the area’s rural environment. The ranches now consist of rolling, oak-studded hills.

The new Ahmanson proposal lessens, but does not resolve, problems that Los Angeles city officials have had with the project. City Councilwoman Joy Picus said the original project would funnel 70,000 cars a day onto Victory Boulevard in West Hills, just across the county line from the ranch. The boulevard would still be a main road into the project.

“It will still increase enormously the amount of traffic on what is essentially a residential street, and it is not acceptable to me,” Picus said.

Citing a Los Angeles city attorney’s opinion, Ahmanson officials said Los Angeles has no control over whether Victory Boulevard is extended into its project. But Picus said that “our information seems to be that we can fight that connection.”