2023 AAIF NBCP MINIMA-BASED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (DC) TABLES

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

2023 AAIF NBCP MINIMA-BASED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (DC) TABLES

Please find attached the pdf file of the UPDATED 2023 Architecture Advocacy International Foundation (AAIF), Inc. SUGGESTIONS (at 35 pages total) FOR THE INTERPRETATION/REVISION/UPDATING OF P.D. NO. 1096, THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (NBCP) 2004 REVISED IRR (RIRR) PROVISIONS ON FLOOR TO LOT AREA RATIO (FLAR, i.e. SAME AS FLOOR AREA RATIO/FAR) in relation to road right-of-way (RROW)/STREET WIDTH AND RELATED TO HELP DETERMINE THE TRUE AND LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A RESIDENTIAL (R-1, R-2 Basic & Maximum, R-3 Basic & Maximum, R-4, R-5 & SHZ), COMMERCIAL (C-1, C-2 & C-3), INDUSTRIAL (I-1, I-2, I-3), PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/PUD, INSTITUTIONAL, CULTURAL, TOURISM, FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURAL/AGR OR AGRI-INDUSTRIAL/AGI LOT/PROPERTY. Please read first the CAVEAT/WARNING & DISCLAIMER on page 35. For identified inadvertencies/errors, please send a message to architectu...@gmail.com. Thank You. AAIF

[Linda Baguios]

Dear all,

I read the attachment regarding the need for revision and updating of the NBC (RA 1096).  The recommendations on the building height were apparently based on the size of the  land where the structure is located/situated to control “over-building”.  I just wonder if adequacy/sufficiency of water supply to be used by the proposed building was considered.  We know for a fact that the taller (building) you go, the more water it will require, more people will occupy, more traffic & solid wastes it will generate, and quality of air will be affected as well as water supply.  In gist, have you considered the quality of air and water as well (not only land) in determining the basis for regulating the height of a building?  Air, water, land and people are the affected environment and assessment of the capacity of these is necessary as a significant input to urban planning and design.  In doing so, there is a need to assess the existing quality of air per location as well as the water supply being consumed and the requirement of the proposed building.  This is to determine that the existing quality of air in the area will be maintained even if there will be an additional building to be constructed (regardless of its height actually). Similarly, the existing wastewater discharge needs to be computed per area so as not to exceed the parameter that was established in the area by the LGU. 

Regards,

Linda Baguios

EnP 308

On Mar 2, 2023, at 12:30 PM, EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

2023 AAIF NBCP MINIMA-BASED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (DC) TABLES

Please find attached the pdf file of the UPDATED 2023 Architecture Advocacy International Foundation (AAIF), Inc. SUGGESTIONS (at 35 pages total) FOR THE INTERPRETATION/REVISION/UPDATING OF P.D. NO. 1096, THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (NBCP) 2004 REVISED IRR (RIRR) PROVISIONS ON FLOOR TO LOT AREA RATIO (FLAR, i.e. SAME AS FLOOR AREA RATIO/FAR) in relation to road right-of-way (RROW)/STREET WIDTH AND RELATED TO HELP DETERMINE THE TRUE AND LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A RESIDENTIAL (R-1, R-2 Basic & Maximum, R-3 Basic & Maximum, R-4, R-5 & SHZ), COMMERCIAL (C-1, C-2 & C-3), INDUSTRIAL (I-1, I-2, I-3), PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/PUD, INSTITUTIONAL, CULTURAL, TOURISM, FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURAL/AGR OR AGRI-INDUSTRIAL/AGI LOT/PROPERTY. Please read first the CAVEAT/WARNING & DISCLAIMER on page 35. For identified inadvertencies/errors, please send a message to architectu...@gmail.com. Thank You. AAIF

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2BhwwSb5Tpvcp-xRUVPhk4quwKE46jKtSv6xJKiiX4dBuDcA%40mail.gmail.com.
<k23ma2_NBCP minima-based Devt Control (DC) Tables.pdf>

