HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1991CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Mayor — John A. Forbing
Mayor Pro Tem — Jay C. Kim
Councilwoman— Phyllis Papen
Councilman — Gary H. Werner
Councilman — Donald C. Nardella
City Council Chambers
are located at:
South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Room
21 865 East Copley Drive
Please retain from smoking, eating or drinking In the Council Chambers
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
MEETING TIME: 6:00 P.M.
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
Andrew V. Arczynski
City Attorney
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection. If you have questions
regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 860-2489 during business hours.
The City of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED paper and encourages you to do the same.
THIS MEETING IS BEING TAPED BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR
AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM,
YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TAPED. ALL
COUNCIL MEETING TAPES WILL BE BLACKED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER AIRING AND WILL BE UNAVAILABLE FOR REPRODUCTION.
Next Resolution No. 91-68
Next Ordinance No. 8 (1991)
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Forbing
ROLL CALL: Councilmen Werner, Nardella, Papen,
Mayor Pro Tem Kim, Mayor Forbing
2. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual
Councilmembers are for Council discussion. Direction may be
given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action
at a future meeting.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time
reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an
opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on
this agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to
the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There
is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the City
Council.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the
Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a
single motion.
4.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS:
4.1.1 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - November 21,
1991 - 6:30 p.m., Hotel Diamond Bar, 259
Gentle Springs Rd.
4.1.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - November 25, 1991 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
4.1.3 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY - November 28, 29, 1991 -
City Offices will be closed.
4.1.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 3, 1991 - 6:00
p.m., AQMD Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
4.2.1 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 1991.
4.2.2 REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1991.
4.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated
November 19, 1991 in the amount of $223,103.78.
NOVEMBER 19, 1991 PAGE 2
4.4 RECEIVE AND FILE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of October 14, 1991.
4.5 SEPTIC SEWER SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY - Update of the City's
findings regarding sewer problems in approximately 148
lots within The Country.
Recommended Action: Table.
4.6 AGREEMENT WITH POMONA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
(PVTA) - The City desires to participate in the East San
Gabriel Valley Paratransit Network to meet supplemental
service requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). This is a demonstration project and is the
first step toward implementing required supplemental
para -transit services. The Pomona Valley Transportation
Authority (PVTA) will act as the lead agency and be
responsible for the operation and management of the
project.
Recommended Action: Approve the Agreement with PVTA and
authorize the Mayor to execute it on behalf of the City.
4.7 PARCEL MAP NO. 15625, 525 GRAND AVENUE - This project,
which includes the construction of a McDonald's
restaurant, automated car wash and expansion of the
existing Diamond Bar Honda dealership, has been submitted
to the City for a final map approval. All conditions of
have been met.
Recommended Action: Approve Parcel Map No. 15625,
authorize the City Engineer to execute the map and direct
the City Clerk to process the map for recordation.
4.8 BOND EXONERATION - The City desires to exonerate
Surety Bond No. 0156454939 posted for grading at 3020
Windmill Dr. Parcel Map No. 1528, in the amount of
$8,920.
Recommended Action: Approve and accept completed work,
exonerate the surety bond posted for said grading permit
and instruct the City Clerk to notify L.A. County of
Council's action.
4.9 BOND EXONERATIONS - The City desires to exonerate the
surety bond posted for storm drain/drainage improvements
located on Tract No. 36813 in the amount of $105,000,
Tract No. 42580 in the amount of $150,000 and Tract No.
31941 in amounts of $296,000 and $43,700.
Recommended Action: Approve and accept work completed
and exonerate the surety bond posted for Tract No. 36813,
42580 and 31941 and instruct the City Clerk to notify
L.A. County of Council's action.
NOVEMBER 19, 1991 PAGE 3
4.10 REDUCTION OF SURETY BOND FOR TRACT NO. 42584 - The City
desires to reduce the surety bond posted for storm drain/
drainage improvements located on Tract No. 42584 in an
amount of $380,000.
Recommended Action: Accept work completed and reduce the
surety bond posted for Tract No. 42584 and instruct the
City Clerk to notify L.A. County of Council's action.
4.11 PATHFINDER BRIDGE PROJECT STATUS REPORT - Update on the
status of the Pathfinder Bridge widening project
including chronology of events related to design and
review process, as well as a financial summary.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
4.12 RESOLUTION NO. 89-76A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR
GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN
SPACE & RECREATION PROGRAM FOR THE HERITAGE PARK
RECONSTRUCTION - On August 15, 1989, the City Council
authorized an application for grants to fund the
rehabilitation of the community building at Heritage Park
through the Roberti- ZIberg-Harris Urban Open Space and
Recreation Program. The scope of the project has changed
from rehabilitation to reconstruction and, as a result,
it is necessary that an amended Resolution be adopted
approving a new application.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 89-76A,
amending Resolution No. 89-76, approving the application
for grant funds under the Roberti -ZIberg-Harris Urban
Open Space & Recreation Program for Heritage Park
reconstruction.
4.13 AWARD OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR HERITAGE PARK
COMMUNITY BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION - On September 3, 1991,
Council authorized staff to solicit proposals for
architectural services to reconstruct the Heritage Park
Community Building. Staff solicited and received
proposals until September 25, 1991. A panel reviewed
proposals, interviewed the architectural firms and
selected the most qualified consultant.
Recommended Action: Utilize the architectural services
of Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. for Heritage
Park Community Building reconstruction in an amount not
to exceed $46,130 and authorize the Mayor to execute a
Professional Services Agreement.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.,
5.1 PROCLAMATION - November 21, 1991 "GREAT AMERICAN
SMOKEOUT DAY"
NOVEMBER 19, 1991 PAGE 4
5.2 PROCLAMATION - Week of November 24 - 30, 1991 as
"WOMEN'S BOWLING WEEK."
5.3 HOLIDAY SHUTTLE SERVICE - The City will provide Holiday
Shuttle services commencing November 25 and ending
December 31, 1991 with operations between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Recommended Action: Receive and file report.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
6.1 BUSINESS LICENSE SURVEY UPDATE - ACM/Belanger to present
oral report.
Recommended Action: Direct staff to proceed with prepar-
ation and distribution of business license survey.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
7.1 PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY - Resignation dated November
14, 1991 with an effective date of December 3, 1991.
Recommended Action: Accept resignation of Planning
Commissioner and declare vacancy.
8. PUBLIC HEARING:
8.1 SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT - AB939 requires
cities to prepare, adopt and implement a Source Reduction
and Recycling Element (SRRE) to identify how the City
will divert, through a combination of source reduction,
recycling and composting programs, 25% of solid wastes
from landfill disposal by 1995; and 500, or the maximum
amount feasible, by the year 2000. The City must hold at
least one Public Hearing for testimony on the programs
and policies addressed within the document. Continued
from October 29, 1991.
Recommendation: Continue the Public Hearing for
testimony on policies and programs contained within the
draft SRRE and continue the Hearing to December 17, 1991
to conclude the legally -mandated review period and enable
staff to complete an analysis of the document and other
integrated waste management issues.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
11. CLOSED SESSION:
Litigation - Section 54956.9
Personnel - Section 54957.6
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. '-,
DATE:
TO:
City Clerk__
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:-
SUBJECT:
�
J
I expect to
address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the
Council Minutes reflect my name and addr/,ess
as y-r-itten
above.
A,.�
�.
i ature
NOTE: All
persons may attend meetings and address the
City Council. This
form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all.persons wishing
to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of
names in the Minutes.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. C / /,,-;
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: October 3, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
TITLE:
Architectural services for Heritage Park Community Building reconstruction.
SUMMARY:
At the September 3, 1991 City Council meeting, the Council authorized staff to solicit proposals for
architectural services to reconstruct the Heritage Park Community Building. Staff solicited and received
proposals until September 25, 1991. A panel reviewed and interviewed architectural firms and selected the
most qualified consultant.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council utilize the services of Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. for
architectural services for Heritage Park Community Building reconstruction and authorize the Mayor to execute
a Professional Services Agreement.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:x Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
X Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
Other
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
x Yes _ No
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes x No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? x Yes _ No
Which Commission? P & R Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes x No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
Robert L. Vaj
City Manager
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
Sid J. Mousavi
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCII, REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Architectural Services - Heritage Park Community Building
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City desires to reconstruct the Community Building at Heritage Park.
In order to accomplish this goal it is necessary to secure the services of
a qualified architectural firm to prepare plans and specifications and
provide construction administration.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council utilize the services of
Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. for Architectural services for
Heritage Park Community Building reconstruction.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. has proposed a fixed, not -to -
exceed, fee of $46,130.00 for providing architectural services and contract
administration. The proposed fee is 9.2% of the project budget of
$500,000. Funds for the architectural services are budgeted in the Fiscal
Year 1991-1992 General Funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City has previously determined that the Heritage Park Community
Building be demolished and that a new building be constructed on the site.
At the September 3, 1991 City Council meeting the City Council authorized
staff to solicit architectural proposals for the construction of a new
building at Heritage Park.
The City solicited proposals from eighteen (18) firms, seven (7) of which
were local firms. Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Henry Woo and
Associates, CGA Development, Ku and Associates, David Price and Associates,
and Archiplan submitted proposals. A panel consisting of three (3) staff
members, Terry Belanger, David Liu and Charles Janiel, and two (2) Parks
and Recreation Commissioners, Pat Whelan and David Meyers, reviewed the
proposals and conducted interviews with each consultant. An evaluation
criteria was utilized in the selection process. These criteria were
technical experience, past performance, reputation, number of years in
business, staffing, project approach, experience in administering federally
funded project, residence of operating office and others.
After careful review of the proposals and interviews with each consultant,
the firms were ranked highest to lowest as follows: Wolff/Lang/Christopher
Architects, Archiplan, David Price and Associates, Henry Woo and
Associates, CGA Development, and Ku and Associates.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
A4
U
W
�3
U
W
U
z
W
a
W
P4
W
a
a
W
w
a
0
E
�A
H
U
�a
a
P4
P4
a
0
PC
t7%
U
cid
41
41
H
w
N
a)
4J �
't3
> W
0 x
4)>
x
O
0w
0
w
w
cod
E4
c o
w
•ri "A
P
s~ 0 �
H
0
�
N
O V.
a)
�+
>4
tA
>4
W
,9 N
Z
Oqfn
4
w
o
to
°to
w
0)
W
tom
E•+
44)
aa)
ai 0
44)
U
>
>4
>4 41
>4
W
l v]
r -I a)
�
o0
tp
4-)
4-J
4-)
rcl
z
r.
9
,~
0
+
UH
-I
U
r -I
H
i 7
H E-4
r -A
r -I
ri
fd
m
U
U
U
�
N
w
w
P4s
w
>
0
0
rn
tr
4-)�
a
�
�
o
ro
0
0
0
CR
x
W
�
0
:3
0
U)
x
nr
U
0
a)
u�i
a
z
i
0A
o
o
(0o
o9
w W
>44)
>4"i
>4 4-1
>40
>4 (1)
wa
41>
4J�4
-Pm
-Po
�>
az
ua
UU
v0
UH
ua
W
U
PC
O
O
9
r.
a
0
0
r°'
�
�w
>4
>4
a
d
oa
>
>
w
w
H
w
w
H
�+
�
�+
w
E
w
�a
w
E-4
aNi
ani
aNi
aNi
m
\
U
H H
O
O
c°�
�
c°h
P4s
a�
41
a3
0
0
04
U
0
w
ao
b
o
o
x
O
w
ami
-P
�
U
W
W
W �
w
z cin
O z
O
O
W W
r
4
r.
0 A
Ix z
U�
U1%u
U
CAW
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of
, 19 , between the City of Diamond Bar, a
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and
Wolff/ Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. (hereinafter referred to
as "CONSULTANT").
A. Recitals.
(i) CITY has heretofore issued its Request for Proposal
pertaining to the performance of professional services with respect
to Architectural Design Service For Heritage Park
Community Building Reconstruction. ("Project" hereafter), a full,
true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and by this reference made a part hereof.
(ii) CONSULTANT has now submitted its proposal for the
performance of such services, a full, true and correct of which
proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this reference
made a part hereof.
(iii) CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform
professional services necessary to render advice and assistance to
CITY, CITY's City Council and staff in the preparation of Project.
(iv) CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to
perform such services and is willing to perform such professional
services as hereinafter defined.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and
CONSULTANT as follows:
B. Agreement.
1. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply
to the following terms, except where the context of this Agreement
otherwise requires:
(a) Project: The preparation of Architectural
Plans and Specifications described in Exhibit "A" hereto
including, but not limited to, the preparation of maps, surveys,
reports, and documents, the presentation, both oral and in writing,
of such plans, maps, surveys, reports and documents to CITY as
required and attendance at any and all work sessions, public
hearings and other meetings conducted by CITY with respect to the
project.
(b) Services: Such professional services as are
necessary to be performed by CONSULTANT in order to complete the
Project.
(c) Completion of Project: The date of completion
of all phases of the Project, including any and all procedures,
development plans, maps, surveys, plan documents, technical
reports, meetings, oral presentations and attendance by CONSULTANT
at public hearings regarding the adoption of Schedule as set
forth in Schedule of Work of Exhibit "A" hereto.
2. CONSULTANT agrees as follows:
(a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and
complete the project in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B" hereto
and all in accordance with Federal, State and CITY statues,
regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable
satisfaction of CITY.
(b) CONSULTANT shall supply copies of all maps,
surveys, reports, plans and documents (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "documents") including all supplemental technical
documents, as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" to CITY within the
time specified in Schedule of work in Exhibit "A". Copies of the
documents shall be in such numbers as are required by Exhibit "A".
CITY may thereafter review and forward to CONSULTANT comments
regarding said documents and CONSULTANT shall thereafter make such
revisions to said documents as are deemed necessary. CITY shall
receive revised documents in such form and in the quantities
determined necessary by CITY. The time limits set forth pursuant
to this Section B2. (b) may be extended upon written approval of
CITY.
(c) CONSULTANT shall, at CONSULTANT's sole cost and
expense, secure and hire such other persons as may, in the opinion
of CONSULTANT, be necessary to comply with the terms of this
Agreement. In the event any such other persons are retained by
CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT hereby warrants that such persons shall be
fully qualified to perform services required hereunder. CONSULTANT
further agrees that no subcontractor shall be retained by
CONSULTANT except upon the prior written approval of CITY.
3. CITY agrees as follows:
(a) To pay CONSULTANT a maximum sum of
$ 46,130.00 for the performance of the services required
hereunder. This sum shall cover the cost of all staff time and all
other direct and indirect costs or fees, including the work of
employees, consultants and subcontractors to CONSULTANT. Payment
to CONSULTANT, by CITY, shall be made in accordance with the
schedule set forth below.
(b) Payments to CONSULTANT shall be made by CITY in
accordance with the invoices submitted by CONSULTANT, on a monthly
basis, and such invoices shall be paid within a reasonable time
after said invoices are received by CITY. All charges shall be in
accordance with CONSULTANT's proposal either with respect to hourly
rates or lump sum amounts for individual tasks. In no event,
however, will said invoices exceed 95% of individual task totals
described in Exhibits "A" and "B".
(c) CONSULTANT agrees that, in no event, shall CITY
be required to pay to CONSULTANT any sum in excess of 95% of the
maximum payable hereunder prior to receipt by CITY of all final
documents, together with all supplemental technical documents, as
described herein acceptable in form and content to CITY. Final
payment shall be made not later than 60 days after presentation of
final documents and acceptance thereof by CITY.
(d) Additional services: Payments for additional
services requested, in writing, by CITY, and not included in
CONSULTANT's proposal as set forth in Exhibit "B" hereof, shall be
paid on a reimbursement basis in accordance with the fee schedule
set forth in said Exhibit "B". Charges for additional services
shall be invoiced on a monthly basis and shall be paid by CITY
within a reasonable time after said invoices are received by CITY.
4. CITY agrees to provide to CONSULTANT:
(a) Information and assistance as set forth in
Exhibit "A" hereto.
(b) Photographically reproducible copies of maps
and other information, if available, which CONSULTANT considers
necessary in order to complete the Project.
(c) Such information as is generally available from
CITY files applicable to the Project.
(d) Assistance, if necessary, in obtaining
information from other governmental agencies and/or private
parties. However, it shall be CONSULTANT's responsibility to make
all initial contact with respect to the gathering of such
information.
5. Ownership of Documents: All documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports
prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be
considered the property of CITY and, upon payment for services
performed by CONSULTANT, such documents and other identified
materials shall be delivered to CITY by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT
may, however, make and retain such copies of said documents and
materials as CONSULTANT may desire.
6. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by
CITY upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to
CONSULTANT at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of
termination specified in said Notice. In the event this Agreement
is so terminated, CONSULTANT shall be compensated at CONSULTANT's
applicable hourly rates as set forth in Exhibit "B", on a pro -rata
basis with respect to the percentage of the Project completed as of
the date of termination. In no event, however, shall CONSULTANT
receive more than the maximum specified in paragraph 3(a), above.
CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY any and all documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports,
whether in draft or final form, prepared by CONSULTANT as of the
date of termination. CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement
except for cause.
7. Notices and Designated Representatives: Any and all
notices, demands, invoices and written communications between the
parties hereto shall be addressed as set forth in this paragraph 7.
The below named individuals, furthermore, shall be those persons
primarily responsible for the performance by the parties under this
Agreement:
Robert L. Van Nort Larry Wolff
City Manager Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects,Inc.
21660 E. Copley Dr. Virginia Dare Tower
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 10470 Foothill Blvd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications, by
mail, shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the United States
mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as set forth above.
8. Insurance: CONSULTANT shall neither commence work
under this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required
hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to CITY nor shall
CONSULTANT allow any subcontractor to commence work on a
subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has
been obtained. CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain at all time
during the term of this Agreement the following policies of
insurance:
(a) Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before
beginning work, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of
insurance as proof that it has taken out full workers' compensation
insurance for all persons whom it may employ directly or through
subcontractors in carrying out the work specified herein, in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
In accordance with the provisions of California
Labor Code Section 3700, every employer shall secure the payment of
compensation to his employees. CONSULTANT prior to commencing
work, shall sign and file with CITY a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of
Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply
with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work
of this Agreement"
(b) Public Liability and Property Damage: Throughout
the term of this Agreement, at CONSULTANT's sole cost and expense,
CONSULTANT shall keep, or cause to be kept, in full force and
effect, for the mutual benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT,
comprehensive, broad form, general public liability and automobile
insurance against claims and liabilities for personal injury,
death, or property damage arising from CONSULTANT's activities,
providing protection of at least One Million Dollars
($1,000-000-00) for bodily injury or death to any one person or for
any one accident or occurrence and at least One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) for property damage.
(c) Errors and Omissions: CONSULTANT shall take
out and maintain at all times during the life of this Agreement, a
policy or policies of insurance concerning errors and omissions
("malpractice") providing protection of at least One Million
Dollars ( $ 1,000,000.00) for errors and omissions ("malpractice")
with respect to loss arising from actions of CONSULTANT performing
Architectural Services hereunder on behalf of CITY.
(d) General Insurance Requirements: All insurance
required by express provision of this Agreement shall be carried
only in responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in
the State of California and policies required under paragraphs
8.(a) and (b) shall name as additional insureds CITY, its elected
officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives. All
policies shall contain language, to the effect that: (1) the
insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and CITY's
elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives;
(2) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance
that may be carried by CITY; and ( 3 ) they cannot be canceled or
materially changed except after thirty (30) days' notice by the
insurer to CITY by certified mail. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY
with copies of all such policies promptly upon receipt of them, or
certificate evidencing the insurance. CONSULTANT may effect for
its own account insurance not required under this Agreement.
9. Indemnification: CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify
and save harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officials,
officers, agents and employees, from all liability from loss,
damage or injury to persons or property, including the payment by
CONSULTANT of any and all legal costs and attorneys' fees, in any
manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of CONSULTANT
pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all
consequential damages, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
10. Assignment: No assignment of this Agreement or of
any part or obligation of performance hereunder shall be made,
either in whole or in part, by CONSULTANT without the prior written
consent of CITY.
11. Damages: In the event that CONSULTANT fails to
submit to CITY the completed project, together with all documents
and supplemental material required hereunder, in public hearing
form to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY, within the time set
forth herein, or as may be extended by written consent of the
parties hereto, CONSULTANT shall pay to CITY, as liquidated damages
and not as a penalty, the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty dollars
($250.00) per day for each day CONSULTANT is in default, which sum
represents a reasonable endeavor by the parties hereto to estimate
a fair compensation for the foreseeable losses that might result
from such a default in performance by CONSULTANT, and due to the
difficulty which would otherwise occur in establishing actual
damages resulting from such default, unless said default is caused
by CITY or by acts of God, acts of the public enemy, fire, floods,
epidemics, or quarantine restrictions.
12. Independent Contractor: The parties hereto agree
that CONSULTANT and its employers, officers and agents are
independent contractors under this Agreement and shall not be
construed for any purpose to be employees of CITY.
13. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.
14. Attorney's Fees: In the event any legal proceeding
is instituted to enforce any term or provision of the Agreement,
the prevailing party in said legal proceeding shall be entitled to
recover attorneys' fees and costs from the opposing party in an
amount determined by the court to be reasonable.
15. Mediation: Any dispute or controversy arising under
this Agreement, or in connection with any of the terms and
conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for
mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be
selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and expenses
thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. In the event
the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be
selected hereunder, the City Council shall select such a neutral,
third party mediation service and the City Council's decision shall
be final. The parties agree to utilize their good faith efforts to
resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted to mediation.
It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that
referral of any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith
efforts to resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent
to the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or
in equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy.
16. Entire Agreement: This Agreement supersedes any and
all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the
parties with respect to the subject matter herein. Each party to
this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party
which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or
promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid and binding.
Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is
in writing signed by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above:
CONSULTANT
Approved As To Form:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
City Attorney
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
September 16, 1991
A PROPOSAL
!l - 9
1 I 'M CII 1 • ' '
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER LETTER .................................................. 1
A. ORGANIZATION, CREDENTIALS, AND EXPERIENCE ............. 3
1.0
Child Care Facility Design ..................................
3
2.0
Community Center Design ..................................
4
3.0
Elementary School Facilities ................................
5
B. PROJECT APPROACH ........................................
6
1.0
Special Project Considerations ...............................
6
2.0
Estimated Project Budget ..................................
7
3.0
Project Cost Control ......................................
8
4.0
Change Order History - Summary Of Project Cost Control ..........
9
5.0
Drought Tolerant/Xeriscape Design .........................
10
C. PROJECT WORK PLAN ......................................
11
1.0
Site Analysis ...........................................
11
2.0
Schematic Design Phase ..................................
15
3.0
Design Development Phase ................................
18
4.0
Construction Document Phase ..............................
20
5.0
Bidding Phase ..........................................
23
6.0
Construction Administration Phase ..........................
25
D. PROJECT MANAGEMENT .................................... 27
1.0 Design Team Methodology ................................ 27
2.0 City Project Management ................................. 27
3.0 Architectural Design Team ................................ 28
4.0 Consulting Team ........................................ 38
5.0 Firm Profile ........................................... 39
E. FEE PROPOSAL ............................................ 41
F. DESIGN SCHEDULE ........................................ 45
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page i
1-0166.prp
G. REFERENCES AND PROJECT EXPERIENCE .................... 46
1.0 Why Wolff/Lang/Christopher .............................. 46
2.0 Child Care Projects ...................................... 48
3.0 Community And Senior Center Projects ....................... 50
4.0 Elementary School Projects ................................ 56
Heritage Park Community/Child Cane Center Page ii
1-0166.prp
���lauumw.uu.
p.
13
September 16, 1991
Mr. Charles Janiel
Director
City of Diamond Bar
Department of Parks and Maintenance
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Proposal for Architectural Services
Heritage Park Community Center
MDear Mr. Janiel:
On behalf of Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc., I am most pleased to submit our
proposal for Architectural Services in relation to the Heritage Park Community Center.
We specialize in the design of all types of civic, municipal, and educational facilities. We
have an extensive background in the design of Community Centers and Child Care
Centers. In addition, we have designed over 30 elementary schools during the past
several years, many of which include Child Care and Day Care programs within the
facility. Because of our extensive involvement in the design of these types of facilities,
we understand design and licensing requirements mandated by California Administrative
Code, Title 22, for Child Care facilities. More importantly, we understand the
importance that the Community/Child Care Center will have immediate to the Heritage
Park site setting, the surrounding community, and to the City of Diamond Bar.
Heritage Park provides numerous opportunities to create a responsive and sensitive
design. The intimacy of the existing park grounds, the maturity of the landscape, and the
close integration with the surrounding residential community requires a well -crafted
design which will closely harmonize with the existing site setting. It would appear that
the best location to site the facility would be the same area that is presently occupied by
the existing structure. We believe that the addition of this facility can create a
meaningful focal point for Heritage Park.
,� JAI �I��W �l �uiauwuwu���n
Mr. Charles Janiel
Proposal for Architectural Services
Heritage Park Community Center
September 16, 1991
Page 2
Our approach to your project is based upon a methodology which incorporates a
maximum of staff and community participation into the process, while maintaining close
�I management of key design, budget, and scheduling requirements. We propose to utilize
a series of informal community design workshops which are structured in such a manner
to encourage the exploration of alternative concepts, and to allow the client maximum
opportunities in the design decision-making process. We also have provided for regularly
scheduled meetings throughout the Design and Construction phases to include
participation by our Design Team, City Staff, Community Representatives, and ultimately
the Contractor. This process will greatly insure that the focus of the project will be
consistently maintained in order that all tasks, in any given phase, are successfully
achieved in a timely fashion.
If our firm is selected as your Architect, you will be personally working with me
throughout all phases of the project. I am excited about the opportunity to work with
the City of Diamond Bar, and to explore some of the possibilities which exist pertaining
to the Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center. I look forward to discussing some
of these thoughts and ideas at an interview in the near future.
V
LAR" WOLFF
Arcb1" ect, AIA
Cha' man of the Board
t
LW/vkr
1-0166.prp
A. ORGANIZATION, CREDENTIALS, AND EXPERIENCE
1.0 Child Care Facility Design
Our experience in the design of child care centers is notable. Exemplary projects include
the Rubidoux Child Care Center for the County of Riverside, a Child Care Center at the
United States Naval Station in Long Beach, and a Child Care/Christian day school for
the Mt. Cavalry Lutheran Church in Diamond Bar. We are also currently designing two
child care centers for the City of Irvine and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Irvine
Children's Center is actually a component of a larger Community Center being designed
in conjunction with Woodbridge Community Park. In addition to the child care facility,
this project also includes a Community Center, a Senior Center, and an Adult Day Care
Facility. Likewise, the children's center for Rancho Cucamonga is also a part of a larger
park master plan which includes a Community Center, Performing Arts Center, Art
Exhibition Center, City Library, and a Recreation Support Center. All of these elements
are being designed in conjunction with a 100 -acre central park.
• Rubidoux Child Care Center, County of Riverside
• Child Care Center, United States Naval Station/Long Beach
• Child Care and Christian Day School, Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church,
Diamond Bar
• Irvine Children's Center, Woodbridge Community Park, City of Irvine
• Rancho Cucamonga Children's Center/Central Park, City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 3
1-0166.prp
I
2.0 Community Center Design
Our experience with the planning and design of community centers is substantial.
Within the last five years, we have designed and completed approximately 20
community centers. Some of these projects represent dedicated facilities
specifically designed for teens/young adults, seniors or children, while others are
designed as multi-purpose community centers. Many of these projects also were
sited in existing park settings or were master planned in conjunction with
community park facilities. Our Lancaster Activity Center received a lst Award of
Excellence in 1987 from the California Society Parks and Recreation Awards
Program. We have received awards for Design Excellence in the field of
Community Center Design for the following projects:
• Bell Community and Senior Center
• Chino Senior Center
• Lancaster City Park Activity Center
• Magnolia Community Center - Upland
• St. Barnabas Senior Center - Los Angeles
• Yucca Valley Senior Citizens Center
Two of our most recent projects include the design of community center facilities
with a community park. We are currently designing the Woodbridge Community
Center and Park, and also the City of Rancho Cucamonga Central Park Cultural
Center. The Woodbridge Community Center includes 40,000 square feet of
buildings with a Child Care Center, Community Center, Senior Center, and an
Adult Day Care Center. Facilities are designed with separate entries and interior
functions, with shared use of multi-purpose facilities, and spaces are sited to take
advantage of the adjacent Woodbridge Lake. Central Park consists of a 100 -acre
community park, which incorporates a 400,000 square foot Cultural Center. The
primary facilities include an 85,000 square foot City Library, a 1,200 seat
Performing Arts Center, a Visual Arts Gallery, and a Community Center
providing child care, teen, adult, and senior care facilities. In all of our projects,
we find that the design of community center facilities requires creativity in the
Architects' response to each particular, unique set of requirements.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center
1-0166.prp
Page S
3.0 Elementary School Facilities
Our firm also has extensive experience in the design of primary educational facilities
which include many similar elements and design considerations associated with child care
facilities. Within the last five years, we have completed over 30 elementary school
facilities located throughout Southern California. Many of our school district clients are
providing child care facilities and programs at many of their District facilities.
