Dec 12 2021

Sustainability, Neighborhood Cohesion and Open Space Lose Out to Density?

Change is stressful, and major change in the neighborhoods of California is coming. Although the State is awash in surplus billions and could afford to plan a public/private new town developed to provide sustainable life for a population of up to a million.  Instead, the State chose to put the financial cost and construction responsibility on individual citizens.  Doubling or tripling the populations of built-out traditional neighborhoods has been tried and frequently resulted in slums.

California laws regarding splitting single-family lots and placing two or more housing units on existing single-family lots have stirred opposition by many California cities.  Workarounds are being creatively devised in these cities to halt dramatic changes to their neighborhoods and cities.

Some cities are limiting the height of structures, declaring areas historic, and limiting the square footage of Accessory Dwelling Units.  Other allowable workarounds are being developed by many California City Councils.

Unlike these other California cities Piedmont Planners and the Piedmont City Council have, to date, fully embraced the imminent changes to Piedmont neighborhoods and single-family residences by planning an increase to housing density throughout Piedmont in order to add 587 new housing units.

Further information is in the November 24, 2021 San Francisco Chronicle article linked below:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-cities-rush-to-limit-new-law-16647764.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_politicalpunch&sid=550b76a73b35d06a458cab0e

Dec 12 2021

Whatever Happened to Concern about Smog?

Piedmonters are familiar with the tales of neighbors unloading their old vehicles at prices greater than new car prices.  One overlooked and surprising benefit is the avoidance of smog testing.

Which  vehicles are exempt from smog testing?

“Gasoline-powered vehicles – a 1975 year model or older (This includes motorcycles and trailers.), Diesel-powered vehicles 1997 and older year model, OR with a Gross Vehicle Weight of more than 14,000 pounds.”

Some counties don’t require smog testing of any vehicles:

“The counties in California which do not require smog check are El Dorado, Riverside, Placer, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Sonoma.”

 

 

Dec 1 2021

Reports Circulated for COP 26 * Suggest  Drastic Life Style Changes to limit:  Airline travel, Video Gaming, Family size, Construction, Clothes Dryers

In preparing to host COP 26, the United Kingdom’s Climate researchers produced  reports to inform the world leaders meeting in Glasgow.  Quantifying the Potential for Climate Change Mitigation of Consumption Options by Ivanova et al provides sobering data on everyday carbon generation.

What Climate Actions by Individuals Make a Difference?

Smaller families and fewer airline flights would have the most significant impact on climate change that individuals could accomplish.  A family with one fewer child could reduce carbon emissions by up to 117.7 tons a year for a middle or upper middle income family living standard.  This is “by far the most significant action people could take at an individual (or rather, couple) level”.  Eliminating flights is the second most effective life style change for individuals concerned with Climate Change.  Flying SFO to Hong Kong represents 1.6 tons of carbon.  Converting from a meaty diet to a vegan diet saves .92 tons a year.  The California Energy Commission reported that video computer gaming in California consumed 4.1 terawatt-hours/year in 2016.  Presumably, in 2020-1 it  increased due to COVID 19 restrictions.

A middle or upper middle income family living standard child = 117.7 tons a year

Flying SFO to Hong Kong = 1.6 tons of carbon.

A meat diet compared with a vegan diet – .92 tons a year.

 

What Climate Actions Make Little Difference?

Are local and state governments fighting Climate Change  or introducing feel good Greenwashing* policies while doubling down on construction and automobile accommodations?

Reducing plastic items saves .02 tons a year and replacing light bulbs with energy efficient ones saves .04 tons a year.  Such measures feel good, but don’t produce much benefit.  The New York Times June 29, 2021 reports, “…chucking a gas range that works won’t make much of a positive impact on the environment or most people’s health. … gas cooking doesn’t deserve as much climate-related ire as it has been getting lately, because it represents a tiny part of household energy use and carbon emissions. As of 2015, the most recent year with detailed data (PDF) from the US Energy Information Administration, gas stoves accounted for less than 3% of household natural gas use in the US. ”  Although Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan encourages replacing gas with electric stoves, houses that came on the market for the past few years have felt obligated to install new commercial type six burner gas stoves as an attractive sales feature.

Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan does not ask residents, the public or staff to make any of the most significant lifestyle changes. 

Shifting from a fossil fuel engine car (including hybrids) to an all-electric car saves .47 tons a year, only about twice as much as foregoing use of a clothes dryer.  (Hanging clothes to dry rather than using a dryer saves .22 tons a year.)  Replacing gas stoves with electric may not yield the desired benefit.

