-
CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
(IN-PERSON AND VIDEO CONFERENCE)
6165 Spring Valley Road
Monday, October 13, 2025
5:30 p.m.
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hidden Hills was held in the Council Chambers and by video conference on Monday, October 13, 2025. Mayor Larry G. Weber called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. ROLL CALL
Council: Mayor Larry G. Weber
- Mayor Pro Tem Joseph Loggia
Council Member Eniko Gold
Council Member Laura McCorkindale
Council Member Stuart E. Siegel
Staff: City Manager Gloria Molleda
City Attorney Michael Jenkins
City Clerk Deana L. Gonzalez
City Engineer Dirk Lovett
Administrative Analyst Aaron Williams
Administrative Assistant Sara Porter
Public Safety Manager Mike Grant
Emergency Services Coordinator Nick Salvador
Also participating: Building Official Tom Juzwiak
Mayor Weber stated that Michael Jenkins was serving in place of City Attorney Lauren Langer, who was unable to attend. He announced that the consent calendar would be considered at the end of the meeting.
The meeting paused at 5:38 p.m. while staff addressed access problems with the public Zoom link.
Proceedings resumed at 5:40 p.m.
- 3. PRESENTATIONS
3.A Los Angeles County Fire Department
No Fire Department report was presented.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
- October 13, 2025
3.B Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Deputy Richard Baldi presented the September 2025 crime report. He reported one Part I crime during the month, a residential burglary, bringing the year-to-date total to six, unchanged from the same period in 2024.
He summarized the incident and reminded residents to drive safely in anticipated rainy conditions.
3.C Public Safety and Emergency Services Report
Public Safety Manager Grant reported September Sheriff's Department service coverage of 98% for motorcycle enforcement, 110% for patrol and 124% for the special deputy, with 57 citations issued. He described CERT search-and-rescue training in missing-person searches, tracking and search safety, and the issuance of identification cards to fully certified CERT members.
Mr. Grant reported that he and Emergency Services Coordinator Salvador attended emergency operations center training hosted by the City of Calabasas, covering a joint fire-disaster response, unified command, incident action planning and resource management. He also reported that a trespassing incident involving a person entering Hidden Hills concealed in a vehicle had been investigated and addressed.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
The consent calendar was considered after staff comments. During public comment, a resident questioned the lengthy delay in the Round Meadow/Mureau Road intersection improvements and continuing expenditures for planning without construction. Mayor Weber stated that he would discuss the concern with the resident separately.
4.A Approval of the Register of Demands for October 13, 2025
4.B Receive and File the Disbursement List for August 2025
4.C Receive and File the Financial/Treasurer's Report for August 2025
4.D Receive and File the Investment Statement for August 2025
4.E Receive and File the City Engineering and Community Development Report
4.F Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 402
4.G Authorization for Los Angeles County to Perform a Biennial Audit of the City's Sewer System Management Plan
The approved recommendation authorized the County of Los Angeles to prepare the biennial audit of the City's Sewer System Management Plan for $6,000, paid from the General Fund, and directed staff to submit the service request.
4.H Approval of a Measure M Local Capital Reserve Agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
The approved recommendation authorized the Mayor or City Manager and the City Attorney to execute the Measure M Capital Reserve Agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. -
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
- October 13, 2025
MOTION
Council Member McCorkindale moved and Council Member Gold seconded a motion to approve the consent calendar, Items 4.A through 4.H, excluding Demand No. 2 in the Register of Demands: the $46,281.82 payment to Best Best & Krieger LLP for September 2025 City Attorney services. The question was called and the motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote. That demand was removed from consideration and was not voted upon.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.A Variance Application No. V-387 for Front and Side Yard Setback Encroachments at 5808 Hilltop Road
Mayor Pro Tem Loggia recused himself from consideration of Item 5.A and left the dais because his residence was within 500 feet of the subject property. It was announced that he would not participate in the discussion or vote.
Mayor Weber opened the continued public hearing at 5:46 p.m. The application requested a 21-foot, 4-inch encroachment into the required 50-foot front yard setback, leaving a 28-foot, 8-inch setback, and retention of an existing wall encroaching into the required 25-foot side yard setback at 5808 Hilltop Road.
Two Council Members disclosed ex parte communications concerning the application and stated that the contacts would not affect their ability to evaluate the matter fairly. One disclosed contacts concerning the variance. The other described efforts to obtain missing property information from the owners of 5701 and 5742 Hilltop Road and the HHCA office, including a request that the information be provided to the City Engineer.