Interactive spaces, which are designed to be flexible in order to be utilized for a variety
of different functions, allow the environment of the child care center to change based
upon changing program requirements. Support facilities including meal preparation,
dining areas, craft area, story time circle, and play/activity areas must be incorporated
into the facility in a sensitive and efficient manner. Security and supervision is of the
utmost concern when designing interior spaces and adjacencies in order to assure that
the child's environment is a friendly and safe place to be. We have completed the
following educational facilities which include a child care facility in their overall
program:
• Pepper Tree Elementary School, Upland Unified School District
• Ontario Center Elementary School, Cucamonga School District
• Shadow Hills/Oak Park Elementary Schools, Fontana Unified School
District
• Pinetree Elementary School, Sulphur Springs Unified School District
• Willow Elementary School, Las Virgenes Unified School District
• Bear Gulch Elementary School, Central School District
• Eagle Canyon Elementary School, Chino Unified School District
• Mt. Baldy Elementary School, Mt. Baldy Elementary School District
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Parc 5
1-0166.prp
B. PROJECT APPROACH
1.0 Special Project Considerations
The Heritage Park'Community/Child Care Center is proposed to consist of a
minimum of 2,000 square feet, designed as a single -story structure, and to be sited
in the same general site location as the existing recreational building which is to
be demolished. A budget of $500,000.00 has been designated by the City of
Diamond Bar to fund the planning, design, and construction of the project. In the
following section of this proposal, an estimated budget for the project has been
prepared and presented based upon our experience in the design of these types of
facilities. We believe that a total of $425,000.00 would be available for the actual
construction of the facility, which would provide for a potential size of
3,000 square feet. The design of this project requires a skilled and sensitive
approach in order to integrate the proposed facility into the overall Heritage Park
Master Plan and infrastructure. A strong design concept, capable of establishing a
focal point for the park, should be a major objective. Sensitivity and careful
consideration in the development of the design will ensure that the scale and
articulation of the building will complement and strengthen the existing park
elements.
An efficient and compact plan should be carefully explored and developed in
order to maximize available park open space, building efficiency, and to provide
for good supervision and operation. The facility should be designed in order that
all areas of the building can be easily supervised and controlled by several staff
members in a centralized setting. A compact building plan will minimize initial
building costs and future energy/operating costs. It is also paramount that the
facility be constructed of durable and quality materials that will last the life span
of the structure and which will successfully support the functional requirements
for any given activity. Your project has a strong potential to consider "multi -use"
concepts in the development of the design.
Use of the Center for child care activities, senior citizen groups, and different
types of park and recreation programs will require that the facility be responsive
to a variety of different activities and needs. Multi -use concepts for a variety of
community meeting spaces, activity spaces, and support areas need to be
addressed. A variety of sizes and configurations of these types of spaces will
likely be the most advantageous solution. A singular building concept also has the
advantage of incorporating into the design a support "core facility", which can
support both Child Care and Community Center functions.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 6
1-0166.prp
Kitchen areas, restroom space, storage areas, mechanical support, and conference
areas can be shared, thus maximizing efficiency and maximizing total building
area available within the construction budget. It may also be possible to include a
community meeting room that can be utilized for all intended functions. When
serving a variety of user age groups, it is sometimes advantageous to design the
facility so that active/noisy functions are grouped in one area, and passive/quiet
functions are grouped in another. This is especially helpful when Senior Center
and Child Care activities might be occurring at the same time. One of the
objectives during the Schematic Design phase will be to see if it is not possible to
integrate outdoor park open space, Community Center open space, and interior
program functions.
2.0 Estimated Project Budget
The $500,000.00 budget allocation established by the City for the project appears
to be a comfortable amount, considering that a larger structure can be designed
and constructed compared to the existing 2,000 s.f. structure which is scheduled to
be demolished.
1. Primary Construction Contract @ $135/SF x 3,000 SF $405,500.00
2. Contingencies/Change Orders @ 5% $20,000.00
3. Architect/Engineer Fees $45,440.00
4. Plan Check Fees $2,500.00
5. Topographical Survey $5,000.00
6. Soils Report $3,000.00
7. Construction Testing $11,060.00
8. Building and Utility Permit Fees $7.500,00
TOTAL 500,000.00
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 7
1-0166.prp
3.0 Project Cost Control
The successful completion of your project requires accuracy in estimating and
compliance with allowable building costs as a prerequisite to the implementation
of any publicly funded project. Failure to do so will be failure to get the project
built. Consequently, our firm has developed the necessary cost estimating and
project cost control systems in our firm to ensure that construction cost limitations
are achieved during both design and construction. Our estimating system utilizes
recently completed projects as the primary source of cost data with secondary
levels of data derived from leading cost estimating resource publications. Our
entire system is computerized and is comparative for a variety of building types
and sizes. For your project, we will provide cost estimates at the completion of
schematic design, design development, and final working drawings.
Heritage Parr Community/Child Care Center Page S
1-0166.prp
4.0 Change Order History - Summary Of Project Cost Control
(UC) Under Construction
Change Orders do not include any Owner initiated change orders
'• Does not include cable T.V. system added after construction began.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 9
1-0166.prp
DESIGN
CONST.
ESTIMATE
COST
CHANGE*
%
PROJECT
BID DATE
(MILLIONS)
(MILLIONS)
ORDERS
INCREASE
1.
Glendale Fire Station
September 1988
$1.52
$1.51
$28K
1.9
No. 25
2.
Brea Fire Station
October 1987
$1.05
$1.20
$16K
1.3
No. 3
3.
Ontario Police and
January 1986
$2.0
S1.85
$37K
2.0
Fire Addition
4.
Upland Police
July 1988
55.04
55.10
S96K
1.9
5.
Grand Terrace Fire
August 1983
MK
S550K
$28K
OS
Station No. 23
6.
Rialto Headquarters
March 1980
$1.65
$1.36
$34K
2.5
Fire Station
7.
Ruben S. Ayala
January 1989
$21.4
520.73
$332K
1.6
High School
8.
Big Bear Performing
May 1987
S4.8
55.02
$86K
1.8
Arts Civic Center
9.
Thousand Oaks
June 1988
$4.67
$4.64
$83K
1.7"
Senior and Teen
Center
10.
Southridge Middle
May 1986
S8.10
$7.79
$64K
0.8
School
11.
Almeria Middle
June 1988
S7.2
$6.9
$72K
0.9
School
12.
Lancaster Performing
April 1989 (UC)
$7.80
$8.0
$75K
0.9
Arts Center
13.
St. Barnabas Senior
May 1987
$2.05
$2.10
$42K
2.0
Center
14.
Rialto High School
August 1990 (UC)
$32.2
$30.0
-0-
-0-
15.
P.W. Johansen High
August 1990 (UC)
$41.0
$40.0
-4-
-0-
School
(UC) Under Construction
Change Orders do not include any Owner initiated change orders
'• Does not include cable T.V. system added after construction began.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 9
1-0166.prp
5.0 Drought Tolerant/Xeriscape Design
Our proposal is based upon a solid commitment towards utilizing drought
tolerant/xeriscape design concepts in your project. We especially envision the
appropriate application of xeriscape landscape design techniques in the project to
establish a precedent for future developers to follow. The landscape/irrigation
concept for your project must communicate possible xeriscape applications to the
surrounding community, and should serve as a role model for future applications.
Most importantly, the need to conserve and manage available water resources
should be made explicit.
Wolff/Lang/Christopher has a long-standing relationship with RJM Design Group
Landscape Architects. We have selected RJM to participate on your project
because of their award winning accomplishments in the field of Landscape
Architecture, and because of their expertise related to water conservation applied
to landscape design concepts. We strongly believe that your facility must set an
example of water conservation that is easy to understand, easy to follow, and
effective in the long term.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 10
1-0166.prp
C. PROJECT WORK PLAN
1.0 Site Analysis
During the Site Analysis Phase of the project, work tasks have been organized in
order to physically review, analyze, and document all existing site conditions.
Primary advantages and disadvantages of the specific site setting and surrounding
conditions shall be determined. A critical region of investigation shall be focused
upon those areas of the site which are viewed to be best or optimum for the
intended project. The possibility for future phasing and/or expansion shall be
especially addressed. Also, any critical area or region immediately surrounding
the proposed site that will have a direct influence upon the proposed project shall
also be established. Geographic, demographic, jurisdictional, transportational, and
infrastructure factors shall be analyzed and defined. A general inventory shall be
performed indicating the existing use of present site facilities and existing off-site
street improvements and conditions. Capacities of adjacent and/or on-site utility
systems shall also be reviewed and documented.
A Topographical/Boundary Survey and Preliminary Soils Investigation Report are
required for your project. This information shall be provided by the City. All
existing drainage and soils conditions shall be utilized in recommending
appropriate site studies and ensuing design concepts which will be established
later on in the process.
Upon completion of the Site Analysis Phase, sketch plot plans will be prepared in
a schematic fashion to illustrate pertinent site analysis factors which will be
integrated with a concise written report to finalize this phase of services. A
summary of the planning guidelines by which the proposed project site can be
evaluated will be prepared. At the present time, we anticipate the following site
conditions will have a direct impact upon the design of your project. We propose
the following tasks during the Site Analysis Phase:
1.1 Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation
The relationship of pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns between the
proposed project and existing/other projected uses within the immediate
site area shall be studied and defined.
12 Context
Surrounding conditions related to the immediate site setting shall be
defined to particularly note types of land uses, urban character,
environmental quality, and other significant factors.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 11
1-0166.prp
13 Relationship to Planning Guidelines
Existing and projected zoning ordinances, master plans, and land use shall
be reviewed with respect to the immediate project area in order to
determine the overall relationship to the proposed project. City/County
general plans, specific plans, and any previous special studies shall be taken
into consideration.
1.4 Retention of Useable Building Elements
The existing Community Building shall be reviewed and analyzed to
determine what components should be retained for incorporation into the
design.
1.5 Environmental Hazards
The potential for environmental hazards to exist due to previous site uses
or suspected existing conditions will be prepared.
1.6 Utility Capacities
Utility systems immediate to the project area to include sewer, gas, water,
electrical, telephone, and storm drainage, and the capacities of each with
relationship to the site shall be investigated and determined.
1.7 Initial Environmental Review
An initial environmental review shall be conducted in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Control Act (CEQA) in order to
determine the feasibility to achieve a negative declaration, or whether the
proposed project may have significant environmental impacts requiring
more detailed study including the possibility of a full environmental impact
report.
1.8 Environmental Aspects
Key environmental aspects and relationships shall be evaluated in order to
determine their overall effect in relationship to the proposed project. Solar
orientation, wind, seasonal weather conditions, prevailing breezes, and
special conditions shall be specifically addressed.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 12
1-0166.prp
Legal conditions surrounding the proposed site including land use,
conditional uses and permits, zoning, deeds and restrictions, easements, and
covenants shall be documented by review of a current Preliminary Title
Report.
1.10 Topographical/Boundary Survey
A complete Topographical and Boundary Survey shall be furnished by the
City. The size, area, and overall configuration of the site area shall be
accurately defined noting all existing conditions, improvements, and
adjacent relationships. Existing drainage patterns and conditions will also
be established and reviewed by comparison of existing grades and
elevations and contour intervals.
1.11 Preliminary Soils and Foundation Investigation
A Preliminary Soils and Foundation Investigation shall be furnished by the
City. The soils report shall be reviewed in order to determine existing soils
conditions, soils characteristics, water table relationship to known seismic
faults, and overall soils suitability for the proposed project. Specific
recommendations shall be made for soils preparation related to the
construction of footings, foundations, slabs, and various pavement sections.
1.12 Views and Vistas
Significant views and vistas shall be studied and documented both outward
from any particular vantage point within the immediate site area, and also
inward from key vantage points surrounding the site. Preservation and
retention of existing views and vistas shall be reviewed. The potential for
an increased awareness of the project because of significant site exposure
with respect to the surrounding community will also be identified.
1.13 Safety and Security
The relationship of the proposed project with respect to the immediate site
setting and surrounding land uses will be evaluated in order to determine
whether any special considerations are required in order to mitigate safety
or security concerns. Potential consideration for buffers, appropriate
landscape treatment, construction of fences and barriers, or the possibility
to utilize defensible space planning techniques shall be addressed.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 13
1-0166.prp
1.14 Final Site Analysis Report
A final Site Analysis Report shall be prepared describing and documenting
the findings of all previous tasks. Schematic exhibits shall be prepared
wherever necessary to further illustrate important site characteristics and
relationships. Primary advantages and disadvantages shall be addressed
and discussed. Specific recommendations shall be included which should
be considered during subsequent design phases.
Heritage Park Community/Child Can Center Page Ia
1-0166.prp
2.0 Schematic Design Phase
The Conceptual Architectural Program shall be reviewed in its entirety by each
member of our proposed Design Team. A review shall be conducted with your
Project Committee and Project Manager in order to determine if any additional
revisions or changes have occurred since the date of completing the Architectural
Program. Wherever necessary, refinements shall be made to the program.
A more detailed review and evaluation shall be conducted by our Design Team in
order to analyze potential approaches to the project. Alternatives and options
which may exist with respect to the design and construction of the project shall be
proposed wherever possible. Based upon the approved Architectural Program,
construction budget, and project schedule, schematic design studies shall be
initiated.
The first and perhaps most important task during the Schematic Design Phase is
to establish and determine the best approach to the design of the project.
Alternative ideas and configurations shall be quickly explored in order to evaluate
the best opportunities. A design concept shall be formulated in order to provide
a sound basis for subsequent planning and design decisions to occur. The design
concept shall be utilized to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of each
potential alternative. Site and programmatic factors, aesthetic quality, cost, and
other key factors related to the project shall be utilized in order to form the basis
of an evaluation. Through a variety of informal meetings and workshops, a
preferred direction shall be established.
Refinement and more refinement of previous design studies will occur until the
design concept can be illustrated with preliminary, yet somewhat formal, drawings
depicting the entire scope, nature, and quality of the proposed design scheme. At
this time, preliminary master site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, building
sections, and three-dimensional sketches are prepared in order to graphically
communicate the proposed design scheme. Computer aided drawing techniques
shall be utilized in order to make quick and easy revisions, especially to site and
floor plans, as they are being developed.
Generally, the final schematic design documents are prepared in the medium of
pen and ink. Reproductions of the original drawings shall be made and a full size
drawing of each shall be colored and mounted for final presentation and display.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 15
1-0166.prp
A summary report describing the design concept, materials of construction, and
requirements for implementation shall be prepared. Reductions of previous
design drawings shall be included in the report. Schedules and phasing
requirements shall be revised. A preliminary opinion of estimated construction
costs shall be prepared. A final submittal of all schematic drawings and related
exhibits shall be initiated for the purposes of review and approval in order to
submit the project to the Parks Commission and City Council.
During the Schematic Design Phase for your project, the following tasks have
been identified:
2.1 Master Site Plan
A master site plan shall be prepared in order to describe all major site
components and to illustrate the overall site planning concept for the
project. All structures, parking areas, circulation, and landscaping
components shall be identified. Areas of future expansion and/or future
phasing shall also be defined.
22 Preliminary Grading Plan
A preliminary grading plan shall be prepared in order to indicate cut/fill
quantities, grading concepts, preliminary drainage design, and
location/capacity of existing utilities. Any off-site street improvements and
development of any additional infrastructure shall also be included. A
hydrology study shall also be prepared in accordance with the proposed
grading concept.
23 Preliminary Landscape Plan
A preliminary landscape plan shall be prepared in order to illustrate
proposed planting, landscaping techniques, and design concepts. Drought
resistant, low maintenance, and xeriscape techniques shall be defined. A
preliminary plant palette, identifying major tree and shrub species, shall be
included.
2.4 Preliminary Floor Plan
A preliminary floor plan shall be prepared.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 16
1-0166.prp
25 Exterior Elevations
Exterior elevations shall be prepared to illustrate all major views of the
project. Elevations shall be drawn to depict scale, character, architectural
vocabulary, and shall be delineated to communicate the aesthetic qualities
of the project.
2.6 Building Sections
Building cross sections shall be drawn to illustrate major volumes, spatial
relationships, and structural configurations.
2.7 Character Sketches
Rendered sketches indicating scale, character, landscaping, and overall
architectural vocabulary shall be drawn to further communicate important,
three-dimensional aspects of the proposed design.
2.8 Schematic Exhibits
Reproductions of the original drawings shall be made in a full size drawing
of each and shall be colored and mounted for purposes of final
presentation. Black and white reductions shall also be made of each major
drawing for incorporation into subsequent reports and applications for
preliminary review and approval.
2.9 Summary Report
A summary report describing the selection and justification for the
proposed materials of construction shall be identified. Requirements for
implementation, with corresponding time frames and phasing requirements
shall be scheduled. A review of purpose, goals, and the proposed design
concept shall be summarized. A recommendation for energy efficient and
conservation features with estimated savings and costs and
recommendations for implementation shall be included.
2.10 Schematic Design Cost Estimate
A preliminary opinion of estimated construction costs shall be prepared
and included with the summary report.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 17
1-0166.prp
3.0 Design Development Phase
After completion of the Schematic Design Phase, the design of the project shall
be advanced into more detailed refinement by initiating the Design Development
phase. Our Design Team shall prepare design development documents consisting
of drawings, outline specifications, design calculations, material/equipment
submittals, fixture cuts, and a design development opinion of estimated
construction cost. Architectural, structural, electrical, and mechanical systems
shall be further detailed and analyzed. Preliminary drawings shall be prepared for
each of these systems and options which may exist shall be evaluated.
During the Design Development Phase, requirements for cabinets, casework,
hardware, and related specialties shall be determined. A preliminary furniture
plan shall be prepared indicating usage and furniture layout of every work station,
office, and support space. Final selection of materials, textures, and colors shall
occur.
The Design Development Phase is essentially the time when preliminary design
proposals are refined to a level of detail and developed to a state such that final
construction documents can be initiated. The Design Development Phase is the
time when all final decisions pertaining to the proposed project are evaluated and
finalized.
During the Design Development Phase, the following tasks are proposed for your
project:
3.1 Design Development Plans
Design development drawings shall be prepared in order to fix and
describe the size and character of the entire project including architectural,
structural, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape design features.
32 Outline Specifications
Outline specifications shall be prepared in order to identify and define the
materials and system components selected for the project. Outline
specifications shall be prepared in summary outline form, based upon the
16 division, CSI format.
Heritage Parr Community/Child Care Center Page 18
1-0166.prp
33 Basis of Design
A technical manual shall be assembled to organize product literature and
data for all materials, equipment, and fixtures selected for the project.
3.4 Building Code Analysis
Drawings, diagrams, and calculations shall be prepared based upon all
applicable building codes having jurisdiction over the project. A
preliminary occupancy and exiting plan shall be prepared to identify the
type of construction, type of occupancy, required fire rating/separation, and
location/number of exits required.
3.5 Design Development Cost Estimate
A cost estimate shall be prepared to reflect the scope and anticipated
construction costs as reflected by the design development documents.
3.6 Project Schedule
A revised and updated project schedule shall be submitted to include
anticipated time frames required for the preparation of final construction
documents, plan check/approval, bidding, and construction.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 19
1-0166.prp
4.0 Construction Document Phase
The final Construction Document Phase of the project generally consists of the
preparation of the construction documents to include final drawings,
specifications, calculations, and final cost estimates. Our proposal includes
complete and comprehensive architectural and engineering services required to
execute the entire project. Specifically, we have included the following disciplines.
a. Architectural
b. Civil Engineering
C. Structural Engineering
d. Mechanical Engineering
e. Electrical Engineering
f. Landscape Architectural
During this phase, the contract documents are prepared setting forth in detail the
requirements for the construction of the project. General conditions, instructions
to bidders, and all special requirements are defined, and when combined with the
various trade specifications, a complete project manual is produced.
Noteworthy to our proposal, and unique when compared to other architectural
firms, is that the same Design Team responsible for all prior phases will continue
on and retain the responsibility for the preparation of the final construction
documents. We believe that this approach allows for a more consistent and
accurate method of ensuring that all of those little special details discussed in the
Schematic Design Phase are carried throughout the final design progress. Our
company consistently strives toward the goal of producing accurate, well
orchestrated, and coordinated construction documents. Furthermore, we believe
that this ability is a primary and fundamental need of maintaining quality control
and effectively controlling construction costs.
During the Construction Document Phase final cost estimates are also prepared.
A detailed cost estimate is conducted at the point where final plans and
specifications are approximately 50% complete. Once construction documents
have almost been completed, a revised estimate is also prepared at the level of
approximately 90% completion.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 20
1-0166.prp
Allowable construction costs are consistently monitored during the entire process
in order to minimize the possibility of requiring major refinement or modification
due to budgetary limits.
The following tasks are specifically proposed for your project:
4.1 Construction Drawings
Final construction drawings shall be prepared in order to describe and
identify the spaces, sizes, volume, and location in detail for the construction
of the project.
42 Project Manual
A project manual shall be prepared to include all instructions to bidders,
bidding forms, general conditions, supplementary special conditions, and
the construction trade sections for the project. The project manual
provides detailed technical information pertaining to the administration of
the contract for construction, materials and equipment to be furnished,
acceptable manufacturers, and the requirements for executing the work.
43 Final Design Calculations
Final design calculations are prepared and submitted with the final plans
and specifications for review and approval by governing agencies having
jurisdiction over the project. Structural calculations, hydrology/drainage
calculations, and mechanical/electrical (Title 24 Energy Compliance) shall
be completed during this phase.
4.4 Cost Estimate
A detailed cost estimate shall be prepared at the point where plans and
specifications are approximately 50% complete. A second cost estimate
shall be prepared at the 90% completion point in order to address any
refinement or modification occurring during the preparation of the
construction documents. The cost estimate shall be prepared utilizing
specific area and quantity take -offs applied to estimated labor and material
cost, and shall include allowance for general conditions, Contractor's profit
and overhead, and contingencies.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 21
1-0166.prp
4.5 Final Plan Check
All final plans, specifications, and supporting calculations shall be
submitted to appropriate agencies having jurisdiction over the project to
include Building and Safety, Fire Marshal, and Handicapped Access
Compliance. The final construction documents shall be revised and
amended in order to reflect any plan check requirements, and at this time,
construction documents will be ready for competitive bidding.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 22
1-0166.prp
5.0 Bidding Phase
During the Bidding Phase, we shall provide administrative support services to
assist the City in order to obtain competitive bids for the proposed project.
Notices Inviting Bids are prepared for distribution to local construction plan
rooms, newspapers, and other media. Plans and specifications are issued and we
shall respond to any questions, clarifications, or conflicts which may arise in the
form of written addenda to the contract documents. At this time, requests for
substitutions may be considered if allowed by the contract documents. On bid
opening day, we shall assist you with an evaluation of the bids received and make
a recommendation for award of the contract for construction.
We propose the following services during the Bidding Phase for your project:
5.1 Bidding Procedures and Administration
We shall administer the bidding phase as your representative to the
project. Questions, clarifications, or conflicts arising out of the bidding
process will be efficiently resolved in a responsive manner. Addenda to
the contract for construction shall be prepared in order to document any
clarification or modification made to the contract documents.
52 Evaluation of Bid Proposals
Upon receipt of all bid proposals, a review and evaluation shall be
conducted in our office. The completeness of any bid proposal shall be
evaluated whenever consideration exists to award to the proposing
contracting entity. The completeness of the bid proposal, proposed
subcontractors, affidavit of signature and other special bid proposal
requirements shall be confirmed. When necessary, we shall also check
prior references and licensing agencies in order to ascertain a history of
previous performance. Our firm strongly recommends the Prequalification
of Contractors on any project in order to encourage only the most qualified
and reputable companies to bid on the project. At your request, we can
also assist you in establishing guidelines and procedures for
prequalification. This should be accomplished during the Construction
Document Phase, prior to bidding.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 23
1-0166.ptp
53 Notice to Award Construction Contract
Upon the completed review of appropriate bid proposals, we shall provide
a recommendation for consideration regarding the potential award of the
contract for construction.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 21
1-0166.prp
6.0 Construction Administration Phase
The Construction Phase of your project is an equally exciting and demanding
duration of time where the final implementation of all planning and design
activities comes to fruition. This is a critical time which requires attention and
priority for your project by our Design Team. Again, the same members that
were involved with you initially during all of the planning and design activities
remain with the project through final completion of the Construction Phase.
During this time we shall conduct periodic job site meetings to generally review
and evaluate the construction schedule, monitor weekly performance, review
quality control standards, and provide assistance for any clarification or revision to
the contract for construction. Shop drawings and related submittals shall be
efficiently reviewed and promptly returned to the Contractor for appropriate
action. The Contractor's requests for information, proposal requests, and related
communications shall be attended to on a daily basis. Contractor's pay requests
shall be reviewed and approved on a monthly basis in accordance with the
amount of work completed and in accordance with the contract documents. At
every job site meeting, minutes shall be published and distributed to all parties
concerned, specifically noting current action items and related responsibilities.
Upon completion of the Construction Phase we shall organize and conduct a final
walk-through and review. A final punch list for all required corrections and
remaining work shall be prepared. We shall prepare record drawings based upon
as -built drawings furnished by the Contractor. Warranties, operation manuals,
and other post construction requirements shall be resolved and coordinated with
the established move -in and occupancy date.
During the Construction Phase of your project, the following services have been
proposed:
6.1 Preconstruction Conference
A preconstruction conference shall be attended by our office to brief all
parties concerned with general and special requirements of the contract for
construction. Procedural matters, routing of information, and project
representatives shall be defined. Generally, attendees include
representatives from your Project Committee, our Design Team, the
Contractor, all major subcontractors, and our engineering consultants.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 25
1-0166.prp
6.2 Job Site Meetings
Periodic job site meetings at two week intervals shall be scheduled and
conducted for the same day and time at appropriate intervals based upon
the immediate needs and conditions of the project. Scheduling,
coordination, requests for information, and changes to the contract for
construction are routinely monitored. We shall publish and distribute a
field report for each job site meeting, documenting the progress of
construction and specifically noting current and delinquent action items.
63 Submittal and Shop Drawing Review
We shall provide efficient and responsive review of all required shop
drawings and related submittals as required by the contract documents.
6.4 Project Close -Out
At the completion of the Construction Phase a special job site meeting and
review of the entire facility shall be conducted. A final punch list will be
published and distributed to all parties concerned, specifically noting
required corrections, non -conforming work, and work remaining to be
completed. A second walk-through shall be conducted when all punch list
items have been corrected, and we shall assist in the filing of the Final
Notice of Completion.
65 Record Drawings
Upon receipt of "as -built" drawings from the Contractor, we shall produce a
set of reproducible record drawings to indicate significant changes in the
work, specifically, sizes, locations, and capacities.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 26
1-0166.prp
D. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.0 Design Team Methodology
Our firm consistently utilizes a Design Team approach for establishing project
delivery and control during all phases of planning and design. The Project
Director and all Design Team members remain with the project from concept
through completion. Therefore, continuity of the project participants and the
process is guaranteed for the City of Diamond Bar. This means that the Design
Team shall produce all necessary reports, studies, drawings, models, renderings,
cost estimates, and shall perform all necessary administrative, management, and
coordination services throughout the entire course of the project.
Our organization reflects the commitment towards planning and design in a team
approach rather than on an individual basis. We believe in the idea that a team
approach can provide a more objective analysis of potential design schemes and
that a higher level of creativity and idea exchanging can evolve through the
master planning process. We feel that the final product can be substantially
improved by a process which reflects many more design alternatives and ideas
available for consideration and input. We believe that the success of the project
depends upon involving all appropriate parties early on and throughout the
planning and design process. It is imperative that the City and Parks Commission
provide review and input early on in the Schematic Design Phase of the project.
With our professional experience with respect to the design of community
facilities, it is our job to recommend program and space allocations that meet the
needs of the client and to provide design options that the client can depend upon
to be the correct solutions.
2.0 City Project Management
Our approach to your project depends upon a participatory process with key City
staff who are involved within a given consideration of each of the project areas.
We suggest and highly recommend that a Project Committee be established to
include appropriate representatives who can provide input and review throughout
all phases of the project. All information and communication should flow
between the City Project Manager and our Project Director. Periodic progress
and review meetings will be established with milestone presentations and periods
for comprehensive review during the entire project process. Beneficial and
informal design workshops are also envisioned to explore options and alternatives
likely to be discovered in the planning and design process.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 27
1-0166.prp
3.0 Architectural Design Team
The following individuals have been specifically selected and identified for your
project. Design team members have been selected based upon their recent and
continued experience in the design of community facilities and related project 66
types. Current references have been identified for each of these building types int
Section "G" of this proposal. A
1. Larry Wolff; AIA, Principal - Mr. Wolff is proposed as Project Director for
the duration of the entire project. Mr. Wolff shall serve as Design Team
Leader for the project, shall be a key participant during all planning and
design phases, and shall have the authority the commit the entire
consulting team for all decisions and resources necessary for the project.
Mr. Wolff is also proposed as the Project Designer for your project.
Mr. Wolff shall be assisted by Max Medina and Don Rice. All daily project
contact and correspondence shall be directed to Larry Wolff. The City
shall be working directly with Larry Wolff as the Principal -in -Charge of the
project. Mr. Wolff shall also provide the special technical expertise related
to child care facility design to the Design Team and will spend a majority
of his time in the preparation of Site Analysis, Conceptual and Primary
Design Phases, and related Cost Estimating and Construction Support
Services. Mr. Wolff shall also personally conduct all design workshops,
attend all review/approval meetings, and shall interface directly with your
Project Manager.
2. Max Medina, Project Manager - Mr. Medina shall be the Project Manager
for the architectural Design Team. Mr. Medina shall work closely with our
Project Director. Mr. Medina shall have a key management, design, and
production role during all master planning, schematic design, and design
development phases. Mr. Medina shall continue to assist Mr. Wolff with
the management of the project through the remaining production and
construction administration phases, and shall be primarily responsible for
the preparation of the construction documents.
3. Don Rice, AIA, Technical Resource Coordinator - Mr. Rice's responsibility
will be to assist the architectural Design Team with the review and
coordination of the final plans and specifications, preparation and review of
the General Conditions and the Contract for Construction and shall have a
primary role during the construction phase of your project. Mr. Rice's
assignment shall be to coordinate the construction phase of the project to
ensure that all general conditions and contractual responsibilities are being
complied with and shall assist in evaluation of the eventual Contractor
selected to construct the project.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page ?S
1-0166.prp
7 w TI
LARRY WOLFF, ARCHITECT, AIA
Chairman of the Board
EDUCATION:
California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo
Bachelor of Science in Architecture
California Registration No. C9784
NCARB Registration File 31,393/Cert. No. 27,112
PROFESSIONAL AFFH.IATIONS:
Chairman of the Board, Principal Architect, Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc.
