10/8/2012 1VIINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE �
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIF012NIA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Black at
7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Heinsheimer, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Hill and Mayor Black.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Yolanta Schwartz,Planning Director.
Heidi Luce, Deputy City Clerk. �
Nick Tonsich, 40 Eastfield Drive.
Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road.
Harold Light,Attorney(for Greenberg).
Curtis and Pamela Reis, 1 Wagon Lane.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane.
Bea Dieringer, 7 Buggy Whip Drive.
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West.
Jack Muncherian, 5 Johns Canyon Road.
Marvin Jackmon, Southern California Edison.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes -Regular Meeting of September 24, 2012. �
RECOMIVIENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
REC011'IlVI��NDATION: Approve as presenfed.
C. City of Rolling Hills Conflict of Interest Code Biennial Review.
RECOMI��NDATION: Receive and file.
D. Consideration of an agreement with Martin & Chapman for 2013 election consulting
services.
RECOMN�NDATION: Approve as presented.
CONSENT ITEMS FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
E. "Stop Sign" for southbound traffic (toward Eastfield Drive) at the intersection of
Chuckwagon Road and Chesterfield Road for traffic control. (Tra�c Commission
recommendation:No additional stop sign) �
RECOMI��NDATION: Receive and file.
F. Combining City signs at the Crest Road entrance to the City of Rolling Hills. (Traff c
Commission recommendation: Leave signage as is)
RECOMIVIENDATION: Receive and file.
Mayor Pro Tem Hill moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar.
Councilmember Heinsheimer seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10/08/12 -1-
COMMISSION ITEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-17. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LARGER
THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIlVIMING POOL; GRANTING
APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS,
WHICH ON THE AVERAGE WOULD BE GREATER THAN 2 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT
ALONG DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO LOCATE THE SWINIMING
POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38
EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE OVER 40
EASTFIELD DRIVE AND A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE
DRIVEWAYS IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EAS�'FIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF),
ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA).
AND CONSIDERATION OF A NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE.
Councilmember Heinsheimer recused himself from consideration of this item and left the dais. Mayor
Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the
applicant's revised request stating that the Planning Commission approved the request on a 4-1 vote
with Commissioner Smith opposed. The property is 1.4 acres gross with roadway easements in the front
and rear of the lot leaving less than an acre for development purposes. The applicant is requesting a site
plan review and variances to modify a project that was approved in 2007 as well as additional new
requests including a Conditional Use Permit for a new driveway approach located offsite at 38 Eastfield
Drive. The Traffic Commission reviewed the driveway request and recommended approval. Planning
Director Schwartz reviewed the history of the previous approvals and the Planning Commission's
deliberation on this case including the conditions of approval placed on this case. She further reviewed
the applicant's request for the new driveway approach and explained the history of that request.
Councilmember Lay commented that when the City Council reviewed this project previously, the pad
coverage was proposed at 44% and approved at 40%. Currently the applicant is proposing 54% pad -
coverage which Councilmember Lay commented seems overbuilt. He moved that the City Council take
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-17 under jurisdiction for further consideration.
Councilmember Pernell seconded the motion which carried without objection. Mayor Black requested
that the applicant stake and flag the proposed driveways and the elevation of the proposed retaining
walls.
Nick Tonsich, 40 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to further explain his request stating that he
has been working on this project for over 10 years and he does not believe his property is overbuilt
given the size of this lot and the size of some of the houses nearby. He expressed concern that the City
Council's review would cause further delay.
The City Council scheduled a field trip to consider this case for Monday, October 22, 2012 beginning at
5:30 p.m. at 40 Eastfield Drive.
Councilmember Heinsheimer returned to the dais.
Mayor Black stated that with the City Council's concurrence, Item SA, the Public Hearing on Ordinance
No. 330 will be considered later in the meeting. Hearing no objection, he so ordered and proceeded to
the next agenda item.
OLD BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1127 IN REGARD TO THE VIEW
IlVg'AIlZMENT APPEAL OF RESOLUTION 2012-03-CTV BY CHRISTINE GREENBERG,
32 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD REGARDING THE REMEDIATION OF A VIEW
IMPAIIZMENT COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. AND MRS. REIS, 1 WAGON LANE.
Councilmember Pernell recused himself from participation in this item because he was not present at the
Minutes
City Council Meeting .
10/O8/12 -2-
last meeting where this item was considered. Mayor Black inixoduced the item and commented that he
has not had a chance to review the supplemental declaration that was submitted this evening by Mr.
Light on behalf of Mrs. Greenberg and suggested that when it is appropriate, the City Council may take
a recess to review the document. He then asked for staff's comments.
