PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)

Property:30678 Palos Verdes Drive East

City Negotiators:City Manager, Assistant City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Public Works

Negotiating Parties:Jim and Diane Tyler

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment

On February 10, 1999, the Recreation and Parks Committee appointed a Sub-Committee comprised of members from the Recreation and Parks Committee, the Equestrian Committee, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, and Los Serenos de Point Vicente (Docent) members. The Sub-Committee’s responsibility was to draft a Management Plan for the Forrestal Property that would guide the maintenance of the property toward the preservation and recreational goals envisioned when the property was acquired by the City, and to enhance the property as a valuable asset to the public for habitat and passive recreational purposes.

On March 29, 1999 the Sub-Committee met for the first time to discuss their responsibility to create a Management Plan that addressed the critical issues needed to successfully maintain the Forrestal Property. Thereafter, the sub-committee, consisting of six (6) members, along with representatives from the Planning Department, the Recreation and Parks Department and the Department of Public Works, met on a monthly basis for approximately one year preparing and reviewing material for the Management Plan. On March 27, 2000 the Sub-committee reviewed the final draft version of the Management Plan and forwarded the document to the Recreation and Parks Committee.

On May 25, 2000 the Recreation and Parks Committee conducted a public meeting, that was noticed in the Peninsula News, to discuss the draft version of the Forrestal Management Plan. At the meeting, Staff verbally informed the Committee members of information obtained from a site visit conducted by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer after the Sub-committee’s review of the document. He identified a geologic concern with two trail segments on the subject property. Although it was not determined at that point what action the City was going to take regarding the new geologic information, and since further written information from the City’s Geotechnical Engineer and the City Attorney were pending, Staff informed the Committee members that the Management Plan may be modified with respect to the new issues of concern.

After hearing public testimony, the Recreation and Parks Committee indicated that the draft Management Plan prepared by the Sub-Committee represented a comprehensive overview of the Forrestal Property. However, the Recreation and Parks Committee expressed concern that the Management Plan did not adequately address connections to the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. Although the Committee was aware that attempts to connect the Forrestal Property with the Palos Verdes Loop Trail were deemed unworkable by the Sub-Committee, the Committee felt that an extension of the Ganado Trail (A-16) segment to the Palos Verdes Loop Trail should continue to be researched and should still be reflected in the Management Plan. Therefore, the Committee forwarded the Management Plan with a recommendation of adoption to the City Council with the provision that the Management Plan address the Palos Verdes Loop Trail connection issue accordingly (see Trails Section 7 of the Management Plan).

After the Recreation and Parks Committee completed its review of the Management Plan and Staff made the appropriate changes to the Trails Section, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer provided Staff with a letter dated April 21, 2000 (see attachment) that contained several recommendations for restricting access to certain areas of the property, including that two trail segments be closed for safety reasons. Since the Docents were using the trail segments in question on a regular basis, Staff informed the Docents that they should curtail the use of the Fossil Trail (L-1) segment and the inner loop of the Stalwart Trail (A-14) segment until further notice. In order to physically identify these areas, Staff met with the Docents at the Forrestal Property. While identifying the trail segments that should be avoided, the Docents and Staff identified a network of existing trails that were not included in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan or the Draft Management Plan that could be used to meet the Docent’s tour needs. Since these new proposed trail routes/segments were not identified in the Management Plan when it was reviewed by the Sub-committee and the Recreation and Parks Committee, Staff modified the plan accordingly and informed the Committee and Sub-committee members of the changes via a memo (see attachment). The changes made by Staff were to items 1,6,7 and 10 of Trail Section 7.3 of the Management Plan.

In addition to the above changes, Staff also revised the Sign Section (9) of the Management Plan in response to recommendations made by the City Attorney in a memorandum dated July 28, 2000 that was prepared in light of the City’s Geotechnical Engineer’s concerns (see attachment). The changes pertain to the precautionary "warning signs" for the trail areas identified in the Management Plan as being geologically unstable. The Sign Section was revised to include a discussion on the "warning signs" in regard to design standards, language and location. The Plan designates the placement of signs at the immediate hazard areas, and at the entrance to the Forrestal Property. Said signs have been subsequently placed in the appropriate locations, pursuant to the City Geologist’s recommendation.