Member, American Institute of Architects
Member, Society of American Registered Architects
Member, Coalition of Concerned School Districts, Southern California
Member, Chaffey Junior College Advisory Committee on Engineering Arts
Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Wolff is the principal partner responsible for all architectural services. Mr. Wolff
graduated cum laude in 1974 with various awards, scholarships, and lifetime honorary
alumni privileges. Upon graduation, the firm of Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc.
was established with primary expertise oriented within the creative spheres of architec-
ture, planning, design, interiors, and special studies. Within a decade, an initial two -
person office had been expanded to a staff of 25, and today, the firm consists of 22
registered architects included within a total staff of 65 dedicated persons striving towards
excellence in architectural design.
RESUME
LARRY WOLFF, ARCHITECT, AIA
Chairman of the Board
Mr. Wolff has accomplished many projects within the past 16 years including civic
centers, performing arts centers, corporate office buildings, public school facilities,
educational master plan studies, school district administrative offices, resource centers,
special educational facilities, libraries, county branch offices, mental health facilities,
medical clinics, convalescent hospitals, community centers, senior citizen centers, police
and fire stations, sheriff's aviation and substation design, churches, and single-family to
all aspects of multi -family housing.
Mr. Wolff has been the primary influence within the firm for establishing a studio
concept for dedicated design by a "team" approach to all commissions. A high level of
personalized service, related to the high-tech requirements of current design
methodologies, has resulted. Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. offers a
comprehensive range of progressive consulting services over a complex field of multi-
disciplinary projects.
RECENT WLC PROJECTS:
Buena Park Civic Center and Cultural Arts Center, City of Buena Park, Buena Park,
CA
Big Bear Lake Civic Center and County Branch Library, City of Big Bear Lake, Big
Bear Lake, CA
Grand Terrace Civic Center and County Branch Library, City of Grand Terrace,
Grand Terrace, CA
• Alta Loma Branch Library, City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Central Park Omni Center, City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
• Glendora City Hall & Library Expansion, City of Glendora, Glendora, CA
Test and Development Center, Southern California Gas Company, Pico Rivera, CA
Bell Community Center, City of Bell, Bell, CA
Noble Creek Community Center, County of Riverside, Riverside, CA
Magnolia Community Center, City of Upland, Upland, CA
Eastside Community Center, City of Riverside, Riverside, CA
Thousand Oaks Senior and Teen Center, City of Thousand Oaks, Thousand Oaks,
CA
Headquarter Fire Station No. 1, City of Rialto, Rialto, Ca
Glendale Fire Station No. 25, City of Glendale, Glendale, CA
Brea Fire Station No. 3, City of Brea, Brea, CA
• Fire Station No. 23, City of Grand Terrace, Grand Terrace, CA
• Ontario Fire and Police Facility, City of Ontario, Ontario, CA
RESUME
LARRY WOLFF, ARCHITECT, AIA
Chairman of the Board
Roy C Hill Education Center, County of San Bernardino Superintendent of Schools,
San Bernardino, CA
Brigade Headquarters, Marine Air -Ground Combat Center, U.S. Marine Corps.,
Twentynine Palms, CA
Chaffey High School Reconstruction, Chaffey Joint Union H.S. District, Ontario, CA
Upland Police Facility, City of Upland, Upland, CA
Rialto Swimpool Pavilion and Community Playhouse, City of Rialto, Rialto, CA
Conejo Unified School District, Growth Plan and District Administration Facility.
Pasadena Federal Credit Union, Pasadena, CA
Pepper Tree Elementary School, Upland Unified School District, Upland, CA
Academic Classroom Building, Upland High School, Upland Unified School District,
Upland, CA
Mt. Baldy Elementary School, Mt. Baldy School District, Mt. Baldy, CA
Rialto High School No. 2, Rialto Unified School District, Rialto, CA
Fontana Fire and Police Prototype Facilities, Central Valley Fire Protection Agency,
Fontana, CA
Sycamore Village, Restaurant/ Specialty Retail/Office Center, Rancho Cucamonga,
CA
Oxnard High School No. 6, Oxnard Union High School District, Oxnard, CA
Fire Station No. 4 and No. 5, City of Rancho Cucamonga/Foothill Fire District,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Morris Elementary School, Rialto Unified School District, Rialto, CA
Virginia Dare Place, Commercial Office Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Deer Creek Car Wash, Kelbert Partnership, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Loma Vista Woods, Condominiums, Rancho Cucamonga
Children's Wing, San Bernardino County Mental Health Facility, County of San
Bernardino
District Growth Plan: Conejo Valley Unified School District
District Master Plan: Rialto Unified School District
Civic Center Master Plan: City of Big Bear Lake
Rialto High School Master Campus Plan
Civic Center Master Plan: City of Glendora
Civic Center Master Plan: City of Grand Terrace
Civic and Cultural Arts Center Master Plan: City of Buena Park
RESUME
LARRY WOLFF, ARCHITECT, AIA
Chairman of the Board
Architectural Program: Rancho Cucamonga Fire Stations No. 4 and 5
Sycamore Village Specialty Commercial Center Master Plan
Historical Preservation Study for the Red Chief Motel
r
ti
e.
F
P
i
MAX IVAN MEDINA
Project Manager, Associate
EDUCATION:
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Bachelor of Architecture, 1985
EXPERIENCE:
In his senior year at Cal Poly, Mr. Medina took on a specific course of study emphasizing
interior architecture, sun control, and the diverse architecture of Southern California.
He firmly believes that the best designs take into account all the important details, small
and large, then organizing them into one cohesive design statement that the client and
users can appreciate. These traits were conceptually and realistically incorporated into
each of seven projects. Two of these projects, '"The Venice Beach Chapel" and "The
Long Beach Jet Ski Center" expressed his interest for architecture near the water. The
highlight of the year, however, was gaining Honorable Mention in the "Places H Wall
Surfaces Competition", sponsored by Progressive Architecture and accepted in Chicago.
In a number of previous experiences, Mr. Medina has gained important knowledge in the
related fields of city planning, estimating, construction, and graphic design. Extensive
work in the areas of apartments, condominiums, custom homes, banks, and schools
resulted in several built projects. Upon graduation in 1985, Mr. Medina brought his
unique accomplishments and enthusiasm to the firm of Wolff/Lang/Christopher
Architects, Inc.
Since joining Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc., Mr. Medina has completed works
in the areas of schools, civic centers, performing arts facilities, residential complexes, fire
and police facilities, and commercial offices. In the process of completing all of these
types of projects from initial design through project occupancy, he has compiled
considerable experience in the areas of committee designing, planning department
approvals, building official approvals including the Office of the State Architect,
specification writing, construction document preparation, bidding, and construction
administration.
RESUME
MAX IVAN MEDINA
Forecast Corporation Commercial Offices
Bear Gulch Elementary School, Phase III - Central School District
Deer Creek Car Care Center - Kelbert Partnership
Lincoln Property Apartments, Azusa and Ontario
Big Bear Civic Center and Performing Arts Facility, City of Big Bear Lake
Rialto Fire Station No. 3 - City of Rialto
Rialto Fire Station No. 4 and Police Contact Facility - City of Rialto
Pepper Tree Elementary School - Upland Unified School District
Rialto High School - Rialto Unified School District
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station No. 4
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station No. 4, Phase II Training Center and Maintenance
Facility
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station No. 5
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station No. 3
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station No. 4, Phase II Training Tower
PROJEC'T'S PRIOR TO WL
Team Member, City of Delano General Plan 2000
Nottingham Development Condominiums, Booth -Goode Architects
Nottingham Development Apartment Complexes, Booth -Goode Architects
Various Portable Buildings: Commercial and Schools, Inco Modular Structures
DONALD S. RICE, AIA
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Denver Technical College, Denver
Certificate in Architectural Technology
414001 111:7:`I C•�►ii
Architect, California - C20491
Architect, Colorado - B1948
NCARB Certificate Holder - Certificate No. 30,325
' ' • MMOMA WADWI___ •
Member, American Institute of Architects
Member, Construction Specifications Institute
Member, International Conference of Building Officials
EXPERIENCE:
Mr. Rice had been associated with the architectural firm of Rice -Johnson and Associates,
P.C. since 1969. As President of that firm, Mr. Rice was responsible for overall design
and project team leadership. His expressed philosophy of providing quality service
through close involvement and a hands-on approach to all aspects of a project had been
responsible for Mr. Rice's widely recognized ability to understand, formulate, and
respond to client's needs and program requirements in a creative, individualistic personal
manner.
The size of projects that Mr. Rice has managed on a personal basis have ranged from
2,000 sq. ft. up to 300,000 sq. ft. Mr. Rice's experience has primarily been on new as
well as remodeled educational facilities, as well as other projects within the public sector,
such as churches, fire stations, recreational facilities, and senior citizen's centers.
RESUME
DONALD S. RICE
Mr. Rice joined the firm of Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. in 1988 because of
a shared design philosophy and a mutual commitment to excellence. Mr. Rice brings to
the firm a highly developed level of expertise in the formulation of contract documents
that have had demonstrated success in producing quality facilities. Since joining the firm,
Mr. Rice has been involved in the firm's quality control program which assures that each
project meets the high standards of technical competence established by the firm.
Mr. Rice is continually searching for ways in which the firm's vast technical resources can
be better utilized to serve the needs of its clients.
RECENT WLC PROJECTS:
A.B. Miller High School
Lancaster Performing Arts Center
East Highlands Elementary School
A.E. Wright Middle School Additions
Capistrano Elementary School Additions
Rancho Cucamonga Middle School Additions and Remodel
Dollahan Elementary School
P.W. Johansen High School
Loma Linda Elementary School
Parkview Middle School
Tena Vista Elementary School
Costa Mesa Senior Citizen's Center
Fontana Fire and Police Facility
California State University, San Bernardino Student Union
Arkansas Elementary School, Aurora Public Schools
Dalton Elementary School, Aurora Public Schools
Vassar Elementary School, Aurora Public Schools
Clyde Miller Elementary School, Aurora Public Schools
Retrofit of 27 elementary Schools, Aurora Public Schools
Rangeview High School, Aurora Public Schools
RESUME
DONALD S. RICE
Central High School Natatorium, Aurora Public Schools
Retrofit of Three High Schools, Aurora Public Schools
Coronado Elementary School, Jefferson County Public Schools
Westridge Elementary School, Jefferson County Public Schools
Juchem Elementary School, Jefferson County Public Schools
Stony Creek Elementary School, Jefferson County Public Schools
Career Enrichment Park, Adams County School District
Comprehensive Learning Center, Adams County School District
• Summit County Courthouse, City of Breckenridge
Senior Citizen's Center, City of Aurora
Fire District Headquarters, North Washington Fire District
Three Fire Stations, North Washington Fire District
Worship and Community Center, St. Thomas Parish
Church and Parish Center, Most Precious Blood Parish
Neighborhood Health Centers, City of Denver
Washington Recreation Center, City of Denver
Evergreen Recreation Center, City of Evergreen
4.0 Consulting Team
The following consultants have been identified and are proposed for your project. All of
the firms which we have listed have a good, current working relationship with our
company and also have specific experience in the area of community facility design.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Wheeler and Gray, Inc.
7462 N. Figueroa, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90041
Mr. Paul M. Weickert
President
(213) 256-2101
GA/ AM Z CC] 1 Z 10 091 ZM
Carl Donmoyer and Associates
609 East Alosta Avenue, Suite B
Glendora, CA 91740-3508
Mr. Mark Lamoureux
Civil Engineer, Vice President
(818) 963-5710
Icl000110COLA 0:32CC] WAR 1 91
RWR * Pascoe Associates, Inc.
One Ventura, Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92718
Ms. Christine Jennings
Associate
(714) 753-4777
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Mathaudhu Engineering, Inc.
3903 Brockton Avenue, Suite 5
Riverside, CA 92501
Mr. Sukhdev Mathaudhu
President
(714) 686-1776
RJM Design Group
27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 250
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Mr. Larry Ryan
ASLA, Vice President
(714) 582-7516
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 38
1-0166.prp
5.0 Firm Profile
1. Legal name of firm:
Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc.
2. Address of firm:
10470 Foothill Blvd. Virginia Dare Tower
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
(714) 987-0909
3. Type of Ownership: Corporation
4. How long have you been in business?
The firm has been established since 1974.
5. Describe your firm's primary disciplines, resources, and services:
Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects provide complete architectural services, urban
and regional planning, and interior design. Structural, civil, electrical, mechanical,
acoustical engineering, and landscape architecture are all provided by retention of
appropriate outside consultants highly experienced within the desired disciplines.
6. Financial References:
a. Mr. Leo Liberio, Manager, Chino Valley Bank (714) 983-1390
b. Mr. Pat Price, CPA; Swenson Corporation, (714) 989-5867
C. Mr. Skip Runner, L. K. Runner Insurance Services (714) 981-1004
d. Dun and Bradstreet, 2A2 Rating, DUNS: 01-068-9727
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 39
1-0166.prp
7. California Registration Numbers of Principals:
Larry Wolff
C9784
Dale Lang
C9030
Gaylaird Christopher
C10621
George Wiens
C14546
Robert Hensley
C17256
James P. DiCamillo
C15937
Robert Simons
C18301
8. Present Size of Firm: 65 Personnel
Category
Male
Female
Principal Architects
7
0
Registered Staff Architects
15
1
Architectural Project Managers
9
1
Facility Planner
1
1
Technician/Designer
9
1
Technical Support/Accounting
1
14
Librarian
0
1
Construction Administration Coordinator
2
0
Quality Assurance/ Specification Coordinator
1
0
Graphic Designer
1
0
9. Type of Current Projects (combined):
CIVIC/PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
45% 50% 4% 1%
10. What is the ethnic identification of your firm's employees?
Ethnic Group Male Female
Asian/Pacific Islander 8 1
American Indian/Alaskan - -
African-American 2 1
Filipino 3 0
Hispanic 3 0
Caucasian 30 17
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 40
1-0166.prp
E. FEE PROPOSAL
As required by your request for proposal, proposed consulting fees for all tasks which
have been identified in our proposed work plan have been submitted in a separate
envelope. Our fee includes all services described in the Request For Proposal, and also
includes the following consultant services:
1. Architectural
2. Civil Engineering
3. Structural Engineering
4. Electrical Engineering
5. Mechanical Engineering
6. Landscape Architecture
Our fee is proposed as a fixed, not -to -exceed amount, excluding reimbursable expenses,
and providing that the City -approved construction budget or square footage allocation
does not exceed an amount equal to 10% of the areas and costs identified in the
Request For Proposal. Reimbursable expenses are limited to charges for all
blueprinting, computer plotting, paper copy, and reprographic services. All other
reimbursable costs for any travel, fax/telephone, and computer aided drafting services
are included. We have not limited the number of project review meetings which may be
required during the design phases. During the construction phase of the project, we have
proposed regularly scheduled job site meetings, at an interval of every other week.
For every task identified in our proposal, we have provided a detailed estimate of hours
with corresponding professional/technical classifications so that the City may examine
where every hour and cost expended is proposed for the project. Our goal has been to
provide only the services which we feel the City will require to successfully complete the
project, and nothing more. However, we are always open and receptive to negotiate
possible decreases or increases in any area of our proposal that the City may be
concerned with.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 41
1-0166.prp
Schedule Of Proposed Fees
Item/Description
Fatimmed Hours
Estimated
Fee
Pe
Architect S"mc mal Mechmical FJectriml Civil Arc
P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S
1.0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
1.1 Site Analysis
1
1
1
1
1.2 Site plans
2
3
1
2
1
1
1.3 Floor plans
4
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.4 Fater, elevations
2
8
1
1
1
1
1.5 Bldg. sections
2
4
1
1
1
1.6 Schem. exhibits
1
8
1.7 Basis of design
2
0
1.8 Cost estimate
2
0
1.9 Project schedule
1
0
1.10 Review/approval
meetings
6
0
SUBTOTAL HOURS
23
30
2
5
1
3
1
3
1
4
1
3
77
HOURLY RATES
L90
85
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
SUMUrAL (thousands)
1.0 Schematic D"*u
ZW
255
02
038
0.1
OZi
01
Obi
AI
03
0.1
0.23
57,510.00
2.0 DESIGN DEVELOPMENr
2.1 Design Devel.
plans
2
28
1
6
1
4
1
4
1
4
2
3
2.2 Outline specs.
2
2
1
1
1
2.3 Design calcs
1
2
1
2.4 D.D. cost est.
1
2
1
1
1
1
2.5 Review meetings
4
2
SUBTOTAL HOURS
10
36
3
6
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
81
HOURLY RATES
130
85
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
1Q0
75
SUBTOTAL (thou)
2.0 DESIGN DEVEL
130
3.06
03
0.45
0.30
030
030
030
0.30
030
O aD
026
$7,370.00
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 12
1-0166.prp
Item/Description
Estimated Horns
mated
EstiFoe
Architect Structural M chani.0 El arical 0,1Arch
P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S
3.0 CONSTRUCTION DOC UN EN IS
3.1 Final plans
16
60
1
14
1
8
1
8
2
10
1
4
3.2 Final specs
2
16
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3.3 Final calcs
2
2
1
1
1
3.4 50% estimate
4
1 4
1
3.5 100% estimate
4
4
1
3.6 Backcheck plans
2
8
2
2
2
3.7 Review meetings
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
SUBTOTAL HOURS
34
1 96
7
16
4
10
4
10
S
12
3
6
207
HOURLY RATES
130
85
100
75
IOD
7S
100'
75
I00
75
100
75
SUBTOTAL (thm-nds)
3.0 CONST. DOCS.
4.42
8.16
0.70
1.2
0.40
0.75
0.40
0.75
OSO
090
0.30
0.45
5181930.00
4.0 BIDDING PHASE
4.1 Coord. bidding/
prep. addendum
2
8
1
1
1
1
1
4.2 Pre/post bid
mtgs.
1
SUEMO TAL HOURS
3
a
1
I
1
1
1
HOURLY RATES
130
95
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
SUBTOTAL (thousands)
4.0 BIDDING PHASE
.39
0.611
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
$11MOD
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 43
1-0166.ptp
Item/Uesaiption
1.0 Blueprinting/ Reprographics
Estimated Hours
2.0 Computer Plotting
1,500.00
3.0 Paper Copy Services
Estimated
Fee
Architect Structural Mec6anieal Electriw Civil Arch
P S P
S P
S P
S P
S P
S
5.0 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
5.1 Job site mtgs.
6
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
5.2 Shop dwg/submtl
10
2
1
1
1
5.3 Clarif/Rev/C.O.
2
2
1
1
1
5.4 Final punch list
4
4
1
1
I
1
1
55 Record drawings
6
1
1
1
1
1
SUBTOTAL HOURS
10
30
2
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
66
HOURLY RATES
M
85
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
100
75
SUUMFAL (dwurnds)
5.0 CONST. PHASE
1.30255
020
037
020
0.22
0.211
0.22
0.20
022
020
0.15
$6,000.00
TOTAL FEE - BASIC SERVICES
$11,380.00
REIhMURSABLE EXPENSES
1.0 Blueprinting/ Reprographics
$3,000.00
2.0 Computer Plotting
1,500.00
3.0 Paper Copy Services
1,250.00
TOTAL REDMURSABIES
=4,750.00
11 GRAND TOTAL PROPOSED FM $46 M00 11
P = Principal Registered Architect/Engineer
S = Staff/Design/Technical/Support (Hourly Rate is averaged)
Heritage Park Community/Child Caro Center Page 44
1-0166.prp
7
51
M
F
r
c
0
9
►i
B
w
z
0
w
A
O
� '
■
Elm
w
4K
�
Emm■
■■■
A
*
��n
•
z
Monson
0
ntx
O
C3
yy
O
u
O
9
a
O
Z. O :�
$ v� rx ti ct,
O
c
0
9
►i
B
G. REFERENCES AND PROJECT EXPERIENCE
1.0 Why Wolff/Lang/Christopher
The planning, design, and implementation of the Heritage Park Community/Child
Care Center requires a fresh approach. Our firm is in an excellent position to
provide the City of Diamond Bar with sensitive, creative, and skilled Architectural
Design services. We believe that the following considerations are expressly
unique to Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc., and address why we are best
able to perform the work required.
* Specialization In Community Design Facilities
We specialize in the design of Community, Municipal, and Educational facilities.
Ninety-five percent of our present workload is devoted to these types of facilities.
A complete list of current projects and references has been included in this
section of our proposal. In all of our work, we are accustomed to conforming
with local City Planning Commission and Park Commission requirements and
design guidelines, which can sometimes be very demanding and require a skilled
and knowledgeable response.
* Experience and References
Our experience and references provide testimony to over 17 years of experience
in successfully addressing project budgets, timely completion of services, and
quality design.
* Principal Involvement/Design Team Qualifications
Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA, Chairman of Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects,
Inc. is proposed as Project Director for your project. Mr. Wolff will be actively
engaged during all project phases, and will have a major role not only in the
design of your project, but also during the Construction Administration of your
facility. The City will be working directly with Mr. Wolff throughout the duration
of the project. A Project Manager and additional staff will be specially selected
from the firm to assist Mr. Wolff with the completion of all proposed project
tasks. This Design Team shall remain with the project from concept through
occupancy. Consulting disciplines which are proposed also have a long-term
relationship working with Wolff/Lang/Christopher on numerous community and
recreational types of facilities. The City will receive consistency of personnel.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 46
1-0166.prp
* Purpose and Integrity
The City shall receive objective, purposeful, and thoughtful Architectural Design
services. Our reputation is based upon integrity. You will always be told the
truth and never something that we think you might want to hear. We strive to be
good listeners, and to be sensitive to the key issues and desires of our clients.
* Reflection Of Client Character
We design for the community that you represent. We understand that this project
will reflect the image and credibility of the City of Diamond Bar. Our goal will
be to create a positive, community oriented, and permanent focal point for
Heritage Park. In order for this project to be successful, special emphasis is
required to reflect the philosophy of the community, while achieving excellence in
design.
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 17
1-0166.prp
2.0 Child Care Projects
LONG BEACH NAVAL STATION - CHILD CARE CENTER, LONG BEACH, CA
Partner in Charge: Robert J. Hensley, Architect AIA
Project Designer: Robert J. Hensley, AIA
Construction Cost: $935,000
Completion Date: September, 1987
Contact: Maria Ciprazo, Western Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(415) 877-7314
RUBIDOUX CHILD CARE CENTER, RUBIDOUX, CA
Partner in Charge: George Wiens, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: George Wiens, AIA; Larry Wolff, AIA
Estimated Cost: $275,000
Completion Date: November, 1985
Contact: John Via Fora, Development Specialist
County of Riverside, Economic and Community Development
(714) 788-9770
THOUSAND OAKS TEEN CENTER, THOUSAND OAKS, CA
Partner in Charge: Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Design Team: Larry Wolff, Architect AIA; Rafael Urena
Estimated Cost: 1,850,000
Completion Date: September, 1989 (Estimated)
Contact: Mr. Roger D. Grady, Senior Management Analyst
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 497-8611
WOODBRIDGE CHILD CARE/COMMUNITY/SENIOR'S CENTER, IRVINE, CA
Partner in Charge: Robert Hensley, Architect AIA & Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Robert Hensley, AIA
Estimated Cost: $7,996,685
Completion Date: Final Design in Progress
Contact: Mr. Hal Hembree, Senior Project Engineer, Public Works Department
City of Irvine
(714) 724-6000
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 48
1-0166.prp
CENTRAL PARK CHILD CARE CENTER, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Partner In Charge: Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA; Dale Lang, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Larry Wolff, AIA; Kip Grubb, AIA; and Dale Lang, AIA
Estimated Cost: $1,500,000.00
Completion Date: Schematic Design In Progress
Contact: Mrs. Linda Daniels, Deputy City Manager
Mr. Olen Jones, Rancho Cucamonga RDA
(714) 989-1851
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 4')
1-0166.prp
3.0 Community And Senior Center Projects
BELL COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER, BELL, CA
Partner in Charge:
Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Larry Wolff, AIA; John Kristedja; Dave Forman, AIA
Project Cost:
$1,054,484.80
Square Footage:
$8,000
Completion Date:
December, 1986
Contact:
Rudy Munoz, Director Community Services
City of Bell
(213) 588-6211
Awards: Merit Award for Design 1987 - Inland Chapter American
Institute of Architects
Citation Award for Design 1987 - Society of California Parks and Recreation
Merit Award for Design 1988 - California Chapter American Institute of
Architects and California Concrete Masonry Association
CARLSBAD SENIOR CENTER/SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION FACILITY CARLSBAD, CA
Partner in Charge: James P. DiCamillo, Architect AIA
Design Team: Dale Lang, AIA; Elizabeth Siegl
Estimated Cost: $3,200,000
Completion Date: January, 1990 - Estimated
Contact: John Cahill, Municipal Projects Manager t
City of Carlsbad
(619) 434-2808
CHINO SENIOR CENTER, CHINO, CA
Partner in Charge:
George Wiens, Architect, AIA
Project Designer:
Bill Louie; Jim DiCamillo, AIA; George Wiens, AIA
Project Cost:
$1,154,919.26
Square Footage:
11,700
Completion Date:
September, 1987
Contact:
Mr. Glen Rojas, Director, Recreation and
Community Services
City of Chino
(714) 627-7577
Awards: Merit Award for Design 1987 - Society of California Parks and Recreation
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 50
1-0166.prp
COSTA MESA SENIOR CENTER, COSTA MESA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Project Designer:
Estimated Cost:
Square Footage:
Completion Date:
Contact:
Dale Lang, Architect, AIA
Dave Forman, AIA
$2,500,000
20,000
1990
Susan Schollenberger, Director
City of Costa Mesa
(714) 645-2356
EASTSIDE MULTI-PURPOSE SOCIAL SERVICE CENTER, RIVERSIDE, CA
Partner in Charge:
Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Project Designer:
Jon Erlandson, AIA
Construction Cost:
$510,000
Square Footage:
6,500
Completion Date:
May, 1982
Contact:
Mr. Daniel Knoop, Project Coordinator, Administrative
Services Department
City of Riverside
(714) 351-6164
LA VERNE COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER, LA VERNE, CA
Partner in Charge:
George Wiens, Architect AIA
Project Designer:
Dave Forman, AIA
Project Cost:
$2,000,000
Square Footage:
14,000
Completion Date:
August, 1988
Contact:
Bill Aguirre, Director, Parks and Human Services
City of La Verne
(714) 596-8726
LANCASTER CITY PARK ACTIVITY CENTER, LANCASTER, CA
Partner in Charge: George Wiens, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Robert M. Simons, AIA
Project Cost: $2,020,855 (Includes park development)
Square Footage: 7,000
Completion Date: April, 1987
Contact: Jeff Long, Director of Public Works
City of Lancaster
(805) 945-7811
Award: First Award of Excellence - 1987 - California Society Parks and Recreation
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 51
1-0166.ptp
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Project Designer:
Estimated Cost:
Construction Cost:
Square Footage:
Completion Date:
Contact:
Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Larry Wolff, AIA
$350,000
$375,000
7,500
1979
Mr. Jack Lam, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
(714) 989-1851
MAGNOLIA COMMUNITY CENTER, UPLAND, CA
Partner in Charge:
Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Project Designer:
James P. DiCamillo, AIA
Estimated Cost:
$385,000
Construction Cost:
$389,000
Completion Date:
March, 1985
Contact:
Mr. Larry Thornburg, Director, Parks and Recreation
City of Upland
(714) 982-1352
MORENO VALLEY SENIOR CENTER, MORENO VALLEY, CA
Partner in Charge:
Project Designer:
Estimated Cost:
Square Footage:
Construction Cost:
Completion Date:
Contact:
George Wiens, Architect AIA
Godwin Osifeso
$1,937,500
15,500
December, 1991
John Hogard, Senior Engineer
City of Moreno Valley
(714) 243-3000
NOBLE CREEK COMMUNITY CENTER, BEAUMONT, CA
BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
Partner in Charge: Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Larry Wolff, AIA
Estimated Cost: $300,000
Construction Cost: $305,000
Completion Date: July, 1983
Contact: Mr. Brian Ross, General Manager
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Recreation & Park District
(714) 845-9555
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 52
1-0166.prp
RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Partner in Charge: Gayland Christopher, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Gaylaird Christopher, AIA; Robert Simons, AIA
Estimated Cost: $80'000
Construction Cost: $774,000
Square Footage: 7,200
Completion Date: June, 1971 Phase I; November, 1984 Phase II
Contact: Mr. Frank Law, Chief Building Construction Engineer
County of San Bernardino, Architecture and Engineering Division
(714) 387-2266
Mr. Jack Lam, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
(714) 989-1851
ST. BARNABAS SENIOR CENTER, LOS ANGELES, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Robert Hensley, AIA; Gaylaird Christopher, AIA; John Baker
Construction Cost: $2,200,000
Square Footage: 29,000
Completion Date: June, 1988
Contact: Rev. Richard C. Hall, Ph.D.