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Thank You for Your comment, EnP Linda. The tables only present the permissible limits on building bulk and do not yet factor in the identifiable engineering interventions as required by varying site and utility provisions, as well as the applicable aspects of the prevailing regulatory environment. That is quite possibly the area where the technological professionals (all classes of engineers come in). Thanks again. Regards, AAlli

x x x x x x x x x x

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/4A3B4C7F-7707-44E7-A341-1EFC0EA87B1B%40gmail.com.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

x x x x varying site conditions and utility provisions, x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Additionally, the building height limit (BHL) should be a function of the fire-fighting capability of the LGU, in the event that the engineering solutions e.g. built-in fire-fighting/supression systems, fire safety especially evacuation protocols, etc. should fail when most needed. Thanks again. Regards, AAlli 

x x x x x x x x x x x

[Linda Baguios]

You are welcome! I just thought that such would help to control “over building”.

Regards,

Linda B.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2BhwwH9f%3DXFcM%3D2-xGoe5ZiwR%3DrMDhUk77xKFAqHkbCOFdOw%40mail.gmail.com.

[venecio codia]

Received, thank you. 

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 12:30:41 PM GMT+8, EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

2023 AAIF NBCP MINIMA-BASED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (DC) TABLES

Please find attached the pdf file of the UPDATED 2023 Architecture Advocacy International Foundation (AAIF), Inc. SUGGESTIONS (at 35 pages total) FOR THE INTERPRETATION/REVISION/UPDATING OF P.D. NO. 1096, THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (NBCP) 2004 REVISED IRR (RIRR) PROVISIONS ON FLOOR TO LOT AREA RATIO (FLAR, i.e. SAME AS FLOOR AREA RATIO/FAR) in relation to road right-of-way (RROW)/STREET WIDTH AND RELATED TO HELP DETERMINE THE TRUE AND LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A RESIDENTIAL (R-1, R-2 Basic & Maximum, R-3 Basic & Maximum, R-4, R-5 & SHZ), COMMERCIAL (C-1, C-2 & C-3), INDUSTRIAL (I-1, I-2, I-3), PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/PUD, INSTITUTIONAL, CULTURAL, TOURISM, FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURAL/AGR OR AGRI-INDUSTRIAL/AGI LOT/PROPERTY. Please read first the CAVEAT/WARNING & DISCLAIMER on page 35. For identified inadvertencies/errors, please send a message to architectu...@gmail.com. Thank You. AAIF

--

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Yes, Enp Linda. Your comments can most certainly help in addressing over-building. Right now, those considerations would most likely be at the second tier of development potential evaluation i.e. to thoroughly vet/validate the first tier building bulk determination (shown in the tables I shared). Your suggestions would additionally rationalize/reduce the TGFA, which is the ideal situation. Thanks again. Regards, 

x x x x x x x x x

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CACeDpQA99YCVBnp9L30Ju4oa%2BDTteOuyDmh-%3Dcf30LCrDT8s4w%40mail.gmail.com.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Additionally, there are third and fourth tier considerations to help vet the building bulk determination/development potential of a lot/property (perhaps the subject of a separate series of tables for another time when such other variables can be properly quantified), and all these taken together shall considerably pare down the TGFA, again the ideal target situation. Thanks again. Regards,

x x x x x x x x x 

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Gd pm, EnP Linda. Here are those 4 tiers of DC application I referred to in yesterday's message. The tables (on building bulk) I shared the other day are (in my NGO's view) only parts of the tier 1 DC applications. Much thanks. Regards, AAlli

x x x x x x x x x x x x x. x

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 7:56 AM EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Additionally, there are third and fourth tier considerations to help vet the building bulk determination/development potential of a lot/property (perhaps the subject of a separate series of tables for another time when such other variables can be properly quantified), and all these taken together shall considerably pare down the TGFA, again the ideal target situation. Thanks again. Regards,

x x x x x x x x x 

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 7:52 AM EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, Enp Linda. Your comments can most certainly help in addressing over-building. Right now, those considerations would most likely be at the second tier of development potential evaluation i.e. to thoroughly vet/validate the first tier building bulk determination (shown in the tables I shared). Your suggestions would additionally rationalize/reduce the TGFA, which is the ideal situation. Thanks again. Regards, 

x x x x x x x x x

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 7:02 PM Linda Baguios <lindab...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are welcome! I just thought that such would help to control “over building”.

