The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0203 CC REG ITEM 11J177. / JOHN GALLOWAY Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember JOHN PATRICK LANE Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk THOMAS P.GENOVESE City Treasurer MOORPARK M E M O R A N D U M ITEM /�`\ . STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: January 27, 1988 (CC meeting of February 3, 1988) SUBJECT: BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES Background At the City Council meeting of January 6, 1988 agenda Item 11.H considered a memorandum from the City Manager regarding pending termination of Building and Safety Services from the County of Ventura. The County, in a letter dated December 9, 1987, had advised the City of service termination effective May 31. 1988. The Council after reviewing this matter directed the staff to accomplish the following: i. Request the County to modify the contract termination date to June 30, 1988. This would not only give the City 30 additional days, but would align the termination period to a fiscal year event. 2. Prepare a Request for Proposal in draft form for Council's review at their meeting of February 3, 1988. 3. Develop background information regarding this matter for review at the February 3rd Council meeting. Termination Date Pursuant to the Council's direction the City Manager, in a January 13, 1988 letter, requested from Mr. Jack Cudmore, Ventura County Building Official the placement of a request by the City of Moorpark for an extension of the Termination date from May 31, 1988 to June 30, 1988. PJR:crl 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 t Page 2 In a follow up telephone conversation with Mr. Cudmore it was disclosed that the County Board of Supervisors will consider the extension at their regular meeting of February 9, 1988. Mr. Cudmore did not expect any opposition to the City's request. Staff will monitor the actions of the Board of Supervisors and keep the Council advised on the latest status. Request for Proposals Attached to this memorandum is a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) to be sent to those persons and organizations listed on the face sheet of the RFP. This listing was created from contacts made with the League of California Cities, Contract Cities Association, ICBO headquarters offices, letters received from interested parties, a review of advertisements in Western Cities and from the City of Agoura Hills who back in August 87 sent out RFP's to provide engineering and building and safety services. The attached RFP was modeled after the one sent out by Agoura Hills. There has been an emphasis by staff in the draft to provide for inspection services related to future redevelopment, CDBG and rehabilitation activities. The RFP was created using the following topical ingredients: General city information The format for submittal RFP submission date and schedules Proposal information Right of Refusal/Cost of Preparation Client References Legal and Insurance requirements Scope of Work Method of Compensation Selection Criteria Proposal Price Sheets A contract has not been included with this memorandum, but will follow the City's standard contract form. RFP Timing If the Council finds the attached draft RFP acceptable, or modifies it at the February 3rd meeting to be acceptable, staff could send out RFP's by February 17, 1988. Assuming that the RFP's are received by the various firms on February 20th; thirty (30) day response period would allow for a March 21, 1988 submittal date. Staff could then review the proposals and set the first few weeks in April for applicant interviews. The matter could then appear before the City Council no later than the meeting of May 4, 1988. The selection of a firm could be made on that date with a contract returned to the Council on May 18, 1988. PJR:crl Page 3 Transitions There are three transitions that need to occur in changing from County services to a consultant. First involves the need to terminate County plan check services. Inasmuch as the County currently takes about six (6) weeks for plan check services; there is a need to terminate the County's services so as to eliminate building plan checks that are unlikely to complete the process including applicant corrections by May 31, 1988. Staff would suggest that an April 1, 1988 date be used as the plan check transition date to go from County services to contract consultant services. To accomplish this task the City would need to hire an interim plan check contractor until the full service building and safety contractor is selected. Staff has discussed this concept with Mr. Jack Cudmore of the County and he concurs with this approach. Although staff does not expect projects entering plan check after April 1st to require inspection services prior to May 31, or June 30, 1988; the County is prepared to make inspections when needed. The second transition would occur when the selected full service contractor took over the plan check services from the interim contractor. This would require that another cut off time be established so that the full service contractor would be conducting their own plan checks and inspections. The third transition occurs when the County terminates