St. Barnabas Senior Center
(213) 388-4444
:3k
THOUSAND OAKS TEEN CENTER, THOUSAND OAKS, CA
Partner in Charge: Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Design Team: Larry Wolff, Architect AIA; Rafael Urena
Estimated Cost: $1,850,000
Square Footage: 13,500
Completion Date: November, 1989
Contact: Mr. Grant R. Brimhall, City Manager
Ms. Maryjane V. Lazz, Assistant City Manager
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 497-8611
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page �,3
1-0166.prp
THOUSAND OAKS SENIOR CENTER, THOUSAND OAKS, CA
Partner in Charge: Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Project Team: Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA; Rafael Urena
Estimated Cost: $2,360,000
Square Footage: 18,500
Completion Date: September, 1991 - Estimated
Contact: Mr. Grant R. Brimhall, City Manager
Ms. Maryjane V. Lazz, Assistant City Manager
City of Thousand Oaks
(805) 497-8611
WOODBRIDGE CHILD CARE/COMMUNITY/SENIOR'S CENTER, IRVINE, CA
Partner in Charge: Robert Hensley, Architect, AIA; Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Robert Hensley, AIA
Estimated Cost: $9,000,000
Square Footage: 37,000
Completion Date: Schematic Design in Progress
Contact: Mr. Hal Hembree, Senior Project Engineer, Public Works Department
City of Irvine
(714) 724-6000
YUCAIPA SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER, YUCAIPA, CA
Partner in Charge: Dale Lang, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Dale Lang, AIA
r,
Estimated Cost: $375,000
Construction Cost: $475,000
Completion Date: 1981
Contact: Mr. Frank Law, Chief Building Construction Engineer
County of San Bernardino, Architecture and Engineering Division
(714) 387-2266
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Pa;e
1-0166.prp
YUCCA VALLEY SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER, YUCCA VALLEY, CA
YUCCA VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Project Designer: Gaylaird Christopher, AIA
Estimated Cost: $528,000
Construction Cost: $525,000
Completion Date: July, 1982
Contact: Mr. Frank Law, Chief Building Construction Engineer
County of San Bernardino, Architecture and Engineering Division
(714) 387-2266
Award: Citation for Design, 1982 - Society of American Registered Architects
cap
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 55
1-0166.prp
4.0 Elementary School Projects
ANNA BORBA KINDERGARTEN ADDITION, CHINO, CA
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Mike Merino
Estimated Cost:
$900,000
Construction Cost:
$215,496
Completion Date:
November, 1988
Square Footage:
2,880
Student Enrollment:
110
Contact:
Dan Santo, Director, Planning/Facilities Development
Chino Unified School District
(714) 628-1201
BEAR GULCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Robert Hensley, Architect
Estimated Cost:
$900,000
Construction Cost:
$825,000
Completion Date:
June, 1984
Square Footage:
14,000
Student Enrollment:
390
Contact:
Dr. Sonja Yates, Superintendent
Ingrid Vogel, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Central School District
(714) 989-8541
Awards: Citation for Design 1985
American Institute of Architects and American Association of School
Administrators
BEAR GULCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PHASE II, RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Robert Hensley, Architect
Estimated Cost:
$890,670
Construction Cost:
$926,320
Completion Date:
November, 1985
Square Footage:
8,800
Student Enrollment:
Support Space
Contact:
Ingrid Vogel, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Central School District
(714) 989-8541
Andy Carlmark, Principal
Bear Gulch Elementary School
Central School District
(714) 989-9396
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 56
1-0166.prp
Mr:
BEAR GULCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PHASE III
-XDMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team: Max Medina, John Kristedja
Estimated Cost: $1,600,000
Completion Date: Construction Phase
Square Footage: 14,000
Student Enrollment: 270
Contact: Dr. Sonja Yates, Superintendent
(714) 989-8541
Ingrid Vogel, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Central School District
BEN FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RIVERSIDE, CA
Partner in Charge:
George Wiens, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Bill Louie, Jeff Ehrnman
Estimated Cost:
$4,277,000
Completion Date:
1989
Square Footage:
44,000
Student Enrollment:
750
Contact:
Dr. Paul Anderson, Facilities Planning Coordinator
Riverside Unified School District
(714) 788-7496
CANYON CREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROTOTYPE
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, AIA
Design Team:
Ron Kuehl, Designer; Gaylaird Christopher
Project Cost:
$4,500,000
Completion Date:
June, 1990
Square Footage:
44,005
Student Enrollment: _
730
Contact:
Mr. Carl Coleman, Director Planning and Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
Mr. Don Burnich, Director
Elementary Education
(714) 357-5060
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 57
1-0166.prp
CAPISTRANO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION
Partner in Charge:
Robert J. Hensley, AIA
Design Team:
Robert Hensley, Paul Bonaccorsi, Mark Graham
Construction Cost:
$1,106,000
Completion Date:
December 9, 1990
Square Footage:
8,700
Student Enrollment:
720
Contact:
Mr. Donald Kiger, Manager of Business Services
Contact:
Empire Union School District
(209) 521-28W
CHINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIVE PORTABLE CLASSROOM ADDITIONS
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, AIA
Design Team:
John Kristedja
Project Cost:
$273,374.00 (Building)
Project Cost:
S 23,703.01 (Site Work)
Completion Date:
November, 1985
Square Footage:
4,800
Student Enrollment:
150
Contact:
Mr. Robert Wagner, Assistant Superintendent
Planning/Facilities
Chino Unified School District
(714) 628-1201
CHINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
23 PORTABLES
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team: Michael R. Merino
Estimated Cost: $200,000
Completion Date: November 14, 1987
Square Footage: 22,080
Student Enrollment: 590
Contact: Mr. Dan Santo, Director, Planning and Facilities
Chino Unified School District
(714) 628-1201
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 55
1-0166.prp
COYOTE CANYON TEMPORARY SCHOOL, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Partner in Charge:
George Wiens, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA; George Wiens, Architect AIA
Estimated Cost:
$1,500,000
Completion Date:
September, 1987
Square Footage:
29,760
Student Enrollment:
720
Contact:
Dr. Sonja Yates, Superintendent
Central School District
Ingrid Vogel, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
(714) 989-8541
COYOTE CANYON PERMANENT SCHOOL, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Estimated Cost:
$4,500,000
Completion Date:
September, 1990
Square Footage:
45,000
Student Enrollment:
720
Contact:
Dr. Sonja Yates, Superintendent
Central School District
(714) 989-8541
Ingrid Vogel, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
(714) 989-8541
Funding: State Allocation Board/Office of Local Assistance
DECKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, POMONA, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA; Robert Hensley, Architect
Estimated Cost: $2,150,500
Project Cost: $2,200,000
Completion Date: September, 1982
Square Footage: 31,000
Student Enrollment: 770
Contact: Mr. Richard L. Donoghue, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
Pomona Unified School District
(714) 623-5251
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Pagc
1-0166.prp
DOLLAHAN ELEMENTARY, RIALTO, CA
Partner in Charge:
Larry Wolff, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Larry Wolff, Ed Hall, Toni Stermolle
Estimated Cost:
$4,000,000
Completion Date:
September, 1990
Square Footage:
35,000
Student Enrollment:
730
Contact:
Dr. David Andrews, Superintendent
Rialto Unified School District (Previous)
(714) 820-7707
Award:
Tustin Unified School District (Current)
(714) 730-7305
Mr. Kent Van Gelder, Facility Planner
(714) 820-7707
EAGLE CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CHINO CA
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
John Kristedja, Jim DiCamillo
Estimated Cost:
$3,940,947
Completion Date:
December, 1987
Square Footage:
37,000
Student Enrollment:
750
Contact:
Mr. Dan Santo, Director of Planning and Facilities
Chino Unified School District
(714) 628-1201
Award:
Citation for Design
American Institute of Architects, 1986
EL CENTRO ELEMENTARY NO. 2, EL CENTRO, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
Design Team: Gaylaird Christopher
Estimated Cost: $4,000,000
Construction Cost: 3,750,000
Completion Date:
Square Footage: 37,000
Student Enrollment: 750
Contact: Dr. Joseph Vogel, Assistant Superintendent
Support Services
El Centro School District
(619) 352-5712
Funding: State Allocation Board/Office of Local Assistance
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 60
1-0166.prp
FITZGERALD ELEMENTARY, RIALTO, CA
Partner in Charge:
Larry Wolff, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Andy Johnson, Larry Wolff, Ed Hall, Toni Stermolle
Estimated Cost:
$4,000,000
Completion Date:
September, 1992
Square Footage:
43,500
Student Enrollment:
730
Contact:
Dr. David Andrews, Superintendent
Rialto Unified School District (Previous)
(714) 820-7707
Tustin Unified School District (Current)
(714) 730-7305
Mr. Kent Van Gelder, Facility Planner
(714) 820-7707
GARST ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Partner in Charge:
Robert J. Hensley, AIA
Design Team:
Robert Hensley, Paul Bonaccorsi, Mark Graham
Estimated Cost:
$4,200,000
Completion Date:
October, 1992
Square Footage:
38,000
Student Enrollment:
610
Contact:
Mr. Donald Kiger, Manger of Business Services
Empire Union School District
(209) 521-2800
GEORGIA F. MORRIS ELEMENTARY, RIALTO, CA
Partner in Charge:
Larry Wolff, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Larry Wolff, Jackie Karsevar, Ed Hall
Estimated Cost:
$4,200,000
Completion Date:
September, 1989 - Estimated
Square Footage:
42,500
Student Enrollment:
720
Contact:
Dr. David Andrews, Superintendent
Rialto Unified School District (Previous)
(714) 820-7707
Tustin Unified School District (Current)
(714) 730-7305
Mr. Kent Van Gelder, Facility Planner
(714) 820-7707
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 61
1-0166.prp
HEMLOCK ELEMENTARY, PROTOTYPE NO. 1
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Ron Kuehl, Dave Forman
Estimated Cost:
$4,400,000
Completion Date:
June, 1990
Square Footage:
44,000
Student Enrollment:
700
Contact:
Mr. Carl Coleman, Director Planning and Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
Mr. Don Burnich, Director
Elementary Education
(714) 357-5060
HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY
Partner in Charge:
Robert Hensley, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Darrell Nilles
Estimated Cost:
$5,000,000
Completion Date:
September, 1990
Square Footage:
36,000
Student Enrollment:
600
Contact:
Donald Stark, Assistant Superintendent,
Business Services
Redlands Unified School District
(714) 793-2301
HOWARD CATTLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CHINO, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
Design Team: Robert M. Simons, Architect, Godwin Osifeso
Estimated Cost: $5,200,000
Completion Date: July, 1990
Square Footage: 53,000
Student Enrollment: 900
Contact: Mr. Dan Santo, Director of Planning/Facilities Development
Chino Unified School District
(714) 628-1201
Funding: State Allocation Board/Office of Local Assistance
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 62
1-0166.prp
JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY, RECONSTRUCTION OF THREE CLASSROOMS
Partner in Charge:
Design Team:
Project Cost:
Completion Date:
Square Footage
Student Enrollment:
Contact:
George M. Wiens, Architect AIA
Chin Lim
$361,000.00
November, 1988
David Ferree, Facilities Manager
Riverside Unified School District
(714) 788-7147
LOCUST PORTABLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FONTANA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Tony Palmisano
Estimated Cost:
$2,398,000
Completion Date:
September, 1987
Square Footage:
33,600
Student Enrollment:
750
Contact:
Mr. Carl Coleman, Director Planning and Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
LOMA LINDA ELEMENTARY
Partner in Charge: Robert J. Hensley, Architect AIA
Design Team: Bill Louie, Project Manager; Chin Lim, Design Team
Estimated Cost: $5,010,258
Completion Date: June, 1991
Square Footage: 46,027
Student Enrollment:
Contact: Teri Shira, Facility Planner
Redlands Unified School District
(714) 793-2301
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 63
1-0166.prp
LOS AMIGOS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - ADDITION
CUCAMONGA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Partner in Charge:
Design Team:
Estimated Cost:
Completion Date:
Square Footage:
Student Enrollment:
Contact:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
John Kristedja
$3,000,000
September, 1992
25,000
Dr. John Costello, Superintendent
Cucamonga School District
(714) 987-8942
MT. BALDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MT. BALDY, CA
Partner in Charge:
Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Larry Wolff, Architect, AIA
Estimated Cost:
$288,000
Construction Cost:
$279,000
Completion Date:
August, 1978
Square Footage:
3,600
Student Enrollment:
100
Contact:
Thelma Edmundson, Superintendent (Current)
Mt. Baldy School District
(714) 985-0991
Madison Lowe, Superintendent (Previous)
(714) 985-3629
MANGO ELEMENTARY, PROTOTYPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FONTANA, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team: Gaylaird Christopher, Ron Kuehl, Dave Forman
Estimated Cost: $6,200,000
Construction Cost: $4,470,000
Completion Date: June, 1990
Square Footage: 44,700
Student Enrollment: 730
Contact: Mr. Carl Coleman, Director of Planning and Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page ' t
1-0166.prp
MARTIN LUTHER KING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, EL CENTRO, CA
Partner in Charge: Dale Lang, Architect, AIA
Design Team: James DiCamillo, Architect, AIA
Estimated Cost: $3,800,000
Completion Date: September, 1989
Square Footage: 35,000
Student Enrollment: 600
Contact: Dr. Joseph Vogel
Assistant Superintendent Support Services
El Centro School District
(619) 352-5712
Funding: State Allocation Board/Office of Local Assistance
MINT CANYON ELEMENTARY ADDITION, NEWHALL, CA
Partner in Charge:
Design Team:
Estimated Cost:
Completion Date:
Square Footage:
Student Enrollment:
Contact:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Sarvine Ashkan; Glenn Ueda
$250,000.00
August, 1990
8,000
550
Dr. Robert Nolet, Superintendent
Sulphur Springs School District
(805) 252-5131
OAK PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FONTANA, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
Design Team: Kip Grubb, Designer
Estimated Cost: $4,500,000
Completion Date: September, 1988
Square Footage: 33,300
Student Enrollment: 600
Contact: Mr. Carl Coleman, Director Planning/Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 65
1-0166.prp
ONTARIO CENTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ONTARIO, CA
Partner in Charge:
Design Team:
Estimated Cost:
Completion Date:
Square Footage:
Student Enrollment:
Contact:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
John Kristedja
$5,000,000
September, 1989
42,000
600
Dr. John Costello, Superintendent
Cucamonga School District
(714) 987-8941
PEPPER TREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, UPLAND, CA
Partner in Charge: Larry Wolff, Architect AIA
Design Team: Larry Wolff, Architect AIA, Max Medina,
Marco Alvarez, AIA
Estimated Cost: $4,240,000
Completion Date: 1990
Square Footage: 43,000
Student Enrollment: 720
Contact: Dr. Loren Sanchez, Superintendent
Dennis Welsh, Assistant Superintendent of Business
Upland Unified School District
(714) 985-1864
PINETREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CANYON COUNTRY, CA
Partner in Charge:
Design Team:
Estimated Cost:
Completion Date:
Square Footage:
Student Enrollment:
Contact:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Glenn Ueda, Designer
$4,500,000
November, 1988
37,750
550
Dr. Robert Nolet, Superintendent
Sulphur Springs School District
(805) 252-5131
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 66
1-0166.prp
SHADOW HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FONTANA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Kip Grubb, Designer
Estimated Cost:
$4,000,000
Completion Date:
September, 1988
Square Footage:
31,273
Student Enrollment:
600
Contact:
Mr. Carl Coleman, Director Planning and Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
SIPHERD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION
Partner in Charge:
Robert J. Hensley, AIA
Design Team:
Robert Hensley, Paul Bonaccorsi, Mark Graham
Construction Cost:
$772,000
Completion Date:
December 2, 1988
Square Footage:
5,363
Student Enrollment:
700
Contact:
Mr. Donald Kiger, Manager of Business Services
Empire Union School District
(209) 521-2800
TAFT ELEMENTARY
Partner in Charge:
George Wiens, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Bill Louie, Jeff Ehrnman
Estimated Cost:
$3,990,000
Completion Date:
September, 1989
Square Footage:
43,000
Student Enrollment:
750
Contact:
Dr. Paul Andersen, Facilities Planning Coordinator
Riverside Unified School District
(714) 788-7496
TE VELDE ELEMENTARY, CHINO, CA
Partner in Charge:
James P. DiCamillo, Architect AIA
Design Team:
To be determined
Estimated Cost:
$5,200,000
Completion Date:
September, 1994
Square Footage:
53,000
Student Enrollment:
900
Contact:
Mr. Dan Santo, Director of Planning/Facilities Development
Chino Unified School District
(714) 628-1201
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 6"
1-0166.prp
TERRA VISTA ELEMENTARY NO
Partner in Charge:
Design Team:
Estimated Cost:
Completion Date:
Square Footage:
Student Enrollment
Contact:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect AIA
Gaylaird Christopher
$4,500,000
September, 1991
45,000
720
Mr. Bob Dalton, Principal
Dona Merced Elementary School
(714) 980-1600
TOKAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PHASE II, FONTANA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Dale Lang, Architect, AIA
Design Team:
Clif Juell
Project Cost:
$1,500,000
Completion Date:
January, 1986
Square Footage:
15,000
Student Enrollment:
300
Contact:
Mr. Emmanuel D'Souza, Business Manager
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5115
Mr. Carl Coleman, Director Planning and Research
(714) 357-5035
TOKAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FONTANA, CA
Partner in Charge: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Design Team: Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA; Robert Hensley, Architect
Estimated Cost: $1,150,000
Project Cost: $1,000,000
Completion Date: 1985
Square Footage: 12,000
Student Enrollment: 300
Contact: Mr. Carl Coleman, Director of Planning and Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page ?,K
1-0166.ptp
TOKAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PHASE III, FONTANA, CA
Partner in Charge:
Robert Hensley, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Robert Hensley, Architect
Estimated Cost:
$1,250,000
Completion Date:
April, 1987
Square Footage:
12,000
Student Enrollment:
180
Contact:
Mr. Carl Coleman, Director of Planning and Research
Fontana Unified School District
(714) 357-5035
VALLEY VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION, SAUGUS, CA
Partner in Charge:
Design Team:
Estimated Cost:
Completion Date:
Square Footage:
Student Enrollment:
Contact:
Gaylaird Christopher, Architect, AIA
Sarvine Ashkan; Glenn Ueda
$2,500,000.00
November, 1991
32,150
650
Dr. Robert Nolet, Superintendent
Sulphur Springs School District
(805) 252-5131
VICTORIA ELEMENTARY, OFFICE ALTERATIONS AT
Partner in Charge: George M. Wiens, Architect AIA
Design Team: Chin Lim
Project Cost: $114,000
Completion Date: November, 1988
Square Footage:
Contact: David Ferree, Facilities Manager
Riverside Unified School District
(714) 788-7496
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Paoe
1-0166.prp
WILLOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA
Partner in Charge:
Robert Hensley, Architect AIA
Design Team:
Bill Louie, Designer
Estimated Cost:
$3,800,000
Completion Date:
September, 1988
Square Footage:
37,000
Student Enrollment:
600
Contact:
Dr. Albert Marley, Superintendent
Las Virgenes Unified School District
(818) 889-4000
Dr. Don Zimring, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
(818) 889-4000
Awards: Honorable Mention for Design - 1989
Society of American Registered Architects
Heritage Park Community/Child Care Center Page 70
1-0166.prp
r y
Henry Woo ArchiJljli_`' ociates
City Council
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: Heritage Park Community Building
Honorable City Council Members:
November 16, 1991
My firm received the notice from the City regarding the subject project has been decided
to be awarded to a firm in Rancho Cucamonga, Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects which
is a firm could have been qualified just by their sheer size of close to 100 people staff and
their historical existence.
But as a small local firm, if we are not given an opportunity to work on a relatively small
design project such as this one, then I wonder what kind of project will we be allowed to do
at all, if any, for the City from now on?
I urge your reconsideration of this decision because for the following reasons:
1. 1 have the required experience (Park structures and/or Community Centers)
and the know-how to design this kind of facilities;
2. 1 have excellent references from many municipal governments that we have
done work for during the last five years in the Southern California.
3. The diverse public project experience I possess is extremely comparable to
a much larger firm. Because I have tried hard to achieved a formidable
capability while being a smaller firm for endurance.
4. 1 have lived in this community, educated in this community, and saw it's grow
over the past 1 1/2 decade. As a result, I have an in-depth understanding of
the City as well as its surrounding communities;
5. 1 am very supportive (both in time and/or money) of the local activities even
though my office has not worked on any project for the City of Diamond Bar;
this is evident by the various recognitions I received from the Communities;
6. 1 am also a certified disadvantaged/minority owned business. Under State
Assembly Bill 1933, government sectors are encouraged to give disadvantage
minority firms an equal chance.
I must say that to seriously consider a firm like mine is not only sending a extremely positive
message to the local public, but is very good business for the City because you would be
helping the local business to help the City in the future.
20505 East Valley Boulevard Suite 106 • Post Office Box 676 Walnut, CA 91789 • (714) 594-8193
Henry Woo Architect & Associates
Heritage Park Community Building
City of Diamond Bar
November 16, 1991
Therefore, I would like your consideration to postpone the award of this project and further
evaluate my firm's viability.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Henry H. Woo, AIA
Architect
cc: Mr. Robert Van Nort - City Manager
d 1 , i - k
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BFR
OCTOBER 29, 1991
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Forbing called the meeting to order
at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers, W.V.U.S.D., 880 S. Lemon
Avenue, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by City Attorney Andrew V. Arczynski.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Forbing, Mayor Pro _'em Kim,
Councilmen Papen, Nardella. C/Werner arrived at 7:26 p.m.
2. COUNCIL COMMENTS: None offered.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr.,
requested that discussion of term limitations for City
Councilmembers again be held due to the California Supreme
Court's ruling that Proposition 140 is legal.
Gary Neely requested that Item 4.5 of the Consent Calendar,
Cooperative Agreement for the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan, be
withdrawn for discussion.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: At the request of CM/Van Nort,
CC/Burgess reported that several staff members would be
present during the ballot counting at the County and that
periodically, results would be telephoned to Jones Intercable
for airing that evening.
MPT/Kim moved, C/Nardella seconded, to approve the Consent
Calendar with the exclusion of Item 4.5 regarding the
Cooperative Agreement - Tres Hermanos Specific Plan. With the
following Roll Call vote, the motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Nardella, Papen, MPT/Kim, M/Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - C/Werner
4.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
4.1.1 ELECTION DAY - NOVEMBER 5, 1991 - Polls open
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. - REMEMBER TO VOTE!
4.1.2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - November 5, 1991 - 6:00
p.m., AQMD Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
4.1.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - November
14, 1991 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Board Room, 21865
E. Copley Dr.
4.1.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - November 14,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley
Dr., Ste. 100
4.1.5 PLANNING COMMISSION - November 25, 1991 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
4.2 BOND EXONERATIONS -
4.2.1 TRACT NO. 14819 - Exonerated grading bond for
800 S. Grand Ave. in the amount of $11,593
OCTOBER 29, 1991 PAGE 2
held by L.A. County for Tract No. 14819 and
directed the City Clerk to notify the County.
4.2.2 TRACT NOS. 31151 & 30091 - Approved and
accepted work completed, exonerated the
following Surety Bonds posted for grading:
(a) Tract No. 31151, 2151 Diamond Bar Blvd., S
& L Certificate No. 102054384, $20,529; (b)
Tract No. 30091, 23317 E. Ridgeline Rd., S & L
Certificate No. 3501506, $2,337 and (c) Tract
No. 30091, 22443 Ridgeline Rd., S & L
Certificate No. 047-1144659, $1,785 and
instructed City Clerk to notify the
principals.
4.3 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - Accepted work performed by Keith
Vint & Associates for playground equipment at Sycamore
Canyon and Heritage Parks and authorized the City Clerk
to file Notice of Completion.
4.4 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Denied Claim for Damages filed by
Jackie Santos on September 25, 1991.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.5 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - TRES HERMANOS SPECIFIC PLAN -
CM/Van Nort stated that the City and the Industry Urban
Development Agency reached an agreement on how to develop
a conceptual specific plan for the 800 -acre Tres Hermanos
Ranch property. The Industry Urban Development Agency is
the owner of the property and the City of Diamond Bar
would be responsible for land use decisions. He
estimated that the preliminary plan would be complete
within the next 4 to 6 months to provide the Pomona
Unified School District better options for a school site.
The School District cooperated in the agreement and
offered to supply an aerial photo of the property. He
recommended approval of the Cooperative Agreement with
the City of Industry Urban Development Agency for the
Tres Hermanos Ranch Conceptual Specific Plan.
Gary Neely gave a brief history regarding the high school
project and stated that the School District made a formal
offer to purchase a specific site for a north Diamond Bar
high school. The response by the City of Industry
indicated that they would arrange for an appraisal of the
site. Mr. Neely further stated that if the City enters
into an agreement with the City of Industry, it may cause
the purchase of the site and construction of a school to
be delayed by up to two years.
Lavinia Rowland, 23945 Highland Valley Rd., asked for
clarification of a statement made by CM/Van Nort that the
conceptual plan would be incorporated into the City's
General Plan. She pointed out that the agreement with
OCTOBER 29, 1991 PAGE 3
the firm providing the study says that "Phase One is not
a proposal to write, present or adopt as an element in
the General Plan." She expressed concern that the
agreement appeared to contradict staff's interpretation
of its provisions.
CM/Van Nort stated that the contractor will conduct the
study in two phases. Since the Industry Urban
Development Agency is the landowner, the firm would
perform certain economic analyses for use by the City of
Industry only upon which Industry will base their
economic decisions. The Conceptual Plan itself will be
a public document which will be open to public comment.
Jim Paul, 1269 Ahtena Dr., spoke in support of
construction of a high school in this area and expressed
concern regarding the reservoir.
CM/Van Nort responded to Mr. Paul's comments by stating
that the reservoir would be for reclaimed water only.
C/Papen asked for a response by the School District
regarding approval of the agreement and whether the
District agrees that the agreement would delay
construction of a school for two years.
CM/Van Nort, CDD/DeStefano and CA/Arczynski commented on
how the conceptual plan would be developed.
Iry Moskowitz, Superintendent of the Pomona Unified
School District, stated that one of the District's main
priorities is a high school in north Diamond Bar. An
offer representing the highest appraisal received by the
District was made to the City of Industry and a response
from them was pending. He indicated that he could not
address the issue of whether the agreement would delay
construction of the school as he had not seen the
document.
C/Papen questioned whether the School District would have
the funds to construct the necessary infrastructure.
Mr. Moskowitz stated that there are a number of ways to
look at construction of the infrastructure which was a
matter of current discussion with the District's
architects and attorneys. He further stated that the
District considers infrastructure construction as a joint
effort between both cities and the District.
Following discussion, MPT/Kim moved, M/Forbing seconded
to support the cooperative agreement with the City of
Industry.
C/Nardella requested staff to determine the time frame
for preparation of the report from the consultant. The
OCTOBER 29, 1991 PAGE 4
report should then be provided to the School District's
attorneys to obtain an opinion as to whether the plan
would impede the District's progress. He further
suggested that the matter be continued to November 5th.
Following further discussion, MPT/Kim withdrew his motion
and supported C/Nardella's suggestion.
C/Nardella then moved to continue the matter to the
November 5th meeting; submit the document to the School
District for review and comment as to the impact it may
have on their plans and determine the time frame for
preparation of the report by the consultant in order to
establish a priority for the high school. With consensus
of Council, the motion carried.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.
5.1 PROCLAIMED - November, 1991 "Selective Service System
Awareness Month." C/Papen requested that staff install
American flags around the City in honor of Veteran's Day.
5.2 CITY TILE/ PROCLAMATION - MPT/Kim presented a City Tile
and Proclamation to a representative of the International
Daily News in commemoration of its Tenth Anniversary on
November 2, 1991.
5.3 CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION - Certificates of Recognition
were presented to Superintendent Iry Moskowitz; Principal
Tom Mangham, Golden Springs Elementary School and Linda
Magee, Golden Springs Elementary PTA President, for
selection of the school as a "Blue Ribbon School" and
their invitation to participate in the National School
Recognition Program.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
6.1 ORDINANCE NO. 24B(1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
24(1989) AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, CONCERNING THE TERMS OF
OFFICE OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONERS - First
Reading held October 15, 1991.
(See action under item 6.3 below)
6.2 ORDINANCE NO. 25C(1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
25(1989) AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, CONCERNING THE TERMS OF
OFFICE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS - First Reading held
October 15, 1991.
(See action under item 6.3 below)
OCTOBER 29, 1991 PAGE 5
6.3 ORDINANCE NO. 28B(1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
28(1989) AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, PERTAINING TO TERMS OF
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONERS -
First Reading held October 15, 1991.
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., asked Council to
reconsider compensating Commissioners for attendance at
meetings.
MPT/Kim moved, C/Nardella seconded to adopt Ordinances
No. 24B (1989), No. 25C(1989) and 28B(1989). With the
following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Papen, Nardella, MPT/Kim, M/
Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - Werner
6.4 ORDINANCE NO. 4A(1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RELATIVE TO THE
LOCATION OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Frank Dursa requested the Council to again consider
changing meeting times to 7:00 p.m. for better public
participation.
C/Papen moved, MPT/Kim seconded to approve first reading
by title only and waive full reading of Ordinance No.
4A(1989).
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Nardella, Papen, MPT/Kim, M/
Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - Werner
RECESS: M/Forbing recessed the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Forbing reconvened the meeting at 7:26 p.m.
8. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
8.1 SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT - Asst. to
CM/Butzlaff stated that the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element is a planning document for an
integrated waste management strategy to bring the City in
compliance with State waste diversion goals. The Element
is comprised of a solid waste generation analysis as well
as several action components. He recommended that the
City take a "wait and see" attitude as to changes to
AB939; open the Public Hearing and continue the Hearing
to November 19, 1991 to give the SRRE Technical
Subcommittee an opportunity analyze the component
OCTOBER 29, 1991 PAGE 7
With no further testimony offered, M/Forbing continued
the Public Hearing to November 19, 1991 in order for
further review by the Subcommittee.
Asst. to CM/Butzlaff stated that written comments had
been received from Mr. Bill George representing the
County Sanitation District and Mr. Massey. He further
stated that the City is awaiting comments from the State
and the County regarding the preliminary draft.
C/Papen expressed concern that the section on funding was
inadequate and requested revision including discussion on
funding sources.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,
M/Forbing adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
OCTOBER 29, 1991
PAGE 6
alternatives and programs.
M/Forbing read a draft letter addressed to Assemblyman
Byron Scher expressing the City's desire to obtain an
equitable and cost-effective approach to local
implementation.
M/Forbing opened the Public Hearing.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., stated that the State
should direct cities on how to comply with the
legislation.
Don Gravdahl read a letter sent to his trash hauler
expressing dissatisfaction with their programs and stated
that he was in favor of households being charged for the
amounts disposed of.
Joe Massey, recycler and participant in drafting of
AB939, explained that he was invited to speak on this
matter by the SRRE Technical Sub -Committee. He gave a
brief overview of AB939 and stated that although the
target is 25% and 50%, the mandate is to maximize, to the
extent possible, reduction of material being deposited
into landfills.
