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. 

As members of the East Bay Coalition for Public Education, we have joined forces with administrators, teachers, staff, school board members, parents, and students from school districts across the East Bay to advocate for adequate funding for all public schools in California. We ask each of you to add your voice in support of public education, in conjunction with neighboring districts, during Fund Education Now! Week February 3 through 7.

Facts: California has the 5th largest economy in the world, yet the state is ranked 40th in the nation for education spending. Districts are unable to provide teachers with a livable wage creating a teacher shortage across the state. The lack of adequate state school funding has helped perpetuate gross inequities in the quality of education for students. In districts like ours, the burden for funding has shifted to local residents leading to ongoing budget concerns and a need for local parcel taxes.

During the week, we will flood our state representatives with messages from all stakeholders in our communities, gather signatures for the Schools & Communities First initiative, and continue to raise awareness about this issue.

Monday, February 3rd: K-5 students & teachers will create testimonials about what they love about school through artwork, and postcards.

Tuesday, February 4th: PMS students will create art and write letters to shine a light on the need for adequate state funding. High school students will post their support on social media. After school, we will be out front of Mulberry’s to share information about the Schools & Communities First ballot initiative.

Wednesday, February 5th: Parents and community members can post on social media and email our state representatives about why schools need more funding.

Thursday, February 6th: Wear Red for Ed!

COME TO THE RALLY at the Piedmont Community Center from 3:30 – 4:30 pm. Show your support for our teachers and staff, and California Public Schools. We will have music, snacks, speakers, a short video, and more!

Friday: We will wrap up the week by delivering our artwork and letters to Buffy Wicks, Nancy Skinner, Tony Thurmond, Governor Newsom, and any others at the state level who affect school funding.

Please join us in advocating for ALL students in California. Our future depends upon the quality of their education.

Regards, Randy Booker, Superintendent

Gabe Kessler, President, Association of Piedmont Teachers

Terra Salazar, President, California School Employees Association

Cory Smegal, School Board Vice President

Megan Pillsbury, School Board Member

Link to additional information > Fund Public Education Now Flyer (1)

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

Nominations Open Now Until  March 16, 2020

This award is presented annually to individuals who have volunteered their efforts over a period of time and made a difference because of their involvement and commitment to Piedmont’s youth

Following are the previous recipients:

Hunter McCreary (1998); Ann Chandler (1999); Ruth Cuming (2000); Lisa Lomenzo (2001); jointly by Cathie Geddeis and Marion Souyoultzis (2002); jointly by Fritz and Mary Wooster (2003); Elizabeth (Betsy) Gentry (2004); Cynthia Gorman (2005); Grier Graff (2006); Julia Burke (2007); Maude Pervere (2008); jointly to Anne-Marie Lamarche and Mark Menke (2009); Janiele Maffei Tovani (2010); Andrea Swenson (2011), June Monach (2012), Bill Drum (posthumously) and Mary Ireland (2013), Ray Perman (2014), Jennifer Fox (2015), Katie Korotzer (2016), Hilary Cooper (2017) Holly Hanke (2018), and Cathy Glazier (2019).

Art Hecht was a tireless community volunteer, and was dedicated to students in both Piedmont and Oakland. He served on Piedmont’s Board of Education from 1970 to 1982. Art also was very active with the Piedmont Continuation High School (now called Millennium High School).

In 1998, the Art Hecht Volunteer of the Year Award was established in his memory.

Nominations for this award are now being sought and will be kept strictly confidential. The deadline for nominations is 4:30 p.m. on March 16, 2020. A selection committee will vote on the award recipient, who will be recognized at the May 13, 2020 Board of Education meeting, where the honoree’s good works will be acknowledged. They also will receive the gift of a work of student art. The student will receive a monetary award and commendation from the Board.

Nomination Forms are available on the PUSD website, in the District Office or by calling Sylvia Eggert, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent, at (510) 594-2614.

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont is forming discussion groups to participate in the 2020 Great Decisions program on world affairs.

Sponsored by the Foreign Policy Association, Great Decisions is America’s largest discussion program on global matters.

The program is a series of eight meetings, lasting approximately two hours each. Participants receive a Foreign Policy Association briefing book which provides background and context for group discussion. Each session starts with an insightful video created by the Foreign Policy Association, followed by a lively discussion of the week’s topic.

Chosen by a panel of foreign policy experts, this year’s topics are:

1.  Climate Change and the Global Order
2. India and Pakistan
3. Red Sea Security
4. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking
5. U.S. Relations with the Northern Triangle
6. China’s Road into Latin America
7. The Philippines and the U.S. 8. Artificial Intelligence and Data

The program offers two sessions: Wednesday evenings from 7-9 pm, and Thursday afternoons from 1 – 3 pm. Participants can attend either session.

The Wednesday session will meet at 40 Highland Ave. beginning February 12.

The Thursday session starts February 13, meeting at the Piedmont Police Department Conference Room, 403 Highland Ave.

Both sessions meet every other week, with the eighth and final sessions ending May 20th & 21st, respectively.

To RVSP, please visit the LWVPiedmont.org and click the Great Decisions Discussion Group link.

The cost of the program is $32.00. Payment via credit card, debit card or PayPal is accepted. Payment via check should be payable to the League of Women Voters Piedmont and sent to Ward Lindenmayer, 40 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611. Please note in the memo section that the check is for Great Decisions and indicate whether you prefer to attend daytime or evening session.

Regardless of which way you pay, please send your email contact to Ward at wardandelaine@comcast.net.

Last year’s Great Decisions program attracted 60 participants, nearly twice as many as in the past. This, perhaps, says something about the state of the world and how global affairs have become important to so many.

Great Decisions is open to all. You do not need to be a member of the League to join in. Briefing books are now available for pick-up at 40 Highland Ave., Piedmont. Please sign the sheet when you pick up a book and leave a check in the envelope if you have not previously paid.

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