City Manager Dahlerbruch presented the staff report stating that the Resolution before the City Council
for consideration is in regard to Mrs. Greenberg's appeal of Resolution.2012-03-CTV pertaining to the
remediation of a view from the Reis' property at 1 Wagon Lane. At the September 24, 2012 City
Council meeting, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of new information pertaining to the Santa
_ Monica Bay view corridor. After receiving public testimony, the City Council directed staff to return
this evening with a Resolution providing a view corridor to the northwest - halfway between a view to
Sunset Blvd. and Malibu—designated as the 2.5 line on the aerial image included in the staff report. At
the City Council's direction, an engineering firm was retained to survey the location of the trees within
that corridor and the survey identified 10 trees in that line of sight. Of those 10 trees, the Reis' had
previously identified four trees that they felt could remain leaving six that have been incorporated into
the Resolution — Trees # 11, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 20; and the Resolution calls for those six trees to be no
taller than 35-40 ft. to provide the view.
The Resolution calls for a total of 34 trees to be address to provide the view corridors for the City Lights
and Santa Monica Bay view. Of those 34 trees, 13 are to be removed and 21 are to receive crown
reduction, thinning and shaping which is within the number of trees specified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration that identified 40 trees. At the City Council's request, the Resolution also provides that the
City Manager shall engage the services of an independent arborist to assist in the implementation of the
initial restorative action for which staff has received an estimate of not to exceed $3,750 for that service.
The staff report includes a variety of options that the City Council could consider including in the
Resolution. Lastly, he commented that the Public Hearing has been closed so public comments should
be limited to the Resolution and if the City Council adds anything to the Resolution, comment should be
allowed on those specific items.
In response to Mayor Black, City Attorney Jenkins commented that the public hearing is closed, but the
Brown Act allows members of the public to comment on any item on the agenda and such comments
from members of the public should be specific to the Resolution. Regarding the Supplemental
Declaration submitted this evening by Mr. Light on behalf of Mrs. Greenberg, City Attorney Jenkins
commented that it appears to focus on the Resolution and to the extent it does, it is appropriate that it be
introduced into the record as written testimony.
The City Council took a brief recess at 7:57 p.m. to review the supplemental declaration.
Mayor Black called the meeting back to order at 8:10 p.m. and asked for comments from the public.
Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of Mrs. Greenberg stating that the City is
proposing to create an expansive view for the Reis' over and behind the Greenberg house. The
Resolution continues to call for action on Trees No. 107, 106, 105 and 104 which are the trees directly in
front of Mrs. Greenberg's home. He commented that those trees are important to Mrs. Greenberg and
given that they only affect a small angle of the view he suggested that they be removed from
consideration. Regarding the line of site study, he suggested that the Reis' as the complainant should
have been obligated to pay for it and it should have been done when the Committee on Trees and Views
considered the case. He further commented that given the discrepancy in the suggested action between
Mr. Lorenzen's original report and the line of sight study, the same kind of analysis should be done on
any and all trees. He further commented that in the absence such analysis, he questions how the
necessary CEQA findings can be made or how the impact on Mrs. Greenberg's property can be
minimized. He commented that they are also concerned that there is no specificity with regard to the
work that is to be done on the trees and that the City Manager has the authority to call for additional
work if the view is not achieved.
Curtis Reis, 1 Wagon Lane addressed the City Council regarding the Resolution expressing concern that
the 2.5 view corridor will provide little or no view of Santa Monica Bay and commenting that they
believe line 2 would provide the view they are requesting. He reviewed the Committee on Trees and
Views action and the proposal they submitted on September 24th. He further commented that Tree No.
14 is dead and should be removed. Regarding the deadline specified in Section 15.B.2 of the Resolution
regarding the submittal of bids, he requested that it be extended by one week to November 6, 2012. He
further commented that they believe they are entitled to the view corridor they requested on September
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10/08/12 -3-
24, but should the City Council disagree, they are willing to accept the 2.5 view corridor specified in the
Resolution if Mrs. Greenberg will accept the Resolution as passed and not pursue this appeal any further
including a lawsuit. He also requested that if other proposed changes are made to the Resolution that
they be given time to comment before the final vote is taken.
Mrs. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council regarding her concerns as
presented in the supplemental declaration that was submitted earlier this evening. She stated that she
believes that this process has not been just or fair in that the value and enjoyment that the trees provide
her has not been taken into consideration. She expressed further concern regarding the topping of the
Maple Tree, #107 and the Ficus Trees in the front of her home. She commented that she has never been
provided with an explanation as to precisely what the proposed action on the trees is and expressed
concern that the City Manager or his designee has the discretion to order more trimming if the view is
not achieved. She further expressed concern regarding the effect the trimming will have on her property
value,the cost of the ongoing maintenance and the requirement that the resolution be recorded.