City Engineer Lovett reviewed the application's history and the revised plans following the earlier hearing and HHCA review. He stated that the proposed two-story residence had been reduced from 10,503 to 9,992 square feet, with the 1,438-square-foot basement unchanged. He explained that the residence would comply with the side yard setbacks, that the second story would not encroach into the front setback, and that the applicant requested retaining the existing walls that supported soil on the neighboring property.
Mr. Lovett stated that the matter before the Council was the setback variance. He outlined proposed conditions addressing relocation of the trash enclosure outside the front setback, removal of other side yard encroachments except the existing retaining walls, no second-story setback encroachment, and a construction management plan covering parking and on-site materials and equipment storage.
Mr. Lovett reviewed the four required variance findings and stated that staff believed they could be made based on the lot's steepness and narrowness, limited building pad, neighboring setbacks, retention of supporting walls and reduced grading. He recommended approval of Variance V-387 and adoption of Resolution No. 1046 with conditions if the Council could make the findings, or preparation of a denial resolution identifying the findings that could not be made.
A resident speaking on behalf of herself and Patrick opposed the variance. She stated that the proposed house would be too large for the lot and street, would adversely affect adjoining neighbors, would be inconsistent with the General Plan and neighborhood character, and would create an undesirable precedent. She requested denial of the variance and emphasized the importance of community input.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025
Brent, an adjoining Hilltop Road resident, requested denial of the variance. He stated that the proposed residence was disproportionate to its steep, narrow lot and conflicted with the City's rural, equestrian and open-space goals. He disputed the findings concerning neighborhood effects and stated that the renderings Michael, an immediate neighbor of the project, opposed the proposed scale of development. He expressed concern about effects on views, airflow and neighboring properties, limited space for construction vehicles, and insufficient consideration of neighborhood context. He requested rejection of the proposal to preserve the community's character and quality of life.
Esther Hahn, identifying herself as Chair of the Equestrian Services Committee, opposed the development.
She raised concerns about construction access and storage on the narrow street, removal of a barn, the location of recreational improvements near an equestrian trail, impacts on horses, and loss of the area's open character.
Deborah, a Little Valley Road resident, supported the neighboring residents' request for denial. She distinguished their objection to the proposed house's fit on this particular lot and street from opposition to development generally. She stated that the renderings did not accurately show nearby homes, slopes or tiered lots, questioned whether the HHCA process had adequately considered community effects, and expressed concern about the precedent approval would establish.
-
A resident supported the application, stating that the City should welcome young families who wish to build homes for their own use. The speaker expressed concern about vacant speculative homes and argued that denying the application would discourage the next generation of residents.
Joe, a Lupin Hill Road resident and former HHCA Board president, opposed the variance. He emphasized the General Plan's rural, equestrian and open-space objectives and stated that the City should consider more than numerical compliance. He urged the Council to deny the variance and return the proposal for a design consistent with those goals.
Brendan Cooney welcomed the applicant's family but questioned whether the HHCA review had adequately balanced community interests. He described his own family's efforts to preserve the property's footprint and equestrian character while renovating and asked that future builders be held to the same standards. He disputed whether the General Plan finding had been supported and suggested that additional information could be required.
A resident opposed the variance, questioning whether the proposed design itself created the asserted extraordinary circumstances. She stated that a permitted residential use did not automatically satisfy the variance findings and urged the Council to protect the neighborhood's character and the adjoining residents while welcoming a reasonably scaled new home.
Wendy opposed the variance and raised concerns about the treatment of residents participating in the public review process. She questioned whether the HHCA process had adequately addressed neighborhood objections and urged the Council to consider the proposal's effect on the community and its General Plan goals.
A resident participating by video conference opposed the proposal, stating that its effects would extend beyond the 500-foot notice area. The speaker emphasized the General Plan, rural character and topography, and supported development of a home appropriate to the site.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025
Megan Sweeney stated that she had not heard a sufficient basis for the variance and asked the Council to consider the neighbors' concerns. She emphasized respectful communication, fairness and preserving the community's character.
Applicant James "Jimmy" Clausen described the family's plans for the property and defended the proposed design. He stated that the plans addressed the site's hillside constraints, had been reviewed by the HHCA, preserved side yard space and provided landscaping and open areas. He explained that the family intended to make the property its home and asked the Council to support the requested variance.
