Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
E-9 Staff Report - PSA for Objective Design Standards
CONSENT ITEM E-9 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: MATT MARQUEZ, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: SERGIO GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2021 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH RRM DESIGN GROUP TO CONDUCT THE 1ST CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS SUMMARY: The City of Azusa’s General Plan Chapter 3: The Built Environment focuses on the importance of City Design. The citizens of Azusa strongly favor preserving the natural environment and traditional neighborhoods. The City’s design should not include ugly strip malls, “cookie cutter” tract houses or poorly designed and poorly-maintained apartments. The General Plan has various policies that support the creation of citywide objective design standards. City Council authorized the release of RFP for Citywide Objective Design Standards on June 21, 2021. City staff has selected RRM Design Group as the top firm to conduct the Citywide Objective Design Standards and start work January 2022. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1.Approve a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with RRM Design Group to conduct the Citywide Objective Design Standards in an amount to exceed $199,360.00 plus an allowance of $19,936.00 (10%) for contingencies for a total contract amount of $219,296.00. 2.Authorize the City Manager to prepare and execute the agreements, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, on behalf of the City. DISCUSSION: Objective Design Standards are set requirements on how to apply design principles to projects (small and large) while providing a positive user experience. The intent is to provide applicants with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for the design of projects. As stated, these standards are written as requirements, rather than guidelines. They involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public APPROVED CITY COUNCIL 12/13/2021 PSA for RRM Design Group - Citywide Objective Design Standards December 13, 2021 Page 2 of 3 official and are uniformly verifiable by a reference to an external an uniform benchmark or criterion. Citywide Objective Design Standards assist in developing a comprehensive approach to good design throughout cities. Good design in a City promotes the following: • Walkable neighborhoods • Safe neighborhoods • Sense of ownership • Community pride • Increased property values • Sense of place Structure of Objective Design Standards The structure of the Objective Design Standards will consist of massing and architectural styles. Massing in architectural theory refers to the structure in three dimensions, not just outline from a single perspective. Massing influences the sense of space as it relates to building and public spaces, and helps define the interior and exterior shape of the building. Architectural styles are characterized by the features that make a building, like Spanish Revival, Craftsmen Style, etc. A style may include such elements as form, method of construction, building materials, and regional character. The Objective Design Standards will aid the design and overall approval of housing, commercial, and industrial projects. They will provide direction on various standards that can streamline the approval process and have less discretionary influence in the design process. These would be the 1st Objective Design Standards for the City. City Council authorized the release of RFP for Citywide Objective Design Standards on June 21, 2021. The City’s Selection Committee reviewed all proposals and interviewed the top three firms. RRM Design Group has been selected as the top firm to conduct the Citywide Objective Design Standards. The scope of the project is outlined below: 1. Background Review and Goals 2. Community Engagement and Education 3. Architectural Field Surveys 4. Citywide Objective Design Standards 5. Adoption of Citywide Objective Design Standards 6. Implementation of Citywide Objective Design Standards 7. Digital Availability of Information The City received a total of 5 proposals as outlined below: Firm Amount Aguilar Architects $252,280.00 Page & Turnbull $199,585.00 RRM Design Group $199,360.00 Vashishta Consulting International LLC $126,000.00 PSA for RRM Design Group - Citywide Objective Design Standards December 13, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Interwest $109,660.00 FISCAL IMPACT: The total contract amount shall not exceed $199,360.00 plus an allowance of $19,936.00 (10%) for contingencies for a total contract amount of $219,296.00. The total contract amount shall be paid from the Professional Services Account Number 10-35-611-000-6399 as approved in the FY 2020-20201 Budget. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Manuel Muñoz Matt Marquez Planning Manager Economic and Community Development Director Fiscal Reviewed by: Reviewed and Approved by: Talika M. Johnson Sergio Gonzalez Administrative Services Director City Manager Attachment: 1. Professional Service Agreement with RRM Design Group– Citywide Objective Design Standards. CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS PROPOSAl PREPARED FOR CITY OF AzuSA ON JulY 29, 2021 RE: CitywidE ObjECtivE dEsign standaRds Dear Mr. Muñoz, The City of Azusa wishes to ensure the high design quality of proposed development within the city and seeks to engage design professionals to work cooperatively with staff toward this end. The General Plan states that the City is “committed to enhancing its distinct identity and sense of place and rejecting conventional development patterns that have made too many towns into dreary sprawl. There is no place in Azusa for more ugly strip malls, “cookie cutter” tract housing or poorly-designed and poorly-maintained apartments.” Additional policies “require new mixed-use and infill residential uses to be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses.” Our team at RRM is excited about the prospect of using our talent, creativity, and commitment to achieve the highest quality design results for the City of Azusa. These results would incorporate highly innovative Objective Design Standards to guide future urban development, and accurately implement the City’s General Plan policies and goals, ultimately leading to an even more beautiful community. We will bring successful experience (including lessons learned) from our involvement in the development of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan and the Objective Design Standards we are currently crafting for a number San Gabriel Valley communities, as well as design review services and urban design projects throughout California. We are poised to create a new cutting-edge document utilizing our design experience along with the horsepower of seasoned architects, planners, and landscape architects. With RRM Design Group, you will benefit from: • Unparalleled experience and award-winning excellence in document authorship • 25 years balancing design with public and private interests • Experience in creating user-friendly, innovative yet implementable documents • Superior graphic design and illustration • In-house planners, architects, engineers, and landscape architects, with expertise in residential, commercial, and industrial developments • Friendly and enthusiastic staff at your service Our finished product will be an easy-to-read, richly illustrated set of Objective Design Standards that will provide the recipe for the quality design you seek. The document will set recommendations on how to apply design principles to provide a positive user experience. Designers, staff, and City decision-makers will use the standards to develop and evaluate projects based on good design that promotes quality, context-sensitive design, walkable neighborhoods, safety, pride of ownership, and a sense of place. July 29, 2021 Manuel Muñoz Planning Division Economic and Community Development Department City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA 91702 CREating EnviROnMEnts PEOPlE EnjOy® www.rrmdesign.com 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p: (949) 361-7950 f: (949) 361-7955 The standards will aid the design and overall approval of housing, commercial, and industrial projects while providing clear measurable direction that will result in a streamlined approval process with less discretionary influence. Thank you for the opportunity to propose on a project of such importance to your community. We have thoroughly enjoyed working for the City in the past and would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that we can truly do for the rest of the Azusa what we have done for the TOD areas and downtown. Sincerely, RRM Design Group Jami Williams, CNU-A Project Manager CREating EnviROnMEnts PEOPlE EnjOy® gRaPHiCs & PHOtOgRaPHs: This document features images of RRM Design Group and its subconsultant partners' projects, the graphics and photos of which are owned and copyrighted by our respective firms. 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. © 2021 RRM Design Group PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dEsign standaRds TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name 1 Prior Experience and Qualifications 2 References 3 Organizational Chart and Resumes 4 Methodology and Approach 5 Compensation 6 Exceptions/Deviations Page 01 13 17 25 35 39 viii You'll notice several graphics and photos throughout our proposal featuring residential and mixed-use projects designed and implemented by RRM Design Group. RRM PROJECT Casa de las Fuentes Affordable Housing Santa Barbara, California 1 PRiOR E x PE R iEN C E AN D Q u Ali f i CA T iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 1 Section 1 PRiOR E x PE R iEN C E AN D Q u Ali f i CA T iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 3 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 145 professionals on staff at RRM Design Group in 6 core disciplines: Architecture Landscape Architecture Support StaffPlanning Civil Engineering Surveying Structural Engineering 27 California licensed Architects 27 Architecture Designers 12 California licensed Civil Engineers 2 California licensed Structural Engineers 13 Engineering Designers 16 California licensed l andscape Architects 10 landscape Designers 12 Community & urban Planners 1 licensed Surveyor 3 Surveying Technicians 25 Administrative Support Staff CREating EnviROnMEnts PEOPlE EnjOy® san lUis ObisPO (HQ) 3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p: (805) 543-1794 f: (805) 543-4609 san jUan CaPistR anO 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p: (949) 361-7950 f: (949) 361-7955 san lEandRO 325 Davis St. San Leandro, CA 94577 p: (510) 751-4910 f: (510) 686-8831 santa baRbaR a 10 East Figueroa St., Ste. 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 p: (805) 963-8283 f: (805) 963-8184 vE ntURa 422 East Main St. Ventura, CA 93001 p: (805) 652-2115 f: (805) 652-1532 wEbsitE www.rrmdesign.com 4 »Extensive project experience in the region, including a great working relationship with the City of Azusa »Experience working with cities to craft and incorporate comprehensive Objective Design Standards into existing policy documents such as Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Design Guidelines »Design and implementation of built projects throughout the state CUSTOMIZED QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF AZUSA: PROJECT EXPERIENCE The following pages provide both a high-level look at each of the experience areas listed above, and several detailed case studies that dig a bit deeper into the specifics of projects most relevant to the City of Azusa's needs. Each project description is written with a focus on successful implementation. We also highlight our approach to community engagement, including elements that ensure successful outreach given the current challenges faced with COViD-19. KEY RRM EXPERIENCE FACTORS IN THIS SECTION: sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 5 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 S t r e e t Acceptable Prohibited Pri m a r y S t r e e t 2.6 AREA-WIDE 2.6.1 SITE PLANNING CH A P T E R 2 LA N D U S E 2LAND 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 Space CH A P T E R 2 LA N D U S E RRM 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 Alhambra, Anaheim, Arcadia, Carlsbad, Cupertino, Dublin, Encinitas, Goleta, Rosemead, Temple City, Carpinteria, Morro Bay, and Vista. Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 6 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. MulTIFAMIlY AND MIXED-uSE DEVElOPMENT RRM projects featured here: Avila Oaks Multifamily Development, Casa Las Granadas Multifamily Housing, Courtyards at Avila Mixed-Use Development, Moylan Terrace Multifamily Housing, Paseo Chapala Mixed-Use Development sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 7 Hitting the streets at a safe social distance Connect with stakeholders in places where they already are • Pop-up engagement • Walking tours • Student involvement • Open houses Bringing people together for a conversation: virtually + in-person Utilizing virtual and in-person platforms, we’ll help you engage with a broad cross-section of stakeholders • Project committee & key stakeholder interviews • Community workshops • Public hearings • Open houses Engaging with Online tools We’ll help you engage with key demographics in a remote way • Virtual (Zoom) meetings • Live and static surveys • Pre-recorded meetings • 360 video site tours • Live-streaming & Webinars • Whiteboard & brainstorming tools • Mobile applications Present-day methods of getting the word out Increase participation through modern and current communication methods • Project website and branding • Social media advertising • Newsletters and e-blasts • Mailers, flyers & business cards • QR codes • Community ambassadors • Youth organizations 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! Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 8 AZUSA TODGENERAL PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN AzuSA, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Azusa 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 incorporated ideas voiced by residents, business owners, and decision-makers. The overall effort was complemented by an integrated CEQA process for an Environmental Impact Report. Award of Merit for Economic Planning & Development -------- APA Los Angeles Section, 2016 LAND USE AND URBAN FORMDOWNTOWN EXPANSION DISTRICT2 2-44 City of Azusa | TOD Specific PlanMay 2018 BUILDING ARTICULATION Plate Height A. Ground floor plate height shall be a minimum of 14’. STANDARDS INTERPRETATION Primary Entrances Public St r e e tBuilding E n t r a n c e s BUILDING ENTRANCES Primary Entrances A. Buildings shall have a primary entrance door facing San Gabriel Avenue, Alameda Avenue, and Dalton Avenue. Entrances at building corners may be used to satisfy this requirement. BUILDING HEIGHT Minimum Height A. 25’ minimum. Maximum Height A. 45’ maximum. Building Height 45 ’ m a x 25 ’ m i n C.BUILDING FORM AND MASSING Building form refers to the shape, configuration, and relationship of a building to its environment. A number of details must be considered when designing a building’s form including building height, plate height, configuration, roof form, facades, articulation, entrances, and window glazing. Building forms should encourage a pedestrian- friendly environment by including amenities, facade articulation, and street level building openings. STANDARDS INTERPRETATION Building Plate Height 14 ’ m i n . Floor StructureT.O.P. Architectural projections/features may exceed the height limits of this District up to 10 feet, subject to Economic and Community Development Director approval. Projections/features should be architecturally compatible and aesthetically pleasing or be screened from view. Neon signage, historic graphics, and/or other non-business or project specific related screening methods may be considered appropriate, subject to Economic and Community Development Director approval. TEMPLE CITYOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TEMPlE CITY, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Temple City Project Dates: 2021-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 9 The City of Temple City hired RRM Design Group to develop 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 and building form and scale are appropriate to the site, and to 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. RRM will develop sample plans (site plan, floor plans, elevations) for multifamily projects that will expedite the permit process and help ensure well-designed projects. RRM Design Group's approach pairs multifamily 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 multifamily developments, our team will deliver innovative and flexible multifamily sample plans. TEMPLE CITYOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TEMPlE CITY, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Temple City Project Dates: 2021-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture 4 SCALE, WALL ARTICULATION, AND ROOF DESIGN SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL SIDES OF THE PROJECT Varying storefronts reduces repetitiveness and provides visual interest at the pedestrian level.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). West Elevation 6 A CLEARLY DEFINED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WOULD HELP GIVE AUTHENTICITY AND A SENSE OF PLACE TO THE BUILDING UTILIZE CHANGE IN MATERIALS, SCALE, AND MASSING TO PROVIDE HIERARCHY, CONTRAST, AND EXPRESS IMPORTANT BUILDING FEATURES 3. Establish an architectural style consistent with the Design Guidelines (DTSP District Guidelines D.2.b.4, pg. V-32). 4. Utilize a richness of materials especially at the pedestrian street level (DTSP District Guidelines C.2.b.5, pg. V-4). Look for opportunities to add variety and contrast at the base of the building. 5. Provide for separated vehicular and pedestrian paths at the primary entrance. 6. The large unarticulated ends facing the residential area across the alley should be addressed. In conclusion, We feel that the designer has made great strides to address many issues and recommendations within the Downtown Specific Plan but there remains many issues which must be addressed to make the required findings. Very truly yours, RRM Design Group 3. Establish an architectural style consistent with the Design Guidelines (DTSP District Guidelines D.2.b.4, pg. V-32). 4. Utilize a richness of materials especially at the pedestrian street level (DTSP District Guidelines C.2.b.5, pg. V-4). Look for opportunities to add variety and contrast at the base of the building. 5. Provide for separated vehicular and pedestrian paths at the primary entrance. 6. The large unarticulated ends facing the residential area across the alley should be addressed. In conclusion, We feel that the designer has made great strides to address many issues and recommendations within the Downtown Specific Plan but there remains many issues which must be addressed to make the required findings. Very truly yours, RRM Design Group Examples of multi-story mixed-use projects with a defined architectural character and detailing consistent with the design guidelines. Richness of materials at the base of buildings adds visual intrigue at the pedestrian street level. CORNER FEATURE OPPORTUNITY LOBBY AND HIGH INTEREST AT PLAZA TRANSITION OPPORTUNITY East Elevation Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 10 in recent years, the members of the Arcadia community have expressed concern about the mass and bulk of new development and the perceived lack of architectural sensitivity in relation to the surrounding neighborhood context. This, coupled with aging guidelines, a newly adopted Development Code and contracted design review services, and five HOAs each with ARB's purview to review new residential construction including additions/remodels, provided an opportunity to pause, gather an updated understanding of community and City goals, revise the existing guidelines, and develop a design review process that bridges the gap between HOA, City, and community understanding and authority. RRM Design Group was selected to respond to this challenge and developed Citywide Design Guidelines to promote the highest level of design quality while at the same time providing the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity on the part of an applicant in response to existing site conditions. The design guidelines contain objective standards that direct users to desired design strategies for development or redevelopment of their property. ARCADIA DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARCADIA, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Arcadia Project Dates: 2017-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture OCTOBER 2019 SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 11 After successfully completing a comprehensive General Plan update adopted by the Alhambra City Council in 2019, RRM was retained to develop Objective Design Standards for housing development as part of a comprehensive Zoning Code update. These standards will ensure multifamily development is consistent with the community values identified in the General Plan. RRM will prepare standards that comply with State law and focus on multifamily residential projects with the intent of maintaining the City’s high quality/ cohesive architectural design, reducing project review processing time, and promoting higher density residential ALHAMBRAOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AlHAMBRA, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Alhambra Project Dates: 2021-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture 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 decisionmakers. Code Analysis Memo City of Alhambra Miller Planning Associates Prepared For: Prepared By: November 2020 Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 12 SAMPlE PRODuCTS aZUsa tOd sPECiFiC Plan 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. saMPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/3kMxqP1 dEl MaR dEsign gUidElinEs and MUniCiPal COdE a MEndMEnts The City of Del Mar hired RRM Design Group to help improve the development review process within the city through design guidelines and standards that would interpret the intent of the City’s Community Plan and Municipal Code. sa MPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/3ydJ3H6 CaRlsbad villagE & baRRiO MastER Plan After a multi-year update process with significant public involvement and two drafts of the master plan that were not successfully adopted, the City of Carlsbad retained RRM to help prepare a third draft that aligns with public input and the City’s overall community vision, primarily regarding design and community character. saMPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/3kMxqP1 El MOntE dOwntOwn tOd sPECiFiC Plan The City of El Monte received a Metro grant and selected RRM Design Group to develop a Downtown Main Street TOD Specific Plan. The project will provide the regulatory land use and planning framework for implementing the vision articulated in the adopted 2011 Vision El Monte General Plan. sa MPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/2uylN3B sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 13 RRM PROJECT Alhambra General Plan Update Alhambra, California Section 2 REfER E N C E S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 15 sCOtt RE i MERs Interim Community Development Director City of Temple City 9701 las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 (626) 656-7316 | sreimers@templecity.us PROj EC t: Temple City Objective Design Standards MiCHaEl Cass Principal Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 | michael.cass@dublin.ca.gov PROj EC t (s): Citywide Multifamily Objective Design Standards and ADu Prototypes jasOn MiK aE lian Planning Services Manager City of El Monte 11333 Valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91731 (626) 580-2064 | jmikaelian@elmonteca.gov PROj EC t: El Monte Zoning Code And Design Guidelines update REFERENCES Please ask our clients... References | sECtiOn 2 16 RRM PROJECT HASLO Courtyard at the Meadows Affordable Housing San Luis Obispo, California City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 17 Section 3 ORG A N iZ A T iON A l C HA R T AN D R ES uME S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s 100+FOuR projects featuring Objective design standards decades in business 3/4 in southern California over 20+ Planning division team members 50+ architecture division team members City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 19 sCOtt MaR tin AIA, lEED AP, CNu -A PRinCiPal-in-CHaRgE + aRCHitECt CITY OF AzuSA RRM dE sign gROUP jaMi williaMs, CNu -A PROjEC t ManagER ASSEMBlING OuR TEAM RRM Design Group is a multidisciplinary firm with architects, planners, urban designers, landscape architects, and engineers under one roof. Our current statistics show that 39% of our staff has been with us for over five years and 28% have been here for over ten 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 the talents of RRM’s architects and landscape architects who specialize in residential and mixed-use development with our planners and urban designers who are experts at producing user-friendly, succinct, and effective Objective Design Standards, presentations, maps, diagrams, and architectural illustrations. Scott Martin as principal-in-charge will bring his residential architecture experience, taking projects from visioning stages through construction. Jami Williams will serve as the project manager; she has extensive experience writing design guidelines and standards for cities throughout California. Jami has 20+ years of experience writing policy and standards, and more recently has been focused on helping cities respond to new housing legislation. Jami is also well-versed in leading public outreach efforts and translating community desires into solid planning documents. Matt Ottoson will serve as senior planner and housing policy analyst bringing his gifted analysis and writing skills to the team. Debbie Jewell, our urban designer, brings over 25 years of experience providing support to many of RRM’s urban projects. finally, Lance Wierschem rounds out our team as our landscape architect, with nearly 15 years of experience in landscape regulations and policies, urban design, streetscape, park, open space, trail, and greenway projects. Matt OttOsOn CNu-A Senior Planner + Housing Policy Analyst lanCE wiERsCHEM PlA, lEED AP landscape Architect dEbORaH jEwEll Pl A urban Designer PlANNiNG lANDSCAPE ARCHiTECTuRE decades in business Organizational Chart and Resumes | sEC tiOn 3 20 SCOTT MARTIN | AIA, LEED AP, CNU-A PRINCIPAl-IN-CHARGE + ARCHITECT 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, and design review to the production and construction of facilities. Scott is a lEED Accredited Professional and has a high level of expertise in the design and implementation of sustainable solutions. Scott's unique relationship with public and private clients gives him an 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 • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Arcadia New Objective Design and Development Standards • Azusa TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan • Carlsbad Objective Design Standards • Cerritos Residential Design Manual • Cupertino Residential/Mixed-Use Design Standards • 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 • Goleta Objective Design Standards • Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay Zone • Temple City Residential Design Standards • Vista Zoning Code Amendments • 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 dov e C r e e k dev e l o p m e n t arc a d i a des i g n gui d e l i n e s U p d a t e City of Cerritos Residential Design Manual ADMINISTRATIVE Draft: May 29, 2014 Ce r r i t o s R e s i d e n t i a l des i g n M a n u a l sEC tiOn 3 | Organizational Chart and Resumes City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 21 JAMI WIllIAMS | CNU-A PROJECT MANAGER Jami possesses the qualities necessary to produce creative, realistic, and business- conscious design solutions that will guide future improvements for the City of Azusa. 