On September 5, 2000 an updated version of the Management Plan incorporating the recommendations identified by the Recreation and Parks Committee, as well as the City Attorney and City Geologist, was presented to the City Council for its review and consideration. In light of Staff’s recommendations pertaining to anticipated improvement and maintenance costs, the City Council agreed to table this item and forwarded the Draft Management Plan to the Finance Advisory Committee for its review and recommendation.

Staff presented an overview of the Forrestal Management Plan to the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) on October 4, 2000. The staff report included an estimated cost summary with three alternatives, as well as copies of the Forrestal Management Plan document and memorandums written by the City’s Geologist and City Attorney. After presentation of the Management Plan, the Committee members asked Staff and the City Geologist many questions, several which were deferred and subsequently answered in the December 12^th staff report to the FAC. At the conclusion of its discussion at the December 12^th meeting, the FAC asked Staff to revise the estimated cost summary to include: (1) the estimated cost of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and (2) the estimated cost of removal of the gunite drainage system in Alternative I. It is noteworthy that the FAC took public testimony at every meeting which it discussed the Plan.

Staff presented a revised estimated cost summary at the January 9^th meeting of the FAC. At the conclusion of its discussion, the FAC unanimously agreed to recommend the following to the City Council:

• Revise Alternative I to include all costs associated with the removal or repair of the gunite drainage system as the essential minimum; and
• Direct staff to perform the necessary planning and design engineering, including cost estimates, to enable the City Council to make a decision between the project choices contained in Alternatives II and III, or any variation thereof; and
• Direct staff to utilize grant funds procured (if any) and available restricted funds (i.e. Measure A, QUIMBY and EET) to implement the alternative selected by the City Council; and
• Consider the offer made by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (the "PVPLC") to manage the Forrestal property and work with the City to procure funds to implement the alternative selected by the City Council.
• Not to consider Alternative I.

Though it was not incorporated into its recommendation, the members of the FAC expressed their preference for Alternative III, subject to the availability of either restricted funds of the City or external funds. The City Geologist also expressed his preference for Alternative III during its discussion with the FAC.

A public notice for this evening’s City Council joint workshop was published in the Peninsula News on January 13, 2001. A public notice was mailed on January 11, 2001 to all interested parties, including Committee and Sub-committee members involved in the preparation of the Management Plan, neighboring homeowner’s associations (Ladera Linda, Sea View, and Ganado), and the City of Rolling Hills.

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined that the preparation and adoption of the Forrestal Management Plan qualifies as a categorical exemption under Class 7.

Class 7 exempts projects that consist of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by State law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. As proposed, the Forrestal Management Plan is intended to guide the management of the property towards the preservation and recreational goals envisioned by the City Council when the property was acquired and to enhance the property as a valuable public asset for habitat and passive recreational purposes. Based on the purpose of the Management Plan, it has been determined that the proposed project, under the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, qualifies as a Class 7 Categorical Exemption. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

The attached Draft Forrestal Management Plan includes a comprehensive overview of the topics identified by Sub-committee members when drafting the Management Plan. The topics identified by the Sub-committee are based on the goals and objectives to preserve significant habitat on the Property, while permitting passive recreational opportunities. The topics are categorized according to the appropriate heading and are discussed in detail within the text of the document. The following is an outline of the individual sections of the Management Plan (the list corresponds to the Management Plan’s Table of Contents):

• Introduction
• Goals and Objectives
• Funding
• Biological Resources / Baseline Data
• Cultural / Mineral Resources
• Geology, Hydrology, Mineralogy
• Trails
• Passive Recreational Amenities
• Signs
• Management and Maintenance
• Annual Inspections
• Appendices

In preparing the Management Plan, it was identified that the sections pertaining to the implementation and administration of the Plan (Section 2.2 and 2.3 of the Plan) could not be completed by the Sub-committee or Committee members without Council direction. Furthermore, Staff seeks Council direction in regard to the Finance Advisory Committee’s recommendation to consider Alternative II or III as viable levels of improvements to the Property.

