The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About04_7B_ODS_Staff Report_RRM Design_1.19.20COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: January 19, 2021 TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager Via: Scott Reimers, Community Development Director By: Andrew Coyne, Management Analyst SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RRM DESIGN GROUP (RRM) TO PREPARE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT REDUCE ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING TIME ON MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to: 1.Approve a Consultant Services Agreement with RRM (Attachment “A”) to prepare the objective design standards; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Consultant Services Agreement in an amount not to exceed $178,248. BACKGROUND: 1.On September 29, 2017, then Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB2, which created a $75 fee on the recordation of some real estate transactions. The fee’s purpose is to provide funds to address affordable housing needs. 2.On March 28, 2019, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development issued a Notice of Funding Availability for the Planning Grants Program (PGP), which uses a share of the funds resulting from SB2. 3.On November 19, 2019, the City Council of the City of Temple City authorized City staff to submit a PGP application for the preparation of objective design standards to expedite the review and approval of multi-family projects, which will help the city meet its State-mandated housing goals. AGENDA ITEM 7.B. City Council January 19, 2020 Page 2 of 3 4.On March 26, 2020, the City was informed by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) that it had been awarded a $160,000 PGP grant. The grant must be expended by June 2022. 5.On August 28, 2020, the City released a Request for Proposals (Attachment “B”) to prepare the objective design standards. 6.On September 28, 2020, the City received eight proposals. ANALYSIS: The City of Temple City recently adopted a new zoning code which includes new development standards for the multi-family zones (R-2 and R-3). The objective design standards will help designers and the development community by providing an optional method of expediting the review process, which in turn would reduce design costs and accelerate housing production in the City. The objective design standards will include: • Creation of site plans, floor plans, and elevations that would act as design templates for typically sized sites in the R-2 and R-3 zones. These templates would be based on the development standards and design guidelines currently in the Zoning Code; •Designers who use these templates for their projects would enter an expedited, non-discretionary, review process, which would eliminate the period of determining whether the project meets the City’s design guidelines; and •The templates would also include a variety of pre-approved palettes of materials and colors to assist in creating individuality amongst these pre-approved designs. Staff is recommending hiring RRM Design Group to prepare the objective design standards. RRM is a multi-disciplinary design firm with 45 years of experience and has worked with the City in the past, first by preparing the City’s original design guidelines in the R-1 zone, and more recently as an architectural design consultant for the City’s planning staff. The firm is very familiar with Temple City’s land uses, development community, and planning goals. To ensure the objective design standards are financially feasible, RRM will be teaming up with Natelson Dale Group, Inc. to prepare an economic analysis to ensure the templates are financially feasible. To get critical feedback on the design templates, staff will host a set of meetings with community members, the Planning Commission, and multi-family builders and designers City Council January 19, 2020 Page 3 of 3 who bring a keen understanding of the market. The entire project will be completed by June 2022, in compliance with the requirements of the PGP grant. CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: Approval of the proposed agreement with RRM would further the City Strategic Goals of Economic Development, Quality of Life, and Good Governance. FISCAL IMPACT : Approval of this item will not have an impact on the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 City budget. $160,000 will be paid out using grant funds from the State. The remaining $18,248 will be funded through account 01-930-53-4271 Contract Services. The budget for the Housing Element will be reduced by $18,248 and the funds will be moved to the Objective Design Standards. ATTACHMENTS: A. Consultant Services Agreement with RRM Design Group B. Request for Proposal dated August 28, 2020 C. Updated Proposal from RRM Design Group dated November 20, 2020 RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 -1- AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES By and Between THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, a municipal corporation and RRM DESIGN GROUP ATTACHMENT A RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 1 - AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA AND RRM DESIGN GROUP This Agreement for Services (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this 20th day of January, 2021 by and between the City of Temple City, a municipal corporation (“City”) and RRM Design Group, a California Corporation (“Service Provider”). City and Service Provider are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. City has sought, by request for proposals the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement. B. Service Provider, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services. C. Pursuant to the City of Temple City’s Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into this Services Agreement and the City Manager has authority to execute this Agreement. D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Service Provider for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained here and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT. Subject to the provisions of Section 20 "Termination of Agreement" of this Agreement, the Term of this Agreement is for 2 years commencing on the date first ascribed above. SECTION 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES & SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. (a) Scope of Services. Service Provider agrees to perform the services set forth in pages 34 through 37 of Exhibit “A” “Response to Request for Proposal” RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 2 - (hereinafter, the “Services”) which pages are made a part of this Agreement by this reference. (b) Schedule of Performance. The Services shall be completed pursuant to the schedule specified in Exhibit “A.” Should the Services not be completed pursuant to that schedule, the Service Provider shall be deemed to be in Default of this Agreement. The City, in its sole discretion, may choose not to enforce the Default provisions of this Agreement and may instead allow Service Provider to continue performing the Services. SECTION 3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Service Provider shall not be compensated for any work rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to or outside of the Services unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing in accordance with Section 26 “Administration and Implementation” or Section 28 “Amendment” of this Agreement. If and when such additional work is authorized, such additional work shall be deemed to be part of the Services. SECTION 4. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT. (a) Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Service Provider the amounts specified in the budget on page 43 of Exhibit “A” “Compensation” and made a part of this Agreement by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed one hundred seventy-eight thousand, two-hundred forty-eight dollars ($178,248), unless additional compensation is approved in writing in accordance with Section 26 “Administration and Implementation” or Section 28 “Amendment” of this Agreement. (b) Each month Service Provider shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month. The invoice shall detail charges by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and subcontractor contracts. Subcontractor charges shall be detailed by the following categories: labor, travel, materials, equipment and supplies. If the compensation set forth in subsection (a) and Exhibit “A” include payment of labor on an hourly basis (as opposed to labor and materials being paid as a lump sum), the labor category in each invoice shall include detailed descriptions of task performed and the amount of time incurred for or allocated to that task. City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Service Provider to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event that no charges or expenses are disputed, the invoice shall be approved and paid according to the terms set forth in subsection (c). In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Service Provider for correction and resubmission. (c) Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Service Provider which are disputed by City, City will use its best efforts to cause RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 3 - Service Provider to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Service Provider’s correct and undisputed invoice. (d) Payment to Service Provider for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Service Provider. SECTION 5. INSPECTION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE. City may inspect and accept or reject any of Service Provider’s work under this Agreement, either during performance or when completed. City shall reject or finally accept Service Provider’s work within sixty (60) days after submitted to City. City shall reject work by a timely written explanation, otherwise Service Provider’s work shall be deemed to have been accepted. City’s acceptance shall be conclusive as to such work except with respect to latent defects, fraud and such gross mistakes as amount to fraud. Acceptance of any of Service Provider’s work by City shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, Section 16 “Indemnification” and Section 17 “Insurance.” SECTION 6. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Service Provider in the course of providing the Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of the Service Provider. Upon completion, expiration or termination of this Agreement, Service Provider shall turn over to City all such original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents. If and to the extent that City utilizes for any purpose not related to this Agreement any maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files or other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Service Provider in the course of providing the Services pursuant to this Agreement, Service Provider’s guarantees and warranties in Section 9 “Standard of Performance” of this Agreement shall not extend to such use of the maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files or other documents. SECTION 7. SERVICE PROVIDER'S BOOKS AND RECORDS. (a) Service Provider shall maintain any and all documents and records demonstrating or relating to Service Provider’s performance of the Services. Service Provider shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, or other documents or records evidencing or relating to work, services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City pursuant to this Agreement. Any and all such documents or records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be sufficiently complete and detailed RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 4 - so as to permit an accurate evaluation of the services provided by Service Provider pursuant to this Agreement. Any and all such documents or records shall be maintained for three (3) years from the date of execution of this Agreement and to the extent required by laws relating to audits of public agencies and their expenditures. (b) Any and all records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this section shall be made available for inspection, audit and copying, at any time during regular business hours, upon request by City or its designated representative. Copies of such documents or records shall be provided directly to the City for inspection, audit and copying when it is practical to do so; otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, such documents and records shall be made available at Service Provider’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement. (c) Where City has reason to believe that any of the documents or records required to be maintained pursuant to this section may be lost or discarded due to dissolution or termination of Service Provider’s business, City may, by written request, require that custody of such documents or records be given to the City. Access to such documents and records shall be granted to City, as well as to its successors-in-interest and authorized representatives. SECTION 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. (a) Service Provider is and shall at all times remain a wholly independent contractor and not an officer, employee or agent of City. Service Provider shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, nor to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. (b) The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Service Provider shall at all times be under Service Provider’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees or agents of City, shall have control over the conduct of Service Provider or any of Service Provider’s officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Service Provider shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Service Provider or any of Service Provider’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. (c) Neither Service Provider , nor any of Service Provider’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Service Provider expressly waives any claim Service Provider may have to any such rights. SECTION 9. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. Service Provider represents that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities necessary to properly perform the Services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent and professional manner. Service Provider shall at all times RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 5 - faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all Services. In meeting its obligations under this Agreement, Service Provider shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing services similar to the Services required of Service Provider under this Agreement. In addition to the general standards of performance set forth this section, additional specific standards of performance and performance criteria may be set forth in Exhibit “A” “Scope of Work” that shall also be applicable to Service Provider’s work under this Agreement. Where there is a conflict between a general and a specific standard of performance or performance criteria, the specific standard or criteria shall prevail over the general. SECTION 10. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS; PERMITS AND LICENSES. Service Provider shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations and rules in effect during the term of this Agreement. Service Provider shall obtain any and all licenses, permits and authorizations necessary to perform the Services set forth in this Agreement. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees or agents of City, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of Service Provider to comply with this section. SECTION 11. PREVAILING WAGE LAWS It is the understanding of City and Service Provider that California prevailing wage laws do not apply to this Agreement because the Agreement does not involve any of the following services subject to prevailing wage rates pursuant to the California Labor Code or regulations promulgated thereunder: Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work performed on public buildings, facilities, streets or sewers done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. In this context, “construction" includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work. SECTION 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. Service Provider shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, physical handicap, medical condition or marital status in connection with or related to the performance of this Agreement. SECTION 13. UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS. Service Provider hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Service Provider so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of the Services, and should the any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Service Provider hereby agrees to and RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 6 - shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City. SECTION 14. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. (a) Service Provider covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Service Provider’s performance of the Services. Service Provider further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the City Manager. Service Provider agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement. (b) City understands and acknowledges that Service Provider is, as of the date of execution of this Agreement, independently involved in the performance of non- related services for other governmental agencies and private parties. Service Provider is unaware of any stated position of City relative to such projects. Any future position of City on such projects shall not be considered a conflict of interest for purposes of this section. (c) City understands and acknowledges that Service Provider will, perform non-related services for other governmental agencies and private Parties following the completion of the Services under this Agreement. Any such future service shall not be considered a conflict of interest for purposes of this section. SECTION 15. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; RELEASE OF INFORMATION. (a) All information gained or work product produced by Service Provider in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Service Provider. Service Provider shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the City Manager, except as may be required by law. (b) Service Provider, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney of City, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Service Provider gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Service Provider, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Service Provider, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Service RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 7 - Provider for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Service Provider’s conduct. (d) Service Provider shall promptly notify City should Service Provider , its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Service Provider or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Service Provider agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Service Provider. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. SECTION 16. INDEMNIFICATION. (a) Indemnification for Professional Liability. Where the law establishes a professional standard of care for Service Provider’s services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Service Provider shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees) to the extent caused by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Service Provider, or by any individual or entity for which Service Provider is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or sub-contractors of Service Provider, in the performance of professional services under this Agreement. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Service Provider from any and all costs and liability resulting in claims arising from the use of and CEQA clearance of preapproved plans provided as a part of Consultants work product. (b) Indemnification for Other than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Service Provider shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Service Provider or by any individual or entity for which Service Provider is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or sub-contractors of Service Provider. RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 8 - (c) Indemnification from Subcontractors. Service Provider agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth in this section from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Service Provider in the performance of this Agreement naming the Indemnified Parties as additional indemnitees. In the event Service Provider fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, Service Provider agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Service Provider and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this section. (d) Limitation of Indemnification. Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, design professionals are required to defend and indemnify the City only to the extent permitted by Civil Code Section 2782.8, which limits the liability of a design professional to claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional. The term “design professional,” as defined in Section 2782.8, is limited to licensed architects, licensed landscape architects, registered professional engineers, professional land surveyors, and the business entities that offer such services in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Business and Professions Code. (e) City’s Negligence. The provisions of this section do not apply to claims occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence. The provisions of this section shall not release City from liability arising from gross negligence or willful acts or omissions of City or any and all of its officials, employees and agents. SECTION 17. INSURANCE. Service Provider agrees to obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement the insurance policies set forth in Exhibit “B” “Insurance” and made a part of this Agreement. All insurance policies shall be subject to approval by City as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the City Manager. Service Provider agrees to provide City with copies of required policies upon request. SECTION 18. ASSIGNMENT. The expertise and experience of Service Provider are material considerations for this Agreement. City has an interest in the qualifications and capability of the persons and entities who will fulfill the duties and obligations imposed upon Service Provider under this Agreement. In recognition of that interest, Service Provider shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement or the performance of any of Service Provider’s duties or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempted assignment shall be ineffective, null and void, and shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 9 - remedies at law or in equity, including termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 20 “Termination of Agreement.” City acknowledges, however, that Service Provider, in the performance of its duties pursuant to this Agreement, may utilize subcontractors. SECTION 19. CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL. Service Provider shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Service Provider’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the Services. Service Provider shall notify City of any changes in Service Provider’s staff and sub-contractors, if any, assigned to perform the Services prior to and during any such performance. SECTION 20. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. (a) City may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to Service Provider. In the event such notice is given, Service Provider shall cease immediately all work in progress. (b) Service Provider may terminate this Agreement for cause at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice of termination to City. (c) If either Service Provider or City fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either Service Provider, or City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice. (d) Upon termination of this Agreement by either Service Provider or City, all property belonging exclusively to City which is in Service Provider’s possession shall be returned to City. Service Provider shall furnish to City a final invoice for work performed and expenses incurred by Service Provider, prepared as set forth in Section 4 “Compensation and Method of Payment” of this Agreement. This final invoice shall be reviewed and paid in the same manner as set forth in Section 4 “Compensation and Method of Payment” of this Agreement. SECTION 21. DEFAULT. In the event that Service Provider is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Service Provider for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Service Provider of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Service Provider may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Service Provider is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Service Provider does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under Section 20 “Termination of Agreement.” Any failure on the part of the City to give RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 10 - notice of the Service Provider’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement. SECTION 22. EXCUSABLE DELAYS. Service Provider shall not be liable for damages, including liquidated damages, if any, caused by delay in performance or failure to perform due to causes beyond the control of Service Provider. Such causes include, but are not limited to, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, acts of federal, state or local governments, acts of City, court orders, fires, floods, epidemics, strikes, embargoes, and unusually severe weather. The term and price of this Agreement shall be equitably adjusted for any delays due to such causes. SECTION 23. COOPERATION BY CITY. All public information, data, reports, records, and maps as are existing and available to City as public records, and which are necessary for carrying out the Services shall be furnished to Service Provider in every reasonable way to facilitate, without undue delay, the Services to be performed under this Agreement. SECTION 24. NOTICES. All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered, or sent by telecopier or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed as follows: To City: City of Temple City Attn: City Manager 9701 Las Tunas Dr. Temple City, CA 91780 To Service Provider: RRM Design Group 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or transmitted by facsimile or, if mailed, three (3) days after deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. SECTION 25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Service Provider represents and warrants that he/she/they has/have the authority to so execute this RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 11 - Agreement and to bind Service Provider to the performance of its obligations hereunder. SECTION 26. ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION. This Agreement shall be administered and executed by the City Manager or his or her designated representative. The City Manager shall have the authority to issue interpretations and to make amendments to this Agreement, including amendments that commit additional funds, consistent with Section 28 “Amendment” and the City Manager’s contracting authority under the Temple City Municipal Code. SECTION 27. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties. SECTION 28. AMENDMENT. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Service Provider and by the City. The City Manager shall have the authority to approve any amendment to this Agreement if the total compensation under this Agreement, as amended, would not exceed the City Manager’s contracting authority under the Temple City Municipal Code. All other amendments shall be approved by the City Council. The Parties agree that the requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void. SECTION 29. WAIVER. Waiver by any Party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any Party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Service Provider shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 30. LAW TO GOVERN; VENUE. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the Parties, venue in state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Los Angeles, California. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in Los Angeles. SECTION 31. ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES. In the event litigation or other proceeding is required to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation or other proceeding RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 12 - shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction SECTION 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including the attached Exhibits "A" and "B", is the entire, complete, final and exclusive expression of the Parties with respect to the matters addressed therein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, or entered into between Service Provider and City prior to the execution of this Agreement. No statements, representations or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by any Party which are not embodied herein shall be valid and binding. SECTION 33. SEVERABILITY. If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is declared or determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and the Agreement shall be read and construed without the invalid, void or unenforceable provision(s). SECTION 34. CONFLICTING TERMS. Except as otherwise stated herein, if the terms of this Agreement conflict with the terms of any Exhibit hereto, or with the terms of any document incorporated by reference into this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written. CITY OF TEMPLE CITY __________________________ Bryan Cook, City Manager ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ ________________________ Peggy Kuo, City Clerk Greg Murphy, City Attorney RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 - 13 - CONTRACTOR: By (Authorized Officer) Name: Title: (2nd signature required if Corporation, Incorporation or Limited Liability Corporation) By (Authorized Officer) Name: Title: NOTE: SERVICE PROVIDER’S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SERVICE PROVIDER’S BUSINESS ENTITY. RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NOTARY FOR CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On ____________________, 21__, before me, , Date Name And Title Of Officer (e.g. “Jane Doe, Notary Public”) personally appeared , Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alternation of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. CAPACIT(IES) CLAIMED BY SIGNER(S) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Signer's Name: ¨ Individual ¨ Corporate Officer Title(s) Title or Type of Document ¨ Partner(s) ¨ Limited ¨ General ¨ Attorney-In-Fact Number Of Pages ¨ Trustee(s) ¨ Guardian/Conservator ¨ Other: Signer is representing: Name Of Person(s) Or Entity(ies) Date Of Document Signer(s) Other Than Named Above RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NOTARY FOR CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On ____________________, 21__, before me, , Date Name And Title Of Officer (e.g. “Jane Doe, Notary Public”) personally appeared , Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alternation of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. CAPACIT(IES) CLAIMED BY SIGNER(S) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Signer's Name: ¨ Individual ¨ Corporate Officer Title(s) Title or Type of Document ¨ Partner(s) ¨ Limited ¨ General ¨ Attorney-In-Fact Number Of Pages ¨ Trustee(s) ¨ Guardian/Conservator ¨ Other: Signer is representing: Name Of Person(s) Or Entity(ies) Date Of Document Signer(s) Other Than Named Above RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 A-1 EXHIBIT "A" RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 B-1 RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 C-1 EXHIBIT "B" INSURANCE A. Insurance Requirements. Service Provider shall provide and maintain insurance, acceptable to the City, in full force and effect throughout the term of this Agreement, against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services by Service Provider, its agents, representatives or employees. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating is an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger). Only the following “marked” requirements are applicable and Service Provider shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance: 1. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: __X__ Commercial General Liability. Insurance Services Office form Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001). __X__ Automobile Liability. Service provider shall maintain automobile insurance at least as board as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Service Provider arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles. __X__ Workers’ Compensation. Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance as required by the Labor Code of State of California covering all persons providing Services on behalf of the Service Provider and all risks to such persons under this Agreement. __X__ Professional (Errors and Omissions) Liability. Professional liability insurance appropriate to the Service Provider’s profession. This coverage may be written on a “claims made” basis, and must include coverage for contractual liability. The insurance must be maintained for at least three (3) consecutive years following the completion of Service Provider’s services or the termination of this Agreement. During this additional three (3) year period, Service Provider shall annually and upon request of the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage. Service Provider shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this agreement and Service Provider agrees to maintain continuous RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 C-2 coverage through a period of no less than three years after completion of the services required by this agreement. 1. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Service Provider shall maintain limits of insurance no less than: (1) Commercial General Liability. $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. (2) Automobile Liability. No less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. (3) Workers' Compensation. Workers' Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of at least $1,000,000. (4) Professional Liability. $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. B. Other Provisions. Insurance policies required by this Agreement shall contain the following provisions: 1. All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by the insurer or either Party to this Agreement, reduced in coverage or in limits except after 30 days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City. A ten (10) day written notice to City shall apply to non-payment of premium. Contractor shall provide thirty (30) days written notice to City prior to implementation of a reduction of limits or material change of insurance coverage as specified herein. 2. Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages. (1) City, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, and employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities Service Provider performs; products and completed operations of Service Provider; premises owned, occupied or used by Service Provider; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Service Provider. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, and their respective elected and appointed officers, officials, or employees. RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 C-3 (2) Service Provider’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (3) Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Vendor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Agency requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Vendor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Agency. (4) Coverage provided by the CONTRACTOR shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance or maintained by Agency shall not be required to contribute to it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of Agency before the Agency’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect is as a named insured. (5) Any failure to comply with the reporting or other provisions of the insurance policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to City, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 3. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Unless the City Manager otherwise agrees in writing, the insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, employees and agents for losses arising from work performed by Service Provider. C. Other Requirements. Service Provider agrees to deposit with City, at or before the effective date of this Agreement, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy City that the insurance provisions of this contract have been complied with. The City may require that Service Provider furnish City with copies of original endorsements effecting coverage required by this Exhibit “B”. The certificates and endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. City reserves the right to inspect complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. RIV #4838-6958-3880 v3 DRAFT 1/27/15 C-4 1. Service Provider shall furnish certificates and endorsements from each subcontractor identical to those Service Provider provides. 2. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City or its respective elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers or the Service Provider shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, defense expenses and claims. 3. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit Service Provider’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions and requirements of this Agreement. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CONSULTANT SERVICES Issue Date: August 28, 2020 Proposals Due: September 28, 2020, 4 p.m. PST Send Proposals to: Attn: Andrew Coyne (1 hardcopy+ Community Development Department 1 digital copy) City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Dr. Temple City, CA 91780 Mark Envelope: PROPOSAL- Objective Design Standards Consultant Services Contact Person: Andrew Coyne, Management Analyst (626)656-7316, ext. 4344 acoyne@templecity.us ATTACHMENT B Temple City, RFP – Objective Design Standards Consultant Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3 NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS 4 GENERAL CONDITIONS 5 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 7 EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS 8 ATTACHMENTS • ATTACHMENT 1 – SAMPLE SERVICES AGREEMENT Temple City, RFP – Objective Design Standards Consultant Page 3 INTRODUCTION The City of Temple City (City) is centrally located in the west San Gabriel Valley approximately five miles southeast of Pasadena and 13 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. The City is approximately 3.85 square miles and is surrounded by the cities of Arcadia, San Gabriel, El Monte, Rosemead, and unincorporat ed portions of Los Angeles County. The 2010 U.S. Census Bureau indicates a total population of 35,558. Temple City is predominantly a residential community with over 10,000 residential parcels. The City is requesting proposals from qualified consultants to provide consultant services for the preparation of objective design standards for the R-2 and R-3 zones. SCOPE OF SERVICES The City has been awarded a $160,000 SB2 Planning Grant by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the preparation of objective design standards for R-2 and R-3 zoned properties. The purpose of these standards is to expedite the approval process for such projects and thus contribute to the achievement of the City RHNA allotment. The objective design standards will include sample site plans, elevations, and floor plans for multi-family projects in the R-2 and R-3 zones. The standards would also include a variety of pre-approved palettes of materials and colors to assist in creating individuality. The City is considering the possibility of making the original “sample plans” available to certain types of projects the City would like to incentivize, such as projects that include affordable housing. The scope of services will also include facilitating a set of meetings with community members, the Planning Commission, and multi-family builders and designers who frequently build projects in the area. The meetings will be focused on getting feedback on and support for the “sample plans.” The “sample plans” would then be translated to “objective design standards.” The ideal consultant will have experience preparing objective design standards and/or experience designing conceptual plans for multi-family projects. Knowledge and experience preparing zoning codes is also valuable. The consultant will prepare the sample plans, objective design standards, as well as materials for public outreach, and staff reports for public hearings. The consultant will also participate in any program reviews or audits. Temple City, RFP – Objective Design Standards Consultant Page 4 TERM OF CONTRACT The term of the contract will be from December 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022. NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS The City of Temple City seeks the following: 1. Experience. The selected consultant must have demonstrated relevant experience in providing objective design standards and/or designing multi-family projects as described under the Scope of Services. The consultant must also demonstrate that they have experience preparing development standards for zoning codes. Substantiation must be provided regarding the nature of servi ces provided to the client cities or agencies. A comprehensive list of references of cities served must be provided. Cite examples of qualifying projects with dates, contact persons, and scope of work performed. The submittal shall clearly state the number and type of programs or services performed. 2. Staff Qualifications. Staff assigned to complete the Scope of Services must have relevant experience in providing the necessary services as described under the Scope of Services. All personnel assigned to the work must possess appropriate certifications or registrations as required by State or Federal agencies, if any. 3. Contact Person. The consultant will be required to identify the person who will be the Project Manager and primary contact person. Other staff may be identified as the specialist in the specific areas or for specific tasks. These individuals must, within reasonable limitations, be accessible to City staff during business hours. 4. Organization and Staffing. Consultant must provide a description of the Project Manager, other key staff and sub-contractors, if any, and their relationship with City operations. The Consultant must provide resumes for all staff members and sub-contractors, if any. They must also provide an Organization Table illustrating the staff hierarchy and responsibilities as it would pertain to the scope of work in this document. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The City of Temple City will not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by any consultant, nor can any firm include such expenses as part of the proposed cost. Pre-contractual expenses include any expense incurred by a qualification and negotiating any terms with the City. 2. The City reserves the right to withdraw this Request for Proposal (RFP) at any time without prior notice and to reject any and all proposals submitted without indicating Temple City, RFP – Objective Design Standards Consultant Page 5 any reasons. Any award of contract for services will be made to the Consultant best qualified and responsive in the opinion of the City. 3. Proposals may, at the City’s option, be rejected if they contain any alterations, additions, conditional or alternatives, are incomplete, or contain erasures or irregularities of any kind. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. The City expressly reserves the right to postpone submittal opening for its own convenience and to reject any and all submittals responding to this RFP. 4. The selected consultant must agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers, agents and assigns 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 Consultant in the performance of the contract. 5. The selected consultant must provide insurance in the amount specified in the attached agreement. 6. The selected consultant will be required to comply with all existing State and Federal labor laws including those applicable to equal opportunity employment provisions. 7. Consultant is required to have in full force and affect all licenses and permits required by all applicable laws. Consultant shall obtain a Temple City Business License during the term of the contract. 8. Consultant must at all times conduct his/her services with the utmost respect to the public. All employees of the Consultant must wear clean clothing in the performance of their duties and equipment shall be cleaned and maintained in a safe operating manner. All equipment must be subject to inspection by the City at any time. All personnel shall wear appropriate safety gear at all times while working in Temple City. Consultant must provide satisfactory warning devices that meet the requirements of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal-OSHA) for protection of workers when and where required at all times in the performance of this contract. 9. Consultant, its agents, and employees must comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the Federal, State, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Temple City and all governing bodies having jurisdiction applying to work done under the agreement. 10. The City reserves the right to negotiate special requirements and proposed service levels using the selected qualification as a basis. Compensation for services will be negotiated with the selected firm. Temple City, RFP – Objective Design Standards Consultant Page 6 11. The selected Consultant must not sublet any portion of the agreement with the City without express written permission of the City Manager or his or designated representative. 12. No discrimination must be made in the employment of persons because of the race, color, or religion of such persons and every bidder in violation of this section is subject to all penalties imposed for a violation of Chapter 1 of Part VII, Division 2 of the Labor Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1753 thereof. 