Citizen lawsuit filed against Agoura Village

Environmental concerns, safety issues and the development of open space without a vote by citizens are just some of the reasons why Malibou Lake resident Mary Altmann wants the Agoura Village plan stopped, or at least reconsidered.

Altmann filed a lawsuit against the city of Agoura Hills challenging the city's certification of the project's environmental impact report, amendments to the Ladyface Specific Plan, the monitoring and mitigation plans and zoning ordinance changes. In all, the suit lists seven reasons why the city must revamp the Agoura Village plan.

The City Council approved the 135-acre mixed use project located near Kanan, Agoura and Cornell roads in mid-June. The plan calls for an eclectic mix of retail shops, restaurants, commercial businesses and housing in what city officials hope will be a "pedestrian friendly" town center.

Although Altmann formed Citizens for Sensitive Development and garnered 260 signatures on a petition that asked the city to reconsider the project, she is the sole petitioner named in the lawsuit.

Altmann said she receives legal consultations with the "best CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) attorneys in town" and is also supported by many members of the community through her grassroots organization.

"One of our major concerns is the project size," Altmann said. "The project is about a third larger than they even acknowledge in their own environmental impact report." According to Altmann's estimates, the project will total about 1.5 million square feet.

The suit asserts that the city's shift of open space in the project area requires two-thirds voter approval by residents.

"A big concern is the failed analysis of the environmental impacts of this project," Altmann said.

Altmann notes in her petition that the environmental report doesn't adequately address the impacts of the project on two creeks that empty into the ocean, wetland and riparian ecosystems, and a variety of local animals, including the western pond turtle and the endangered red-legged frog.

"The city is confident that the EIR is adequate," senior planner Allison Cook said.

Altmann also accuses the city of violating its own general plan since the project will allow 45-foot-tall buildings in front of Ladyface Mountain.

Building height is currently restricted to 35 feet, but under the Agoura Village Plan, developers will be allowed to add 10 extra feet to their buildings if they provide a "bonus" to the city. Bonuses might include a horse trail, creek restoration, public art donations, or projects that would be beneficial to all Agoura Hills' residents.

At earlier City Council meetings, council members stressed that the Agoura Village Plan is a planning document meant to restrict development. Council members had said the village plan would allow 580,000 square feet of new retail space, just over half of what the city's current general plan allows.

But Howard Littman, a land use expert based in Agoura Hills, said he understands the facts about the Agoura Village Plan differently. The total retail space in the area, including vacant property and existing businesses, is about 950,000 square feet. The residential element will be additional, and with no square footage cap on the residential element of the project, the build-out could be far greater than what the general plan allows.

Littman said the city did not calculate the square footage of existing businesses, which will eventually be redeveloped under the Agoura Village plan.

"Therefore, the total maximum amount of building . . . approved by the City Council could be as much as, or greater than, 50 percent (more) than what was previously permitted, not less."

City Council members said they feel misunderstood. In past meetings, each member has stressed that rather than allow individual developers to build whatever they chose, the city turned the tables and created an overriding plan to guide development into one cohesive--albeit eclectic--project.

Nevertheless, Altmann believes the city violated its general plan. In her petition to the Superior Court, she quotes sections of the general and specific plans- "Voter consideration of amendments affecting open space states that no amendment to the general plan or a specific plan that would result in a re-designation of property dedicated as open space . . . shall be effective for any purpose unless such amendment is first approved by the voters of the city in a (twothirds) vote of those voting on the question."

The concern that Altmann said sent her "over the edge to actually filing the lawsuit" is what she believes will be a death toll when a fire occurs in the area.

Altmann said residents in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles adjacent to Agoura Hills will not be able to evacuate the area during a fire if Kanan, Cornell, and Agoura roads are clogged.

"The city of Agoura is planning a D or F level of service for the Kanan and Agoura road intersection," Altmann said. She said this low level of service is also a violation of the general plan.

"This is risking the lives and safety of residents in unincorporated Agoura . . . not to mention causing even more of a traffic problem for every single Agoura resident," Altmann said.

Last Thursday, a court mandated settlement conference was scheduled, but not all of the parties attended.

Another conference is scheduled on Nov. 7 in Los Angeles. If mediation proves unsuccessful, the hearing will be conducted at 10 a.m. on Jan. 9, 2007.