their inspection service and the City's contractor steps in. Inspections of Residential, Commercial and Industrial projects will have been accomplished by the County in various stages of activity. There will be a need to determine the status of each permit by the County prior to their termination of service. Attached to this memorandum is a generalized status of permits as of January 19, 1988. Of note are the number of "minor" permits (261). These minor permits (mainly patios) may take some time 'L-.o clear up as they include permits for which the applicant has not called for final inspection. A problem area regarding the transition of inspection service between the County and a consultant is the method of compensation. If it is assumed that the standard method of compensation is percent of permit fees; a consultant would be accepting inspections form projects it has not collected fees from. Staff' s draft RFP is worded to provide for an hourly charge rate against a percent of the remaining inspections needed on a permit. For example if $1000 was collected as a permit fee and 50% of the inspections had been completed then a contractor could look towards the remaining 50% to receive its percentage. PJR:crl Page 4 The City may need to absorb a small amount of the inspection costs because of the uncertainty of a permit status at any given time. Project Status In an effort to understand approved project status as they relate to issues surrounding the County's Building and Safety termination; staff has provided the following listing. The projects are listed by land use and in the order staff feels will enter plan check over the next four (4) months. Residential 1. TR-3963 Griffin Homes 484 lots (139 complete) ( 70 given allot- ments) 2. TR-4338 UWC 54 lots (subject to allotments) 3. TR-4340 UWC 164 lots (subject to allotments) 4. TR-4341 UWC 152 lots (subject to allotments) 5. TR-4342 UWC 179 lots (subject to allotments 6. TR-3049 Varsity Estates 93 (40 allotments given) Inasmuch as the City has awarded 138 allotments thus far and only another potential 125 in April of this year; the number of plan check requests will be limited to generally that number during this transition period. Commercial 1. PD-1059 2. PD-1062 3. PD-1063 4. PD-1057 5. PD-1066 Chevron gas station/food mart Embassy Group Partnership National Convenience Stores, Inc.. Senior Citizen Center Parklane Car Wash PJR:crl t Page 5 Commercial (continued) 6. PD-1068 Topa Management 7. PD-1065 Valesquez - Auto Service, L.A. Ave. 8. PD-1048 Valesquez - Moorpark Ave./High St. Industrial 1. DP-320, 321 and 322 Franz Wolf 2. DP-338,339,340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 345 and 347 Annotti 3. DP-348 A-Z Storage 4. DP-328, 329, 330 and 331 Annotti 5. DP-362 CC&F 6. DP389 CC&F 7. DP-390 Sig Friedman T\R__-_____ 1- The allotment process mandated under Measure F will limit the number of residential permits within a calendar year. At the present time the City has granted a total of 138 allotments from the Schedule "AT' portion of the 1987 allotments. According to Resolution 87-421 Schedule "B" of the 1987 cycle will allow the granting of 125 allotments. The 1988 year will begin the first once a year allotment awards. A total of 237 allotments will be available (13 allotments were used during the 1987 schedule "B" process) in 1988. Inasmuch as the City has in place a growth limitation process it should be easy for a contractor to project residential plan check and inspection services. Expenditures and Revenues History Since the City's incorporation the revenues generated by building permits have exceeded the expenditures. The following is a listing of the revenues generated to the City for building permit issuance by calendar year. 1983 $ 324,708.67 1984 289,051.71 1985 235,849.24 1986 1,437,658.41 1987 118,306.98 n0 /1 /ruD/IATT PJR:crl Y Page 6 The following expenditures amounts were taken from County billings, which are keyed to a fiscal year index: FY 84-85 134,851.09 FY 85-86 210,093.99 FY 86-87 267.821.17 FY 87-88 - Permit fees paid during one fiscal year may be drawn upon by inspections in another. Therefore, an indication of a large revenue in one period will be eroded by inspections and administration costs in a later period. The City generally retains 20 to 40 percent of the fee amount after inspection costs. The remainder is used to cover a portion of City expenses related to project follow up, zone clearance assistance and administrations costs. Conclusions There is a need for the City to act quickly in establishing a workable transition from County Building and Safety services to contractual services. Staff has prepared a draft RFP for Council's review so as to have a 'Long term contractor who will provide both plan check and inspections services. Recommendatio 1. Direct staff to solicit bids from two firms to provide interim plan check services to begin April 1, 1988 and to return to the Council on March 16, 1988 with a recommendation for award; and 2. Direct staff to forward the attached draft RFP to those firms listed in this memorandum. Attachments: Building Permit Activity Status Building Permit Issuance Annually Draft Request for Proposal MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of 