13. The City reserves the right to review and approve the qualifications of subcontracting firms or persons. Substitutions, which are not approved, are considered sufficient grounds for termination of contract. 14. The City, or any of its duly authorized representatives, must have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, copy or transcribe any pertinent transaction, activity, time and work records, employment records or other records relating to employment. Such material, including all pertinent cost accounting, financial records and proprietary data, will be kept and maintained by the firm for a period of at least five (5) years after completion of a Consultant’s performance unless the City’s written permission is given to dispose of same prior to that time. 15. All responses to this RFP will become the property of the City of Temple City and will be retained or disposed of accordingly. 16. No amendments, additions, or alternates will be accepted after the submission date and time. 17. All documents, records, designs, and specification s developed by the selected consultant in the course of providing services for the City of Temple City will be the property of the City. Anything considered to be proprietary should be so designated by the firm. 18. Acceptance by the City of any proposal submitted pursuant to this RFP does not constitute any implied intent to enter into a contract for services. 19. The City reserves the right to issue written notice to all participating consultants of any change in the RFP submission schedule should the City determine, in its sole discretion, that such changes are necessary. 20. The consultant must be eligible to enter into a federally-funded contract though verification of the Excluded Parties List System accessible through www.sam.gov. Temple City, RFP – Objective Design Standards Consultant Page 7 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The submittal should be typed and as brief as possible while adequately describing the qualifications of the Consultant. 2. All proposals are to be submitted in a sealed package, clearly marked with the firm’s name, address and phone number, and the words “RFP –Objective Design Standards Consultant Services”. Only one submittal per Consultant will be considered. 3. The proposing Consultant must submit the following information with the package, including the same information on sub-contractors, in the following format: a. Cover Letter. Cover letter shall not exceed three pages. The cover letter shall provide an executive summary of the proposal. The cover letter should include the name, address and phone number of the firm, the primary contact name, email address and phone number, an executive summary of the proposal including qualifying statements or comments regarding the submittal and identification of any sub-contractors and their responsibilities. The signed letter should also include a paragraph stating that the firm is unaware of any conflict of interest in performing the proposed work. b. Relevant Experience. This portion should include a description of the qualifications and experience of the assigned staff and sub-contractorsand the availability of the staff for the services provided. A list of related projects should be included with the name of the contact person, email address and the telephone number for which the Consultant has recently or currently provides services as outlined under the Scope of Work. A comprehensive list of references of at least three cities served must be provided. c. Approach and Schedule. Provide a timeframe for completing the proposed project scope. d. Costs. Consultant must submit a proposal that includes the proposed fee, including hours, hourly rates for various tasks, and any direct expenses that will be charged to the City. e. Acceptance of Conditions. This section will be a statement offering the Consultant’s acceptance of all conditions listed in the RFP document. Any exceptions or suggested changes to the RFP, or any contractual obligations, including the suggested change, the reasons therefore and the impact it may have on cost or other considerations on the Consultant’s behalf must be stated in the submittal. Unless specifically noted by the Consultant, the City will assume that the proposal is in compliance with all aspects of the RFP. Temple City, RFP – Objective Design Standards Consultant Page 8 EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Selection will follow these steps: 1. Proposal Review: Each proposal will be reviewed to determine if it meets the RFP requirements. Failure to meet the requirements of the RFP will be cause for rejection. Proposals will be evaluated on the following items: • Experience developing objective design standards • Experience with designing multi-family projects • Experience preparing development standards for zoning codes • Approach and schedule • Consultant experience and staffing capacity • Overall strength of proposal 2. Interview: A list of most qualified Consultants may be interviewed by an oral board. 3. Services Agreement: The City Manager will request a services agreement subject to negotiation of a specified work program or scope of services, terms of payment and other City requirements from the Consultant found most qualified. Nothing in this RFP should imply a contractual obligation for employment. 4. Contract Approval and Execution: It is anticipated that the agreement will be presented to the City Council for approval in October and execution by the City Manager in November. Please submit one (1) hard copy and one (1) digital copy in PDF format of the proposal no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 28, 2020 to: City of Temple City c/o: Community Development Department 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 Attn: Andrew Coyne, Management Analyst If you have any questions regarding this RFP, please contact Andrew Coyne, Management Analyst at (626) 656-7316, Ext. 4344 or acoyne@templecity.us Postmarks will not be accepted. Proposal Presented to the City of Temple City on November 20, 2020 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CONSULTANT SERVICES ATTACHMENT C RE: PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CONSULTANT SERVICES Dear Mr. Coyne, We understand the City of Temple City has recently adopted a new General Plan and is now looking to update the Zoning Code that will provide additional multifamily residential densities as well as develop a new model for multifamily development. This coincides with navigating an evolving landscape of housing policy such as the Housing Accountability Act, Senate Bill 35 Streamlining, the Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill 330), Assembly Bill 2162, and more. The City is eager to get the necessary tools in place that will “assist designers and the development community by providing an optional method of expediting the review process which in turn would reduce design costs for applicants” by allowing non- discretionary review of residential development in the R-2 and R-3 zones. You need a multidisciplinary firm with experience in analyzing best practices, developing objective design standards to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production, and facilitating an extensive community engagement process to ensure a community-supported project. RRM Design Group is that firm! Executive Summary Have you heard, "I can't describe good design, but I know it when I see it!" or "What design elements maintain neighborhood character, and avoid opposition?"? RRM Design Group will deliver objective design standards that will help address these these questions. We will deliver an easy-to-use and easy-to- administer work product that will give structure to the existing subjective design and development review process. Your project demands talent, technical knowledge, and a team of professionals who can communicate and collaborate. For this project we have assembled a team that fuses the talents of our architects, who have a passion for multifamily residential, with our skilled planners and urban designers who are experts at producing user-friendly, succinct, and effective objective design standards, presentations, maps, diagrams, and architectural illustrations. Jami Williams will serve as principal-in-charge. Jami has extensive knowledge of Temple City having drafted the City’s first comprehensive infill residential design guidelines in 2004. Jami also has 20+ years of experience writing policy and standards, and more recently has been focusing on helping cities respond to the new housing legislation. Jami is well versed in leading public outreach efforts and translating community desires into solid planning documents. Matt Ottoson, serving as your project manager, will continue to build on his successful working relationship with City staff by leveraging his extensive knowledge of Temple City’s architectural character and new state housing laws toward crafting clear and concise design-oriented policies and standards. November 20, 2020 Attn: Andrew Coyne Community Development Department City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Dr. Temple City, CA 91780 CREATING ENVIRONMENTS PEOPLE ENJOY® a California Corporation 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p: (949) 361-7950 f: (949) 361-7955 We are a team of skilled professionals and creative thinkers who plan and design for implementation. We do it with impeccable attention to detail—on time, on budget, and sensitive to political and social issues. We are perfectly suited for this project; let us tell you why… We get it... Temple City not only wants to reduce the time involved in getting plans approved and creating certainty in the process, but also ensuring that the City's expectation of high-quality architecture is achieved. To that end, our team will develop sample plans (site plan, floor plans, elevations) in an effort to deliver standards that will set clear expectations for your staff, applicants, decision makers, and community at large. These efforts will allow you to take a potential housing projects from being “just okay” to something Temple City will be proud of. RRM has an extensive portfolio of project experience. Our proposal highlights our experience developing multifamily residential plans and objective design standards that align with your primary goals: • Develop implementable design and construction documents for multifamily projects – Avila Oaks Multifamily Development, Casa Las Granadas Multifamily Housing, Courtyards at Avila Mixed-Use Development, Moylan Terrace Multifamily Housing, and Paseo Chapala Mixed-Use Development are some of RRM multifamily projects that have been built. • Objective design standards that provide clarity and certainty in design decisions – Featured projects include standards developed for the cities of Alhambra, Dublin, and Encinitas, and Yucaipa. • Expedite the approval process and accelerate housing production - supporting cities with design review services, functioning as an extension of staff, adding value to the development review process - Temple City, Santa Clarita, Lancaster, El Monte, and Carson are just a few of the cities we currently serve. • Facilitate a community engagement process, including focus group workshops with multifamily builders and designers, and informal Planning Commission study sessions - While RRM brings considerable experience and expertise in the design and planning fields, we see our first job as understanding existing values, goals and the image that each community identifies with. We know the project type... For 45 years, as a multidisciplinary design firm, RRM’s architects, planners, urban designers, landscape architects, and engineers have worked extensively with public and private sector housing clients. Our experience on both sides of the counter gives us unique insight into not only how to craft easy-to-use and easy-to-administer standards, but also the necessary developer requirements to yield quality housing projects. We have planned and designed hundreds of affordable, multifamily, and mixed-use housing units in California. This unique ability allows us to create development standards that are truth tested by architects. Moreover, we have written Objective Design Standards for several municipalities throughout the state. CREATING ENVIRONMENTS PEOPLE ENJOY® We are equipped to help... We know what is feasible both architecturally and economically, and we understand the constraints and challenges of developing multifamily housing projects. We have designed them and worked with those clients. We know what applicants are experienced with, and we know when they tend to need help. Moreover, we have written award-winning design guidelines and worked hand-in- hand with staff to incorporate high-quality multifamily developments into their housing stock for years. We love to collaborate... RRM listens and responds in a collaborative manner employing the skills and experience of various professionals on each job with the demands of the assignment. We will work with staff to develop a unique public engagement approach tailored to your needs and creates confidence in the planning process, promotes broad-based understanding and consensus, and reflects the interests of the community. RRM is prepared to employ a number of tested public engagement tools, beyond traditional community workshops, to reach a broader audience as well as accommodate the need for ongoing social distancing. Some tools include video conferences with multifamily builders and designers, informal Planning Commission study sessions, mobile apps with online and real-time surveys, a project website to provide an educational platform, and project awareness using social media platforms. We are passionate... Affordable housing, multifamily and mixed-use development, design standards, and collaboration with City staff; these are the jobs that keep us inspired and excited about planning and design. We have helped cities craft implementable Objective Design Standards; we understand and are fulfilled by efforts to curb the housing crisis and want to maintain the integrity and character of the City. At RRM, this job matters...it is the project type that gets us out of bed in the morning. We can’t wait to get started! Sincerely, RRM Design Group Jami Williams, CNU-A Matt Ottoson, CNU-A Principal-in-Charge Project Manager/Primary Point of Contact p: (949) 361-7950 p: (949) 361-7950 e: jawilliams@rrmdesign.com e: mbottoson@rrmdesign.com 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 RRM Design Group has no actual or potential conflicts of interest in working with the City of Temple City to develop Objective Design Standards. Our firm has no current or prospective clients with economic interest or material financial interest in Temple City. CREATING ENVIRONMENTS PEOPLE ENJOY® GRAPHICS & PHOTOGRAPHS: This document features images of RRM Design Group projects, the graphics and photos of which are owned and copyrighted by our firm. There are no stock photos or images of any kind used in this proposal. ABOUT RRM DESIGN GROUP: 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p: (949) 361-7950 • f: (949) 361-7955 • w: rrmdesign.com California corporation • Leonard Grant, Architect C26973 • Robert Camacho, PE 76597 • Steven Webster, LS 7561 • Jeff Ferber, PLA 2844 The written and graphic materials contained in this proposal are the exclusive property of RRM Design Group. The unauthorized use of any portion of these text or graphic materials without RRM’s prior written consent is expressly prohibited. © 2020 RRM Design Group PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS CONSULTANT SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name 1 Relevant Experience 2 Approach and Schedule 3 Costs 4 Acceptance of Conditions Page 1 27 37 43 SITE PHOTO Casa de las Fuentes Affordable Housing, Santa Barbara, CA City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 1 You'll notice several graphics and photos throughout our proposal featuring residential and mixed-use projects designed and implemented by RRM Design Group. 1 1 RELEvANT ExPERIENCE Proposal for Objective Design Standards Consultant Services 100+FOUR projects featuring Objective Design Standards decades in business 3/4 in Southern California over 20+ Planning Division team members 40+ Architecture Division team members City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 3 decades in business CREATING ENVIRONMENTS PEOPLE ENJOY® SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 32332 Camino Capistrano Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p: (949) 361-7950 f: (949) 361-7955 SANTA BARBARA 10 East Figueroa St., Ste. 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 p: (805) 963-8283 f: (805) 963-8184 SAN LUIS OBISPO 3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p: (805) 543-1794 f: (805) 543-4609 SAN LEANDRO 325 Davis St. San Leandro, CA 94577 p: (510) 751-4910 f: (510) 686-8831 WEBSITE www.rrmdesign.com FIRM PROFILE | RRM Design Group RRM exists because we love creating environments people enjoy. That is what got us into the business over 45 years ago, and it is why we continue to thrive today. Our architects and landscape architects, engineers, surveyors, and planners work with our clients and their communities to create the parks our children play in, the roads we drive down on our way to work, the neighborhoods we come home to, and the fire stations that keep our communities safe. Our work culture emphasizes collaboration, frequent communication, and accessibility. We're a close partner with our clients, helping them understand and navigate through the project lifecycle. Whether your project is public or private, commercial or residential, we listen, we design, and we deliver. On time. On budget. Since 1974. PERSONNEL BY DISCIPLINE 135 professionals on staff at RRM Design Group in 5 core disciplines: Architecture Landscape Architecture Engineering Support StaffPlanning Surveying 4 Certified Planners 16 California Licensed Landscape Architects 17 Planning and Landscape Architecture Designers 19 California Licensed Architects 27 Architecture Designers 12 California Licensed Civil Engineers 2 California Licensed Structural Engineers 15 Engineering Designers 1 Licensed Surveyor 4 Surveying Technicians 21 Support Staff 20 LEED® Accredited Professionals 5 Congress for New Urbanism Accredited Professionals Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 4 ASSEMBLING OUR TEAM RRM Design Group is a multidisciplinary firm with architects, planners, urban designers, landscape architects, and engineers under one roof. Currently our statistics show that 39% of our staff has been with us for over 5 years and 28% have been here for over 10 years! We hire the best—and it shows in our work and in our employee longevity. Your project demands talent, technical knowledge, and a team of professionals who can communicate and collaborate. For this project we have assembled a team that combines our architect who has a passion for multi-family residential with our planners who are experts at producing user- friendly, succinct and effective objective design standards, presentations, maps, diagrams, and architectural illustrations. With this project, RRM looks to build on our successful relationship with the City of Temple City. Since 2018, RRM has been assisting staff by providing on-call architectural design review services in order to deliver clear direction to designers and developers toward meeting the City’s design standards and guidelines. Today, the RRM team is ready to continue the partnership with Temple City. We stay well ahead of competing workload demands to ensure each team member is dedicated to this project as proposed. Jami Williams, as the principal-in-charge, has 20+ years of experience writing policy and standards and more recently has been focusing on helping cities respond to the new housing legislation. Jami is also well versed in leading public outreach efforts and translating community desires into solid planning documents. Matt Ottoson, our project manager and housing policy analyst, brings his gifted analytical and writing skills to the team as well as familiarity with the City due numerous design review assignments. Brady Woods, principal planner, has worked as both a private and public planner and will utilize his degree in architecture to assist in the development of implementation-oriented design standards. Darin Cabral will serve as our project architect who is an expert with multi-family residential design and construction documents. We have also included Scott Martin, architect/urban designer, who will bring his experience taking projects from visioning stages through construction. CIT y OF TEMPLE CIT y RRM DESIGN GROUP SCOTT MARTIN AIA, LEED AP, CNU-A Architect/Urban Designer DARIN CABRAL Project Architect BRADY WOODS Principal Planner JAMI WILLIAMS, CNU-A PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE MATT OTTOSON, CNU-A PROJECT MANAGER PLANNING ARCHITECTURE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Financial Pro Forma Analysis SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 5 JAMI WILLIAMS | CNU-A PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE Jami possesses the qualities necessary to produce creative, realistic, and business-conscious design solutions that will guide future improvements for Temple City. With over 20 years of experience as an urban designer and project manager, Jami's unique perspective enables her to advance projects from the early community outreach and visioning stages to the development of urban design plans and policy documents that are creative yet realistic and implementation focused. She excels in public outreach, identifying public concerns and preferences and translating them into cutting-edge workable designs and policy documents that can be easily understood by community members and implemented by her public agency clients. 24 Years of Experience Education • Master of Business Administration, Architecture Management Track, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA • Bachelor of Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA • Semester Design Program, Ecole Des Beaux Art Americaines De Fontainebleau, France • Associate of Science, Cuyamaca College, San Diego, CA Licenses & Accreditations • Congress for the New Urbanism Accredited (CNU-A) Affiliations • American Planning Association (APA), Member • Urban Land Institute (ULI), Associate Member Relevant Projects • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Azusa TOD General Plan/ Development Code Update and Specific Plan • Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Cerritos Residential Design Manual • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Design Review Services (Temple City, El Monte, Santa Clarita, Anaheim, Lancaster) • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Dublin Objective Design Standards • El Monte TOD Specific Plan • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines • Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan • Long Beach Urban Design Element and On-Call Planning Services • San Ysidro Historic Village Specific Plan (San Diego) • Santa Clarita Community Character & Design Guidelines • Temple City Residential Design Standards • Yucaipa Citywide Design Guidelines "Jami is well-organized, flexible, engaged, and knowledgeable. She collaborates well and does not hesitate to offer solutions to outreach and planning obstacles." -------- - Sara Osborn, AICP, Senior Planner, City of San DiegoDel Mar Design GuidelinesEl Monte TOD Specific PlanRelevant Experience | SECTION 1 6 Page 20 ADOPTED Norma Triangle Single-Family JANUARY 23, 2017 Design Guidelines 3.3 Scale, Massing, and Proportion (cont.) 3.3.a.5 Avoid monumental or over-scaled openings (windows and doors), unless relevant to the architectural concept.  