In response to Mayor Black's question as to which Mrs. Greenberg would prefer inspect the view, Mrs.
Greenberg commented that it should be a neutral party but more specifically, she wants an exact mark
on the tree so they know what is being cut during the initial cutting.
Mr. Light commented that if the trimming that is called out was acceptable to Mrs. Greenberg and if the
maintenance costs were allocated to the Reis', she would not have a problem with the maintenance
being done every two years to a particular photograph.
Councilmember Heinsheimer noted that the section of the Resolution in question regarding the
inspection of the initial action is on circle page 10 Section 15-B Item 7 and 8. Discussion ensued
concerning the direction to be given to the independent arborist.
City Attorney Jenkins suggested that prior to getting into detailed discussions regarding the Resolution,
the City Council should take further public comment. Mayor Black called for further comments.
Pamela Reis, 1 Wagon Lane addressed the City Council expressing concern that as the project continues
to be delayed, the trees continue to grow.
William Hassoldt, addressed the City Council stating that he feels providing a view corridor to the
Mountains/City Lights is sufficient. He further commented that he feels Tree No. 107 should be
removed from the action.
Bea Dieringer, 7 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the City Council stating that as a taxpayer, she is
concerned about possible litigation. She expressed concern that the language in Section 15.B.8 and
Section 15.C.3 of the Resolution regarding the City Manager or his designee viewing the restorative
action to determine if any further action is necessary is too vague. She also expressed concern that the
lang�age in the second sentence in Section 15.G is overly broad. She suggested that the complainant
should be responsible for the removal of the stumps and the replacement of trees that die.
In response to the interpretation expressed by Mr. Light, Mrs. Greenberg and Mrs. Dieringer that the
Resolution allows the City Manager to order an unlimited amount of additional crowing or thinning
once the original thinning and crowing is completed to accomplish an unspecified view, City Attorney
Jenkins commented the Resolution sets forth specific restorative action in Section 15 Paragraph A.1 and
A.2 and when reference is made to "determining if any additional work is necessary to comply with this
Resolution..." — "this Resolution" means in effect, to accomplish the remedy set forth in Section 15.A.
Councilmember Heinsheimer suggested that the specific language be added to the Resolution. City
Attorney Jenkins further commented that in an effort to be more protective, the City Council added Item
7 in Section 15.B requiring that an independent arborist be hired to assist in this task—"to supervise the
work in order to assure that no more trimming is performed than is necessary to accomplish the remedy
set forth in this Resolution."He suggested that Section 15.A could be cross referenced in those locations
to clarify any possible ambiguity.
City Attorney Jenkins further commented that city government is involved in the process of land use
regulation and it is the City's employees who implement the City's policies and decisions. Those
employees are professionals and do their job in a fair, impartial, neutral way; and the suggestions that
City employees are incapable of implementing the policies that are articulated by the City Council are
inaccurate and wrong.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
ioiosii2 -4-
Discussion ensued concerning being more specific in the required action and documenting the action by
photographic record.
Mayor Black commented that his concerns regarding the Resolution are that the 2.5 view corridor which
was selected by aerial view may not correspond with the grade or patio level view and that the trees may
be taken out or trimmed and there will still be no view. Discussion ensued concerning what angle will
provide the view.
For discussion purposes, Councilmember Lay moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1127
subject to amendments. Councilmember Heinsheimer seconded the motion.
Councilmember Heinsheimer suggested that reference to Section 15.A be added to Section 15.B.7,
15.B.8 and 15.C.3 as suggested by the City Attorney. He fiarther suggested that the date in Section
15.B.2 be changed from October 30, 2012 to November 6, 2012. Planning Director Schwartz
recommended that the date by which the action must be completed by be moved be seven days as well
so that it would be required to be completed by December 22, 2012. The City Council concurred.
Discussion ensued concerning clarifying the intent in the second sentence of Section 15.G.
Councilmember Lay suggested that the intent is to require that the trees be maintained so as not to
interfere with the view established and further suggested that the City Attorney determine the
appropriate wording.
Councilmember Lay further suggested that the City Council re-insert the provision that $4,000 be
provided by the complainant to the appellant for stump removal and new landscaping. Councilmember
Heinsheimer seconded. Planning Director Schwartz clarified that it could be added as Paragraph 9 in
Section 15.B and could read similar to how it read in the Committee on Trees and Views Resolution
which included this item.
