Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING CODE UPDATE 200511111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill a *NEW FILE* ZONING CODE UPDATE 2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE COPY CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. April 12, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director 644-3228, ptemple@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appointments to the Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code RECOMMENDATION: If desired, appoint the following persons to fill the Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code. Councilmember: Steve Rosansky Planning Commissioners: Michael Toerge Barry Eaton Design Professionals: Brion Jeanette Michael Porter Public Members: Ed Selich Lloyd Ikerd DISCUSSION: The Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code was formed with the adoption of a Resolution No. 2005-11 on February 22, 2005. The Mayor has identified the above persons to be appointed, for all the Committee positions except the Builder/Developer position. Staff and the mayor believe that the Ad Hoc Committee members can assist in identifying a person for this last appointment. All recommended members have been provided information on the purpose for the Committee, and have agreed to make the time commitment to the project. Submitted by: i-"�atricia L. Temple Planning Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT FILE COPY Agenda Item No. February 22, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patricia L Temple, Planning Director 949-644-3228; ptemple@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code BACKGROUND At the February 8th City Council Study Session, the Planning Department presented information about the zoning compliance review (plan check) process and why the Planning Department is currently unable to turn around plan checks within a four week timeframe. The report presented three alternatives that could address the situation, After discussion by Council, staff was directed to commence a review of the City's Zoning Code, to develop revisions which could simplify the code and ease its administration. As part of the discussion, the City Council and staff indicated that this review should include the participation of a variety of interested parties, which could be in the form of an Ad Hoc Committee formed by the City Council and appointed by the Mayor. DISCUSSION A committee to guide revisions to the Zoning Code should include the various components of the community potentially affected by revisions. Staff suggests the following composition of an Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code: • 1 City Council member 2 Planning Commissioners • 2 Architects/design professionals • 1 Builder/Developer • 2 members of the public Because the Ad Hoc Committee will be charged with reviewing very detailed proposals for Code revisions, staff believes that this committee should not be larger than suggested. EstablishOnt of an Ad Hoc Committee for Revons to the Zoning Code February 22, 2005 Page 2 The Process: As indicated in the prior Study Session report, the development of Zoning Code revisions will require consultant assistance. The consultant will first work with Planning Department staff that enforce and administer the provisions of the Zoning Code, because they are most familiar with the provisions which are most problematic or difficult to understand. A list of sections to be considered for revision will then be reviewed with the Committee. The Committee will also be able to identify areas of the Code needing revisions as well. Draft revisions will be developed by the consultant and staff, which then will be reviewed and refined by the Ad Hoc Committee. Recommended changes to the Zoning Code will then be forwarded to the City Council for initiation of Code amendments. Environmental Review Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, so no environmental review is required. Public Notice No public notice is required for this discussion. However, this item is on the City Council Agenda, which is posted at City Hall, and is also available on the City's web site. Prepared by: Patricia L. Temple, Plarfning Director Attachment: Draft Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE WHEREAS, the complexity of the Zoning Code creates difficulties in its administration and enforcement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach desires to consider simplification of the Zoning Code as means to improve the process of issuing building permits; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of clear and understandable zoning regulations to property owners and others seeking to improve property in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council also recognizes the importance of effective zoning regulations in maintaining quality residential neighborhoods and commercial districts, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish an open, public planning process for the consideration of revisions to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT The Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code (Committee) shall be established as of the date this Resolution is approved by four members of the City Council voting at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council. SECTION 2. DUTIES The Committee shall have the following duties: a) Work with a consultant and City staff to develop a list of desirable revisions to the Zoning Code. b) Review all revisions drafted by the consultant and City staff and refine and/or modify as necessary. c) Recommend to City Council the revisions to the Zoning Code for initiation of Code amendments. SECTION 3. The Committee shall consist of the following members appointed by, and serving at the pleasure of, the Mayor: a) One (1) City Council member b) Two (2) members of the public c) Two (2) Planning Commissioners d) Two (2) Architects/design professionals e) One (1) Builder/Developer SECTION 4 TERM The term of the Committee shall expire at such time as the Committee transmits possible Zoning Code amendments for consideration of initiation by the City Council. The City Council shall review the progress of and continuing need for the Committee one year after the date it is first established. ADOPTED this 22"d day of February, 2005. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 2 City of Newport Beach • ��� City Council Minutes April 12, 2005 construction expenses; and 4) approve a budget amendment (05BA-052) appropriating $289,397 from Unappropriated Internal Service Reserves into Account No. 7611-C6120725. 8.. SUNSET RIDGE PARK — APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC. FOR MASTER �,XLAN SERVICES (C-3766). Approve a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $70,000 with RJM Design Group, Inc. and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement. MISCELLANAUS ACTIONS 9. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. 1% 10. BUDGET AMEN13MENT — CALIFORNIA SEAT BELT COMPLIANCE CAMPAIGN PROGRAM — FISCAL YEAR 200412005. Approve a budget amendmNt (05BA-054) in the amount of $19,699 for the Police Department budget in Fiscal Year 2004/2005 to fund additional seat belt enforcement as a part of- he California Seat Belt Compliance Program. �, 11. ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) REQUIREMENTS;.FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005. 1) Approve the DBE Program for the City of Newport each for Federal Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2004 and ending September 30, 2005; 2) authorize the Public Works"'Director to submit the approved DBE Program to Caltrans staff, and 3)Ndesignate Jessica Etezady, Administrative Manager, as the City's DBE Liaion Officer. 12. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Nichols. 13. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member audience. 14. PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR THE CITY HALL, FIRE STATION AND PARKING LOT PROJECT. Receive and file. - 15. APPOINTMENTS TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE. Appoint the following persons to fill the Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code: Council Member Steven Rosansky; Planning Commissioners Michael Toerge and Barry Eaton; Design Professionals Brion Jeanette and Michael Porter; and Public Members Ed Selich and Lloyd Ikerd. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Webb to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 13). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: - Ayes: Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg INDEX C-3766 Sunset Ridge Park (381100-2005) (100-2005) (100-2005) (100-2005) Volume 57 - Page 162 City of Newport Beach • City Council Minutes April 12, 2005 raised at the 2004 event. Mayor Bromberg stated that there are 40 to 46 teams participating this year, the public is welcome and more information can be obtained by calling his office at (949) 644.2004, • Mayor Bromberg announced that on April 17, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., a team L of riders will be at the Newport Pier as a part of the Peddling for the Cure event. He explained that the cyclists are biking from Los Angeles to Chicago with the goal of raising $100,000 for autism. • 14ayor Bromberg requested that a future Study Session report provide information on the in lieu parking fee for developers. He explained that therb was a moratorium placed on the requirement in 1988 or 1989, and that it needs to be addressed again due to the shortage of parking in the City. ' e I. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OFMINLUS/OR I� NANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 3_ Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Nichols. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 4. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Nichols. 6. 2004-2005 SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM — COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT (C-3718). 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after Council acceptance. 6. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Nichols. 7. CORPORATION YARD BUILDING W — AWARD OF CONTRACT (C-3642). 1) Approve the plans and specifications; 2) award the contract (C-3642) to Horizons CCI Services, Inc. for the total bid price of $394,740 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; 3) establish an amount of $39,600 to cover the cost of unforeseen INDEX C-3718 2004.2006 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Replacement Program (38/100.2005) C-3642 Corporation Yard Building W Volume 57 - Page 161 City of Newport Beach • City Council Minutes February 22, 2005 in the Council Chambers. He announced that the City Council Ad Hoc Marinapark Advisory Committee is chaired by Council Member Ridgeway and they will meet with the State Lands Commission to set boundaries and investigate whether the mobilehomes should remain or not. L. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT 12. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 17, 2005. Director Temple reported that Item 3 (Ellis Residence) was from the calendar and Item 5 (Rudy's Pub and Grill) was Regarding St":Andrews Presbyterian Church (Item 1), Ms. Temple reported that theegesolutions were finalized and will be ready for Councils consideration whentthe item comes back to Council. Regarding the Civic Ceer Plaza Sign Regulation (Item 4), Ms. Temple reported that the applicant and the property owner were interested in adding small tenant identification signs to their monument sign. She stated that this was recommended for approval to Council. 'a Ms. Temple reported that there NJas a discussion item on the agenda regarding the zoning code revision to streamline the regulations and ease some of the difficulties they've been experiencing during plan checks. She stated that the Commission looks forward`to participating in this process with the ad hoc committee if it is formed to44 e M. CONTINUED BUSINESS by 13. UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON THE CITY ARTS COMMISSION. Using paper ballots, Council voted on either Gerald Alliabn or Gilbert Lasky for the City Arts Commission position. Gerald Allison (Heffernan, Daigle) \' Gilbert Lasky (Rosansky, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg) City Cleric Harkless announced that Gilbert Lasky has been appointed to fill the vacancy on the City Arts Commission with a term ending June 30, 14. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE. Planning Director Temple reported that the Mayor, City Manager Bludau, Assistant City Manager Wood, and herself participated in the preparation of the staff report and are recommending that an ad hoc committee be formed to help guide the process of considering revisions to the zoning code. She indicated that they wanted a well-rounded committee but one that was not too large. She stated that they are suggesting that the committee be comprised of one Council Member, two Planning INDEX (100.2005) (100-2005) Volume 57 - Page 99 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 2005 Commissioners, two architects/design professionals, one builderldeveloper, and two members of the public. She added that the Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments will staff the committee, and the City Attorney's office will probably participate. Mayor Bromberg requested that a staff report conic back so his appointments can be ratified by Council. Motion by Mayor Pro Tom Webb to adopt Resolution No. 2005.11 approving the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code, to be comprised of eight (8) members as noted in the staff report. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Ridgeway N. CURRENT BUSINESS _ 15. ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ALONG GRANT STREET FRONTAGE — 7000 AND 7012 WEST COAST HIGHWAY. Public Works Director Badum reported that, on October 12, 2004, Council ordered the construction of curb and gutter frontage improvements adjacent to the Newport Sands Mobile Home Park. He stated that, since then, the proporty owner's representative has requested driveways on Grant Street; however, staff and the public are concerned about the loss of public parking. He indicated that the letter in the staff report from the property owner claims that there were five driveways on the street frontage when it' was undeveloped, but staff reviewed aerial photos from 1989, 1995, and 2001 and could only identify two, possibly three, areas in which a car could fit. Mr. Badum reported that the street is about 160' long, operates as a narrow one-way, only has a 30' wide right-of-way, and has parking on both sides. He stated that they tried to work with the representative to reach a compromise, like reducing the number of driveways; however, in order to have the driveway cut, it may be nocessary to red curb the opposite side of the street in order to allow safe turning mpycments. He stated that a bigger issue is that the property owner plans to install the new units with a 1' setback from the City's right-of-way. He indlcated that this makes it impossible for anyone to see onto Grant Street. He reported that, for these reasons, staff is recommending that Council reaffirm its direction to install full height curb and gutters along Grant Street. Mr. Badum pointed out that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regulates the development of mobile home parks and manufactured homes. He reported that the City's zonipg code does not allow the City to regulate construction on mobile home INDEX (100.2005) Volume 67 - Page 100 AGENDA Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code June 2, 2005 2:00 p.m. Fire Department Conference Room Newport Beach City Hall I. Adopt agenda II. Scope of work III. Consultant selection IV. Meeting policies and procedures V. Selection of builder/developer representative VI. Schedule next meeting VII. Public comments Vill. Adjournment AGENDA Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code June 29, 2006 3:00 p.m. Small Conference Room Main Library Adoptagenda Update on consultant selection III. Areas of concern as identified by Planning Staff IV. Schedule next meeting V. Public comments VI. Adjournment PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915 Memorandum To: Ad Hoc Committee for Zoning Revisions From: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644-3219 gramirez(a)city. newport-beach.ca. us CC: Date: June 24, 2005 Re: June 29, 2005 Meeting I have attached the following items for your review: 1. Meeting Agenda 2. Zoning Code issues identified by staff 3. Study Session staff report to the City Council dated April 27, 2004 that discusses grade and structure height A G E N D A Ad Hoc Committee for Revisions to the Zoning Code Wednesday June 29, 2005 3:00 p.m. Small Conference Room Main Library Adoptagenda II. Update on consultant selection III. Zoning Code areas of concern as identified by Planning Staff IV. Schedule next meeting V. Public comments VI. Adjournment ZONING CODE ISSUES The Code requires that a sloped roof be measured at the midpoint of a roof plane while allowing the ridge to extend up to 5-feet above the height limit. An interpretation made years ago allows an imaginary projection of a roof plane to point where it intersects another imaginary plane, an actual roof or the setback line. Determination of multiple mid -points of imaginary planes can prove problematic and time consuming with complex roof designs. Additionally, since the height of structures is the vertical distance between the grade and the midpoint, each mid -point of each roof plane will often be of different heights, unless the lot is truly flat or the structure is designed using the lowest existing grade point resulting in a constant datum for the entire structure. For the majority of new custom residential homes, grade is determined by using the existing elevation contours of the subject property and elevations and contours of adjoining properties to determine the natural profile of the site. On flat lots, grade can usually be identified fairly quickly. However, on lots that slope a few feet from front to back or side to side or a combination of the two can be problematic, especially in instances where building design is trying to achieve the greatest height possible. Often the finished grade condition differs from the existing grade so, once development of the site occurs all physical evidence of the grade used to determine compliance with the height regulations is gone, which can create problems with verification of building height during construction. This is true especially of mid -points. Defining a constant datum would aid in determining the compliance of those features. Attached is a copy of a City Council Study Session staff report discussing this topic dated April 27, 2004. The information therein is still relevant today and explains in detail the dilemmas created by the existing regulations and discusses some possible solutions. Also, architectural dormers have become popular but a definition is needed. Also, if the dormers are truly architectural, we may want to allow them to exceed the height limit as long as they are located lower than a compliant. ridge. If so, how large should they be and how many on each compliant roof plane? Like building height, many residential structures especially on smaller lots, are being designed to the maximum floor area. For typical R-1 and R-2 lots, maximum square footage is determined by multiplying the buildable are of a lot (lot size minus setback area) by a factor of 1.5 or 2. It is not uncommon to see plans submitted that propose, for example, a 2699 square foot residence on lot permitted a maximum of 2700 square feet. In order to ensure accuracy, the plan checkers manually calculate the square footage using the dimensions shown on the floor plans. Typically, a gross figure is determined then the allowed deductions for second and third floor stairwells, attics and basements with ceiling heights of less than 7 feet are then deducted. Like determining the building height, calculation of floor area is often time consuming. However, most Planned Community Districts and residentially zone properties with a "B" overlay use a lot coverage provision whereby the footprint must not exceed a certain percentage of lot area, often 60%. Since only the outside perimeter of a proposed building is calculated to determine the lot coverage and since there is no limit on square footage, the plans are far easier to check. Many staff member believe lot coverage may be workable for residential citywide without reducing the permitted square footage. Staff is also concerned by the number of attic and basement areas with ceiling heights of 6-feet 11-inches that are possibly being turned into useable/conditioned space after the final building inspection. Section 20.10.040C: Residential "Open Space Option" Open space is actually required; the word "option" should be removed. Additionally, the calculation and what is considered open space may also want to be looked at as the open space requirement is routinely satisfied by area above the roof that is under the height limit. Section 20.65.070B and C Exceptions to Height Limits Clarification that the cumulative total for mechanical equipment is 25 square feet regardless of number of units/occurrences and that the 25 square feet includes the required screening. Clarification needed on wording of exclusions and whether a limit on the size and number of chimneys should be included. Section 20.60.030 Extensions Into Yards BBQ's and freestanding fireplaces are currently not in the list of items (6-feet and under) permitted to encroach into side and rear yard setbacks. Modification Permits are occasionally issued for these items. Language allowing these features to encroach into setbacks while limiting height may be helpful. Modification Permits are also routinely applied for to allow freestanding arbors in front setbacks. A provision allowing one arbor of open construction and limited size (i.e. 36 square feet) and height (8-feet) in the front and rear yard setbacks may be helpful. Similar Modification Permit requests for freestanding trellis structures in the side and rear setbacks are also fairly common. Architectural features on fences and walls (i.e. wall caps, finials on pilasters, light fixtures, swooping fences) are often proposed that exceed the standard 3 or 6 foot fence/wall height limit. Some sort of relief that permits such features may be helpful and encourage interesting design. Section 20.10.040 Adopt a map that identifies "West Newport". "Old Corona Del Mar" and "Balboa Peninsula". The code provides a meets and bounds description but an exhibit would be helpful to the public. Provide Code Definitions for: Attic Clinic Dormer These represent some potential Code sections that if slightly altered or clarified would help plan check and counter staff. A look at the non -conforming section of the Code and possibly additional development regulations will be identified for the next meeting. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session Agenda Item No. 3 April 27, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director (949) 644-3228, ptemple&-city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Grade and Structure Height Implementation of the height limit for construction has become increasingly difficult. The primary difficulty in implementation of the height limit is in the determination of what grade should be for the purpose of measuring height when a site is developed or otherwise altered, which is the case in most areas. Additionally, the Planning Department made an administrative interpretation in 1986 altering how a sloping roof is measured. The application of the interpretation has been expanded over time to a point that it does not reflect its original intent and it is not supported by the code. These two factors coupled with a growing desire on the part of property owners to build to the limits of the code have led to an unworkable system of height measurement. BRIEF HISTORY OF HEIGHT AND GRADE In 1936 with the adoption of its first zoning ordinance, the City adopted its first height limit. Single family homes were limited to 2 stories and 35 feet. Building height was defined as the vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the ceiling of the uppermost story. In 1950, the definition changed with the upper limit being raised to be the "topmost point of the roof." In 1965, the term grade first appears with it being an average elevation of the corners of the exterior of the building. In 1972, the City adopted standards very similar to today's regulations. The existing height limitation zones were adopted and height limits all over town were reduced dramatically. The City first used the term "natural" within the definition of the term grade. Ordinance No. 1454 states: "For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be natural grade unless the Planning Commission approves a grading plan or map, or a grading permit has been issued on or before the effective date of this ordinance, under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved..." This definition of grade above was used until 1992 when it was Grade and Structure Height April 27, 2004 Page 2 determined that the definition was unclear and unworkable since the term "natural" was not defined. In 1992, the City Council defined natural grade to be the "unaltered natural vertical location of the ground surface." They also re -drafted the definition of grade and broadened the use of finished grade. Previous standards prohibited the use of artificial surfaces (finished grades) and only allowed their use with the approval of the Planning Commission. The change in 1992 permitted the use of any finished grade when retaining walls or filled surfaces were used for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972. The standards adopted in 1992 are identical to today's regulations although they have been reorganized and re -codified since. GRADE — THE BASELINE FOR MEASURING HEIGHT The grade is the baseline for implementing a height limit. Presently, the unaltered vertical location of the ground surface is used unless another grade or elevation is identified by the code. Determining what the natural grade for a site is difficult when the site is altered. The code identifies 4 basic alternatives to the natural grade. a) Finished grades used for height measurement created by new subdivisions. b) Grades created prior to 1972 without a grading plan or building permit. c) Grades in areas prone to flooding. d) Grades set by the Planning Commission through Site Plan Review approval. The second item is where the Planning staff spends many hours in an attempt to identify the natural profile of the site, which often has not been seen for many years. As a result, staff must attempt to identify the natural profile using limited information, and occasionally, old air photographs. Finished grades are used when retaining walls and filled surfaces are present and excavated surfaces such as basements or wine cellars are not used. This last provision has been more broadly applied through the years such that no excavated grades are used to measure height today. Most often the existing grade is actually used if the excavation of the site occurs as part of the construction. The basic policy penalizes a builder by reducing the available vertical distance between the grade and height limit should they wish to build up the site with earth. Conversely, a builder is not penalized should they wish to excavate and lower the grade. The grade for the purpose'of measuring height would be higher than finished grade and the resulting building meets the height limit, but is actually taller than the numeric value of the height limit. In plain English, the residence may actually 26 feet high while it complies with the 24-foot height limit. The Planning Commission reviewed the question of grade on February 5, 2004. The staff report for that meeting is attached as Exhibit No. 5. The'Commission directed staff to present the issue to the Council to request policy direction. The Commission did indicate that reform to the present system should be evaluated with community input. Grade and Structure -Height April 27, 2004 Page 3 HEIGHT — HOW IS THE HEIGHT LIMIT ADMINISTERED? The height of a structure is the vertical distance between the highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. A sloped roof is measured from its midpoint to the grade directly below as measured from the ridge to where the wall plate intersects the roof plane. In this case, the peak of the roof may not extend more than 5 feet above the permitted height limit. The code is clear on this definition; however, in approximately 1986, the Planning Director made an interpretation of the code for a specific project where the roof was extended beyond the wall plate intersection to the setback line or another obstruction. This had the immediate effect of lengthening the roof plane artificially and thereby lowering the midpoint. The illustration below shows the artificial roof plane extension concept. Grade The argument in favor of this "interpretation" was that the mass of the building was less because and the peak did not exceed 5-foot allowance above the height limit. Armed with this new interpretation, planning staff began applying it more broadly where today, it is a commonly applied un-codified rule. The unintended consequence of this un- codified rule is that a third level of a residence is more easily achieved. Additionally, on sloping lots, the actual measurement of the height of an individual roof plan can take place outside of the building wall at a different grade elevation. Staff acknowledges that the present use of the imaginary roof extension is not supported by the Zoning Code; however discontinuing its use will have negative consequences to pending projects. Grade and Structure Height April 27, 2004 Page 4 IS THE SYSTEM BROKEN? The short answer is yes, in staffs opinion. The present system of measuring natural grade to the midpoint of a sloping roof is problematic at best. There is no real question when a flat roof is proposed even though there is no definition of what a flat roof is. The true problem rests with sloping roofs, sloping lots or any lot thought to be excavated. Designers routinely ask staff to identify the baseline grade especially when there is even a modest slope gradient or there is a retaining wall indicating excavation. The lack of certainty of the baseline grade makes it very time consuming and frustrating for both designers and staff to identify one. If a designer wants a grade higher than the existing grade based upon the identification of a historical natural profile of the site, the resulting design of the building can be enhanced dramatically because the grade from which the height is measured is significantly higher than the existing grade. This circumstance leads to buildings