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 • Design Review Services (Arcadia, Temple City, El Monte, Santa Clarita, Anaheim) • Alhambra Objective Design Standards • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Arcadia New Objective Design and Development Standards • Azusa TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan • Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Cerritos Residential Design Manual • Carlsbad Objective Design Standards • Cupertino Residential/Mixed-Use Design Standards • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Dublin Objective Design Standards • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines • Goleta Objective Design Standards • Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan • Long Beach Urban Design Element and On-Call Planning Services • Rosemead Housing Element Update • Temple City Residential Design Standards • Vista Zoning Code Amendments • 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 Diego del M a r des i g n gui d e l i n e s El M o n t e T O D S p e c i f i c P l a n Organizational Chart and Resumes | sEC tiOn 3 22 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 SENIOR PlANNER + HOuSING POlICY ANAlYST nor m a tri a n g l e des i g n gui d e l i n e s Fu l l e r t o n D o w n t o w n S p e c i f i c P l a n Matt focuses his efforts on writing clear and concise plans, designing high-quality, easy to understand maps and graphics, and providing 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, and Affiliations • Congress for the New Urbanism Accredited (CNU-A) • 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 (Cupertino, Fremont, Stanford University) • Anaheim On-Call Services • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Dublin Objective Design, Standards • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Los Altos Downtown Vision • Lower Hastings Ranch Residential Neighborhood Zoning Code Revisions (Pasadena) • Norma Triangle Overlay District and Design Guidelines (West Hollywood) • North 40 Specific Plan (Los Gatos) • Pomona Zoning and Subdivision Code Updates • Serra Meadows Housing Development (San Luis Obispo) • Westcreek Residential Subdivision (San Luis Obispo) • Yucaipa Citywide Design Guidelines los alt o s dow n t o w n vis i o n sEC tiOn 3 | Organizational Chart and Resumes City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 23 DEBBIE JEWEll| PLA uRBAN DESIGNER Debbie is an urban designer and licensed landscape architect. With over 25 years of experience assisting with the development of specific plans, design guidelines, streetscape master plans, and in providing landscape architectural support to many of RRM’s urban projects. Debbie also plays a key role in providing design review services for cities throughout the state. 27 years of Experience Education • Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA • Associate of Arts, Fine Arts, Drawing and Painting, Academy of Art College, San Francisco, CA Affiliations • Professional Landscape Architect , CA, 5308 Relevant Projects • Agoura Village Specific Plan • Anaheim On-Call Architecture, Urban Design, and Landscape Architecture • Big Bear Village Specific Plan Update • Calipatria General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update Urban Design • Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan and Design Guidelines • Claremont Village West Specific Plan and Design Guidelines • Panorama City Streetscape • Dublin Citywide Multifamily Design Standards • Dublin On-Call Contract Planning Services - On-Site • East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan (Pasadena) • El Monte On-Call Architectural and Landscape Review • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines and Design Review Services • Long Beach Urban Design Element and On-Call Planning Services • Maclay Avenue Streetscape Plan (San Fernando) Bi g B e a r V i l l a g e S p e c i f i c P l a n dub l i n O b j e c t i v e des i g n sta n d a r d s En c i n i t a s O b j e c t i v e des i g n sta n d a r d s Organizational Chart and Resumes | sEC tiOn 3 24 lANCE WIERSCHEM | PLA, LEED AP lANDSCAPE ARCHITECT lance is a licensed landscape architect with over a decade of experience. His minor in City and Regional Planning brings added value to landscape and planning projects. lance is well versed in all aspects of project administration: from visioning and policy stages, public workshops and community outreach, programming and schematic design through to construction document preparation. His versatility has aided in the success of projects including a Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan for fullerton and a Community Plan and Specific Plan for San Ysidro. Outside of RRM, lance crafts colorful custom lithomosaics that provide a sense of place in installations throughout the Western united States. 15 years of Experience Education • Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA • Minor, City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA licenses & accreditations • Professional Landscape Architect, CA, 6210 • Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED AP) Relevant Projects • Agoura Village Specific Plan Implementation and Update • Alhambra Objective Design Standards • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Arcadia New Objective Design and Development Standards • 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 • El Monte TOD Specific Plan • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines • Goleta Objective Design Standards • 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 and Design Guidelines • 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 arc a d i a des i g n gui d e l i n e s U p d a t e del M a r des i g n gui d e l i n e s El M o n t e T O D S p e c i f i c P l a n sEC tiOn 3 | Organizational Chart and Resumes City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 25 Section RRM PROJECT Moylan Terrace Multifamily Housing San Luis Obispo, California 4 MET H O D O lOG Y AN D A PP R O A C H Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 27 PROJECT & 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. Engaging stakeholders early is an effective means 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 deadlines and often finish tasks ahead of schedule. We make it a practice to provide regular status updates of project progress and closely coordinate with the City's project manager. in managing a schedule, we have found it helpful to establish mutually agreeable and timely turnaround review times. in addition, all product deliverables are reviewed internally for quality control purposes prior to submittal. We ask that, following the City's 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 PROjECt ManagERs aRE HEld tO tHE FOllOwing standaRds: • Monthly review of compliance with project budgets by RRM management and principals. Our Deltek Vision project management and accounting software also allows project managers and principals to track daily time entries and task budgets. • Ongoing oversight by the principal-in-charge regarding contract and schedule adherence as well as overall project progress. • Periodically, report cards are provided to clients to solicit feedback on the project manager and overall project performance. • Annually, project managers are evaluated on the quality of their performance. • Project management is taken seriously; we are committed to delivering on-time and within budget. One final important note: 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 in the references section a call! Methodology and Approach | sECtiOn 4 28 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope aligns with the strategy proposed within your RFP and outlines how we will approach the project to satisfy these goals. Our project deliverables will ensure that future development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and complies with the intent of state legislation to facilitate and expedite the construction of housing. Descriptions of tasks, methodologies, and deliverable products are identified in the scope of work along with tasks and materials assumed to be provided by City staff. We welcome collaboration to adjust this work plan as necessary to best satisfy the City objectives, budget, and time frames. TASK 1: BACKGROuND REVIEW AND GOAlS 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 to gather and review relevant data and background information. KICKOFF MEETING AND CITY TOUR The project team will meet with City staff to establish a mutual understanding of the key issues and project objectives; review the scope of work and project schedule; and lay out significant project milestones, meeting times, and deliverable targets. A virtual city tour to gain additional insight related to community character and recent development projects may also be incorporated into this task. 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 including the General Plan, Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88 – Development Code, and Specific Plans, previous development applications, and other planning efforts that have a bearing in the city. RRM will develop a summary of recommended revisions to existing City plans, guidelines, and standards. This will provide an opportunity to discuss the desired approach and modified language prior to developing the administrative draft document. 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. sEC tiOn 4 | Methodology and Approach City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 29 TASK 2: COMMuNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDuCATION The overarching goal of this work effort is to develop Objective Design Standards that will provide clear direction, reduce the discretionary review process, and facilitate and streamline the development of housing. The State of California has adopted recent legislation to address the state-wide housing shortage and now requires a streamlined and ministerial process for specific residential developments (multifamily, including mixed-use). These laws require projects to be reviewed against established objective standards rather than through a City’s traditional discretionary entitlement process. Objective development/design standards are required by the Housing Accountability Act, Senate Bill 35 Streamlining, and the Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill 330). Objective standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark. The nature of the project is a technical exercise focused on identifying the subjectivity in the current development review process and replacing that subjectivity with objective requirements. The project is not intended to revise existing development standards (e.g., the intent is not to change existing building height or setback standards). Engagement associated with the development of Objective Design Standards will focus on gaining an understanding on common issues associated with existing guidelines, providing information and a suite of educational materials to inform the larger Azusa community of project objectives and deliverables, and a transparent process updating existing subjective City policy to objective criteria. • Project Overview/Website Materials At the beginning of the project RRM will provide materials for the City’s use to assist in educating the community via the website. RRM will provide graphically oriented and easy-to-understand information to provide an overview of the project, examples of subjective vs. objective language, and additional project-related information. RRM will provide an informational PowerPoint presentation that will be used at study sessions and posted on the website to provide additional information and clarify common misconceptions. • Stakeholder Input As part of the initial phase of the project RRM will dedicate up to eight hours of stakeholder meetings to collect input on the City’s existing policy documents and discretionary review and approval process. The meetings will be conducted via video/teleconference with stakeholders including City staff, decision- makers, local developers, property owners, business owners, Azusa Chamber of Commerce, Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. • Study Session During the development of the Objective Design Standards, RRM will conduct a study session with the Planning Commission and/or City Council to receive decision-maker and public input. RRM will integrate input received from decision-makers and the public into the public review draft document. dElivERablEs: • Provide materials developed as part of other tasks for City use on website. • facilitate up to eight (8) hours of stakeholder or focus group meetings; City is responsible for identifying/notifying stakeholders and focus group participants. • Prepare for and attend a PC/CC study session. Methodology and Approach | sECtiOn 4 30 TASK 3: ARCHITECTuRAl FIElD SuRVEYS RRM will conduct a window survey with staff to identify good/bad designs and most frequently used architectural styles in the city. The survey will cover residential, commercial, and industrial properties. This scope shall include the identification, photography, evaluation, and classification of properties. dElivERablEs: • Summary memorandum of architectural field survey findings. TASK 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT RRM will prepare an administrative draft of the Objective Design Standards for all building types in the city including but not limited to residential, commercial, and industrial structures. The standards will be a conduit for educating the community and a tool for homeowners, designers, architects, and design review personnel to achieve high-quality design for projects. 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, entrances, exterior materials, landscaping, utilitarian/mechanical elements of building design, etc. The standards will be presented using clearly written text and will include up to 30 companion illustrative graphics. SCREENCHECK DRAFT 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 City comments will have been integrated, and this draft will provide an additional internal review opportunity before the development of the public review draft. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT Based on comments received on the screencheck draft, RRM will prepare public hearing draft design standards for consideration through the formal review and adoption process. dElivERablEs: • RRM will provide a PDf of each draft document (administrative, screencheck/public review, and public hearing). We ask that staff consolidate all comments into one redlined version of each draft for RRM’s use to make revisions. PROJECT MANAGEMENT This task includes necessary coordination between RRM and City staff throughout the process. This will include informal teleconferences, correspondence, status updates, record keeping, project electronic file management, and other necessary coordination during the project. dElivERablEs: • Ongoing project coordination and management; Assumes approximately six (6) hours per month for eighteen (18) months. sEC tiOn 4 | Methodology and Approach City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 31 TASK 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 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, or by Planning Commission and City Council. This assumes the City will be responsible for public notification. RRM will provide an updated and final draft based on final approval. dElivERablEs: • Prepare for and attend up to two (2) hearings to assist staff in presenting the design standards. finalize the document(s) and produce one (1) reproducible copy and one (1) electronic format. TASK 6: IMPlEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS following City approval of the Objective Design Standards, RRM will format a +/-10-page visually attractive, easy-to-read user guide that outlines an overview of the final objective standards. The user guide may be used by City staff during their review of a project’s conformance with the applicable design standards. in addition, we will develop an outline of the necessary future amendments to the Azusa Municipal Code and other applicable City documents to ensure successful implementation. dElivERablEs: • RRM will provide one (1) digital copy of the user guide. City staff will provide one (1) consolidated marked-up redline version of all comments. RRM will make final edits and produce one (1) final copy. TASK 7: DIGITAl AVAIlABIlITY OF INFORMATION RRM will produce all files in a digital format that can be easily manipulated by City Staff. The documents will be prepared using the Adobe Suite of software. All information shall be provided in working files and final document format. dElivERablEs: • Package Adobe inDesign file and attachments for City use. Methodology and Approach | sECtiOn 4 32 WORK PROGRAM ASSuMPTIONS Meeting notices The City is responsible for printing and distribution of physical meeting notices when needed. if requested, the cost of providing printing and/or distribution of meeting notices by RRM would be provided on a time and materials basis. Meeting attendance The project budget assumes virtual attendance at meetings identified in the work program. The costs of additional or in-person meeting attendance would include travel time and would be on a time and materials basis. draft documents A draft of each document will be provided to staff and revised based on a single set of consolidated comments providing clear direction. Printing This budget assumes the City will be responsible for printing and distributing documents. Environmental Review The scope of work requested does not include environmental documentation or clearance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. As such, environmental documentation and technical studies are not included in this work program. However, such documentation would be provided on a time and materials basis, if requested. sEC tiOn 4 | Methodology and Approach 33City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds PROJECT SCHEDulE TASK 1: BACKGROUND REVIEW AND GOALS Kickoff Meeting and Field Trip Data Gathering/Document Research TASK 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Community Engagement TASK 3: ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEYS Window Survey TASK 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Administrative Draft Screencheck Draft Public Hearing Draft Project Management TASK 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Public Hearings and Final Draft TASK 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Implementation TASK 7: DIGITAL AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Digital Information Meeting Duration APR MAY JUNMAROCTNOVDECJANFEB 2022 JAN FEB MAR 20232021 NOV DECJULYAUGSEPOCT Methodology and Approach | sEC tiOn 4 RRM PROJECT Arlington Village Affordable Housing Development Santa Barbara, California City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 35 Section 5 C O M P E N S A T i O N Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s 37City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds RR M SCOTT MARTIN RR M JAMI WILLIAMS RR M MATT OTTOSON RR M DEBORAH JEWELL RR M LANCE WIERSCHEM 210 $ per hour 250 $ per hour 160 $ per hour 145 $ per hour 160 $ per hour Task 1: BACKGROUND REVIEW AND GOALS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 14,440$ 16 $3,360 16 $4,000 4 $640 40 $5,800 4 $640 Task 1 Value:14,440$ Task 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 25,600$ 16 $3,360 40 $10,000 0 $0 80 $11,600 4 $640 Task 2 Value:25,600$ Task 3: ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEYS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 10,120$ 16 $3,360 8 $2,000 8 $1,280 24 $3,480 0 $0 Task 3 Value:10,120$ Task 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 107,600$ 48 $10,080 228 $57,000 40 $6,400 200 $29,000 32 $5,120 Task 4 Value:107,600$ Task 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 19,680$ 24 $5,040 40 $10,000 0 $0 32 $4,640 0 $0 Task 5 Value:19,680$ Task 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 15,440$ 4 $840 12 $3,000 0 $0 80 $11,600 0 $0 Task 6 Value:15,440$ Task 7: DIGITAL AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 3,980$ 0 $0 2 $500 0 $0 24 $3,480 0 $0 Task 7 Value:3,980$ 196,860$ 2,500$ 199,360$ Azusa Citywide Objective Design Standards Fee Schedule July 29, 2021 Project Manager Environmental and Policy Planner Landscape ArchitectSenior PlannerPrincipal-in-Charge Fee Footnotes 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. Reimbursable Expenses Incidental expenses incurred by RRM Design Group or any subconsultant it may hire to perform services for this project are reimbursed by the client at actual cost plus 10% to cover its overhead and administrative expenses. Adjustment to Hourly Billing Rates RRM reserves the right to adjust hourly rates on an annual basis. Subtotal Estimated Project Total Reimbursable Expenses Compensation | sECtiOn 5 RRM PROJECT Marsh Street Brownstones San Luis Obispo, California City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 39 1 PRiOR E x PE R iEN C E AN D Q u Ali f i CA T iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s Section 6 E x CE P T iON S /D E V iAT iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 41 CONTRACT EXCEPTIONS RRM Design Group is in substantial agreement with the City's proposed Consulting Services Agreement, however there are some items that we feel would be of mutual benefit to discuss. Our suggestions are in blue below. 3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. in order to facilitate Consultant’s conformance with the Schedule, City shall respond to Consultant’s submittals in a timely manner. upon request of City, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City agrees that the Consultant is not responsible for damages arising directly or indirectly from any delays for causes beyond the Consultant's control. for purposes of this Agreement, such causes include, but are not limited to, strikes or other labor disputes; severe weather disruptions or other natural disasters or acts of God; fires, riots, war or other emergencies; failure of any government agency to act in timely manner; failure of performance by City or City's contractors or Consultants; or discovery of any hazardous substances or differing site conditions. 3.2.9 Period of Performance and liquidated Damages. Consultant shall perform and complete all Services under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above (“Performance Time”). Consultant shall also perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or Project milestones described in Exhibits “A” or “B” attached hereto, or which may be separately agreed upon in writing by the City and Consultant (“Performance Milestones”). Consultant agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned Performance Time and/or pursuant to any such Project Milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this Agreement, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, Consultant shall pay to the City as fixed and liquidated damages the sum of [***iNSERT WRiTTEN DOll AR AMOuNT***] Dollars ($[***iNSERT NuMERiCAl DOll AR AMOuNT***]) per day for each and every calendar day of delay beyond the Performance Time or beyond any Project Milestones established pursuant to this Agreement. 3.2.11.3 Professional liability. [iNCluDE THiS SuBSECTiON ONlY if APPliCABlE - DElETE OTHERWiSE] Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub-consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years follow ing completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than [CONTACT RiSK MANAGEMENT TO CONfiRM AMOuNT; TYPiCAl MiNiMuM iS $1 MilliON, BuT AMOuNT Of iNSuRANCE REQuiRED DEPENDS ON NATuRE Of CONTRACT AND RiSK TO CiTY]$1,000,000 per claim, and shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. Defense costs shall be paid in addition to limits. Exceptions/Deviations | sECtiOn 6 42 3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from City’s Representative. if any Extra Work, including changes or modifications to Consultant’s scope of services are proposed by City, Consultant shall, upon receipt of such written request to perform Extra Work, determine the impact on both time and compensation and notify City in writing. upon agreement between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this agreement shall be prepared describing such Extra Work. Execution of the amendment by City and Consultant shall constitute the Consultant’s notice to proceed with the Extra Work. 3.5.3 Right to Use. City shall not be limited in any way in its use or reuse of the Documents and Data or any part of them at any time for purposes of this Project or another project, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement or on a project other than this Project without employing the services of Consultant shall be at City’s sole risk. If City uses or reuses the Documents & Data on any project other than this Project, it shall remove the Consultant’s seal from the Documents & Data and indemnify and hold harmless. 3.6.2 indemnification. 3.6.2.1 Scope of indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSulTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless AGENCY and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, to the extent found to be caused in whole or in part by the negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of CONSulTANT, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any agency or individual that CONSulTANT shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of services under this AGREEMENT. CONSulTANT’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless AGENCY shall not extend to the AGENCY’s sole or active negligence. 3.6.2.2 Duty to Defend. in the event the AGENCY, its officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from the performance of the services encompassed by this AGREEMENT, and upon demand by AGENCY, CONSulTANT shall defend the AGENCY at CONSulTANT’s cost or at AGENCY’s option, to reimburse AGENCY for its costs of defense, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of such matters to the extent the matters are found to arise from, relate to or are caused by CONSulTANT’s negligent acts, errors or omissions. Payment by AGENCY is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute between CONSulTANT and AGENCY, as to whether liability arises from the sole or active negligence of the AGENCY or its officers, employees, or agents, CONSulTANT will be obligated to pay for AGENCY’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating the AGENCY as solely or actively negligent. CONSulTANT will not be entitled in the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation. sEC tiOn 6 | Exceptions/Deviations RRM Design Group - Revised Objective Design Standards Proposal CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS PROPOSAl PREPARED FOR CITY OF AzuSA ON JulY 29, 2021 RE: CitywidE ObjECtivE dEsign standaRds Dear Mr. Muñoz, The City of Azusa wishes to ensure the high design quality of proposed development within the city and seeks to engage design professionals to work cooperatively with staff toward this end. The General Plan states that the City is “committed to enhancing its distinct identity and sense of place and rejecting conventional development patterns that have made too many towns into dreary sprawl. There is no place in Azusa for more ugly strip malls, “cookie cutter” tract housing or poorly-designed and poorly-maintained apartments.” Additional policies “require new mixed-use and infill residential uses to be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses.” Our team at RRM is excited about the prospect of using our talent, creativity, and commitment to achieve the highest quality design results for the City of Azusa. These results would incorporate highly innovative Objective Design Standards to guide future urban development, and accurately implement the City’s General Plan policies and goals, ultimately leading to an even more beautiful community. We will bring successful experience (including lessons learned) from our involvement in the development of the Azusa TOD Specific Plan and the Objective Design Standards we are currently crafting for a number San Gabriel Valley communities, as well as design review services and urban design projects throughout California. We are poised to create a new cutting-edge document utilizing our design experience along with the horsepower of seasoned architects, planners, and landscape architects. With RRM Design Group, you will benefit from: • Unparalleled experience and award-winning excellence in document authorship • 25 years balancing design with public and private interests • Experience in creating user-friendly, innovative yet implementable documents • Superior graphic design and illustration • In-house planners, architects, engineers, and landscape architects, with expertise in residential, commercial, and industrial developments • Friendly and enthusiastic staff at your service Our finished product will be an easy-to-read, richly illustrated set of Objective Design Standards that will provide the recipe for the quality design you seek. The document will set recommendations on how to apply design principles to provide a positive user experience. Designers, staff, and City decision-makers will use the standards to develop and evaluate projects based on good design that promotes quality, context-sensitive design, walkable neighborhoods, safety, pride of ownership, and a sense of place. July 29, 2021 Manuel Muñoz Planning Division Economic and Community Development Department City of Azusa 213 E. Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA 91702 CREating EnviROnMEnts PEOPlE EnjOy® www.rrmdesign.com 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p: (949) 361-7950 f: (949) 361-7955 The standards will aid the design and overall approval of housing, commercial, and industrial projects while providing clear measurable direction that will result in a streamlined approval process with less discretionary influence. Thank you for the opportunity to propose on a project of such importance to your community. We have thoroughly enjoyed working for the City in the past and would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that we can truly do for the rest of the Azusa what we have done for the TOD areas and downtown. Sincerely, RRM Design Group Jami Williams, CNU-A Project Manager CREating EnviROnMEnts PEOPlE EnjOy® gRaPHiCs & PHOtOgRaPHs: This document features images of RRM Design Group and its subconsultant partners' projects, the graphics and photos of which are owned and copyrighted by our respective firms. 