198 ACTION: Alf By PJR:crl nc 11 /t-T-TDn?,7T Page 7 Building Permit Activity Status Residential TR-4140 & 4142-------------------- Total Active = 269 Fnd./Slab complete = 44% or 118 count Frame = 29% or 78 count Awaiting Final = 27% or 73 count TR-4170--------------------------- Total Active = 64 Fnd./Slb complete - 36 lots Framing completed/awaiting final 28 lots TR-3070--------------------------- Total Active = 20 Awaiting final - 20 TR-4141---------------------------- Total Active = 72 Awaiting final - 43 Ready for framing insp. 29 TR-3019--------------------------- Total Active = 64 Awaiting final insp. 64 TR-2865--------------------------- Total Active = 101 Awaiting final insp. 73 Ready for framing insp. 28 TR-3306--------------------------- Total Active = 22 No work started. TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE TRACT PERMITS = 612 PJR:crl nn /1 11" T7D/IATT Page 8 Commercial 6080 Condor 5898 Condor 151 Science Drive 200 Science Drive 609 Science Drive 799 Moorpark Ave. 799 Moorpark Ave. 5214 Bonzai 5215 Kazuko 5100 Commerce 5297 Maureen Ln. 216 Moorpark Ave. 5400 Tech Circle 5450 Tech Circle 481-499 High St. 5555 Tech Circle 10951 L.A. Ave. 650 Flinn 668 Flinn 680 Flinn 5150 Goldman 798 Moorpark Ave, 387 ?ackery 530 L.A. Ave. Tenant improvement, 757. complete Tenant improvement - framing in progress Permit issued - no inspection Permit issued - no inspection Permit issued - no inspection Foundation poured Re -roof community center Masonry walls under construction Masonry walls completed Shell building complete In final stage Shell building - 75% complete Shell building - not started Shell building - not started Framing stage Framing stage interior Completed Tenant improvement - 25% complete Tenant improvement - final stage Tenant improvement - final stage Tenant improvement - final stage Tenant improvement - 75%. complete Tenant improvement - not started Tenant improvement - 10 active permits 75% complete PJR:crl n[+ /1 /r4T_Tn/11.TT Page 9 Minor permits - patio covers, room additions, swimming pool/spas, etc. Active permits 261 Many of these are patio permits and owners simply do not call for inspection. PJR:crl Tze /1 /rIT. Dt)NTT 3000 NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED ANNUALLY 1983 - 1987 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 January 27, 1988 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST City of Moorpark The City of Moorpark is requesting proposals from private consultants to provide the full range of Building & Safety services. The scope of work will include: A. Plan Check B. Inspections C. Building Rehabilitation Inspections D. CDBG Inspections E. Redevelopment Inspections The complete specifications may be obtained by contacting the Director of Community Development, City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark California 93021 (805) 529-6864. All proposals must be submitted by 3:00 p.m. ,1988 and in the format contained in the specifications. PJR:crl ncc /n rn /runr',*KI I CITY OF MOORPARK REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES January 27, 1988 Page 2 PJR:crl DC/D CD/!'LJ Driml January 27, 1988 Page 3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES The City of Moorpark is requesting proposals from private consultants to provide the full range of building and safety services previously provided by the County of Ventura. GENERAL INFORMATION The City of Moorpark is a new community situated in the eastern portion of Ventura County. It is adjacent to the cites of Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley. Its current population is 20,500. The City is characterized by rapid growth, in a rural setting. In addition, the 23 and 118 Freeways will eventually connect in the City. Research and development companies as well as office buildings are also under construction in the City at this time. Moorpark was incorporated in July, 1983 as a general law city, and operates under the Council/iMlanager form of government. The five (5) City Council members are elected at large by the residents, for staggered four -you terms, and serve as the City's legislative, policy making body. The Mayor is selected annually from among the Council members. The City Council holds bimonthly public meetings at which views of interested residents may be expressed. The City Manager is responsible for directing City affairs as prescribed by the City Council. Moorpark is considered a contract city. On November 4, 1986 by initiative action the voters of Moorpark adopted Measure F which is a residential growth limitation regulation. Under Measure F the City may issue only 250 residential building permits in a calendar year with certain exceptions. PROPOSAL INFORMATION The purpose of this Request for Proposal is to select a firm to operate Building and Safety functions FOR the City. The firm will serve as the Department of Building and Safety for the items listed in this RFP. The City intends to select one firm to perform all the items listed in the Scope of Work section. The City recognizes there may be questions or items requiring discussion prior to the engineer preparing its proposal. If questions arise, please contact Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development. If