In response to CM/Van Nort's question regarding the City
of Rosemead's Ordinance prohibiting rummaging through
others' trash for recyclables, Mr. Massey stated that it
is commonly referred to as an anti-scavaging Ordinance.
It is most often applied in urban areas such as Santa Ana
and Garden Grove due to the number of persons making a
living from such scavaging. He explained that the most
difficult part of such an Ordinance is enforcement and
whether it benefits a city to enforce.
C/Papen stated that, from Mr. Massey's comments, two
points appear to need clarification in the SRRE: 1)
whether persons may use recyclables as they wish and 2)
whether trash and recyclables disposed of by individuals
in another manner would belong to the hauler receiving
the materials. In regard to composting, she was under
the impression that staff had been instructed to purchase
only recycled compost materials or composting materials
purchased from recycling facilities and requested
verification of these purchases.
Stan Kaye, resident and owner of a recycling center in
Rowland Heights, offered his services in preparing the
draft SRRE.
Jessica Sheedy, 2326 Sunbright, stated that a recycling
program was recently instituted by Cal State Fullerton
and expressed the opinion that eduction is the starting
point to encourage individuals to recycle.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DRAFI�
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NOVEMBER 5, 1991
CLOSED SESSION 5:00 P.M.
Litigation, Government Code Section 54956.9 and Personnel,
Section 54957.6 - No reportable action taken.
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Forbing called the meeting to
order at 6:06 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, AQMD Board Room, 21865 E.
Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
Zrep 4fW61914 1y$D)Zyq-1M
The audience was led in the Pledge
of Allegiance by M/Forbing.
Mayor Forbing, Mayor Pro Tem Kim,
Councilmen Papen, Nardella and
Werner.
Also present were Robert L. Van
Nort, City Manager; Terrence L.
Belanger, Assistant City Manager;
Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney;
James DeStefano, Director of
Community Development; Sid Mousavi,
Public Works Director/City Engineer
and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
No comments offered.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs
Dr., requested the Council to poll all Commissioners to
determine whether they still wish to be paid for attendance at
meetings.
Mike Radlovic, representing Shepherd Machinery Co. in
Industry, spoke regarding a site for the East Valley Medical
Center. He requested Council support of construction of the
Medical Center in Industry and indicated that the Cities of E1
Monte and Rosemead have endorsed this site. He further stated
that the County plans to select the location within the next
month.
Tom Mokate, 505 Navajo Springs, reported on access, egress and
parking problems for voters at Diamond Point School and
requested the City's assistance in selecting a more adequate
polling location in the future. Mr. Mokate further stated
that he and his neighbors were very upset about the traffic
problems in the City and asked for better traffic management.
Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., asked Council to consider
changing meeting times from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.
Dr. James Lentz, District Manager for the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, welcomed the City to the new AQMD
facility and presented Council with AQMD pins.
November 5, 1991 PAGE 2
Jim Paul, 1269 Ahtena Dr., stated that he had received a
number of calls from people who had not received sample
ballots and/or expressed concern over changes in customary
polling locations. He further stated that according to the
Deputy Voter Registrar, Area A is still considered Walnut for
mailing purposes and asked the Council and the City Clerk to
notify the Registrar of Voters that voters with Zip Code 91789
within the City limits should receive mail addressed to
Diamond Bar, not Walnut.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: CM/Van Nort announced that future
meetings of most of the Commissions would be held in the AQMD
Hearing Room and stated that the Planning Commission would not
meet on Monday, November 11, 1991 due to the Veterans' Day
holiday.
C/Werner moved, C/Papen seconded, to approve the Consent
Calendar. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Nardella, Papen, MPT/Kim,
M/Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
4.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS:
4.1.1
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - November 7,
1991 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E.
Copley
4.1.2
HOLIDAY - VETERAN'S DAY - November 11, 1991 -
City Offices will be closed.
4.1.3
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - November
14, 1991 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865
E. Copley
4.1.4
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - November 14,
1991 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley,
#100
4.1.5
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - November 19, 1991 -
6:00 p.m., AQMD Board Room, 21865 E. Copley
4.1.6
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - November 21,
1991 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
4.1.7
PLANNING COMMISSION - November 25, 1991 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of October 5, 1991
- Approved as submitted.
4.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated
November 5, 1991 in the amount of $671,843.67.
4.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of September, 1991 - Received
and filed.
November 5, 1991 PAGE 3
4.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of September 12, 1991 - Received and filed.
4.6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4.6.1
Regular
Meeting of
September 9, 1991 -
Received
and filed.
4.6.2
Regular
Meeting of September 23, 1991 -
Received
and filed.
4.7 PARKS
& RECREATION
COMMISSION
MINUTES -
4.7.1
Regular
Meeting of
August 22, 1991 -
Received
and filed.
4.7.2
Regular
Meeting of
September 26, 1991 -
Received
and filed.
4.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SUPPORTING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE OFFICE IN THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY.
4.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR IN THE MATTER OF
AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A STATEWIDE PURCHASING
PROGRAM.
4.10 APPROVED MEMBERSHIP '+- Cities of Laguna Hills and Lake
Forest in the Southern California Joint Powers Insurance
Authority and authorized Mayor to execute the consent
forms on behalf of the City as the City's delegate to the
Authority.
4.11 ACCEPTED WORK PERFORMED BY NOBEST, INC. - Sidewalk con-
struction on Brea Canyon Road and SR 60 and authorized
the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of Completion.
5. OLD BUSINESS:
5.1 ORDINANCE NO. 4A(1989) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RELATIVE TO THE LOCATION OF
REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR - First reading October 29, 1991.
C/Werner moved, MPT/Kim seconded to adopt Ordinance No.
4A(1989). With the following Roll Call vote, the motion
carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Nardella, Papen, Werner, MPT/Kim,
M/Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
5.2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - TRES HERMANOS SPECIFIC PLAN -
CDD/DeStefano reported that the Council reviewed an
updated Cooperative Agreement for the preparation of the
Tres Hermanos Specific Plan on October 29, 1991 and
November 5, 1991 PAGE 4
continued the matter to this date. This is an 800 -acre
site located within Diamond Bar City Limits yet owned by
the City of Industry's Redevelopment Agency. In order to
facilitate the development of a new north Diamond Bar
high school within the Pomona Unified School District and
plan for future development of ranch property, an
agreement was proposed between the Cities of Diamond Bar
and Industry. The agreement outlined a conceptual
specific plan to authorize expenditure of up to $75,000
each for plan preparation and was approved by Industry's
Redevelopment Agency on October 22, 1991. Concerns were
raised at the Council meeting of October 29th regarding
impacts of approval of the agreement and their effect on
negotiations between Industry and the Pomona School
District. He further stated that corrections had been
made to the proposal prepared by the consultants which
include provision for an initial scoping session or
public workshop conducted by either staff or the
consultants for gathering input regarding land uses
expressed by various interest groups. The session may
include the City of Chino Hills or San Bernardino County,
the Metropolitan Water District, members of the public,
the Pomona Unified School District and the City of
Industry. A Conceptual Analysis of the property's
potential with emphasis on the school site would be
complete within six weeks of the Notice to Proceed to the
consultants and the scoping session would take place
approximately four weeks after the Notice. The proposal
was further corrected to eliminate conflicting statements
regarding the public participation process. He indicated
that the process would include a scoping session early in
the process, a public workshop on three alternatives
prepared by the consultant in approximately the 14th week
of a 16 -week process with additional scoping sessions
and/or public workshops as necessary. Following approval
of the agreement with the City of Industry, a specific
contract would then be entered into with the consultant
to begin the study. In addition, the consultant's fees
were reduced to approximately $137,000 which does not
include costs associated with two areas: necessary
topography to be provided by the District, and traffic
engineering studies to be provide by either the District
or by a separate contract with the same engineer
currently working with the District. Costs for these
would be divided between Industry and Diamond Bar.
CA/Arczynski stated that based on concerns voiced at the
last meeting that approval of this agreement would impede
the process that the Pomona School District is embarking
upon to establish a high school, the City received
correspondence from the District Superintendent. He
indicated that he discussed the matter with attorneys for
the District who stated that the District believed the
process proposed by Diamond Bar and Industry is appro-
priate and that the process should facilitate the
November 5, 1991 PAGE 5
District's goals in locating and constructing a high
school.
In response to C/Papen's inquiry, CDD/DeStefano stated
that the timeline for preparation of the conceptual
specific plan was approximately four months with the
first six weeks dedicated to simulation of data,
incorporation of the initial scoping session and conduct
of a conceptual analysis.
In response to C/Nardella's question, CDD/DeStefano
indicated that the scoping session would be held to
gather information from all interest groups which would
then be assembled and provided to the consultant.
C/Nardella stated that he had spoken with Superintendent
Moskowitz who indicated that he was quite comfortable
with the City's actions.
CDD/DeStefano responded to a question by C/Werner by
stating that meetings had not been anticipated with any
City commission although inclusion of commission review
could be incorporated if necessary. He then outlined the
phases of the project.
Sue Sisk, 1087 Flintlock Rd., representing the Diamond
Ranch Booster Club, asked whether the site being
considered by the City and the site under consideration
by the School District are the same.
CA/Arczynski stated that in the District's selection
process, a general area for construction of a school has
been identified.
Julie Murray, 5 Los Coyotes Dr., representing Diamond
Ranch Booster Club, asked what would happen if there was
a disagreement by the Pomona School District and the City
as to the school site.
M/Forbing stated that the school site can only be
approved by the State of California.
Gary Neely asked Council to support the School District's
site for a school in north Diamond Bar.
C/Nardella moved, C/Werner seconded, to approve the
cooperative agreement for preparation of the Tres
Hermanos Specific Plan with instruction to the consultant
that the site proposed by the School District be
approved. With the following Roll Call vote, motion
carried:
November 5, 1991 PAGE 6
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Papen, Werner, Nardella, MPT/Kim,
M/Forbing
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
Al Rumpilla stated that he felt the City was heading in
the right direction in assisting the District. In
addition, he requested that the record include the
comment that every time Mr. Neely approaches the podium,
Councilwoman Papen "cuts him off at the knees" and felt
that she had been very rude.
M/Forbing stated that the Council has been working with
Senator Hill on legislation to enable the City of
Industry to donate the 50 acres to the Pomona School
District and requested everyone's support of the
legislation. In addition, he expressed dismay with Mr.
Rumpilla's criticism of C/Papen.
6. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Werner thanked the AQMD for
providing the use of their new facilities and meeting rooms.
C/Nardella stated that he was disappointed with some members
of the public who have not dealt with issues during the recent
campaign but who have made personal attacks on some
candidates.
C/Papen encouraged the public to work with the Council in
getting a high school in north Diamond Bar.
7. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct,
M/Forbing adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Pro Tem Rim and Councilmember Papen
FROM: Linda G. Magnusoii',�genior Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, November 19, 1991
DATE: November 14, 1991
Attached is the Voucher Register dated November 19, 1991. As
requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher
register for the Finance Committee's review and approval prior to
it's entry on the Consent Calender.
The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final
approval is received.
Please review and sign the attached.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The attached listing of vouchers
audited approved and recommended
allowed from the following funds
FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION
001
General Fund
112
Prop
A Fund
115
Int.
Waste Mgt Fund
138
LLAD
#38 Fund
139
LLAD
#39 Fund
141
LLAD
#41 Fund
250
Capital Improvement
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Linda G. MAg6huson
Senior Accountant
dated November 19, 1991 have been
for payment. Payments are hereby
in these amounts:
Project Fund
AMOUNT
$199,043.80
3,225.00
256.07
6,419.22
278.23
12,195.20
1,767.26
$223,184.78
Phyllis E. Papen
Councilmember
f,
Robert L. Van Nort Jay C. Kim
City Manager Mayor Pro Tem ! �,
+ +
ENDiR NAME
ACCOUNT PRO?.Tt-uD BATCH "r 7 E _`iTrt'%-'U ?44''e JE3CR I PTION,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AYAJCGrV Rafreshmer:.t SJc= RA
+001-499—(j25' C ci1��
Ai
uma C:GGI
{;01-3411 1 22111aA
American. Pub .ks Assoc Ar.A
+001-4510-2320 6 21119A of/1=ata
American Society Gf Civil AmerC.vil
+901-4510-2329 4 21:1'70
American. Storage LTD AmerStorao
{001-4090-2140 3 21119A
Ba`liess Stationers Bayliss
+901-4910-1200 2 211I9A 01/1255
Belanger, Terrance L. BeiangerT
001-4030-2330 2 21119A
+901-41130-2330 3 21119A
Best Lighting Products BestLtp
+901-4313-2210 1 21119A 91/1245
{091-4322-2219 1 21119A 921i1245
Bills Lock. 3 Safe Biil_.Lock
{001-4319-1200 12 21119A 93/1184
11'13
11.15
= _210
Mtc 3upoiies
T.,, --------;
��., L Lu VENDOR
.. 13
11 19
Reiund-Bldg Permit
-------
'DT AL -UE V E N D 0 R --------
11:43
1113
11119
P13994
Pg Contract Maint 58
'FAL DUE VENDOR ---------
11.113
11/19
pnnuai Membership Dues
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
111113
11/19
Storage Unit Rent -Dec.
TOTAL DUE 'VENDOR --------:>
11/13
11/19
116+4329
.God Grain Carafes
`OTAL DUE VENDOR --------
11/13
11119
Reimb-CGnf. 10/12-10115
11x13
11/19
Reimb.-Cont. 10/19-19/26
TOTAL DUE VENDOR. --------
11/13
11/19
LiN27
Ma.nt. at Heritage Park
11:13
11/19
L10283
Ma:nt. at Reagan park
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
11/13
11/19
361472
Keys,Trip Charge -Heritage
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
AMOUNT DATE ;ter
------------------------------
X1.29
51.24
36.25
36.25
179.00
179.04
153.00
153.99
466.99
466.99
695.90
255.36
950.36
346.86
376.26
722.92
283,71
283.71
nn
9xN`��������Z11'�°.��
��
�ZrE�
.............���`'��
1,2@UR ID.
ACCOUNT PR[C.T(-wO BATCH PO.LINE10.
_________________________________________________________________________
E4TRY/D.UE
IwYOI�E
pTIO*
AMOUNT DATE
8mm Pubiishiq,g [osanv
9a3kPuu
�4
11
11/19
4 5294
A Couq/ Cade 3co�
57.37
�Or�u DDE �END� -----/
S7.37
Brea. City o;
Bre��ty
0V,1-409�-2340
21119A )2/121!9
wo-uperfect 7 -ng
11113
11/l9
U8u9
Nov. Recreation Svcs
26,9201.0*
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
2/`523.00
CGA Deve}npment Inc.
7-,A
+250'4310-648 02492
2
21119A @/1207
11/13
11/19
10311
FeasihiUt/ Study Site A
66*.�4
*2S@+4310+6415 02492
4
21119A 01.'1207
1U!3
11/19
1@311
Feaslbilitv Site R
1.068.0�
1250-4310-6415 02492
6
21119A 01/1207
1l/13
11/19
10311
Reprouuction of Materiais
21.88
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -----
11741.86
Cali�mm/a �mtract
C�A
1001-4010-232
7
21119A
11/14
11/19
Committee Mtg-Werner 9/19
19.1i
TOTAL D�E VENDOR ----->
19.1L
r -Enter for the Study
of
[entmLow
W -WO -2324
3
21119A
1i'13
11/19
rzunsportatian Handbook
1S.90
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --'-->
8.N
Cowmunitv Industries
Cum IndusL
*001-4510-55�0
1
214119F
11/14
11/19
Litter Ahatewent-October
06.*0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
Cummunity Sweepmg
ComSweep
001-4BS_SS01
1
21119E
\1/i3
11/119
Street Sweep 10/D-11/2
14.316.10
`JTAL DUE VENDOR --'-->
14,316.10
Computerland of U. B.
Captrland
+W-030-6230
2
211119A 01/1249
11/13
11/13
Hewlett Printer
426.51
TOTAL DUE v[N UR ----->
426.51
DKG Associates
DkS
'001-4B1-5221
6
21119B
11/13
11/19
14060
Sunset Crssg Reatoinago
52.50
*001-4561-'-221
7
21119D
11/13
11/19
14274
Chevron Retainage
17,So
+W -4B1-5221
11
21119[
11/13
11/19
14351
Traffic Impact Study
146.95
*8@1-4551-5221
12
21119E
11/13
11/19
1052
Striping Plan -Bike Lane
950.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
1.166.9S
~^~
s��E �
VENDOR NAME
JEyDOR
ACCC0N T ,RO].T4-NO
___________________________________________________________________________
2ATCH ImE.��.
EN-- Ry
-uE
I*VOICE
:EK_RIPTICN
0]0vT Al
Data Extras
Dat.;E^tra
'l2;u
11 8
11
1239��
T^p�oder Stand
BS.22
rUTuL DUE VENDOR -----
95.22
DaV Timers
Dayrmers
^�01-42t�+110�
2 21 B 2S1
11/13
11/1v
,663379-01
F Ilpr Set
2*.28
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----->
20.26
Diamond Bao Inn
RamadaInn
001-421@-2325
2 211199
11L/13
11/19
1��
�m.Plan Mtg. S/1-S.115
� 2.Br
*001��
�-232
3 9B
ii/13
11/19
Mtg-Geo Plan 10/11
196.55
+01-421$-232c,
4 21119B
��/13
11/L9
Mtg-Ge Plan 10/25
2n.59
*1zS-4515-2825
1 21119B
11'13
11/19
Mtg Solid Waste 10/0
2E6.0/
TOT AL DUE VENDOR '---->
�8.65
Diamond Bar Stationers
DDStatzonr
+001'489* -1/200
1 211198
11/13
11/19
275B
LabelS-CClerk
�.80
*001-4030-1201
211198
11/13
1�/L9
27567
Supp11es-Cm8r Office
6.26
tH1-4310-I*
13 21119B
11/13
11/19
276.112
Poster Board -Parks
2.62
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------'}
14.66
Eastman I"c.
Eastman
`M -4210+120A
7 21119B
11/i3
11/19
8103614
Sunplies-Plng
61.67
*t@1 -4210-12e@
6 2z119B
11/13
11/19
8112642
Supplies -Planning
1.99
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----�
63'66
[ntenmano-Kovm Cu.
Entenmaon
+001-4$1@-2110
1 21119F
11/14
11/19
543�
Badge-Horcher
64.95
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----->
64.9S
Ex"nn
[xxcmS
*0�1-4310-2310
10 211198
11/13
L1/19
356SS6
Fuel -Parks
33.14
*001-4030+2310
5 211198
11/13
11/19
4256*116
Fuel-Cmgr
14.00
+001-4210-2310
5 21119B
11/13
11/19
42S6424
Fuel-Plng
10.99
*8@1-4310'2310
12 211198
11/13
141/19
565S484
Fuel -Parks
34.38
*801-4310-2310
9 L10B
11/13
11/19
6354261
Fuel -Parks
17.70
+001-4210-2310
4 211198
11/13
1\/.19
639+331
Fuel-Plog
20.00
^001-4030-2310
4 211198
11/13
11/19
639+703
Fuel-Cmgr
14.00
*001-409-239
2 21119B
11/13
11/19
63EIS*64
Fuel -Gen Govt
11.33
+0@1-431@-2310
U 211198
11/13
11/19
63S7853
Fuel -parks
29./*
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----->
185.26
^ ~
v --N rInE: 11:52 !1 l" p.1
JkE 7*v�.............����.n1
;BND'O NAME
�E;,0DR ID.
+ + PRBAIJ ^ ^
ACCOU N T
-------------'---------------------------------------------------------------
n»O_'.TY-N0 BATCH PJ.�I,�'�0.
EwrRY/DUE
I�0�CE
�E��IpT�%x
^M0N� :A-E
cleet Call
Flee�La��
6
1L'13
1u19
16o9B
worTwm Way Radio @rgs
136.P
TOT4u DLE VENDOR '---->
Frorex
Fromex
4 211198
11/13
11/19
5 5460 2
ATM
7.�5
*��1��10+l��
3 211i9B
u/13
141/19
554601?
Film
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
GTE
GTE
001-43,13-21252
2111nB
11/13
11/19
Oct-Phune Svcs(Heritaye/
5/.03
TOTAL DUE VB008 —'--->
57.03
GTE California
STEL
+001-4090-2125
1 2111o8
11/13
11/19
O.t-Empr Prep Phone
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----->
36.79
Grothe` Jack
Grothe]
+801'4211@+4108
3 2111190
11/13
11/l9
Comm Mtgs 1@/14-10/28
12@.00
TOTAL DOE VENDOR ---->
120.00
Harmuny, Clair
HarmonyC
+001-4210+410@
2 21119D
11/13
11/19
rose M'gs 10/14-10/28
129.80
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
12@.04
xinderliter De
Llamas Hinuerlitr
"K-14090-401@
1 21119F
11/14
U/19
1007Contract
Svcs -3rd Quarter
qqo.8@
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----
9*0.00
TCM A Retirement
Trust -4S7 !CMA
f;,01-2110-1007
1 211198
�1/13
11/19
Def. Comp PP21`22
380.0
*0*1-4030-91090
1 21119B
11/13
11/19
Def. Comp PP21122
945.12
+ft1-4040-�09@
1 2llGD
11/13
11/19
Def Comp PP 21.22
339.40
*081-4050+*090
1 211198
1l/13
11/19
Def. Comp PP 21.22
460.41
0@1-42iO-0090
1 211,19B
11/13
11119
Def Comp PP 21,22
517,24
W\-4310-009
1 21119B
11/13
11/19
Def Comp PP 21'22
5?3.57
fW-4li0-0090
1 211198
11/13
11/19
Def Comp PP 21,22
1,287.48
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 72.15
Kleinfeider rleinfeldr
+001-4555-5221 4 21119E 01;1240 11/13 11,119 572131 GeoTech Engr Svices 11355.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- , 1,355.40
L.A.County Public Works LACPubWk
+001-2020
11 21119C
11%13
11/19
2025.82
DBar IW Services
2,025.82
+001-2420
414 7"E: 11:52 11:14._1
11/13
11/19
92000001316
_
h
+001-2020
-
11/13
11/19
92000001474
aJt
T:+Ru................
i''', w1
4 21119C
;ENDOR NAME
11/19
:ENDGR ID.
Road Services
11,969,24
+001-2020
S. 21114C
' D'EGN1Y * +
ACCOUNT 090J.T7-NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92000001476
BATCH PO.;INE/N0.
ENTRYIDUE
+001-2020
INVOICE
DES-<I?TION
AMOUNT DATE S:F
Integrated Media System
MediaS.stm
107.73
+001-2020
7 21119C
11/13
11/19
92000001478
Temp Parkway Maint.
.1.1G3 W._.
i.; 3
119
IQ3
Media Er,gr Svcs :tg 11/5
2.5o
Tree Trimming Svc
1,264.63
+001-2020
9 21119C
11/13
11119
-IT AL D,E VENDOR --------
227.1)
J a S Electric
+001-2020
1&bElect
11/13
11;19
92000001461
Prkwv 'leg/Herbed Control
10,077.65
+001-4313-4210
2
211196
11/13
11'19
44351
Lignt for Fiaid-Heritage
80.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
80.09
Jennings Engstran,d
JenningsEn
+001-420-4021
5
2111QF
11!14
11/19
124232
Legal Svcs -Oct. Prco Tax
3,031.48
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------:
3.031.46
Kens Hardware
evens
+001-4310-1200
14
21119C 2311182
11/13
11119
53287
Key5-%arks
5.36
+0@1-4310-1200
15
211190 24,''1182
14,'43
11;19
53217
Timer Switch
38.92
+004-4310-1200
15
211191 25.`1482
11113
111"19
53226
Electric Gard
21.10
+001-4310-1200
1'7
21119C 2611182
111,113
11/19
53445
Washers,Nuts,Bolts
6.77
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 72.15
Kleinfeider rleinfeldr
+001-4555-5221 4 21119E 01;1240 11/13 11,119 572131 GeoTech Engr Svices 11355.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- , 1,355.40
L.A.County Public Works LACPubWk
+001-2020
11 21119C
11%13
11/19
2025.82
DBar IW Services
2,025.82
+001-2420
2 21119C
11/13
11/19
92000001316
Blueprints -Reproductions
1,518.52
+001-2020
3 21119C
11/13
11/19
92000001474
Striping/Sign Marking
1,226.97
+001-2020
4 21119C
11/13
11/19
92000001475
Road Services
11,969,24
+001-2020
S. 21114C
11/13
11/19
92000001476
Sidewalk Repair
7,160.73
+001-2020
6 21119C
11,13
11/19
9200000141;
Sidewalk/DBar 6 Highland
107.73
+001-2020
7 21119C
11/13
11/19
92000001478
Temp Parkway Maint.
253.78
+001-2020
8 21117C
11/13
11/1'?
920000@1479
Tree Trimming Svc
1,264.63
+001-2020
9 21119C
11/13
11119
92000001480
Tree Watering
1,949.53
+001-2020
10 21119C
11/13
11;19
92000001461
Prkwv 'leg/Herbed Control
10,077.65
+001-2020
1 211190
11/13
11'19
M9200001221
June Trffc Signal Maint,
6,680.36
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 44,274.96
L.A.County Public Works LACPubWk
}112-4553-5529 1 21119E 11,•'13 11/19 51465 Paratransit contract 3,225.0+0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1 3,225.00
a Ti
,ENDCR NAME ENDCR ID, E 3 PR E. AI .
ACCOUNT PRO".T 1. -+NO BATCH P_,, INE1NO. ENTRY -`DUE INVOICE �nE CPIPTInN AMOUNT DATE CrE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_.A,County-Dtst.
+L,01-4020-421
2 21119C
11 13
11 19
Legal 5rces-3u?:
9.51
*001-4024-4021
3 21ii;S
11'i.1311/19
Legal 3:ces'Auglit
2.43
TOTAL DUE 'VENDOR --------;
62.03
LA Celiular-eieonene
LACellular
+001-4030-2125
2 21119C
11`13
11/19
Oct. Cellular Svc-Cmgr
53..1
*001-4440-2125
1 21119C
11/13
lli19
Cellular Svc -Einer Prep
63.45
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
125.56
LA County Agriculture
Com LACAgric
f139 -4539-55x0
3 21119C
111/13
11/19
290H
Pest Control Dist 439
278.23
*141-4541-5500
4 21119C
11,13
11/19
291H
Pest Control Dist 441
418.87
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
697.19
Landscape West
Land5capeW
*141-4541-5500
5 21119C
11/13
11119
096255
4aint. Dist 441
3,100.00
*141-4541-5509
3 21119C
11/13
11/19
00626b
Valve Replacement -441
199.05
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
3,299.05
Laseruuipt
LaserGuipt
+901-4090-6230
3 21119C 01/1260
11/13
11/19
10529
Laser Prntr Agreemnt
?19.04
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------:--
919.94
Leaque o: Ca. Cities
League
+001-4040-2330
1 211190
ii/13
11i19
CClk Election Seminar
170.00
TOTAL DUE 'VENDOR --------:
170.09
Levis Engraviro Inc.
LewisEngra
+001-4095-2110
2 21119C
11/13
11/19
Tile-SCAQMD Grand Opening
17.32
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---------
17.32
Mac Bride, Dexter
MacBrideD
}001-4210-4100
1 21119D
11/13
1i/19
Comm Mtgs 101114-10/28
120.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
120.00
Mariposa Horticultural
Mariposa
f001-4311-5300
2 21119C
11/13
11/19
2615
Oct. Maint Grow Park
995.00
1001-4313-5300
2 21119C
11/13
11/19
2615
Oct. Maint Heritage Park
563.00
+001-4316-5300
2 21119C
11113
11/19
2615
Oct. Maint Maple Hill
829.00
X001-4319-5300
3 21119C
11/13
11/19
2615
Oct. 'faint Petersen Park
1,244.00
1091-4322-5300
2 21119C
11/13
11/19
2615
Oct. Maint Reagan Park
995.00
*001-4325-5300
2 21119C
11/13
11/19
2615
Oct. Maint Starshine Park
415.+30
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i i4.9i
T 7 z
7,
..........
.. .
"EINDICR NAME
A,. COU NT L;r'.7X-Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
00--I: NC,
.N "R
UE
7 t] I CE
:1, 1 C', T
M0 u I T A
mar�onS3
70qTT NI!ED
-:t. ';-,.nt Summit Ridoe
9 2,
*a 1-433!-S3O
i 1114
I,,"'
2ti5
'ct. main* Scamore P -k
1,S28.99
2 IK
11.13
11j"9
261v I
:Ter Repair-Sousmit—dae
j
Raise Sulnilus
'-13
il iQ
cn18
Ruair main Freak -Peter -In
+ `11-4322-221�
2 'ILIK
ti'_3
3
-Prinkller Rep-air-R2agan
'9
I 1
2621
Fertilize Petersen nark
450
TAL DUE )ENI -CR --------
9,226.141
-lark I'd Charter
L
Marart
LK14C'h
010,1-4359-5319
1 2M,911
111119
Bus to Rose Parade
1,155-0-0
T -T
Lj.AL DUE VENDOR --------
1.1:5.'9
Markman Arlrzynsi+ i Hanson Mar k manArr
1 5
11'1'3
SvCc--'I0I'91
'68.5+
4 2111
11'—I
11/19
_pec 1eg,31 SVCS-DCt.
1 b4 S 4
TOTAL 'DUE vENDCR --------- I
A,IqO.eta
Mi-roaae
llcrcaoe
001-409vi-6231
S 2 1 1 , 1, C 12-19
11113
.1;19
04785
r,
Computer Equi2ient
481.12
-iOTAL E'UEE VENDOR --------- 1,
487.12
G.E.T :PUcineSS CorMq
:-'E TBUSIneS
W -1-499-I298
3 2 '1 119 Z- 91'125'
11,113
11;19
IMKT-,At
eay P3.0er
646.93
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
646.93
PC Ia0aZI-)E
11i13
111"I'0
Magazine Renewal.