The window proportions are appropriate for this contemporary home.  The window proportions of this new home are consistent with the Spanish Colonial Revival Style.  The window proportions are over-scaled and do not integrate with the traditional residential façade forms.  The window proportions are appropriate for this revival style home. MATT OTTOSON | CNU-A PROJECT MANAGER Matt focuses his efforts on writing clear and concise plans, designing high- quality, easy to understand maps and graphics, and to provide exceptional service for both public and private sector clients. With experience working as a planner in the public sector, his knowledge of local governmental agencies’ approach to plans and policy documents ensures delivery of effective plans that help communities and clients achieve their goals. As a key contributor to RRM’s design review projects, Matt has assisted numerous cities in reviewing current planning projects for community-specific design consistency while balancing the realities of current construction methodologies. 9 Years of Experience Education • Master of Urban & Regional Planning, Emphasis in Land Use and Design, California Polytechnic State University, Pomona, CA • Bachelor of Arts, Geography, Emphasis in Environmental Analysis, Cal State University, Fullerton, CA Licenses & Accreditations • Congress for the New Urbanism Accredited (CNU-A) Affiliations • American Planning Association (APA), Member • U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), Central Coast Chapter, Board of Directors, 2015-2018 • Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) Urbanist Member • Urban Land Institute (ULI) Associate Member Relevant Projects • Design Review Services (Temple City, El Monte, Santa Clarita, Anaheim, Lancaster) • Anaheim Center City Corridors Specific Plan • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Azusa TOD General Plan/ Development Code Update and Specific Plan • Cerritos Residential Design Manual • Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Dublin Objective Design Standards • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Lower Hastings Ranch Residential Neighborhood Zoning Code Revisions (Pasadena) • Norma Triangle Overlay District and Design Guidelines (West Hollywood) • Pomona Zoning and Subdivision Code Updates • Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay Zone • Yucaipa Citywide Design Guidelines 3 STYLE DEFINING ELEMENTS INCLUDING MULTI-PLANNED ROOFS, OVERHANGS, AND ARCHED TOP OPENINGS FROM EXISTING DESIGN GUIDELINESPROPOSED BUILDING RELATIONSHIP SCALE DOES NOT RELATE TO SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD Proposed Project Design Review The proposed project is a five story mixed-use project comprising approximately 123,000 square feet of commercial and residential condominiums. The 64 foot tall project stands out as the tallest building within the city. The architectural style is not of any specific identifiable type but resembles postmodern in many aspects. The project meets the basic design guideline principles such as a generally articulated mass, prominent driveways, and screened parking but it lacks the more articulated character and style defining elements such as a richness of materials, multi-planed roofs, and overhangs (DTSP C.1.a, pg.V-3). The proposed project is of a height which is in conflict with the Specific Plan and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The height and massing has the potential to adversely affect solar access of the adjacent residences (DTSP C.2.a, pg. V-5). It is recommended that a solar study be conducted to evaluate the impact and that the upper stories be stepped back to minimize impacts. The scale of the building does not relate to the surrounding area. It is recommended that techniques noted in Design Guidelines Section C.2.b, pg. V-7 be utilized to help mitigate the appearance of the overall mass. The proposed project’s mass and scale is in conflict with the Temple Commercial District Guidelines. It is recommended that the street level façade integrate a variety of storefronts to reduce repetitiveness and proved interest at the pedestrian level (DTSP District Guidelines 2.a, pg. v-29). It is recommended that the designer review the design guideline recommendations for Scale Mitigation Techniques as noted in the District Guidelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the potential to be the only building of this scale in the immediate area for the foreseeable future after it is completed so mass, scale, wall articulation, and roof design should be applied to all side of the project providing four sided architecture. While the design complies with the general design guideline that no wall planes should continue unbroken for more than 50 feet, it is unsuccessful in meeting the intent of the guideline to eliminate “boxlike”/repetitive structures (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-5 c). Design Recommendations The following recommendations are made to better respond to the goal of meeting the required “High Quality Architectural Design” findings. More specific and detail oriented comments may be more appropriately addressed when the primary mass, scale, and contextual integration items are resolved, thusly they are not complete in nature. 1. Step the mass at the upper floors to “transition from the height of adjacent development to the maximum height of the proposed building” (DTSP C.2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the thin vertical elements into more appropriate scale masses to create opportunities to vary the height and color in order to reduce the overall impression of a large mass. “Vary the height of the building so that it appears to be divided into distinct massing elements” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). Proposed Project Design Review The proposed project is a five story mixed-use project comprising approximately 123,000 square feet of commercial and residential condominiums. The 64 foot tall project stands out as the tallest building within the city. The architectural style is not of any specific identifiable type but resembles postmodern in many aspects. The project meets the basic design guideline principles such as a generally articulated mass, prominent driveways, and screened parking but it lacks the more articulated character and style defining elements such as a richness of materials, multi-planed roofs, and overhangs (DTSP C.1.a, pg.V-3). The proposed project is of a height which is in conflict with the Specific Plan and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The height and massing has the potential to adversely affect solar access of the adjacent residences (DTSP C.2.a, pg. V-5). It is recommended that a solar study be conducted to evaluate the impact and that the upper stories be stepped back to minimize impacts. The scale of the building does not relate to the surrounding area. It is recommended that techniques noted in Design Guidelines Section C.2.b, pg. V-7 be utilized to help mitigate the appearance of the overall mass. The proposed project’s mass and scale is in conflict with the Temple Commercial District Guidelines. It is recommended that the street level façade integrate a variety of storefronts to reduce repetitiveness and proved interest at the pedestrian level (DTSP District Guidelines 2.a, pg. v-29). It is recommended that the designer review the design guideline recommendations for Scale Mitigation Techniques as noted in the District Guidelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the potential to be the only building of this scale in the immediate area for the foreseeable future after it is completed so mass, scale, wall articulation, and roof design should be applied to all side of the project providing four sided architecture. While the design complies with the general design guideline that no wall planes should continue unbroken for more than 50 feet, it is unsuccessful in meeting the intent of the guideline to eliminate “boxlike”/repetitive structures (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-5 c). Design Recommendations The following recommendations are made to better respond to the goal of meeting the required “High Quality Architectural Design” findings. More specific and detail oriented comments may be more appropriately addressed when the primary mass, scale, and contextual integration items are resolved, thusly they are not complete in nature. 1. Step the mass at the upper floors to “transition from the height of adjacent development to the maximum height of the proposed building” (DTSP C.2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the thin vertical elements into more appropriate scale masses to create opportunities to vary the height and color in order to reduce the overall impression of a large mass. “Vary the height of the building so that it appears to be divided into distinct massing elements” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). Proposed Project Design Review The proposed project is a five story mixed-use project comprising approximately 123,000 square feet of commercial and residential condominiums. The 64 foot tall project stands out as the tallest building within the city. The architectural style is not of any specific identifiable type but resembles postmodern in many aspects. The project meets the basic design guideline principles such as a generally articulated mass, prominent driveways, and screened parking but it lacks the more articulated character and style defining elements such as a richness of materials, multi-planed roofs, and overhangs (DTSP C.1.a, pg.V-3). The proposed project is of a height which is in conflict with the Specific Plan and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The height and massing has the potential to adversely affect solar access of the adjacent residences (DTSP C.2.a, pg. V-5). It is recommended that a solar study be conducted to evaluate the impact and that the upper stories be stepped back to minimize impacts. The scale of the building does not relate to the surrounding area. It is recommended that techniques noted in Design Guidelines Section C.2.b, pg. V-7 be utilized to help mitigate the appearance of the overall mass. The proposed project’s mass and scale is in conflict with the Temple Commercial District Guidelines. It is recommended that the street level façade integrate a variety of storefronts to reduce repetitiveness and proved interest at the pedestrian level (DTSP District Guidelines 2.a, pg. v-29). It is recommended that the designer review the design guideline recommendations for Scale Mitigation Techniques as noted in the District Guidelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the potential to be the only building of this scale in the immediate area for the foreseeable future after it is completed so mass, scale, wall articulation, and roof design should be applied to all side of the project providing four sided architecture. While the design complies with the general design guideline that no wall planes should continue unbroken for more than 50 feet, it is unsuccessful in meeting the intent of the guideline to eliminate “boxlike”/repetitive structures (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-5 c). Design Recommendations The following recommendations are made to better respond to the goal of meeting the required “High Quality Architectural Design” findings. More specific and detail oriented comments may be more appropriately addressed when the primary mass, scale, and contextual integration items are resolved, thusly they are not complete in nature. 1. Step the mass at the upper floors to “transition from the height of adjacent development to the maximum height of the proposed building” (DTSP C.2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the thin vertical elements into more appropriate scale masses to create opportunities to vary the height and color in order to reduce the overall impression of a large mass. “Vary the height of the building so that it appears to be divided into distinct massing elements” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). East ElevationNorma Triangle Design GuidelinesFullerton Downtown Specific PlanTemple City Design ReviewSECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 7 BRADy WOODS PRINCIPAL PLANNER New to RRM Design Group, Brady brings over 19 years of land use planning experience from both the public and private sectors. He has worked as a City Planner and Land Use Consultant on a variety of projects in California and Florida, with project experience that includes mixed-use and urban infill developments, town center plans, large-scale residential communities, themed resorts and attractions, civic and institutional projects, and form-based code. Brady works at the intersection of design development and community interest, successfully utilizing expertise in placemaking, government regulations, project management, and civic engagement. 19 Years of Experience Education • Master of Urban & Regional Planning, Design and Development, Florida Atlantic University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL • Bachelor of Science, Architecture, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL • Coursework, Architectural Design, Urban Design, Washington-Area Architecture Consortium, Alexandria, VA Affiliations • American Planning Association, Member • American Planning Association - Orange County Chapter, Member Relevant Projects • Design Review Services (Santa Clarita, Anaheim) • Alhambra Objective Design Standards • Anaheim Center City Corridors Specific Plan • Bradenton Form-Based Code (Bradenton, FL)* • Dania Beach Urban Infill & Redevelopment Area Plan (Dania Beach, FL)* • Dublin Objective Design Standards • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Los Coyotes Country Club Development Plan - Development Standards & Design Guidelines (Buena Park)* • Promenade at Riverwalk Development (Bradenton, FL)* • Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay Zone • The Source Mall (Buena Park)* • West Coast Sand & Gravel Headquarters (Buena Park)* • Wilderness Creek Design Guidelines (Orlando, FL)* • Yamaha International Headquarters (Buena Park)*Los Coyotes Development StandardsDublin Objective Design StandardsEncinitas Objective Design Standards* Work performed while with another firm, prior to joining RRM Design Group Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 8 DARIN CABRAL PROJECT ARCHITECT Darin brings over 20 years of experience in the area of single and multi- family residential as well as commercial projects. He earned his Bachelor of Architecture Degree from Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo and has contributed to the field of architecture ever since. Darin is a project manager with an extensive knowledge base of building codes and their applications. In his role, Darin oversees projects from conception through construction with a hands-on approach, successfully managing schedules, budgets, and client expectations. Darin’s critical eye for quality control is a valued skill, representing the high standards in which RRM has built its foundation. 22 Years of Experience Education • Bachelor of Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA Licenses & Accreditations • Architect, CA, C36308 Relevant Projects • 224 Halcyon Affordable Housing (Arroyo Grande) • Day Creek Villas Senior Housing Construction Documents (Rancho Cucamonga) • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Emerald Ridge Apartments Entitlement and Construction Documents (Atascadero) • Fort Hunter Liggett Housing • Froom Ranch Specific Plan (San Luis Obispo) • Long Beach Urban Design Element and On-Call Planning Services • Mission Cove Mixed-Use Development with Affordable Housing (Oceanside) • Moylan Terrace Multi-Family Housing (San Luis Obispo) • Righetti Ranch 5,000 Square Foot Single-Family Residential with ADU, (San Luis Obispo) • The Courtyards at Serra Meadows Affordable Housing (San Luis Obispo) • Union Plaza Affordable Senior Housing (Santa Maria)Serra Meadows Accessory DwellingMoylan Terrace Multi-Family HousingRighetti Ranch ADU PlanSECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 9 SCOTT MARTIN | AIA, LEED AP, CNU-A ARCHITECT/URBAN DESIGNER Scott is a talented architect with a keen ability to be simultaneously innovative and sensitive to clients' needs. His project focus and experience are wide-ranging; from illustration, master planning, urban design, needs assessments, design review, to the production and construction of facilities. Scott is a LEED Accredited Professional and has a high level of expertise in design and implementation of sustainable solutions. Scott's unique relationship with public and private clients gives him understanding of the realities of development and the priorities of a community. He excels in working directly with owner and user groups to set project goals and priorities. Scott blends cohesive design solutions with his strong technical skills to bring the vision of a project to reality. 19 Years of Experience Education • Bachelor of Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA Licenses & Accreditations • Architect, CA, C32348 • Architect, CO, 00405508 • American Institute of Architects (AIA), San Luis Obispo Chapter • Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP) • Congress for the New Urbanism Accredited (CNU-A) Affiliations • United States Green Building Council, California Central Coast Chapter (C4), Regional Council Board, 2008-2012 • Architecture for Humanity, Board Member, 2009-2012 • Atascadero Main Street Association, Design Committee Member, 2008-2012 Relevant Projects • Design Review Services (Temple City, El Monte, Santa Clarita, Anaheim, Lancaster) • Alhambra Objective Design Standards • Anaheim Center City Corridors Specific Plan • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Azusa TOD General Plan/ Development Code Update and Specific Plan • Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan • Cerritos Residential Design Manual • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Dublin Objective Design Standards • El Monte Zoning Code and Design Guidelines Update • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines • Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay Zone • Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program • Yucaipa Citywide Design Guidelines CITY OF ARCADIA MULTIFAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES 13 Draft April 2019 DESIGN GUIDELINES 9. Windows and Doors a. Window and door types, materials, shapes, proportions, and detailing should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and should have quality molding and framing. b. Floor plans should be designed to allow proper placement and sizing of windows to complement the chosen architectural style. Windows should be placed with adequate spacing between window/door trim and wall edges/top plates. c. Garage doors facing the street are highly discouraged. d. Where appropriate to the architectural style, window detailing, such as sills, trim, shutter and/or awnings, should be utilized. e. Shutters should be proportionate in size to the windows to create the appearance of functionality. f. Awnings or prominent architectural features over building entrances should be utilized to provide a defined building entry that provides a sheltered area and orients residents and visitors. g. Where appropriate to the architectural style, windows and doors should be inset from the walls a minimum of two (2) inches to create shadow detailing and visual appeal. h. Replacement windows should be compatible to the overall building in style and material. i. Preferred window materials include: • Wood • Composite clad • Colored vinyl • Coated metal j. Discouraged window materials include: • Anodized aluminum Window trims and sills improve overall building design Window articulation and detailing is achieved through integrated sill, trim, and awning Shutters should be proportionate in size to windows and create the appearance of functionality Dove Creek DevelopmentArcadia Design Guidelines UpdateCity of Cerritos Residential Design Manual ADMINISTRATIVE Draft: May 29, 2014Cerritos Residential Design ManualRelevant Experience | SECTION 1 10 FIRM PROFILE | The Natelson Dale Group Year Founded and Areas of Expertise The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) is a real estate economic and financial consulting firm established in 1974. TNDG serves public and private sector clients throughout the United States in the following basic areas: • Real estate market forecasts and development feasibility studies • Pro forma financial analysis • General Plan and Specific Plan economic studies and policies • Economic development strategic plans • Fiscal impact analysis and modeling Philosophy and Approach TNDG combines state-of-the-art analytical capacities with the unique ability to craft an “implementable vision.” In TNDG’s experience, land use plans are most effective at transforming communities when they are based on economically feasible development concepts. To be “economically feasible” in a comprehensive sense, a plan must reflect the perspectives of all stakeholders affected by the development process: residents, businesses and consumers; developers and landowners; and City staff and elected officials. These different perspectives are addressed in the three levels of economic analysis our team typically applies to this type of assignment: market demand analysis, financial pro forma analysis, and fiscal impact analysis.Santa Paula, CAStockton, CAGeneral Plan Economic Studies TNDG’s General Plan clients include the following cities in California: • City of Agoura Hills • City of Alhambra • City of Beaumont • City of Calabasas • City of Chino • City of Costa Mesa • City of Garden Grove • City of La Quinta • City of Malibu • City of Monterey Park • City of Ontario • City of Port Hueneme • City of Rialto • City of Redondo Beach • City of San Clemente • City of Santa Paula Specific Plan Economic Studies TNDG has completed market/ financial feasibility studies and related implementation strategies for the following Specific Plan processes: • Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan • Huntington Park Downtown Specific Plan • Downtown/Corridors Specific Plan (Fullerton) • Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan • Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (Rosemead) • Azusa Station Area Specific Plans • Covina Town Center Specific Plan • Route 66 Specific Plan (Glendora) Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 11 ROGER A. DALE MANAGING PRINCIPAL Mr. Dale has been affiliated with TNDG for 32 years (since 1988) and currently serves as the firm’s managing principal. His background encompasses the fields of real estate development, economic development, regional economic analysis, environmental and land use policy, financial forecasting, and renewable energy. His project experience with TNDG includes real estate market forecasting, pro forma financial analysis, demographic research and modeling, fiscal impact analysis, cost/benefit assessment, redevelopment/revitalization strategies, business retention/ attraction, workforce development program assessments, and preparation of regional-scale economic development