Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission continues North Canyons annexation hearing to April 9
Summary
The Simi Valley Planning Commission continued a public hearing on a proposed annexation and 207-unit North Canyons residential project to April 9 after residents raised questions about forced annexation, taxes and services; staff said written responses will be provided before the continuance.
The Simi Valley Planning Commission on Jan. 22 continued the public hearing on the North Canyons annexation and related land‑use applications to a date certain of April 9, 2025, after staff said additional issues required follow‑up and several residents spoke in opposition or with questions.
Staff member (Planning Department) told Chairperson Christman that "staff is recommending a continuance to a date certain for this project" and that the applicant had been informed of the request. Commissioners agreed to leave the hearing open and to accept public testimony at the Jan. 22 meeting for people who could not attend the April date.
The continued item covers a complex of requests filed by SVGV Partners LLC described in staff materials as an annexation, general plan amendment, multiple zone changes, a plan development permit and a tentative map to annex and subdivide about a 160.32‑acre site for a proposed 207‑unit residential development (157 single‑family and 50 multifamily units), plus annexation of county island properties and adoption of an environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Staff said it identified issues that "warrant a continuance of this matter" and proposed the April 9 date to address them.
During public comment, residents from island communities and adjacent neighborhoods raised questions and objections about the scope and process of annexation. David Mosso (44‑year Simi Valley resident, District 1) asked whether annexation can be forced and whether islands should be annexed piecemeal at the time of individual development projects or all at once. He also asked whether annexation of existing homes would be counted as new housing under state requirements and what tax‑revenue changes would follow.
Jan Lia (resident) told the commission that island residents had not requested annexation and urged commissioners to consider "how we feel about being annexed," adding, "we're being and we're not being represented even though we have a voice in government." Other speakers raised traffic and public‑safety concerns related to road connections in the project area and asked how services such as water would be affected.
Applicant representatives did not present the project at the Jan. 22 meeting, and staff indicated it will prepare written responses to the questions and make them available at the April 9 hearing. Staff also invited residents to contact planning staff before the continuance to follow up on specific questions.
Action taken: the commission accepted the staff recommendation to continue the public hearing on item 12A3 to a date certain of April 9, 2025; the motion was approved by consensus.
The commission said the hearing will remain open for additional written and oral evidence at the April 9 meeting. The Planning Division provided supplemental documents for the item and told the public those materials were available at the dais and online.
The April 9 hearing will be the next opportunity for formal debate and possible action on the annexation and related entitlements; no final decision was made on Jan. 22.