11:9.97
1 IIAL DUE VENDOR ---------
IOT
23.31
PERS Health Beneilfs
PERj�'�ealrn
991-2110-1003
i 21"190
Medical Prems-Nov
6,914.54
21119D
11f,13
11/19
Admin Costs
35.0
T'JITHAL CUE VENDOR --------
6,W3.94
Pac Tel Paging
Pa[TolP.ag
+001-44111-2138
i 21111130
11/13
111"19
Nov. Beeper Cthrgs-Later
14.;)1
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i i4.9i
+~^
�Jvr�-E; ":i911��'v�
..............�����
"ENEC5 NAME
i 0G T,.
Ar�u T pR3J.rX-x0
-------------------------------------------------------
PATCH PJ.^�wE/�].
ENT8Y'��E
--------
��V0�[�
---------------------------------------
�E��RI»TI0m
AMO UINT
Payroi> Tra'��er
��/ro��r�
Rp23 Transfer
41.$0@.8O 1U19/9ja@��
T0AL PREPAID AMOUNT --,
4L'JAA.��
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -----
9.�
Pfenni:g. non
PfpnmnGR
+ 1-4e1@-1
S
21119D
4/13
11/19
9829
Name Plates -City Council
3S.31
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
13S.31
Pomona Valley
PommaVly
W1-401-5403
1
21119D
11/8
11/19
Nov. Animal Control Svcs
4.137.80
TUTAL DOE VENDOR ------
4.137M
P:blic Emml Retirement
PERS
001-2110-106
S
211190
11/13
11/19
Emnioyer Retirement PP23
3.11�1.107
00L-2110-1008
6
21119D
11/13
11/19
Employe Retirement pY23
2`/24.53
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
5.825.70
Rpnegar. Debra
133
+W-3478
12
21119E
11/\3
11/19
D9s
Refund-Clss Canceled
2S.0*
TOTAL DU[ VENDOR ---->
25.0*
Robert Dover Ins Co.
PobDxzve
,�01-2300-1�04
1
211198
1U13
1111:19
Oct -Spec Events insurance
+0*|-��0-239S
�
21119B
&,3
11/19
Admin Costs
0.3�
0T&L �E �ENDOR ---->
H.35
Sam Pe*erson I �'ssoclateq_
SamPetprs
+�01-45 S1 -S221
1A
21119U
:1/13
11/19
*20 7
2rof 5vcS-WVWD *8763269H
1si.�S
9
2111190
�1/13
1U19
�21j7S&
Proi Svc5'RN0 Property
352.45
+011+B1 -S221
8
21119D
:1/13
11/13
K_07S3
Prof Svcs-Juiy-Amgost
352.45
258-45-16'8+11
1
21119E
11/12
11/19
o"120968
Sonst Cross -map
25.318
TOTAL DUE VENDOR----'>
88\.33
San Gabriel «ly Tribune
9SNribune
^001-4040'2115
2
21119[
11/13
11/19
1y174
3ids'Mini Park Equipment
29.24
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----'> 1.409.08
+`+
�iN7l�E/���S�l1!��.p�
�§uCxEV
�����7��
� ^
U.............���,8
�ENDOR NAM
ACCOU T P*0J�-NO BATCH p3.^�x��'^0.
----------------------'-------'----------------------------------------------
E��Y/��
�wClC[
DE�CnIorI[w
�0�� D�� 7 H, EC
SeCuricnro lnt'l.Inc.
�rurcaru
+0'1 -4B3 -H31
2
21119E
L1,13
11/19 11328
Crossing 6aun Svcs -Oct
6,4/0.89
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------>
6`470.89
Security Pac Nati Bank
SesuritvPa
W1-010-2380
8
'.'1!I9F
11/14
11/19
Leagup Conf.-Paoen 1011.5
327,50
TOTAL DOE VENDOR ----->
327.S8
Seoudtv Pac Natl Bank
EEcur/t.�a
��
��010-�3
9
21119F
11/14
11/19
Mtg-Wernor 1&'17
38.D
*601-410-2330
18
2111vF
1l/14
11/19
League Comf-Ne ner 10/1S,
2S3.71
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -----
291.88
Security Pac Natl Bank
SemrityPa
+01-4010-2325
5
2111«F
i1/14
U/8
Mtg-Mayor Forbiog
24.H
*001-401@-2325
6
21119F
11/14
11/19
SHE Review -Mayor Fmrbiog
26.66
+001-4010-2330
11
21119F
11/14
11/19
League Conf-Mayor Fcnbioy
448.YS
*001-4*10-2330
142
21119F
11/14
11/19
Conf-Rnbing 1*/17-10/19
630.44
+001-4030-2325
2
21119F
11/14
11/19
Coxmtr Train Mtg-Cmgr
64.30
*001-4030-2012S
3
21119F
11/14
11/19
WVUBD Mtg-Cmgr
97.88
WI -4030-2325
4
21.119F
11/14
11/19
Mtg Cwgr/City Council
3S.48
»001-4030-2325
5
211l9F
11/14
1!/19
Board of Eqoabtn-Cm0r
69.66
O01-4030'2325
6
21119F
111/14
11/19
Mtg. C?Igz/Chamher
43.55
*001-4030+2330
4
211z9F
11/14
11/19
Leagoe Conf-Cmgr 10/8
459.4S
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
1.900.36
Simpler L:fe
Simplpufe
001-4090-12@@
4
21119[
11/13
11/19
Medical Kits-Bmer Prep
44.88
TOTAL DUE VENDOR '---->
44.86
zuuthern Ca Ge Co
SuCaGas
+001-4313-2126
1
21119[
Ii/13
11/19
Sept Gas Cnrgps-Heritage
19.24
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----->
19.24
Southern Ca. Edison
SuCaEdisoo
+141-4541-2126
2
21119[
11/13
11/19
Electric Seo -Oct Dist 141
20.90
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---->
20.96
Southern Ca. Edison
qoCaEdisoo
+138-4538-2126
2
-221119E
11,1113
Ii/19
Electric District 138
1,4@9.@5
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----'> 1.409.08
t t t
v. 3 11
s d 5 a 4
R':N 7I'E: 1.52 _. .,.
.
_
c c a r
ly'�!
VENDOR 'LAME
.v➢OR 7D.
ACC !NTFRO.,_A-NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATCH F1,LI^!E:NG,
ENTRY'
DUE
AVOICE
DE3CRIFTION
AMOUNT �tIt
Sel.lhern Ca. Essen
=aCaEJ. en
+001-455 'cich
2 2, 11
Traffic Control
1,252.92
TOTAL DUE VENDOR---------
1.252.02
So thea Ca. Edison
SOCAEdison
tgP1-4313-2126
21111E
.4113
11!19
Electric Heritage Park
971.'3
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------':
911 ';
SDuthern Ca. Edison
�eC._;Edison
001-4555-2126
3 21119E
11/13
11119
Chino Hills Signl Mar-Oct
1,232.44
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------
1 ,232.44
State of California
State?aa
1001-2110-1009
1 21119E
11!13
11/19
Withnolding Order
251.32 11/19/91 0000013231
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----;
261.32
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------;
Tribune
Tribune
+001-4030-2320
2 21119E
11,14
111/19
Subscription 1213-1/21
16.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------;
16.90
UCLA Extension
jCLAExt
+001-4210-2330
2 21119E 01/1235
11,13
11/19
023504
Ping Seminar-Lur,gu
195.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR-------->
195.00
Unocal
Unocal
+001-4930-2310
6 2111;E
11/13
111119
065456
F,;el-ACMgr
11.62
+001-4030-2310
7 21119E
11/13
11/19
290760
Fuel-ACmgr
11.15
+001-4030-2310
6 21119E
11/13
11/11
490547
Fuel-ACmgr
10.20
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------,
33.51
Walnut '41y Water Dist
WVWaterDis
+001-4322-2126
2 21119E
11/13
11/19
eater-Reagan Park
1,296.32
+001-4325-2126
1 21119E
ii/13
11119
Water-Star5hine park
11373.60
TOTAL DUE VENDOR-------->
2,669.92
Walnut 'uly Water Dist
WVWaterDis
+141-4541-2126
3 21119E
11/13
11/19
Water Dist :41
6,456.30
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
6,456.30
��'Si .lpr. 11.1Y .., lr, yl • _ v u h - i ` _ 'J . � .. K u�`:,.L ..
...............
VENDOR NAmE
ACOO;!4T 'R 01 TY -NU 3 A T C H PO._i4E;";0. EF;"R% D'!E 'jV%',7__ ZE rrIPT704 ANDLkT DATE =a�:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'ainut '11d Water D?=+ W'i'dateT 1
i
whitet-ouse, Nancy W�itehouse
1001 -409d -22i0 1 21119E
pater Dia_ 438 :,`,i'9.ii
":JTAI :.',.E VENDOR - :. � i
iillw .� i9 Office Interior Furnishig 110.26
-SAL DUE VENDOR ------- 1_x.25
TLITAL PRE?AID-----------} 41,257.32
RUE ICTAL DJE---------------; 181,635.46
TOTAL REPORT ----------- 223,103.78
+
AN TIE: 101; :1 G
E 9 E 1 3 z§
P3 R T
2E»s ...........
K
SBUE la Se 5 HAS SSTED
ROL DART Ni ROME WEGE REVEWE EVENE
-------------------------------------- -------------- ----
FUTuH 9QEAEIH3S
RUENE EVEM
------------------------
,'� 0 1 - 4
. l6ener3l I 2.�6.S2 86.20 214.,� 8
2SK.I.P. Funo lj'�;.2;� 1367 --—
MM
ot My pt Fs 2AS7 ZSW7
!,12Prcv A-Tiansit Fu 3,22SM W2524
139LL4D 139 Fund 278.23 \£\
14ILLAE' 14l Fund 127195.2! Q 19&2)
138LLAD :38 6,419.22 6�1122
"'TAL.j ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
ALL GNDS 223753.78 98166232 862@ W&SM
I
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 12, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Septic Sewer System in The Country
SUMMARY: This is an update of the City's findings regarding the sewer problems in approximately 148 lots
within The Country.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the matter until such time as staff
receives a letter of interest from the affected property owners.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other Letters of Correspondence
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
Aer
D BY: 1
Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger Sid J. Mousavi
City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer/Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Septic Sewer System In The Country
ISSUE STATEMENT:
To verify the existence and extent of the septic sewer disposal problem in
the Country and the level of interest of the property owners in resolving it.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council continue the matter until such time
as staff receives a letter of interest from the affected property owners.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
If the City engages in resolving the sewer disposal problem in the Country,
this action may impact the City's 1991-92 General Fund Budget. No funding
has been identified for this program for the Fiscal Year 1991-92.
BACKGROUND:
Approximately 148 lots within the Country are not connected to the City's
existing sewer system and currently rely on septic tanks. The issue of
septic sewer disposal was initially brought to the City Council's attention
in April of 1991.
In working towards resolving the sewer disposal problem, on May 21, 1991, the
City Council directed staff to report back on the feasibility study and
information pertaining to the formation of a special assessment district
within the Country.
On July 2, 1991, staff reported to the Council with the information and,
staff was further requested to determine the extent of the septic sewer
disposal problem and the level of interest from the property owners in 60
days.
On September 3, 1991, staff reported that due to conflicting vacation
schedules of the active members of affected property owners, Mr. Jack Nelson
of the Country was not able to furnish a letter of interest to the City. As
a result, with Council consensus, the matter was continued for 60 to 90 days.
Page Two
Septic Sewer
November 19, 1991
DISCUSSION:
Since September 3, 1991, staff has been working with the representative of
the Country, Mr. Jack Nelson. Staff has made efforts to ascertain the level
of the interest of the property owner in working with the City to determine
the existence and extent of the septic sewer disposal problem. Attempts to
address this matter have been made through site visit, numerous telephone
calls and staff's letters of October 4 and November 7, 1991. Copies are
attached herewith for your information. As of this date, staff has yet to
receive said letter of interest and acknowledgement.
PREPARED BY:
Sid J. Mousavi
DIdXOND BAR
November 7, 1991
. 40
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177
714-860-2489 • FAX 714-861-3117
Jack C. Nelson
23656 Falcons View Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SUBJECT: SEPTIC SEWER SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY
Dear Mr. Nelson:
As you know, the City of Diamond Bar has been attempting to work
with the property owners and you in ascertaining the existence and
extent of the septic sewer disposal problem in the Country.
Attempts to address this matter have been made through site visit,
telephone calls, and our letter of October 4, 1991. Copy of this
letter is attached herewith for your reference. We requested on
October 4, 1991 that the affected property owners provide a letter
of interest to the City. The letter, signed by said owners, should
contain the nature and extent of the problem, the number of
affected property owners, and their interest and/or willingness to
participate in correcting the problem.
As of this date, we have been unsuccessful in ascertaining the
status of the requested information. While we can understand that
You have a busy schedule, we cannot simply proceed with this matter
without having adequate input/information from the affected
property owners. We hereby request your assistance in working with
us to investigate this matter, and advise us of your position.
Your expeditious response is appreciated. Should you have any
questions regarding this matter, please call me at (714) 396-5672.
Thank you for your anticipated assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
David G. Liu, P.E.
Associate Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
JOHN A_ FORBING JAY C. KIM PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALD C. NARDELLA GARY H. WERNER
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
CITY (-1F ni a XAC'hXrn A A D i 1ecc n rnuci r*+ *+ • *++^•+.
ROBERT L. VAN NORT
City Manager
— 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100
1765-4177
DIVIOND BAR_
DIAMOND
b0 2D489A FAX 714-861-3117
October 4, 1991
Jack C. Nelson
23656 Falcons View Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SUBJECT: SEPTIC SEWER SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY
Dear Mr. Nelson:
It was a pleasure to meet with you on September 23, 1991 when I
visited the Country to site survey the existence and extent of the
septic sewer disposal problem. Small traces of effluent were
detected at one property.
As you are aware, the City is prepared to work with the property
owners to resolve the sewer disposal problem. In initiating the
process, we have requested that the affected property owners
provide to the City a letter of interest. The letter, signed by
said owners, should contain the nature and extent of the problem,
the number of affected property owners, and their interest and/or
willingness to participate in correcting the problem. As of this
date, we have yet to receive said letter.
At the City's regular Council Meeting of September 3, 1991, with
Council consensus, the subject matter was continued for 60 to 90
days. The staff would like to report back to the Council at their
meeting of October 29, 1991 with updated information pertaining to
the subject matter. Your expeditious response is apprecaited.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me
at (714) 396-5672. Thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely, g�
David G. Liu, P.E.
Associate Engineer
cc: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
JOHN A. FORBING JAY C. KIM PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALD C. NARDELLA GARY H. WERNER ROBERT L. VAN NORT
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. `
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 4, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
TITLE: East San Gabriel Valley Paratransit Network Project
SUMMARY:
It is requested that the City of Diamond Bar to participate in the East San Gabriel Paratransit Network Project
in order to meet the level of paratransit services as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
This project is a demonstration project and is the first step in Los Angeles County toward implementing the
required supplemental paratransit services. Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) will act as the
lead agency and will be responsible for the operation and management of the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement with Pomona Valley Transportation Authority
(PVTA) and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed agreement.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:x Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
x Other Agreement
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
x 'Yes No
by the City Attorney?
_
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes x No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
Yes x No
Which Commission?
_
N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
Yes x No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
_
N/A
RE WED _
c
Robert L. Van Nort errence L. Belanger Sid J. Mousavi
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: East San Gabriel Valley Paratransit Network Project
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City of Diamond Bar desires to participate in the East San Gabriel Valley
Paratransit Network to meet the supplemental paratransit service requirements
of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the City's participation in
this sub -regional paratransit network and authorize the Mayor to execute the
proposed agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and Pomona Valley
Transportation Authority (PVTA).
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The City is only required to maintain its current level of Dial -A -Ride
service and is not responsible for any costs associated with the Network
service. The Network will be financially responsible for services outside
the City's normal hours of operation or areas outside the City's current
service area. As a result, this project will have no impact on the City's
1991-92 Budget.
BACKGROUND:
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) has assumed the role
of lead agency on behalf of fixed route operators in Los Angeles County for
implementation of supplemental paratransit services required by the ADA.
This Act requires operators of fixed route services, such as R.T.D., Foothill
Transit, and other Shuttle services, to provide Dial -A -Ride (paratransit)
services that are comparable to the fixed route operation for persons who are
disabled and are unable to use the fixed route service as a result of their
disability.
The East San Gabriel Paratransit Network demonstration project is considered
to be the first step in Los Angeles County toward implementing the required
supplemental paratransit service on a countywide basis.
The ADA requires each public entity to strictly limit ADA paratransit
eligibility to those persons who are functionally unable to use fixed route
transit. For purposes of the demonstration project, individuals who are
registered in a local Dial -A -Ride service will be reviewed for eligibility.
The selection process will determine if such individual is able to use the
available fixed route transit system. If those who are unable to utilize the
fixed route transit, will be eligible for transportation service on the
demonstration project.
DISCUSSION:
The PVTA has agreed to act as the lead agency for such a demonstration
project for the City of Diamond Bar. PVTA will be responsible for the
registration and certification of eligible clients. Further, it will be
responsible for the dispatching and coordination of eligible trips in the
Network Service Area. The Network Center, as well as the central dispatching
function, will be located in the City of Pomona. The center will have access
to Dial -A -Ride vehicles that are not in use within their existing services,
thus, allowing these vehicles to be available to respond to a qualified
network rider. Referrals to the Network of certified riders will be done via
telephone referral by the Center.
It is anticipated that the surrounding San Gabriel Valley cities will
participate in the project. The implementation of this Network will be a
learning process to all participating cities. As the program progresses,
modifications to the program are expected. It is anticipated that
accommodation to satisfy the needs of those participating will be a priority.
The ADA requirements are very difficult for most cities to meet on their own,
however, failure to meet the ADA transportation requirements may result in
the cancellation of Federal and State funds ( CDBG, FAU, etc.).
The PVTA will act as the lead agency for the Paratransit Network
demonstration project and will be responsible for the project's overall
management and operation while the City of Diamond Bar will act as a network
member and shall be responsible for the services as described in the attached
agreement. All excess costs, which are the costs beyond the normal expenses
associated with the City's current paratransit services, will be paid by
PVTA. In turn PVTA will be reimbursed for all costs associated with this
program by LACTC.
PREPARED BY:
Sid J. Mousavi
SJM:ra
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WHEREAS the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "LACTC"), has
assumed the roje of lead agency on behalf of the fixed
route operators allowable under Title 49 CFR 37.113 in Los
Angeles County for the implementation of supplemental
paratransit services required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA); and
WHEREAS, the LACTC wishes to test the Paratransit
Network concept via a demonstration project in the East San
Gabriel Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Pomona Valley Transportation Authority
(hereinafter referred as the "PVTA") has agreed to act as
the lead agency for such a demonstration; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter referred
to as the "CITY") has agreed to participate as a member of
the Paratransit Network demonstration project; and
WHEREAS, PVTA and the CITY have received approval from
their respective governing boards to participate in the
project for the period of December 1, 1991 to June 30,
1992.
NOW THEREFORE, the PVTA and the CITY agree to the
following terms and procedures for the implementation and
operation of the Project.
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (hereinafter referred
to as "AGREEMENT") will be in effect from December 1, 1992
through June 30, 1992. Said AGREEMENT may be extended by
mutual written consent of both agencies' project
representatives.
ARTICLE 1.0 PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The PVTA will act as the lead agency for the
Paratransit Network demonstration project and will be
responsible for the project's overall management and
operation.
B. The CITY will act as a network member and will be
responsible for the services described in Exhibit A,
Scope of Work Paratransit Network Project, attached
hereto and incorporated by reference.
C. The PVTA agrees to pay the CITY in consideration for
its services in accordance with the Price Formula set
forth in this AGREEMENT. The maximum cost to be paid
by PVTA to the CITY shall not exceed $30,000.00.
D. The PVTA, with the LACTC's approval, will be
responsible for approving, in writing, changes in
costs exceeding the maximum cost, or changes in
project scope.
E. The PVTA shall be responsible to register and certify
clients as eligible for Paratransit Network services.
PVTA shall maintain up to date records of eligible
clients.
F. The PVTA shall be responsible to assign Paratransit
Network trips to the appropriate service provider.
G. The CITY designates Sid J. Mousavi as its
representative in the project.
H. The PVTA designates George L. Sparks as its
representative and hereby delegates to said
representative the required authority to manage and
coordinate this AGREEMENT.
I. The PVTA shall not interfere with the management of
the CITY's regular transportation services.
ARTICLE 2.0 PRICE FORMULA
PVTA agrees to pay the CITY for performance of the services
set forth in this AGREEMENT as follows:
A. Payment of a fixed drop charge of $8.30 per vehicle
trip plus $1.70 per mile.
B. Payment for trips beyond the service area as defined
in Section II.D of Exhibit A will be in accordance
with the price schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
ARTICLE 3.0 INDEMNIFICATION
The PVTA and the CITY shall indemnify each other and hold
each other harmless against any claims, demands and suits
at law or equity arising out of, or relating to actions of
the CITY, PVTA and their agents, and subcontractors in the
performance of the work.
ARTICLE 4.0 SUBCONTRACTORS
PVTA recognizes that the CITY has a contract with the
County of Los Angeles to provide paratransit services and
the County of Los Angeles intent to utilize a sub-
contractor(s)
ub-
contractors) in the performance of this AGREEMENT. PVTA
shall have no liability to any sub-contractor(s) for
payment for services under this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE 5.0 INSURANCE
A. The CITY shall require its sub-contractor(s) to carry
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance providing
with limits not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,ODO.00) combined singled limit per occurrence
for injury and property damage. In addition, the
CITY's sub-contractor(s) shall also carry
Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance endorsed
for bodily injury and property damage on all owned and
non -owned vehicles with a combined single limit of at
least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
occurrence.
B. Pomona Valley Transportation Authority, Los Angeles
County Transportation Commission, the individual
Cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, and San Dimas,
and their officers, employees, agents, elected
officials, and members of boards and commissions shall
be named as additionally insured.
C. Such insurance shall be primary with respect to any
insurance maintained by PVTA and not contributing with
any other insurance maintained by PVTA.
D. The insurer shall stipulate that the policy will not
be canceled until at least thirty (30) days prior
written notice has been given to the Pomona Valley
Transportation Authority.
ARTICLE 6.0 - INVOICES AND PAYMENT
A. The CITY operator shall submit monthly invoices to
PVTA. Costs shall be directly traceable by driver
trip sheets and/or employees time cards, which will be
available for review by PVTA.
B. All operating revenues collected by the CITY in
performance of this AGREEMENT shall be deducted from
the CITY's monthly invoices. Operating revenues
include all fares, sales of tickets and passes.
Invoices shall reflect the total amount of fares and
other network operating revenues collected and
retained by the CITY.
C. All payments by PVTA shall be made in arrears, after
the service has been provided. Payment shall be made
by PVTA no more than thirty (30) days from PVTA's
receipt of invoice. If PVTA disputes any items on an
invoice for a reasonable cause, PVTA may deduct that
disputed item from the payment, but shall not delay
payment for the undisputed portions. The amounts and
reasons for such deletions shall be documented to CITY
within fifteen (15) working days after receipt of
invoice by PVTA. The costs and payments will be
evaluated during January 1992 and if appropriate they
will be adjusted accordingly.
ARTICLE 7.0 EQUIPMENT & SOFTWARE
A. PVTA shall provide the CITY with the equipment items
listed in Exhibit "B" Eguipment List attached hereto
and incorporated by reference.
B. PVTA shall retain title to all equipment provided to
the CITY during the term of this AGREEMENT. Said
equipment shall be returned to PVTA upon termination
of this AGREEMENT.
C. PVTA shall make available to the CITY the registration
and scheduling software utilized by PVTA for the
Paratransit Network.
D. PVTA shall provide training to CITY staff regarding
the operation of the equipment and software described
above and the policies and procedures of the
Paratransit Network.
ARTICLE 8.0 RETENTION OF RECORDS
The CITY agrees to provide all information and reports as
required under the terms of this AGREEMENT, and to permit
access to such of its records, accounts, the project budget
and invoices, and facilities as the PVTA may determine to
be necessary to ascertain compliance.
The CITY shall make such material available for PVTA or
LACTC inspection at all reasonable times during the period
of the AGREEMENT and for three years from the date of final
payment.
ARTICLE 9.0 CONFIDENTIALITY
The CITY and PVTA agrees to maintain the confidentiality of
its records in accordance with all applicable laws, rules
and regulations. The CITY and PVTA shall require all its
officers, employees, agents, and sub -contractors providing
services hereunder, to acknowledge in writing,
understanding of and AGREEMENT to comply with said
confidentiality provisions.
ARTICLE 10.0 NOTICES
Notices under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing and shall
be sent to the parties at the following addresses and to
the attention of the persons named.
TO CITY:
Sid J. Mousavi
Director of Public Works
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
TO PVTA:
George L. Sparks
Administrator
Pomona Valley Transportation Authority
2025 Bonita Avenue "A"
La Verne, CA 91750
ARTICLE 11.0 AMENDMENTS & TERMINATION
This AGREEMENT may be amended by mutual written consent of
the project representatives of either party. The CITY or
PVTA may terminate this AGREEMENT upon Thirty (30) days
written notice.
ARTICLE 12.0 AUDIT
The PVTA reserves the right to require an audit of the
project's financial and performance statistics. Any such
audit shall be at the sole expense of the PVTA.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR POMONA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
George L. Sparks
Administrator
SCOPE OF WORK
PARATRANSIT NETWORK PROJECT
I. BACKGROUND
EXHIBIT A
Fixed route transit operators in Los Angeles County
have the legal obligation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide supplemental
paratransit service to the disabled who cannot access
a fixed route vehicle. These operators include the
Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD),
Foothill Transit, and local city sponsored fixed route
programs. At the fixed route operators request, the
Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC)
has become the lead agency in Los Angeles County for
implementation of the supplemental paratransit
services required under ADA.
There are a number of paratransit operators currently
providing service throughout Los Angeles County who
are not affiliated with the fixed operators. The
paratransit operators are under no obligation to
comply with the ADA requirements as it pertains to the
supplemental paratransit services. The LACTC is
required under Government Codes 15975 and 15950 to
coordinate paratransit services into a cohesive
network of services. LACTC believes that coordinating
the paratransit services into a network can also meet
the ADA supplemental paratransit requirements in a
highly cost effective manner. The "Network" concept
is based on maximizing utilization of currently
available paratransit resources and contracting for
additional services where gaps in the existing system
exist. Operation of the proposed paratransit Network
would be coordinated by a lead agency or broker.
The LACTC wishes to test the Network concept via a
demonstration project in the East San Gabriel Valley.
The Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) will
serve as the Project Manager and broker for the
demonstration project. The City of Diamond Bar,
hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", has agreed to
participate in the demonstration project and provide
the certain services described herein.
II. SERVICES
The CITY shall be responsible to provide the services
described below.
A. Registration Data - The CITY operator shall
provide PVTA with client registration data for
its elderly and disabled paratransit service.
Said -data shall include the name and addresses of
the eligible clients. Said data shall be
provided for the sole purpose of identifying
individuals potentially eligible for Paratransit
Network and ADA supplemental paratransit
services.
B. Trip and Registration Request Referral - The CITY
shall provide for the referral to the Network of
inquiries and requests regarding:
1. Registration for Paratransit Network
2. Paratransit travel requests beyond the
CITY's local paratransit service area.
C. Expanded Service Hours - The CITY shall provide
curb to curb paratransit service beyond its
normal service hours to clients certified
eligible by PVTA. Trips shall be assigned by
PVTA and shall be within the Diamond Bar service
area shown on Attachment 1. Said expanded
service hours shall be provided upon written
authorization by PVTA.
D. Trips Beyond The Local Service Area - The CITY
shall provide curb to curb Network trips from
within its local service area to destinations
beyond its local service area in accordance with
the price schedule shown below:
Destination Cost Per Trip
Industry $8.30 + 1.70/mile
Pomona $8.30 + 1.70/mile
Walnut $8.30 + 1.70/mile
La Puenta $8.30 + 1.70/mile
III. SERVICE STANDARDS
The CITY shall be responsible to provide the services
described in Section II in accordance with the
standards enumerated below.
A. Definitions
1. Network Trip - A Network trip shall be
defined as the number of boarding passengers
B.
carried by the CITY in response to a trip
assignment from PVTA. Multiple passengers
boarding at the same origin and time carried
to the same destination shall be counted as
a single Network trip.
2. .Unlinked Passengers -trips - The number of
boarding passengers carried whether revenue-
producing or not. Passengers are counted
each time they board a vehicle even though
it may be on the same journey from origin to
destination.
3. Vehicle Service Hours - Vehicle Service
Hours for billing purposes shall be defined
as the time each vehicle is available for
passengers use. Vehicle service hours do
include driver breaks, but do not include
driver lunch breaks.
4. No Shows - A no show is defined as an
assigned trip in which the vehicle arrives
at the assigned pick-up point within 20
minutes of the reservation time and no
passenger was picked -up.
City Responsibilities
1. The CITY shall be responsible for management
and operation of services provided by the
CITY under the terms of this AGREEMENT,
except for those PVTA responsibilities
specifically described in this AGREEMENT.
2. Service provided by the CITY under this
AGREEMENT shall be in accordance with the
policies established for the Paratransit
Network by PVTA and the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
3. The CITY will obtain and provide all
required State and local permits and ensure
that all drivers are properly licensed for
service they are providing.
The CITY shall be responsible for the
satisfactory work performance of its
employees.
4. The CITY shall be solely responsible for
payment of all employee's wages and
benefits, shall comply with the requirements
of employee liability, worker's
compensation, employment insurance, and
IV.
social security.
5. All personnel assigned to this project shall
be responsible for knowledge of the project.
6. .Vehicle operators must have a valid
California Class B driver's license and
medical examination certificate, as well as
any other license required by applicable
federal, state, and local regulations. The
CITY shall comply with the requirements of
Drug Free Work Place Act of 1988 and
Department of Transportation drug testing
regulations to the extent they are legally
enforceable. A vehicle operator who does
not pass the medical examination shall not
be permitted to operate a vehicle.
