Agoura Hills Mounts New Bid for Clout as Court Upsets ‘Sphere’ Vote

Agoura Hills officials on Thursday began planning a new campaign to win clout over projects outside their city boundaries by obtaining a wider “sphere of influence” designation from Los Angeles County.

The city’s move followed a Los Angeles Superior Court ruling that set aside a Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission vote earlier this year adopting a narrow Agoura Hills sphere of influence.

Judge Irving A. Shimer ruled Wednesday that the vote was invalid because two members of the commission voted despite having conflicts of interest. Shimer said county Supervisor Mike Antonovich and Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson should have abstained because they received political contributions from developers who own land within Agoura Hills’ requested sphere.

The commission voted unanimously last Jan. 9 to authorize a 12-acre sphere of influence for Agoura Hills. Mandated by state law, spheres of influence are intended to reflect the “probable ultimate physical boundaries” of cities.

Vote Seen as Slap

The commission’s vote was viewed as a slap in the face by Agoura Hills officials, who had applied for a 6,000-acre sphere in hopes of gaining some control over the density and design of projects in areas next to their their eight-square-mile municipality.

The city sued the county in February after discovering that Antonovich and Bernson had received campaign contributions from Agoura-area developers. A state law that went into effect last Jan. 1 requires commissioners to abstain from voting if they have received contributions of more than $250 from persons who might have had a financial interest in the outcome of a commission vote.

Shimer’s ruling will require the commission to vote again on the Agoura Hills request without Antonovich and Bernson, neither of whom were available for comment Thursday.

Agoura Hills Mayor Vicky Leary said Thursday that City Council members will ask for a complete rehearing on the sphere issue instead of just a new vote.

“We’re not doing it because we’re being greedy,” Leary said. “Developments that are close to our city directly impact our traffic and residents. I think the county thought we were stupid and would just give up on this.”

Fresh Reasons

Councilwoman Fran Pavley said the city will enter any new hearing armed with fresh reasons for needing a wider sphere of influence. She said the commission’s vote might have been tied to a “misunderstanding” that the city was planning to annex land.

But Jon Crane, a senior deputy Los Angeles County counsel, said Thursday it is unlikely that the commission will conduct a new hearing. He predicted that the results will be the same when the court-ordered vote is taken at an as-yet undecided time.

“They can hope and pray that the other members of the board who voted the same way as the two members who can’t participate will change their mind. But I don’t think they will,” Crane said.

He said Agoura Hills will have the same right to petition the county for reconsideration of the commission’s new vote as it had last January, but did not exercise. “For some reason, they didn’t follow the proper procedure . . . they wanted to get the court involved,” Crane said.

Rochelle Browne, the city’s lawyer in the case, disputed that, however. She charged Thursday that the county has misinterpreted the law about a city’s rights to apply for reconsideration by the commission. Under the city’s interpretation, such an appeal was not possible.

She said Agoura Hills will go back to court if the county fails to “give us a genuine reconsideration” of the sphere application.