While Simi has long claimed ownership—and bragging rights—over the Reagan Library, the city is one step closer to truly becoming the home of the museum on the hill.

The planning commission voted 4-0 last Wednesday to recommend that the City Council file an application with the state for the annexation of the library and adjacent properties. Commissioner Mary Bibb was not present at the meeting.

The proposed annexation area is in unincorporated Ventura County, just outside city limits but still within the city’s sphere of influence. The 229-acre area includes eight properties, all of which are designated by the county as open space. The largest property owner is the Reagan Library, which supports annexation.

The commission’s unanimous vote came after hearing testimony from several of the library’s neighboring residents, all of whom were against their properties being annexed by the city.

Resident Wanda Stroud said the large, semirural properties that make up the annexation area are not compatible with Simi’s “urban agenda.”

“While the library sits on 100 acres of donated land and is impervious to this loss of property value, we neighboring residential properties will not fare well,” she said. “The ability of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of our home will diminish with the annexation of a rural community to an urban community.”

Doug Zubrin agreed with Stroud that the six adjoining properties should be left alone.

“What benefit is it to the city to annex those six properties? None of us want to be part of the city,” he said. “My wife and I certainly didn’t buy to be next to the library. We bought it for the ambience, the incredible sunsets, the quiet, the wilderness. And I don’t see how being part of the city of Simi Valley benefits us.”

Zubrin and another resident, John Chiu, who owns a 68-acre parcel near the library, expressed feelings of discontent and even distrust because the city had not contacted them directly regarding the annexation, suggesting the city has a “hidden agenda” for wanting their properties.

“The city has been very good about keeping us in the dark,” Zubrin said. “And it seems very deceptive to us.”

But Rob Bruce, deputy director of housing and special projects for the city, said the affected property owners were invited to attend a meeting with the city manager a year ago to discuss the concept of annexation.

Bruce explained that the reason the city is pursuing annexation is because sanitation and water services are already provided to the area by the city.

“It’s the policy of (the Local Agency Formation Commission) to ensure that jurisdictional boundaries make sense, that they follow the provision of services and that they are overall logical,” Bruce said. “Under the theory of logical boundaries, it would make most sense that the boundaries of the sanitation district, the water district and the city, which are all one body, would all be the same.”

He added that the annexation would not change the zoning or development potential for any of the property owners nor would it increase property taxes since they’re collected by the county.

There is a possibility that the county may transfer the properties from one flood control district to another, which could result in a property tax change of less than $10 per property per year, he said.

For these reasons, the commissioners felt it is appropriate that the area be annexed to the city of Simi Valley.

“I don’t believe it will change anybody’s land values,” Commissioner Jim Dantona said. “The size of the lots won’t change, the development back there won’t change. In fact, if anybody goes to change, we’ll have a much better discussion here in the city of Simi Valley than we would in the county of Ventura.”

The City Council will hear the matter in September. If it okays the proposed annexation, city staff will file an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the state agency that handles annexation requests. Along with the county, the cities of Thousand Oaks and Moorpark will review the request and make comments to LAFCO, which will have the final decision.

According to a staff report, the city has received positive feedback from the county to suggest that the annexation request will likely be supported.