Regards,

Linda B.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 6:25 PM EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank You for Your comment, EnP Linda. The tables only present the permissible limits on building bulk and do not yet factor in the identifiable engineering interventions as required by varying site and utility provisions, as well as the applicable aspects of the prevailing regulatory environment. That is quite possibly the area where the technological professionals (all classes of engineers come in). Thanks again. Regards, AAlli

x x x x x x x x x x

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:07 PM Linda Baguios <lindab...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

I read the attachment regarding the need for revision and updating of the NBC (RA 1096).  The recommendations on the building height were apparently based on the size of the  land where the structure is located/situated to control “over-building”.  I just wonder if adequacy/sufficiency of water supply to be used by the proposed building was considered.  We know for a fact that the taller (building) you go, the more water it will require, more people will occupy, more traffic & solid wastes it will generate, and quality of air will be affected as well as water supply.  In gist, have you considered the quality of air and water as well (not only land) in determining the basis for regulating the height of a building?  Air, water, land and people are the affected environment and assessment of the capacity of these is necessary as a significant input to urban planning and design.  In doing so, there is a need to assess the existing quality of air per location as well as the water supply being consumed and the requirement of the proposed building.  This is to determine that the existing quality of air in the area will be maintained even if there will be an additional building to be constructed (regardless of its height actually). Similarly, the existing wastewater discharge needs to be computed per area so as not to exceed the parameter that was established in the area by the LGU. 

Regards,

Linda Baguios

EnP 308

On Mar 2, 2023, at 12:30 PM, EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

2023 AAIF NBCP MINIMA-BASED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (DC) TABLES

Please find attached the pdf file of the UPDATED 2023 Architecture Advocacy International Foundation (AAIF), Inc. SUGGESTIONS (at 35 pages total) FOR THE INTERPRETATION/REVISION/UPDATING OF P.D. NO. 1096, THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (NBCP) 2004 REVISED IRR (RIRR) PROVISIONS ON FLOOR TO LOT AREA RATIO (FLAR, i.e. SAME AS FLOOR AREA RATIO/FAR) in relation to road right-of-way (RROW)/STREET WIDTH AND RELATED TO HELP DETERMINE THE TRUE AND LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A RESIDENTIAL (R-1, R-2 Basic & Maximum, R-3 Basic & Maximum, R-4, R-5 & SHZ), COMMERCIAL (C-1, C-2 & C-3), INDUSTRIAL (I-1, I-2, I-3), PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/PUD, INSTITUTIONAL, CULTURAL, TOURISM, FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURAL/AGR OR AGRI-INDUSTRIAL/AGI LOT/PROPERTY. Please read first the CAVEAT/WARNING & DISCLAIMER on page 35. For identified inadvertencies/errors, please send a message to architectu...@gmail.com. Thank You. AAIF

[Linda Baguios]

Boie, thank you so much.

Regards, 

Linda B.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2BhwzbBTg-d0nbX%2BYB56GMPgJanQJrTTJo9SeNhjtL_7r2YA%40mail.gmail.com.

[gbte...@yahoo.com]

I do not know how the previous standards were arrived at I wonder what are the bases for these recommended new numbers. I guess what is more important is the methodology for setting the numbers which I hope is data-driven.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CACeDpQASs7087B4O_oQNLd0t_pu8dv5xwxBeXRHMAjHm-MTV-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

SUGGESTED MINIMUM ON-SITE, OFF-RROW/OFF-STREET PARKING SLOT AND MANEUVER AREA REQUIREMENTS, a NBCP minima-based Development Control (DC) table featuring Technical Interpretations, as Drafted March 2023 for the ARCHITECTURE ADVOCACY INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION (AAIF), INC. Important Note: The accompanying table seeks to improve upon Table VII.4. (Minimum Required Off-Street (Off-RROW) cum On-Site Parking Slot, Parking Area and Loading/Unloading Space Requirements by Allowed Use or Occupancy) under Rule VII of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP). The information may also be used as a general reference for planning PUBLIC parking facilities/structures, and already includes suggestions for both motorcycle and bicycle parking. Please read first the Caveat/Warning/Disclaimer on page 16 (last page). Thank You.   