that, while compliant, are taller than the stated height limitation zone. This leads to questions and complaints from surrounding residents when the building appears taller than expected. In one example, hundreds of hours of staff time and months of delay have been expended to examine old air photos, surveys and geotechnical studies in an attempt to identify a grade that has not been seen for 60-80 years in order to design a 4 story residence. The present system also requires the retention of grading plans and surveys so the imaginary grade used for the purpose of measuring height can be documented for a future expansion or alteration. The natural grade will fluctuate on some sites and on occasion it falls in two different directions. With the height limit following this three "dirfiensional ' contour, designing a residence to the limits of the code, which is the trend these days, is very difficult. Plan checking the project becomes a labor intensive task even for an experienced planner and it is conducive to errors by the less experienced. The plan checking dilemma is further complicated with the application of the imaginary roof plane extension. It has lead to very complicated, multi -faceted roof designs (see photo) creating construction and administrative burdens. Today, planning staff spends 2-3 hours on height alone per plan check. The present system has created an environment for mistakes to be made more readily. Additionally, it is possible to mislead staff with sloppy, inaccurate, incomplete, or false survey information or building plans. Any of these situations can lead to or enable Grade and Structure Height April 27, 2004 Page 5 undesirable outcomes, such those projects that lead to the adoption of the Special Circumstance Variance process. A SOLUTION IS NEEDED The current system is too complex since it is based upon the term natural grade and the roof slope average has been misapplied. Obviously the misapplication of the roof slope extension can be easily be addressed through the discontinuance of its application, but staff believes a more fundamental reform of the system is warranted. Staff believes that system can be simplified while achieving most design goals of builders and property owners and maintaining protections from over construction that have been expressed by the community. The following goals can be achieved with a simplified system: a) Reduce design time b) Reduce plan check time c) Easier administer of the code over the long term d) Reduce the environment for mistakes and abuse A PROPOSED SOLUTION - DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT An amendment to Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) is necessary in order to correct the deficiencies identified above. The revisions should begin with Section 20.65.030, which is inaccurately titled "Height of Structure." As demonstrated earlier, the method of measurement prescribed by this section does not reflect the true height of a structure. Rather, it sets a height limit measured from the natural grade which, in most cases, no longer exists. It should be replaced with a procedure that measures height from an elevation that is. based on the existing grade; which reflects the surface of the ground as it -exists prior to rtistorbance in preparation for'a'project rather than the unaltered natural surface of the ground. Elevations should also be referenced to a fixed reference point that can be verified in the field in order to insure compliance with the height limits established by Section 20.65.040 (Height Limitation Zones). Finally, the procedure should be simple to plan check. The proposed code amendment (see Exhibit No. 4) revises Section 20.65.030 so that height is measured from a horizontal plane based on the average elevation of existing grade at all corners of the buildable area of the lot (see Exhibit No. 1). In situations where- retaining walls or planters result in an existing grade that is -not clearly representative of the topography, the Planning Director will select an elevation that minimizes, to the extent reasonably possible, adverse impacts on adjacent properties and encourages some degree of consistency with the maximum building height limits of adjacent properties.. The existing grade will be referenced (a vertical datum) to the elevation of the curb at the midpoint of the front lot line. This approach is not expected to significantly alter the height limit on level lots (see Exhibit No. 2). However, it will severely limit the practice of using the elevation differential between the natural grade and the finished grade to construct structures taller than might otherwise be expected by the City's height limits. Grade and Structure Height April 27, 2004 Page 6 Using the average elevation of existing grade of the buildable area of the lot would be too restrictive on lots containing slopes. Therefore, on the portion of a lot with a slope of more than 10 percent, the height limit will be an inclined plane (daylight plane) beginning at the height limit on the top of the slope and extending to the height limit at the toe of the slope (see Exhibit No. 3). No portion of a structure will be permitted to intercept this daylight plane. This approach will allow development on slopes to develop to the City's height limits. The proposed revision would also delete the provision that established the method of measuring the height of a sloped roof. The ridge of a sloped' roof will no longer be permitted to extend more than 5 feet above the height limit. All parts of the structure would have to be constructed within the height limits, with the limited exceptions for chimneys, vents, cupolas, and similar features provided for in Section 20.65.070 (Exceptions to Height Limits). Removing this provision would more stringently implement the City's height limits and simplify the plan check process. However, it could also result in fewer designs with sloped roofs, which the current provision was clearly intended to encourage. ' However, some adjustment to the actual height limit could minimize this potential effect. Finally, the proposed revision would delete the procedures for establishing grade in cases where the natural grade or finished grade is deemed inappropriate or unworkable for the purpose of measuring height. If the proposed code amendment is adopted, height would be measured from the average elevation of existing grade of the buildable area of the lot; therefore, this procedure would no longer be necessary. ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED. Staff is recommending the initiation of a code amendment with the intent of changing the way in which grade and height is determined. A resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Code appears on the regular agenda this evening. An initial draft of the proposed changes has been identified and will require.further study and input from the community. Should this be the wishes of the Council, the initiation of the amendment is this evening is suggested. Two unresolved issues remain, setting aside the specific language of the amendment; 1. How should plans in the pipeline be addressed? 2. How should the City phaseout the imaginary roof extension? Grade and Structure Height April 27, 2004 Page 7 THE NEXT STEP Staff would like feedback on the following work plan: 1) Initiate a dialog with design professionals on the proposed changes to the how height and grade is measured. 2) Phase out the imaginary roof extension within 60 days of initiation of the code amendment. 3) Upon initiation of a code amendment, target adoption of the new standards in August of 2004 or sooner. Prepared by: 14�d- IL�rick Alfo ,mes Campbell, enio Pla er PatSen' Planner bmitted By: Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director EXHIBITS 1. Height Measurement — Proposed Method 2. Height Measurement — Existing and Proposed 3. Height Measurement — Sloped Lots 4. Proposed revisions to Chapter 20.65 5. Planning Staff Report dated February 5, 2004 6. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes from February 5, 2004 Height Measurement Proposed Method ---Height limit (24'-0") above ...a horizontal plane based on average of existing grade at four corners of buildable area (26'-4.5") E1+E2+E3+E4 4 El = 100. =1 = 100.5' E3 = 104.25' Exhibit 1 Height Measurement Existing and Proposed Height limit Height limit proposed under existing under p p regulations amendment Horizontal plane based on average of existing grade at four corners of buildable area sit SOMA TM 24'-0" I "Natural" Grade Finished Grade Exhibit 2 Height Measurement Sloped Lots Horizontal plane based on average of existing grade at four corners of buildable Toe Of Slope �& Exhibit 3 Page 20.65-1 Height Limits CHAPTER 20.65 HEIGHT LIMITS Sections: 20.65.010 Purpose 20.65.020 Effect of Chapter 20.65.030 Measurement of Height 20.65.040 Height Limitation Zones 20.65.050 Planned Community Districts 20.65.060 Procedure to Exceed Height Limits 20.65.070 Exceptions to Height Limits 20.65.080 Airport Height Limits 20.65.010 Purpose A. This chapter establishes regulations on the height of buildings throughout the City in order to ensure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved. B. This chapter creates 5 height limitation zones which govern building height but allow design flexibility with City review. C. These regulations shall be reviewed and revised as necessary. 20.65.020 Effect of Chapter All sections of this code shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. 20.66.030 Measurement of Height A. Height Limits. For purposes of determining compliance with the height limits established by Section 20.65.040, height shall be measured from a horizontal plane established by determining the average elevation of existing grade at all corners of the buildable area of the lot. In situations where the elevation of existing grade at buildable area of the lot is not clearly representative of the topography (i.e., due to the presence of structures such as retaining walls or planters) the Planning Director -shall select an elevation that minimizes, to the extent reasonably possible, adverse impacts on adjacent properties and encourages some degree of consistency in the maximum building height limits of adjacent properties. DRAFT EXHIBIT4 1k Page 20.65-2 Height Limits B. Exceptions. Sloped Lots. On the portion of a lot that has a gradient in excess of 10 percent (i.e., 10 feet of vertical distance for each 100 feet of horizontal distance) and a minimum elevation differential of 5 feet, structures shall not intercept a daylight plane inclined inward from the height limit measured from top of the slope to the height limit measured from the toe of the slope: 2. Flood Hazard Areas. In flood hazard areas, the height shall be measured from the .finished floor of any portion of the principal building where habitable space is required to be elevated to the elevation established by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps recognized by the Building Department as part of flood safety requirements and maps adopted by City Council. Notwithstanding the building elevations established by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the minimum required first floor finished floor elevation for the interior living areas of all new structures shall be at least 9 feet North Ameridan Vertical Datum (NAVD 88) consistent with the Public Works Department standard for bulkhead elevation. 3. Ocean Boulevard. Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be changed provided such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria. C. Vertical Datum. Existing grade and horizontal plane shall be referenced to a vertical datum (100) set at a point created by the intersection of the curb and aline perpendicular to and intersecting the midpoint of the front lot line. If no curb exists, the elevation of the centerline of the street at a point created by the intersection of the centerline of the street and a line perpendicular to and intersecting the midpoint of the front property line shall be used. On flag lots and lots not located on a street, the elevation at the midpoint of the front property line shall be used. DRAFT IXHIBIT4 Page 20.65-4 Height Limits 20.65.060 Planned Community Districts In each planned community district established subsequent to the adoption this chapter, the height limits shall be established as part of the planned community development plan; provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.65.040 and as designated below: 24/28 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE. Upper Newport Bay Planned Community as established by Ordinance No. 1537 adopted December 17, 1973 (Amendment No. 409). 20.66.060 Procedure to Exceed Height Limits A. Findings. The Planning Commission or City Council in approving any planned community district, any specific plan, or in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit in any district shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. • •• - •2-..The- increased •- building height would result in _ a more -desirable... architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. B. Existing Structures. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any single family home in the R-1 District that is replacing a structure that was in existence on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972). DRAFT EXHIBIT4 ��� Page 20.65-5 Height Limits 20.65.070 Exceptions to Height Limits A. Architectural Features and Solar Equipment. Architectural feature's such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for stairways, and other decorative roof -top features of an open nature, and solar equipment, but excluding parapet walls, may be permitted in excess of permitted height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit. B. Mechanical Equipment and Stairwells. Elevator shafts, enclosed stairwells and screened mechanical equipment, totaling no more than 25 square feet, shall be permitted to up to 5 feet in excess of the height limits. C. Chimneys and Vents. Chimneys and vents shall be permitted in excess of height limits to the minimum extent required by the Uniform Building Code plus an additional 12 inches for the provision of spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening nature. Any such structures or features exceeding the Uniform Building Code requirements shall be subject to the following criteria: That the overall dimensions of the chimney shall be limited to a maximum width of 2 feet by a maximum length of 4 feet for any portion of the structure which exceeds the Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. That the allowance for the additional 12 inches shall be solely for the incorporation of a spark arrestor as required by the manufacturer or for the incorporation of an architectural screening or treatment. All chimneys and vents exceeding the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code, with the exception of an additional 12 inches for spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening nature, shall be subject to the approval of a modification permit. D. Skylights and Roof Windows. The terms skylights and•roofwindows shall be interchangeable and shall be permitted in excess of the average height permitted in the Height Limitation Zones only as indicated in the following. However, in no case shall any portion of any such skylight or roof window structure exceed the maximum ridge height allowed for any roof in the Height Limitation Zone in which the structure is located. Any such skylight or roof window which is openable shall not be permitted under this section, except those which slide open within the same plane as the frame of the structure, or open to the interior of the building only. Any such structure orfeature shall be limited as follows: When mounting on a flat roof structure, the maximum height measured at the highest point of the proposed skylight or roof window, in a plane parallel to the plane of the roof structure, shall not exceed an elevation of 6 inches above the average roof height as DRAFT EXHIBIT Page 20.65-6 Height Limits provided by the Height Limitation Zone, or 6 inches above the finished surface of a conforming roof structure, whichever is less. 2. When mounting on a sloping roof structure, the maximum height measured at the highest point of the proposed skylight or roof window, in a plane parallel to the plane of the roof structure, shall not exceed an elevation of 6 inches above the finished surface of the conforming roof structure. 