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. © 2021 RRM Design Group PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dEsign standaRds TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name 1 Prior Experience and Qualifications 2 References 3 Organizational Chart and Resumes 4 Methodology and Approach 5 Compensation 6 Exceptions/Deviations Page 01 13 17 25 35 39 viii You'll notice several graphics and photos throughout our proposal featuring residential and mixed-use projects designed and implemented by RRM Design Group. RRM PROJECT Casa de las Fuentes Affordable Housing Santa Barbara, California 1 PRiOR E x PE R iEN C E AN D Q u Ali f i CA T iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 1 Section 1 PRiOR E x PE R iEN C E AN D Q u Ali f i CA T iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 3 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 145 professionals on staff at RRM Design Group in 6 core disciplines: Architecture Landscape Architecture Support StaffPlanning Civil Engineering Surveying Structural Engineering 27 California licensed Architects 27 Architecture Designers 12 California licensed Civil Engineers 2 California licensed Structural Engineers 13 Engineering Designers 16 California licensed l andscape Architects 10 landscape Designers 12 Community & urban Planners 1 licensed Surveyor 3 Surveying Technicians 25 Administrative Support Staff CREating EnviROnMEnts PEOPlE EnjOy® san lUis ObisPO (HQ) 3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p: (805) 543-1794 f: (805) 543-4609 san jUan CaPistR anO 32332 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 205 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p: (949) 361-7950 f: (949) 361-7955 san lEandRO 325 Davis St. San Leandro, CA 94577 p: (510) 751-4910 f: (510) 686-8831 santa baRbaR a 10 East Figueroa St., Ste. 200 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 p: (805) 963-8283 f: (805) 963-8184 vE ntURa 422 East Main St. Ventura, CA 93001 p: (805) 652-2115 f: (805) 652-1532 wEbsitE www.rrmdesign.com 4 »Extensive project experience in the region, including a great working relationship with the City of Azusa »Experience working with cities to craft and incorporate comprehensive Objective Design Standards into existing policy documents such as Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Design Guidelines »Design and implementation of built projects throughout the state CUSTOMIZED QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF AZUSA: PROJECT EXPERIENCE The following pages provide both a high-level look at each of the experience areas listed above, and several detailed case studies that dig a bit deeper into the specifics of projects most relevant to the City of Azusa's needs. Each project description is written with a focus on successful implementation. We also highlight our approach to community engagement, including elements that ensure successful outreach given the current challenges faced with COViD-19. KEY RRM EXPERIENCE FACTORS IN THIS SECTION: sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 5 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 S t r e e t Acceptable Prohibited Pri m a r y S t r e e t 2.6 AREA-WIDE 2.6.1 SITE PLANNING CH A P T E R 2 LA N D U S E 2LAND 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 Space CH A P T E R 2 LA N D U S E RRM 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 Alhambra, Anaheim, Arcadia, Carlsbad, Cupertino, Dublin, Encinitas, Goleta, Rosemead, Temple City, Carpinteria, Morro Bay, and Vista. Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 6 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. MulTIFAMIlY AND MIXED-uSE DEVElOPMENT RRM projects featured here: Avila Oaks Multifamily Development, Casa Las Granadas Multifamily Housing, Courtyards at Avila Mixed-Use Development, Moylan Terrace Multifamily Housing, Paseo Chapala Mixed-Use Development sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 7 Hitting the streets at a safe social distance Connect with stakeholders in places where they already are • Pop-up engagement • Walking tours • Student involvement • Open houses Bringing people together for a conversation: virtually + in-person Utilizing virtual and in-person platforms, we’ll help you engage with a broad cross-section of stakeholders • Project committee & key stakeholder interviews • Community workshops • Public hearings • Open houses Engaging with Online tools We’ll help you engage with key demographics in a remote way • Virtual (Zoom) meetings • Live and static surveys • Pre-recorded meetings • 360 video site tours • Live-streaming & Webinars • Whiteboard & brainstorming tools • Mobile applications Present-day methods of getting the word out Increase participation through modern and current communication methods • Project website and branding • Social media advertising • Newsletters and e-blasts • Mailers, flyers & business cards • QR codes • Community ambassadors • Youth organizations 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! Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 8 AZUSA TODGENERAL PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AND SPECIFIC PLAN AzuSA, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Azusa 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 incorporated ideas voiced by residents, business owners, and decision-makers. The overall effort was complemented by an integrated CEQA process for an Environmental Impact Report. Award of Merit for Economic Planning & Development -------- APA Los Angeles Section, 2016 LAND USE AND URBAN FORMDOWNTOWN EXPANSION DISTRICT2 2-44 City of Azusa | TOD Specific PlanMay 2018 BUILDING ARTICULATION Plate Height A. Ground floor plate height shall be a minimum of 14’. STANDARDS INTERPRETATION Primary Entrances Public St r e e tBuilding E n t r a n c e s BUILDING ENTRANCES Primary Entrances A. Buildings shall have a primary entrance door facing San Gabriel Avenue, Alameda Avenue, and Dalton Avenue. Entrances at building corners may be used to satisfy this requirement. BUILDING HEIGHT Minimum Height A. 25’ minimum. Maximum Height A. 45’ maximum. Building Height 45 ’ m a x 25 ’ m i n C.BUILDING FORM AND MASSING Building form refers to the shape, configuration, and relationship of a building to its environment. A number of details must be considered when designing a building’s form including building height, plate height, configuration, roof form, facades, articulation, entrances, and window glazing. Building forms should encourage a pedestrian- friendly environment by including amenities, facade articulation, and street level building openings. STANDARDS INTERPRETATION Building Plate Height 14 ’ m i n . Floor StructureT.O.P. Architectural projections/features may exceed the height limits of this District up to 10 feet, subject to Economic and Community Development Director approval. Projections/features should be architecturally compatible and aesthetically pleasing or be screened from view. Neon signage, historic graphics, and/or other non-business or project specific related screening methods may be considered appropriate, subject to Economic and Community Development Director approval. TEMPLE CITYOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TEMPlE CITY, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Temple City Project Dates: 2021-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 9 The City of Temple City hired RRM Design Group to develop 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 and building form and scale are appropriate to the site, and to 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. RRM will develop sample plans (site plan, floor plans, elevations) for multifamily projects that will expedite the permit process and help ensure well-designed projects. RRM Design Group's approach pairs multifamily 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 multifamily developments, our team will deliver innovative and flexible multifamily sample plans. TEMPLE CITYOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS TEMPlE CITY, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Temple City Project Dates: 2021-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture 4 SCALE, WALL ARTICULATION, AND ROOF DESIGN SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL SIDES OF THE PROJECT Varying storefronts reduces repetitiveness and provides visual interest at the pedestrian level.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). West Elevation 6 A CLEARLY DEFINED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WOULD HELP GIVE AUTHENTICITY AND A SENSE OF PLACE TO THE BUILDING UTILIZE CHANGE IN MATERIALS, SCALE, AND MASSING TO PROVIDE HIERARCHY, CONTRAST, AND EXPRESS IMPORTANT BUILDING FEATURES 3. Establish an architectural style consistent with the Design Guidelines (DTSP District Guidelines D.2.b.4, pg. V-32). 4. Utilize a richness of materials especially at the pedestrian street level (DTSP District Guidelines C.2.b.5, pg. V-4). Look for opportunities to add variety and contrast at the base of the building. 5. Provide for separated vehicular and pedestrian paths at the primary entrance. 6. The large unarticulated ends facing the residential area across the alley should be addressed. In conclusion, We feel that the designer has made great strides to address many issues and recommendations within the Downtown Specific Plan but there remains many issues which must be addressed to make the required findings. Very truly yours, RRM Design Group 3. Establish an architectural style consistent with the Design Guidelines (DTSP District Guidelines D.2.b.4, pg. V-32). 4. Utilize a richness of materials especially at the pedestrian street level (DTSP District Guidelines C.2.b.5, pg. V-4). Look for opportunities to add variety and contrast at the base of the building. 5. Provide for separated vehicular and pedestrian paths at the primary entrance. 6. The large unarticulated ends facing the residential area across the alley should be addressed. In conclusion, We feel that the designer has made great strides to address many issues and recommendations within the Downtown Specific Plan but there remains many issues which must be addressed to make the required findings. Very truly yours, RRM Design Group Examples of multi-story mixed-use projects with a defined architectural character and detailing consistent with the design guidelines. Richness of materials at the base of buildings adds visual intrigue at the pedestrian street level. CORNER FEATURE OPPORTUNITY LOBBY AND HIGH INTEREST AT PLAZA TRANSITION OPPORTUNITY East Elevation Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 10 in recent years, the members of the Arcadia community have expressed concern about the mass and bulk of new development and the perceived lack of architectural sensitivity in relation to the surrounding neighborhood context. This, coupled with aging guidelines, a newly adopted Development Code and contracted design review services, and five HOAs each with ARB's purview to review new residential construction including additions/remodels, provided an opportunity to pause, gather an updated understanding of community and City goals, revise the existing guidelines, and develop a design review process that bridges the gap between HOA, City, and community understanding and authority. RRM Design Group was selected to respond to this challenge and developed Citywide Design Guidelines to promote the highest level of design quality while at the same time providing the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity on the part of an applicant in response to existing site conditions. The design guidelines contain objective standards that direct users to desired design strategies for development or redevelopment of their property. ARCADIA DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARCADIA, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Arcadia Project Dates: 2017-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture OCTOBER 2019 SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 11 After successfully completing a comprehensive General Plan update adopted by the Alhambra City Council in 2019, RRM was retained to develop Objective Design Standards for housing development as part of a comprehensive Zoning Code update. These standards will ensure multifamily development is consistent with the community values identified in the General Plan. RRM will prepare standards that comply with State law and focus on multifamily residential projects with the intent of maintaining the City’s high quality/ cohesive architectural design, reducing project review processing time, and promoting higher density residential ALHAMBRAOBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AlHAMBRA, CA nOtablE inFO and stats: Client: City of Alhambra Project Dates: 2021-Ongoing RRM sERviCEs PROvidEd: Planning, Architecture 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 decisionmakers. Code Analysis Memo City of Alhambra Miller Planning Associates Prepared For: Prepared By: November 2020 Prior Experience and Qualifications | sECtiOn 1 12 SAMPlE PRODuCTS aZUsa tOd sPECiFiC Plan 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. saMPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/3kMxqP1 dEl MaR dEsign gUidElinEs and MUniCiPal COdE a MEndMEnts The City of Del Mar hired RRM Design Group to help improve the development review process within the city through design guidelines and standards that would interpret the intent of the City’s Community Plan and Municipal Code. sa MPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/3ydJ3H6 CaRlsbad villagE & baRRiO MastER Plan After a multi-year update process with significant public involvement and two drafts of the master plan that were not successfully adopted, the City of Carlsbad retained RRM to help prepare a third draft that aligns with public input and the City’s overall community vision, primarily regarding design and community character. saMPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/3kMxqP1 El MOntE dOwntOwn tOd sPECiFiC Plan The City of El Monte received a Metro grant and selected RRM Design Group to develop a Downtown Main Street TOD Specific Plan. The project will provide the regulatory land use and planning framework for implementing the vision articulated in the adopted 2011 Vision El Monte General Plan. sa MPlE PROdUC t linK CliCK HERE or copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/2uylN3B sEC tiOn 1 | Prior Experience and Qualifications City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 13 RRM PROJECT Alhambra General Plan Update Alhambra, California Section 2 REfER E N C E S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 15 sCOtt RE i MERs Interim Community Development Director City of Temple City 9701 las Tunas Drive Temple City, CA 91780 (626) 656-7316 | sreimers@templecity.us PROj EC t: Temple City Objective Design Standards MiCHaEl Cass Principal Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 | michael.cass@dublin.ca.gov PROj EC t (s): Citywide Multifamily Objective Design