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Greetings. We are presently trying to introduce two (2) new aspects to the zoning ordinances (ZO) that we are working on. The sharing of LGU experiences in these areas are most welcome (to help us improve the intended regulations). Thank You all. Regards, SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR POSSIBLE FIRE ZONING AND STREET ZONING

A. FIRE ZONING to be based on:

1. construction material used for the buildings;

2. fire-fighting design for upper floors of buildings (beyond the 16th storey);

3. road right-of-way (RROW) width & usage (e.g. check for fire truck obstructions);

4. annual fire inspections conducted by LGU (relating mainly to evacuation routes and fire suppression capabilities, etc.);

5. population density; and

6. LGU & private sector fire-fighting capability.

B. STREET ZONING to be based on:

1. RROW width and usage (carriageway and sidewalk);

2. designated RROW lanes for fire trucks, motorcycles, buses, bicycles, etc.;

3. conveyances permitted (including vehicle sizes and considerations of maneuver areas);

4. conveyance operations i.e. point-to-point (P2P) conveyances cannot load/unload anywhere except at designated terminals;

5. on-street pay parking (no exception) – all who use the public domain for private use and enjoyment must pay for the inconvenience they cause others;

6. tire-lock and tow zones (narrow & wide streets), especially at fire hydrant areas;

7. pedestrianization coupled with commercialization/taxation;

8. PWD concessions;

9. automatic towage of derelict and abandoned vehicles and deposit in a yard for salvage or auction;

10. permitted on-street terminals, loading/unloading areas;

11. permitted waiting stands;

12. off-street parking facility (open areas); and

13. off-street parking structure and incentives (including commercialization of ground level spaces. Nothing follows.

[cristina_ang]

Thanks Arch / EnP Alli,

Would include these in PIEP NCR Committee on Prof Prac agenda.

Regards,

Tins (from DACY - way back 1998?)

09672697724

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2Bhwxos83EV-oQ2J4dMMsvEWL%2B5BMa%3D4WDhcRvSD1i7m__hA%40mail.gmail.com.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Much thanks, EnP Tins. Yes, I remember. Thanks again. Warm regards, AAlli

x x x x x x x x x x

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

The emerging concept now is the shared use of both the carriageway and sidewalk, IF there is sufficient width to allow such e.g sidewalks incorporating bicycle lanes (the safer option for cyclists but not so safe for pedestrians/PWDs, unless there are clear physical separators) OR carriageways incorporating bicycle lanes (the less safe option for cyclists). 

Note however that the DPWH Department Order (D.O.) No. 88, series of 2020 (at 64 pages), prescribes bikelanes on the carriageway.      

                                                                                   

While P.D. No. 957 prescribes that the combined width of sidewalks (at 2 sides of the carriageway, and previously exclusively for ambulatory movement) take up 1/3 of the road right-of-way (RROW) width, the reality is that the combined sidewalk width is often less than 1/5 of the RROW width. The 1/3:2/3 sidewalk to carriageway ratio must be the absolute minimum. The sidewalks must probably be separately classified as part of the parks and open spaces (POS) system, rather than part of the RROW, and must exist in perpetuity. If so, the RROW classification in zoning ordinances (ZOs) would then need to be renamed "RROW carriageway".                                  Note: In the PH setting, sidewalks are non-existent for RROWs of 6.0 meters (m) or lower in width.  What are provided for such RROWs are 0.40 m on each side of the carriageway where open canals (a sanitary concern) are situated (leaving only 5.20 meters/m of width serving as both carriageway and "sidewalk" i.e. at only 2.70 m of carriageway for each lane, hence not an ideal situation to allow parked vehicles, especially for overnight parking, as the same cause obstructions in times of emergency. 

The Guidelines section of Rule VII of the 2004 Revised IRR (RIRR) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the PH (NBCP, downloadable at www.dpwh.gov.ph) clearly laid out the allowed/encouraged structures and the disallowed/prohibited structures and developments within any part of the RROW. Thanks.

[rey gabitan]

... and where ample sidewalks exist, they are cut to give way for driveways which should not be the case. You will see that everywhere. Instead of just providing a ramp of 1/3-1/4, designers, contractors and lot owners, would cut through the sidewalks for the driveways. So now, we have sidewalks which are not continuous (not PWD friendly) and sometimes already missing to give way for off-street parking or front-loading parking in most commercial buildings and in gasoline stations.