According to the UN Environment Program, although building energy consumption from heating, cooling, powering equipment, heating water, has remained steady year-on-year, energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 9.95 gigatonnes in 2019,  largely due to a shift away from the direct use of coal and oil  towards electricity, which has a higher carbon content due to the high proportion of fossil fuels used in generation.

Greenwashing* has been a sales tool of some brands and investment funds, but also a feature of local climate policies.  The modest climate prescriptions in such plans can be more than offset by conflicting policies that allow or even promote demolition and construction.  Manufacture of steel (for cars, building construction, appliances) emits 7% of the world’s carbon according to the New York Times.  Nigel Topping, United Kingdom High-Level Climate Champion noted: ‘We urgently need to address carbon emissions from buildings and construction, which constitute almost 40% of global carbon emissions.”

*Greenwashing is the process of conveying a false impression or providing misleading information about how a company’s products are more environmentally sound. Greenwashing is considered an unsubstantiated claim to deceive consumers into believing that a company’s products are environmentally friendly.

The October 31 New York Times pointed out the extent of ineffective global action in reaching the agreed goals.  “The global use of fossil fuels which has been on a steady march upward for 150 years, is projected to peak by the middle of this decade, assuming countries hew to the promises they’ve made under the Paris accords.”  In particular, coal generated electric energy has increased 21% in 2021 compared with 2020, when it  increased similarly over 2019 according to the US energy Information administration.  In Rome the G 20 gathering was unable to agree to reduce coal generated electricity.

Mandates on Individuals Are Preferable to Government Restraint

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference gathering in Glasgow got off to an unfortunate symbolic start with more than 400 private jets flying in the delegations. Five jets for the US Presidential delegation produced 2.5 million tons of Co2 and on the ground the Presidential motorcade numbered more than 85 vehicles.

Although 40 nations signed on to phase out coal, several leading economies (US, China, India and Australia) were conspicuous in their reluctance to sign on Reuters (“COP26 coal pledge falls short on support as emissions surge”) reports here.  The increasing demand for coal quadrupled the price this year.  Finally, after Greta Thunberg and other Climate activists belittled the  holdouts, two weeks of negotiation produced the compromise “phase down” coal and other fossil fuels.  This new term without a clear meaning, seemed even more ambiguous as the US and EU simultaneously urged OPEC Plus to increase production of fossil fuels.

Professing Climate Concern State and Local Government Actions Undermine Climate Action

California State laws prevent cities and towns from protecting their environments to support healthy climate lifestyles by enacting limits on the most egregious CO2 emitting activities.  The State even mandates increased accommodation of a proliferation of cars to the detriment of public transit as well as bicycle and pedestrian safety.

The State and Piedmont are reducing setbacks and backyards, eliminating natural options to air cooling and clothes dryers to the detriment of Climate Action.

 *United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – a treaty agreed in 1994. The 2021 meeting is the 26th meeting, which is why it’s called COP26.

Editors Note: Additional information on Green House Gases can be read at this link > https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

 

Dec 1 2021

View where the new Electrical Vehicle (EV) charging station will be on Magnolia Avenue near the Exedra at Main Park.

Scroll down on the link below to view EV maps and information for the December 1 Park Commission Meeting Agenda. 

Park Commission Agenda 12-1-2021 FINAL

 

Nov 29 2021

Pedestrian issues missing in the proposed Piedmont Safer Streets Plan. 

  • Where is the plan for better sidewalk maintenance?
  • Where is the plan for enforcement of Piedmont laws prohibiting vehicle parking on sidewalks? 
  • Where is the plan to restrict parking on dangerously narrow streets?

The plan appears to focus on money oriented capital projects and bicycles rather than general pedestrian safety.  Studies produced do not mention accidents caused by improperly maintained sidewalks.  The City inventoried all public paths in Piedmont (in other words, walkways other than sidewalks) to assess conditions and identify any needed repairs.  Sidewalk conditions throughout the City were not inventoried. 

“A secondary walking-related concern is gaps in sidewalk coverage and existing sidewalks in poor condition.” Plan

“Remove onstreet parking and fill in missing sidewalks in order to address concerns about pedestrians having to walk in the roadway.” Resident

The elaborate, costly, and studied final proposal for Safer Streets in Piedmont is to be considered by the City Council on Monday, December 6, 2021.  Agenda  here. 

COVID 19 brought out pedestrians and exercisers in numbers never seen before on Piedmont streets and sidewalks. A repeated complaint from readers was dangerous sidewalk conditions caused by years of damage from trees, water, vehicles, and old age.