Standards and ADu Prototypes jasOn MiK aE lian Planning Services Manager City of El Monte 11333 Valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91731 (626) 580-2064 | jmikaelian@elmonteca.gov PROj EC t: El Monte Zoning Code And Design Guidelines update REFERENCES Please ask our clients... References | sECtiOn 2 16 RRM PROJECT HASLO Courtyard at the Meadows Affordable Housing San Luis Obispo, California City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 17 Section 3 ORG A N iZ A T iON A l C HA R T AN D R ES uME S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s 100+FOuR projects featuring Objective design standards decades in business 3/4 in southern California over 20+ Planning division team members 50+ architecture division team members City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 19 sCOtt MaR tin AIA, lEED AP, CNu -A PRinCiPal-in-CHaRgE + aRCHitECt CITY OF AzuSA RRM dE sign gROUP jaMi williaMs, CNu -A PROjEC t ManagER ASSEMBlING OuR TEAM RRM Design Group is a multidisciplinary firm with architects, planners, urban designers, landscape architects, and engineers under one roof. Our current statistics show that 39% of our staff has been with us for over five years and 28% have been here for over ten 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 the talents of RRM’s architects and landscape architects who specialize in residential and mixed-use development with our planners and urban designers who are experts at producing user-friendly, succinct, and effective Objective Design Standards, presentations, maps, diagrams, and architectural illustrations. Scott Martin as principal-in-charge will bring his residential architecture experience, taking projects from visioning stages through construction. Jami Williams will serve as the project manager; she has extensive experience writing design guidelines and standards for cities throughout California. Jami has 20+ years of experience writing policy and standards, and more recently has been focused on helping cities respond to new housing legislation. Jami is also well-versed in leading public outreach efforts and translating community desires into solid planning documents. Matt Ottoson will serve as senior planner and housing policy analyst bringing his gifted analysis and writing skills to the team. Debbie Jewell, our urban designer, brings over 25 years of experience providing support to many of RRM’s urban projects. finally, Lance Wierschem rounds out our team as our landscape architect, with nearly 15 years of experience in landscape regulations and policies, urban design, streetscape, park, open space, trail, and greenway projects. Matt OttOsOn CNu-A Senior Planner + Housing Policy Analyst lanCE wiERsCHEM PlA, lEED AP landscape Architect dEbORaH jEwEll Pl A urban Designer PlANNiNG lANDSCAPE ARCHiTECTuRE decades in business Organizational Chart and Resumes | sEC tiOn 3 20 SCOTT MARTIN | AIA, LEED AP, CNU-A PRINCIPAl-IN-CHARGE + ARCHITECT 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, and design review to the production and construction of facilities. Scott is a lEED Accredited Professional and has a high level of expertise in the design and implementation of sustainable solutions. Scott's unique relationship with public and private clients gives him an 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 • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Arcadia New Objective Design and Development Standards • Azusa TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan • Carlsbad Objective Design Standards • Cerritos Residential Design Manual • Cupertino Residential/Mixed-Use Design Standards • 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 • Goleta Objective Design Standards • Rosemead Freeway Corridor Mixed-Use Overlay Zone • Temple City Residential Design Standards • Vista Zoning Code Amendments • 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 dov e C r e e k dev e l o p m e n t arc a d i a des i g n gui d e l i n e s U p d a t e City of Cerritos Residential Design Manual ADMINISTRATIVE Draft: May 29, 2014 Ce r r i t o s R e s i d e n t i a l des i g n M a n u a l sEC tiOn 3 | Organizational Chart and Resumes City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 21 JAMI WIllIAMS | CNU-A PROJECT MANAGER Jami possesses the qualities necessary to produce creative, realistic, and business- conscious design solutions that will guide future improvements for the City of Azusa. 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 • Design Review Services (Arcadia, Temple City, El Monte, Santa Clarita, Anaheim) • Alhambra Objective Design Standards • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Arcadia New Objective Design and Development Standards • Azusa TOD General Plan/Development Code Update and Specific Plan • Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan Cerritos Residential Design Manual • Carlsbad Objective Design Standards • Cupertino Residential/Mixed-Use Design Standards • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Dublin Objective Design Standards • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines • Goleta Objective Design Standards • Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan • Long Beach Urban Design Element and On-Call Planning Services • Rosemead Housing Element Update • Temple City Residential Design Standards • Vista Zoning Code Amendments • 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 Diego del M a r des i g n gui d e l i n e s El M o n t e T O D S p e c i f i c P l a n Organizational Chart and Resumes | sEC tiOn 3 22 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 SENIOR PlANNER + HOuSING POlICY ANAlYST nor m a tri a n g l e des i g n gui d e l i n e s Fu l l e r t o n D o w n t o w n S p e c i f i c P l a n Matt focuses his efforts on writing clear and concise plans, designing high-quality, easy to understand maps and graphics, and providing 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, and Affiliations • Congress for the New Urbanism Accredited (CNU-A) • 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 (Cupertino, Fremont, Stanford University) • Anaheim On-Call Services • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan • Del Mar Design Guidelines and Municipal Code Amendments • Dublin Objective Design, Standards • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Los Altos Downtown Vision • Lower Hastings Ranch Residential Neighborhood Zoning Code Revisions (Pasadena) • Norma Triangle Overlay District and Design Guidelines (West Hollywood) • North 40 Specific Plan (Los Gatos) • Pomona Zoning and Subdivision Code Updates • Serra Meadows Housing Development (San Luis Obispo) • Westcreek Residential Subdivision (San Luis Obispo) • Yucaipa Citywide Design Guidelines los alt o s dow n t o w n vis i o n sEC tiOn 3 | Organizational Chart and Resumes City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 23 DEBBIE JEWEll| PLA uRBAN DESIGNER Debbie is an urban designer and licensed landscape architect. With over 25 years of experience assisting with the development of specific plans, design guidelines, streetscape master plans, and in providing landscape architectural support to many of RRM’s urban projects. Debbie also plays a key role in providing design review services for cities throughout the state. 27 years of Experience Education • Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA • Associate of Arts, Fine Arts, Drawing and Painting, Academy of Art College, San Francisco, CA Affiliations • Professional Landscape Architect , CA, 5308 Relevant Projects • Agoura Village Specific Plan • Anaheim On-Call Architecture, Urban Design, and Landscape Architecture • Big Bear Village Specific Plan Update • Calipatria General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update Urban Design • Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan and Design Guidelines • Claremont Village West Specific Plan and Design Guidelines • Panorama City Streetscape • Dublin Citywide Multifamily Design Standards • Dublin On-Call Contract Planning Services - On-Site • East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan (Pasadena) • El Monte On-Call Architectural and Landscape Review • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines and Design Review Services • Long Beach Urban Design Element and On-Call Planning Services • Maclay Avenue Streetscape Plan (San Fernando) Bi g B e a r V i l l a g e S p e c i f i c P l a n dub l i n O b j e c t i v e des i g n sta n d a r d s En c i n i t a s O b j e c t i v e des i g n sta n d a r d s Organizational Chart and Resumes | sEC tiOn 3 24 lANCE WIERSCHEM | PLA, LEED AP lANDSCAPE ARCHITECT lance is a licensed landscape architect with over a decade of experience. His minor in City and Regional Planning brings added value to landscape and planning projects. lance is well versed in all aspects of project administration: from visioning and policy stages, public workshops and community outreach, programming and schematic design through to construction document preparation. His versatility has aided in the success of projects including a Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan for fullerton and a Community Plan and Specific Plan for San Ysidro. Outside of RRM, lance crafts colorful custom lithomosaics that provide a sense of place in installations throughout the Western united States. 15 years of Experience Education • Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA • Minor, City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA licenses & accreditations • Professional Landscape Architect, CA, 6210 • Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED AP) Relevant Projects • Agoura Village Specific Plan Implementation and Update • Alhambra Objective Design Standards • Arcadia Design Guidelines Update • Arcadia New Objective Design and Development Standards • 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 • El Monte TOD Specific Plan • Encinitas Objective Design Standards • Fremont Design Guidelines • Goleta Objective Design Standards • 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 and Design Guidelines • 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 arc a d i a des i g n gui d e l i n e s U p d a t e del M a r des i g n gui d e l i n e s El M o n t e T O D S p e c i f i c P l a n sEC tiOn 3 | Organizational Chart and Resumes City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 25 Section RRM PROJECT Moylan Terrace Multifamily Housing San Luis Obispo, California 4 MET H O D O lOG Y AN D A PP R O A C H Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 27 PROJECT & 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. Engaging stakeholders early is an effective means 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 deadlines and often finish tasks ahead of schedule. We make it a practice to provide regular status updates of project progress and closely coordinate with the City's project manager. in managing a schedule, we have found it helpful to establish mutually agreeable and timely turnaround review times. in addition, all product deliverables are reviewed internally for quality control purposes prior to submittal. We ask that, following the City's 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 PROjECt ManagERs aRE HEld tO tHE FOllOwing standaRds: • Monthly review of compliance with project budgets by RRM management and principals. Our Deltek Vision project management and accounting software also allows project managers and principals to track daily time entries and task budgets. • Ongoing oversight by the principal-in-charge regarding contract and schedule adherence as well as overall project progress. • Periodically, report cards are provided to clients to solicit feedback on the project manager and overall project performance. • Annually, project managers are evaluated on the quality of their performance. • Project management is taken seriously; we are committed to delivering on-time and within budget. One final important note: 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 in the references section a call! Methodology and Approach | sECtiOn 4 28 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope aligns with the strategy proposed within your RFP and outlines how we will approach the project to satisfy these goals. Our project deliverables will ensure that future development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and complies with the intent of state legislation to facilitate and expedite the construction of housing. Descriptions of tasks, methodologies, and deliverable products are identified in the scope of work along with tasks and materials assumed to be provided by City staff. We welcome collaboration to adjust this work plan as necessary to best satisfy the City objectives, budget, and time frames. TASK 1: BACKGROuND REVIEW AND GOAlS 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 to gather and review relevant data and background information. KICKOFF MEETING AND CITY TOUR The project team will meet with City staff to establish a mutual understanding of the key issues and project objectives; review the scope of work and project schedule; and lay out significant project milestones, meeting times, and deliverable targets. A virtual city tour to gain additional insight related to community character and recent development projects may also be incorporated into this task. 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 including the General Plan, Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88 – Development Code, and Specific Plans, previous development applications, and other planning efforts that have a bearing in the city. RRM will develop a summary of recommended revisions to existing City plans, guidelines, and standards. This will provide an opportunity to discuss the desired approach and modified language prior to developing the administrative draft document. 