7. The CITY shall provide for vehicles required
to perform the services described in this
AGREEMENT.
8. The CITY shall be responsible for the
maintenance of all vehicles. Said equipment
shall be maintained in a safe and operable
condition at all times and in accord with
manufacturer's recommended maintenance
procedures as well as with applicable
Federal and State regulations.
9. The CITY or its contractor shall be
responsible for assuring that the safety of
passengers, operations personnel and the
vehicles and equipment are maintained at the
highest possible level. CITY shall comply
with all applicable California Highway
Patrol and OSHA requirements.
10. The CITY shall maintain procedures to
respond to accidents, incidents and service
interruption and shall report said
occurrences to PVTA on a timely basis.
REPORTING - The CITY shall be responsible to maintain
the following reports and records:
A. Daily Records
Daily passenger and vehicles trip logs shall be
maintained by drivers and shall include but not
be limited to the following information:
1. Driver name and vehicle number.
2. Total daily passenger counts no show count,
by fare type, by city and by passenger
category.
3. Passenger name and I.D. number and pick-up
.address as well as drop-off address.
4. Passenger pick-up and drop-off times.
5. Mileage recorded for each passenger pick-up
and drop-off as well as daily mileage by
vehicle, including mileage leaving and at
return to base.
B. Monthly Summaries
1. The CITY shall prepare and submit to the
PVTA summary report within fifteen (15)
calendar days after the end of the operating
month in order to receive reimbursement for
the prior month's service. Monthly summary
reports shall include:
- Passenger data by point of origin
and by category.
- Total vehicle miles.
- Vehicle revenue miles.
- Total vehicle hours.
- Vehicle revenue hours.
- Fares collected.
- No-shows
- Cancellations
( Data should be broken down by day)
2. Reports shall be in a form provided by PVTA.
3. Reports shall also include, at a minimum,
the following data:
- accidents by UMTA category
- fuel consumption
- road calls
4. The CITY shall be responsible for collecting
UMTA Section 15 data.
t'
f
M E T R O
' ^1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (LACTC)
CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGENCY (CTSA)
PARATRANSIT NE'T'WORK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) is the
designated transportation programming and financing agency for Los
Angeles County. As such, it is committed to providing the most
"user-friendly," cost effective, and efficient transportation
service to the citizens of the County. LACTC funds transportation
projects for 88 cities and the County of Los Angeles and oversees
expenditures of locally dedicated transportation sales tax
revenues. With a population of 8,850,000 and a service area of
4,250 square miles, the transportation needs of Los Angeles County
are met by over 400 different public, private and not-for-profit
transportation providers, each with differing service areas and
fare structures. These providers operate commuter and light rail
lines, 2,500 fixed route buses, 2,900 paratransit vehicles, 1,700
taxicabs, 800 private shuttle services, 12 ferry boats, and a
variety of other transportation and ridesharing services.
In order to foster cooperation among the various paratransit
services, the LACTC has formed a subsidiary, the Consolidated
Transportation Services Agency (CTSA), to coordinate paratransit
services within the County.
As part of its responsibilities, the CTSA is developing a plan for
a regional network of transportation services offered through local
public, private, and not-for-profit paratransit service providers.
The goal of this project, the Paratransit Network, is to implement
the complementary paratransit service required by the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA requires the
implementation of a demand -responsive, dial -a -ride service to
persons whose disabilities prevent them from boarding, riding, or
disembarking an accessible fixed route bus. The supplemental
service must be comparable to the fixed route service in the area
in terms of service area and service hours.
The Paratransit Network Demonstration Project has been designed to
develop the costs and to determine the method of operation that
will meet the requirements for complementary paratransit on a
Countywide basis. In an effort to test the Paratransit Network
concept, the CTSA has contracted with the Pomona valley
818 West Seventh Street Leading the Way to Greater Mobility
- Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
IAM Tel 213 623-1194
Transportation Authority (PVTA) to operate a demonstration project
in the East San Gabriel Valley. The project is administered by
PVTA, acting in the capacity of the Broker. As the Broker, PVTA
will receive ride requests from disabled individuals and schedule
a trip on a public, private, or not-for-profit paratransit service
provider in the area. The cost for providing the equipment and the
trip is paid for by the LACTC on behalf of the fixed route
operators in Los Angeles County, whose obligation it is to provide
the transportation service to the disabled individual.
If the demonstration project is successful, up to seven other areas
will be added to the network. The demonstration project covers the
following area: Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond
Bar, Duarte, Glendora, La Verne, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente,
Pomona, San Dimas, Walnut, West Covina, and the County
unincorporated area around these cities.
The service will offer curb -to -curb dial -a -ride service within two
hours of request time.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: MAJOR ACTIVITIES/ACCOMPLISHKENTS TO DATE
OPERATION AND REGISTRATION
A method of operation of the Broker has been established. The
Broker will receive requests for service from an eligible ADA user,
select a provider based on information provided, and will determine
the most cost effective provider for the time requested. Trips
which cannot be met with participating transit -providers will be
provided by "fill -in -the -gap" overlay providers; a Request for
Information and Qualifications for overlay provider(s) was issued
from the Broker in October.
The methodology for registering clients has been developed for the
demonstration project, with the Broker handling all registration
and ride requests directly, rather than going through the local
provider. Related to this, a computerized universal client
registration data base has been developed. The computer screens
will display which eligibility the individual qualifies for: ADA,
local service, or the fixed route operator's handicap
identification card.
SERVICE CRITERIA
The first draft of the service plan for the demonstration network
is nearly completed. Base hours of service will be from 5:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and accessible cab service
operating from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Fixed route operators in the
East San Gabriel Valley offer service for various lines at varying
times of the day during weekends and holidays; thus the 'service
hours for complementary paratransit service will vary on weekends
and holidays as the various bus routes begin and end service.
Accessible cab service will be offered to fill in the gap during
this service time.
The fare for the service is $2.00 per one-way ride. The ADA
Guidelines allow for up to twice the average fixed route fare for
a coordinated area. Since the cost for an SCRTD fare is $1.10 per
one-way trip and Foothill Transits cost is $.85 per one-way trip,
we have identified a $2.00 one-way fare as the average between the
two major fixed route providers in the area.
The operating procedures are in development and will be adjusted as
needed. The major areas involve the following:
- Dwell time, the time when the vehicle is in front of the
pickup location waiting for the potential rider to
acknowledge that the vehicle is at their location, is
five minutes. This should give the disabled individual
time to acknowledge that the vehicle is there and to get
to the vehicle for boarding.
- Ride time will not exceed one hour and fifteen minutes
from the point in which the individual boards the
vehicle, except where traffic congestion may cause an
extended delay.
- Ride requests will be met within two hours from the time
that the call is made.
- All trips will be scheduled within one hour of the
request time.
- Service will be curb -to -curb, which means the driver is
not to assist the passenger inside of the house or at the
destination.
Boarding and disembarking assistance onto and off the
vehicle will be given upon request.
Escorts may ride at no fare, as required by the ADA.
- A minimum of one additional individual, with the same
origin and destination location, may accompany the
disabled passenger at the same fare as the disabled
individual.
- All wheelchairs and scooters will be tied down.
Passengers riding on a scooter will be requested to
transfer to a seat and seat belt themselves in. All
passengers are to be seatbelted in, if the vehicle has
seat belts available.
CERTIFICATION
A professional team of individuals working with the disabled
community has been working with the CTSA in the development of the
ADA Certification process. The Certification of ADA Paratransit
Eligibility is required by the ADA Guidelines. The Certification
Team is expected to complete the recommended certification process
in November. •At that time they will evaluate ten individuals to
determine the effectiveness of the certification process they
developed.
To be certified, the potential rider must be unable to access an
accessible fixed route vehicle due to any of the following:
a. Respiratory problems, physical or terrain barriers, or
blindness that would prevent walking to a bus stop
b. Physical disability that would prevent boarding, or
disembarking, or being seated on an accessible fixed
route vehicle
C. Mental disability that would limit the orientation
capability of the person riding the fixed route vehicle
d. Situational condition that would cause a limited period
of disorientation of the person riding the fixed route
vehicle.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
The Broker has completed an evaluation of the public paratransit
systems in the East San Gabriel Valley, and has determined the
current level of service, identified service gaps, and assessed the
capacity and capabilities of existing paratransit operators. There
are several areas that have service gaps. Of the fifteen cities in
the demonstration project area, four of the cities do not offer any
paratransit service. These areas will be provided service through
the entities neighbor who has an accessible paratransit program.
Fourteen of the cities are members of the Foothill Transit Zone
while four cities operate fixed route service. A limited number of
the 80 -plus vehicles in the service area meet the new ADA
requirements for an accessible vehicle.
One public operator's insurance coverage is below the interim
standard established for an operator. None of the paratransit
operations offer service from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; therefore,
special arrangements are being made with various operators to
provide the accessible service during this time. Of the seven
operators in the project area, five have indicated a desire to
become involved as a provider of service in the network. One
entity is unsure of their level of involvement and the seventh is
at capacity and does not have free time available to sell to the
network.
(z)
M E T R O
November 14, 1991
Mr. Robert Van Nort
City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive
Suite #100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION
Dear Mr. /"'an Nort:
As members of the Foothill Transit Zone, your city is required,
under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), passed by
Congress in July 1990, to provide paratransit service to those
severely disabled individuals who are unable to access an
accessible fixed route bus. In addition, the ADA requires each
fixed route operator to prepare and submit to the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) by January 26, 1992 a plan to implement
this paratransit service. The plan must include a process for
evaluating and certifying disabled individuals eligible for the
service.
In order to efficiently meet the extensive complementary para -
transit service and plan obligations of the thirty-seven fixed
route transit systems in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles
County Transportation Commission, (LACTC), has initiated the
development of a countywide, coordinated paratransit plan. The
legislation enacting the ADA specifically allows agencies like the
LACTC to coordinate service, and to prepare and submit one coordi-
nated countywide plan.
The proposed Paratransit Plan will provide the mandated complemen-
tary paratransit service by continuing the operations of existing
local paratransit operators and purchasing additional services
from public or private paratransit operators who wish to partici-
pate in the Plan. At its meeting on June 26, 1991, the Commission
earmarked funding to fund additional service required under the
ADA.
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission requests your
city's participation in the development of the Paratransit Plan.
By participating in the Plan, your city's obligation to provide
the complementary paratransit service and to prepare and submit a
plan to the DOT will be assumed by the LACTC. In addition, as
Los Angeles County 818 West Seventh Street Leading t h e W a y to Greater M o b) l t y
Transportation Suite 1100
Commission Los Angeles. CA 90017
Lim Tel 213 623-1194
Robert Van Nort
November 14, 1991
Page Two
service is implemented, your disabled residents will gain access
to cross -jurisdictional transportation at no cost to the city. If
your city does not adopt the attached resolution, it is required
to prepare a complete paratransit plan and submit it to DOT by
January 26, 1992.
To participate in the Los Angeles County coordinated Paratransit
Plan, your city must pass a resolution by January 15, 1992
certifying its intention to participate in the coordinated plan.
A draft resolution is enclosed and we encourage your immediate
scheduling of this item for your council's consideration.
Although the resolution may be modified to meet your city's
specific needs, the responsibilities of the city and the LACTC, as
detailed in the resolution, are regulated by federal statute and
may not be changed.
As the coordinating agency for the Paratransit Plan, the LACTC has
agreed to assume the following responsibilities:
o Prepare and submit an interim coordinated paratransit
plan to DOT by January 26, 1992, and a countywide coor-
dinated plan by July 26, 1992 and annually thereafter
beginning January 26, 1993;
o Develop and administer an ADA -eligible certification and
registration process;
o Hold public hearings as required by the ADA;
o Develop and staff a committee comprised of disabled
individuals or agencies representing the disabled as
required by the ADA;
o Begin implementation of coordinated Paratransit Plan;
o Provide funding for the cost of the ADA -mandated service
above that currently expended for elderly and disabled
transportation.
By passing this resolution, the city is authorizing the LACTC to
assume its obligations to provide the complementary paratransit
service and submit the plan as required by the ADA. A summary of
the transportation regulations is available upon request as are
copies of all applicable ADA regulations. Also attached is a
summary of the paratransit plan demonstration project in the East
San Gabriel Valley.
Robert Van Nort
November 14, 1991
Page Three
Commission staff is available to discuss the coordinated plan with
you and your staff, or address your city council if you so desire.
Please do not hesitate to contact Deidre Heitman, CTSA Program
Manager, at (213) 244-6744 for more information. Other CTSA staff
members also are available to discuss this with you.
Sincerely,
SUSAN ROSALES
Director
San Gabriel Valley Area
cc: Transit Administrator
Chron
RMC
CMSGV:1
ADA
Enclosures
November 11, 1991
REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION
Dear
As the sponsor/operator of the your city is
required, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, (ADA),
passed by Congress in July 1990, to provide paratransit
service to those severely disabled individuals who are unable
to access an accessible fixed route bus. In addition, the
ADA requires each fixed route operator to prepare and submit
to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) by January 26,
1992 a plan to implement this paratransit service. The plan
must include a process for evaluating and certifying disabled
individuals eligible for the service.
In order to efficiently meet the extensive complementary
paratransit service and plan obligations of the thirty-seven
fixed route transit systems in Los Angeles County, the Los
Angeles County Transportation Commission, (LACTC), has
initiated the development of a countywide, coordinated
paratransit plan. The legislation enacting the ADA
specifically allows agencies like the LACTC to coordinate
service, and to prepare and submit one coordinated countywide
plan.
The proposed Paratransit Plan will provide the mandated
complementary paratransit service by continuing the
operations of existing local paratransit operators and
purchasing additional services from public or private
paratransit operators who wish to participate in the Plan.
At its meeting on June 26, 1991, the Commission earmarked
funding to fund additional service required under the ADA.
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission requests
your city's participation in the development of the
Paratransit Plan. By participating in the Plan, your city's
obligation to provide the complementary paratransit service
and to prepare and submit a plan to the DOT will be assumed
by the LACTC. In addition, as service is implemented, your
disabled residents will gain access to cross -jurisdictional
transportation at no cost to the city. If your city does not
adopt the attached resolution, it is required to prepare a
complete paratransit plan and submit it to DOT by January 26,
1992.
November 11, 1991
Page 2
To participate in the Los Angeles County coordinated
Paratransit Plan, your city must pass a resolution by January
15, 1992 certifying its intention to participate in the
coordinated plan. A draft resolution is enclosed and we
encourage your immediate scheduling of this item for your
council's consideration. Although the resolution may be
modified to meet your city's specific needs, the
responsibilities of the city and the LACTC, as detailed in
the resolution, are regulated by federal statute and may not
be changed.
As the coordinating agency for the Paratransit Plan, the
LACTC has agreed to assume the following responsibilities:
o Prepare and submit an interim coordinated
paratransit plan to DOT by January 26, 1992, and a
countywide coordinated plan by July 26, 1992 and
annually thereafter beginning January 26, 1993;
o Develop and administer an ADA -eligible
certification and registration process;
o Hold public hearings as required by the ADA;
o Develop and staff a committee comprised of disabled
individuals or agencies representing the disabled
as required by the ADA;
o Begin implementation of coordinated Paratransit
Plan;
o Provide funding for the cost of the ADA -mandated
service above that currently expended for elderly
and disabled transportation.
By passing this resolution, the city is authorizing the LACTC
to assume its obligations to provide the complementary
paratransit service and submit the plan as required by the
ADA. A summary of the transportation regulations is
available upon request as are copies of all applicable ADA
regulations. Also attached is a summary of the paratransit
plan demonstration project in the East San Gabriel Valley.
Commission staff is available to discuss the coordinated plan
with you and your staff, or address your city council if you
so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact Deidre Heitman,
CTSA Program Manager, at (213) 244-6744 for more information.
Other CTSA staff members also are available to discuss this
with you.
November 11, 1991
Page 3
Sincerely,
Area Team Director
c: City Transit Administrator
Attachments
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 14, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:03
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board
Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Don Schad.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Lin, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Schey arrived at 7:07 p.m.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu,
Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract
Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES:
C/Harmony requested that the minutes be amended on
page 7, paragraph 2, to omit the word "plan" from
Sept. 23, 1991
the sentence, "That plan did not occur."
Chair/Grothe requested that the minutes, on page 8,
properly reflect that he called the recess.
VC/MacBride requested that the minutes be amended
on page 9, paragraph 8, to omit the sentence "He
explained that a use may not..."; and page 12,
paragraph 1, to properly spell "principal".
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Minutes of September 23, 1991, as amended.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
request from the applicant, Bryan A. Stirrat and
Tentative Parcel
Associates, to continue case TPM 22102 to November
Map 22102
25, 1991. Staff requested that the Commission
concur.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
C/Harmony requested that staff briefly review the
case.
CD/DeStefano explained that the owner of the
Specialty Equipment Marketing Association building,
located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr., within the
Gateway Center, wishes to subdivide the 4.39 acre
site into two lots in order to create a future
building.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue this
public hearing to the last meeting in November.
October 14, 1991 Page 2
_oning Code
PT/Lunge addressed the Commission regarding the
Amendment 91-5
proposal to amend certain provisions of the Los
(tree preserva-
Angeles County Code, as adopted by Diamond Bar,
tion)
pertaining to Tree Preservation. In preparing the
various drafts for the tree ordinance, research was
done using sections of ordinances from the cities,
indicated in the staff report, that seemed
compatible with our community for our purpose and
intent. It is suggested that the Commission
address the following four main issues regarding
the tree ordinance: the criteria to be used to
identify trees to be preserved; the minimum lot
size standards for activation of a tree
preservation ordinance; the replacement ratio and
size of replacement tree that would be appropriate
for the City's tree preservation ordinance; and the
City's desire to insure that a replacement tree
will receive the proper care and maintenance for a
designated period of time. It is recommended that
the Commission direct staff to prepare a "final"
ordinance with the conditions listed by staff.
CD/DeStefano stated that DCA/Curley has suggested
some clarifications of items in the tree ordinance.
Staff will review these at the end of discussion on
the four main issues. He suggested that the
Commission begin discussion regarding the criteria
to be utilized.
Chair/Grothe indicated that the criteria, for the
replacement of trees on single family properties,
should not be such that it is difficult to enforce.
C/Schey suggested that a 1:1 replacement ratio is
sufficient on a single family residential lot.
Chair/Grothe concurred that a 1:1 replacement ratio
is adequate, as long as it pertains to only the
trees in the preservation list, and not all types
of trees.
CD/DeStefano inquired if a 1:1 replacement ratio
would be adequate in a situation where the tree
removed was quite old.
C/Schey responded that, in that situation, no tree
could adequately replace it.
Chair/Grothe stated that the 4:1 replacement ratio
for the removal of a Heritage tree makes sense on a
hillside development, but not within a single
family residential yard.
October 14, 1991 Page 3
C/Harmony stated that the Pepper Tree should be
added to the Heritage Tree list.
VC/MacBride indicated the following concerns: the
definition of a Heritage tree is much too broad;
the problem of a developer choosing to pay the
fine, rather than leave a cluster of trees, must be
addressed; and the issue regarding public safety
vs. the preservation of a tree included in the
protective category, need be addressed.
C/Schey suggested differentiating between a
Heritage tree and a Significant tree. Heritage
trees are indigenous trees like the Oak, Sycamore,
Walnut, and Pepper. The Significant trees are
those that have reached some significance due to
maturity or historical value. Short of public
safety, there should be absolute preservation for
Heritage trees.
CD/DeStefano stated he has suggested to Staff
eliminating the term "Heritage Tree" because he
felt the ordinance was simply a tree preservation
ordinance beginning with whatever size, species or
combination we choose to establish as the minimum
tree which we desire to protect. During Staff's
research it became apparent that there is no common
definition as to what the term "heritage tree" or
"significant tree" means.
Chair/Grothe pointed out that the original
intention of this ordinance was to try to save the
majority of the tree groves mostly located in the
undeveloped areas of town. Therefore, the care of
trees, located on lots under a specified size,
should be left -to the discretion of the homeowner.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek,
emphasized the importance of preserving trees now
for the future.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Rd.,
suggested that the concern for tree size, per lot,
and tree types should be carefully considered by a
group of arborists, perhaps from a local college.
He explained that a Heritage tree is a tree that
has been able to sustain itself through it's own
natural environment. He also suggested that all
the species be protected that have a uniqueness to
them.
October 14, 1991 Page 4
C/Schey suggested that the general tree population
should not be preserved until there's some reason
to believe that it is being threatened. The native
tree should be established as protected.
CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that staff
needs specific direction regarding the four major
criteria issues previously indicated by staff.
VC/MacBride suggested defining Heritage trees and
Significant trees separately. Heritage trees would
include Oak, Sycamore, California Pepper, and Black
Walnut. Significant trees are trees that have a
definitive historical significance, have a factor
of age, and are outstanding in it's own individual
growth, per species.
PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission needs to be
more specific with their definition of a
Significant tree. If the Commission is unable to
define it now, staff can, with the Commission's
approval, attempt to come up with a differentiation
between Heritage trees and Significant trees, and
return it back to the Commission in an ordinance
format. He then suggested that the Commission
discuss if they want to differentiate any
replacement value to the Heritage tree, the
Significant tree, and all others trees.
C/Harmony inquired if the Commission is in
concurrence that single family residential lots are
exempt.
VC/MacBride suggested that the four stated
categories of a Heritage tree, plus the historic
attributes of a given tree_ as well as significant
trees be placed in one category called "Heritage
Trees", and exempting those problems which arise on
single family residential lots of a certain size.
Chair/Grothe suggested, and the Commission
concurred on, the following: the four types of
Heritage trees, Oak, California Pepper, Walnut, and
Sycamore, are protected everywhere and can be
removed only by permit; all other trees that exceed
the 15' height, and 15" circumference criteria fall
in the Significant tree category and require a
permit if they are on nonresidential or undeveloped
residential property; trees with documented
historic significance require a permit; there is a
1:1 replacement ratio, for Heritage trees, on
existing developed residential properties; there is
a 4:1 replacement ratio for Significant trees on
non residential or undeveloped properties; the
October 14, 1991
Page 5
replacement tree should be of an in-kind species;
there should be a steep penalty for trees removed
without a permit; the size of the replacement tree
is to be determined per the City of La Verne graph;
and anyone removing a tree should be required to
place a bond for insuring maintenance of the
replacement tree.
CD/DeStefano pointed out those items in the draft
tree ordinance that will need further
clarification: the definition of a Heritage tree
will be expanded, and the definition of "multi -
trunk" and "stand" needs further clarification; the
verbiage regarding "Routine Maintenance" will be
moved to the Exception clause; verbiage will be
added to the Exception clause requiring that a
damaged tree, or diseased tree, be verified by a
certified arborist; in the Tree Permit Application,
we must assure that the plans indicate the existing
and the proposed structures; the amount of
photographs required must be clarified in the Tree
Permit Application; the verbiage, of item F of the
Tree Permit Application, will be changed to
indicate that "the applicant may be required to
provide..."; add in the Tree Permit Application a
specified time period in which the director will
give a forthcoming decision; there also needs to be
a time period indicating when the Director's
decision will be received regarding the Tree
Pruning Permit, item B; the issue regarding public
safety vs. convenience will be addressed in the
pruning of a tree section; the word "unbalanced",
written on page 6, will be better defined; under
Emergency Waiver, defining the proper contacts will
be better stated; the word "acceptable" will be
changed to "approved" in the section Protection of
Existing Trees; section A & B; the phrase "unless
otherwise approved by the Director" will be added
to subsection E, of Protecting Existing Trees; and
the last paragraph of the section Enforcement, will
be removed.
VC/MacBride, concerned with developers that may
inadvertently or intentionally remove trees,
suggested that instead of imposing a penalty,
require that the trees be replaced in-kind and
maintained.
DCA/Curley stated that if a tree is removed,
accidently or otherwise, the developer could be
asked to stop the project, or meet the conditions
that have been established. There are ways to
reach the developer.
October 14, 1991 Page 6
r Don Schad suggested that the required period of
maintenance be extended from three years to five
years.
The Commission concurred with Don Schad's
suggestion to extend the period of maintenance to
five years.
Chair/Grothe, concerned with the administrative
burden on staff for enforcement, suggested that the
bond requirement for a single tree on a single
residence be excluded.
DCA/Curley suggested, and the Commission concurred,
to use a lien process rather than requesting a
deposit or bond up front.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
As directed by the Commission staff will renotice
the Public Hearing when the ordinance is ready to
be brought back to the Commission.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to request staff
to bring the ordinance back to the Commission the
first meeting in December of 1991.
INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
ITEMS: meetings schedule for the remainder of the year.
He explained that the meeting of November 11, 1991,
is a City Holiday. He also inquired if the
Commission desires to keep the meeting dates,
November 25th, December 9th and 23rd, as scheduled.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Commission concurred -to drop the November 11th
meeting, retain the November 25th meeting, and have
the two meetings in December as scheduled.
CD/DeStefano, informed the Commission that staff
met with the two local postmasters, from Walnut and
Pomona, to discuss the Postal Service delivery.
The Postmasters assured the City that they were
equally concerned. As a result of the discussion,
the following occurred: staff prepared a letter to
the Postmaster General of the United States and
received an apologetic letter from the local
(Walnut) postmaster; the local postmaster has also
prepared letters apologizing to the residents of
the west side of Diamond Bar, and stating that they
are working to resolve the postal problems; Staff
utilized the YMCA to hand deliver about 2500 copies
of a letter, prepared by staff, which includes the
October 14, 1991
ADJOURNMENT:
Page 7
letter sent to the Postmaster General, an
explanation regarding the postal situation, and an
announcement regarding the General Plan hearings
before GPAC, occurring this month.
PD/DeStefano stated that there were about 22
members of the community that attended the GPAC
meeting, held October 10, 1991, to specifically
discuss the Golf Course issue. The GPAC members
assured them that the intent and recommendation of
GPAC is to keep the Golf Course as long as
possible. However, if the Golf Course were to go,
then they would look towards some form of
commercial enterprise on that property. Most of
the people were satisfied. The GPAC then discussed
the Public Safety Element.
CD/DeStefano requested that anyone wishing to
attend the San Gabriel Valley Workshop, October 26,
1991, should contact staff.
VC/MacBride stated that thanks to the way the
Community Development Director has structured the
GPAC meetings, GPAC is on an excellent tract to
begin reaffirming those elements that are
important, and weeding out those that are
objectionable.
C/Harmony concurred with VC/MacBride. He stated
that he was pleased to see that GPAC was voting on
every issue.
C/Harmony expressed his concern for the traffic
hazard at the Montefino/Diamond Bar Blvd.
inters --ion. He asked the Chairman to pass the
Commiss's <concern to the Traffic and
Transportation $Commission, and ask them to at least
review the possibility of installing a traffic
signal there.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Lin and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:52
p.m.
Respectively,
*Vk%�p
Aines DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
October 14, 1991 Page 8
Attest:
Grothe
rman
CITY OF DIAMOND RUD
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. V.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 5, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Approval of Parcel Map No. 15625 located at 525 Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar
SUMMARY: This project which contains the construction of a McDonald's restaurant, and automated car
wash, and expansion of the existing Diamond Bar Honda dealership, has been submitted to the City of Diamond
Bar for a final parcel map approval. All conditions of approval have been met.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council (1) approve the attached Parcel Map No.
15625; (2) authorize the City Engineer to execute the map; and (3) direct the City Clerk to process the map
for recordation.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other Parcel Man
Subdivision Agreement
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
_
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_
Yes X No
Which Commission?
_
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
X Yes — No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
Planning Department, Fire Department, Utility Companies
RE
"Z/
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger Sid J. Mousavi
City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer/Public Works Director
C"V COUNCIL r Epowr
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 15625
ISSUE STATEMENT
Approve Parcel Map No. 15625.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council: (1) approve the attached Final
Parcel Map No. 15625 and Subdivision Agreement; (2) authorize the City
Engineer to execute the map; and (3) direct the City Clerk to certify and
process the map for recordation.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Approval of this map will not have any impact on the City's 1991-92 budget.
BACKGROUND
Parcel Map No. 15625, which contains the construction of McDonalds
restaurant, and automated car wash with gasoline service facilities, and
expansion of the existing Diamond Bar Honda Dealership, was initially
submitted to the County of Los Angeles in 1989.
DISCUSSION
The City of Diamond Bar took over the processing for the above project in
January 1990. After a series of public hearings, the project was approved by
the Planning Commission on May 14, 1990 and the City Council on July 17,
1990. According to the Fire Department and Utility Companies and other
agencies which are affected by this project, all conditions for approval of
this project have been met.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 12, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Bond Exoneration
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to exonerate the surety bond posted for grading of 3020
Windmill Drive in the amount of $8,920.00.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve and accept the completed work and
exonerate the above listed surety bond posted for said grading permit and instruct the City Clerk to notify the
Los Angeles County of the City Council's action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other County letter dated 10/21/91
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Sid J. Mousavi
Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Surety Bond Exoneration
ISSUE STATEMENT
This report requests the exoneration of a surety bond for work located on
3020 Windmill Drive, Diamond Bar.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the exoneration of the
grading bond posted with Los Angeles County for said location and instruct
the City Clerk to notify the Los Angeles County of the City Council's action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This item has no financial impact on the City's budget.
BACKGROUND
The work at 3020 Windmill Drive has been completed and approved by the Los
Angeles County Building and Safety Division. As a result, the County has
notified the City of Diamond Bar with the release of the grading bond for
said location.
DISCUSSION
The grading work at 3020 Windmill Drive has been accepted by Los Angeles
County and the City Engineer recommends that the following surety bond be
exonerated:
Owner:
Address:
Surety:
Amount:
PREPARED BY:
Al La Peter
2030 Windmill Drive
Great Western Savings
$8,920.00
Sid Jalal Mousavi
TO:
RELEASE OF SAVINGS AND LOAN CERTIFICATES OR SHARES
All of the terms an conditions of Permit, No . �� 7 I-' f-7 e
ped to L F 2 f
ha e been comp ied with to
the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division in
accordance with the requirements of the Los Angeles County
Building Code, Ordinance No. 2225. Therefore, the Savings
andoan Certificate No. C����4"Ldate�and
in the amount of
$ 9- 10 is terminated this can now be
re eased.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING AND SAFETY DMSION
16065 E. CENTRAL AW -NUE
LA PUE04TE, CALIFORNIA 91744.