REY S. GABITAN, UAP, PIEP, Int'l Assoc. AIA, SFRIA
Architect + Urban Planner + Educator
Email Address: rae...@yahoo.com; architect...@gmail.com
Cellphone: 0908-8653829

CEO, ATLAS-CDC Review Center

2nd flr, FORAB Bldg., 121 Kamuning Road, Quezon City

Email Address: atlascd...@gmail.com

Faculty, School of Architecture 

Manuel L. Quezon University, Diliman, QC

Email Address: rey.g...@mlqu.edu.ph

Former Chairman, Board of Consultants

DPWH National Building Code Development Office 

Founding Chairman, UAP Emergency Architects

Co-chair, UAP Special Committee for the Architecture Code of the Philippines

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2Bhwye28DxrUNzP2kncD1rP_0HhYGn5Xtmd1E1XVtZcH7uBg%40mail.gmail.com

.

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Armando Alli]

Thank You, EnP/Arch. Rey. That is most true. The sidewalks are treated not as part of the public domain but as an extension of private property (sometimes landscaped and even fenced in and thus rendered impassable), something that can be readily addressed by the LGU city/municipal engineer's office, the LGU office of the building official (OBO), the concerned barangay and even by the homeowner associations themselves. Regards, AAlli

x x x x x x x 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/830513359.372895.1678672927542%40mail.yahoo.com.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

POSSIBLE SUBJECTS OF LGU SPECIAL ORDINANCES (SO)

While the subject and content of zoning ordinances (ZO) are clearly laid out in the 2014 edition of the HLURB Cookbook, the ZO may not be too long. As such, self-standing/self-explanatory annexes can be appended to help in the implementation and enforcement of the ZO. However, not everything can be covered by either the ZO or annexes, as other details/areas of regulation may need to be treated as separate subjects under LGU special ordinances (SOs), viz: 

1)      land-readjustment;

2)      public housing;

3)      urban renewal/redevelopment;

4)      floor area ratio (FAR) transfers/exchange;

5)      FAR incentives (relying mainly on FAR transfers and not violating/relaxing national development controls/DC);

6)      mandated legal easements;

7)      special rights-of-way (SROW);

8)      municipal water areas (MWA);

9)      aerodrome restrictions (including helipads and air navigational highways/ANH);

10)   view corridors;

11)   treatment of overhead utility lines;

12)   elevators;

13)   accessibility and inclusivity (including senior citizens);

14)   gender and development (GAD);

15)   building height limit (BHL) based on LGU fire-fighting capability;

16)   transit-oriented development (TOD);

17)   mixed-use development (MXD);

18)   parks and open spaces (POS), including population to park ratios;

19)   motorcycle and bicycle lanes/parking requirements;

20)   electric vehicle (EV) parking and charging requirements;

21)   off-street/on-street parking (open parking, no vertical structures);

22)   off-street/on-street terminals;

23)   parking structures/buildings (to include motorcycle/bicycle parking and EV parking/charging);

24)   towing/tire-lock zones;

25)   towing-disposition-auction yards for illegally parked, derelict/abandoned vehicles;

26)   over-building;

27)   over-paving;

28)   arcades;

29)   road and pavement quality (and measures for substandard construction);  

30)   sustainable building and grounds design/environmental design (including embodied energy regulations for construction and finishing materials, renewable energy structures/equipment obsolescence and disposal, light and heat reflection and effect on ambient/near-ground temperatures, cast shadows, and like concerns);

31)   land reclamation;

32)   land remediation;

33)   reclassification of sidewalks as part of the perpetual parks and open space (POS) system i.e. to help increase the LGU population to park ratio, and their possible zoning reclassification/segregation from the carriageway portion of the road right-of-way (RROW);

34)   pedestrianization cum commercialization of narrow road rights-of-way (RROWs) and their conversion into parts of the parks and open space (POS) system;

35)   disaster mobilization and disaster assembly/refuge areas; and

36)   others, similar in scope and importance to the foregoing. Thanks.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Greetings. Please find attached the 2023 AAIF Suggested Dedicated Components for the road right-of-way (RROW) based on P.D. No. 957 and on P.D. No.1096 (1977 NBCP) i.e. not on B.P. Blg. 220, and incorporating bicycle and motorcycle lanes. 