it appears a formal session with candidate's is required, such will be scheduled - the City's objective is to insure an appropriate exchange of the information prior to proposal preparation - to minimize both wasted effort by firms during proposal preparation and unnecessary follow-up by City personnel during the evaluation process. PJR:crl n[- /n rn /Y`I ln/lAI l January 27, 1988 Page 4 RIGHT OF REFUSAL THE CITY OF MOORPARK RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS. COST OF PROPOSAL PREPARATION The firm is responsible for any costs incurred by the firm or their subcontractors, in responding to this request for proposal. PJR:crl DC /D CD/rtuDnK1I January 27, 1988 Page 5 FORMAT FOR RFP RESPONSES The firms are required to adhere to the following format in their proposals: Letter of Transmittal Executive Summary Qualifications of persons to be assigned to Moorpark List of References Proposal Price Sheet (Attachment A) A description of the firms understanding of the City's needs If any subcontractors are to be used in the performance of this project, they must be identified. General Company information Company Headquarters & Branches Number of years in business Organization and Staff (number and types) State qualifications for the contract Proposers are required to follow this format in preparing the proposals. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DATE AND SCHEDULE OF EVEN One (1) original and four (4) copies of all proposals must be received by the City Clerk, City of Moorpark, no later than: 3 : 00 p . m . , 1938 Address all proposals to: Maureen W. Wall, City Clerk 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 No amendments, additions or alternates will be accepted after the above submission date. PJR:crl Rc/Rr:p/r,wQr)Kii January 27, 1988 Page 6 Each proposal shall be considered valid and binding on the proposer for a period of ninety (90) days after the proposal due date. All proposals and documents submitted will become the property of the City of Moorpark. Anything considered to be proprietary shall be so designated by the proposer. Schedule of Events: Interview of Firms 1988 Selection of Firms 1988 Contract Execution 1988 Implementation 1988 PROPOSAL PRICE SHEE Firms are required to submit the proposal costs on the attached RFP Response Sheet, Attachment "A" of this RFP. CLIENT REFERENCES Firms are required to list all client references, a minimum of three (3) references for each category should be included in the Appendix of the proposal. State what was done, for who, contact phone number, and/or address. A description of similar work performed by the vendor, preferable in California, is desirable. LEGAL & INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS The following are the legal and insurance requirements of the City of Moorpark. 1. This RFP and the firms response will be a part of contract. 2. Documents to be construed together. The RFP, the vpndor's proposal, and all documents referred to in the specifications and contract to be entered into between the firm and the City, and all the modifications of said documents, shall be construed together as one document. PJR:crl DQ/RCP/ruDnK1I January 27, 1988 Page 7 3. Assignment or Transfer of Contract. The firm shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of his contract, or his rights, title or interest in or to the same without previous written consent of the City. 4. Indemnity. The firm must agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, from any and all liability or loss, resulting from any suits, claims or actions brought against the City, which result directly or indirectly from the wrongful or negligent actions of the firm in the performance of the contract. 5. Insurance. At the time of execution of the contract, the firm will be required to carry at least $2 million of General Liability and Professional Liability insurance. 6. Compliance with Labor Laws. The firmwill be required to comply with all existing State and Federal Labor Laws. 7. Disadvantaged and Equal Opportunity Employment Provisions. Firm will be required to meet all State and Federal Laws applicable to Disadvantaged and EEO. 8. Firm shall agree not to provide services for any others within the City limits. OTHER CITY REQUIREMENTS The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals without qualifications. Proposals will be considered only in their entirety. The City reserves the right to negotiate the specific requirements and cost using the selected proposal as a basis. The City also reserves the right to reject all proposals if they are deemed unsuitable to the City's reeds. Late or incomplete proposals will not be considered, and the City reserves the right to determine the completeness of all request for proposals. PJR:crl RC/RFP/( 14PnMl SCOPE OF WORK Building and Safety Services A. Plan Checkin A January 27, 1988 Page 8 1. The firm shall review the plans prepared by or on behalf of the various private developers for compliance with the ordinances of the City. 2. The firm shall maintain close liaison with other City departments in order that the appropriate requirements of those departments are incorporated within such building plans. 