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. sEC tiOn 4 | Methodology and Approach City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 29 TASK 2: COMMuNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDuCATION The overarching goal of this work effort is to develop Objective Design Standards that will provide clear direction, reduce the discretionary review process, and facilitate and streamline the development of housing. The State of California has adopted recent legislation to address the state-wide housing shortage and now requires a streamlined and ministerial process for specific residential developments (multifamily, including mixed-use). These laws require projects to be reviewed against established objective standards rather than through a City’s traditional discretionary entitlement process. Objective development/design standards are required by the Housing Accountability Act, Senate Bill 35 Streamlining, and the Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill 330). Objective standards are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark. The nature of the project is a technical exercise focused on identifying the subjectivity in the current development review process and replacing that subjectivity with objective requirements. The project is not intended to revise existing development standards (e.g., the intent is not to change existing building height or setback standards). Engagement associated with the development of Objective Design Standards will focus on gaining an understanding on common issues associated with existing guidelines, providing information and a suite of educational materials to inform the larger Azusa community of project objectives and deliverables, and a transparent process updating existing subjective City policy to objective criteria. • Project Overview/Website Materials At the beginning of the project RRM will provide materials for the City’s use to assist in educating the community via the website. RRM will provide graphically oriented and easy-to-understand information to provide an overview of the project, examples of subjective vs. objective language, and additional project-related information. RRM will provide an informational PowerPoint presentation that will be used at study sessions and posted on the website to provide additional information and clarify common misconceptions. • Stakeholder Input As part of the initial phase of the project RRM will dedicate up to eight hours of stakeholder meetings to collect input on the City’s existing policy documents and discretionary review and approval process. The meetings will be conducted via video/teleconference with stakeholders including City staff, decision- makers, local developers, property owners, business owners, Azusa Chamber of Commerce, Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. • Study Session During the development of the Objective Design Standards, RRM will conduct a study session with the Planning Commission and/or City Council to receive decision-maker and public input. RRM will integrate input received from decision-makers and the public into the public review draft document. dElivERablEs: • Provide materials developed as part of other tasks for City use on website. • facilitate up to eight (8) hours of stakeholder or focus group meetings; City is responsible for identifying/notifying stakeholders and focus group participants. • Prepare for and attend a PC/CC study session. Methodology and Approach | sECtiOn 4 30 TASK 3: ARCHITECTuRAl FIElD SuRVEYS RRM will conduct a window survey with staff to identify good/bad designs and most frequently used architectural styles in the city. The survey will cover residential, commercial, and industrial properties. This scope shall include the identification, photography, evaluation, and classification of properties. dElivERablEs: • Summary memorandum of architectural field survey findings. TASK 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT RRM will prepare an administrative draft of the Objective Design Standards for all building types in the city including but not limited to residential, commercial, and industrial structures. The standards will be a conduit for educating the community and a tool for homeowners, designers, architects, and design review personnel to achieve high-quality design for projects. 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, entrances, exterior materials, landscaping, utilitarian/mechanical elements of building design, etc. The standards will be presented using clearly written text and will include up to 30 companion illustrative graphics. SCREENCHECK DRAFT 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 City comments will have been integrated, and this draft will provide an additional internal review opportunity before the development of the public review draft. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT Based on comments received on the screencheck draft, RRM will prepare public hearing draft design standards for consideration through the formal review and adoption process. dElivERablEs: • RRM will provide a PDf of each draft document (administrative, screencheck/public review, and public hearing). We ask that staff consolidate all comments into one redlined version of each draft for RRM’s use to make revisions. PROJECT MANAGEMENT This task includes necessary coordination between RRM and City staff throughout the process. This will include informal teleconferences, correspondence, status updates, record keeping, project electronic file management, and other necessary coordination during the project. dElivERablEs: • Ongoing project coordination and management; Assumes approximately six (6) hours per month for eighteen (18) months. sEC tiOn 4 | Methodology and Approach City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 31 TASK 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 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, or by Planning Commission and City Council. This assumes the City will be responsible for public notification. RRM will provide an updated and final draft based on final approval. dElivERablEs: • Prepare for and attend up to two (2) hearings to assist staff in presenting the design standards. finalize the document(s) and produce one (1) reproducible copy and one (1) electronic format. TASK 6: IMPlEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS following City approval of the Objective Design Standards, RRM will format a +/-10-page visually attractive, easy-to-read user guide that outlines an overview of the final objective standards. The user guide may be used by City staff during their review of a project’s conformance with the applicable design standards. in addition, we will develop an outline of the necessary future amendments to the Azusa Municipal Code and other applicable City documents to ensure successful implementation. dElivERablEs: • RRM will provide one (1) digital copy of the user guide. City staff will provide one (1) consolidated marked-up redline version of all comments. RRM will make final edits and produce one (1) final copy. TASK 7: DIGITAl AVAIlABIlITY OF INFORMATION RRM will produce all files in a digital format that can be easily manipulated by City Staff. The documents will be prepared using the Adobe Suite of software. All information shall be provided in working files and final document format. dElivERablEs: • Package Adobe inDesign file and attachments for City use. Methodology and Approach | sECtiOn 4 32 WORK PROGRAM ASSuMPTIONS Meeting notices The City is responsible for printing and distribution of physical meeting notices when needed. if requested, the cost of providing printing and/or distribution of meeting notices by RRM would be provided on a time and materials basis. Meeting attendance The project budget assumes virtual attendance at meetings identified in the work program. The costs of additional or in-person meeting attendance would include travel time and would be on a time and materials basis. draft documents A draft of each document will be provided to staff and revised based on a single set of consolidated comments providing clear direction. Printing This budget assumes the City will be responsible for printing and distributing documents. Environmental Review The scope of work requested does not include environmental documentation or clearance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. As such, environmental documentation and technical studies are not included in this work program. However, such documentation would be provided on a time and materials basis, if requested. sEC tiOn 4 | Methodology and Approach 33City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds PROJECT SCHEDulE TASK 1: BACKGROUND REVIEW AND GOALS Kickoff Meeting and Field Trip Data Gathering/Document Research TASK 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Community Engagement TASK 3: ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEYS Window Survey TASK 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Administrative Draft Screencheck Draft Public Hearing Draft Project Management TASK 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Public Hearings and Final Draft TASK 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Implementation TASK 7: DIGITAL AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Digital Information Meeting Duration APR MAY JUNMAROCTNOVDECJANFEB 2022 JAN FEB MAR 20232021 NOV DECJULYAUGSEPOCT Methodology and Approach | sEC tiOn 4 RRM PROJECT Arlington Village Affordable Housing Development Santa Barbara, California City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 35 Section 5 C O M P E N S A T i O N Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s 37City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds RR M SCOTT MARTIN RR M JAMI WILLIAMS RR M MATT OTTOSON RR M DEBORAH JEWELL RR M LANCE WIERSCHEM 210 $ per hour 250 $ per hour 160 $ per hour 145 $ per hour 160 $ per hour Task 1: BACKGROUND REVIEW AND GOALS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 14,440$ 16 $3,360 16 $4,000 4 $640 40 $5,800 4 $640 Task 1 Value:14,440$ Task 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 25,600$ 16 $3,360 40 $10,000 0 $0 80 $11,600 4 $640 Task 2 Value:25,600$ Task 3: ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEYS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 10,120$ 16 $3,360 8 $2,000 8 $1,280 24 $3,480 0 $0 Task 3 Value:10,120$ Task 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 107,600$ 48 $10,080 228 $57,000 40 $6,400 200 $29,000 32 $5,120 Task 4 Value:107,600$ Task 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 19,680$ 24 $5,040 40 $10,000 0 $0 32 $4,640 0 $0 Task 5 Value:19,680$ Task 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 15,440$ 4 $840 12 $3,000 0 $0 80 $11,600 0 $0 Task 6 Value:15,440$ Task 7: DIGITAL AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FEE TYPE T&M/NTE 3,980$ 0 $0 2 $500 0 $0 24 $3,480 0 $0 Task 7 Value:3,980$ 196,860$ 2,500$ 199,360$ Azusa Citywide Objective Design Standards Fee Schedule July 29, 2021 Project Manager Environmental and Policy Planner Landscape ArchitectSenior PlannerPrincipal-in-Charge Fee Footnotes 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. Reimbursable Expenses Incidental expenses incurred by RRM Design Group or any subconsultant it may hire to perform services for this project are reimbursed by the client at actual cost plus 10% to cover its overhead and administrative expenses. Adjustment to Hourly Billing Rates RRM reserves the right to adjust hourly rates on an annual basis. Subtotal Estimated Project Total Reimbursable Expenses Compensation | sECtiOn 5 RRM PROJECT Marsh Street Brownstones San Luis Obispo, California City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 39 1 PRiOR E x PE R iEN C E AN D Q u Ali f i CA T iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s Section 6 E x CE P T iON S /D E V iAT iON S Pr o p o s a l f o r C i t y w i d e O b j e c t i v e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s City of Azusa | PROPOsal FOR CitywidE ObjECtivE dE sign standaRds 41 CONTRACT EXCEPTIONS RRM Design Group is in substantial agreement with the City's proposed Consulting Services Agreement, however there are some items that we feel would be of mutual benefit to discuss. Our suggestions are in blue below. 3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. in order to facilitate Consultant’s conformance with the Schedule, City shall respond to Consultant’s submittals in a timely manner. upon request of City, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City agrees that the Consultant is not responsible for damages arising directly or indirectly from any delays for causes beyond the Consultant's control. for purposes of this Agreement, such causes include, but are not limited to, strikes or other labor disputes; severe weather disruptions or other natural disasters or acts of God; fires, riots, war or other emergencies; failure of any government agency to act in timely manner; failure of performance by City or City's contractors or Consultants; or discovery of any hazardous substances or differing site conditions. 3.2.9 Period of Performance and liquidated Damages. Consultant shall perform and complete all Services under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above (“Performance Time”). Consultant shall also perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or Project milestones described in Exhibits “A” or “B” attached hereto, or which may be separately agreed upon in writing by the City and Consultant (“Performance Milestones”). Consultant agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned Performance Time and/or pursuant to any such Project Milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this Agreement, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, Consultant shall pay to the City as fixed and liquidated damages the sum of [***iNSERT WRiTTEN DOll AR AMOuNT***] Dollars ($[***iNSERT NuMERiCAl DOll AR AMOuNT***]) per day for each and every calendar day of delay beyond the Performance Time or beyond any Project Milestones established pursuant to this Agreement. 3.2.11.3 Professional liability. [iNCluDE THiS SuBSECTiON ONlY if APPliCABlE - DElETE OTHERWiSE] Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub-consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years follow ing completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than [CONTACT RiSK MANAGEMENT TO CONfiRM AMOuNT; TYPiCAl MiNiMuM iS $1 MilliON, BuT AMOuNT Of iNSuRANCE REQuiRED DEPENDS ON NATuRE Of CONTRACT AND RiSK TO CiTY]$1,000,000 per claim, and shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. Defense costs shall be paid in addition to limits. Exceptions/Deviations | sECtiOn 6 42 3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from City’s Representative. if any Extra Work, including changes or modifications to Consultant’s scope of services are proposed by City, Consultant shall, upon receipt of such written request to perform Extra Work, determine the impact on both time and compensation and notify City in writing. upon agreement between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this agreement shall be prepared describing such Extra Work. Execution of the amendment by City and Consultant shall constitute the Consultant’s notice to proceed with the Extra Work. 3.5.3 Right to Use. City shall not be limited in any way in its use or reuse of the Documents and Data or any part of them at any time for purposes of this Project or another project, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement or on a project other than this Project without employing the services of Consultant shall be at City’s sole risk. If City uses or reuses the Documents & Data on any project other than this Project, it shall remove the Consultant’s seal from the Documents & Data and indemnify and hold harmless. 