Please note that the standard AAIF caveat/warning/disclaimer applies. Thanks. Regards,

[Armando Alli]

Important Notes on RROW Material Shared.                                                                                                                                                      The message (and the attached image) only represent an initial suggestion for the possible physical division of the available space within the road right-of-way (RROW). There are still higher vetting processes that shall refine and finalize the suggested physical subdivision of the RROW.                                                                                                                                                                                                                The standard AAIF caveat/warning/disclaimer applies. As the information is mainly presented for general reference, the professional responsibility/civil liability for any act relating to the presented information still lies with the subsequent interpreter/user of the information i.e. consult first with the duly-qualified technical/legal professionals. Thank You. Regards,

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:47 PM EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Greetings. Please find attached the 2023 AAIF Suggested Dedicated Components for the road right-of-way (RROW) based on P.D. No. 957 and on P.D. No.1096 (1977 NBCP) i.e. not on B.P. Blg. 220, and incorporating bicycle and motorcycle lanes. 

Please note that the standard AAIF caveat/warning/disclaimer applies. Thanks. Regards,

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2BhwyDzoy%2BpDYdhkVEdQ8Je53y%3DA3J%2BzZLvddVQ061%2Bjjo2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Neris T. Bautista]

Thank you very much po for the share. God bless.

Best regards,

Neris T. Bautista

====

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Philippians 4:13

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CANZHd9Vq4qAQqaP7DTs%3DpKNehju5vA7DZ29R_2L2Eu3Pp_Th-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Armando Alli]

Thank You, too Neris. You are most welcome. Regds,

x x x x x x x x 

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:14 AM 'Neris T. Bautista' via Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners <piepm...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Thank you very much po for the share. God bless.

Best regards,

Neris T. Bautista

====

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. - Philippians 4:13

 

On Tuesday, 14 March 2023 at 08:39:13 am SGT, Armando Alli <alli.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

Important Notes on RROW Material Shared.                                                                                                                                                                                                The message (and the attached image) only represent an initial suggestion for the possible physical division of the available space within the road right-of-way (RROW). There are still higher vetting processes that shall refine and finalize the suggested physical subdivision of the RROW.                                                                  The standard AAIF caveat/warning/disclaimer applies. As the information is mainly presented for general reference, the professional responsibility/civil liability for any act relating to the presented information still lies with the subsequent interpreter/user of the information i.e. consult first with the duly-qualified technical/legal professionals. Thank You. Regards,

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:47 PM EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Greetings. Please find attached the 2023 AAIF Suggested Dedicated Components for the road right-of-way (RROW) based on P.D. No. 957 and on P.D. No.1096 (1977 NBCP) i.e. not on B.P. Blg. 220, and incorporating bicycle and motorcycle lanes. 

Please note that the standard AAIF caveat/warning/disclaimer applies. Thanks. Regards,

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

A FEW KEY REASONS WHY PH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS (ENP) MAY NEED TO ATTAIN A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF APPRECIATION OF THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PH (NBCP)

1)      P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the PH (NBCP) is the primary national-level development control (DC) for vertical infrastructure, which make up the bulk of human settlements, collectively the built environment;

2)      the 2004 revised implementing rules and regulations (RIRR) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 NBCP was co-crafted by 8 of the 37 (22%) members of the DPWH Board of Consultants (BoC); the presence of these EnPs was sufficient to help shift the development focus from inside the boundaries of a lot/property (hosting a vertical development) to what are outside (or even well outside) that lot/property, i.e., the public domain, chiefly the road right-of-way (RROW) and other types of rights-of-way (ROWs), mandated legal easements (LEs), carrying capacities of lots and RROWs, development potential of lots (maximum vertical development), densities, subgrade and above-grade (air) development rights, privacy and security, natural light and ventilation at the public domain, effect of the vertical development on the neighboring parcels/developments/environs, and many more inter-related subjects that are all planning-related;