According to the City’s Geotechnical Consultant and Engineer, specific site improvements to the Forrestal Property are necessary to maintain the site for passive recreational activities. The suggested improvements have been classified into three alternatives. The following describes each level of improvement alternative for consideration by the City Council:

• Alternative I – This alternative consists of minimal improvements to the Property including the removal and repair of deteriorating gunite drainage swales, installation of warning signs, fence installation and associated engineering costs.

• Alternative II – This alternative includes the improvements identified in Alternative I, as well as mid-range improvements, such as storm drain repairs, trail improvements, and the installation of passive recreational amenities such as, benches and trash bins.

• Alternative III – This alternative consists of optimal improvements and includes the improvements identified in Alternative I and II, as well as removal of existing fencing and re-grading slopes to permanently correct drainage and stability concerns.

A detailed summary of the three alternatives, including estimated costs, is attached as Schedule A. As described previously in this report, Staff has discussed a shared management agreement with the PVPLC. As a part of the arrangement, the PVPLC has offered to assume the cost of the installation of split rail fencing, trail re-routing and fence removal. The discussion with the PVPLC occurred after the FAC made its recommendation for the City Council to consider both Alternatives II and III. As described above, the members of the FAC expressed their preference for Alternative III, subject to the availability of either restricted funds of the City or external funds.

It is important to understand the fact that the summary of estimated costs have been prepared prior to completion of engineering and design. Both the City’s Geologist and Public Works Director have expressed concerns that the on-site conditions may require the proposed slope stabilization included in Alternative III. In light of the preference for Alternative III, expressed by both the City Geologist and the FAC, Staff believes that the City Council should exclusively consider implementing Alternative III.

Based on the attached Cost Summary (see Schedule A), the estimated cost difference between the Alternative II and III is $360,000. The estimated costs and funding sources will be discussed under the Fiscal Impacts section of this report and on the attached Exhibit A table.

Within the Goals and Objectives section of the Management Plan, sub-sections 2.2 and 2.3 were set aside for describing the Implementation Measures and the Administration Process of the Management Plan. As currently presented, the two sub-sections include only general information because these issues involve policy decisions that need to be addressed by the City Council. The two subsections will be completed upon receipt of the appropriate Council direction.

As previously noted, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) is offering to assist the City in the management of the Forrestal Property. Given the Conservancy’s experience and expertise on specific aspects of the Management Plan, Staff recommends that the City Council consider the PVPLC as a qualified management entity to assist in the implementation of specific components of the Management Plan. If the Council opts to accept the PVPLC’s offer, the City would continue to retain full ownership and control over the property. The sharing of management duties could be defined in a management agreement between the City and the PVPLC. Said agreement would clearly outline each entity’s responsibilities. Staff believes that a management agreement between the City and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy would assist in the implementation and administration of the Management, thus reducing City management costs.

According to previous discussions with representatives from the PVPLC, the PVPLC is willing to undertake the following management activities:

• All recommendations pertaining to Biology, such as an inventory of Coastal Sage Scrub and its restoration, preservation, mapping and monitoring.

• Maintenance improvements to existing trails, including re-routing trails, the installation of split rail fences and removal of existing chain link fencing (if needed).

• Annual inspections of the property utilizing photo documentation and site inspections may be completed by the Conservancy.

The following activities could be shared by both the City and the PVPLC:

• The installation of the recommended benches, trash bins and signs (it should be noted that the precautionary warning signs have already been installed by the City).

The following management activities would be the sole responsibility of the City:

• All recommendations pertaining to improvements associated with geology, hydrology and mineralogy. Such recommendations include storm drain improvements, slope repair, trail preservation and restoration, signs, security chain link fencing and all associated engineering.

• On-going maintenance of the property, such as trash removal and fire maintenance.

For a more detailed description of the above improvements and initial and annual maintenance costs, please refer to the attached Cost Summary (see attachment).

As an alternative to the above shared management recommendations, the City Council may wish for the City to continue to serve as the managing entity responsible for implementing and overseeing the entire Forrestal Management Plan. Under this alternative, the City would incur all the costs identified in the Fiscal Impact Section of this report. Grants or other funding sources could offset these costs, although this would involve Staff time and the resultant costs. The Implementation and Administration sections under the Goals and Objectives Section of the Management Plan will be finalized when these management decisions are made by the City Council.