Those attempting to walk on sidewalks around corners on narrow streets, frequently found cars and trucks parked on the sidewalk blocking their ability to stay on the sidewalk, particularly those pushing a baby carriage.  Police enforcement prohibiting parking vehicles on the sidewalk is generally absent in Piedmont.

The plan emphasizes vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians crossing or interfacing with Piedmont streets, while not mentioning the number of pedestrians falling or injured by sidewalk problems.

The City of Piedmont, which prides itself on otherwise excellent customer service, does not have an online form for the public to request repair and maintenance of streets and other public infrastructure.  The plan suggests the City should have an online repair request form. 

READ the full proposed FINAL DRAFT PLAN below:

https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20Division/General%20Plan/PSS_final%20draft%20plan_Oct.%2028,%202021.pdf

Transportation Planning

December 6 City Council Hearing

for the Piedmont Safer Streets Plan

At the October 7, 2021 meeting, the Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee recommended City Council adoption of the Draft Piedmont Safer Streets Plan with four additional recommendations.
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15072, staff prepared an Initial Study for public review for the Safer Streets Plan. Having received no comments, staff is recommending that City Council adopt a Negative Declaration, based on the findings in the Initial Study.
On December 6, 2021, the City Council will consider adoption of a resolution to:
a) adopt the Piedmont Safer Streets Plan, and
b) adopt the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Piedmont Safer Streets Plan.
Following adoption of the Plan, implementation of the Plan’s recommendations, programs and policies will begin. City staff will continue to monitor existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure and traffic conditions in the City. The Final Draft Plan is available for public review. Agenda for the December 6, 2021 Council meeting will be posted here no later than Friday, December 3, 2021. Staff report for the Plan, detailing all steps taken by staff and role played by the PBAC, will be available for review here, no later than Friday, December 3, 2021.
Please send any comments or questions on the Plan to Associate Planner Gopika Nair at gnair@piedmont.ca.gov. For more information about the PSS Plan and staff reports, please visit:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Email comments may be addressed to the City Council and sent to the City Clerk at jtulloch@piedmont.ca.gov

Nov 20 2021

Who is fighting to stop the State takeover of local land use planning?

California residents, including Piedmonters, are becoming more and more aware of the loss of control over local land use planning in their cities and neighborhoods. Public interest groups are forming to fight State takeover of local planning processes.

Developers are projected to be the monetary gainers of State control over housing and planning.

The continuing loss of local citizens’ ability to control development and feel confident of their community’s future is felt and shown in the number of homeowners deciding this is the time to leave California. 

To date, the Piedmont City Council has fully supported the Piedmont Regional Housing Need Assessments (RHNA) calling for an additional 587 housing units added in Piedmont.  Proposals call for the Piedmont Planning Department to ministerially take action on approvals without neighborhood input on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that meet certain criteria. Areas in Piedmont, including a park, are  being considered to be designated for multiple housing units. 

State legislation impacts Piedmont’s two “single family” residential zones differently.   Zone A where smaller parcels are typically found in “lower Piedmont,” there is a requirement of a 5 foot setback from side and rear property lines for habitable buildings.  Zone E (Estate), an elite zone where parcels are generally located in upper Piedmont,  require more space  around their homes for the greater 20 foot side and rear yard setbacks.   Roof overhangs are allowed into the setbacks further narrowing the distance between buildings.  Zone E has been questioned as illegally established as never having been established by voter action per the City Charter . 

The required number of RHNA housing units was assigned to Piedmont without consideration of the numerous substandard, narrow, and winding road ways impacting safety and emergency vehicles.   Deficient municipal open space, lack of local employment, and other local problems were also not factored into Piedmont’s 587 new housing unit assessment.

Various groups opposing State imposition of housing requirements are linked below for information.

 www.stopsacramento.org
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/livable-california-endorses-the-our-neighborhood-voices-initiative/
Nov 20 2021

City staff will host a virtual Town Hall on Monday, November 22nd at 6:00 p.m. to provide an opportunity for Piedmont residents to learn more about Public Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations.

The Town Hall will provide an opportunity for questions about an
upcoming funding opportunity and public EV charging in Piedmont to be answered.

Following a short presentation about EV charging and the Alameda County Incentive
Project, a panel will provide responses to questions submitted by attendees. Participants will ask their questions using the Q&A feature of Zoom. The moderator will group questions together and pose them to the panel for a response.

Members of the public can participate in the meeting in the following ways:
• Computer or smart phone: Click on https://piedmont-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83233567482
• Telephone: Dial (669) 900-9128 and enter webinar/meeting number 840-0138-1498

On October 18th the City Council approved the installation of four DC fast EV charging stations on Magnolia Avenue near the Exedra. These chargers will be the first public chargers located in Piedmont and are anticipated to be operational by July 1, 2022. In addition to these approved chargers, the City is exploring other locations for installing public EV charging stations. Various locations are being considered in advance of a new funding opportunity, the Alameda County Incentive Project. The City is seeking input from Piedmont residents about their EV usage and preferences for EV charging. Residents are encouraged to complete an online EV community survey by November 26th.

“Public electric vehicle charging stations are intended to further support the adoption of electric vehicles in Piedmont.” said Alyssa Dykman, the City’s Sustainability Program
Manager. “Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 calls for the community to reduce its annual in-territory emissions from the transportation, building, solid waste, and water sectors by 40% below its 2005 baseline by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Emissions from CO2e from gas- and diesel-fueled vehicles are among the biggest obstacles to meeting these emissions reduction goals. In 2019, vehicles in Piedmont accounted for 49% of the community’s total emissions. The City has the chance to capitalize on the interest of EVs in Piedmont and further promote EV adoption through the development of EV infrastructure.”

If you have questions about public EV charging stations, please contact Sustainability Program Manager, Alyssa Dykman, by email at adykman@piedmont.ca.gov. Any correspondence sent to the City will be considered a public record.

Oct 20 2021

Virtual Community Workshop October 21, 2021, 5:30 pm

Pre-approved architectural plans, taller and larger ADUs permitted, allowing two ADUs and one Junior ADU on a single-family property in Piedmont.

“Objective” Standards and Incentives for Multifamily Housing and ADUs –

On Thursday, October 21, 2021, the City of Piedmont and Lisa Wise Consulting (LWC) will host a virtual event, entitled “New Fair Housing Programs Community Workshop,” starting at 5:30 pm, to discuss new objective standards for multifamily housing and new ADU (Accessory Dwelling Units) incentives.

State of California laws, such as SB35 and SB 330, require cities to apply standards that are objective and “knowable in advance” to applications for multifamily housing developments, such as apartment buildings.

Discretionary design review or conditional use permits are no longer allowed.

Last year, the City and LWC consultant began to prepare objective design standards for future multifamily housing developments, including the citywide Fair Housing Survey conducted in March 2021 and presentations to the Housing Advisory Committee in May and June 2021. The results of this work will be described to the Piedmont community on October 21, 2021.

State laws, including AB 671, require cities to develop incentives for the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that can be offered at affordable rents to residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes.

The October 21 event will also include a discussion of possible new ADU incentives. New incentives would generally be available to homeowners who choose to rent their new ADUs at very low or low rents for a period of 10 years.

Currently very low or low rents for a one-bedroom apartment with two occupants is a maximum of $1,370 to $2,193 per month, and the maximum incomes of the tenant households are $54,800 and $87,700, respectively.

Possible ADU incentives could include changes to City regulations to offer pre-approved architectural plans, permit taller and larger ADUs, or allow as many as two ADUs and one Junior ADU on a single-family property in Piedmont.

The City and LWC have developed plans for ADU and JADU construction with Openscope Studio, an architectural firm based in San Francisco. With some modifications, these new plans can be used to quickly obtain Planning Division approvals and streamline the building permit plan review to construct a new ADU.

Participants in the virtual meeting on October 21 on the Zoom platform can share their ideas, take part in online polls during the community workshop, and hear from other Piedmonters on these important issues.

To RSVP for the New Fair Housing Programs Community Workshop, please email Piedmontishome@piedmont.ca.gov. For more information, please visit the Get Involved webpage at Piedmontishome.org

Members of the Piedmont community are invited to send their comments on the draft new objective standards and ADU incentives to the City of Piedmont Planning & Building Department by November 19, 2021. Comments can be emailed to Piedmontishome@piedmont.ca.gov or mailed to: Fair Housing Programs, City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94602. The draft new fair housing programs are funded in part by a California SB 2 planning grant.

Link to draft plan > https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20Division/Housing%20Programs/LWC_Piedmont_New%20Fair%20Housing%20Programs_101821.pdf

Contact 510/420-3050 or 510/420-3040 for further information.

Oct 13 2021

Some of the 28 appealing jurisdictions are: the cities of Tiburon, Ross, Lafayette, Belvedere, Sausalito, Saratoga, Los Altos, Alameda, Palo Alto. and the counties of Marin, Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Contra Costa.

In addition to the 28 appeals submitted, Moraga, Mountain View, Napa County, San Bruno, San Rafael, and St. Helena sent comment letters about RHNA in lieu of submitting an appeal.   Read more about the ABAG Housing Allocation Here

The Piedmont City Council acted to not appeal the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) proposed allocation of 587 new housing units in Piedmont.  The Piedmont Planning Department under the direction of the Piedmont City Council moved ahead to maximize new housing production and headed off citizen pressure to seek a reduction in Piedmont’s housing allocation requirement.

Piedmont has to date not received its official final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 587 new housing units.

On March 1, 2021 the Piedmont City Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Professional Services to Update the Piedmont Housing Element to fulfill the yet to be approved ABAG housing allocation for planning period 2023-2031. Subsequently, on May 3, 2021, the City Council approved a $691,230 consulting contract to update the Housing Element and provide for the ABAG housing allocation.

Final RHNA (Housing Allocations) will be announced in December 2021, following ABAG Executive Board adoption.  A public hearing by the Executive Board will be part of ABAG deliberations.   Read more here

ABAG received 28 appeals from Bay Area jurisdictions by the July 9th deadline. In addition, a number of jurisdictions sent ABAG comment letters about RHNA, in lieu of submitting an appeal.  Housing Element Law requires ABAG to allocate all of the 441,176 units assigned to the Bay Area by HCD (California Health and Community Development Department). If the appeal of a jurisdiction’s draft RHNA allocation is successful, ABAG must redistribute the units to other local governments in the region.  < ABAG

The City Council decision not to appeal the proposed 587 housing unit allocation could result in Piedmont’s allocation being increased if even one of the 28 appeals is successful.  For some jurisdictions, appealing their allocation appears to have been a defensive measure and insurance on their part to avoid even further increases in their allocations.

The ABAG public hearings and subsequent continuations will occur remotely.  Hearing accessibility instructions (Zoom Link) will be posted to the > meetings webpage no less than 72 hours prior to the hearing and the continuations.

Appeals were heard on September 24, 29, and October 8, 2021 (recordings linked at bottom of this article).  Read the complete texts of all Appeals here.

Upcoming Hearings:

Day 4: Friday, October 15 1:00 to 5:00 (Remotely, with In-Person Option)
• Appeal #15: MRN – Ross
• Appeal #16: MRN – San Anselmo
• Appeal #17: MRN – Sausalito
• Appeal #18: MRN – Tiburon

Day 5: Friday, October 22 9:00 to 5:00 (Remotely, with InPerson Option)
Appeal #19: MRN Unincorporated Marin County
Appeal #20: SCL Los Altos
Appeal #21: SCL Los Altos Hills
Lunch Break
Appeal #22: SCL Monte Sereno
Appeal #23: SCL Palo Alto
Appeal #24: SCL Saratoga
Appeal #25: SCL Unincorporated Santa Clara County

Day 6: Friday, October 29 9:00 to 5:00 (Remotely, with InPerson Option)
Appeals #26 & #27: SON – Unincorporated Sonoma County

Appeal #28: SON – Windsor

Appeals Carried Over from Prior Hearing Days

Final Deliberations

Recordings of previous hearings are available and noted below:

RHNA Appeals Day 1 (Remotely)
Friday 9/24/2021, 9:00a to 5:00p

Meeting Recording
375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

RHNA Appeals Day 2 (Remotely)
Wednesday 9/29/2021, 9:00a to 1:00p

Meeting Recording
375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

RHNA Appeals Day 3
Friday 10/8/2021, 2:00p to 5:00p

Meeting Link
375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

Oct 13 2021

All the Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Appeals are linked below and available to read as well as the comments on the Appeals.  Read the complete schedule for Hearings of the Appeals here.

In addition to the 28 appeals submitted (listed below), Moraga, Mountain View, Napa County, San Bruno, San Rafael, and St. Helena sent comment letters about RHNA in lieu of submitting an appeal.   Read more about the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments)  Housing Allocation Here

Click on a jurisdiction’s name below to read their appeal.

Jurisdiction Appeals

Comments on Jurisdiction Appeals

City of Alameda None Received
City of Belvedere Comments
City of Clayton None Received
City of Dublin None Received
City of Lafayette None Received
City of Larkspur Comments
City of Los Altos Comments
City of Mill Valley Comments
City of Monte Sereno None Received
City of Palo Alto Comments
City of Pleasant Hill Comments
City of Pleasanton None Received
City of San Ramon None Received
City of Saratoga Comments
City of Sausalito Comments
County of Contra Costa Comments
County of Marin Comments
County of Santa Clara Comments
County of Sonoma (appeal #1) Comments
County of Sonoma (appeal #2)
Town of Corte Madera Comments
Town of Danville None Received
Town of Fairfax Comments
Town of Los Altos Hills Comments
Town of Ross Comments
Town of San Anselmo Comments
Town of Tiburon Comments
Town of Windsor Comments