3. The firm shall arrange reviews by other appropriate agencies having jurisdiction in such matters relative to the enforcement of the Fire Codes, Sanitation Codes and Health Codes. When satisfied that the appropriate requirements of the City's codes have been met, firm shall issue permits as appropriately set forth in such codes. Building Inspection 1. The firm shall provide building inspection services during the course of construction of private structures to enforce compliance with the provisions of the City's ordinance (which requires precise definition as to workmanship) and the code requirements set forth on the plans for which the permit was issued. 2. in the performance of such duties the firm shall provide prompt inspection for each project at the completion of the various stages of construction to determine compliance with the appropriate City code. 3. The firm shall issue building permits between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each work day. PJR:crl RC/RGP/(-WP MJI C. N Building Rehabilitation Inspection The firm pertaining inspection shall enforce the provisions of the City' to substandard buildings and properties and issue such permits as are required. January 27, 1988 Page 9 s building laws and make such 2. The firm shall diligently pursue a Building Rehabilitation program, when directed by the Director of Community Development to systematically enforce the Building Rehabilitation portions of the City code for the purpose of rehabilitating substandard properties and bringing about the timely demolition or removal of those structures which are unsightly, substandard or unsafe and beyond repair. Community Development Block Grant Inspection Services The firm agrees to provide additional inspections and services as needed by the City including but not limited to preparation of bid documents, contractor bid review, award of contract, pre -construction conference, progress and final inspections, monitor compliance with Davis/Bacon and other Federal regulations. A! inspections reports, plot and floor plans, cost estimates and other elated materials prepared or obtained by the firm as part of this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of the City. PJR:crl nc/Dr:r)1r DrvIl January 27, 1988 Page 10 CONTRACT A. Attachment "B" Attachment "B" is the form of contract that will be executed with the selected firm. B. Period The period of the service contract will be for years, commencing 1988, or as soon thereafter as possible, for a period not to exceed years. Yearly performance reviews will be conducted at the end of each fiscal year by the City. The contract may be terminated by the City upon 90 days notice to the consultant. METHOD OF COMPENSATION The method of compensation for each type of service is as follows: Building and Safety Services Plan checking Building Services CDBG services Transition inspections from County Percent of fees collected Percent of permit fees Hourly rates Percent of permit fee - not to exceed PJR:crl RC/RFP/rHrznN1 January 27, 1988 Page 11 SELECTION CRITERIA Total scores will be determined by adding the points received for technical qualifications (maximum of 80 points) plus the points received for the cost of the engineering services (maximum of 20 points) . The total score will be determined by the following formula: Technical Score for the Firm x 80 = Technical Score Highest Technical Score Received by any firm PLUS Lowest Cost Score of All Firms x 20 = Cost Score Cost Score of this Firm The evaluation of the technical qualifications will be based on the following criteria: Factor Point Range 1. Prior City Building and Safety Experience: a. As designated City Building Official 0-8 b. In providing plan checking services 0-8 C. In providing inspection services 0-8 2. Organization size and structure of firm 0-5 3. Qualifications, Education amd experience of staff to he assigned to the City: a. Of those directly assigned to the City: 1. Building Official 0-5 2. Project Inspection 0-5 b. Of those assigned to overall supervision 0-5 4. Firm's understanding of the work to be performed. This will be determined by the response to this RFP. Also considered will be the firm's understanding of how to ease the transition of inspection services from Ventura County to a contractor. 0-5 5. Amount, type and quality of insurance Technical Points 0-5 ------------- 0-80 PJR:crl RS/RFP/CHRnNI 6. Cost of Services: a. Building Services b. Retainer Services C. Percentage fees, excluding building and safety d . Hourly rates Cost Points January 27, 1988 Page 12 0-5 0-5 0-3 0-7 ------------- 0-20 The City reserves the right to request additional information from each applicant and to request oral interviews. All applicants will be notified of the City's decision once a consultant has been selected. PJR:crl RS/RFP/CHRONl ATTACHMENT "A" Proposal Price Sheet January 27, 1988 Page 13 PJR:crl RS/RFP/C:HRnNI January 27, 1988 Page 14 PROPOSAL PRICE SHEET BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES Plan Checking: percent ( o) of fees collected Building Rehab Services: Attach the hourly rates for the various classifications that would be billed to the City under this category. Building Services: percent ( o) of fees collected (Also, attach