Staff conducted a preliminary cost analysis considering all elements needed to repair the areas of hazardous concern, preserve the natural habitat, and provide passive recreational opportunities to the public under three alternatives that range between minimal and optimal improvements (see attached Schedule A). The presentation separates initial costs and annual maintenance costs, as well as who may pay them, the City or the PVPLC.

Of the three alternatives, Alternative I, with an estimated initial cost of about $253,000, is intended to reduce the City’s liability with the least initial cash outlay. Alternative II, the minimum recommendation made by the City’s Consulting Geologist and Engineer, proposes to improve the existing hydrologic and geologic conditions of the property. The initial costs associated with Alternative II would be approximately $363,650. However, according to the City’s Consulting Geologist and Engineer, optimal improvements (Alternative III) would significantly improve slope stability and drainage concerns, but at an increased cost. The total estimated cost of Alternative III would be approximately $723,650. The additional $360,000 in cost would involve improvements such as the reconstruction of the 1.5:1 slopes to 2:1 slopes along Forrestal Drive, the removal of gunite and a staircase along Forrestal Drive, and the removal of existing drainage devices and the reconstruction of 1.5:1 slopes to 2:1 slopes along Intrepid Drive.

The estimated costs associated with the Forrestal Management Plan were not included in the Year 2000 Five-Year Financial Model. Finance staff performed an analysis of the Five-Year Model as well as the FY 00-01 budget prior to preparing Schedule B, Possible Funding Alternatives. Schedule B also includes an analysis of what the resulting fund balances would be if either QUIMBY or EET funds were used for either Alternatives II or III.

Based upon the analysis presented in Schedule B, no additional General fund monies would be required to complete any of the three alternatives. This conclusion is based upon the use of a combination of Measure A (County) funds, minimal EET funds and the financial participation by the PVPLC. Alternative III (the most costly alternative) assumes the use of the City’s remaining QUIMBY fund reserves.

The City will have accumulated approximately $500,00 of unused County Measure A park funds before the end of FY 00-01. Public Works staff has obtained preliminary approval, and awaiting final approval from the County to use Measure A funds for the initial costs included in Alternatives II and III in an amount of $235,000 and $463,000 respectively. As described previously above, the Conservancy has offered to assist the City with the cost of trail-rerouting, split rail fencing and removal of existing chain link fencing totaling about $93,000 and $143,000 for Alternatives II and III respectively. As a result, the City would expend the difference, approximately $145,000 and $373,000 of Measure A funds for Alternative II and III respectively.

Given the pockets of invasive vegetation that exist on the Forrestal Property, the City has identified the site as a mitigation area for re-vegetation. On July 18, 2000 the City Council approved an amendment to the Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that allowed Coastal Sage Scrub impacts to facilitate a City road repair on Palos Verdes Drive South, adjacent to Shoreline Park. In order to mitigate the impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, the HCP amendment identified re-vegetation in Shoreline Park (.47 acre) and at the Forrestal property (1.21 acres). The Federal Permit which authorized the Coastal Sage Scrub take and the required mitigation was issued by the U.S. Fish and Game this month. As a result, the City’s Public Works Department will be retaining a biologist to prepare a specific re-vegetation plan. The re-vegetation will occur in the areas of the Forrestal Property identified for possible re-vegetation in the Management Plan. It is anticipated that the re-vegetation will begin late this fall.

As noted in the Trails Section of the Management Plan, under section 7.3.1, Ganado Trail (A-16), this trail segment begins at a point north of Coolheights Drive and connects to the Forrestal Property via a trail easement that the City obtained from the property owners at 3787 Coolheights Drive and 3778 Coolheights Drive as a result of a settlement agreement. According to the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan, the Ganado Trail segment is identified as part of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. Therefore, in preparing the Forrestal Management Plan, various attempts to connect the Property with the loop trail were considered. A possible connection route has been identified that crosses through the private property located at the end of Coolheights Drive. The proposed trail route would consist of an existing pathway that runs in a northerly direction and connects to the City of Rolling Hills. The creation of this trail would necessitate minimal improvements or disturbance to the surrounding environment. However, in order to create a trail connection between the Forrestal Property and the existing pathway, a City easement must be obtained across the private property at the end of Coolheights Drive (3787 Coolheights Drive). This may require the City to obtain easement rights from the property owner.

