Agoura Hills Questions Antonovich Action to Curb Sphere of Influence

Agoura Hills officials Wednesday accused Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich of acting to restrict their clout over projects outside their city’s limits after receiving “substantial” campaign contributions from the projects’ developers.

Officials charged that Antonovich received $8,000 in contributions from three landowners who own separate parcels next to the city, totaling more than 1,000 acres, that are earmarked for upcoming housing and industrial development.

The allegations were included in a letter sent by Agoura Hills officials to the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission.

City officials were appealing a Jan. 9 commission vote that limited Agoura Hills’ sphere of influence to 12 acres outside its city limits. Antonovich, who is a county representative on the commission, offered the motion to set the sphere--a state-mandated designation that is supposed to reflect the probable future size of a city.

6,000-Acre Sphere Sought

City leaders had sought a 6,000-acre sphere, which would have included the undeveloped rangeland targeted for the projects of the three developers.

The issue is critical to Agoura Hills officials because they believe the county imposes far weaker controls on development than the city.

At a hearing last month, Agoura Hills leaders unsuccessfully argued that the city needs a voice in future developments in those areas because new growth would directly affect such city services as streets and parks.

The 12-acre sphere approved by the commission consists entirely of a newly built 32-house subdivision south of Liberty Canyon. That tract is in unincorporated county territory but is accessible only by Agoura Hills streets.

City officials requested a reconsideration of the boundary vote on the grounds that the campaign contributions to Antonovich exceeded a $250 limit set by state law, City Manager Michael Huse said.

$250 Limit Cited

They were referring to a statute that limits officials in any agency from accepting more than $250 from any person with a direct financial interest in an action pending before the agency.

The alleged campaign contributions to Antonovich could not immediately be confirmed.

But county officials promptly denied the city’s accusation that such contributions would violate the law or invalidate last month’s action.

Antonovich said in a statement that the campaign contribution rules would not apply to the vote on how to define a sphere of influence. The rules would only have applied if he were voting to annex an area to a city, he said.

He also criticized Agoura Hills’ efforts to extend its influence beyond its current 8-square-mile boundary.

Legality Questioned

“Personally, I believe it is illegal to require a resident of an area to be regulated by a government agency that one doesn’t pay taxes to and is outside their jurisdiction,” Antonovich said.

Ruth Benell, the commission’s executive officer, said she will turn Agoura Hills’ reconsideration request over to her panel if a formal appeal is submitted.

But Benell said Agoura Hills officials are exaggerating the importance of the issue. Even if an area were designated part of the city’s sphere of influence, she said, the city still could not control development there.

“I think they misunderstand what a sphere means,” she said of Agoura Hills officials. “I’ve repeatedly tried to tell them that the only way they’ll have jurisdiction over those areas is to annex.”

But Gregory Stepanicich, Agoura Hills city attorney, predicted that county lawyers will side with the city once they review the campaign contribution issue.

He said the designation of a sphere of influence is crucial because state law requires that land be included in a city’s sphere of influence before any annexation can occur.