3. That in the areas of the City where a Height Limitation Zone is superseded by more restrictive height limitations or by a discretionary approval of the Planning Commission or the City Council, this section shall not be applied. E. Flag Poles. Flag poles shall be permitted in the 24/28 and the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zones not to exceed a height of 35 feet. Flag poles shall be permitted in the 26/35 and the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zones not to exceed a height of 50 feet. All other flag poles in excess of the height limits noted above may be permitted subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. F. Boat Cranes. Boat cranes used in conjunction with an approved marine - oriented use may be permitted to exceed the basic height limit applicable to the district in which it -is located, up to a maximum operating height of 70 feet, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. G. Churches. Church structures used for church purposes shall be exempt from ...... .. ....the restrictions of this chapter, except that any such structure exceeding 35 feet in height shall require a use permit. 20.66.080 Airport Height Limits Any project which requires a notice of construction or alteration by the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations Part 77 shall require FAA compliance, and the applicant shall submit a copy of the FAA application to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. If the ALUC requests review of the project, then the project shall be submitted to the commission by the City. Commission determination shall be referred to the City within 60 calendar days from the date of referral of the application to the ALUC, and shall be considered before the City takes any action on the project. If the Commission fails to refer the determination within that period, the proposed project shall be deemed consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). DRAFT EXHIBIT4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 February 5, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FILE COPY FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner L (949) 644-3210, iampbell Dcity.newport-beach.ca.us. SUBJECT: Grade and Structure Height Introduction Commissioner Eaton requested a report from staff on the definition of grade and how the height of buildings and structures is measured. Discussion The Municipal Code establishes how the height of structure is determined. Specifically, Section 20.65.030.A states: °Height of Structure. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between the highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. In determining the height of a sloped roof,, the measurement shall_be tho .yortical distanc@ between the grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, as measured from the ridge of the roof to where the wall plate intersects the roof plane, provided that no part of the roof shall extend more than 5 feet above the permitted height in. the height limitation zone." Grade is defined as the unaltered vertical location of the ground surface unless it is altered or some other grade is identified. Section 20.65.030.E states: `Grade. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be the unaltered natural vertical location of the ground surface unless one of the following applies: At the time of subdivision, the City has approved a grading plan or map, under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved. For sites that were developed without or prior to the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall exercise its best efforts to determine the location of grade for the purpose of measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing on -site elevations and contours, as well as the elevations and contours of adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site. In cases where retaining walls have been constructed or filled surfaces have been used for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972, the 11 buildings are also required to elevate the lowest inhabited finished floor and the height limit is measured from the 6.27 feet above MSL. As with the residential garages, parking areas and parking garages do not have to elevate above 6.27 feet above.MSL and the height limit is measured from the natural grade as opposed to the elevated portion of the building. Issues The primary difficulty in implementation of the height limit is in the determination of what grade should be for the purpose of measuring height when a site is developed or otherwise altered. Applicants are increasingly requesting a grade determination based upon their belief that the existing elevations and contours of the site and its surroundings were excavated and do not represent the "natural" profile of the site. Estimating the historic grade is difficult when limited or no information of past grades exists. Most of these requests relate to sites that were developed prior to October 1972, and it is a rare event to have a grading plan that shows the natural profile of the site and proposed grades at the time of development. In looking at many sloping properties today, retaining walls are evidence of excavation and applicants want to use the prior natural grade to gain additional height for their proposals to increase property values. History The history of the evolution of the definition of grade and building height tells an interesting tale. Prior to 1950, there was no definition of grade within the -Zoning Code and the height of a building was "the vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the site to be covered •-by :the building to the ceiling of the uppermost story:" In-1-950, the definition was changed such that the. upper measurement was taken from the "topmost point of the roof." In 1965, a definition of grade was adopted and the average level of the portion of the lot covered by the building was again used, however projecting balconies were included in the building coverage. Artificial grade was specifically excluded from use unless it was authorized by the Planning Commission. The record from 1965 does not explain why this change was made, but staff theorizes that it was may have been response using the grades of excavated surfaces when property owners desired to build up. In 1972, the City first used the term "natural" within the definition of the term grade. Ordinance No. 1454 states: "For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be natural grade unless the Planning Commission approves a grading plan or map, or a grading permit has been issued on or before the effective date of this ordinance, "under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved..." This standard permits the use of finished grade only for prior approvals issued by the Planning Commission; otherwise, natural grade (which• was not specifically defined) is used. The changes in 1972 also included the Planning Commission's ability to d prohibition of using excavated surfaces and the use of filled surfaces including foundations and retaining walls has been consistently and broadly applied for many years. Natural grade can be a difficult concept when viewed from the outside. A property is judged by its physical attributes and owners and neighbors formulate expectations about a property based upon what they see. Designing a building or structure to a grade that has not been seen for 20, 40 or 80 years, although potentially beneficial to a, property owner, will contradict the expectations neighbors and the community. Staff also believes that unequal application of tl determining the natural profile of a site is sub historical data is available. Finally, the administra and oftentimes uncertain grades can be abL information. As time goes on, the system relies i of all surveys and grading plans so someone can design. ie height limit is possible since active when unclear or limited `ion of a system using historical sed with faulty or inaccurate pore heavily upon the retention use that information for a future Finally;- -recent,-occurrences -have, revealed 'an exploitable weakness iri msing' "existing" or _"natural" grade for the purpose of measuring height. -During the process of new construction, over excavation of the land to build a foundation essentially removes the grade used to measure height. Once this is done, staff is wholly reliant on the survey and plan information in the construction documents to insure a project's compliance with height limits. This has lead staff to conclude that a system using a more permanent benchmark may be preferable. ..Staff -would like the Commission's support.to. examine different methods of measuring and administering building and structure height. Staff would not like to see a relaxation of height standards, unless the Community wanted it and the Council directed it, but we would like to pursue a system that is easier to understand and administer while meeting community expectations. Prepared by: Submitted by: mes Camp ell, Sen' r Planner Q4M C4 M Patricia L. Temple,'Planning Director I Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 Page 3 of 6 Noes: McDaniel Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Grade and Structure height (PA2003-174) ITEM NO. 3 PA20 Discussion of the definition of grade and how building height is measured. Discussion Ms. Temple noted that recently when the Commission had seen an interest or need to make substantive revisions to the Code, we have found that it is far better to bring the issue to the City Council with the question as to whether both staff and the Planning Commission should spend some time on it. This is how we dealt with the questions on changes to the Modification Permit findings. Staff has some administrative problems with, some of the verbiage and concepts in the Code that were introduced in 1972 in terms of height measurement. In these days, with the pressure to optimize height and floor areas, we are starting to see pressure on how we administer the Code on a consistent basis. Staff would like to have a system that is straight forward and easier to administer as a lot of staff time is expended to explain how measurements are done and what the words mean. If we could find an acceptable firm bench mark that is not disturbed by construction and makes sense for at least the flat areas in town then the answer is the answer, and there is no equivocation. We would end up having a bifurcated height measurement provisions because we do need special provisions for slope and cliff areas. One thing the Commission could do would be to agree with staff that the item is worthy of discussion and ask staff to carry a report to perhaps a City Council Study session and ask for their direction of staff and Commission involvement. Commissioner. Eaton noted that the staff. report does. -a good --job of ------ illustrating what the problems are and recommends that this item be brought forward to the City Council. He then asked about verbiage regarding using a basement for height limits. Ms. Temple answered the reason for that language is because they didn't want to have to measure height from a basement. Therefore, it said that if you have excavated for a basement, you go back to what would have been the original grade. A brief discussion followed on: . defining the problem, . involving research both internal and outside sources for model codes, . staff time, . existing status, http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/Mn02O5.htm 04/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 Page 4 of 6 . use of grade benchmarks, . use and means of permanent benchmarks, *increasingly burdensome problem particular properties, . use of artificial surfaces, . alteration of natural grade, . limiting amount of soil export/import, . flexibility within the standards, . Code interpretation, . clarification issues, . terminology definitions, to sloping Commission Kiser noted his support of this item being presented to the City Council for their direction. Commissioner Tucker, referencing an application of setting a grade recently, noted that it was unusual way to do business to try to figure out what natural grade was for something that had been altered so many years ago. The way it seems to work, if you do some alteration -ort•a-lot that an earlier--alteration-occurred. prior to 1972;.you•are operating under one standard. If your lot next door has had no alteration and now you are ready to remodel, you will have a different standard. That is exactly what we grappled with when we tried to make a decision looking back into the past. I am supportive of the Council looking at this issue and deciding whether they think it is worth our while or not. He noted that he believes the big issue is determining natural grade for post 1972 non -subdivision properties where there has not been alterations occurring prior to 1972. Motion was made by Commissioner City Council have a study session manner in which permissible height is warranted. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Tucker to recommend that the to consider if changes in the determined under the Code is Commissioner Selich noted that the problem seems to be that people http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PhiAgendas/MnO2O5.htm 04/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 Page 5 of 6 are trying to push how much floor area they can get in these structures and are trying to get the third story or partial third story. Consideration should be given for a two story height limit in the non - cliff areas where there is cascading down the hill. Toerge, McDaniel, ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow-up - Ms. Temple reported that the Council adopted on second reading the changes to the Zoning Code regarding landmark buildings; ordinance was passed to second reading on the pre -zoning of Annexation of Area 8 and the Emerson Street Tract; adopted on second reading the areas of annexation; letter to City of Irvine regarding transfer and conversion of commercial entitlement to residential just below the 405 Freeway. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Committee reviewed final changes to Chapter 4, and directed staff to prepare a final draft and commence the public hearing process with the Planning Commission. This item is scheduled for March 4th. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted that this list will be prioritized per staff research allowance. h. Project status - Marina Park EIR is scheduled for mid April publication; St Mark's and St. Andrew's is scheduled for mid March publication. Copies will be sent to the Commissioners as ADDITIONAL BUSINESS http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.,us/PlnAgendas/Mn0205.htm 04/20/2004 �� r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ZONING CODE UPDATE CONSULTANT INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach requests statements of qualifications from professional planning firms to serve as a consultant to the City on an update of the Zoning Code. BACKGROUND Newport Beach is a community of 81,000 year-round residents and over 30,000 additional summertime residents. Newport Beach covers 25.4 square miles, including 2.5 square miles of bay and harbor waters. The City has over 30 miles of bay and ocean waterfront. The City of Newport Beach incorporated in 1906 and became a charter city in 1954. The City operates under a Council -Manager form of government with a City Manager and a seven -member City Council from which the mayor is selected. First adopted in 1950, the current Zoning Code and has been amended numerous times, including significant formatting updates in 1976 and 1996. The Zoning Code regulations have evolved over time into a combination of very complicated standards combined with a high number of exceptions and special provisions for unusual situations. This complexity has made plan checking for zoning compliance a long and laborious process that has resulted in a significant backlog. DEFINITION OF TASK The City intends to make significant amendments to the Zoning Code to simplify the residential and commercial development regulations to improve efficiency, to make the rules more easily understood by the public and the design community and reduce the potential for plan check errors, unequal application, and fraud. The consultant would work with Planning Department staff and a steering a,l committee to identify the most problematic sections of the Zoning Code and develop a set of potential code amendments to address these problems. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The following information is requested to enable the City to evaluate consultants' qualifications. Describe the experience of the consultant/firm in drafting or updating zoning regulations and procedures. If experience with similar projects is available, provide the dates the projects were accomplished and the names and telephone numbers of project contacts. Explain the direct role of the consultant/firm if it was not the prime consultant, and describe the role of the consultant/firm Project Manager in these projects. If a team approach for this project typically will be used, identify each subconsultant's relevant experience, the names of subconsultant contacts and their telephone numbers. If a team approach will be used, discuss the history of interaction between various members of the team. Identify the consultant(s) familiarity with Newport Beach, including any previous assignments in the City and assignments with other communities with similar characteristics or issues. Include the resumes of key individuals who will be assigned to the project, including individuals from any subconsultant who will be involved in the project. Provide a current reference list of a minimum of three clients, which includes names and telephone numbers of individuals who have a history of working with the consultant. Please identify the project for which the services were provided. If experience with similar consulting projects is available, provide a reference list of these clients and contact their information. DEADLINE The required submittals are due by 5:00 p.m. on * *, 2005. Please submit qualification information to: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3219 gram irez@city. newport-beach.ca. us 2 Please submit three (3) copies of your qualifications. Facsimile and electronic submissions will not be accepted. All questions, exceptions and requests for clarification should be included in the cover letter accompanying the submittal. SELECTION PROCESS The City will appoint a committee to review the statement of qualifications. Consultants that meet the City's requirements will be notified. The City of Newport Beach reserves the right to reject all responses and terminate or reopen the selection process at any time. July 27, 2005 Ms. Patricia L. Temple Director, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: 'Proposal for the examination/revision of residential development standards and identification of Zoning Code issues Dear Ms. Temple: Thank you for inviting us to discuss the City's short-term project to review, revise and simplify the residential development standards and the City's long-term plans to update the Zoning Code, including the review of nonresidential development standards. Based on our recent discussions, this proposal will address our proposed approach to the examination/revision of the Zoning Code's existing residential development standards and to the identification of for developing a scope of work to update the Zoning Code. We are also available to prepare any environmental documentation that may be required for the project. The attached recommended work plan is based on our current understanding of the City's needs and our experience with other similar projects. We anticipate working very closely with City staff and the Council's appointed advisory committee throughout the process of document preparation, review, and adoption. And, as always, we will be highly responsive to any evolving City or committee objectives as they may develop over the course of the project. We welcome the opportunity to work with the City of Newport Beach on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 855-5778 if you require any additional information. We encourage you to contact our past clients who can attest to the RBF team's ability to deliver an excellent product that meets the City's needs. Finally, please note that I am the contact person for the team and that I am authorized to represent and bind RBF Consulting and the project team to the statements made in this letter proposal. Respectfully submitted, RBF Consulting Ron Pflugrath, AICP Vice President Director of Planning and Design City of Newport Beach Page 1 of 4 Proposal for Consulting Services WORK PLAN AND BUDGET Examination/Revision of Residential Development Standards and Identification of Zoning Code Issues 1. Document review. The project team will review all City documents relevant to the examination/revision of the residential and nonresidential development standards and the overall update of the Zoning Code, including but not limited to the draft of the General Plan currently being updated and the existing Zoning Code. Budget: $2,000 2. Meetings with staff (4). The consultant team will conduct up to four meetings with appropriate City staff members to: • Review the City's expectations for the project • Discuss problems and issues associated with existing residential development standards. • Tour the City to observe actual built conditions. • Review preliminary format and organization alternatives. • Identify issues related to the overall update of the Zoning code in three tiers of importance; urgent, needed but not urgent, and fixes for things that no longer work. • Receive input on draft documents related to residential development standards and list of issues related to the overall update of the Zoning Code. Some meetings with staff may follow other meetings with the Advisory Committee as a follow up measure and staff meetings can be converted to Advisory Committee meetings if desired. At least two members of the consultant team will attend each meeting. If desired by the City, the consultants will attend additional meetings on a time and materials basis ($1,000 per consultant per additional meeting). Budget: $8,000 3. Meetings with Advisory Committee (3). The consultant team will conduct up to three meetings with the Council -appointed Advisory Committee to: • Review the City's and Committee's expectations for the first phase project. • Discuss project schedule and anticipated products. • Discuss problems and issues associated with existing residential development standards. • Identify issues related to the overall update of the Zoning code in three tiers of importance; urgent, needed but not urgent, and fixes for things that no longer work. • Receive input on draft documents related to residential development standards and list of issues related to the overall update of the Zoning Code. City of Newport Beach Proposal for Consulting Services Page 2 of 4 At least two members of the consultant team will attend each meeting. If desired by the City, the consultants will attend additional meetings on a time and materials basis. Budget: $6,000 5. Initial Draft. Following the initial meetings with staff and the Advisory Committee, the consultant team will prepare a draft of the residential development standards in a format compatible with the existing Zoning Code. The preparation of the initial draft will be based on our knowledge and experience with similar projects and may also involve research as to industry standards and alternative approaches. A preliminary set of graphics and illustrations will be included, where needed. Budget: $8,000 6. Second Draft. Following input from staff and the Advisory Committee, the initial draft residential development standards will be amended and a second draft will be prepared for presentation to staff and the committee for review and input. Budget: $3,000 7. Public Hearing Draft. Following input from staff and the committee, the second draft residential development standards will be amended and a public hearing draft will the prepared for presentation to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and City Council for review and adoption. Budget: $1,500 8. List of issues/scope of work. Simultaneous with the examination/revision of the residential development standards, the consultant team will work with staff and the Advisory Committee to inventory issues and suggest potential solutions for issues related to the overall update of the Zoning Code. Up to three revisions/additions to the list are anticipated. When complete the list will serve as input for the scope of work to guide the overall update of the Zoning Code. Budget! $2,000 9. Planning Commission hearings (2). The consultant will attend and participate in up to two public hearings with the Planning Commission to review the revised residential development standards. This task anticipates the preparation of a PowerPoint presentation to assist the commission and public in better understanding the material being presented. During the hearings, the consultant will provide support for Commission and public review, as determined appropriate by the City's project manager, by being available to answer questions about proposed revisions, to discuss possible changes, and to draft revised language in response to staff or Commission direction. Only one team member will attend the Commission hearings. If desired by the City, the consultants will attend additional meetings on a time and materials basis. Budget: $2,000 City of Newport Beach Proposal for Consulting Services Page 3 of 4 L 10. City Council hearings (2). The consultants will attend and participate in up to two public hearings where the City Council considers the adoption of the residential development standards. Only one team member will attend the Commission hearings. The consultants will 'be prepared to present the previously prepared (Planning Commission) PowerPoint presentation. If desired by the City, the consultants will attend additional meetings on a time and materials basis. Budget: $2,000 TOTAL BUDGET: $33,600 * * The budget may be reduced depending on the number of consultant team members that attend, meetings. I:\pdata\00000100\10u1PROPOSAL\Newport Beach\Zoning\Newport Beach Letter Proposal p-28.051.doc 0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS N TO) 0 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE SUBMITTED BY: Ron Pflugrath, AICP Director of Planning and Design REF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949-855-5778 a >v ■ CONSULTING June 30, 2005 Mr. Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department Post Office Box 1768 Newport -Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Request for Qualifications, Zoning Code Update for the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Ramirez: RBF Consulting is pleased to submit this statement of qualifications for the preparation of the zoning code update for the City of Newport Beach. The RBF team has a long- standing professional relationship and in various combinations has worked on over 80 zoning and subdivision ordinances, unified development codes, design guidelines, and other types of development regulations. Our team has the staffing resources and a comprehensive range of experience with similar projects that will enable us to successfully complete all aspects of the City's project in an effective, timely, and cost efficient manner. Our team's objectives for the updated zoning code will be to create a document that is clear, concise, high quality, comprehensive, user friendly, visually -oriented (i.e., graphics, tables, and illustrations), and easy to administer, enforce, and update. The zoning code update will be drafted to eliminate redundancy and internal conflicts, and will reorganize the existing zoning code into an integrated, consistent, and logical structure, along with an improved numbering and organizational system to better accommodate future changes and expansion. The team is composed of three well -seasoned professionals, and we believe that our combined 90 years of experience offers important benefits to the City as it works through the zoning code update process. In addition, I have become quite familiar with the City due to my involvement in the preparation of the new sign code. The enclosed statement of qualifications identifies the specific individuals who will draft the zoning code update and describes our various backgrounds. We are very much "hands-on" professionals and gain particular satisfaction from working closely with our municipal clients. The fact that many of our past clients have engaged us for additional work demonstrates our ability to deliver timely products and services of high quality, at reasonable cost. PLANNING ® DESIGN 8 CONSTRUCTION 14726 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618-2027 ■ P.O. Box 57057, Irvine, CA 92619-7057 ■ 949.472.3506 ■ Fax 949.472.8373 Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada ■ www.RBF.com pwwd.mro ded Popov I Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Page 2 We are excited about the prospect of participating in this important project and are prepared to demonstrate our sincere interest in working with the City of Newport Beach. We hope that our enthusiasm for this project is clear and that we will have the opportunity to work with the City. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (949) 855-5778. Respectfully submitted, /��,.