Peter, participating by video conference, supported the application. He emphasized welcoming families, respecting property owners' choices and considering the time and expense already devoted to the approval process.
Council Member McCorkindale stated that she could not make the findings concerning extraordinary circumstances and consistency with the General Plan. She expressed concern about the proposed scale and visual effects on the hillside and neighborhood. Council discussion addressed the respective HHCA and City review processes, the limits of the City's existing standards, and potential future consideration of story poles, licensed architects and standards relating house size to lot characteristics.
Council Member Gold stated that she could support the other findings but sought a greater front setback to provide comparable treatment in relation to neighboring homes. Using the neighboring height and setback -
information, she proposed a 35.46-foot front yard setback and the four conditions on page 8 of the staff report.
The Council discussed how this change could affect the design and any further HHCA review.
City Attorney Jenkins explained that the Council could direct staff to return with a resolution of denial or a modified resolution of approval, and that adoption of the returning resolution would constitute the final action.
MOTION
Council Member McCorkindale moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the next meeting.
The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION
Council Member Gold moved and Council Member Siegel seconded a motion to direct staff to return at the next meeting with a modified resolution of approval for Variance V-387 providing a 35.46-foot front yard setback and the four conditions on page 8 of the staff report: relocation of the trash enclosure outside the front setback; removal of existing side yard encroachments except the existing property-line retaining walls; no second-story setback encroachment; and a construction management plan prohibiting parking on Hilltop Road, requiring vehicles to park on site or outside the City gates with workers shuttled to the site, and requiring on-site storage of materials and equipment. The question was called and the motion carried 3-1 on a roll call vote, with Council Members Siegel and Gold and Mayor Weber voting yes, Council Member McCorkindale voting no, and Mayor Pro Tem Loggia recused.
Following further discussion of possible design changes, Mayor Weber continued the public hearing to the next Council meeting. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that the hearing would remain open to permit further testimony and consideration of modifications. The Council did not adopt Resolution No. 1046 or finally approve the variance at this meeting.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025
Mayor Pro Tem Loggia returned for Item 5.B. Following a break, Mayor Weber called the meeting back to order at approximately 7:22 p.m.
5.B Introduction of Ordinance No. 403 Adopting by Reference the California Building Standards Code and Amending Chapter 5-5 of Title 5 of the Hidden Hills Municipal Code Building Official Tom Juzwiak presented the proposed adoption of the updated California Building Standards Code with the City's existing local amendments. He explained the three-year code cycle and described Assembly Bill 130 restrictions on new residential building standards. He stated that no new local amendments were proposed and reviewed the existing provisions concerning pool fencing and design, foundations and grading, property maintenance, and post-disaster safety placards. He recommended introduction of Ordinance No. 403 and an adoption hearing on November 10, 2025 at 5:30 p.m.
Mayor Weber opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public in the Council Chambers or by video conference.
MOTION
Council Member Siegel moved and Council Member McCorkindale seconded a motion to introduce Ordinance No. 403 by title only and waive further reading. City Attorney Jenkins read the title, identifying the 2025 California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Wildland-Urban Interface and Green Building Standards Codes, the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, and amendments to Title 5 of the Hidden Hills Municipal Code. The question was called and the motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.A Approval of Employment Agreement for City Manager Services City Attorney Jenkins presented the proposed employment agreement for Gloria Molleda, noting that the Council had appointed her City Manager on September 22, 2025, following her service as Assistant City Manager and Interim City Manager.
Mr. Jenkins described a three-year term, an annual base salary of $235,000, a monthly vehicle allowance of $500 and a monthly cell phone allowance of $150. He stated that the agreement provided for consideration of a discretionary salary increase of up to 5% beginning June 1, 2026, along with insurance and other benefits.
MOTION
Council Member Gold moved and Council Member Siegel seconded a motion to approve the employment agreement with Gloria Molleda for City Manager services. The question was called and the motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote.
See Item 8 for additional public comments and the subsequent ratification vote.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025
6.B Informational Update from Best Best & Krieger Regarding Cemetery Project Within City of Los Angeles Jurisdiction
City Attorney Jenkins stated that the item was informational. He reviewed the City's monitoring of the former Boething Treeland Nursery property and explained that the property is within Los Angeles, which has land- use authority over it. He described an earlier proposal for a memory-care facility, townhomes and single-family homes that Los Angeles was no longer processing, and said the City had maintained contact with Los Angeles planning staff regarding the property.