Mayor Black suggested that an escrow account be set up in an amount not to exceed $15,000 to replace
Trees No. 104, 105, 106 and 107 should they die within a year of trimming given that those trees are of
such importance to Mrs. Greenberg. Discussion ensued concerning Mayor Black's suggestion and
possibly not taking any action on Tree No. 107. Mayor Black commented that there is no point in taking
action on the other three trees if Tree No. 107 is left because they are all in the same line. Further
discussion ensued concerning Tree No. 107. Councilmember Lay commented that it would be possible
to see through Tree No. 107 if it were cleaned out and properly shaped and suggested that the action on
Tree No. 107 be changed so that it would be thinned, cleaned-out shaped and reduced as necessary to
provide a view with a maximum of 15-20' of crown reduction. Councilmember Heinsheimer suggested
that it be worded to say that particular care should be taken regarding Tree No. 107 such that it is
thinned, cleaned-out, shaped and dead branches removed with crown reduction no to exceed 20' such as
to allow a view through the crown. Councilmember Lay moved that the statement be added to the
Resolution.
Mayor Black questioned if there is any interest in adding an escrow ac.count for replacement of Trees
No. 104, 105, 106 and 107. Hearing none, he stated that there is a motion and second on the floor to
adopt Resolution No. 1127 with the aforementioned changes and called for a vote. The motion failed
with Mayor Pro Tem Hill and Mayor Black opposed.
Mayor Pro Tem Hill commented that he feels the City view should be shifted so that the Maple and
Ficus Trees (Trees No. 104, 105, 106 and 107) are excluded from the Resolution given that those trees
are of such importance to Mrs. Greenberg. He further commented that he does not have issue with the
Santa Monica Bay view corridor.
Following further discussion, Mayor Black moved that the City Council reconsider Councilmember
Lay's previous motion. Councilmember Heinsheimer seconded the motion to reconsider which carried
without objection. Councilmember Heinsheimer then moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No.
1127 as amended with the aforementioned changes. Councilmember Lay seconded the motion which
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Lay, Heinsheimer and Mayor Black.
NOES: Councilmember Hill.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Pernell (recused).
Minutes
City Council Meeting
]0/08/12 -S-
The City Council took a brief recess at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Black called the meeting back to order at 9:35
p.m. and stated that with the City Council's concurrence, the Open Agenda and New Business Item 7A
regarding the Sewer Study will be taken out of order. Hearing no objection he so ordered.
OPEN AGENDA-APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. -PUBLIC COMIVYENT WELCOME
None.
NEW BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING A SEWER STUDY FOR AND AT THE REQUEST
OF RESIDENTS OF JOHNS CANYON ROAD AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
THEREFORE.
Councilmember Heinsheimer recused himself from consideration of this item due to the proximity of his
property to the subject area of the sewer study and left the dais. City Manager Dahlerbruch presented the
staff report and provided an overview of the history of the previous sewer feasibility study that was
conducted in 2010, commenting that the previous study resulted in providing the information necessary
for the property owners at 2 and 8 Johns Canyon Road and 35 Crest Road West to obtain the City
Council's approval for a sewer district to serve their properties. Since then, with interest rates low and
the property at 5 Johns Canyon Road approved for development, the property owners in the area have
expressed their interest in creating an assessment district. He reviewed a map showing the current
assessment districts and the properties along Johns Canyon Road, Storm Hill and Crest Road East that
could participate in the study currently proposed; and commented that of the 13 properties with the
potential to participate in the study, eight property owners have expressed their willingness to participate
in the study by paying 1/13 of the cost of Phase I of the study. He reviewed the potential costs for the
study which includes a total of three phases and stated that once all three phases are complete, the City
would be in a position to hold an election among the 13 property owners for them to decide if they want
to create an Assessment District to complete the project which would include both a main sewer line and
undergrounding the �atilities to take advantage of the economies of scale. The undergrounding would
encompass all of the properties along Johns Canyon Road including the two properties that have already
received approval for their own district and should their project not be completed in a timely manner
those properties could be incorporated into the Assessment District.
Before the City Council tonight is a request to consider authorizing an agreement with Willdan Financial
Services to commence with the study, accepting $7,883.70 in funding for contributions to pay for Phase
I; to appropriate the balance of$4,972.30 to pay for the remainder of Phase I and to appropriate $14,500
to cover the cost of Phase II and Phase III. Any funds the City puts in to the project would be
reimbursable to the City through the financing of the project if an Assessment District is eventually
formed. He further reviewed additional options for funding the project.
Mayor Black called for public comments.