3)      the minima prescribed under the NBCP can be readily made more stringent (but never relaxed) through the passage of local-level DCs, i.e., chiefly the zoning ordinance/ZO and its IRR, special ordinances (SOs) and their IRR, and like issuances; as such, the NBCP serves as the platform for the stricter local-level regulation of vertical developments;

Note: The minimum standards for the planning-design-construction-use-occupancy-administration of buildings and their grounds/settings under the NBCP 2004 RIRR can be readily appended to the ZO or SO to become the primary IRR of such local-level laws/development controls/DCs. Please also note that while P.D. No. 957 and its IRR subscribe to the NBCP, B.P. Blg. 220 and its IRR do not, since B.P. Blg. 220 represents a much lower building standard that cannot meet the minimum prescription of the NBCP system. The LGU Office of the Building Official (OBO) was mainly deputized by the DPWH to help implement and enforce the NBCP system and may probably not be the best LGU office to implement and enforce B.P. Blg. 220 i.e. other possible LGU offices that can help with the B.P. Blg. 220 could be the Office of the Municipal/City Engineer (OM/CE) in collaboration with the Municipal/City Planning Office (M/CPO), the LGU offices which could perhaps jointly supervise B.P. Blg. 220 housing programs.

4)      a large proportion of the approx. twelve thousand (12,000) pages of interfacing building and grounds development laws and regulations, i.e. the NBCP universe’s stream of regulations (SoR), are physical planning-orientated, and are probably best interpreted by planners for their overall effect on the host natural and built environments - refer to 10-page attachment; and

Note: While generally based on R.A. No. 386, the 1949 New Civil Code of the Philippines (NCCP), the NBCP itself and its approx. 12,000-page SoR, not limited to its RIRR and 2007 Additional Rules and Regulations (ARR) on non-mobile billboards (NMBs), also serve as the specific basis and platform for crafting the development guidelines and design guidance/DGDG i.e., also called the Development Standards and Guidelines (DSG) of the more detailed physical plans such as district/area/zone/community/neighborhood/campus/facility/subdivision/master development plans as well as the deeds of restrictions (DoRs) for subdivision and master development plans (MDPs).

5)      the NBCP is not just about buildings/vertical structures and their settings/grounds, i.e., they are also about neighborhoods and communities of buildings and their occupants, which/who must continue to thrive physically, economically and socially and to fully adapt to their settings and other prevailing conditions (political, legal, environmental, etc.) at the minimum. Thanks.

[patrick jerome guasa]

Let us lift in prayer PIEP COF Sir Roque Magno who passed away this evening.

May he find Eternal Rest!

Patrick Jerome S. Guasa
Mobile Nos. +63-929-446-8177 (smart)

                    +63-945-774-5022 (globe)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CANZHd9U6MZPCT-4EMcrKfqneTGf0Z7T%3DvQkmaHpK71_U6qijTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[nancy eleria]

Rest in peace Sir Roque Magmo

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2025, at 2:19 AM, patrick jerome guasa <patric...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAPs7oYoMZUJEbpJ-VBRVvTWmHtRw1d44sA2GgHco5TQGuPdTPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[rose marie bermejo]

May the soul of our former Commissioner RQF rest in peace🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/4694CD47-E861-4AFF-BA91-58DF9D10B7C8%40yahoo.com

.

[Dave Vergel Castro]

May his soul rest in peace... Thank you Sir Popoy for the experience in working with you.

__________________________________________________________
DAVE VERGEL B. CASTRO, ASEAN Engineer, EnP, CE, SE, RMP
Principal

DAVE VERGEL B. CASTRO + ASSOCIATES

Mobile:      +63 917 5310381 / +63 922 8310381

TeleFax:    +63 2 8531-9433

Address:   Unit 108 No. 588 Cordillera corner Arayat Streets

                 Malamig, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Philippines

E-Mail:      da...@dvbcaengineers.com

Website:   www.dvbcaengineers.com

National President

PHILIPPINES SOCIETY OF SANITARY ENGINEERS

Telephone: +63 2 7909-1012

Address:    Unit 2A21 Citiland Grand Central

                  EDSA corner Sultan Road

                  Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Philippines

E-Mail:       psse....@gmail.com

Website:    www.psse.org.ph

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/1856454205.1795836.1754655513849%40mail.yahoo.com.