3.6.2 indemnification. 3.6.2.1 Scope of indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSulTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless AGENCY and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, to the extent found to be caused in whole or in part by the negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of CONSulTANT, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any agency or individual that CONSulTANT shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of services under this AGREEMENT. CONSulTANT’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless AGENCY shall not extend to the AGENCY’s sole or active negligence. 3.6.2.2 Duty to Defend. in the event the AGENCY, its officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from the performance of the services encompassed by this AGREEMENT, and upon demand by AGENCY, CONSulTANT shall defend the AGENCY at CONSulTANT’s cost or at AGENCY’s option, to reimburse AGENCY for its costs of defense, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of such matters to the extent the matters are found to arise from, relate to or are caused by CONSulTANT’s negligent acts, errors or omissions. Payment by AGENCY is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute between CONSulTANT and AGENCY, as to whether liability arises from the sole or active negligence of the AGENCY or its officers, employees, or agents, CONSulTANT will be obligated to pay for AGENCY’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating the AGENCY as solely or actively negligent. CONSulTANT will not be entitled in the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation. sEC tiOn 6 | Exceptions/Deviations RRM Design Group Revised 12/8/21 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope aligns with the strategy proposed within your RFP and outlines how we will approach the project to satisfy these goals. Our project deliverables will ensure that future development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and complies with the intent of state legislation to facilitate and expedite the construction of housing. Descriptions of tasks, methodologies, and deliverable products are identified in the scope of work along with tasks and materials assumed to be provided by City staff. We welcome collaboration to adjust this work plan as necessary to best satisfy the City objectives, budget, and time frames. TASK 1: BACKGROUND REVIEW AND GOALS 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 AND CITY TOUR The project team will meet with City staff to establish a mutual understanding of the key issues and project objectives; review the scope of work and project schedule; and lay out significant project milestones, meeting times, and deliverable targets. A virtual City tour to gain additional insight related to community character and recent development projects may also be incorporated into this task. 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 (ODS) including the General Plan, Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88 – Development Code, and Specific Plans, previous development applications, and other planning efforts that have a bearing in the City. RRM will develop a summary of recommended revisions to existing City plans, guidelines, and standards. This will provide an opportunity to discuss the desired approach and modified language prior to developing the Administrative Draft document. Deliverables: • Prepare for and attend one (1) kickoff meeting • One (1) existing policy summary memo • One (1) video conference call with City to discuss findings of the data gathering and document research TASK 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION The overarching goal of this work effort is to develop objective design standards that will provide clear direction, reducing the discretionary review process, and facilitating and streamlining development of housing. The nature of the project is a technical exercise focused on identifying the subjectivity in the current development review process and replacing that subjectivity with objective requirements. The project is not intended to revise existing development standards (e.g., the intent is not to change existing building height or setback standards). Engagement associated with the development of objective design standards will focus on RRM Design Group Revised 12/8/21 gaining an understanding on common issues associated with existing guidelines, providing information and a suite of educational materials to inform the larger Azusa community of project objectives and deliverables, and a transparent process updating existing subjective city policy to objective criteria. The engagement process will provide opportunities project updates and to share project materials and receive feedback. Project Overview/Website Materials At the beginning of the project RRM will provide materials for the City’s use to assist in educating the community via the website. RRM will provide graphically oriented and easy to understand information to provide an overview of the project, examples of subjective vs. objective language, and additional project related information. RRM will provide an informational PowerPoint presentation that will be used at study sessions and posted on the website to provide additional information and clarify misconceptions. Stakeholder Input As part of the initial phase of the project RRM will dedicate up to eight (8) hours of stakeholder meetings to collect input on the City’s existing policy documents and discretionary review and approval process. The meetings will be conducted via video/teleconference with stakeholders including City staff, decision makers, local developers, property owners, business owners, Azusa Chamber of Commerce, Cultural and Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. Study Session During the development of the objective design standards, RRM will conduct a study session with the Planning Commission and/or City Council to receive decision maker and public input. RRM will integrate input received from decision makers and the public into the Public Review Draft document. Deliverables: • Provide materials developed as part of other tasks for City use on website. • RRM will facilitate up to eight (8) hours of stakeholder or focus group meetings. City is responsible for identifying/notifying stakeholders and focus group participants • Prepare for and attend a PC/CC study session TASK 3: ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEYS: RRM will conduct a window survey with staff to identify good/bad designs and most frequently used architectural styles in the City. The survey would cover residential, commercial, and industrial properties. This scope shall include the identification, photography, evaluation and classification of properties. Deliverables: • Provide a summary memorandum of architectural field survey findings TASK 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Administrative Draft RRM will prepare an Administrative Draft of the Design Guidelines for all building types in the City including but not limited to residential, commercial, and industrial structures. The standards will be a conduit for educating the community and a tool for homeowners, designers, architects, and design review personnel to achieve high-quality design for projects. RRM Design Group Revised 12/8/21 Emphasis will be on quality design and materials, as defined and endorsed by the community and decision-makers. The guidelines will provide direction on topics such as site planning, building massing and elements, building frontages, entrances, exterior materials, landscaping, utilitarian/mechanical elements of building design, etc. The standards will be presented using clearly written text and will include photographs and up to 20 companion illustrative graphics. The guidelines will be written with the ultimate users in mind to guide staff, design professionals, City staff and decision makers in the creation and review of project submittals. The document will be organized in an easy to read, clear, and graphically attractive fashion with pictures representing a suggested design topic or guidelines. Many of the images will contain text callouts helping to illustrate the design intent. The State of California has adopted recent legislation to address the State-wide housing shortage and now requires a streamlined and ministerial process for specific residential developments (multi- family, including mixed-use). These laws require projects containing multi-family residential development to be reviewed against established objective standards rather than through a city’s traditional discretionary entitlement process. ODS are required by the Housing Accountability Act, Senate Bill 35 Streamlining, and the Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill 330) and are those that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark. This task will include objective design standards, as required by State law, to be incorporated as a new section of the Azusa Municipal Code Chapter 88. It will include review of the code and redlining the sections that need to be updated to enforce/align the ODS. They may also be located within the appendix of the guidelines document for easy reference. This section will be approved by ordinance as part of the Design Guidelines process. The standards will be presented using clearly written text with up to ten (10) companion illustrative graphics/imagery. Screencheck Draft 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. Public Hearing Draft Based on comments received on the Screencheck Draft, RRM will prepare Public Hearing Draft Design Standards for consideration through the formal review and adoption process. Deliverables: • RRM will provide a PDF of each draft document (Administrative, Screencheck/Public Review, and Public Hearing). We ask that staff consolidate all comments into one redlined version of each draft for RRM’s use to make revisions Project Management This task includes necessary coordination between RRM and City staff throughout the process. This will include informal teleconferences, correspondence, status updates, record keeping, project electronic file management, and other necessary coordination during the project. Deliverables: • Ongoing project coordination and management. Assumes approximately six (6) hours per month for RRM Design Group Revised 12/8/21 eighteen (18) months TASK 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 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. This assumes the City will be responsible for public notification. RRM will provide an updated and final draft based on final approval. Deliverables: • Prepare for and attend up to two (2) hearings to assist staff in presenting the standards. • Staff reports and associated attachments for Planning Commission and City Council adoption. • Finalize the document(s) and produce one (1) reproducible copy and one (1) electronic format TASK 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS: USER GUIDE Following City approval of the objective design standards, RRM will format a +/-10-page visually attractive, easy to read user’s guide that outlines an overview of the final objective standards. The user’s guide may be used by City staff during their review of a project’s conformance with the applicable design standards. In addition, we will develop an outline of the necessary future amendments to the Azusa code and other applicable City documents to ensure successful implementation. Deliverables: • RRM will provide one (1) digital copy of the User Guide. City staff will provide one (1) consolidated marked-up redline version of all comments. RRM will make final edits and produce one (1) final copy TASK 7: DIGITAL AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: RRM will produce all file in a digital format that can be easily manipulate by City Staff. The documents will be prepared using the Adobe Suite software. All information shall be provided in working files and final document format. Deliverables: • Package InDesign file and attachments for City use. WORK PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS • Meeting Notices. The City is responsible for printing and distribution of physical meeting notices when needed. If requested, the costs of providing printing and/or distribution of meeting notices would be on a RRM Design Group Revised 12/8/21 time and materials basis. • Meeting Attendance. The project budget assumes virtual attendance at meetings identified in the work program. The costs of additional or in-person meeting attendance would include travel time and would be on a time and materials basis. • Draft Documents. A draft of each document will be provided to staff and revised based on a single set of consolidated comments providing clear direction. • Printing. This budget assumes the City will be responsible for printing and distributing documents. • Environmental Review. The scope of work requested does not include environmental documentation or clearance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. As such, environmental documentation and technical studies are not included in this work program. However, such documentation would be provided on a time and materials basis, if requested. TASK 1: BACKGROUND REVIEW AND GOALS Kickoff Meeting and Field Trip Data Gathering/Document Research TASK 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Community Engagement TASK 3: ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEYS Window Survey TASK 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Administrative Draft Screencheck Draft Public Hearing Draft Project Management TASK 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Public Hearings and Final Draft TASK 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Implementation TASK 7: DIGITAL AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Digital Information Meeting Duration 2023 APR MAY JUNEFEB MAROCTNOVDECJANJULYAUGSEPJUNJANFEBMARAPRMAY 2022 Project Schedule - Timeline TASK 1: BACKGROUND REVIEW AND GOALS Kickoff Meeting and Field Trip Data Gathering/Document Research TASK 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION Community Engagement TASK 3: ARCHITECTURAL FIELD SURVEYS Window Survey TASK 4: CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Administrative Draft Screencheck Draft Public Hearing Draft Project Management TASK 5: ADOPTION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Public Hearings and Final Draft TASK 6: IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Implementation TASK 7: DIGITAL AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Digital Information Meeting Duration 2023 APR MAY JUNEFEB MAROCTNOVDECJANJULYAUGSEPJUNJANFEBMARAPRMAY 2022