strategic plans. Selected project experience is listed below. Education • Bachelor of Science Economics, Claremont McKenna College • Master of Resource and Environmental Economics, UC Riverside Project Experience • Market and pro forma financial analysis for City of Calabasas General Plan update • Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Monterey Park General Plan update • Market, fiscal impact, and pro forma financial analysis of City of Alhambra General Plan update • Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Costa Mesa General Plan update • Market and pro forma financial analysis for Fullerton Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan • Hotel market analysis for City of Port Hueneme General Plan Update • Retail demand analysis for City of Carpenteria • Fiscal analysis for County of Ventura 2040 General Plan • Market demand analysis and fiscal impact study for Skytt Mesa residential development (Solvang) • Market study and development strategy for City of Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan • Demographic forecasting and economic analyses for Cambria Community Services District • Retail market analysis and fiscal impact studies for proposed hotel and automobile dealership projects • Land use and cost/benefit forecasts for City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework Study • County of Ventura Economic Vitality Strategic Plan • City of Camarillo Economic Development Strategic Plan (including real estate market study) • Market and fiscal impact studies for proposed reconfiguration of Camarillo Springs Golf Course • Real estate market study (including hotel demand forecast) and pro forma financial analysis for Downtown Oxnard • Developer outreach and pro forma financial analysis for Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (City of Rosemead) • City of Beaumont Economic Development Strategic Plan • City of Menifee Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy • City of Escondido Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy • City of Palm Desert Economic Development Strategic Plan Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 12 JOSEPH E. MCCLURE SENIOR ASSOCIATE Mr. McClure has served as principal or manager of land economics research and advisory-services organizations for over 35 years. Mr. McClure’s multidisciplinary background incorporates many phases of the community and real estate development process: economic analysis and strategy development, market and financial feasibility assessment, and planning and design. McClure helps coordinate the firm’s technical focus on regional/ land economic services and creative activities within the firm that include promoting innovation in community development strategic planning and fiscal and economic impact assessments. McClure has served both private developers and public agencies at all levels of government, for projects in small and large cities. Selected project experience is listed below. Education • Bachelor of Science, Architecture, University of Cincinnati • Master of Urban Planning, University of Arizona Project Experience • Market and pro forma financial analysis for City of Calabasas General Plan update • Market and pro forma financial analysis for Fullerton Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan • Market study and development strategy for City of Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan • Retail market analysis and fiscal impact studies for proposed hotel and automobile dealership projects (City of San Luis Obispo) • Fiscal analysis for County of Ventura 2040 General Plan • Market, fiscal impact, and pro forma financial analysis of City of Alhambra General Plan update • County of Ventura Economic Vitality Strategic Plan • City of Camarillo Economic Development Strategic Plan (including real estate market study) • Market and fiscal impact studies for proposed reconfiguration of Camarillo Springs Golf Course • Developer outreach and pro forma financial analysis for Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (City of Rosemead) • City of Beaumont Economic Development Strategic Plan • City of Menifee Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy • City of Escondido Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy • City of Palm Desert Economic Development Strategic Plan • An economic impact of bicycle tourism in Arizona (AZ Department of Transportation) • Market assessment and benefits analysis for major tourist-oriented, destination retail centers, and estimates of tourist spending (in Phoenix, AZ and Sparks, NV) • Metropolitan area siting and economic/fiscal impact study for major league sports facility (in metro Phoenix) SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 13 ALAN LEVENSON SENIOR ASSOCIATE Alan Levenson has been affiliated with TNDG for 20 years. His areas of expertise include economic development strategic planning, regional economic analysis, fiscal impact analysis, retail market evaluation, and real estate development feasibility assessment. He has completed over 80 economic impact studies as part of CEQA/NEPA processes, and has been involved in range of complex fiscal and economic impact studies for residential and mixed-use development projects. He has also been a principal participant in the preparation of a number of economic development strategic plans, many of which have featured tourism as a targeted economic activity. His MBA from UCLA included a concentration in real estate development and finance. Selected project experience is listed below. Education • Bachelor of Science, Economics and Political Science, UC Riverside • Master of Business Administration University of California, Los Angeles Project Experience • Market and pro forma financial analysis for Fullerton Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan • Market study and development strategy for City of Santa Maria Downtown Specific Plan • Retail market analysis and fiscal impact studies for proposed hotel and automobile dealership projects (City of San Luis Obispo) • Hotel market analysis for City of Port Hueneme General Plan Update • Retail demand analysis for City of Carpenteria • Fiscal analysis for County of Ventura 2040 General Plan • Market and pro forma financial analysis for City of Calabasas General Plan update • Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Monterey Park General Plan update • Market, fiscal impact, and pro forma financial analysis of City of Alhambra General Plan update • Market and fiscal impact analysis for City of Costa Mesa General Plan update • County of Ventura Economic Vitality Strategic Plan • City of Camarillo Economic Development Strategic Plan (including real estate market study) • Market and fiscal impact studies for proposed reconfiguration of Camarillo Springs Golf Course • City of Beaumont Economic Development Strategic Plan • City of Menifee Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy • City of Escondido Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy • City of Palm Desert Economic Development Strategic Plan • Assessment of recreational and amenity benefits associated with County of Los Angeles watershed management programs • Simi Valley Restaurant Site Review (Rancho Simi Park and Recreation District) • Economic Development Asset Assessment: comprehensive data-mapping documentation of public/private tourism assets for inventory, analysis, and visual mapping (Larimer County, CO) Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 14 »Extensive project experience in the San Gabriel Valley, including a great working relationship with Temple City »Experience working with cities to craft and incorporate comprehensive objective standards into existing policy documents such as Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Design Guidelines »Design and implementation of residential projects throughout the state The following pages provide both a high-level look at each of these areas and several detailed case studies that dig a bit deeper into the specifics of projects most relevant to Temple City's needs. Each project description is written with a focus on successful implementation. We round out this section highlighting our community engagement, including elements that ensure successful outreach given the challenges we currently face with COvID-19. CUSTOMIZED QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEMPLE CITY RRM marries three key experience factors together in this section: PROJECT EXPERIENCE SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 15 SAN GABRIEL VALLEy EXPERIENCE RRM projects featured here: East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan (Pasadena), Arcadia Design Guidelines, Azusa TOD Specific Plan, Claremont Village Specific Plan (built multi-family housing), Alhambra General Plan Update, Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, Temple City Design Review, El Monte Downtown TOD Specific Plan, West Covina Design Review, Pomona Zoning and Subdivision Code Updates CITY OFPOMONA Prepared for: by: ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODES UPDATE CODE DIAGNOSISA1#XXXX-XX-XXXX11 AUGUST 2020 1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 4 8 16 0 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) ROSEMEAD FCMUOSITE ONE: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN & MASSING STREET VIEW - AFTER STREET VIEW - BEFORE 0-FT FRONTSETBACK 65-FT REAR SETBACK 0-FT SIDE SETBACK SANGABRIEL BLVD.800 SFROOFDECK 35 PARKING SPACES AS SHOWN VS. EXISTING MIXED-USE STANDARDS AS SHOWN RC-MUDO GSP-MU MIN. LOT SIZE 18,000SF 30,000SF 10,000SF MAX. HEIGHT 42-FT, 3-STORIES 45-FT, 3-STORIES 75-FT SETBACKS FRONT 0-FT 0-FT MIN., 3-FT MAX 0-FTINTERIOR SIDE 0-FT / 52-FT 0-FT. OR 10-FT MIN.0-FT. OR 10-FT MIN. STREET SIDE N/A NO MIN.; 20-FT MIN. ADJ. TO RES.,SCHOOL, PARK 5-FT MIN.; 10-FT MIN. ADJ. TO RES.,SCHOOL, PARK REAR 65-FT 10-FT MIN. ADJ TO RES.,0-FT ADJ. TO NON-RES 10-FT MIN. ADJ. TO RES.,0-FT ADJ. TO NON-RES. MAX. DENSITY 24 25 - 30 25MAX. FAR 0.8:1.0 1.6:1.0 1.6:1.0REQ. RES./COMM. %70% RES. / 30% COMM.67% RES. / 33% COMM.65% RES. / 35% COMM.PARKINGRESIDENTIAL 1-BDRM – 1 SP/DU2-BDRM – 2 SP/DUGUEST – SHARED 2SP/DU + 0.5SP/DUGUEST 1SP/DU MIN., 1.5SP/DU MAX. + 0.5 SP/DU FOR GUEST COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT <2000-SF RETAIL OFFICE-BUSINESS 1SP/200SF1SP/250SF1SP/250SF 1SP/100SF1SP/250SF1SP/250SF 1SP/400SF1SP/400SF1SP/400SFMIN. COMMON O/S 100SF/DU 150SF/DU 150SF/DUMIN. PRIVATE O/S 50SF/DU 60SF/DU 100SF/DUMIN. LANDSCAPING 8%6%6% SITE PLAN 1/8”SCALE SITELOCATION Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 16 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 2LAND USE & URBAN FORM 2-14 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Standards 2.6 AREA-WIDE 2.6.2 PLACEMENT AND ORIENTATION Interpretations D. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND STORAGE CONTAINERS 1. Storage and shipping containers and temporary buildings, whether or not intended for temporary use and/or including utility connections or a foundation, are prohibited unless used in conjunction with new construction and/or rehabilitation of a building and approved in writing by the city planner in advance of use. If a temporary structure is permitted, for storage or other purposes during construction, it is allowed only until the new development receives approval for occupancy and shall be removed within 60 days thereafter. This provision is not intended to prohibit small backyard storage sheds used for yard equipment and other personal items. A. BUILDING ORIENTATION 1. Buildings shall be oriented towards the primary street frontage. B. BUILDING ENTRANCES 1. The primary entrance of a ground floor commercial use shall be oriented toward the primary street frontage. C. ROOF PROTRUSIONS 1. All roof structures, including protrusions such as equipment housing and guardrails; parapets and equipment screening; architectural features such as decorative or accent elements and towers; flagpoles; and roof decks and their amenities, shall complement and be consistent with the design of the building. 2. No roof structure shall be taller than the minimum height needed to accommodate, screen, or enclose the intended use. Building Orientation Building Entrances Primary Str e et Acceptable Prohibited Pri m a r y S t r e e t 2.6 AREA-WIDE 2.6.1 SITE PLANNINGCHAPTER 2LAND USE2LAND USE & URBAN FORM 2-64 CARLSBAD VILLAGE & BARRIO Standard Interpretation 2.7.6 BARRIO PERIMETER SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT STANDARDS 2. Residential Private Open Space a. Private open space shall be provided at a minimum of 100 square feet per unit with a minimum dimension of 6 feet in any direction. This requirement may be satisfied by more than one private open space area. 3. Residential Common Open Space: a. Common open space shall be provided at a minimum of 25 square feet per unit with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction. b. Common open space shall be purposefully designed as active or passive recreational facilities. c. Rooftop open space may satisfy this requirement, provided it is available for use by all residents. F. SERVICE AND DELIVERY AREAS — Not applicable. G. BUILDING HEIGHT 1. Maximum 35 feet H. BUILDING MASSING 1. Maximum wall plane and roofline variation: No building façade visible from any public street or the I-5 freeway shall extend more than 30 feet in length without a 2 foot minimum variation in the wall plane, as well as, a change in roofline. Maximum Building Height 35 ft. maximum Maximum Wall Plane 30 ft. maximum2 ft. minimum Residential Private and Common Open Space Common Open SpacePrivate Open SpaceCHAPTER 2LAND USERRM projects featured here: Azusa TOD Specific Plan, Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan, Yucaipa Citywide Design Guidelines, El Monte Downtown TOD Specific Plan CURRENT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ASSIGNMENTS We are currently under contract and in the early stages of development for Objective Design Standards in the Cities of Dublin, Alhambra, Rosemead, Anaheim, and Encinitas. SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 17 BEFORE AFTER DESIGN GUIDELINES RRM projects featured here: West Hollywood Norma Triangle Overlay District and Design Guidelines, Santa Clarita Community Character & Design Guidelines, Cerritos Residential Design Manual, Fremont Citywide Design Guidelines DEVELOPMENT STAN D A R D S R E V I E W NORMA TRIANGLE S I N G L E - F A M I L Y D E S I G N COMMUNITY WORKSH O P # 3 OCTOBER 1, 2016 • No portion of second fl o o r f r o n t e l e v a t i o n m a y c a n t i l e v e r . • Minimum 60% of the se c o n d s t o r y f r o n t e l e v a t i o n s h a l l b e set back a minimum of 3 f e e t f r o m f i r s t f l o o r w a l l . • Must meet one of the following option s : SCALE AND MAS S I N G Option 1: Floor area of second level shall not exceed 75% of the first level floor area and front and side building elevations shall have a variation of at least 3 feet in depth and width Building Massing and M o d u l a t i o n Option 2: A minimum of 25% of each building elevation shall be set back at least 3 feet from the remaining area of the elevational plane NORMA TRIANGLE SIN G L E - F A M I L Y D E S I G N COMMUNITY WORKSHOP # 3 OCTOBER 1, 2016 What we heard... PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS • Remove the covered parkin g requirement • Limit driveway to single la n e • Do not allow subterranean g a r a g e s • Screen parking from street • Encourage garages in rear Design Guidelines address... • Screen parking from street • Integrate parking strategi e s into overall design concep t • Limit impervious/hardscap e surfaces • Encourage parking to the s i d e of lot • Plain concrete and asphalt i s discouraged • Integrate carport into mas s i n g DESIGN GUIDELINES REV I E W Single Family Residential Design Manual 2 City of Cerritos DRAFT - April 24, 2014 Many early Cerritos residences are one-story L-shaped homes comprised of a rectangular living area and a garage in front, as shown in the aerial photo (see Figure I.a.). Since these one-story homes are smaller in square footage, they are often the target of room additions by homeowners. Design principles for first floor additions • Strive to maintain the existing roof height, scale, massing, and architectural character. • Avoid a square shaped house with flat front facade • Provide interest and depth on the street facing elevation; looks for ways to achieve separate wall planes for garages door, entry door, and front windows. • Where possible, provide a recessed and covered entry • Avoid a conflicts of roof masses between the existing garage and the new addition (see Figure I.b). • Maintain the required 5’ offset of the garage plane I.A Residential Additions Area of Addition EXAMPLE A - GABLE ROOF ADDITION New Front Elevation Figure I.d - EXAMPLE A (above)- This example provides a front room addition to the L-shaped home by moving the entry forward and adding a gable roof. Area of addition shaded Area of addition dashed New gable roofs for addition Existing home New Side ElevationExisting Side Elevation Existing Front Elevation City of Cerritos Residential Design Manual ADMINISTRATIVE Draft: May 29, 2014 "I am impressed with the quality and completeness of the document. This is a great way to not only represent what the City is looking for but in a very easy to follow and clear format. Excellent work!" -------- - Ken Striplin, City Manager, City of Santa Clarita Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 18 DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS SUBMITTAL APPROVAL INTERNAL DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST RRM + CITY STAFF DIALOGUE APPLICANT RESUBMITTAL REVIEW OF CHANGES SKETCHES, EXAMPLES, FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS AS NEEDED FINAL COMMENTS/REVIEW TRUTH TESTING AGAINST SPECIFIC PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES RRM MULTI- DISCIPLINARY REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS (SKETCHES, EXAMPLES, MEETINGS, ETC.) RRM Architectural Review Routing Sheet Master Case No. :__________________________ Address/APN: _____________________________ Planner: _________________________________ Approval Body: ____________________________ SUBMITTED MATERIALS: Elevations (Color and/or b&w)* Photographs (label images with comments)* Photo Simulations Colors/Material Samples Site Plan* Floor Plan* Roof Plan (w/cross section for equipment) Grading Plan Landscape Plan Signing Plan Zoning/Vicinity Map Aerial Photograph Other____________________________________ ________________________________________ *Minimum submittals for RRM review STAFF COMMENTS: How does staff feel about the plans? Very good opinion Medium opinion Low opinion ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ How visible is the property? From where? High interest Medium interest Low interest ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ What is the political/public interest? High interest Medium interest Low interest ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Does the property have any limitations? Many limitations Some limitations No limitations ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ How much detail is needed for comments? High level Medium level Broad and general ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ How much are sketches needed? High need Optional need Not needed ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ What specific areas should be looked at? Site plan layout Elevation(s) facing streets Rear elevation(s) Other elevations________________________ Views from surrounding properties Entrance areas Garage doorways Rooflines Window treatments Consistency with surrounding properties Consistency with design guidelines Consistency with architectural style Colors and/or materials Other____________________________________ _________________________________________ Anything else RRM should know? ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ OR RRM’S DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS DESIGN REVIEW 3 Architectural styles and a high level of articulation successfully continue into interior, plaza fronting spaces. Consider providing an architectural feature at proposed gable end consistent with the architectural style. Consider providing additional “breathing room” for arch detailing below the cornice/parapet. Building B: Courtyard (North) Elevation Building A: Courtyard (South) Elevation Consider additional cornice/parapet detailing consistent with identified architectural style and the provided imagery. City of West Hollywood, Community Development Department Consulting Design Review Comments October 28, 2014 Page 5 SOUTH VIEW RENDER 374 HUNTLEY DRIVE WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA Dark, un-articulated mass draws attention to second story and feels looming over neighboring properties. Rendering appears to have a difference in Finished Floor from one house to the other of 4’. Is that true? If the proposed house is actually 4’ taller, the difference between height is being understated and view should be updated. Bedroom 3 and WIC windows create greatest potential for privacy conflict with neighbor. (understand need for egress in Bed 3) Deck in Bed 2 helps to screen sliding door Window opportunities to allow for better street presence City of Woodland - Proposed City Center Lofts - RRM Recommendations Page 4 Consider varying base height, material, scale, and size of openings. This along with the use of architectural details (i.e. wall sconces) will help provide a pedestrian scale and strengthen the pedestrian experience. Wall and window articulation seems out of scale considering the building’s primarily residential use and ultimate use. Consider a more regulated rhythm, scale, and placement for upper story windows. Balconies can provide the desired articulation. They also help break up the long, flat monolithic feel of the project, particularly on the upper floors. Page 6-14 Page 6-15 11IMAGE ANALYSIS CITY OF LONG BEACH CONSULTING DESIGN REVIEW FIRST + ALAMITOS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PACKAGE CITY OF LONG BEACH FIRST + ALAMITOS .long beach, caSARES-REGIS GROUP 05.20.2015 25DESIGN: FIRST & ALAMITOS PERSPECTIVE STUDIONELEVENNOT ENOUGH ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ON THE CORNER LOBBY IS RECESSED AND HIDDEN LARGE ROOF PULLS THE EYE UP AND EMPHASIZES THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING RRM projects featured here: Woodland City Center Lofts, Long Beach First + Alamitos Development, Lancaster 1752 E Avenue, Santa Clarita Newhall Block, West Hollywood Residence 5 3 Rooflines for the project h a v e been appropriately varied t h r o u g h the incorporation of a variety of roof forms, inc l u d i ng front and cross gabled f o r m s ( CDG RPD-37 & MF-76.8) . The applicant has incl uded built-up roofing at the third-floor internal staircases to provide roofline variety w h i l e a lso providing weather protectio n (CDG RPD-37.2). While unclear the dimension, th e a p p l i c ant has also appropriate l y i n c orporated roof overhangs to enhance the overall d e s i g n a n d aesthetic (CDG RPD-37 . 