�. /�V/ �- Ron Pflugrath, AICP Senior Associate Director of Planning and Design FF CONOULTING P"NNINO 0 DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE SU13AUTTED BY: Ron Pflugrath, AICP Director of Planning and Design RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949-855-5778 Description of Team Staffing, Organization, and Management............................................................................2 ProjectList...............................................................................................................................:.................................5 Selected References...................................................................................................................................................7 Advantagesof Team................................................................................................................................................12 RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Description of Team Staffing, Organization, and Management Team organization. RBF proposes to assist the City ofNewportBeach in updating its Zoning Code with a team of seasoned professionals as described below. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Organizational Chart Ron Pflugrath RBF Project Manager Paul Crawford Principal Multad Clark & Associates Laura Stearns I I Ron Menguita Planner Mapping Peggy Preston Administrative Support Bruce Jacobson Principal Jacobson & Wack Bob Kiekner Graphics Team members. The actual individuals who would draft the updated Newport Beach Zoning Code are: o Ron Pflugrath, AICP, of RBF Consulting. o Paul Crawford, FAICP, of Crawford Multari & Clark (CMCA). o Bruce Jacobson, of Jacobson & Wack. -2- [ RBF Consulting Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Team responsibilities. The responsibilities of the team would be allocated among the members as follows: o Ron Pflugrath would serve as project manager, editor, and primary liaison with the City. o Paul Crawford would prepare the zoning districts, allowable list of uses, and zone -driven standards for the updated zoning code. o Ron Pflugrath would prepare the performance and development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking, etc.) in concert with Bruce Jacobson. o Bruce Jacobson would prepare the administrative provisions of the updated zoning code. o RBF would also be responsible for document production of the updated zoning code. o RBF and CMCA graphics technicians would prepare the graphics for the updated zoning code. t. Team qualifications. Summaries of team member qualifications and contact information are provided on the next two pages. 1. -2- ( RBF Consulting Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Team Member Oualifications Ron Pflugrath, AICP A Senior Associate and Director ofPlanning and Design for RBF Consulting, Ron Pflugrath has over 30 years of varied urban planning experience, including positions with California cities (including the City of Pomona) and consulting firms. His municipal planning experience covers both current and advance planning, including preparation of various general plan elements, redevelopment plan studies, and zoning ordinances. Mr. Pflugrath has worked on over 30 development codes and zoning ordinances, several of which have received local and State APA planning awards. Mr. Pflugrath was a major contributor to the national APA award -winning City of San Bernardino Development Code. Paul Crawford, FAICP A principal with Crawford Multari & Clark, Paul Crawford's 30-year planning career has focused on simplifying and clarifying land use regulations for a wide variety of cities and counties. Since 1990, he has worked on over 60 zoning and development codes, 25 general plans, and numerous other planning projects for a wide variety of cities and counties. Before forming CMCA, he served from 1980 to 1990 as Director of Planning and Building for San Luis Obispo County and Executive Director of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. His work on the San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance was recognized by an award from the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. Bruce Jacobson l . A principal with Jacobson & Wack, Bruce Jacobson is a land use planner and administrator with over 30 years of planning experience. He has prepared over 60 zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, design guidelines, and development codes for a variety of cities and counties. Earlier planning positions include DeputyPlanning Director for San Luis Obispo County, Principal Planner for Ventura County, and Planning Director for the City of Santa Paula. His work on the City of San ( Bernardino Development Code was recognized with a national award for outstanding planning from the American Planning Association. The APA award selection jury cited the Code's easy -to -use format, graphics, and straightforward (non -legalese) language as major attributes contributing to the [ "user-friendly" nature of the Code. The San Bernardino Development Code combined zoning, subdivision, design guidelines, and hillside preservation standards into one comprehensive, internally integrated document. -3- RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Team Member Contact Information Ron Pflugrath, AICP RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 949-855-5778 Paul Crawford, FAICP Crawford Multari & Clark Associates 641 Higuera Street, Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-541-2622 Bruce Jacobson Jacobson & Wack 9530 Hageman Road Suite B-205 Bakersfield, CA 93312 661-213-4100 -4- RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Project List Members of the RBF team have individually, and together, prepared over 80 zoning and development codes, subdivision ordinances, design guidelines documents, and related regulations, as both consultants and prior city and county staff. This extensive body ofwork includes the following projects, some of which are works in progress. Agricultural Preserve Rules of Procedure, Placer County Building and Construction Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County l . Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Carmel by -the -Sea Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Guadalupe Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Malibu l . Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Pacific Grove Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Pismo Beach Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Marin County Coastal Zoning Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Alameda Development Code (zoning/subdivision/grading/NPDES); City of Calabasas l Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Chico Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Diamond Bar [ Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Hollister Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Diamond Bar Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Lodi Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Norwalk Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Pomona Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Simi Valley Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Sonoma Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Stockton Development Code (zoning/subdivision/coastal), Marin County [ Development Code (zoning/subdivision), San Bernardino County Development Code (zoning/subdivision/coastal), Santa Barbara County Development Code (zoning/subdivision/coastal), Sonoma County I , Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design) Town of Truckee Grading Ordinance, City of Calabasas f Grading Ordinance, Mendocino County l . Grading Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County Land Use and Development Regulations, Port San Luis Harbor District Land Use Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County t Mixed Use Ordinance, City of Glendale Neotraditional Design Options Model Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County COG t Neotraditional Design Options Ordinance and Design Guidelines, City of Paso Robles t Sign Ordinance, City of Modesto Sign Ordinance, City of Newport Beach Sign Ordinance, City of Pasadena -5- RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update [ Sign Ordinance, City of Sacramento Sign ordinances with all the above development codes, and the zoning ordinances below Subdivision Ordinance, City of Buellton i Subdivision Ordinance, City of Lodi Subdivision Ordinance, City of Malibu Subdivision Ordinance, City of South Pasadena Subdivision Ordinance, Mendocino County Subdivision ordinances as part of all of the above development codes (: Zoning Map, City of Culver City l Zoning Map, City of Calabasas Zoning Map, City of Diamond Bar Zoning Map, City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map, City of South Pasadena Zoning Map, Town of Loomis [ Zoning Map, Town of Windsor Zoning Ordinance, City of Azusa Zoning Ordinance, City of Buellton [ Zoning Ordinance, City of Culver City Zoning Ordinance, City of Desert Hot Springs Zoning Ordinance, City of El Paso de Robles f Zoning Ordinance, City of Gustine Zoning Ordinance, City of Lodi Zoning Ordinance, City of Lompoc [ • Zoning Ordinance, City of Malibu Zoning Ordinance, City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance, City of Novato t . Zoning Ordinance, City of Ojai Zoning Ordinance, City of Oxnard Zoning Ordinance, City of Pacific Grove Zoning Ordinance, City of Pasadena Zoning Ordinance, City of Pismo Beach Zoning Ordinance, City of Santa Rosa Zoning Ordinance, City of South Pasadena Zoning Ordinance, City of Tustin fy Zoning Ordinance, City of West Hollywood Zoning Ordinance, Calaveras County Zoning Ordinance, Placer County [ Zoning Ordinance, Solano County Zoning Ordinance, Town of Loomis Zoning Ordinance, Town of Windsor l Zoning Ordinance update technical assistance, City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance update technical assistance, City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance update technical assistance, City of Roseville -6- (:� l RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update l . Selected References ( The following are references from a small number of our many projects. References to projects for (, cities are listed first, followed by references to projects for counties. We strongly encourage contacting our past and current clients regarding our ability to complete our projects and tasks in a ( timely manner, with high quality and accuracy, and within the approved budget. We have never l . required a budget adjustment for a zoning project unless the client requested additional work products that were clearly beyond the scope of the original work plan. The following are relevant examples of our zoning projects. City of Chico Development Code - Prepareda comprehensive revision to the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances following the adoption of a new General Plan, and the integration into the Development Code ofnew community design guidelines. Besides implementing new General Plan policies involving compact urban form and other community design issues, the update emphasizes logical organization and ease of use, as well as streamlining the development review process. Contact: Pam Figge, Senior Planner City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 [ 916-895-4851 City of Diamond Bar Development Code - Prepared a new Development Code for a small City located in the eastern edge of Los Angeles County. Contact: Ann Lungu, Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar 21825 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909-396-5676 City of Huntington Park - Prepared a comprehensive Zoning Code incorporating zoning and subdivision regulations into an integrated document. y Contact: Henry Gray, City Planner City of Huntington Park 6550 Miles Avenue [ Huntington Park, CA 90255 (323) 582-6161 -7- fRBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update { City of Murrieta Development Code - Prepared a comprehensive Development Code, incorporating zoning, subdivision, and Citywide design guidelines into an integrated document. Contact: Patti Nahill, Senior Planner (now a private consultant) City of Murrieta 26442 Beckman Court l . Murrieta, CA 92562 909-677-0405 • City of Novato Zoning Ordinance - Prepared a comprehensive update of the Novato Zoning Ordinance, which followed the adoption of the City's new General Plan. The update focused on usability, and the integration of new regulations on sensitive habitat and other sensitive environmental and scenic resources, in compliance with the environmental regulations of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Contact: Alan Lazure, Principal Planner City of Novato ( 900 Sherman Avenue Novato, CA 94945 r 415-897-4306 City of Pasadena Sign Code — Conducted an in depth sign study, focusing on replacing the existing sign ordinance with a more updated sign code reflective of the City's future development policies, [ , specifically focusing on Old Pasadena. The update reduced ambiguity through specific design standards and helped eliminate code interpretations. Specific citywide design guidelines were (' implemented to promote quality signs. Contact: Denver Miller, Principal Planner City of Pasadena 175 North Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 91109-7215 l 626-744-6733 City of San Bernardino Development Code - Prepared a comprehensive Development Code, (y incorporating zoning, subdivision, and Citywide design guidelines into an integrated, easy -to -use t document. Hillside development and ridgeline protection were among the many issues addressed. Recipient of National APA Outstanding Planning Atvard for Plan Implementation,1992. ' Contact: Valerie Ross, Principal Planner City of San Bernardino 300 North AD@ Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 909-384-5057 RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update City of Seaside Zoning Ordinance — Prepared an update to Zoning Ordinance; draft is currently undergoing public review and comment. 1 Contact: Mary Orrison, Planning Manager (' City of Seaside ( 440 Harcourt Avenue Seaside, CA 93955 831-899-6737 City of Stockton Development Code -Prepared a comprehensive Development Code, incorporating ( zoning and subdivision regulations into an integrated document. Contact: Dianne Keil Smith, Senior Planner City of Stockton 345 North El Dorado Street Stockton, CA 95202 Calaveras County Zoning Code — Paul Crawford and Bruce Jacobson are comprehensively updating the County's outdated Zoning Code. Contact: Robert Selhnan, Acting Planning Director 209-754-6394 Marin County Development Code - Revised the County s zoning and subdivision ordinances into a comprehensive Development Code, including regulations for development within the Coastal Zone. ( Issues addressed ranged from standards for high quality urban development, to agricultural land t preservation, to development within environmentally sensitive areas subject to the different requirements of the California Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and l Development Commission (BCDC). Contact: Alex Hinds, AICP, Community Development Director 415-499-7880 (:1 RBF Consulting— Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update . Placer County Zoning Ordinance - Completed a reorganization and reformatting of the County s outdated Zoning Ordinance, including consolidation and redefinition of existing zoning districts, and the retention of some existing requirements and standards, all with extensive rewriting to improve l . clarity and understanding. The ordinance deals with land use and development in unincorporated urban communities and rural areas from the San Joaquin Valley floor to the Sierra around Lake Tahoe. The standards dealt with a range of issues from senior citizen housing projects within urban areas, to high-tech business parks, to ski resort facilities. Contact: Fred Yeager, Planning Director 916-889-7470 San Bernardino County Development Code — Preparing reorganization and update of Development Code in conjunction with update of General Plan. Contact: Randy Scott, Division Chief, Advance Planning Division 909-387-4147 lSan Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance - Paul Crawford drafted this innovative, comprehensive replacement for an outdated Zoning Ordinance, which used a single -map for the purposes of both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and zoning. The Land Use Ordinance ( also provided detailed standards for individual unincorporated communities, to preserve and enhance their unique character, avoiding the "one size fits all" problems that can result from attempting to apply countywide regulations to diverse communities and rural areas. The Land Use Ordinance (, received a Meritorious Program Award from the California Chapter of American Planning Association in October 1981. Crawford was again hired by San Luis Obispo County to update the Land Use Ordinance in 2000. t. Contact: Alex Hinds, AICP, Marin County Community Development Director ( (former San Luis Obispo County Director of Planning and Building) 1. 