Mr. Jenkins stated that the property sale became known in September 2024 and that the City identified Dignity Memorial as the new owner around June 2025. He reported that the City and the Hidden Hills Community Association had begun coordinating their response, with specialized legal and design assistance, to understand the proposal and potential effects on Hidden Hills residents.
Mr. Jenkins explained that Los Angeles was considering a ministerial approval process. He reported that the City had sent Los Angeles an October 6 letter arguing that the zoning required a conditional use permit and discretionary review, including environmental review under CEOA. He said the letter had been distributed to residents with the City's question-and-answer material and that no response had yet been received.
Addressing annexation, Mr. Jenkins described the need for involvement and approval by Los Angeles, the property owner and the Local Agency Formation Commission, and said that Los Angeles and the owner were not interested in removing the property from Los Angeles. He explained that Hidden Hills could comment on the proposal and advocate for its residents but did not control the land-use decision.
Mr. Jenkins stated that no cemetery application had been filed and that detailed plans were therefore unavailable. He said the owner had informally indicated that no crematorium was planned, but emphasized that the City would need to review an actual application and Los Angeles' proposed approval process before returning to the Council for further consideration and direction.
Mr. Jenkins described the City's dialogue with Los Angeles and the owner as a means to obtain information and raise residents' concerns about soil and environmental effects, landscaping, views and noise. He discussed the legal, financial, maintenance and security concerns associated with a municipal purchase of property outside the City's boundaries and stated that, in his view, such a purchase was not an appropriate use of municipal funds in these circumstances.
Mr. Jenkins stated that litigation was premature. He explained that a potential writ proceeding would review Los Angeles' approval process or findings and could require the agency to reconsider its action, rather than necessarily prevent development of the property. He also stated that residents could independently express their views, contact Los Angeles, retain counsel or pursue available remedies.
In response to Council questions, staff reported that Dignity Memorial did not wish to sell the property at that time. Staff stated that approximately $19,000 had been spent on legal services for this matter since August, excluding the architectural consultant cost shared with the Hidden Hills Community Association, mailings and staff time.
Responding to questions about potential litigation costs, Mr. Jenkins estimated that filing a writ of mandate and proceeding through the trial court would cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000. This was a cost estimate; no litigation or related expenditure was authorized during the report and initial Council discussion.
Mayor Weber opened the item for public comment.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025
Attorney Scott Tepper stated that he represented residents of Hidden Hills, Calabasas and Woodland Hills opposing the cemetery proposal. He recounted his work on the earlier residential and memory-care development proposal and described records and environmental concerns he had investigated. He asserted that historical pesticide contamination, runoff, groundwater conditions and potential grading dust warranted further investigation and cleanup, and urged the City to oppose the project without adequate environmental protections.
Mr. Tepper supported the City's request for a conditional use permit and argued that building-separation requirements, traffic, and street and sidewalk conditions presented obstacles to approval by right. He requested more active City participation in the Los Angeles process and attention to possible construction and dust impacts on neighboring communities.
A resident requested timely access to the cemetery plans, correspondence and planning records and questioned when and how the City obtained the case information and pre-development meeting notes. The resident asked about the formation and status of the City and HHCA working group, consultant services and spending authority, and whether the City's public communications reflected a position on the project. The resident also questioned the timing and clarity of the community letter and asked for more complete public explanations.
In response, Council members described the initial informal outreach to the HHCA and subsequent ad hoc work. Staff stated that Dignity had supplied the maps and questions-and-answers materials distributed to residents and that the City had no additional grading plans. The City Manager's spending authority was discussed, including the resident's question about the effective date of an increased limit. City Attorney Jenkins explained that the City's existing agreement for legal services did not impose the same per- assignment spending cap.
Council members asked when the City should take further steps regarding possible contamination. Mr. Jenkins stated that those concerns had been raised with Los Angeles and that further Council direction and allocation of resources could be considered after Los Angeles responded or determined how to process an application.
He recommended continued monitoring and reporting back as needed. Council members requested supporting studies and other documentation from residents. Speakers discussed differing interpretations of historical nursery studies and whether those materials established current soil contamination.