Since the potential trail route connection would cross an undeveloped private lot that contains Coastal Sage Scrub, the trail connection to the existing pathway must be practical, yet not be intrusive to the private property owner and the surrounding environment. Therefore, with cooperation from the property owner and Resource Agency approval, a future trail route that will complete this segment of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail up to the City’s boundary line with the City of Rolling Hills is being planned. This will be accomplished through the processing of the currently submitted development proposal for the undeveloped lot at the end of Coolheights Drive. It should be noted that the property owner was notified of tonight’s meeting.

In addition to the trails identified in the Management Plan, a series of new trail segments (see Trails Map in Management Plan) connecting to the Stalwart Trail (A-14) and the Intrepid Trail (A-12) along the western portion of the property have also been identified. These trails are not included in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan nor the Forrestal Management Plan. Staff recommends that the City Council consider establishing these trails as official segments within the Forrestal Property. Unless otherwise directed by the Council, Staff will work with the Recreation and Parks Committee to name these new trail segments.

It should be noted that in preparing the Management Plan, the Sub-committee and Recreation and Parks Committee members agreed that the trails identified in the Plan should be used exclusively by hikers/pedestrians and that all other activities, such as mountain biking should be prohibited. However, in regard to equestrian use, since the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan identifies the Palos Verdes Loop Trail ("A" segment trails) as a multipurpose trail, the Management Plan does allow equestrian use on the following trails (see map in the Trails Section of Management Plan):

Geological and hydrological conditions within the Forrestal Property are complex, and necessitate a better understanding. Nonetheless, the City’s geotechnical engineer has addressed certain issues based on current geologic and hydrologic information that exists on the site and recommends specific levels of improvements (see attached Cost Summary). The following summarizes the City’s Geotechnical Engineer’s position of some key geology and drainage issues:

• There is no indication that groundwater within the Quarry Bowl is accelerating the movement of the Klondike Canyon Landslide. Therefore, it has been determined that the Quarry Bowl need not be filled.

• The amount of groundwater collected within the Quarry Bowl is insignificant to necessitate the construction of drainage facilities, which would adversely impact habitat, recreational access and aesthetics.

The City’s Geotechnical Engineer will be present at the Joint Meeting to answer questions regarding the geology and drainage conditions of the Property.

It should be noted that the text contained in the Management Plan is based on the Sub-committee and Committee member’s participation, with minimal changes by Staff. Based on anticipated comments from the Joint Workshop and City Council direction, the entire document will be updated accordingly. Furthermore, Staff will conduct a "consistency" check of the entire Management Plan prior to finalizing the Plan. A final Management Plan with the appropriate amendments will be distributed to the Council, Sub-committee, Committee members and Staff.

The following alternative is available, in addition to Staff’s recommendation, for the City Council’s consideration:

1. Identify any issues of concern within the Forrestal Management Plan that require further review or analysis and provide Staff with appropriate direction, and move to continue the discussion to a date certain.

In light of the recommendation of the City’s Geologist’s and the Finance Advisory Committee, Staff believes that the City Council should implement Alternative III. Based upon discussions with the City’s Geologist, Staff believes that the slope stabilization included in Alternative III will probably be recommended after completion of geological testing. Based upon the its discussions with the PVPLC, its review of the Five Year Financial Model and the City’s budget, Staff has prepared the attached schedule of Possible Funding Sources. The schedule indicates that there are sufficient funds available to pay for Alternative III.

Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Discuss the various aspects of the Management Plan with the Parks and Recreation Committee and the Finance Advisory Committee; and 2) Provide Staff with direction pertaining to a) the level of improvements, b) the implementation of a management agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy; and c) any other modifications for the final Plan.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

On December 19, 2000, the Council selected the following special meeting dates:

Subsequent to the City Council selecting the meeting dates listed above, several issues have surfaced that may require an adjustment to the established schedule.