the hourly rates for inspections charged under permits issued by the County.) CDBG Inspection Services Attach the hourly rates for the various classifications that would be billed to the City under this category. Authorized Signature Date Name: Title: Company: PJR:crl RS/RFP/CHRnmi KENT C. GANNFORS, RCE MICHAEL P. MEYER HAWKINS/MARK-TELL GRANNFORS & ASSOCIATES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENG. P.O. BOX 31 311133 VIA COLINAS, #104 DKS ASSOCIATES REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 742 S. HILL STREET, #904 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON, MENDENHALL & BROMS 223 THOUSAND OAKS BL., #315 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360 CARLENE VANDERVORT MARKETING MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICE CORP. 6017 BRISTOL PARKWAY CULVER CITY, CA 90230 TOM BROHARD, VICE PRESIDENT WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY S, SUITE 200 INDUSTRY, CA 91746-3499 NBS/LOWRY ENGINEERS 10920 VIA FRONTERA SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 MR. JOHN HAAG PLANNING RESEARCH CORPORATION 972 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD ORANGE, CA 92667 JACK DEJONG & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1121 VENTURA, CA 93002 HAALAND & ASSOCIATES, INC ONE BOARDWALK, #200 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360 JOHN R. CUERVO, PARTNER DON GREEK & ASSOCIATES 2428 N. GRAND AVE., #L SANTA ANA, CA 92701 SHAHNAWAZ AHMAD ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3280 EAST FOOTHILL BLVD., #160 PASADENA, CA 91107 JOHN HILL LOS ANGELES COUNTY ROAD 1540 ALCAZAR STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90033 BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 16880 W. BERNARDO DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 NORTHERN CA SYS., INC. 1153 HILLTOP DRIVE REDDING,, CA 96003 DAVID L. ATKINSON, OFFICE MGR. SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC. 325 HILLCREST, #114 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360 DOUGLAS BROWNE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 5661 NORTH LAS VIRGENES ROAD CALABASAS, CA 91301 DICK ESGATE, P.E., PRES. ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., #208 SAN DIEGO, CA. 92127 JAY C. KIM, PRESIDENT DEPT. JAYKIM ENGINEERS, INC. NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE BREAK, CA 92621 RON HOOD 0.0. BOX 1868 OXNARD, CA 93032 BSI 1688BOYLE ENGINEERING 1501 QUAIL ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA PACESETTER BUILDING SERVICES CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION NBS LOWRY 16925 MAIN ST., sUITE B TECHNOLOGY CORP. 10920 VIA FRONTERA HESPERIA, CA 92345 217 E. ALAMEDA AVE., SUITE 215 SAN DIEGO, CA BURBANK, CA 91502 KENT C. GANNFORS, RCE GRANNFORS & ASSOCIATES 311133 VIA COLINAS, #104 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON, MENDENHALL & BROMS 223 THOUSAND OAKS BL., #315 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360 CARLENE VANDERVORT MARKETING MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICE CORP 6017 BRISTOL PARKWAY CULVER CITY, CA 90230 TOM BROHARD, VICE PRESIDENT WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY S, SUITE 200 INDUSTRY, CA 91746-3499 NBS/LOWRY ENGINEERS 10920 VIA FRONTERA SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 MR. JOHN HAAG PLANNING RESEARCH CORPORATION 972 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD ORANGE, CA 92667 JACK DEJONG & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1121 VENTURA, CA 93002 MICHAEL P. MEYER SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENG DKS ASSOCIATES 742 S. HILL STREET, #904 LOS ANGELES, CA 90014 HAALAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. ONE BOARDWALK, #200 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360 JOHN R. CUERVO, PARTNER DON GREEK & ASSOCIATES 2428 N. GRAND AVE., #L SANTA ANA, CA 92701 SHAHNAWAZ AHMAD ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3280 EAST FOOTHILL BLVD., #160 PASADENA, CA 91107 JOHN HILL LOS ANGELES COUNTY ROAD 1540 ALCAZAR STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90033 n(`T rnAlclll TAKIT c TAI!` 6JIJVL 1 .UIVIl11vI J, llv 16880 W. BERNARDO DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 NORTHERN CA SYS., INC. 1153 HILLTOP DRIVE REDDING, CA 96003 HAWKINS/MARK-TELL P.O. BOX 31 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 DAVID L. ATKINSON, OFFICE MGR. SANTINA & THOMPSON, INC. 325 HILLCREST, #114 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91360 DOUGLAS BROWNE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 5661 NORTH LAS VIRGENES ROAD CALABASAS, CA 91301 DICK ESGATE, P.E., PRES. ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., #208 SAN DIEGO, CA. 92127 JAY C. KIM, PRESIDENT DEPT. JAYKIM ENGINEERS, INC. NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE BREAK, CA 92621 Rnni Hnnn 0.0. BOX 1868 OXNARD, CA 93032 BSI 1688BOYLE ENGINEERING 1501 QUAIL ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA PACESETTER BUILDING SERVICES CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION NBS LOWRY 16925 MAIN ST., sUITE B TECHNOLOGY CORP. 10920 VIA FRONTERA HESPERIA, CA 92345 217 E. ALAMEDA AVE., SUITE 215 SAN DIEGO, CA BURBANK, CA 91502