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council commenting that the agenda only
discusses authorizing a sewer study which is what the City Council can consider this evening. He
further commented that he does not feel that there are economies of scale in doing both the sewer
mainline and undergrounding utilities at the same time. He stated that he and Mrs. Cole do not want to
participate in a project that involves undergrounding of the utilities.
In response to Mayor Black's inquiry regarding the economies of scale in such a project, Marvin
Jackmon, Southern California Edison stated that Edison is an overhead utility company and
undergrounding work is done at the request of citizens or cities. He commented that the utility lines are
not placed in the same trench and the sewer lines but economies of scaie may be found in the excavation
and civil engineering work; and further commented that doing the project at the same time results in the
street being only torn up once rather than twice.
Jack Muncherian, 5 Johns Canyon Road addressed the City Council stating that they recently receive d
approval to build a new home and it is their hope that the sewer line will be ready so that they can
connect without delaying their project.
In response to Councilmember Lay's inquiry regarding Mr. Colyear's comment, City Attorney Jenkins
Minutes
City Council 1Vleeting
10/08/12 -6-
commented that if the City Council wishes to move forward with both the sewer and undergrounding, it
could take action on the sewer project tonight and if underground is of interest to the City Council that
item could be agendized for the next agenda.
The City Council discussed the costs for the project, the options for proceeding with just the sewer
portion of the study and the options for funding with the project.
Following discussion, Councilmember Lay moved that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with
Phase 1 of the study to include only the sewer portion to be funded through the City's Utility Fund up to
a maximum of$11,140 and to direct staff to agendize for a future meeting a discussion of a study related
to undergrounding. Councilmember Pernell seconded the motion. Following discussion, Mayor Black
moved to amend the motion to authorize Phase 1 of the study to include only the sewer portion but to be
partially funded by the participating properties, less the 15% administrative surcharge with the balance
funded through the City's Utility Fund. Councilmember Pernell seconded the amended motion which
carried with Councilmember Lay opposed. Councilmember Heinsheimer returned to the dais.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORDINANCE NO. 330 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXEMPTION OF CITY
PROPERTIES FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONII�TG ORDINANCE 1N ZONING
CASE NO. 828, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2012-04.
Mayor Black introduced the itein for consideration and asked for staff's comments. City Manager
Dahlerbruch presented that staff report stating that the proposed ordinance amends the Zoning Code to
exempt city-owned properties in the RAS zone from the zoning code requirements. Mayor Black called
for public comment.
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council suggesting that Caballeros riding ring
should belong to the members of the Association not to the City.
Councilmember Pernell moved that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 330 for first reading and
waive full reading of the Ordinance. Councilmember Lay seconded the motion which carried without
objection. Second reading and adoption will be scheduled on the consent calendar of the October 22,
2012 meeting of the City Council.
NEW BUSINESS
ORDINANCE NO. 331 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 3.08.080 REGARDING AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN CITY VOUCHER
CHECKS. �
Mayor Black introduced the item for consideration. Councilmember Lay moved that the City Council
introduce Ordinance No. 331 for first reading and waive full reading of the Ordinance. Councilmember
Pernell seconded the motion which carried without objection. Second reading and adoption will be
scheduled on the consent calendar of the October 22, 2012 meeting of the City Council.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
Councilmember Lay thanked staff for the birthday wishes. Councilmember Pernell thanked his
colleagues on the Council and staff for their consideration and care in his recent accident.
The City Council discussed scheduling the field trip to 40 Eastfield Drive. Following discussion, the
City Council scheduled the field trip for Monday, October 22, 2012 beginning at 5:30 p.m. at 40
Eastfield Drive. Councilmember Lay will visit the site with staff separately.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10/08/12 -7- .
MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
CLOSED SESSION
T'he City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will
prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.
G.C. 549569(a)
Howard H. Hall, an individual, as Trustee of the Howard H. Hall Living Trust v. City of Rolling
Hills, Oksana R. Bihun, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS136694.
G.C. 549569(a)
Howard H. Hall, an individual, as Trustee of the Howard H. Hall Living Trust v. Oksana R.
Bihun, City of Rolling Hills, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC482607. -
G.C. 549569(a)
Richard C. Colyear, an individual, v. Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager/City Clerk, City of
Rolling Hills, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS138363.
No closed session was held.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
in memory of long time residents Dr. Reinhold Ullrich and Garrett Breckenridge. An adjourned regular
meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Monday, October 22, 2012 beginning at 5:30 p.m. at 40
Eastfield Drive. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday,
October 22, 2012 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend
Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
. ,
Heidi
Deputy City Clerk
Approved,
James Bl k, .D.
Mayor
Minu�es
City Councii Meeting
10/08/12 -g-