The Council expressed a desire to conduct a Goal Setting Workshop with a professional facilitator (Len Wood). Staff suggests that the workshop be conducted prior to the budget meetings, so that any policy direction derived from the workshop can be incorporated into the budget process. The facilitator has suggested the following possible dates for the workshop:

The Mayor has suggested that the Council conduct Community Outreach Budget Meetings at various locations around the City. The purpose of these meetings would be to inform and educate the public about the City’s Budget and to solicit more input regarding the City’s budget priorities. Staff suggests that the three evening meetings would be appropriate to cover the entire City. To cover the City geographically, staff suggests that the meetings be held at Hesse Park, Ladera Linda Community Center and Dodson Intermediate School. Below are suggested dates for the outreach meetings (please select three dates):

Last month, the Council selected Saturday, April 21^st and Wednesday, April 25^th as the dates for the Budget Policy Issues Workshops. However, because the second date is only four days after the first, staff recommends that the second date be moved back slightly. If the Council still has additional items of discussion at the conclusion of the first workshop, moving the second date back would allow staff adequate time to address these items prior to the next workshop. Below are possible dates for the second workshop:

Typically, the City Council selects two dates for the Budget Review Sessions so that if the Council’s review of the draft budget document cannot be completed in one session, the matter could be continued to another date to complete the discussion. However, on December 19, 2000, the City Council selected only one date for the Budget Review Session (Wednesday, May 23, 2000). Staff suggests that the Council establish Tuesday, May 29, 2001 (5^th Tuesday) as the second meeting date, if needed.

Last month, the City Council selected Saturday, September 22, 2001 for the Fall Community Leaders’ Breakfast. However, a private party has already reserved and paid for the use of the room at Hesse Park on this date. Therefore, the following alternative dates are suggested for the Community Leaders’ Breakfast:

Subsequent to the City Council establishing the special meeting schedule for 2001, some new information has come to light that requires modification and possible additions to the approved schedule. Staff is seeking direction from Council on which dates would work best to modify the schedule.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2001- __ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION 2000-33, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM.

Adopting this proposed resolution will increase the budget to pay for the unanticipated increase in attendance at the March 10^th Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon to be held at the Los Verdes Country Club.

Since 1992 the City’s Neighborhood Watch program has been growing by leaps and bounds and it is now estimated that approximately 90% of the City’s neighborhoods participate. Keeping this program dynamic is the City’s Neighborhood Watch Volunteer Coordinator Gail Lorenzen and numerous block captains and area coordinators.

In appreciation for the work done by these volunteers the City has hosted four lunches since the inception of the program in 1992. The last luncheon was held in 1999 and 218 people attended. Ms. Lorenzen has advised us that since then the program has continued to grow and there are now even more block captains—an estimated 450. Even though it is not anticipated that all of these volunteers will attend the March 10^th luncheon, Ms. Lorenzen believes, however, that with Sheriff Baca as the keynote speaker, there will be added interest in attending.

The approved amount in the 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 budget for this event was set at $4,000. Staff is now requesting that this amount be increased to $7,000 to cover the cost for this unanticipated increase in attendees at this luncheon.

Consider canceling the luncheon.

The recommended action will increase the budget by $3,000.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-33, THE
BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM

Whereas, Section 3.32.080 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provides that all expenditures in excess of budgeted allocations must be by supplemental appropriation of the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000, the City Council of the City of Ranch Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-33, approving a spending plan and authorizing a budget appropriation for the 2000-2001 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the City will be hosting an Appreciation Luncheon for the Neighborhood Watch volunteers on March 10, 2001 and, because of increased attendance at this luncheon, is in need of increasing the funding to pay for said lunch.

BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES:

That the following adjustment be made to the 2000-2001 City budget:

1.Increase the appropriation in the Public Safety – Neighborhood Watch program, Meetings and Conferences fund (001-213-71) by $3000.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30^th day of January 2001.

MAYOR

ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2001-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on January 30, 2001.

CITY CLERK

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.