3 ) . High-quality buildings typic a lly feature 360-degree a r c h i t e c t u r e and articulation on all visible facades. As noted i n t he CDG’s, side and rear f a c a d e s s hould be articulated in the same manner as fron t f a c a d e s (CDG A-80.1). While th e a p p l i c ant has appropriately articulated wall planes alo n g t he front and rear of the b u i l d i n gs, the sides of many of t h e building elevations, spec i f i c a l l y the North and South Elevation s of buildings E and F, and the East and West E l e v a t i o n s of buildings A, B, C, G, J , a n d K, exhibit little to no wall plane articulation an d / o r detailing and appear as blank wa ll planes (CDG BF-38.1). Going forward, it is recom m e n d e d that the applicant look f o r o p portunities to further articulate and enhance t h e f a c a d e s on the North and South E l e v a tions of buildings E and F, and the East and W e s t E l e vations of buildings A, B, C , G , J, and K in order to enhance the overall proje c t d e s i g n . Building Type 1, as sho w n o n Sheet A 3.2, features a laundry room at the sou t h e l e v ation of the building. To e m b o d y full 360-degree architecture as desired b y t h e CDG’s, the applicant sho u l d l o o k for opportunities to further improve this sec t i o n o f the residential building ( C D G A -80). For example, consider enhancing the e n t r y d o o r way through door color va r i a t i on, incorporating additional windows, integr a t i n g b u i lding elements such as a w n i n gs above doors or windows, and/or other m e t h o d s t o further enhance the ove r a l l a e sthetic of these building areas. Defined points of entry to a r e s idential unit using archit e c t u r al articulation, landscapin g , and lighting is highly des i r e d b y the CDG (CDG E-75). A s c u r r e n tly proposed, individual unit entries are located so a s t o be internal to the stairwe l l corridors of the buildings , with no section elevation s p r o v i ded indicating the design a n d a esthetic of these primary building features. As note d i n C DG E-75.1-4, individual u n i t e n tries should be visible from other buildings, with d i s t i n ctive elements that help t o d e fine the unit. Going forward, the applicant sh o u l d c l a r ify design and location o f i n dividual unit entries per CDG design direction. If r e l o c a t ing entries so as to face e x t e r nal to the building is unpractical, applicant sh o u l d p r o v i de typical unit entry desig n for Staff review. As also noted in CDG E-75.6-7, s t a i r c a s e s should be incorporated i n t o t he overall architectural massing of a building with t h e u s e of open metal staircase s s t r ongly discouraged. Moreover, the current sta i r c a s e design appears thing an d l a c k i n g structural integrity. The currently proposed o p e n m e t a l s t a i r c a s e s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w ith the design direction provided by the CDG and t h e a p p licant should revise the d e s i g n to provide greater cohesion with the overal l b u i l d ing massing and design w h i l e a l s o potentially creating greater definition of acce s s a n d entry into the buildings. 4 Windows are an important a r c h i t e ctural component of a bu i l d i n g and enhance the experience of the pedestr i a n a t the ground level. The a p p l i c a n t has appropriately aligned windows horizon t ally and vertically and ha s i n c o r p o r a t e d windows that appear to be in scale in relation t o t he overall build ing proportions. In terms of window desig n , the applicant has propos e d t o u t ilize both single-hung and slider type designs on all elevations, considered appropriate to the over a l l d e s i g n ( C D G M F-76.5). However, in reviewing the provided pl a n set, it is unclear whether t h e p r o p osed window types are t o include mullions and be f o u r o v e r four or two over two. If p r a c tical, it is recommended that the applicant utilize t h e f our over four with mullion w i n d ow design. Moreover, window application refinem e n t i s needed in some areas o f t h e d e sign. For example, windows at the third leve l a p p e a r to lack adequate “breath i n g r oom” from the roofline. Lastly, applicant should c o n s i d e r incorporating stylistic a p p r o priate awnings or overhangs within the key a r e a s o f the project at ground le v e l t o further enhance of the overall project design (CDG 39.14). The provided Colors and M a t e r i a l s Board identifies the pro p o s e d colors and materials to be used for the project. C o l o r s include Believable Buff, Y e a r l i ng, High Tea, Futon, Rockwood Terra Cotta, a n d T r i c o r n Black. Materials include c e m e nt plaster, trim, steel railing and accent metal , a n d c o m posite shingle roofing. As e n c ouraged by the CDG’s, the use of high-quality m a t e r i a l s and finishes create vis u a l i n terest and reduces monotonous building a ppearances (CDG MF-82 ) . W h i l e t h e a p p l i c a n t has selected an appropriate colors and m a t e r i a l s palette for the project th a t a re earth toned in focus (CDG MC-40 & MF-82), i t i s r e commended that the ap p l i c a n t l o o k for opportunities to expand the materials pal e t t e t o enhance the overall proje c t d e s ign. For example, a stone veneer could be in t e g r a t e d to enhance the base/bul k h e a d o f the building while also strengthening the pe d e s t r i a n scale of the project. In re v i ewing the overall plan se t , it appears that the applic a n t h a s a ppropriately applied mate r i a ls so as to terminate at a n inside corner (CDG MF-8 2 . 5 ) . I n addition, the residential b u i l d ings themselves do not vary greatly from one an o t h e r i n terms of colors and mat e r i a l s . While we understand th i s an effective approach fro m a c o s t perspective, it is recom m e n d e d that the applicant consider incorporating a n a d d i t i o nal colors and materials p a l e t te that could help to create greater variety and d i s t inguish buildings from o n e a n o t h er within the overall project. General Comments Amenities for residents a r e v i t a l for the livability of a mu l t i -family project. The app l i c a n t has incorporated a numbe r o f a m enities, including a comm u n i t y b uilding, pool, play area, and BBQ area with outdoor seating, for use b y f u t u r e r e s i dents. The project also proposes two dog “relief” a r e a s o n the southern portion of t h e site. The applicant shoul d clarify with City staff that t he space proposed is of a d e q u a t e size and dimensions to Example of exterior stairc a s e integrated into building d e s i g n . Exterior staircases appea r t h i n a n d s p i n d l y , lacking integration with p r o j e c t d e s i g n . R e v i s e to appear more integrate d w i t h o v e r a l l p r o j e c t . Clarify individual unit entr y d e s i g n . I f t o b e located internal, rather th a n e x t e r n a l f a c i n g , staircases should provide g r e a t e r d e f i n i t i o n o f access and entry to build i n g s . Example of a more defin e d exterior entry. Clarify window design. Re c o m m e n d e d window to include mullion w i t h f o u r o v e r four, rather than two over t w o , f o r s t y l i s t i c purposes. Look for opportunities to in c o r p o r a t e stylistic appropriate awnin g s a t g r o u n d o r other floors, where appro p r i a t e . Rear Elevation - Bldg Typ e 1 - D , H , & I Front Elevation - Bldg T y p e 2 - A , B , & F SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 19 One of the most important distinguishing factors between RRM and other consultants is our portfolio of architectural projects that we bring to the assignment. We not only know how to write design standards and guidelines, but we implement them. We know how to get things built. MULTI-FAMILy & MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT RRM projects featured here: Avila Oaks Multi-family Development, Casa Las Granadas Multi-family Housing, Courtyards at Avila Mixed-Use Development, Moylan Terrace Multi-family Housing, Paseo Chapala Mixed-Use Development, Marsh/Higuera Street Mixed-Use Development Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 20 Paseo Chapala is a vibrant mixed-use project located across Chapala Street from Paseo Nuevo in the commercial heart of Santa Barbara. Sidewalk cafés and shops line historic Chapala and De La Guerra Streets, screening a parking garage at grade level. An elevated paseo and courtyard system access an Andalusian-style village of townhomes, cottages, and offices. Eight of the twenty-nine residences are reserved as affordable housing for purchase by lottery for families of lower and moderate income. The project is located in the city center within walking distance to the transit center, commercial core, and entertainment district, thus helping to reduce auto dependency. PASEO CHAPALAMULTI-FAMILY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT SANTA BARBARA, CA NOTABLE INFO AND STATS: Client: Bermant Development Contact: John Campanella, Former President, (805) 886-0654 Project Dates: Built in 2007 RRM SERVICES PROVIDED: Architecture SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 21 RRM’s team of architects and urban designers has provided design review services for Temple City since 2004. Our team has reviewed and commented on the design of a variety of project types including mixed-use, residential, commercial, and industrial. Design recommendations for these reviews are supported graphically through sketches and red-lined plans and from time-to-time also include site visits, meetings with applicants, and staff assistance in preparation for hearings. RRM has also assisted the City in preparing mixed-use planning and best practices materials. Mixed-use materials were used to educate City staff and elected officials on the complexities of this development type and to frame the City’s review approach for future development proposals. TEMPLE CITY DESIGN REVIEW & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES TEMPLE CITy, CA NOTABLE INFO AND STATS: Client: City of Temple City Contact: Scott Reimers, Interim Community Development Director, (626) 656-7316, sreimers@templecity.us Project Dates: 2015-2019 RRM SERVICES PROVIDED: Planning, Architecture, Landscape Architecture 5 PROPOSED MASSIN G SUGGESTED MASSIN G Proposed Project Design Review The proposed project is a five story mixed-use proj ect comprising approximat ely 123,000 square feet of commercial and residential condomin iums. The 64 foot tall project st ands out as the tallest building within the city. The architectural style is not of any specific identifiable type but resembles postmodern in many aspects. The project meets the basic desig n guideline principles such as a generally articulated mass, prominent driveways, and screened parking but it lacks the more ar ticulated character and style defining elements such as a richness of material s, multi-planed roofs, and overhangs (DTSP C.1.a, pg.V-3). The proposed proje c t i s o f a h e i g h t w h i c h i s i n c o n f lict with the Specific Plan and is not compatible with the surrounding ne i g h b o r h o o d . T h e h e i ght and massing has the potentia l to adversely affect solar access of the adjace n t r e s i d e n c e s ( D T S P C . 2 . a , p g . V-5). It is recomm e n d e d that a solar study be conducted to evalu a t e t h e i m p a c t a n d t h a t t h e u p p e r stories be stepped b a c k t o m i n i m i z e i m p a c t s . The scale of the bui l d i n g d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o t he surrounding are a . I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t e c h n i q u e s noted in Design Gu i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n C . 2 . b , p g . V - 7 be utilized to help m i t i g a t e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e overall mass. The proposed proje c t ’ s m a s s a n d s c a l e i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h the Temple Comm e r c i a l D i s t r i c t G u i d e l i n e s . I t is recommended th a t t h e s t r e e t l e v e l façade integrate a v a r i e t y o f s t orefronts to reduce r e p e t i t i v e n e s s and proved interes t a t t h e pedestrian level (D T S P D i s t r i c t Guidelines 2.a, pg. v - 2 9 ) . It is recommended t h a t t h e d e s i g n e r review the design g u i d e l i n e r e c o m m endations for Scale M i t i g a t i o n Techniques as note d i n t h e D i s t r i c t G u idelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the p o t e n t i a l t o b e t h e o n l y b u i l d i ng of this scale in th e i m m e d i a t e a r e a f o r t h e foreseeable future a f t e r i t i s c o m p l e t e d s o m a s s , scale, wall articulat i o n , a n d r o o f d e s i g n s h o u l d b e applied to all side o f t h e p r o j e c t providing four sided a r c h i t e c t u r e . While the design co m p l i e s w i t h t h e g e n e r a l d e s i g n guideline that no wa l l planes should cont i n u e unbroken for more t h a n 5 0 f e e t , i t i s u n s u c c e s s f u l i n meeting the intent o f t he guideline to elim i n a t e “boxlike”/repetitive s t r u c t u r e s (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg . V - 5 c ) . Design Recommen d a t i o n s The following recom m e n d a t i o n s a r e m a d e t o b e t t e r r e spond to the goal o f m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d “ H i g h Quality Architectural D e s i g n ” f i n d i n g s . M o r e s pecific and detail or i e n t ed comments may b e m o r e appropriately addre s s e d w h e n t h e primary mass, scale , a n d c o n t e x tual integration item s a r e resolved, thusly the y a r e n o t c o m p l e t e i n n a t u r e . 1. Step the mass a t t h e u p p e r f l oors to “transition fr o m t h e height of adjacent d e v e l o p m e n t to the maximum he i g h t o f t h e p r o p o s e d building” (DTSP C.2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the thi n v e r t i c a l e l e m e n t s i n t o more appropriate s c a l e masses to create opportunities to var y t h e h e i g h t a n d c o l o r i n order to reduce the overall impression o f a large mass. “Vary t h e h e i g h t of the building so th a t i t appears to be divid e d i n t o distinct massing ele m e n t s ” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). Proposed Project Design Review The proposed proje c t i s a f i v e s t o r y m i x e d - u s e p r o j ect comprising approximat ely 123,000 square feet of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l c o n d o m i n iums. The 64 foot t a l l p r o j e c t s t ands out as the tallest building within the city. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e i s n o t o f a n y specific identifiabl e t y p e b u t r e s e m b l e s p o s t m o d e r n in many aspects. The project meets th e b a s i c d e s i g n guideline principle s s u c h a s a generally articula t e d m a s s , prominent driveway s , a n d s c r e e n e d parking but it lacks t h e m o r e a r ticulated character a n d s t y l e defining elements s u c h a s a r i c h n e s s o f m a t e r i a l s, multi-planed roo f s , a n d overhangs (DTSP C . 1 . a , pg.V-3). The proposed proje c t i s o f a h e i g h t w h i c h i s i n c o n f lict with the Specif i c P l a n and is not compatib l e w i t h the surrounding ne i g h b o r h o o d . T h e h e i ght and massing ha s t h e p o t e n t i a l to adversely affec t s o l a r access of the adjac e n t r e s i d e n c e s ( D T S P C . 2 . a , p g . V-5). It is recomm e n d e d that a solar study b e conducted to evalu a t e t h e i m p a c t a n d t h a t t h e u p p e r stories be stepped b a c k t o m i n i m i z e i m p a c t s . The scale of the bu i l d i n g d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o t he surrounding are a . I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t e c h n i q u e s noted in Design Gui d e l i n e s S e c t i o n C . 2 . b , p g . V - 7 be utilized to help m i t i g a t e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e overall mass. The proposed proje c t ’ s m a s s a n d s c a l e i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h the Temple Comm e r c i a l D i s t r i c t G u i d e l i n e s . I t is recommended t h a t t h e s t r e e t l e v e l façade integrate a v a r i e t y o f s t orefronts to reduce r e p e t i t i v e n e s s and proved interest a t t h e pedestrian level (DT S P D i s t r i c t Guidelines 2.a, pg. v - 2 9 ) . It is recommended t h a t t h e d e s i g n e r review the design g u i d e l i n e r e c o m m endations for Scale M i t i g a t i o n Techniques as note d i n t h e D i s t r i c t G u idelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the p o t e n t i a l t o b e t h e o n l y b u i l d i ng of this scale in t h e i m m e d i a t e a r e a f o r t h e foreseeable future a f t e r i t i s c o m p l e t e d s o m a s s , scale, wall articulat i o n , a n d r o o f d e s i g n s h o u l d b e applied to all side o f t h e p r o j e c t providing four sided a r c h i t e c t u r e . While the design com p l i e s w i t h t h e g e n e r a l d e s i g n guideline that no wa l l planes should conti n u e unbroken for more t h a n 5 0 f e e t , i t i s u n s u c c e s s f u l i n meeting the intent o f t he guideline to elim i n a t e “boxlike”/repetitive s t r u c t u r e s (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V - 5 c ) . Design Recommen d a t i o n s The following recom m e n d a t i o n s a r e m a d e t o b e t t e r r e spond to the goal of m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d “ H i g h Quality Architectura l D e s i g n ” f i n d i n g s . M o r e s pecific and detail o r i e n t ed comments may b e m o r e appropriately addre s s e d w h e n t h e primary mass, scale , a n d c o n t e x tual integration item s a r e resolved, thusly th e y a r e n o t c o m p l e t e i n n a t u r e . 1. Step the mass a t t h e u p p e r f l oors to “transition f r o m t h e height of adjacent d e v e l o p m e n t to the maximum he i g h t o f t h e p r o p o s e d building” (DTSP C. 2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the th i n v e r t i c a l e l e m e n t s i n t o more appropriate s c a l e masses to create opportunities to var y t h e h e i g h t a n d c o l o r i n order to reduce th e overall impression o f a large mass. “Vary t h e h e i g h t of the building so th a t i t appears to be divi d e d i n t o distinct massing ele m e n t s ” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). Preferred Height Tra n s i t i o n i n g D i a g r a m Preferred Massing D i a g r a m 3 STYLE DEFINING EL E M E N T S I N C L U D I N G M U L T I - P L A N N E D ROOFS, OVERHANG S , A N D A R C H E D T O P O P E N I N G S FROM EXISTING DE S I G N G U I D E L I N E S PROPOSED BUILDIN G R E L A T I O N S H I P SCALE DOES NOT R E L A T E T O S I N G L E STORY RESIDENTIA L N E I G H B O R H O O D Proposed Project D e s i g n R e v i e w The proposed proje c t i s a f i v e s t o r y m i x e d - u s e p r o j ect comprising app r o x i m a t ely 123,000 square f e e t of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l c o n d o m i n iums. The 64 foot t a l l p r o j e c t s t ands out as the tal l e s t b u i l d i n g within the city. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e i s n o t o f a n y specific identifiab l e t y p e b u t r e s e m b l e s p o s t m o d e r n in many aspects. The project meets t h e b a s i c d e s i g n guideline principle s s u c h a s a generally articul a t e d m a s s , prominent drivewa y s , a n d s c r e e n e d parking but it lacks t h e m o r e a r ticulated character a n d s t y l e defining elements s u c h a s a r i c h n e s s o f m a t e r i a l s, multi-planed roo f s , a n d overhangs (DTSP C . 1 . a , pg.V-3). The proposed proj e c t i s o f a h e i g h t w h i c h i s i n c o n f lict with the Specifi c P l a n and is not compatib l e w i t h the surrounding n e i g h b o r h o o d . T h e h e i ght and massing h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l to adversely affe c t s o l a r access of the adjac e n t r e s i d e n c e s ( D T S P C . 2 . a , p g . V-5). It is recomm e n d e d that a solar study b e conducted to evalu a t e t h e i m p a c t a n d t h a t t h e u p p e r stories be stepped b a c k t o m i n i m i z e i m p a c t s . The scale of the bu i l d i n g d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o t he surrounding are a . I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t e c h n i q u e s noted in Design Gu i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n C . 2 . b , p g . V - 7 be utilized to help m i t i g a t e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e overall mass. The proposed proje c t ’ s m a s s a n d s c a l e i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h the Temple Com m e r c i a l D i s t r i c t G u i d e l i n e s . I t is recommended th a t t h e s t r e e t l e v e l façade integrate a v a r i e t y o f s t orefronts to reduce r e p e t i t i v e n e s s and proved interes t a t t h e pedestrian level (D T S P D i s t r i c t Guidelines 2.a, pg. v - 2 9 ) . It is recommended t h a t t h e d e s i g n e r review the design g u i d e l i n e r e c o m m endations for Scale M i t i g a t i o n Techniques as not e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t G u idelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the p o t e n t i a l t o b e t h e o n l y b u i l d i ng of this scale in t h e i m m e d i a t e a r e a f o r t h e foreseeable future a f t e r i t i s c o m p l e t e d s o m a s s , scale, wall articulat i o n , a n d r o o f d e s i g n s h o u l d b e applied to all side o f t h e p r o j e c t providing four sided a r c h i t e c t u r e . While the design com p l i e s w i t h t h e g e n e r a l d e s i g n guideline that no w a l l planes should cont i n u e unbroken for more t h a n 5 0 f e e t , i t i s u n s u c c e s s f u l i n meeting the intent o f t he guideline to elim i n a t e “boxlike”/repetitive s t r u c t u r e s (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg . V - 5 c ) . Design Recomme n d a t i o n s The following reco m m e n d a t i o n s a r e m a d e t o b e t t e r r e spond to the goal o f m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d “ H i g h Quality Architectura l D e s i g n ” f i n d i n g s . M o r e s pecific and detail o r i e n t ed comments may b e m o r e appropriately addre s s e d w h e n t h e primary mass, scal e , a n d c o n t e x tual integration ite m s a r e resolved, thusly th e y a r e n o t c o m p l e t e i n n a t u r e . 1. Step the mass a t t h e u p p e r f l oors to “transition f r o m t h e height of adjacent d e v e l o p m e n t to the maximum he i g h t o f t h e p r o p o s e d building” (DTSP C.2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the th i n v e r t i c a l e l e m e n t s i n t o more appropriate s c a l e masses to create opportunities to va r y t h e h e i g h t a n d c o l o r i n order to reduce th e overall impression o f a large mass. “Vary t h e h e i g h t of the building so th a t i t appears to be divi d e d i n t o distinct massing el e m e n t s ” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). Proposed Project D e s i g n R e v i e w The proposed proje c t i s a f i v e s t o r y m i x e d - u s e p r o j ect comprising app r o x i m a t ely 123,000 square f e e t of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l c o n d o m i n iums. The 64 foot t a l l p r o j e c t s t ands out as the tall e s t b u i l d i n g within the city. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e i s n o t o f a n y specific identifiab l e t y p e b u t r e s e m b l e s p o s t m o d e r n in many aspects. The project meets t h e b a s i c d e s i g n guideline princip l e s s u c h a s a generally articul a t e d m a s s , prominent drivewa y s , a n d s c r e e n e d parking but it lacks t h e m o r e a r ticulated characte r a n d s t y l e defining elements s u c h a s a r i c h n e s s o f m a t e r i a l s, multi-planed roof s , a n d overhangs (DTSP C . 