(818) X61461)
strict Offi r_e qt-Amn
Date d
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 12, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Exoneration of Surety Bonds for Tract Numbers 36813, 42580, 31941
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to exonerate the surety bond posted for storm drain/drainage
improvements located on Tract No. 36813 in an amount of $105,000, Tract No. 42580 in an amount of
$150,000 and Tract No. 31941 in amounts of $296,000 and $43,700 in Diamond Bar.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve and accept the completed work and
exonerate the surety bond posted for Tract No 36813, 42580, and 31941 and instruct the City Clerk to notify
the Los Angeles County of the City Council's action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other County letters dated 05/09/91,
10/24/91 and 10/03/91
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
REVI'�IVED
C -
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
WM w
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
Sid J. Mousavi
Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Exoneration Surety Bonds
ISSUE STATEMENT
This report requests the exoneration of surety bonds posted for storm
drain/drainage improvements located on Tract No. 36813, 42580, 31941 in
Diamond Bar, CA.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve for exoneration surety bonds
posted with Los Angeles County for storm drain/drain improvements for Tract
No. 36813 in an amount of $105,000 Tract No. 42580 in an amount of $150,000
and Tract No. 31941 in the amounts of $296,000 and $43,700.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This recommendation has no financial impact on the City's budget.
BACKGROUND
The City of Diamond Bar has been notified that the construction of storm
drain and drainage improvements for Tract No.'s 36813, 42580, and 31941 have
been satisfactorily completed.
DISCUSSION
The following listed surety bonds need to be exonerated:
Tract Number:
36813
Private Drain No.:
1812 Unit I
Bond Number:
ASI 100 094
Principal:
South Country Corporation
Amount:
$105,000
Tract Number:
42580
Private Drain No.:
1812 Unit II
Bond Number:
ASI 100201
Principal:
South Country Corporation
Amount:
$150,000
Page Two
Exoneration/Reduction
November 19, 1991
Tract Number: 31941
Private Drain No.: 1730
Bond Number: ASI 100 288
Principal: South Country Corporation
Amount: $296,000
Tract Number: 31941
Private Drain No.: 1820 Unit I
Bond Number: ASI 100 227
Principal: South Country Corporation
Amount: $43,700
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
OF.:LOS
,NC�!
Ory
«° 11,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
•,
:X;
•
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
* CdIIF!011 �
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
Telephone: (818) 458-5 100
May 9, 1991
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
STORM DRAIN/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 1812 UNIT I
TRACT NO. 36813
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
Bond Number ASI 100 094
Remaining Amount - $105,000
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
Iry REPT Y PLEASE L-5
REFER TO FILE
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the principal and this office.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
N. C. DATWYLER
Assistance Deputy director
Land Development Division
LG:sg/1812 I
pF LO$ 4
.I1y
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
r
CgLIFOR1\\Px
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
Telephone: (818) 458-5 100
May 9, 1991
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
STORM DRAIN/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 1812 UNIT II
TRACT NO. 42580
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
Bond Number ASI 100 201
Remaining Amount - $150,000
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEA& -5
REFER TO FILE
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the principal and this office.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
N. C. DATWYLER
Assistance Deputy director
Land Development Division
LG:sg/1812 II
ti pP, EDS 4NCf'
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
+.� +
w
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
x
C4UFORNtsx 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director Telephone: (818) 458-5100 ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
October 24, 1991 IN REPLY PLEASE Ir5
REFER TO FILE
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
STORM DRAIN/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 1730
TRACT NO. 31941
The construction of the drainage facilities guaranteed by the improvement
security listed below, and constructed under the subject private drain, has been
satisfactorily completed.
IT IS P-ECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept as completed the storm drain improvements.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
Bond Number ASI 100 238
Remaining Amount - $296,000
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the principal and this office.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
N. C. DATWYLER '
Assistant Deputy Director
Land Development Division
LG:sg/31941
div pF LOS 4N
r M
M �
C4QFORN�P
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
October 3, 1991
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (818) 458-5100 ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
STORM DRAIN/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 1820 LNIT I
TRACT NO. 31941
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE L-5
The construction of the drainage facilities guaranteed by the improvement
security listed below, and constructed under the subject private drain, has been
satisfactorily completed.
IT IS RECOMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
1. Approve and accept as completed the storm drain improvements.
2. Exonerate the following listed surety bond:
Bond Number ASI 100 227
Remaining Amount - $43,700
Principal - South Country Corporation
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, QA. 92705
This letter supersedes our letter dated May 14, 1991.
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the principal and t'_Zis office.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
N. C. DA
11 Assistant Deputy Director
Land Development Division
LG:sg/31941
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 12, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Reduction of Surety Bond for Tract Number 42584
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to reduce the surety bond posted for storm drain/drainage
improvements located on Tract No. 42584 by an amount of $380,000 in Diamond Bar.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept work and reduce the surety bond
posted for Tract No. 42584 and instruct the City Clerk to notify the Los Angeles County of the City Council's
action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other County letters dated 05/16/91
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? ` Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Sid J. Mousavi
Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Reduction of Surety Bond
ISSUE STATEMENT
This report requests the reduction of surety bond posted for storm
drain/drainage improvements located on Tract No. 42584 in Diamond Bar, CA.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the reduction of surety bond
posted for storm drain/drainage improvements for Tract No. 42584 in an amount
of $380,000 and instruct the City Clerk to notify the Los Angeles County of
the City Council's action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This recommendation has no financial impact on the City's budget.
BACKGROUND
The City of Diamond Bar has been notified that the construction of storm
drain and drainage improvements for Tract No. 42584 has been constructed and
has been satisfactorily completed.
DISCUSSION
The following listed surety bond needs to be reduced by $380,000:
Tract Number:
Private Drain No.:
Bond Number:
Principal:
Amount:
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
42584
1805
ASI 100 069
The Anden Group
$500,000
OF LOS 4N
r,
R q
C4LIFORMtP
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
May 16, 1991
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (818) 458-5100 ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O.BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
The City Council
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Council Members:
STORM DRAIN/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PRIVATE DRAIN NO. 1805
TRACT NO. 42584
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE L-5
The construction of the drainage facilities guaranteed by the improvement
security listed below, and constructed under the subject private drain, has been
satisfactorily completed.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR COUNCIL:
Reduce the following surety bond by $380,000:
Bond Number ASI 100 069
Original Amount - $500,000:
Principal - The Anden Group
1932 Deere Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92705
Please instruct the City Clerk to send a copy of the City Council action on this
recommendation to the principal and this office.
Very truly yours,
T. A. TIDEMANSON
Director of Public Works
N. C. DATWYLER
Assistant Deputy Director
Land Development Division
LG:sg/42584
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 5, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Status Report on the Pathfinder Bridge Project
SUMMARY: This is to report to the City Council the current status of the Pathfinder Bridge Widening
Project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
Other
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? N/A
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
REVIEWED BY: t
t �iz
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager Assistant City Manager
T
0
Sid J. Mousavi
City Engineer/Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Pathfinder Bridge Project Status Report
ISSUE STATEMENT:
This report provides an update on the status of the Pathfinder Bridge
Widening Project and it includes chronology of events related to design and
review process, as well as Financial summary.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The City Council's action related to this report will have no financial
impact on the City's Fiscal Year 1991-92 Budget.
BACKGROUND:
The Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project consist of widening of the bridge on
the southside, all necessary approach roadwork, upgrading of the existing
traffic signals at two ramp intersection and construction of a 125 -car park-
and-ride lot on the northside of Pathfinder Road between the freeway and
northbound on-ramp. The intersection improvement, as well as, widening are
required to eliminate the bottleneck and reduce the resultant congestion
created by the two lane overcrossing.
A Project Study Report covering this project was completed by the State of
California (CalTrans), in May 1984. Based on the criteria established by the
Interchange Funding Policy, which was adopted by the California
Transportation Commission in April 1984, this project was determined to be
100 percent locally funded. The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
adopted a resolution on June 24, 1986 supporting this project as a 100
percent locally funded project and requesting its inclusion in the 1986 STIP
and the project was subsequently included in the STIP. On April 18, 1989,
the City of Diamond Bar was incorporated. Subsequently, the City of Diamond
Bar has assumed responsibility for the project.
After numerous discussions and negotiations with the County of Los Angeles
and CalTrans, it is determined that the project will be funded jointly by the
City of Diamond Bar, CalTrans and County of Los Angeles. County of Los
Angeles has accepted to be the lead agency in design and construction of this
project.
Page Two
Pathfinder Bridge
November 19, 1991
The chronology of events related to the design of the project has been as
follows:
August 1990
October 3, 1990
November 27, 1990
February 25, 1991
April 3, 1991
May 16, 1991
October 22, 1991
DISCUSSION:
County of Los Angeles submitted preliminary plans to
CalTrans for review.
County published A Public Notice in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune.
County Board of Supervisors approved Negative Declaration
and authorized Public Works Department of the County to
carry out the project.
CalTrans Division of Structures completed the review of
plans and responded with list of comments.
County completed the plan revision related to the bridge
only.
CalTrans did not accept partial plan review and requested
all check list items be completed.
County revised the plans and resubmitted to CalTrans for
approval.
The construction cost of the project is estimated to be $2.1 million.
CalTrans has agreed to contribute $300,000 towards the construction cost of
the bridge improvements and the County of Los Angeles will pay $300,000 for
the construction of the Park -and -Ride facility. The City of Diamond Bar will
assign $818,100 of the FAU Funds. The remaining portion of the cost, which
is $681,900, will be funded by the City's Gas Tax Funds. Meantime, the City
has applied and requested that this project be placed in the 1992 STIP
Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) Project Nomination.
We are informed that $120 Billion worth of projects were submitted to Los
Angeles County Transportation Commission for FCR funding from which
approximately $400 Million worth of projects have been selected which
represents 24 projects for Los Angeles County. Among these projects is the
City of Diamond Bar's Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project. If this project is
approved, the City will receive FCR Funds in Fiscal Year 1998-99 and can
reimburse the Gas Tax Funds that we propose to expand in 1992 through 1993.
It is estimated that CalTrans will complete their review of the plans and
specifications by late December 1991. If the project is approved by CalTrans
for a advertisement, the solicitation of bids may take place during February
and March with construction starting in early Spring 1992.
PREPARED BY:
Sid J. Mousavi
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. I/, /
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 5, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Director of Public Works
TITLE: Heritage Park Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Open Space Grant
SUMMARY:
On August 15, 1989, the City Council authorized filing an application for Grants to fund the rehabilitation of
the Community Building located at Heritage Park through the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Urban Open Space and
Recreation Program. The scope of the project has changed from rehabilitation to reconstruction and as a result
it is necessary that a new application be filed by resolution of the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 89-76A authorizing a new application for the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Open Space Program
and authorize the Mayor to execute said Resolution.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:x Staff Report
x Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_Other
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
x Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A
_ Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A
_ Yes _ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes x No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
N/A
City Manager Assistant City Manager
Z_
Sid J. Mousavi
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Heritage Park Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Open Space Grant
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council desires to change the scope of the Community Building
Project in Heritage Park from a Rehabilitation Project to a Reconstruction
one.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 89-76A and authorize staff to file a new application for the
Roberti- Z I berg -Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Program, to amend
project from rehabilitation to reconstruction and authorize the Mayor to
execute said Resolution.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
Adoption of this resolution will have no impact on the City's 1991-1992
Fiscal Year Budget.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On August 15, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution 89-76 authorizing
application for funding for the rehabilitation of the Heritage Park Community
Building through the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Open Space Program. Since that
time the facility has been professionally evaluated and found to be a poor
candidate for rehabilitation and therefore, it needs to be demolished and
reconstructed. The State of California Parks and Recreation Department has
recognized this need and has agreed to change the scope of the project. As
such, the City will need to update the Grant application package to reflect
this change. This update requires a new resolution to support the amended
application.
PREPARED BY:
Sid J. Mousavi
CJ: SJM:ra
RESOLUTION NO. 89-76A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE
ROBERTI-V BERG -HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
PROGRAM FOR THE HERITAGE PARR RECONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Legislative of the State of California has
enacted the Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open Space and Recreation
Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions
of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing
facilities to meet urban recreation needs; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has
been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the
program, setting up necessary procedures governing application by
local agencies under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures establishing by the State
Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to
certify by resolution the approval of applications prior to
submission of said applications to the State; and
WHEREAS, said applications contain a certification that the
applicant will comply with all federal, state, and local
environmental, public health, relocation, affirmative action, and
clearinghouse requirements and all other appropriate codes, laws,
and regulations prior to the expenditure of the grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the project(s) applied for under this program must
be of a high priority and satisfy the most urgent park and
recreation needs, with emphasis on unmet needs in the most
heavily populated areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Resolution No.
89-76, which pertains to application for grant funds to
rehabilitate the Heritage Park's existing community building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the amended Resolution
to read as follows and the City Council hereby:
1. Approves the filing of an application for funding under
the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Urban Open Space and
Recreation Program for reconstruction of the community
building in Heritage Park; and
2. Certifies that said agency understands the general
provisions of the agreement; and
3. Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient
funds to operate and maintain the project(s) funded
under this program; and
4. Certifies that said agency has or will have available,
prior to commencement of any work on the project(s)
included in this application, the required match; and
5. Certifies that the project(s) included in this
application conform to the recreation element of any
applicable city or county general plan; and
6. Appoints the City Manager as agent of the City to
conduct all negotiations and execute and submit all
documents including, but not limited to, applications,
agreements, amendments, payment requests, and so on
that may be necessary for the completion of the
aforementioned project(s); and
7. Appoints City Attorney as legal counsel for said agency
with authorization to sign the certification on Page 1
of the application.
APPROVED and ADOPTED the 19th day of November, 1991.
MAYOR
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 89-76 was duly adopted by the City Council following roll
call vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Forbing, Miller, Werner, Mayor Pro
Tem Horcher, Mayor Papen
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
Clerk
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991 REPORT DATE: November 5, 1991
FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director
TITLE: Holiday Shuttle Service
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar will be providing a Holiday Shuttle service which will commence on
November 25, 1991 and end on December 31, 1991. The service will be available between the
hours of 10:00 a. m. and 6:00 p. m.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other Diamond Bar Holiday Shuttle Fly
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? N/A
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission? N/A
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A
Robert L. Vag
City Manager
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
Sid J. Mousavi
City Engineer/Public Works Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Holiday Shuttle Service
ISSUE STATEMENT
For the 1991 Holiday Season, the City of Diamond Bar will be providing a free
shuttle service to its resident shoppers. The service, which will begin on
November 25 and end on December 31, 1991, is scheduled to make 37 stops
throughout the City shopping areas.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
It is estimated that this program will cost $25,000. All costs associated
with the shuttle service will be covered by Proposition A monies, thus,
having no impact on the City's 1991-92 General Fund budget.
BACKGROUND
Initiated as a pilot program in 1990, the holiday shuttle service received an
overwhelming response last year and as a result, it is proposed to continue
with a similar service during the 1991 Holiday Season.
Last year, the Holiday Shuttle operated between November 23 and December 31,
from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Shuttle made 35 stops throughout the City.
DISCUSSION
For the 1991 Holiday Season, a free shuttle service will be offered to the
residents of Diamond Bar. The Shuttle will begin on November 25, and end on
December 31, 1991. It will run between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., making 37 scheduled stops throughout the City. Attached within this
report is the flyer that will be circulating throughout the City. The flyer
is designed to effectively announce the dates, times, and location of
service.
Page Two
Holiday Shuttle Service
November 19, 1991
The changes proposed for this year's program in days and hours of operation
is based on demand, ridership and overall response to the 1990 S hu t t le
service. The Shuttle will resume service seven days a week with the
exception of Thanksgiving and Christmas Days. Among the stops are included
Senior Citizens residences and major shopping centers such as Mart, Lucky's
and Country Hills Towne Center.
The Traffic and Transportation Commission has reviewed the Holiday Shuttle
service program and is in concurrence with the service that will be offered
during the 1991 Holiday Season.
PREPARED BY:
Sid Jalal Mousavi
E E
DIAMOND BAR HOLIDAY SHUTTLE
Enjoy holiday shopping by riding Diamond Bar's complimentary
Holiday Shuttle to convenient shopping centers throughout the city.
Spend your time locating presents - not parking places.
The Holiday Shuttle Bus will run from
NOVEMBER 25 TO DECEMBER 3 1
every hour from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
For further information, call the Chamber of Commerce at
861-2121, the City of Diamond Bar at 860-2489, your local merchants,
or look for the shuttle bus around town.
SHOP DIAMOND BAR
00 1
Heritage Park Apartments at Office
.33 21
Brea Canyon;Crooked Creek
.47 32
Golden Springs East of Brea
02 2
Oak Tree Plaza at Bowling Alley
:33 22
Brea Canyon/Diamond Bar
Canyon at Armstrong
02 3
Windmill/Ranch Center
:33 23
Brea Canyon/Cool Springs
:47 33
Golden Springs/Adel
.05 4
KMart
:33 24
Heritage Park at Sign
47 34
Golden Springs/Golden Prados
.07 5
Sav-on, Vons
:33 25
Brea Canyon/Fountain Springs
:52 35
KMart
07 6
Diamond Bar/Goldrush
:33 26
Brea Canyon North of
:54 36
Golden Springs,Bailena
07 7
Diamond Bar/Tin
Pathfinder in Plaza Center
:57 37
Golden Springs/Sunset Crossing
07 8
Diamond Bar/Clear Creek
:40 27
Albertson's at Brea
14 9
Plaza at NW Corner Diamond
Canyon/Colima
Bar/Grand: Standard Brands/1st
:40 28
Colima at Rapid View
Interstate
:40 29
Lemon North of Colima
rF�PLFgv�
18 10
Plaza at SW Corner Diamond
:40 30
Lycoming at Walnut Creek
Bar/Grand, Luckys
Mobile Estates
23 11
Plaza at NE Corner Diamond
:40 31
Lycoming/Penarth
���
z
Bar/Grand, Ralphs. Boston Store
3
SUNSET CROSSING
23
Post Office
Qv
37.
12
5\NG
23 13
Montefino Center
S &05
23 14
Diamond Bar/Mountain Laurel
Shuttle Stop
Times:
oy
5 pOMONA FRW 6U�
Po
23 15
Diamond Bar/Maple Hill
Example:
Shuttle will stop at
:23 16
Diamond Bar/Acacia Hill
Heritage Park
Apartments on the
5
4
23 17
Diamond Bar/Kiowa Crest
hour (:00) and at Oak
:23 18
Diamond Bar/Silver Hawk
Tree Plaza at two
36 BALLENA
minutes past the
:23 19
Diamond Bar/Pathfinder
hour (:02)
:33 20
Country Hills Towne Center atvy
6
Alpha Beta7'
Q�
y 35
7
LLYC' OMIIG`
31 32
30
28 c 33
ir
29 z
O
Z
T
U
27 2
m
y.
�P
<ma
Q
O�0
2
O' 34
Oe
8
9 11
10
12
13
14
15 JO
16 P0v
17 0P
18 _0�0
19 0�P
7'NF1NO&q RO.
>
LL
X.
O
Z
Z 26
q
q
O
U
w 20
m 21
25
24
23
22 v>
Q 2
O a
CIO
2
O' 34
Oe
8
9 11
10
12
13
14
15 JO
16 P0v
17 0P
18 _0�0
19 0�P
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.1
ORAL PRESENATION BY ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1
NO DOCMENTATION AVAILABLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. X
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager REPORT DATE: November 15, 1991
TITLE: Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element
Continuation of Public Hearing
SUMMARY: The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as AB 939, requires the
City to prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) which identifies how
the City will divert, through a combination of source reduction, recycling, and composting programs, 25 % of
solid wastes from landfill disposal by 1995, and 50% or the maximum amount feasible by the year 2000.
Pursuant to this requirement, the City must hold at least one public hearing to receive public testimony on the
programs and policies addressed within this document.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing to receive public
testimony on the policies and programs contained within the draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element
(SRRE). It is further recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing to their December 17,
1991, regularly scheduled meeting to satisfactorily conclude the legally -mandated review period and to enable
staff to complete a detailed analysis of this document and other integrated waste management issues.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s) X Other: Draft Source Reduction and Recycling
_ Agreement(s) Element (Previous Cover)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Adjoining cities, County of Los Angeles, California Integrated Waste
Management Board, interested members of the public.
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_
Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
N/A
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
NO
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
X
Yes No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
Yes X No
Which Commission?
_
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
X
Yes _ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
All City departments are impacted by this document
R"EWED
ert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger ;'
Troy L4utzlaff
City Manager Assistant City Manag
Assista
to the City Man ger
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: November 19, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element -
Continuation of Public Hearing
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as AB 939,
requires the City to prepare, adopt, and implement a Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) which identifies how the City will divert, through
a combination of source reduction, recycling, and composting programs, 25% of
solid wastes from landfill disposal by 1995, and 50% or the maximum amount
feasible by the year 2000. Pursuant to this requirement, the City must hold
at least one public hearing to receive public testimony on the programs and
policies addressed within this document.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing to
receive public testimony on the policies and programs contained within the
draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). It is further
recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing to their
December 17, 1991, regularly scheduled meeting to satisfactorily conclude the
legally -mandated review period and to enable staff to complete a detailed
analysis of this document and other integrated waste management issues.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The known fiscal implications of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element
are discussed within the Funding Component.
BACKGROUND:
The consultants to the Integrated Waste Management Joint Powers Authority
have prepared a preliminary draft of the City's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element and have circulated it for external review pursuant to the
45 -day public review and comment period as stipulated by law. The purpose of
this review period is twofold: (1) To allow the general public, affected
governmental agencies and private industry to comment upon the policies and
programs of the SRRE prior to its adoption; and (2) To identify potential
deficiencies and other areas within the SRRE that require change or
modification prior to the preparation of the final draft SRRE.
In addition to the 45 -day review period, the City must publicly advertise and
conduct at least one (1) public hearing to receive public input on the
preliminary draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element. This hearing is
the continuation of the public hearing that was held on October 29, 1991. At
that hearing, staff recommended that the City Council continue the public
hearing process to allow the Source Reduction and Recycling Technical
Subcommittee to reconvene to provide for additional analysis and discussion
on this document.
Since then, members of the technical subcommittee have met with staff to
discuss the SRRE document. As a result of these discussions, staff believes
that further analysis of the SRR element is needed. In addition, due to the
lack of written comments from the California Integrated Waste Management
Board, the County Integrated Waste Management Task Force, or any of the
adjoining cities that have reviewed the SRRE, staff is of the opinion that
this hearing should be continued to the City Council's December 17, 1991,
meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The SRR element is the culmination of a years worth of research on integrated
waste management issues and is specifically designed to bring the City into
compliance with state waste diversion goals. Incorporated within this
planning document are the final results of the waste generation study, the
City's short and medium term goals and objectives for each of the action
components (i.e., source reduction, recycling, etc.), identification of
existing programs, evaluation of alternatives, and recommendations on program
selection and other relevant information to assist the City with its waste
reduction goals.
The organization of this document was prepared in accordance with the
regulations implementing AB 939. Pursuant to those regulations, the
consultant examined the various action components of the SRRE and has
identified a total of 59 alternatives for potential implementation. These
alternatives have been evaluated based upon the criteria compiled from the
California Integrated Waste Management Board's Planning Guidelines and are
organized into 18 selected criteria representing three categories: cost
effectiveness; technical effectiveness; and institutional risks and impacts.
Based upon the evaluation methodology utilized by the consultant, a
comprehensive and workable set of programs have been selected for each of the
action components listed below.
SOURCE REDUCTION
The source reduction component is at the nucleus of the state's integrated
waste management hierarchy. This component contains a program and
implementation schedule which demonstrates how the City will minimize the
quantity of waste produced through a combination of rate structure
modifications, economic incentives, technical assistance and promotion, and
regulatory programs. Specifically, the City's source reduction component
identifies 17 potential alternatives that are divided into three (3) groups
based on their effectiveness in reducing waste. This list of grouped
alternatives has been evaluated according to local conditions, the City's
stated goals and objectives, and information obtained through the solid waste
generation study. Based upon this analysis, 11 alternatives were selected
and configured into a source reduction program for the City. These programs
include, but are not limited to: rate structure modification, on-site
composting assistance, waste audits and evaluations, waste reduction planning
for nonresidential generators.
RECYCLING
The City's recycling component includes a total of 23 alternatives that were
considered for final selection. Based on an examination of local conditions,
and the City's existing low waste diversion rate of 9.70, the consultant has
recommended a total of 18 programs for implementation. These programs are
organized into three categories (i.e., materials collection, materials
processing, and supportive policies) and are considered consistent with the
recycling requirements heretofore adopted by the City Council.
COMPOSTING
The composting component includes a series of selected programs aimed at the
collection and diversion of "green wastes" (i.e., grass, leaves, and
prunings) from residential generators through the controlled biological
decomposition of these organic materials. Of the nine (9) identified
alternatives, six (6) were selected for implementation in the short-term
planning period. They include: self -haul drop-off of yard wastes;
decentralized pre-processing and materials storage; promotion and education;
financial incentives to encourage participation, and regulatory measures and
supportive policies. It is estimated that implementation of these programs
will contribute an additional 8.6% diversion in the short-term and 11.3% over
the medium-term.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
The public education and information component is the delivery vehicle of the
City's integrated waste management strategy. It involves an aggressive
campaign designed to increase public awareness and participation in all of
the selected programs. Programs selected within this component include:
residential sector promotional campaign (multilingual); school curricula
development (K-12); nonresidential promotional campaign; representative waste
evaluations of selected businesses; and a SRR Element representative training
program for nonresidential generators.
Unlike the other components, public education and information does not
require an estimation of the solid waste diversion expected from a particular
alternative. However, the lack of tangible diversion results should not
minimize the importance of this component. The vigor by which the City
embraces this component will ultimately impact the overall success of the
City's integrated waste management strategy and should determine the City's
ability to achieve a 25% diversion goal by 1995.
It is anticipated that the City will continue to participate with the other
member -cities of the East San Gabriel Valley Integrated Waste Management
Joint Powers Authority in the development of a regional campaign to promote
public education and information.
SPECIAL WASTE
This component describes the existing and proposed waste handling and
disposal practices for those special wastes identified by the solid waste
generation study. These waste include bulky, difficult to handle items such
as: white goods, tires, construction and demolition debris, asbestos, ash,
and sewage sludge. In order to properly evaluate the viability of the
program alternatives, the consultant selected the following evaluation
criteria: (1) Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity; (2) Absence of
Hazard; (3) Limited Shift in Waste Generation; (4) Implementablity; (5)
Facility Needs; (6) Consistency with Local Policies; (7) Absence of
Institutional Barriers; (8) Cost; and (9) End Uses. As a result of this
analysis, the following programs were selected for implementation:
development of a used tire reuse and recycling program; recycling of
construction and demolition wastes; and a white goods collection program.
FUNDING
In as much as the source reduction component is at the heart of the state's
solid waste hierarchy, the funding component serves as the blood supply of
the SRRE. This component identifies and specifically describes the projected
costs, revenues, and revenue sources required to implement all components of
the City's source reduction and recycling element.
It is estimated that the total private/public sector costs to implement the
proposed component programs could exceed $739,000 over the short-term
planning period. Combined with a projected operating cost of $549,000, the
total costs associated with implementation of the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element may approach $1.3 million dollars in the short-term
planning period (1991-1995) or $435,000 per year when disbursed over a three-
year period.
The purpose of the funding component is to demonstrate that the City has
sufficient funding and allocation of resources to plan, develop, and
implement the SRR element programs. Unfortunately, this component is
somewhat vague in its discussions on how the City will fund the multitude of
programs being recommended for implementation. While it can be argued that
most of these programs can and should be offset by the waste hauling industry
through permit regulation or contractual arrangements, staff is examining
various funding alternatives that could be utilized to recover the costs of
AB 939 implementation and plans to included this information in the staff
analysis of the SRRE document.
INTEGRATION
Based upon the solid waste generation analysis, the City diverts only 9.7% of
the total generated wastes. State law mandates that the City attain a 25%
diversion goal by 1995 or face possible administrative penalties of up to
$10,000 per day for each day the City fails to achieve this goal. In view of
this, the consultant has selected a comprehensiveness and aggressive set of
programs, which maximize the use of all source reduction, recycling,
composting, and special waste options, in order to increase the City's
diversion rate to 29.7% in the short-term planning period.
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
There has been considerable speculation that the state legislature might
amend AB 939 when it reconvenes in January, 1992. In fact, in the last few
days of the 1991 legislative session, several environmental groups
successfully managed to amended AB 2092 which would have provided for a six
month extension to the original AB 939 planning deadline. In its amended
form, the bill would have severely narrowed the types of diversion programs
that the City would be able to count towards achieving its AB 939 goals. As
a result of an intense lobbying effort waged by the League of California
Cities, the Bill's author, Assemblyman Bryon Sher, agreed to make AB 2092 a
two year bill. Although this placed the City in technical violation of the
law by not submitting its SRRE by the July 1, 1991, deadline, it doesn't
appear that the Integrated Waste Management Board will be enforcing the
letter of the law at this time.
Although this has made the legislative outlook somewhat unclear, the City has
joined with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, other public
4
officials, staff members, and representatives of private industry in
presenting their concerns to Assemblyman Sher regarding the undue degree of
costly and cumbersome planning requirements within the existing law.
In response, Assemblyman Sher has indicated that his staff is presently
evaluating several proposed amendments which would reduce the extensive
planning requirements and shift the responsibility for the development of
markets and implementation of public education programs to the State. In
addition, he has expressed a desire to find an equitable compromise early
next year that would make AB 939 more flexible and workable for local
government implementation.
PREPARED BY:
Ty6y L. Bzla
Assis t to t Ci Manager
5