415-499-7880 Vic Holanda, AICP, Director of Planning and Building 805-781-5600 l . Santa Barbara County Development Code —Two phase project to reorganize and revise the Santa t Barbara County Development Code, combining three separate zoning ordinances into one comprehensive document. Contact: Tom Fratchey, Project Manager ( 805-797-4482 1. -10- RBF Consulting— Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Solano County Zoning Ordinance - Paul Crawford and Bruce Jacobson are updating the Solano County Zoning Ordinance to modernize and reorganize its provisions. The County's zoning regulations address a wide variety of resource -based land uses, as well as the urban development issues associated with the commute -shed of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contact: Mike Yankovich, Senior Planner l 707-421-6765 L Sonoma County Development Code - Paul Crawford is working with the Sonoma County Counsel's office and the Permitting and Resource Management Department to complete a comprehensive reorganization and major revisions to all of the County's development regulations. This effort is producing a unified, internally consistent Development Code that will serve as a single reference for all County development requirements. Contact: Pete Parkinson, AICP, Director Permitting and Resource Management Department 707-565-1900 NIE RBF Consulting— Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Advantages of Team l . We believe that our team ofprofessionals offers Newport Beach an ideal combination of background and expertise for preparing all components of the updated Zoning Code. Our knowledge and experience would ensure that all documents produced would not only be of high technical quality, but would also be user-friendly, clear, practical, understandable, and easily administered. All team. members have strong reputations for producing timely, high -quality work. We believe that our team offers the following advantages: 1. Significant experience with the drafting and adoption of integrated zoning and subdivision ( ordinances, development codes, and other types of development regulations and associated public participation efforts. The City of San Bernardino Development Code, completed by Jacobson & Wack and RBF Consulting, received a national award from the American ( Planning Association (APA), and team members have also received numerous awards from the California Chapter of the APA. These demonstrate our ability to create solutions to zoning and planning problems that are both innovative and practical. 1. 2. Extensive "hands on" experience with all levels of zoning and subdivision ordinance administration, ranging from answering zoning inquiries at the "front counter," to the (, processing of land use permit applications and preparation of staff reports, to division and department management. We have personally drafted zoning, subdivision, grading, and f building ordinances, and then been responsible for the administration and enforcement of t . those regulations. We understand the wide array of day-to-day issues staff must address in ordinance administration, and the needs of the public for timely, accurate responses to their questions. Besides our past experience, our work in zoning and subdivision ordinance administration is ongoing for several public agency clients. Therefore, our ordinance drafting reflects hands- on experience, and understanding of current needs and trends within planning and community development departments, and is not simply an academic or theoretical exercise 1 based on working with codes at some point in the past. 3. Acknowledged experience with successful public participation and outreach programs, ( including public workshops, publicity, and notice materials of all types. 4. Team members regularly share their experiences with, and perspectives on zoning and [ subdivision ordinance preparation and administration through two professional development courses: Redesigning the Zoning Ordinance, at UC Davis Extension, and Designing and Implementing Effective Zoning Ordinances, at UCLA Extension. 5. Our established, effective working relationships as a team, developed from numerous previous projects, enable us to provide efficient and cost-effective services. -12- RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update 6. Our emphasis on firm principals actually drafting our zoning ordinances and development codes, ensuring that our products reflect the most extensive experience and informed analysis. 7. Extensive technology resources and expertise, including GIS (Are/Info, ArcView, and Atlas*GIS), CAD and computer graphics, and website development. The team has prepared zoning maps for several communities, and has provided both CAD and GIS mapping for several counties. -13- `i , �{ I WF n CONSULTING PLANNING a DESIGN G CONSTRUCTION t t i� I� FJ L_J I L STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE SUBMITTED BY: Ron Pflugrath, AICP Director of Planning and Design RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949-855-5778 11 FBF F ' CONSULTING June 30, 2005 ' Mr. Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ' Re: Request for Qualifications, Zoning Code Update for the City of Newport Beach ' Dear Mr. Ramirez: RBF Consulting is pleased to submit this statement of qualifications for the preparation of the zoning code update for the City of Newport Beach. The RBF team has a long- standing professional relationship and in various combinations has worked on over 80 ' zoning and subdivision ordinances, unified development codes, design guidelines, and other types of development regulations. Our team has the staffing resources and a comprehensive range of experience with similar projects that will enable us to successfully complete all aspects of the City's project in an effective, timely, and cost efficient manner. Our team's objectives for the updated zoning code will be to create a document that is clear, concise, high quality, comprehensive, user friendly, visually -oriented (i.e., graphics, tables, and illustrations), and easy to administer, enforce, and update. The zoning code update will be drafted to eliminate redundancy and internal conflicts, and will reorganize the existing zoning code into an integrated, consistent, and logical structure, along with an improved numbering and organizational system to better accommodate future changes and expansion. ' The team is composed of three well -seasoned professionals, and we believe that our combined 90 years of experience offers important benefits to the City as it works through the zoning code update process. In addition, 1 have become quite familiar with the City due to my involvement in the preparation of the new sign code. The enclosed statement of qualifications identifies the specific individuals who will draft the zoning code update and describes our various backgrounds. We are very much "hands-on" professionals and gain particular satisfaction from working closely with our municipal clients. The fact that many of our past clients have engaged us for additional work demonstrates our ability to deliver timely products and services of high quality, at reasonable cost. ' PLANNING 13 DESIGN 13 CONSTRUCTION ' 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618-2027 ■ P.O. Box 57057, Irvine, CA 92619-7057 ■ 949.472 3505 ■ Fax 949.472.8373 Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada ■ www RBRcom pnnteaon,erycbtl paper F FI C' I L �I 1 1_1 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Page 2 We are excited about the prospect of participating in this important project and are prepared to demonstrate our sincere interest in working with the City of Newport Beach. We hope that our enthusiasm for this project is clear and that we will have the opportunity to work with the City. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (949) 855-5778. Respectfully submitted, Ron Pflugrath, AICP Senior Associate Director of Planning and Design 11 CONGIILTINO PLANNING 0 GESION ■ CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR ' NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE SUBMITTED BY: ' Ron Pflugrath, AICP Director of Planning and Design RBF Consulting ' 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 ' 949-855-5778 I Description of Team Staffing, Organization, and Management............................................................................2 ProjectList.................................................................................................................................................................5 SelectedReferences...................................................................................................................................................7 Advantagesof Team................................................................................................................................................12 I 7 I E 11 [1 I RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Description of Team Staffing, Organization, and Management Team organization. RBF proposes to assist the City ofNewport Beach in updating its Zoning Code with a team of seasoned professionals as described below. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Organizational Chart Ron Pflugrath RBF Project Manager Paul Crawford Principal Multarl Clark & Associates Laura Stearns Ron Menguita Planner I I Mapping Peggy Preston Administrative Support Bruce Jacobson Principal Jacobson & Wack Bob Klekner Graphics Team members. The actual individuals who would draft the updated Newport Beach Zoning Code are: o Ron Pflugrath, AICP, of RBF Consulting. o Paul Crawford, FAICP, of Crawford Multari & Clark (CMCA). o Bruce Jacobson, of Jacobson & Wack. -2- i I r7 L-, J IJ 1 1 i i 1 J u i I 7 I RBF Consulting Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Team responsibilities. The responsibilities of the team would be allocated among the members as follows: o Ron Pflugrath would serve as project manager, editor, and primary liaison with the City. o Paul Crawford would prepare the zoning districts, allowable list of uses, and zone -driven standards for the updated zoning code. o Ron Pflugrath would prepare the performance and development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking, etc.) in concert with Bruce Jacobson. o Bruce Jacobson would prepare the administrative provisions of the updated zoning code. o RBF would also be responsible for document production of the updated zoning code. o RBF and CMCA graphics technicians would prepare the graphics for the updated zoning code. Team qualifications. Summaries of team member qualifications and contact information are provided on the next two pages. -2- RBF Consulting Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update I ITeam Member Qualifications Ron Pflugrath, AICP A Senior Associate and Director ofPlanning and Design for RBF Consulting, Ron Pflugrath has over 30 years of varied urban planning experience, including positions with California cities (including the City of Pomona) and consulting firms. His municipal planning experience covers both current and advance planning, including preparation of various general plan elements, redevelopment plan studies, and zoning ordinances. Mr. Pflugrath has worked on over 30 development codes and zoning ordinances, several of which have received local and State APA planning awards. Mr. Pflugrath was a major contributor to the national APA award -winning City of San Bernardino Development Code. ' Paul Crawford, FAICP A principal with Crawford Multari & Clark, Paul Crawford's 30-year planning career has focused on simplifying and clarifying land use regulations for a wide variety of cities and counties. Since 1990, he has worked on over 60 zoning and development codes, 25 general plans, and numerous other planning projects for a wide variety of cities and counties. Before forming CMCA, he served from 1980 to 1990 as Director of Planning and Building for San Luis Obispo County and Executive Director of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. His work on the San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance was recognized by an award from the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. Bruce Jacobson A principal with Jacobson & Wack, Bruce Jacobson is a land use planner and administrator with over 30 years of planning experience. He has prepared over 60 zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, design guidelines, and development codes for a variety of cities and counties. Earlier planning positions include DeputyPlanning Director for San Luis Obispo County, Principal Planner for Ventura County, and Planning Director for the City of Santa Paula. His work on the City of San Bernardino Development Code was recognized with a national award for outstanding planning from the American Planning Association. The APA award selection jury cited the Code's easy -to -use format, graphics, and straightforward (non -legalese) language as major attributes contributing to the "user-friendly" nature of the Code. The San Bernardino Development Code combined zoning, subdivision, design guidelines, and hillside preservation standards into one comprehensive, internally integrated document. I 1 -3- RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Team Member Contact Information Ron Pflugrath, AICP RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 949-855-5778 Paul Crawford, FAICP Crawford Multari & Clark Associates 641 Higuera Street, Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-541-2622 Bruce Jacobson Jacobson & Wac 9530 Hageman 1 Bakersfield, CA 661-213-4100 I RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Project List Members of the RBF team have individually, and together, prepared over 80 zoning and development codes, subdivision ordinances, design guidelines documents, and related regulations, as both consultants and prior city and county staff. This extensive body of work includes the following projects, some of which are works in progress. Agricultural Preserve Rules of Procedure, Placer County Building and Construction Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Carmel by -the -Sea Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Guadalupe ' Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Malibu Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Pacific Grove Coastal Zoning Ordinance, City of Pismo Beach Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Marin County Coastal Zoning Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County ' Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Alameda Development Code (zoning/subdivision/grading/NPDES), City of Calabasas Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Chico Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Diamond Bar Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Hollister Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Diamond Bar ' Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Lodi Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Norwalk Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Pomona Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Simi Valley Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design), City of Sonoma Development Code (zoning/subdivision), City of Stockton Development Code (zoning/subdivision/coastal), Marin County Development Code (zoning/subdivision), San Bernardino County Development Code (zoning/subdivision/coastal), Santa Barbara County ' Development Code (zoning/subdivision/coastal), Sonoma County Development Code (zoning/subdivision/design) Town of Truckee Grading Ordinance, City of Calabasas Grading Ordinance, Mendocino County Grading Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County Land Use and Development Regulations, Port San Luis Harbor District Land Use Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County Mixed Use Ordinance, City of Glendale Neotraditional Design Options Model Ordinance, San Luis Obispo County COG Neotraditional Design Options Ordinance and Design Guidelines, City of Paso Robles Sign Ordinance, City of Modesto Sign Ordinance, City of Newport Beach Sign Ordinance, City of Pasadena -5- 'I ' RBF Consulting— Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update ISign Ordinance, City of Sacramento Sign ordinances with all the above development codes, and the zoning ordinances below Subdivision Ordinance, City of Buellton ' Subdivision Ordinance, City of Lodi Subdivision Ordinance, City of Malibu Subdivision Ordinance, City of South Pasadena Subdivision Ordinance, Mendocino County Subdivision ordinances as part of all of the above development codes Zoning Map, City of Culver City Zoning Map, City of Calabasas Zoning Map, City of Diamond Bar ' Zoning Map, City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map, City of South Pasadena Zoning Map, Town of Loomis Zoning Map, Town of Windsor Zoning Ordinance, City of Azusa Zoning Ordinance, City of Buellton Zoning Ordinance, City of Culver City Zoning Ordinance, City of Desert Hot Springs Zoning Ordinance, City of El Paso de Robles Zoning Ordinance, City of Gustine Zoning Ordinance, City of Lodi Zoning Ordinance, City of Lompoc Zoning Ordinance, City of Malibu Zoning Ordinance, City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance, City of Novato Zoning Ordinance, City of Ojai Zoning Ordinance, City of Oxnard Zoning Ordinance, City of Pacific Grove Zoning Ordinance, City of Pasadena Zoning Ordinance, City of Pismo Beach Zoning Ordinance, City of Santa Rosa Zoning Ordinance, City of South Pasadena Zoning Ordinance, City of Tustin Zoning Ordinance, City of West Hollywood Zoning Ordinance, Calaveras County Zoning Ordinance, Placer County Zoning Ordinance, Solano County Zoning Ordinance, Town of Loomis Zoning Ordinance, Town of Windsor Zoning Ordinance update technical assistance, City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance update technical assistance, City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance update technical assistance, City of Roseville ' -6- I RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update ISelected References The following are references from a small number of our many projects. References to projects for cities are listed first, followed by references to projects for counties. We strongly encourage contacting our past and current clients regarding our ability to complete our projects and tasks in a timely manner, with high quality and accuracy, and within the approved budget. We have never required a budget adjustment for a zoning project unless the client requested additional work products that were clearly beyond the scope of the original work plan. The following are relevant examples of our zoning projects. City of Chico Development Code - Prepared a comprehensive revision to the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances following the adoption of a new General Plan, and the integration into the Development Code of new community design guidelines. Besides implementing new General Plan policies involving compact urban form and other community design issues, the update emphasizes logical organization and ease of use, as well as streamlining the development review process. ' Contact: Pam Figge, Senior Planner City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 ' Chico, CA 95927 916-895-4851 City of Diamond Bar Development Code - Prepared a new Development Code for a small City located in the eastern edge of Los Angeles County. Contact: Ann Lungu, Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar 21825 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 909-396-5676 City of Huntington Park - Prepared a comprehensive Zoning Code incorporating zoning and subdivision regulations into an integrated document. Contact: Henry Gray, City Planner City of Huntington Park 6550 Miles Avenue Huntington Park, CA 90255 (323)582-6161 r 1 -7- I 1 r I RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update City of Murrieta Development Code - Prepared a comprehensive Development Code, incorporating zoning, subdivision, and Citywide design guidelines into an integrated document. Contact: Patti Nahill, Senior Planner (now a private consultant) City of Murrieta 26442 Beclanan Court Murrieta, CA 92562 909-677-0405 City of Novato Zoning Ordinance - Prepared a comprehensive update of the Novato Zoning Ordinance, which followed the adoption of the City's new General Plan. The update focused on usability, and the integration of new regulations on sensitive habitat and other sensitive environmental and scenic resources, in compliance with the environmental regulations of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Contact: Alan Lazure, Principal Planner City of Novato 900 Sherman Avenue Novato, CA 94945 415-897-4306 City of Pasadena Sign Code— Conducted an in depth sign study, focusing on replacing the existing sign ordinance with a more updated sign code reflective of the City's future development policies, specifically focusing on Old Pasadena. The update reduced ambiguity through specific design standards and helped eliminate code interpretations. Specific citywide design guidelines were implemented to promote quality signs. Contact: Denver Miller, Principal Planner City of Pasadena 175 North Garfield Avenue Pasadena, CA 91109-7215 626-744-6733 City of San Bernardino Development Code - Prepared a comprehensive Development Code, incorporating zoning, subdivision, and Citywide design guidelines into an integrated, easy -to -use document. Hillside development and ridgeline protection were among the many issues addressed. Recipient of National APA Outstanding Planning Award for Plan Implementation,1992. Contact: Valerie Ross, Principal Planner City of San Bernardino 300 North AD@ Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 909-384-5057 H C I LJ I 1 I I F RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update City of Seaside Zoning Ordinance — Prepared an update to Zoning Ordinance; draft is currently undergoing public review and comment. Contact: Mary Orrison, Planning Manager City of Seaside 440 Harcourt Avenue Seaside, CA 93955 831-899-6737 City of Stockton Development Code - Prepared a comprehensive Development Code, incorporating zoning and subdivision regulations into an integrated document. Contact: Dianne Keil Smith, Senior Planner City of Stockton 345 North El Dorado Street Stockton, CA 95202 Calaveras County Zoning Code — Paul Crawford and Bruce Jacobson are comprehensively updating the County's outdated Zoning Code. Contact: Robert Selhnan, Acting Planning Director 209-754-6394 Maria County Development Code -Revised the County s zoning and subdivision ordinances into a comprehensive Development Code, including regulations for development within the Coastal Zone. Issues addressed ranged from standards for high quality urban development, to agricultural land preservation, to development within environmentally sensitive areas subject to the different requirements of the California Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Contact: Alex Hinds, AICP, Community Development Director 415-499-7880 so i� 1 t 11 H I LII I I I PBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Placer County Zoning Ordinance - Completed a reorganization and reformatting of the County's outdated Zoning Ordinance, including consolidation and redefinition of existing zoning districts, and the retention of some existing requirements and standards, all with extensive rewriting to improve clarity and understanding. The ordinance deals with land use and development in unincorporated urban communities and rural areas from the San Joaquin Valley floor to the Sierra around Lake Tahoe. The standards dealt with a range of issues from senior citizen housing projects within urban areas, to high-tech business parks, to ski resort facilities. Contact: Fred Yeager, Planning Director 916-889-7470 San Bernardino County Development Code — Preparing reorganization and update of Development Code in conjunction with update of General Plan. Contact: Randy Scott, Division Chief, Advance Planning Division 909-387-4147 San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance - Paul Crawford drafted this innovative, comprehensive replacement for an outdated Zoning Ordinance, which used a single -map for the purposes of both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and zoning. The Land Use Ordinance also provided detailed standards for individual unincorporated communities, to preserve and enhance their unique character, avoiding the "one size fits all" problems that can result from attempting to apply countywide regulations to diverse communities and rural areas. The Land Use Ordinance received a Meritorious Program Award from the California Chapter of American Planning Association in October 1981. Crawford was again hired by San Luis Obispo County to update the Land Use Ordinance in 2000. Contact: Alex Hinds, AICP, Marin County Community Development Director (former San Luis Obispo County Director of Planning and Building) 415-499-7880 Vic Holanda, AICP, Director of Planning and Building 805-781-5600 Santa Barbara County Development Code —Two phase project to reorganize and revise the Santa Barbara County Development Code, combining three separate zoning ordinances into one comprehensive document. Contact: Tom Frutchey, Project Manager 805-797-4482 -10- ' RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update ' Solano County Zoning Ordinance - Paul Crawford and Bruce Jacobson are updating the Solano County Zoning Ordinance to modernize and reorganize its provisions. The County s zoning ' regulations address a wide variety of resource -based land uses, as well as the urban development issues associated with the commute -shed of the San Francisco Bay Area. ' Contact: Mike Yankovich, Senior Planner 707-421-6765 Sonoma County Development Code - Paul Crawford is working with the Sonoma County Counsel's office and the Permitting and Resource Management Department to complete a comprehensive reorganization and major revisions to all of the County's development regulations. This effort is producing a unified, internally consistent Development Code that will serve as a single reference for all County development requirements. ' Contact: Pete Parkinson, AICP, Director Permitting and Resource Management Department ' 707-565-1900 n I I I I I I I I - 11 - I 11 1 L f1 RBF Consulting - Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Advantages of Team We believe that our team ofprofessionals offers NewportBeach an ideal combination of background and expertise for preparing all components of the updated Zoning Code. Our knowledge and experience would ensure that all documents produced would not only be of high technical quality, but would also be user-friendly, clear, practical, understandable, and easily administered. All team members have strong reputations for producing timely, high -quality work. We believe that our team offers the following advantages: Significant experience with the drafting and adoption of integrated zoning and subdivision ordinances, development codes, and other types of development regulations and associated public participation efforts. The City of San Bernardino Development Code, completed by Jacobson & Wack and RBF Consulting, received a national award from the American Planning Association (APA), and team members have also received numerous awards from the California Chapter of the APA. These demonstrate our ability to create solutions to zoning and planning problems that are both innovative and practical. 2. Extensive "hands on" experience with all levels of zoning and subdivision ordinance administration, ranging from answering zoning inquiries at the "front counter," to the processing of land use permit applications and preparation of staff reports, to division and department management. We have personally drafted zoning, subdivision, grading, and building ordinances, and then been responsible for the administration and enforcement of those regulations. We understand the wide array of day-to-day issues staff must address in ordinance administration, and the needs of the public for timely, accurate responses to their questions. Besides our past experience, our work in zoning and subdivision ordinance administration is ongoing for several public agency clients. Therefore, our ordinance drafting reflects hands- on experience, and understanding of current needs and trends within planning and community development departments, and is not simply an academic or theoretical exercise based on working with codes at some point in the past. ' 3. Acknowledged experience with successful public participation and outreach programs, including public workshops, publicity, and notice materials of all types. 4. Team members regularly share their experiences with, and perspectives on zoning and subdivision ordinance preparation and administration through two professional development courses: Redesigning the Zoning Ordinance, at UC Davis Extension, and Designing and ' Implementing Effective Zoning Ordinances, at UCLA Extension. 5. Our established, effective working relationships as a team, developed from numerous previous projects, enable us to provide efficient and cost-effective services. -12- C ' RBF Consulting — Statement of Qualifications Newport Beach Zoning Code Update ' 6. Our emphasis on firm principals actually drafting our zoning ordinances and development ' codes, ensuring that our products reflect the most extensive experience and informed analysis. ' 7. Extensive technology resources and expertise, including GIS (Arc/Info, ArcView, and Atlas*GIS), CAD and computer graphics, and website development. The team has prepared zoning maps for several communities, and has provided both CAD and GIS mapping for ' several counties. 1 C' r i