Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1992 0715 CC REGMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL 799 Moorpark Avenue July 15, 1992 A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on July 15, 1992 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Marlene Garcia led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Talley, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; Bill Phelps, Director of Community Development; Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer; Lieutenant Geoff Dean, Sheriff's Department; Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works; Mary Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager; Don Reynolds, Administrative Services Officer; Deborah Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: A. Mayor Lawrason presented Certificates of Recognition to three Moorpark High School students for awards they won at the national competition for Future Business Leaders of America. Those receiving certificates were Thomas Niday, Eric French and Andrew Philip. B. Mayor Lawrason presented Marlene Garcia, of the Moorpark News - Mirror, with a Certificate of Appreciation for her years of community service. C. Tom Pecht, a member of the Ventura County Fair Board, presented Mayor Lawrason with a framed copy of the 1992 Ventura County Fair Poster. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: Councilmember Montgomery requested Item 11.F., the Application of Quality Rock (CUP 4571) to the Ventura County Planning Commission, be added to the agenda, the need for action having arisen since the posting of the agenda. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 July 15, 1992 MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to add to the agenda as Item 11.F., Consider the Application of Quality Rock (CUP 4571) to the Ventura County Planning Commission, need for action having arisen since the posting of the agenda. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Kueny requested that the City Council consider adding as Item 11.G., Consider working Relationship between City and Senior Citizens Club and Assumption of Senior Citizen Grant, the need having arisen since the posting of the agenda. BY CONSENSUS: The Council determined to added the above item, 11.G., to the agenda, the need for action having arisen since the posting of the agenda. BY CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to hear item 8.P. ahead of the rest of the agenda. P. Consider Change to the Rules of Procedure to Allow Public Comment During Discussion Items. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -867 changing Rules of Procedure for a trial period and rescinding Resolution No. 91 -779. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 92 -867 to change the Rules of Procedure for a trial period and to rescind Resolution No. 91 -779, thus allowing the public speakers to address the Council beginning this evening at the time of specific action /discussion items. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: Joe Latunski, 289 Casey Road, spoke regarding the City Council procedure for public speakers. He said the Council should allow speakers to address the Council during the action /discussion portion of the City Council meetings. Stella L. Martin, 256 Dorothy Avenue, spoke saying that she has been cited with code enforcement violations and is willing to correct them, but knows of others who have been in violation in her neighborhood and have not been cited for the problems. Greg Simons, 625 North A Street, Oxnard, spoke representing E1 Concilio, and provided the Councilmembers with a status of the day laborer situation. He said E1 Concilio is monitoring the situation and asked the Council for any suggestions for increased use by contractors of the new location where the laborers gather. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 July 15, 1992 Victoria Perez, 4237 Canario Court, congratulated the City Council for accomplishing the At -Risk Youth program within the City. She encouraged them to proceed with the program that is being developed by E1 Concilio. Gerry Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, commented that the City's code enforcement policy should be discussed as he believes some of his belongings were unnecessarily destroyed as a result of the resolution of a code violation. Alberto Rios and Liza Castro, 993 Walnut Canyon Road, spoke as representatives of E1 Concilio. They spoke regarding the community development and beautification project that is being implemented in Moorpark and outlined the goals of the program as being: 1) pre - employment training and leadership development for the participants, 2) work experience and community development, 3) graffiti removal and community cleanup, 4) mural design, with a tentative site being the Boys and Girls Club. They indicated they have 105 applicants. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, reported that the Fourth of July picnic, which was sponsored and financed primarily by the Women's Fortnightly Club, was a success. Mrs. Brown also thanked City staff for their help in planning the event. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS: None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Montgomery seconded a motion to pull items 8.A., Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 29, 1992, Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 1, 1992, Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of July 1, 1992; 8.C., and 8.M. and approve the balance of the Consent Calendar. The Council had previously taken action with regard to Item 8.P. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. A. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 17, 1992. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 17, 1992. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of July 10, 1991. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 B. Warrant Register July 15, 1992 FY 1991 -92 Manual Warrants 17878, 17879, 17881, 17882, 17889 - 17893 $ 26,084.67 Regular Warrants 17987 - 17902, 17904, 17905, 17907, 17908, 17910, 17912 - 17917, 17921 - 17925, 17927, 17930, 17932, 17934 - 17941, 17943 - 17947, 17951 - 17959, 17962- 17964, 17966, 17967, 17969, 17971 - 17973, 17976 -17988 $192,483.52 D. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to Engage John Riela for Accounting Services at a Rate of $40 per Hour. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract amendment for accounting services. E. Consider Authorizing the Purchase of Filing Cabinets for Files in Administrative Services. Staff Recommendation: Approve the purchase of two lateral file cabinets for an amount not to exceed $1,600 as appropriated in 01.4.117.907. F. Consider Adoption of Resolution No 92 -868 Setting Fees for Police Services. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -868. G. Consider Resolution No. 92 -869 Setting the One -Way Fare for the City Bus. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -869. H. Consider Approval of the City's 1992/93 Transportation Development Act Funding Application. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -870 approving the City's 1992/93 Transportation Development Act Funding Application. I. Consider Resolution No. 92 -871 Establishing a Residential and _Commercial AB 939 Solid Waste Management Fee. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -871. J. Consider Resolution No. 92 -872 to Establish Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CE OA) . Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 92 -872 rescinding Resolution No. 84 -122 and adopting updated "Procedures of the City of Moorpark to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act ". Minutes of Moorpark, the City Council California Page 5 July 15, 1992 K. Consider Grading Bond Reduction for Moorpark Presbyterian Church (RPD- 89 -3). Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept slope grading for RPD 89 -3 as complete, with the exception of landscaping and 10% of the grading estimate, 2) Authorize City Clerk to reduce the bond to $6,340 upon receipt of a letter of amendment from the Great Western Bank including "slope landscaping" as part of the grading bond. L. Consider Tentative Tract 4789 - Moorpark West Street Name Change. Staff Recommendation: Approve use of Atlantis Court as the new street name for Tentative Tract 4789. N. Consider Southern California Edison Companv vs. State Board of Equalization, et al.; Case No. BC054959; and Southern California Gas Company vs. State Board of Equalization, et al; Case No. BC055878. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file the report. O. Consider City Manager Approved Contract, "City- Link". Staff Recommendation: Receive and file the report. The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration: Consider Approval of Minutes of the Special Citv Council Meeting of June 29, 1992. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 1, 1992. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Special Citv Council Meeting of July 1, 1992. Councilmember Wozniak stated he had pulled the above sets of minutes as he was not present at these meetings and would abstain from voting. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to approve the minutes listed above. The motion carried by 4 -0 vote, Councilmember Wozniak abstaining from the vote. C. Consider Arroyo Vista Community Park Site Improvements Final Design and Specifications. Staff Recommendation: Approve final plans and specifications. Councilmember Wozniak stated he wished further discussion on this item as there is some new information to be provided to the City Council by staff. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 July 15, 1992 Mr. Gilbert provided a supplementary report and said the infrastructure of the Arroyo Vista Community Park has been determined to cost $400,000 more than anticipated. It will be necessary to reduce the scope of work to occur in Phase I as the City currently does not have the funds to pay for all the work specified in the bid documents. Cost savings may be effected by delaying some of the drainage improvements until Phase II or by making modifications to the extension of the roadway system. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to make the necessary modifications to the bid specification documents to meet the cost saving requirements; to delay the bid opening for Phase I until August 24; and to bring the results of the bid opening back to the Council at their first scheduled meeting in September. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. M. Consider Approval of Design Plans for the Construction of the Rail Station Parking Lot. Staff Recommendation: Approve the design plans and authorize construction. Councilmember Montgomery said staff should contact the owners of Kahoots Feed Store to check the feasibility of coordinating the paving activity with them. Their desire is to have the paving of their parking lot done at the same time as the Rail Station parking lot. It must be understood that this will be done at no expense to the City. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to approve the design plans and authorize construction of the Rail Station parking lot as amended above. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 10. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Councilmember Montgomery stated that with the revised Rules of Procedure, the portion of the agenda which addresses the Public Comment procedure must be modified by staff to reflect the revisions. Mr. Kueny indicated that section 2.11 of the adopted Rules of Procedure will be revised by staff to reflect that change Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 July 15, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that the speakers will be limited to three minutes each, applicants /proponents of the item will speak first with the Mayor making that determination, and that no rebuttals will be allowed by public speakers during the discussion /action portion of the agenda. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to revise the Rules of Procedure as stated above. 11. ACTION /DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Authorization to Advertise for Receipt of Bids for the Construction of Charles Street Storm Drain Street and Sidewalk Improvement. Staff Recommendation: Approve design and authorize advertisement for receipt of bids. (Continued Item 8.C. from July 1, 1992) Mr. Gilbert gave the staff report. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Gilbert provided an overview of what the scope of work will be in the bid package. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to direct staff to contact the County Environmental Health Department to obtain a decision at the earliest possible time regarding approval or denial of the soils report; and approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for bid with a 90 day period for bid award consideration by the City. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. B. Consider Revised Pad Elevation and Building Envelopes on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4620 - JBH. Staff Recommendation: Approve the pad elevation and building envelopes. Mr. Phelps gave the staff report. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Kueny suggested that the City Attorney may want to review the City's subdivision ordinance to see if it addresses the situation of modifying the pads to make better use of the property especially in cases where it yielded a larger building pad. He indicated that typically this sort of change is handled at staff level and is not considered to be a major modification until the plans have been approved; however, if a change of two feet or more in elevation is made it must come to Council. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 July 15, 1992 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to hear public testimony now and to table this item until later in the meeting when the City Attorney has had the opportunity to review the City's Subdivision Ordinance. David Potter, spoke representing Potter Engineering, 12 North Ash Street, Ventura. He explained that in a hillside project the lots are such that they have a 2% slope on the pads and that it is easy to slip beyond that criteria. He outlined the differences of elevation on various lots and that the road is being lowered as a result of one of the conditions of approval. Joe Latunski, 289 Casey Road, spoke as an adjacent property owner. Mr. Latunski spoke in opposition to this development and expressed concern about improper drainage and requested that JBH be required to come forth with a plan for flood control prior to the development being approved. Mr. Latunski also said he believes this item should warrant a public hearing as the changes that are being made are major ones. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was declared. The time was 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9 :30 p.m. At the Council's request, Ms. Kane commented on the project as it relates to the Subdivision Ordinance. She related the following: The Subdivision Map Act does not address modifications to tentative maps, so that process is strictly governed by Moorpark's own Subdivision Ordinance. Under that Ordinance a distinction is made between minor modifications and major modifications to tentative maps. Major modifications require the commencement of a new process whereby a new tentative map would be filed and the entire subdivision process would be initiated over again. Minor modification is a term not defined in the Code, but there are limitations as to what a minor modification would consist of. Those limitations are: 1) the modification would not affect the quality or quantity of required dedication, 2) it would not increase the total number or significantly alter the configuration of proposed lots. If those factors did not occur, it would be considered a minor modification. A minor modification is acted upon by the Planning Director; however, the Code does provide that within ten days after the action of the Director any interested person can object to the decision of the Director. If that occurs, then it is treated as a major modification, which requires going back through the entire process. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 July 15, 1992 If there is an objection, and the applicant is required to go back through the process, then that applicant has a choice to abandon the modifications he is seeking and go forth with the map as it was originally approved or file for a new tentative map. Filing for a new tentative map would not extinguish the existing tentative map and if a new tentative map were approved, the applicant would have the choice as to which map would be become final. Ms. Kane went on to explain that if a decision were made to treat this as a major modification, and the applicant sought not to go forward with that process and final the map as it had originally been approved, then he could come back after recordation and on a lot -by -lot basis seek a modification and would only have to have the approval of the Director of Community Development. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane clarified that the condition states that the subdivider has to include a requirement in the CC &R's making it clear to any purchaser that if they wish to modify the envelope they would have to have the approval of the Director of Community Development. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to continue this item to the City Council meeting of August 19th and direct staff to prepare responses from the City Attorney to the questions that were discussed above. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that they would address the added agenda item, 11.G., at this point in the meeting. G. Consider Working Relationship Between City and Senior Citizens Club and Assumption of Senior Citizen Grant. Mr. Kueny gave the staff report. He said that Don Reynolds met with representatives of the Moorpark Senior Citizens Club Board today. He said the Seniors formerly had a staff position funded by an Area Agency on Aging grant, this position is now vacant and the City is interested in having that grant assigned to the City so the City could employ a staff person for the Seniors. Contingent upon the Board approving the assignment of the grant, the City will recruit for a part -time and a full -time Senior Coordinator. The salary range is proposed to be from $9.46 - $11.50 per hour. The City would contract with the Club in the interim to provide staffing on an as needed and agreed upon basis. The Senior Citizens' Club will remain responsible for the building maintenance and the City will not assume Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 July 15, 1992 responsibility for operation of the Center until either of the positions are filled. Staff is recommending that during the next several weeks, staff work with the Public Works and Facilities Committee and the Club representatives to develop proposals for volunteer support that will be needed when the City assumes responsibility for staffing, fund raising support and to establish an advisory council to develop programs and activities for the seniors under direction of the City Council. There were no speaker cards for this item. In response to Mayor Lawrason, Mr. Kueny said the City would be spending the grant money in the interim. Once the Seniors inform the City that they concur officially, by Board action, with the City's proposal, the City would then begin the recruitment and be able to hire someone in September based upon whether the State budget is enacted and the Council has made its final budget decisions. The City could either provide a part time or a full time position based upon the budget. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation as outlined by the City Manager above. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. C. Consider General Plan Update Implementation. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Phelps gave the staff report. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Kane said the City is entitled to a deposit from the landowner that would be within the Specific Plan area. The total amount of fees that the City may collect cannot exceed the cost of preparing and processing the Specific Plan. To the extent that any fees are being imposed, as long as those fees do not exceed the actual cost of preparing the Specific Plan, the fees are permissible. Any fees that would exceed that would be fees that a property owner would in essence be voluntarily giving to the City. Councilmember Montgomery indicated that the intent is not to pay for the processing of the Specific Plan, but to recapture a deficit for the General Plan Update which has already been completed, and secondly, to pay for processing of certain ordinances which may or may not have relevance to a Specific Plan application. Given this, is this fee legal? Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 11 July 15, 1992 Ms. Kane responded that it would fall into the voluntary category. Councilmember Montgomery asked if a person can be prohibited from submitting an application to the City for a period of 6 - 9 months if a voluntary fee is not paid. He asked if that is consistent with the imposition of a voluntary fee in the sense that nonpayment of that voluntary fee would obviously incur a severe penalty for nonpayment. Ms. Kane said a Specific Plan, just as a General Plan, is not an item that is mandatory to be processed by the City. She said she does not recall if there is an underlying land use that a property owner can avail himself of in the absence of a Specific Plan or if the only use he can make of his property is a Specific Plan. She said if the latter is the case, then we may have a problem. Ms. Traffenstedt said each of the properties that have Specific Plan designations also have an overlay designation which is the original land use prior to the Specific Plan designation. The Land Use Element makes it clear that if they do not receive the clearance of the Specific Plan, they could avail themselves of the overlay designation. Marshall Milligan spoke representing the Levy Company, 2575 Vista Del Mar, Ventura. He offered the following comments: 1. Regarding the Specific Plan and EIR being prepared by consultants, he thinks the owners' consultant should be allowed to contribute to the preparation. He would like an understanding that provided the owners' consultant presented a coherent discussion of the issue, they be allowed to pass on information to the City's consultant. 2. It would be advantageous to have the consultant's payments laid out in advance and have them paid on a percentage of progress that has been completed. 3. The fee that is being requested is excessive and he opposes it. 4. With regard to the deadline, he believes that the Council should wait until they get the guidelines from staff. Francis Okyere, 484 E. Los Angeles Avenue, #210, spoke representing the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce. He said the entire recommendation should be reexamined. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 12 July 15, 1992 Tom Schleve, 8160 Happy Camp Road, spoke against the entire proposal. He believes the approach of this item is detrimental to bringing development to the City. Gary Austin, spoke representing Messenger Investment Corporation, 17512 Von Karman, Irvine. He said his company is anxious to commence the development of Specific Plan No. 8 and requested the following: 1. Setting the deadline for payment of the Specific Plan fees by August 10 is premature since the Specific Plan process application requirements and procedures will not be finalized by that time. Payment of a reasonable fee should occur once the City's procedures are in place. They do intend to pay the required fee by the deadline; however, payment of the fee as a condition for initiating the process seems excessive to them. 2. They do not believe it is reasonable or necessary to "hold off" acceptance of draft Specific Plans until various ordinances and planning procedures are adopted as referred to. They believe the Specific Plan process is tailored to allow staff, Planning Commission and Council to impose whatever conditions are necessary as a part of that process. Delaying the specific plan process for that reason does not serve a useful purpose and is a hardship on the property owner. 3. His firm believes it is absolutely necessary to select their own planning consultant. 4. They requested the City to notify LAFCO within the next week or two and request them to modify the sphere of influence to include Specific Plan No. 8. Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, said most of the ordinances in the City are for the benefit of the City as a whole. She spoke in opposition to the deadline. She said imposing a moratorium is not the right thing to do. Dee Boysen, spoke representing the Building Industry Association, 24005 Ventura Blvd, Calabasas. She spoke in opposition to the fees and to the August 10th deadline. Ms. Boysen submitted a letter to the Deputy City Clerk for presentation to the City Council and to be included in the record. In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Kueny stated that the City did not view the deadline as a moratorium. He said we view it as an objective to help City staff plan their Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 13 July 15, 1992 work. They need to know what they will be working on and the Council needs to be able to set priorities as to what needs to be processed first. Mayor Lawrason indicated that the committee reviewed several procedures and this seemed to be the best method for processing the Specific Plans. He indicated that this procedure is a recommendation and not an action to proceed at this point. Councilmember Talley said perhaps each Specific Plan applicant could put a percentage of their actual cost up front. Expenses they could pay would help get the process started. He said the applicants are correct that the City procedures should be in place before we impose a deadline for the processing of the Specific Plans. Councilmember Perez stated that a lot of discussion was held on the committee level as to the planning consultant being chosen by the City. He said they brought this recommendation forward because traditionally the City has selected the consultant to implement the Specific Plans. He said he would like more Council discussion on this subject. Councilmember Talley said if the applicant is excluded from the process, then the public hearing step is a difficult one. He said he favors the applicant choosing their own planning consultant with the concurrence of the City. Mayor Lawrason said he favors more involvement of the applicant with the entire process, too. Councilmember Wozniak stated that the applicants should be able to use their current consultants with the City having input to that situation. He added that a percentage of the fee deposit should be paid based on the percentage of completion of the process. Milestones would be established and have to be met on specific dates. He indicated that he does not agree with the August 10th deadline and that the City should pay for the hillside ordinance. Mr. Kueny commented that the dates were not arbitrary. It was City staff's intent that, during the recess of the Council, staff would get to a point that they could come back on August 19 knowing who wants to be in the process and have EIR and Specific Plan requirements complete. As to the consultants, Mr. Kueny said the City cannot process all of the Specific Plans without the use of consultants. Mr. Kueny Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 14 July 15, 1992 added that the City does not want to preclude the applicants' use of consultants, but we want the Specific Plan consultants to be an extension of staff. The proposed fee is not a legal alternative per the City Attorney's advice. Councilmember Montgomery stated that the City should 1) delete the condition of a fee, but have staff calculate a deposit based upon certain criteria, to be collected at the time the Specific Plan application is submitted, 2) delete the August 10th deadline, 3) staff should submit at the August 19th meeting the recommendations for which applications will be processed, 4) between now and August 19th the Committee should meet with representatives of Specific Plan No. 8 to seek agreement for them to pay for the deficit that exists with the General Plan Update as they are the only ones who have not as yet contributed to the expense of the General Plan Update, and discuss with them that they enter into an agreement to pay for a sphere of influence amendment application, 5) the City should not wait to process Specific Plans for the passage of the Hillside Ordinance, 6) the Traffic Improvement Fee and the processing of the Specific Plans should be processed concurrently and the costs to develop it should be identified and charged to a separate new fund into which will go the exactions that developers will pay, 7) the use of consultants is necessary to process the Specific Plans, but specific plan applicants may hire their own consultant to prepare their specific plan and them submit the plan ' to the City,'; for review which review may be done by a City hired consultant 8) between now and August 19th, the applicants should notify the City of consultants and their qualifications, and City staff will evaluate and comprise a list of consultants. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to direct staff to take action as indicated by Councilmember Montgomery above. D. Consider Approval of an East County Joint Powers Authority for the Development of a Waste Processing Facility. Staff Recommendation: Approve Waste Commission Action Plan and consider action on JPA commitment for waste processing facilities. Ms. Lindley gave the staff report. MOTION: Councilmember Perez moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to provide Councilmember Montgomery with the authorization to commit the City to the County wide JPA if the City's concerns are alleviated or to seek to form an East County JPA if that is in the best interest of Moorpark, to concur with the Ventura County Waste Commission's Action Plan for Regional Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 15 July 15, 1992 Waste Processing and Transfer Facility Implementation, and to consider alternative actions on a JPA for regional waste processing facilities. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 11:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:40 p.m. E. Consider Report On Proposed At—Risk Youth Program. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to proceed with the development of an agreement with MUSD and E1 Concilio for an "At Risk Youth Program ". Councilmember Perez stepped down from the dais due to a possible conflict of interest with this item. Ms. Lindley gave the staff report. Mayor Lawrason commented that referrals to this program will be from the School District and the City will have some guidance to provide with referrals from the Sheriff's Department. Marcos Vargas spoke as Executive Director of E1 Concilio, 526 North 12th Street, Santa Paula. He indicated that their tutorial program is primarily targeted to the Latino community, but that they will modify the program depending on the multi - cultural makeup of the referrals. MOTION: Mayor Lawrason moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to approve the Council Committee on At Risk Youth's proposal for a program to target "at risk" youth; to direct the Council Committee and staff to draft a cooperative agreement with Moorpark Unified School District and a contract with El Concilio for "Project Pride" for Council consideration on August 19; and to direct the Council Committee and staff to obtain two year commitments from Moorpark Unified School District and El Concilio for program funding and operation. The motion carried 3 -0, Councilmember Montgomery abstaining from the vote and Councilmember Perez absent for the vote. Councilmember Perez returned to the dais. F. Consider Application of Quality Rock (CUP) 4571 to Ventura County Planning Commission. Mr. Phelps gave the staff report. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 16 July 15, 1992 MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to direct staff to attend the public hearing of the Ventura County Planning Commission on July 16; to provide testimony as to the City's position on this item, to register objections and, if the application is approved, to file an appeal on behalf of the City of Moorpark protesting the application of Quality Rock; to convey the concerns of the City Council to Supervisor Vicky Howard. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None. 14. CLOSED SESSION: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Talley seconded a motion to adjourn to Closed Session for a discussion of all items listed on the agenda: A. Personnel. B. Personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. C. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1) . D. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). E. Litigation concerning Ventura County Community College District Case No. 107569 vs. City of Moorpark. F. Negotiations for Real Property at 280 Casey Road (Moorpark Unified School District) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. G. Litigation concerning Conejo Freeway Properties, LTD. vs. City of Moorpark. H. Litigation concerning City of Moorpark vs. Southern California Edison, et al. I. Negotiations for Real Property on the South Side of High Street (Southern Pacific /VCTC) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 17 July 15, 1992 AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 12:35 a.m. The Council reconvened into Closed Session at 12:40 a.m. Present in Closed Session were all Councilmembers; and Steven Kueny, City Manager; Cheryl Kane, City Attorney; and Mary Lindley, Assistant to the City Manager. Ms. Lindley left the Closed Session at 1:02 a.m. The meeting reconvened into Open Session at 1:21 a.m. Mr. Kueny stated there was no action to report out of Closed Session and only items 14.A., 14.D., 14.E., 14.F, and 14.I. had been discussed. 15. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Talley moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 1:25 a.m. Paul W. La son Jr., Ma r ATTEST: