Former City Council Members and Planning Commissioners Attempted Changes to Proposed Design Guidelines for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – “Second Units.”

Few Piedmonters have been engaged in the proposed ADU rules despite the impact on all Piedmont properties.

The following are safety matters the Planning Commission and the City Council have not considered.

“The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.”  65852.2  (A) State law.

“Off­street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.”65852.2 (II) State law.

During the Piedmont school winter break, on Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:30 pm in City Hall, the Piedmont City Council will consider approval, disapproval or changes to the Design Guidelines recommended for approval the prior week by a majority of the Piedmont Planning Commission with Chair Jonathan Levine voting no.  See link to the staff report at the end of this article. 

Thus Far No Checklist is Available to Clarify Process & Requirements

The Planning Department attempted to provide Design Guidelines to protect existing neighborhood standards and concern for adjoining properties. Consideration of applications for new ADUs is required to be “objective” without subjective opinions from staff or neighbors.  Although requested at the Planning Commission meeting, no checklist has been produced to let applicants and others view a complete list of what is required for approval. Processes were also not specifically provided.

Planning Commission Chair and former Piedmont City Council Member Jonathan Levine has repeatedly expressed concern for neighborhood impacts, notification, clear processes and guidelines reviewed prior to approval. 

Unappealable  Staff Decisions

Staff alone will make unappealable decisions on permitting ADUs.  Typography, street safety, parking issues, fire safety, emergency access, etc., are yet to be resolved. The Piedmont Fire Marshall is given the all important, yet “subjective” task of determining whether an  application for an ADU will be “safe.”  

Inoperable windows, parking, notice, story poles, fences, privacy, neighbors involvement, public notice, curb cuts, light and air were matters brought up at the Piedmont Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 10, 2020. 

During consideration of recommendations, some current Planning Commissioners displayed little knowledge of the new State laws and the difference between the previously approved ordinance and the Design Guidelines they were acting upon. The fact that ADU approval could not be discretionary, appealed, or subjective came as a surprise to some. 

Planning Director Kevin Jackson explained that there could be no notice to neighbors or appeal of the staff decisions.  He stated that the design issues such as required 6′ fences and non-operable translucent windows had been  recommended by staff to protect neighborly privacy in an objective manner. Both measures were changed by the Commission. Jackson argued for prompt adoption of the guidelines with future amendments as identified.

Comments & Suggestions by Former Officials

Former City Council member Garrett Keating suggested requiring story poles be installed prior to staff approval to allow the staff to definitively know where the ADU would be built. 

Former Planning Commissioner Melanie Robertson argued for a number of improvements, including allowing curb cuts to facilitate parking on site. 

Former Planning Commissioner and Planner Michael Henn presented a number of language conflicts within the guidelines. Henn wanted the Commission to wait until the California Department of Housing and Community Development booklet outlining compliance requirements had been provided.  Henn further advocated greater community engagement in determining the requirements to allow increased consideration by Piedmonters.

Piedmont City Council ADU Design Guidelines staff report for 2/18/2020 Council meeting:

https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16462354

********

Piedmont City Council ADU ordinance previously enacted :

https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16415861

Click to make comments to the City Council, > citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov

Is the cart getting in front of the horse ? Adopt the Ordinance then its requirements ?

Council plans to approve an ADU ordinance on Feb. 3, and some time later consider what the “objective” standards for approved ADUs will be, therefore leaving both applicants and neighbors without clear and specific requirements regarding safety and other issues.

Concerns over regulations have arisen over applications for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) being exclusively and “objectively” considered by staff.  

Before completion of the Piedmont ADU approval requirements – Design Review and safety regulations – the Piedmont City Council is being pressed  to act promptly on adopting a new ADU ordinance on February 3, 2020 at 7:30 pm in City Hall.

Major components of an “objective” review by staff have been shown to be incomplete. Items such as Design Review specifications, safety regulations etc. have not been put forward for Council consideration prior to the proposed second reading and adoption of the ADU ordinance.

A key, legally, allowed, qualification for ADU approval is safety – traffic, pedestrian, access for public safety services, distance from roadways, fire safety, terrain, etc.

Fire Safety:

With climate changes increasing fire conditions in California, fire safety in Piedmont requires prevention of barriers to fire fighting.  Strict avoidance of challenging conditions that would interfere with controlling fires is  necessary for protection of all in the move to densification of our small city. 

 The practice of asking the Fire Chief or Police Chief to determine safety issues appears not to be an identifiable “objective” practice.

The following is the staff suggestion for fire safety standard:

“5.03.03 FIRE SAFE CONSTRUCTION 1.Construction of any ADU or JADU shall be designed to meet fire safe construction and vegetation requirements as determined by the Piedmont Fire Marshal.”

Should Piedmont require ADUs to meet California Fire Code, and National Fire Protection Association Standards?  Piedmont has self-excluded certain fire safety standards.  Will the Piedmont Fire Marshal accept the California Code and National Standards?  Has the Council considered any exemptions?

What document will an applicant for a new ADU receive upon arrival at the Public Works counter in City Hall?  

Planning Commissioner Jonathan Levine pointed out, when voting no on the proposed ordinance, that no applicant document /checklist had been provided to the Commissioners during their consideration of the ordinance. Also, no such document has been provided to the City Council.  Viewing the document informs the Council and the public how the ordinance will be implemented and allows consideration of its objectivity.

Is the approval criteria objective?

Staff has pointed out the necessity of  “objective” criteria for new ADU applicants; however, while seeking approval of an ordinance requiring  compliance by ADU applicants the material provided by the staff to the City Council does not supply a full criteria package. 

 February 3, 7:30 pm – Council consideration of the ADU ordinance. See staff report below.

https://piedmont.ca.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16415861

The Planning  Commission is scheduled to initially consider the specific requirements on February 10, 2020, leaving open time between the adoption of the ADU ordinance and the completion of the requirements. The Planning Commission staff report and agenda on ADUs Design Review fall after the February 3 Council proposed final adoption of the incomplete ADU ordinance. 

The proposed “Design Review” process to be considered by the Planning Commission is linked below:

https://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20Division/Planning-ADU-Report-2020-02-10.pdf

To make comments to the City Council, click > citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov

State laws ending single-family zoning have a great impact on Piedmont’s parcel tax system and method of supporting city services.

Piedmont, one of California’s most heavily taxed cities, proposes and taxes three housing units on single-family parcels as though there was just one household  – with no commensurate parcel tax to cover the public service needs (parks, recreation, library services, police, fire) of the additional families.

On March 3, 2020, Piedmonters have a renewal of the City parcel tax on their ballot, Measure T,  found at the end of Piedmont ballots.  As written, Measure T does not distinguish between a one family dwelling unit on a single-family parcel and a parcel that has two or three dwelling units on a single-family parcel. 

New State laws impacting “Single-family” residential parcels are intended by the State of California to result in many new dwelling units in former single-family zoned housing by adding one or two units – up to three residential units – on a single parcel.  The March 3rd parcel tax, Measure T, does not reflect this new reality as parcels will be taxed on the basis of one residence on a parcel in the “Single-family” category.

Piedmont is financially impacted by the new housing requirements made at the state level increasing densification. Piedmont’s system of supporting itself has for decades been based on taxing single-family properties in Piedmont containing one single-family residence/household on a parcel.  

Many California cities have increased their sales taxes to gain needed revenue.  Piedmont, zoned primarily for “single-family” residences, has relatively little commercial property and thus very little opportunity for increased sales tax revenue. Voter approved parcel taxes in Piedmont, property transfer taxes, and increased property valuations have allowed Piedmont to prosper.  

Those parcels with the newly allowable 3 housing units on their property will pay no more for the densification of their properties despite windfall income without additional  taxes for the service needs of additional families.

READ the Measure T Tax Tables for Piedmont Basic Municipal Service>HERE.

Increasing the number of households in Piedmont will require additional services – street safety, parking, fire protection, public schools, city administration, public open spaces, police services, etc. – without commensurate increases in revenue. 

Push for more affordable housing in California.

In 2019, the population outflow from the State of California was more than 200,000 citizens relocating to other states.  The figure reported by the US Census Bureau is 203,414.  While California is expected to lose a Congressional Representative after 2020, Texas may gain three Congress persons due to dramatic population increase.

“In the 1970’s citizen activists [in CA] created urban growth boundaries and land trusts to preserve open space and delicate coastal habitats.” Following Prop 13, “Cash hungry cities opted to zone for commercial uses, which would generate sales taxes, instead of affordable housing.” (New York Times 12/1/19)

With the press of political demands for more housing, the State of California has taken a dramatic step to remove restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).  When ADUs are added to single-family zoned parcels, many requirements have been eliminated: setbacks, floor area ratios, view protections, parking, owner occupancy, public participation, notification, and other factors.

School taxes.

In November 2019, Piedmonters voted overwhelmingly by over 82% to tax individual parcels.  Every parcel has the same tax basis of approximately $2,700. An additional tax based on square footage of living space is also added to individual parcel taxes.  The taxation needs for the school parcel tax were based on expected student populations.

READ the approved 2019 Piedmont School Parcel Tax Measure HERE.

Unlike San Mateo, the Piedmont City Council accepted the new State laws and has shown no effort to enforce the City Charter which gives Piedmont voters the right to have a say in what happens to Piedmont’s zoning.  Further, the Piedmont City Council took no action or policy position on the various housing initiatives put forth in Sacramento that take away local laws even though the legislation was contrary to Piedmont’s City Charter.

Piedmont’s Charter was written to guarantee Piedmont voters the right to control many aspects of the City including elections, finances, budgets, police and fire departments, public schools, public borrowing, zoning, etc.  

 Charter cities in California have lost significant local authority over land use and public participation in decisions. 

The recent court decision in a San Mateo County Court to uphold and acknowledge San Mateo’s City Charter regarding a housing project could eventually impact Piedmont.  The San Mateo Court decision does indicate a judicial act protecting Charter City rights.  

The Piedmont City Council per the City Charter has the responsibility of enforcing the City Charter and putting before Piedmont voters recommended changes to zoning – single-family, multi-family, commercial, and public zones, yet nothing has been placed before the voters.  Other City Charter changes and amendments were on a recent ballot and approved by Piedmont voters.

Piedmonters for over a century held control over land use decisions, police and fire services,  public schools, parks, etc. through the City Charter.

Affordable housing in Piedmont

In Piedmont, the abandoned PG&E property on Linda Avenue next to the Oakland Avenue Bridge, was noted in Piedmont’s General Plan, as an optimal location for affordable housing – close to schools, transportation, stores and parks.  Disregarding Piedmont’s General Plan and Piedmont’s City Charter, the City Council permitted a number of market-rate townhouses to be built on the former PG&E site without including any affordable housing and illegally rezoning the property from public usage to the multi-family zone without a citizen vote on the rezoning, as required by Piedmont’s City Charter. 

Feb. 10, 5:30 pm. Planning Commission, City Hall

The Planning Commission and City Council will soon consider changes to bring the City’s regulations regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) into conformance with new state laws.

On February 10, 2020, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines to establish objective architectural and landscape standards for ADUs and JADUs.  AGENDA >February 2020 PC Agenda 

The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review the proposed amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines at a public hearing on Tuesday, February 18, 2020.

The proposed changes to the Piedmont Design Guidelines are intended to do the following:

• to ensure that new ADUs and JADUs match the architecture of the primary residence;
• to protect street trees and the public right-of-way; and
• to ensure that the architectural design of ADUs and JADUs preserve privacy between neighboring properties.

Per state requirements, the new design standards for ADUs and JADUs in the proposed amendments to the Design Guidelines are objective, measurable, and prescriptive.

The staff report and agenda for the February 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting can be read > Planning-ADU-Report-2020-02-10.  

Background   On January 21, 2020, the City Council introduced the first reading of a proposed ordinance to establish a ministerial review process for ADUs and JADUs in compliance with state law.

The City Council will hold a public hearing to adopt the proposed ordinance on February 3, 2020. On January 1, 2020, new state laws came into effect which limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to regulate ADUs and JADUs.

The provisions affected by the changes to state law include, but are not limited to:

• ministerial review of all ADU permit applications,
• off street parking requirements eliminated,
• unit size limitations,
• application approval timelines,
• owner occupancy, 
• the allowance for junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), ADUs on multi-family properties
• ADUs that must be approved by-right.

Local laws which do not conform to these new state standards are preempted and cannot be enforced. City staff has developed a proposed ordinance and amendments to the Design Guidelines which will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council to conform Piedmont’s ADU and JADU regulations to the new state law.

Public Engagement: The opportunity for public input is available throughout this process. Interested members of the public are encouraged to attend the public meetings:

    The Planning Commission meeting is on February 10, 2020

    The City Council meetings are on February 3, 2020 and February 18, 2020

These meetings will be televised live on KCOM-TV, the City’s government access TV station and available through streaming video on the KCOM meeting video page.

Written comments regarding the proposed ordinance may be sent to the City Council and Planning Commission via email to: citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov.

Comments intended for the Planning Commission’s consideration should be submitted by 5 p.m., Thursday, February 6, 2020.

To send comments via U.S. Mail, please use the following address: Piedmont City Council c/o City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

If you have questions about the proposed ordinance, please contact Planning & Building Director Kevin Jackson by email at kjackson@piedmont.ca.gov. Any correspondence sent to the City will be considered a public record.

Most Piedmont residents produce the majority of their carbon footprint outside of our city, especially through online shopping, vehicle use, and travel.

Climate Action Vacations

Air Travel

In 2018, the journal NATURE found tourism was responsible for 8% of greenhouse gases.  A single long haul flight emits at least a half ton of carbon per coach passenger.  Business and First Class passengers generate three to four tons of carbon on long haul flights.

Stockholm’s Royal Institute of Technology reports that air travel accounts for 10% of the average Swede’s  carbon footprint and trends indicate aviation could ultimately account for up to a quarter of the global footprint without altered lifestyles.  (The New York Times (12/22/19)

Cruises are not Green Vacations

The NYT (7/15/15) reported that “Ships intentionally dump more engine oil and sludge into the oceans in the span of three years than that spilled in the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez accidents combined, ocean researchers say, and emit huge amounts of  certain air pollutants, far more than all the world’s cars.”

Ships are like floating cities, reproducing the least sustainable aspects of cities often generating as much water and air pollution as cities.  The high sulfur content of their diesel fuel is a contributor to acid rain

While concentrations of so-called ultrafine particulate matter on a Beijing street reached about 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, such concentrations aboard cruise ships at sea ranged from more than 45,000 particles per cubic centimeter on a Carnival vessel to over 157,700 particles per cubic centimeter on a Princess Cruises ship.  {Ultrafine particles are also a health hazard, contributing to lung and heart disease.} US News  Jan. 24, 2019

A single cruise ship in one day generates as much particulate matter as 1 million cars, and 15 of the world’s biggest ships emit more sulfur and nitrogen oxides than all the cars on the planet.

Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest luxury cruise operator, emitted nearly 10 times more sulfur oxide (SOX) around European coasts than did all 260 million European cars in 2017. (Transport and Environment  June 4, 2019)

Train travel is greener, but offers fewer option.  Estimates of cruise passengers from North America in 2019 vary from 12 million to more than 14 million.

Festivals and Trash

Mass Music Festivals are Popular –too often producing Massive Trash

In 2017 the Coachella Festival in Indio generated over 100 tons of trash every day according to the environmental impact analysis.   Their diversion rate away from landfills was only 20% according to the 11/17/19 New York Times.

Green Streets

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates Americans generate an average of 4.6 tons of carbon per vehicle per year.  CO2 emissions in Piedmont and elsewhere can be reduced by prioritizing public transit use.  Reducing on-street parking is one strategy used to decrease car use in suburbs, while making streets more available for neighborhood play and celebrations.  Making use of the streets for activities is particularly relevant as backyards shrink with expanding houses and the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units.

Online Shopping

Online shopping is convenient and fast, but is it really a green alternative?  Where were the products manufactured and what about the increasing number of returns when people order several sizes or colors in order to choose the right one comfortably at home.

Newcastle University scientists in the Institution of Engineering and Technology studied the “feedback effects” of returns.  The positive incentive to reduce CO2 emissions by shopping online instead of driving is cancelled out by the negative environmental impact of returned packages. A further negative effect occurs with one or two day deliveries because the trucks then carry fewer packages or drive a larger area.

Online reseller shopping is increasingly popular and has the benefit of extending the useful life of items as well as reducing the flow to landfill.

Some suggestions to make online shopping greener:

• Order from few different companies, and consolidate orders.
• Buy goods such as shoes, which have high return rates, in shops.
• Give preference to delivery services that use returnable crates or recyclable cardboard.
• Set up buying groups to place collective orders.
• Use standard delivery rather than express delivery so that parcels can be transported in optimally loaded trucks.

Climate Change Food

beef = 27 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram

chicken = 6.9 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram

tofu = 2 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram

lentils = .9 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram

Alaskan pollock = 1.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram

farmed mussels = .6 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram

Read more from the Environmental Working Group here

Don’t forget the basics: Reduce, Reuse, Compost, Recycle

REDUCE

Purchase less.

When ordering online, avoid one-day shipping which results in delivery trucks not optimally loaded.

ACCURATELY COMPOST & RECYCLE

Paper with a lot of printing on it cannot be composted even if its drenched in food.

Rinse or scrape off food containers in order to recycle them. Recycled materials that don’t compost can’t be recycled if covered in yogurt or other food.

Single Use Bags are collected at California Supermarkets.

Reminder of Meetings on January 29, February 12 and 26:

Hello Friends:  Passing on this notice for a public workshop this Wednesday, January 29 at 6:30 pm in Community Hall. [See video produced by the City of Piedmont HERE.] Long story short – the city is looking for ideas on how to reduce natural gas usage in town as part of its Climate Action Plan.  The basic concept is to make it easy for residents to electrify their homes – add solar panels, replace NG appliances with electric ones, facilitate installation of EV charging stations. Staff has some very specific proposals that while good, won’t apply to many homes in town.  So come learn about the latest in home electrification technology and bring your own ideas.  Mine – I want a curbside charging station and a solar-panel hot tub!   Can’t do that in Piedmont unless we implement these 21st century codes so now is the time to be creative.

Can’t make it Wednesday?  There are more workshops in February (read below).

Did you know that one-third of Piedmont’s climate impact comes from gas in our homes?

Did you know that the City is exploring ways to reduce this impact – through REACH codes, which can help us make collective progress toward reducing gas usage? 

About 30 Northern California cities have already adopted REACH codes to address emissions from buildings. REACH codes mainly focus on converting appliances to high-efficiency, electricity-powered ones, and encouraging solar and energy efficiency measures. Thanks to East Bay Community Energy, most of us are already purchasing electricity that is from 100% renewable sources. But now we need to actively encourage the replacement of conventional natural gas-powered furnaces and water heaters with high-efficiency electric heat pumps, gas stoves with induction ranges, gas-powered clothes dryers with efficient electric dryers, and so on. Building codes will have a role in this, as well as education, incentives and other policies.

The Piedmont Reach Codes implemented this year will set the tone for Piedmont’s commitment to taking action during this critical decade in the effort to prevent the worst effects of climate change, and we could end up being a leading role model for other small, residentially-dominant cities.

Will you be part of the solution? Decisions will be made over the next few months – join the conversation and spread the word!

The City is hosting a series of workshops, and we’re hoping this will be an opportunity for residents to speak up in support of taking strong action, both with the building reach codes and, more generally, with moving urgently towards full implementation of Piedmont’s Climate Action Plan 2.0. Please come weigh in on what you think would be a good path forward for Piedmont, one that balances the needs of residents and commercial properties with the imperative of phasing out the use of natural gas and other greenhouse gas emitting substances.

A Community Forum aimed at residents, on Wed., Jan 29th from 6:30-8:30 pm at the Community Hall (711 Highland Ave).  Staff will present code suggestions that they think would be good to implement. This presentation will focus on the need to make Piedmont a low-carbon, resilient community and the ways these codes might help us get there. Please join and spread the word!

Two workshops aimed at building industry professionals (same workshop repeated twice) on Wed., Feb 12th from 1:30-3:30 pm and 6:30-8:30 pm at the EOC (Emergency Operations Center) conference room at 403 Highland Avenue. If you know any green-minded industry professionals, please encourage them to attend!

Two workshops for residents (same workshop repeated twice) on Wed., February 26th at 1:30-3:30 pm and 6:30-8:30 pm at the EOC conference room, which will be more of a deep dive into the proposed code.  Connect encourages residents to attend both the January 29th event and this workshop, if possible.

P.S. If you haven’t already, please make sure to join the Piedmont Climate Challenge: piedmontclimatechallenge.org

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

Piedmont City Council approved the first reading of a binding ADU ordinance while leaving open a number of outstanding questions. The required Second consideration will be on Monday, February 3, 2020, 7:30 p.m., City Hall. 

ADU applications that comply with a new binding ordinance will be approved by city staff without neighbor notification or public participation.  ADUs will be approved “by right.”  Parking, privacy, and views will not be allowed to be considered.

Planning Director Kevin Jackson and City Attorney Michelle Kenyon acknowledged that it had been difficult to determine the ramifications of the various State laws and their impact on Piedmont’s proposed ordinances. 

Numerous outstanding issues remain: safety requirements including street width and existing parking, driveway widths, fire safety, distance from a bus stop by foot, clarity on design review requirements, landscaping, enlargements to garages on the property line, risks of waiting to approve an ADU ordinance until information is provided by the state, deed restrictions, opaque window requirements, balconies, etc.

The Council supports increased Piedmont density by adding more ADUs approved by staff.   There will be no public notice or consideration by the Planning Commission on conforming ADUs.  Higher and taller ADUs over 16 feet were also sought by the Council. 

The Council seeks to meet regional housing needs, especially for below market rate housing, through increased ADUs. The Planning Department was praised for their efforts.

City Planning Consultant Michael Henn of Piedmont spoke to the Council on January 21 asking for a more considered approach on the ADU ordinance by awaiting  the California Department of Housing and Community Development guidelines assisting cities on ordinances regarding ADUs. 

Henn carefully explained his approval of ADUs and his prior role drafting ordinances.  He recommended a delay in ordinance approval by the Council pending further information on what other cities are approving for appropriate Piedmont ADUs.

Below is the Henn letter sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Greetings,
I am a city planning consultant in the East Bay. I am following the creation of local ADU ordinances. I have been told that HCD is preparing new guidelines to assist cities with AB 68& 881& SB 13.
If so, when do you expect them to be available?
Thanks,
Michael Henn, AICP
Piedmont CA

Mike,

Attached you will find our guidance memo. We are working on an ADU booklet (similar to the previous HCD ADU Booklet), which will have a sample ordinance, a summary of the recent legislation, and an FAQ section. Expect that booklet out in the next month or so. In the meantime, feel free to send in any questions you may have. Thanks!

• Jose

READ Information from Housing and Community Development > ADU TA AB 881 others 01-10-20

Despite the long processes to amend ordinances, the Council did not want to delay the ordinance.  There appeared to be no consideration of how other small cities were dealing with ADU requirements.

Safety, traffic, transit, parking –

Mayor and City Council

City of Piedmont

120 Vista Avenue

Piedmont, CA 94611

Subject: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) -Revisions

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council

As a planner, I have long supported allowing more ADUs when they were virtually outlawed by most cities. However, it now seems like the State may have overreached in taking away cities’ rights to regulate ADUs.

Piedmont may be rushing action on a revised ADU ordinance when the state law only became effective three weeks ago. I have checked with several other jurisdictions and they are just beginning to study the issue and have not yet began public hearings. There is a lack of urgency because the State Housing and Community Department has not yet published its implementation guidelines.

Our premature actions may necessitate subsequent otherwise unneeded revisions when the HCD guidelines are issued.  Also, if Piedmont does not have its own local ordinance in place, then there would be no impact on the potential production of ADUs, because the state’s rules would apply by default, until we adopted our own. So there is little real urgency and there is time for proper study.

What is being proposed largely precludes the normal community discussion which Piedmont residents are used to. In particular, just following the law and accurately measuring the half mile walking distance from bus stops will require some time. And if we were to provide for street-safety thresholds, also consistent with the law, additional time would be required for analysis.

I have including pertinent sections of the newly adopted state law to illustrate the following concerns:

66582.2  (a) A local agency may…

(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted.  The designation of areas may be based on criteria that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety.

(Presumably this section means that the jurisdiction may designate areas where accessory dwelling units may not be permitted, or, there should also be latitude to allow ADUs but with some minimum of off-street parking provided)

66582.2 (d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:

(1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.

66582.2 (j) (10): “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop, or train station where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.

(This definition would preclude counting mere proximity to a bus route where there is no designated bus stop) 

66582.2 (o) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.

Analysis

Transit Availability: Some of the restrictions on cities’ powers largely apply to homes within a half mile, by foot, from a bus stop (66582.2 {d} {1) The staff report declares that every part of Piedmont is within a half mile of a bus stop. While largely true, that conclusion was apparently based on a crow-fly review since it’s not entirely true. For example, I took well-known Wildwood School as a starting point, and using my admittedly less accurate car’s odometer, I have checked the distance along streets, (not crow-fly distance), and found that it is at least a half mile to the nearest bus stops for AC Transit Lines 29, 12, 33 and P.  Because of curving streets and a few cul-de-sacs, there are probably several other areas which are beyond a half mile. Also Line 33 above the central area has only weekday commuter service with no midday or weekend service. These transit deficiencies are important because the statute’s justification for not providing any new parking for an ADU, is that convenient transit is available. Where transit is not available, some relief seems justified.

Traffic and Emergency Vehicle Safety: There are a few existing, seriously impacted and unusually narrow streets where on-street parking is already extremely impacted, and emergency vehicles may already have trouble getting through. The extremely narrow stretch of Scenic Avenue comes to mind. The new state law (66582.2 {a}) allows a city to designate areas not suitable for additional ADUs for safety reasons. To be objective and defensible, I’d suggest language like: The City has determined that certain existing streets which are of insufficient width according to accepted Fire Protection standards, and such streets already allow on-street parking, and accordingly, the provision of one parking space per ADU is required, and such spaces may be open and tandem: (street names to follow).

Correction of Existing Code Violations: As I am sure you all know, there have been a lot of historic or even recent conversions of garages to living quarters for the primary dwelling unit. This is distinct from cases where a parking deficiency is legally non-conforming (grandfathered). If such a residence were now to further worsen the on-street parking demand by adding one or even 2 ADUs, that would add to the existing on street parking conflicts. Without violating the new law’s prohibition on requiring any parking for the ADU, the city could ask/require that existing zoning/building violations regarding parking be corrected. This would mandate that a parking analysis be done in concert with the ADU review. Merely suggesting that the building inspector will catch past violations is unrealistic.

Summary: In crafting the legislation, the legislature made some concessions for where transit was not conveniently available and for valid public safety reasons. I would expect that a good faith effort that is tailored to the unique nature of a city and supports its specific exceptions with a logical nexus to traffic safety and emergency vehicle access would escape much criticism. A Planning Commission member has suggested finding a legal way to provide notice of new construction to neighbors, but not deter from the ministerial approval requirement. There can be a lot of good ideas to protect neighborhoods, but not if the new ordinance gets rapidly approved as written.

We can ask, How can we work within the law, but tailor it to the uniqueness of Piedmont? I of course agree that most of Piedmont can and should accommodate additional ADUs with little impact. However, areas where most of the once existing one-car garages have already been converted to living quarters, and where the narrow streets are already jammed with parked cars, really shouldn’t have to accept more units with no new parking or even correcting past violations.

Therefore, I urge the Council to take a step back and allow the normal community involvement to take place. A citizens’ committee could assist the staff in reviewing the options and look at how other jurisdictions have looked at the issue.

Thank you for your consideration,

Michael Henn, Former Piedmont Planning Commissioner

Few small California cities decide to create such lengthy new ADU ordinances as Piedmont’s 112 page opus.  Nevertheless, their brief updates retain public notice to neighbors, contain requirements that are sensitive to the privacy challenges of squeezing in additional people in close quarters, etc.

San Marino, CA has adopted a 14 page ordinance expressing compliance with AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13.   An early statement in the ordinance is:

“The City shall not approve an application for an ADU unless the ADU satisfies all of the standards provided in the ordinance.”

Among San Marino’s requirements for a complete application prior to obtaining an ADU/JADU building permit: a recorded deed restriction, rental period of no less than 90 days,  letters of service availability for sewer and water, utility services may not be separate from the primary residence, tree removal permit, grading permit, a 10 foot fire lane within 150 feet of the ADU and a minimum fire flow of 1000 gallons per minute.

Read the whole ordinance here.

San Carlos, CA is in the process of updating its ADU ordinance and is recommending several interesting requirements:

– Prohibit all balconies and second-story decks on ADUs on top of detached garages; prohibit roof decks above accessory structures to reduce privacy impacts

– Require opaque windows when facing immediately adjacent side and rear neighbors.

– Detached ADUs shall not occupy more than 50% of the required rear yard area.

Read the report here.

Mill Valley, CA is also preparing to update its ADU ordinance and is considering several of these requirements:

Additional Design Standards:

• No internal connections to primary residence; 
• ​A closet required for every bedroom space (defined in the draft ordinance);
• ​The primary residence must comply with parking standards (2 off-street parking spaces and 1 guest space when on-street parking not available); and
• At least 1 parking space required for the ADU.

Additional Requirements and Deed Restrictions:

• Require the ADU to be rented to an “Affordable Household” (Moderate, low or very low income affordability levels, as defined in the Draft Ordinance), or to an adult immediate family member (defined in the Draft Ordinance).
• ​Require annual owner verification of renting the ADU space, including submittal of the rental agreement documenting the rent charged, household size, and gross household income.  

Read the report here.

Piedmont City Council’s first consideration of the ADU ordinance will take place on Tuesday, January 21, 2010, 7:30 p.m., City Hall.  See prior PCA reports for further details.