A nearby resident who identified himself as an attorney expressed concerns about community character, property values, possible contamination and health effects. He urged the City and residents to work together, focus on the actual cemetery proposal, weigh potential litigation costs against the community impacts, and seek enforceable protections rather than rely on verbal assurances about future uses.
A remote commenter questioned the timing of the community letter and whether the property's zoning permitted cemetery use by right. City Attorney Jenkins explained that the City's letter to Los Angeles argued that a conditional use permit was required. Staff and Council members discussed the mailing and email schedule, including an email-service outage reported that day.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025
Ethan Cohen questioned the transparency of the City's process, the working group's status, possible serial meetings, legal expenses and spending authority. Mr. Jenkins responded that the existing legal-services agreement did not require separate approval for each assignment, described the working group as temporary and ad hoc, and stated that he was not aware of serial meetings. Council members discussed budgeted legal services, continuing fact gathering, confidentiality of legal strategy, and the distinction between individual Council comments and a position formally adopted by the Council.
Additional comments addressed whether the City had formally requested environmental review and whether further information about possible contamination should be submitted to Los Angeles. Council members referred to the City's existing letter and asked residents to provide supporting studies or other information for review.
Edward Wasserman questioned the consistency of the community letter and other public communications, requested clarification about the August 21 meeting with the property representatives, and asked that residents be allowed to complete their comments without interruption. He expressed concerns about property values and possible contamination and cleanup impacts. In response, it was explained that one Council member, City and HHCA representatives, and representatives of the property owner had met at the nursery entrance and parking area.
Another resident raised concerns about possible soil contamination, earthmoving and dust, traffic and property values, and asked the Council to support affected residents. Council Member McCorkindale explained that the water study she had located did not establish soil contamination and described the City's continuing research and outreach. Residents were encouraged to share their research and correspondence with the City, and a commenter offered to send materials to the City Manager.
Mayor Weber closed public comment on the informational item and returned to the remaining agenda business. No formal vote was taken on the cemetery proposal.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
A Council member thanked participants in the recent public-safety meeting and discussed making its recording available in chapters addressing subjects such as drone deployment, contracted services and response times. Administrative Analyst Williams stated that the edited recording was expected to be posted within the next day or two, with chapters to help residents locate topics of interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Loggia reported receipt of a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development indicating that the City's draft Housing Element met statutory requirements, with further Council approvals still to come. He described changes involving a two-story rather than three-story limit at the Long Valley entrance and removal of a proposed requirement for multifamily zoning at multiple locations inside the gates.
Council members discussed the tone of public comments, asked for constructive and respectful communication, and acknowledged Council Member McCorkindale's work on City matters. They also discussed the City's letter to Los Angeles regarding the cemetery proposal and encouraged residents to approach the upcoming Fiesta in a spirit of community cooperation.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 13, 2025
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ethan Cohen stated that the Council had approved the City Manager's employment agreement under Item
6.A without first providing an opportunity for public comment. Mr. Cohen alleged a Brown Act violation and requested that the Council rescind the vote, return the matter to a future agenda with an opportunity for public comment, and provide further Brown Act training. Mr. Cohen also raised concerns about the City Manager's professional history, leadership turnover and the financial implications of the proposed severance provisions.
Mayor Weber invited additional public comment on the City Manager's contract. Another resident expressed concern that members of the public had already left and requested clearer separation of consent-calendar comments from comments on matters not listed on the agenda. Council members supported clearer, separate public-comment listings, and a return to the prior agenda format was discussed.
City Attorney Jenkins invited further substantive comments on the employment agreement. Mr. Cohen again questioned the hiring decision, requested an explanation of the City's due diligence, and stated that his remote request to speak had been raised during Item 6.A. Mr. Jenkins stated that he had not observed anyone in the room seeking to comment and, after the additional comments were heard, recommended that the Council vote to ratify its earlier approval of the agreement.
MOTION
Council Member McCorkindale moved and Council Member Siegel seconded a motion to ratify the City Council's earlier approval of the City Manager's employment agreement under Item 6.A. The question was called and the motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote.
9. STAFF COMMENTS
Staff comments were taken before the consent calendar. Staff reminded residents about the upcoming Fiesta and parade and encouraged attendance.
10. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Mayor Pro Tem Loggia moved and Council Member Siegel seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The question was called and the motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote. Mayor Weber declared the meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Sewele
Larry G. Weber, Mayor
Lem fanes