1 . a , pg.V-3). The proposed proje c t i s o f a h e i g h t w h i c h i s i n c o n f lict with the Speci f i c P l a n and is not compatib l e w i t h the surrounding n e i g h b o r h o o d . T h e h e i ght and massing h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l to adversely affe c t s o l a r access of the adjac e n t r e s i d e n c e s ( D T S P C . 2 . a , p g . V-5). It is recomm e n d e d that a solar study b e conducted to evalu a t e t h e i m p a c t a n d t h a t t h e u p p e r stories be stepped b a c k t o m i n i m i z e i m p a c t s . The scale of the bu i l d i n g d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o t he surrounding are a . I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t e c h n i q u e s noted in Design Gu i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n C . 2 . b , p g . V - 7 be utilized to hel p m i t i g a t e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e overall mass. The proposed proj e c t ’ s m a s s a n d s c a l e i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h the Temple Comm e r c i a l D i s t r i c t G u i d e l i n e s . I t is recommended t h a t t h e s t r e e t l e v e l façade integrate a v a r i e t y o f s t orefronts to reduce r e p e t i t i v e n e s s and proved interes t a t t h e pedestrian level (D T S P D i s t r i c t Guidelines 2.a, pg. v - 2 9 ) . It is recommended t h a t t h e d e s i g n e r review the design g u i d e l i n e r e c o m m endations for Scale M i t i g a t i o n Techniques as note d i n t h e D i s t r i c t G u idelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the p o t e n t i a l t o b e t h e o n l y b u i l d i ng of this scale in t h e i m m e d i a t e a r e a f o r t h e foreseeable future a f t e r i t i s c o m p l e t e d s o m a s s , scale, wall articulat i o n , a n d r o o f d e s i g n s h o u l d b e applied to all side o f t h e p r o j e c t providing four sided a r c h i t e c t u r e . While the design co m p l i e s w i t h t h e g e n e r a l d e s i g n guideline that no w a l l planes should conti n u e unbroken for more t h a n 5 0 f e e t , i t i s u n s u c c e s s f u l i n meeting the intent o f t he guideline to elim i n a t e “boxlike”/repetitive s t r u c t u r e s (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg . V - 5 c ) . Design Recomme n d a t i o n s The following recom m e n d a t i o n s a r e m a d e t o b e t t e r r e spond to the goal o f m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d “ H i g h Quality Architectura l D e s i g n ” f i n d i n g s . M o r e s pecific and detail o r i e n t ed comments may b e m o r e appropriately addre s s e d w h e n t h e primary mass, scal e , a n d c o n t e x tual integration item s a r e resolved, thusly th e y a r e n o t c o m p l e t e i n n a t u r e . 1. Step the mass a t t h e u p p e r f l oors to “transition f r o m t h e height of adjacent d e v e l o p m e n t to the maximum he i g h t o f t h e p r o p o s e d building” (DTSP C . 2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the th i n v e r t i c a l e l e m e n t s i n t o more appropriate s c a l e masses to create opportunities to va r y t h e h e i g h t a n d c o l o r i n order to reduce th e overall impression o f a large mass. “Var y t h e h e i g h t of the building so t h a t i t appears to be div i d e d i n t o distinct massing ele m e n t s ” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). Proposed Project D e s i g n R e v i e w The proposed proje c t i s a f i v e s t o r y m i x e d - u s e p r o j ect comprising app r o x i m a t ely 123,000 square f e e t of commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l c o n d o m i n iums. The 64 foot t a l l p r o j e c t s t ands out as the tall e s t b u i l d i n g within the city. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e i s n o t o f a n y specific identifiab l e t y p e b u t r e s e m b l e s p o s t m o d e r n in many aspects. The project meets t h e b a s i c d e s i g n guideline princip l e s s u c h a s a generally articul a t e d m a s s , prominent drivewa y s , a n d s c r e e n e d parking but it lacks t h e m o r e a r ticulated characte r a n d s t y l e defining elements s u c h a s a r i c h n e s s o f m a t e r i a l s, multi-planed roof s , a n d overhangs (DTSP C . 1 . a , pg.V-3). The proposed proje c t i s o f a h e i g h t w h i c h i s i n c o n f lict with the Speci f i c P l a n and is not compatib l e w i t h the surrounding n e i g h b o r h o o d . T h e h e i ght and massing h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l to adversely affe c t s o l a r access of the adjac e n t r e s i d e n c e s ( D T S P C . 2 . a , p g . V-5). It is recomm e n d e d that a solar study b e conducted to evalu a t e t h e i m p a c t a n d t h a t t h e u p p e r stories be stepped b a c k t o m i n i m i z e i m p a c t s . The scale of the bu i l d i n g d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o t he surrounding are a . I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t e c h n i q u e s noted in Design Gu i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n C . 2 . b , p g . V - 7 be utilized to hel p m i t i g a t e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e overall mass. The proposed proj e c t ’ s m a s s a n d s c a l e i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h the Temple Comm e r c i a l D i s t r i c t G u i d e l i n e s . I t is recommended t h a t t h e s t r e e t l e v e l façade integrate a v a r i e t y o f s t orefronts to reduce r e p e t i t i v e n e s s and proved interes t a t t h e pedestrian level (D T S P D i s t r i c t Guidelines 2.a, pg. v - 2 9 ) . It is recommended t h a t t h e d e s i g n e r review the design g u i d e l i n e r e c o m m endations for Scale M i t i g a t i o n Techniques as note d i n t h e D i s t r i c t G u idelines Section 2.b.2, pg. v-31. The project has the p o t e n t i a l t o b e t h e o n l y b u i l d i ng of this scale in t h e i m m e d i a t e a r e a f o r t h e foreseeable future a f t e r i t i s c o m p l e t e d s o m a s s , scale, wall articulat i o n , a n d r o o f d e s i g n s h o u l d b e applied to all side o f t h e p r o j e c t providing four sided a r c h i t e c t u r e . While the design co m p l i e s w i t h t h e g e n e r a l d e s i g n guideline that no w a l l planes should conti n u e unbroken for more t h a n 5 0 f e e t , i t i s u n s u c c e s s f u l i n meeting the intent o f t he guideline to elim i n a t e “boxlike”/repetitive s t r u c t u r e s (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg . V - 5 c ) . Design Recomme n d a t i o n s The following recom m e n d a t i o n s a r e m a d e t o b e t t e r r e spond to the goal o f m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d “ H i g h Quality Architectura l D e s i g n ” f i n d i n g s . M o r e s pecific and detail o r i e n t ed comments may b e m o r e appropriately addre s s e d w h e n t h e primary mass, scal e , a n d c o n t e x tual integration item s a r e resolved, thusly th e y a r e n o t c o m p l e t e i n n a t u r e . 1. Step the mass a t t h e u p p e r f l oors to “transition f r o m t h e height of adjacent d e v e l o p m e n t to the maximum he i g h t o f t h e p r o p o s e d building” (DTSP C . 2.a.1, pg. V-5). 2. Break up the th i n v e r t i c a l e l e m e n t s i n t o more appropriate s c a l e masses to create opportunities to va r y t h e h e i g h t a n d c o l o r i n order to reduce th e overall impression o f a large mass. “Var y t h e h e i g h t of the building so t h a t i t appears to be div i d e d i n t o distinct massing ele m e n t s ” (DTSP C.2.a.2, pg. V-6). East Elevation Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 22 Building Plate Height Building Orientation Building Roof Form The City of Encinitas retained RRM Design Group to create objective design standards and an expedited permitting program to facilitate the development of affordable multi- family and mixed-use housing. In response to an HCD review of the Housing Element, the City committed itself to updating the Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and Design Guidelines to create design standards that are clear and objective, and comply with state housing laws. RRM developed an effective community outreach program employing a variety of public engagement tools, including stakeholder interviews, online surveys, a project website, and digital media. The project includes easy-to-use and easy-to-administer standards for new housing to provide clear direction on topics such as site planning, building massing and elements, architectural design, landscaping, and utilitarian/mechanical elements. The standards ensure design compatibility within existing Encinitas neighborhoods. An expedited permit process program is in development to require less time processing applications, thus making the delivery of more affordable units more economically feasible. ENCINITASOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ENCINITAS, CA NOTABLE INFO AND STATS: Client: City of Encinitas Contact: Jennifer Gates, Principal Planner, (760) 633-2714, jgates@encinitas.gov Project Dates: Ongoing RRM SERVICES PROVIDED: Planning, Architecture, Landscape Architecture SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 23 DUBLINOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS & ADU PROTOTYPES DUBLIN, CA NOTABLE INFO AND STATS: Client: City of Dublin Contact: Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, (925) 833-6610, kristie.wheeler@dublin.ca.gov Project Dates: Ongoing RRM SERVICES PROVIDED: Planning, Architecture, Landscape Architecture The City of Dublin hired RRM Design Group to develop clearly defined objective design standards endorsed by the community and decision-makers that can be applied to multi-family and mixed-use residential projects. The intent of the project is to ensure that new residential development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, that quality materials are used, that building form and scale are appropriate to the site, and that development complies with the intent of SB35 laws to facilitate and expedite construction of housing. The final product will include clearly written standards with easy-to-use graphics. Given the lack of large sites for new housing projects, the City is promoting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). To assist in this effort, RRM is developing prototype plans including elevations, floor plans for garage conversion, and building permit plans for ADUs that will save property owners money, expedite the permit process, and help ensure well-designed ADUs are built. Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 24 After successfully completing a comprehensive General Plan update adopted by the Alhambra City Council in 2019, RRM was retained to develop objective standards for housing development as part of a comprehensive Zoning Code update. These standards will ensure multi-family development is consistent with the community values identified in the General Plan. RRM will prepare standards that comply with State law and focus on multi-family residential projects with the intent to maintain the City’s high quality/cohesive architectural design, reducing project review processing time and promoting higher density residential development. The standards will provide direction on topics such as site planning, building massing and elements, building frontages, entrances, landscaping, and utilitarian/mechanical elements of building design. Extensive public engagement, including workshops/study sessions, stakeholder interviews, and a dedicated project website and digital media, will significantly shape the resulting standards which will be integrated into the updated Zoning Code designed and formatted by RRM, and endorsed by the community and City decision makers. ALHAMBRAOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ALHAMBRA, CA NOTABLE INFO AND STATS: Client: City of Alhambra Contact: Vanessa Reynosa, Deputy Director of Community Development, (626) 570-5034, vreynosa@cityofalhambra.org Project Dates: Ongoing RRM SERVICES PROVIDED: Planning, Architecture SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 25 YUCAIPACITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES yUCAIPA, CA NOTABLE INFO AND STATS: Client: City of Yucaipa Contact: Ben Matlock, Planning Manager, (909) 797-2489, bmatlock@yucaipa.org Project Dates: Adopted June 2019 RRM SERVICES PROVIDED: Planning, Architecture, Landscape Architecture Set at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains, Yucaipa is a family-oriented community with established neighborhoods, a quaint uptown, and strong civic spirit. The City of Yucaipa retained RRM Design Group to prepare Citywide Design Guidelines, including objective standards, to provide a framework for contextually appropriate architectural strategies and elements to be incorporated into development and redevelopment across the community. The design guidelines address multi-family residential, single- family residential, commercial, and industrial development, as well as public realm treatments for key gateway corridors. Tailored guidance was crafted for special issues including Accessory Dwelling Units, building additions, accessory structures, and subdivision design. Ease of use and aptly capturing established and desired community character were primary themes. Community engagement (including study sessions, pop-up events, and stakeholder meetings) significantly shaped the resulting policies. MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES CHAPTER 3 3-1CHAPTER 3 | MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINESJUNE 2019 3.1 INTRODUCTION The City strongly encourages the development community to design multi-family residential product in an appropriate form that emphasizes the area’s compact community, rural character and small- town feel. Desirable features include townhomes and apartment buildings designed with appropriate massing and scale to meld with the surrounding single-family residences, varied architectural styles, and landscaped parkways between curbs and sidewalks with large trees. As existing housing stock is redeveloped and infill housing is provided, there is an interest to increase the standard on design and quality. Projects will be evaluated based on conformance with the following guidelines. Projects shall conform with objective design review standards marked with this symbol ( ), and meet the general intent of the remaining guidelines in this chapter. 3.2 SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN Site planning refers to the arrangement of buildings and parking areas, the size and location of pedestrian spaces, and how these features relate to one another. Site planning and design topics include lot layout, parking, perimeter walls and fences, and landscaping. 3.2.1 Site Layout 1. Interior paths and sidewalks shall provide direct access to building entrances and to public right-of-way. 2. Pocket parks and tot lots shall be sited centrally within the project in compliance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. 3. Pocket parks should be designed in an inviting manner that encourages pedestrian use through the incorporation of trellises, seating, and shade trees. 4. Building entrances should be clearly defined and oriented toward the street. Interior pathway Usable open space 3-2 CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES | CITY OF YUCAIPA 5. Measures shall be used to soften the building mass with architectural features such as garden walls, arbors, and trellises. However, it is important to avoid “tacking on” architectural features to hide poor massing and architecture. All architectural features should be fully integrated into the building design. 6. A variety of building orientations and staggered units should be incorporated into the design of sites to create diversity and avoid long, monotonous building façades. 7. Porches are encouraged in order to denote entries and break- up building mass. Functional porches should extend a minimum of 6 feet in each direction. 8. Trellises, pergolas, gazebos, patios/courtyards and other outdoor structures are encouraged, provided the structures meet the requirements of the Yucaipa Development Code with respect to height, placement, and construction. 9. Energy conservation should be considered in the orientation of buildings (e.g., solar access, shade control). 10. Orient buildings and decks to maximize views while preserving privacy of surrounding neighbors. 11. Units should be clustered and organized on the site to allow for the maximum amount of usable open space. 12. Multi-family projects should include wayfinding signage to direct pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including a map of the site. Signage design should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the development. 3.2.2 Parking 1. Alleys shall be used for access to garages, parking spaces, and service and garbage collection. Vertical and horizontal articulation Porches denoting entries and reducing building mass Award of Merit: Best Practices Category -------- APA Inland Empire Section CITYWIDE D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S City of Yuca i p a Adopted Jun e 2 0 1 9 Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 26 AZUSA TODGENERAL PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN AZUSA, CA NOTABLE INFO AND STATS: Client: City of Azusa Contact: Manuel Munoz, Planning Manager, (626) 812-5226 mmunoz@azusaca.gov Project Dates: 2014-2017 RRM SERVICES PROVIDED: Planning, Architecture, Engineering, Landscape Architecture The City of Azusa retained RRM to prepare a 350- acre TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan focusing on Azusa’s downtown, two future Gold Line transit stations, and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Funded through a Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) grant, the work effort addresses a mix of commercial, residential, and entertainment-related land uses that will be instrumental in creating a vibrant mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment. The project market analysis informs recommended land uses and development standards which are complemented by design guidelines to ensure high quality, compatible development. Inclusive community engagement incorporates ideas voiced by residents, business owners, and decision makers. The overall effort is complemented by an integrated CEQA process for an Environmental Impact Report. Award of Merit for Economic Planning & Development -------- APA Los Angeles Section, 2016 SECTION 1 | Relevant Experience City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 27 Hit the streets at a safe social distance Connect with stakeholders in places where they already are • Pop-up engagement • Walking tours • Stakeholder interviews • Student involvement Bring people together for a conversation virtual or in-person platforms to engage a broad cross- section of stakeholders • Project committees • Decision-maker input • Community workshops • Open houses • Design charrettes Engaging with online tools Engage with key demographics that are traditionally not represented • Pre-recorded videos • Live streaming • Mobile apps • Online and real-time surveys • Google/Microsoft forms • Zoom meetings and polling Get the word out Strengthen participation through education and notification • Project website and branding • Social media advertising • Newsletters and e-blasts • Mailers or flyers • Community ambassadors • Youth organizations COMMUNITY OPE N H O U S E @ SLO FARMER’S M A R K E T Check out the lates t p l a n s , learn about the Water Resource Recovery Facility improvements and give us your f e e d b a c k ! THIS THURSDAY MARCH 19th HIGUERA & BROA D S T R E E T A FRESH TAKE ON COMMUNITy ENGAGEMENT Communication in our modern era has become increasingly distant, making effective and thorough engagement with communities and stakeholders more challenging. Our team utilizes a variety of methods to engage participants of diverse backgrounds, education levels, and abilities with a cross-platform approach that gives agencies the ability to listen, offer remote participation, and collect feedback from all voices in the community. Scan with camera app or click icon to learn more! Hit the streets at a safe social distance Connect with stakeholders in places where they already are • Pop-up engagement • Walking tours • Stakeholder interviews • Student involvement Bring people together for a conversation virtual or in-person platforms to engage a broad cross- section of stakeholders • Project committees • Decision-maker input • Community workshops • Open houses • Design charrettes Engaging with online tools Engage with key demographics that are traditionally not represented • Pre-recorded videos • Live streaming • Mobile apps • Online and real-time surveys • Google/Microsoft forms • Zoom meetings and polling Get the word out Strengthen participation through education and notification • Project website and branding • Social media advertising • Newsletters and e-blasts • Mailers or flyers • Community ambassadors • Youth organizations COMMUNITY OPE N H O U S E @ SLO FARMER’S M A R K E T Check out the lates t p l a n s , learn about the Water Resource Recovery Facility improvements and give us your f e e d b a c k ! THIS THURSDAY MARCH 19th HIGUERA & BROA D S T R E E T Scan with camera app or click icon to learn more! Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 29 LISA FLORES Planning Services Manager City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-5445 | lflores@arcadiaca.gov PROJECTS: Design Guidelines Update, Design Review BEN MATLOCK Planning Manager City of Yucaipa 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard Yucaipa, CA 92399 (909) 797-2489 | bmatlock@yucaipa.org PROJECTS: Citywide Design Guidelines JASON MIKAELIAN Planning Services Manager City of El Monte 11333 valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91731 (626) 580-2064 | jmikaelian@elmonteca.gov PROJECTS: Design Review, Zoning Code & Design Guidelines Update REFERENCES Relevant Experience | SECTION 1 SITE PHOTO Avila Oaks Multi-family Development, Avila Beach, CA City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 31APPROACH AND SCHEDULEProposal for Objective Design Standards Consultant Services2 Avila Oaks Multi-family Development, Avila Beach, CA City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 33 INTRODUCTION The City of Temple City is seeking Objective Design Standards that can be applied to multifamily residential projects for R-2 and R-3 zoned properties. The intent is to ensure that development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, that quality materials are used, that building form and scale is appropriate to the site, and comply with the intent of SB35 to facilitate and expedite the construction of housing in Temple City. The City is also interested in encouraging high-quality residential architecture by developing sample plans (site plan, floor plans, elevations) for multi-family projects that will expedite the permit process and help ensure well-designed projects. RRM Design Group's approach pairs multi-family residential architects with planners and urban designers that understand how to write effective standards that guide architecture and protect neighborhoods while being realistic and buildable. Having prepared plans and built multi-family developments, our team can deliver multi-family sample plans are innovative and flexible. RRM understands how to write effective standards that guide architecture and protect neighborhoods while being realistic and buildable. Bradley Studios Affordable Housing, Santa Barbara, CA Approach and Schedule | SECTION 2 34 SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1: ESTABLISH A STRONG FOUNDATION In this initial phase of the project, RRM Design Group will engage in a due diligence process designed to inform the team on the primary issues to be addressed and gather and review relevant data and background information. KICKOFF MEETING The project team will meet with City staff to establish a mutual understanding of the key issues and project objectives; discuss lot size, template format, and optional community meeting; and lay out significant project milestones, meeting times, and deliverable targets. DATA GATHERING/DOCUMENT RESEARCH As a first step in the process, the consultant team will collect and review data that is relevant to the development of the Objective Design Standards. This data will include the existing Mid-Century General Plan, Zoning Code, Specific Plans, Design Guidelines, previous development applications, mapping information, and other planning efforts that have a bearing in the City. Deliverables: • Prepare for and attend one (1) kickoff meeting. • Review of existing standards and guidelines. • One (1) video conference call with City to discuss findings of the data gathering and document research. EXISTING POLICY ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY MEMO RRM will develop a matrix summarizing necessary revisions to existing City plans, guidelines, and standards. Findings will be summarized with recommendations for proposed objective design standards. This will provide an opportunity to discuss the desired approach and modified language prior to developing the Administrative Draft document. Deliverables: • One (1) existing policy summary matrix. Bradley Studios Affordable Housing, Santa Barbara, CA SECTION 2 | Approach and Schedule City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 35 TASK 2: SAMPLE PLANS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS This effort would be to create a series of sample R-2 and R-3 “prototype” projects, demonstrating desired site planning, floor plans, and elevations. The sample plans would be utilized to create the Objective Design Standards mentioned later in the scope. The sample plans would then expedite the process of multi-family project approval in Temple City by giving a clear visual representation of desired architectural style and quality. DRAFT SITE PLANS AND FLOOR PLANS Working with City staff, RRM will select 3 sites for prototype projects. Utilizing existing development standards, and demonstrating desired outcomes, draft site and floor plans would be developed to show potential project. Along with plans, a memo of recommendation for new Objective Design Standards would be created. Staff will have a chance to review, then one round of edits to plans will be made. These will be conceptual level plans and are expected to be vetted through staff and the development community before finalized FINAL PLANS, ELEVATIONS, DETAILS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on feedback from City staff and the community, RRM will finalize conceptual site and floor plans, as well as develop conceptual level elevations and key building details. It is anticipated that there will be typical unit plans (Floor Plans of a 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, and 3 bedroom unit), and building plans that reference the unit plans, as well as site plans. The conceptual elevations will be based on staff and community feedback, and show a variety of potential material and finish schemes (2 schemes per elevation). In addition, key architectural details will be provided to demonstration elements such as window detailing, cornice or roof eave, and building base. Building off the work done for the elevations, plans, and details, RRM will develop a memo on the prototype projects relationship to Objective Design Standards. Deliverables: • Conceptual site plans and floor plans (3 sample projects) • One (1) round of revisions to plans. • Conceptual elevations of each project, 2 architectural schemes per project, depicting the primary building elevation (street facing). • A series of 3D details with materials and callouts (5-8 details). • A detailed memo of how prototype projects relate to Objective Design Standards. • Three (3) video conference calls with City to Review plans and elevations. TASK 3: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS In order to provide an economic “reality check” on the development concepts, RRM will work with The Natelson Dale Group (TNDG) to complete the following work: • A Financial Pro Forma Analysis to estimate the development densities necessary to allow for feasible development (or redevelopment) of various residential development prototypes given prevailing land values (and site assembly costs) in Temple City. • Interface with the Development Community to validate and refine the pro forma financial analysis and to identify potential policies and incentives to attract desired development. These analyses will support the process of defining land use policies and standards that facilitate housing production consistent with objectives of this planning effort. TNDG’s proposed tasks are described in greater detail on the following page. Approach and Schedule | SECTION 2 36 FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ANALYSIS The primary purpose of the financial analysis will be to determine the development densities that would allow for feasible development of targeted residential projects given prevailing land prices and site assembly costs in the City. TNDG will prepare financial pro formas for a total of three development prototypes covering the likely spectrum of development densities, product types and land use mix for the various opportunity sites under consideration in this study. The financial analysis will involve the following steps: • In consultation with the RRM Design Group team, define a range of development prototypes such as housing types, products, and densities to be evaluated. A total of three distinct prototypes will be evaluated. • TNDG will develop an abbreviated financial pro forma that calculates developer return and residual land values based on the input development assumptions. In particular, the model will be structured to test the financial implications of variations in land use mix and development densities. The model inputs will include: ◦Development amounts and densities by land use product type ◦Land and construction costs by land use (construction costs will be estimated by RRM Design Group) ◦Standard project financing assumptions ◦Projected revenue factors. • Based on the initial model results, coordinate with planning team to refine zoning and density recommendations for the development opportunity sites under consideration. This will be an iterative process whereby TNDG will utilize the model to assist the planning team in establishing a range of feasible alternatives. • Prepare a brief summary report documenting the financial analysis process. Spreadsheets of the financial model will be included as report appendices. INTERFACE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY To supplement the pro forma financial analysis, TNDG will conduct a series of stakeholder interviews with key representatives of the development community. As appropriate, some of these interviews could be conducted as an online focus group meeting. The purposes of this outreach will be to validate and refine the pro forma analysis and to identify policies that would enhance the market and financial feasibility of the types of housing development targeted by this planning process. Deliverables: • One (1) summary report documenting the financial analysis process. TASK 4: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT In collaboration with City staff, RRM will facilitate a series of community workshop, interviews with multi-family builder and designers who frequently build projects in the City, and study sessions focused on getting feedback on and support for the “sample plans”. Each engagement tool will be designed to maximize input from a broad audience and will accommodate the need for ongoing social distancing. RRM will work with staff to customize and refine, and an effective outreach process to build collaborative interest and consensus in the project. Deliverables: • One (1) virtual community workshop to gather input on standards and proposed written and graphic ordinance content. • Up to three (3) 2-hour focus group meetings with multi-family builders and designers who frequently build projects in Temple City. • Preparation of presentation, staff report and handouts for planning commission study session. SECTION 2 | Approach and Schedule City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 37 TASK 5: OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS DRAFT DOCUMENTS Building on the work effort from previous tasks, RRM will prepare an administrative araft of the Objective Design Standards. Emphasis will be on quality design and materials, as defined and endorsed by the community and decision-makers. The design standards will provide direction on topics such as site planning, building massing, and elements, building frontages, architectural design, entrances, exterior materials, landscaping, utilitarian/mechanical elements of building design, etc. The standards will be presented using clearly written text and illustrative graphics/imagery and tailored with the ultimate users in mind including design professionals, City staff, and decision-makers. Following the completion of the administrative draft documents and receipt of the single set of consolidated City comments, RRM will produce a screencheck draft document. At this point, all the City’s comments will have been integrated, and this draft will provide an additional internal review opportunity before the development of the public review draft. Final edits will be incorporated and RRM will provide a public review draft of each document for City use and distribution. Deliverables: • RRM will provide a PDF of each draft document (administrative, screencheck, and public review). We ask that staff consolidate all comments into one redlined version of each draft for RRM’s use to make revisions TASK 6: PUBLIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FINAL DRAFT RRM will prepare for and attend a Planning Commission and City Council hearing to present the public hearing draft document. Errata sheets may be used to discuss preferred changes identified from the public review period, Planning Commission and City Council. RRM will prepare staff reports for all public hearings; however, this assumes the City will be responsible for public notification. RRM will provide an updated and final draft based on final approval. PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ COORDINATION This task includes necessary coordination between RRM and City staff throughout the process. This will include information teleconferences, correspondence, status updates, record keeping, project coordination, electronic file management, and all other coordination during the project. Deliverables: • Prepare public hearing staff reports for Planning Commission and City Council. • Prepare for and attend up to two (2) hearings to assist staff in presenting the sample plans/ standards. Finalize the document(s) and produce one (1) reproducible copy and one (1) electronic format • Ongoing project coordination and management. Assumes approximately eight (8) hours per month for sixteen (16) months Approach and Schedule | SECTION 2 38 PROJECT AND SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT The foundation of RRM Design Group's practice relies on expert and proactive project management. Successfully accomplishing each unique assignment within the needed timeframe and allocated budget is essential. At the beginning of a project, RRM focuses on capturing a clear direction on final deliverables and end products, establishing a shared understanding of the project with the client and all team members. Conducting workshops and/or focus group meetings early with stakeholders are effective means ways to identify issues and build consensus. These approaches reduce potential surprises that can add costs, cause delays, and dilute consensus. RRM also has a weekly staff scheduling system that enables accurate and advanced project forecasting and project team task assignments. We stay well ahead of potential staffing availability conflicts and competing workload demands. Projecting workloads out weeks and months in advance allows adequate resources to successfully meet critical completion dates and often finish tasks ahead of schedule. We make it a practice to provide regular status reports of project progress and closely coordinate with your project manager. In managing a schedule, we have found it helpful to establish mutually agreeable, timely turnaround review times. In addition, all product deliverables are reviewed internally for quality control purposes prior to submittal. We ask that, following your review of a work product, you provide one redlined marked-up version of staff comments so that all comments are reconciled, and the revision process is expedited. RRM’s dedication to exceptional service, superior products, excellent project management, and quality assurance are best recognized through our references. Please give our former and existing clients listed on page 29 a call! Projecting out workloads weeks and months in advance allows adequate resources to successfully meet critical completion dates. SECTION 2 | Approach and Schedule City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 39 PROPOSED SCHEDULE For easy reference, we have provided our proposed project schedule which tracks directly with your SB 2 grant application. While this table includes our estimated cost, our detailed fee estimate can be found in Section 3 of this proposal. SB 2 Planning Grants Application Temple City Objective Design Standards Objective Responsible Party Estimated Cost Begin End Deliverable *PPA Notes Write & Release Request for Proposal City of Temple City Aug 2020 Aug 2020 Prepare project description and RFP and send it to consultants Yes Not in RRM Scope Review, Interview, and Select Consultant City of Temple City May 2020 Jun 2020 Review proposals and conduct interviews Yes Not in RRM Scope City Council approval of the Consulting service City of Temple City Jun 2020 Jun 2020 Prepare contract and staff report for City Council approval Yes Not in RRM Scope Agency Cost $5,700 Project Kick-off, Data Gathering/Document Research RRM Design Group $8,500 Dec 2020 Dec 2020 Meetings/discussions on lot size,template format, public outreach Yes Task 1 in RRM Scope Develop Template & Objective Design Standards, Draft 1 RRM Design Group Dec 2020 May 2021 Design standards and templates, staff review & comments Yes Task 2 in RRM Scope Develop Template & Objective Design Standards, Draft 2 RRM Design Group May 2021 Jun 2021 Design standards and templates, staff review & comments Yes Task 2 in RRM Scope Develop Template & Objective Design Standards, Draft 3 RRM Design Group Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Design standards and templates, staff review & comments Yes Task 2 in RRM Scope Public Outreach RRM Design Group $25,000 Jul 2021 Sept 2021 Reach out to target group & three public workshops Yes Task 3 in RRM Scope Develop Template & Objective Design Standards, Drafts 4 & 5 RRM Design Group $25,000 Sept 2021 Nov 2021 Revised and modify template & design standards, staff build 3Ds Yes Task 4 in RRM Scope Planning Commission Review of Draft 5 RRM Design Group Nov 2021 Jan 2022 Ordinance, notice, staff report, resolution, and presenation Yes Task 5 in RRM Scope City Council Review of Draft 6 RRM Design Group Jan 2022 Mar 2022 Ordinance, notice, staff report, resolution, and presenation Yes Task 5 in RRM Scope City Council Adopts Ordinance RRM Design Group Mar 2022 Apr 2022 Final Ordinance, staff report, resolution, and presentation Yes Task 5 in RRM Scope RRM Estimated Project Cost $154,300 TOTAL PROJECT COST $160,000 *Priority Policy Area $5,700 $80,800 $15,000 SB 2 Grant Application Project Timeline and Budget Note: The Natelson Dale Group (TNDG) will prepare the financial feasibility analysis between December 2020 and July 2021. Approach and Schedule | SECTION 2 SITE PHOTO Moylan Terrace Multi-family Housing, San Luis Obispo, CA City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 41COSTS Proposal for Objective Design Standards Consultant Services3 Moylan Terrace Multi-family Housing, San Luis Obispo, CA 43City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS RRMJAMI WILLIAMS RRMMATT OTTOSON RRMBRADY WOODS RRMDARIN CABRAL RRMSCOTT MARTIN RRMTNDGTHE NATELSON DALE GROUP 220 $ per hour 135 $ per hour 155 $ per hour 165 $ per hour 205 $ per hour 110 $ per hour TASK 1: ESTABLISH A STRONG FOUNDATION FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 1,760$ 2 $440 2 $270 2 $310 2 $330 2 $410 0 $0 $0 T&M/NTE 4,070$ 0 $0 2 $270 16 $2,480 8 $1,320 0 $0 0 $0 $0 T&M/NTE 2,260$ 2 $440 2 $270 10 $1,550 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Task 1 Value:8,090$ TASK 2: SAMPLE PLANS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 45,420$ 4 $880 12 $1,620 8 $1,240 160 $26,400 30 $6,150 83 $9,130 $0 T&M/NTE 34,970$ 4 $880 10 $1,350 8 $1,240 96 $15,840 12 $2,460 120 $13,200 $0 Task 2 Value:80,390$ TASK 3: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 23,948$ 2 $440 $0 $0 $0 8 $1,640 $0 $21,868 Task 3 Value:23,948$ TASK 3: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 24,560$ 20 $4,400 18 $2,430 32 $4,960 12 $1,980 14 $2,870 72 $7,920 $0 Task 3 Value:24,560$ TASK 4: OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMEN FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 24,680$ 18 $3,960 14 $1,890 80 $12,400 8 $1,320 8 $1,640 32 $3,470 $0 Task 4 Value:24,680$ TASK 5: PUBLIC REVIEW AND ADOPTION FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 8,210$ 10 $2,200 8 $1,080 24 $3,720 2 $330 0 $0 8 $880 $0 T&M/NTE 6,370$ 10 $2,200 24 $3,240 6 $930 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Task 5 Value:14,580$ Reimbursable Expenses 2,000$ 178,248$ Economic Consultant Financial Feasibility Analysis Fee Footnote Estimated fees for tasks shown as “Time and Materials - Not to Exceed" (T&M/NTE) are provided for informational purposes only. Amounts billed for these tasks, which will reflect actual hours, will not be exceeded without prior approval by the client. Adjustment to Hourly Billing Rates RRM reserves the right to adjust hourly rates on an annual basis. Draft Documents (Administrative Draft, Screencheck Draft) Public Hearings and Final Draft Project Management/Coordination Estimated Project Total Production Staff TEMPLE CITY OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FEE ESTIMATE November 20, 2020 Principal-in-Charge Project Manager Architect/Urban DesignerProject Architect Draft Site Plans and Floor Plans Final Plans, Elevations, Details, and Recommendations Public Engagement Principal Planner Kickoff Meeting Data Gathering/Document Research Existing Policy Analysis and Summary Memo DETAILED FEE ESTIMATE Fee Footnote Estimated fees for tasks shown as “Time and Materials - Not to Exceed" (T&M/NTE) are provided for informational purposes only. Amounts billed for these tasks, which will reflect actual hours, will not be exceeded without prior approval by the client. Adjustment to Hourly Billing Rates RRM reserves the right to adjust hourly rates on an annual basis. Costs | SECTION 3 City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 45 HOURLy BILL RATE RANGES RRM Design Group EXHIBIT A-1 SCHEDULE 1 Bill Rate Ranges Subject to change effective March 1st each year ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN Architect 95$ -155$ Designer I 55$ -85$ Assistant Manager of Architecture 130$ -195$ Designer II 65$ -115$ Design Director 145$ -235$ Interior Designer I 75$ -125$ Designer I 70$ -100$ Interior Designer II 90$ -150$ Designer II 80$ -125$ Intern 45$ -80$ Designer III 90$ -150$ Senior Interior Designer 110$ -195$ Intern 45$ -80$ Job Captain 90$ -150$ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Manager of Architecture 145$ -255$ Assistant Designer 70$ -110$ Principal 180$ -350$ Associate Designer 80$ -125$ Project Architect 110$ -185$ Designer 95$ -135$ Project Designer 110$ -175$ Intern 45$ -80$ Project Manager 110$ -185$ Landscape Architect 95$ -145$ Senior Architect 135$ -220$ Manager of Landscape Architecture 150$ -240$ Senior Designer 135$ -210$ Principal 180$ -350$ Senior Project Manager 135$ -230$ Principal Landscape Architect 135$ -230$ Senior Designer 105$ -160$ ENGINEERING & SURVEYING Senior Landscape Architect 110$ -175$ Construction Inspector 105$ -155$ Designer I 55$ -95$ PLANNING Designer II 75$ -120$ Assistant Planner 75$ -115$ Designer III 90$ -135$ Associate Planner 90$ -150$ Engineer I 85$ -130$ Intern 45$ -80$ Engineer II 105$ -160$ Manager of Planning 145$ -240$ Land Surveyor 115$ -160$ Principal 180$ -350$ Manager of Engineering Services 170$ -280$ Principal Planner 140$ -230$ Manager of Surveying 150$ -230$ Senior Planner 115$ -185$ Party Chief 90$ -140$ Principal 180$ -350$ CORPORATE SERVICES Project Engineer 125$ -175$ Accounting Specialist 60$ -110$ Project Manager 145$ -230$ Business Development Coordinator 85$ -135$ Senior Designer 110$ -185$ Chief Executive Officer 195$ -500$ Senior Land Surveyor 130$ -195$ Graphic Designer 80$ -135$ Senior Party Chief 115$ -180$ Marketing Manager 110$ -220$ Senior Project Engineer 135$ -225$ Marketing Specialist 90$ -150$ Supervisor of Surveying 135$ -205$ Office Coordinator 70$ -125$ Survey Technician I 60$ -90$ Project Accountant 65$ -135$ Survey Technician II 75$ -115$ Project Administrator 70$ -125$ Survey Technician III 90$ -155$ Receptionist 40$ -80$ Surveying Crew Rates REGULAR One person w/ GPS or Robotic Workstation 125$ -155$ Two person 175$ -290$ Three person 235$ -390$ PREVAILING WAGE One person w/ GPS or Robotic Workstation 150$ -180$ Two person 225$ -340$ Three person 325$ -490$ Rev 3/1/2020 HOURLy RATES The Natelson Dale Group Principal $240/hour Senior Associate $190/hour Research Associate $125/hourSubject to change effective March 1st each year Costs | SECTION 3 SITE PHOTO Arlington Village Affordable Housing Development, Santa Barbara, CA City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 47 4 ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS Proposal for Objective Design Standards Consultant Services Arlington Village Affordable Housing Development, Santa Barbara, CA City of Temple City | PROPOSAL FOR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 49 ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS As part of our due diligence effort in preparing a responsive proposal package, we reached out to our insurance provider to review the City’s Objective Design Standards Consultant-RFP General Conditions for compliance with Civil Code Section 2782.8 as amended by SB 496. RRM Design Group is in substantial agreement with the RFP General Conditions. However, there is an item we believe would be of mutual benefit to discuss. The following proposed changes bring the City’s indemnification clause into compliance with the amended Civil Code. Acceptance of Conditions | SECTION 4