open space?
projection, the size of a balcony. Suggest allowing breaks with less dimension.
Part 4.c., i. – 30% orientation ‐ this is a hard standard to interpret. What does it mean? Part B.1.a.c. “porches of decks over a minimum 25 percent of the façade” How is this interpreted? Part B.1.a.ii. change 25 façade bay to 30 feet façade bay which is typical of structural bay in multifamily development. Suggest that they match.
shows roughly a change of 2 feet in height can provide the change, which is more typical.
Bay articulation standard seems unnecessarily prescriptive.
allowing roof decks that are completely private and partially or completely enclosed on sides. Is there a way where roof decks are permitted if concealed from ground floor visibility? There are many delightful roof decks that are still designed as private.
Part 3.a., why should buildings not have lobbies serving more than three units. Make the policy distinction clear. This is intended to encourage townhouse type building forms?
not the entire length of the forecourt.
spaces (with a buffer, perhaps). Increase minimum dimension to greater than 15 feet.
design elements?
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 260 of 293
Part 2 EIFS is prohibited in many cities – why does Piedmont allow it? Used on the PUSD High School building. Cost‐effective material.
I think stating primary color percentage is fine, but secondary and tertiary seems a little more excessive.
Do applicants need to prove the facade coverage?
Ornamental Features – these ODS standard should specify that security features like window or door bars should have their own standards.
Apply comments above to Zone D, Mixed‐use Multifamily standards.
many other cities. Perhaps these would be in development standards. But, generally 16 feet minimum clear ground floor would be leasable retail space. Also, depth should be 50 feet minimum for at least 50% of depth.
Mr. David Hobstetter:
In reviewing the design standard documents I did not have any issues with it with the exception that perhaps I would like to see a little bit more flexibility in allowing good quality modern design in addition to the traditional approach.
Mr. Houlands:
Per your suggestion, here are my comments on ADU. Hope it helps With considering neighborhood harmony and minimizing adjacent neighbor impact in mind, lift height limit from 16 to 18 even 20 feet, it not only improves the architectural appearance of an ADU, resulting improve overall existing community beautification, but also improves land use efficiency, reduce the challenges of lot coverage and provide nature living for those loving outdoor space, more home growing veggie option and improve overall healthy living of the community.
As you know a lot of homes in Piedmont were tiny vacation homes back century ago, lift size limitation from 800 sf to 1000 sf before all subject limitations kick in, which provide opportunities to improve living quality as entire community, provide a decent, possible living style people can dream about, reduce average square foot cost, and in resulting improving affordability.
Strongly recommend the City provide standard, good architectural design, pre‐approved, ready to build plans to save work and cost for the city residents, most important is that to avoid overwhelmed city building and planning staffs to plan check and simplify inspections, like the city of San Jose, even Stockton, which provides free architecture and structure drawings and is ready to build with a city logo on the plans. That is the way to achieve a common goal for all citizens. With high city local taxes, residents deserve to have some incentives.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 261 of 293
Lift some restrictions on size and income qualification, let people decide their lives. It is not a good idea to put too many political restrictions on people's lives. We are all good citizens and caring people, plus this is a free country, sorry, although I don't even know if we still are.
Thank you all for your reading and support.
Mujahid Mahmood:
I'm glad to see movement on loosening Piedmont's historically restrictive building rules. But ADU restrictions are still too burdensome ‐ specifically, there is an existing restriction on front yard setback that limits ADU placement. This should be removed immediately. Design considerations could still be reviewed to ensure designs elements are in keeping with the neighborhood. We had presented an application for an ADU that built forward by 5‐6 feet, had a wonderful design by a prominent Piedmont architecture firm, location chosen for it's specific use (flat entry for elderly parents) ‐ but was denied because of this short sighted restriction. Please either remove this restriction or, at least, be willing to make exceptions to this restriction. Please let me know when the City is more open to this so we can resubmit our ADU plans.
I would recommend re‐aligning to the minimal setback requirements per the ADU handbook (4ft, though currently it only places this limit on side/rear setbacks). Could keep design review to ensure overall design is in keeping with the neighborhood. At a minimum be open to approving ADU applications and making allowances for variances regarding front setback (this is currently not the case). I've been told by the City that there is no chance of our proposed plan being approved because of the front setback issue. We went through design review, etc. Very frustrating and costly process to only be denied a permit in the end.
from page 13 of the ADU handbook: “... setbacks must not unduly constrain the creation of ADUs..." Sincerely, Mujahid Mahmood
Elise Marie Collins:
I am concerned that the Objective Design Standards are too restrictive. I wonder why there is no modern or modular designs to choose from.
In addition, I have concerns regarding the pre‐approved ADU plans. I agree with all the recommendations of PREC experts especially those I have copied below.
I love ADUs, but we need to really study them to understand what part they play in our community. I am personally interested in ADUs that help households that wish to house multiple generations.
I encourage the city to consider developing pre‐approved plans that enable modular or kit construction. This is a step many other cities have taken, including the City of San Jose.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 262 of 293
I generally support the recommendations for creating incentives to owners to create deed‐restricted limitations on rents. These ideas include allowing two‐story ADUs or an additional ADU in exchange for deed restrictions.
At the same time, I believe we need accurate data on the effectiveness of ADUs as a path to affordable housing production in Piedmont in order to create more effective policies for the future.
Thank you for considering my input as well as the input of other community members.
Sincerely, Elise Marie Collins
Anita Stapen:
There is a huge amount of information to absorb in the new housing (programs). I would like to address one of these elements: the development and requirements for ADUs. Because I have no background in these areas, I will limit my comments to general concerns.
We all know that change is coming concerning the types and density of housing in Piedmont and indeed in California. Piedmont is taking a considered and active review process to meet the additional housing units, and I commend all the parties involved as we update the Building laws.
There is a lot of pressure to fulfill the state requirements, and I think the City is opening the door too wide to incentivize ADUs. The State does not allow a design review process for ADUs, but raising overall roof heights or increased area may have a big impact on neighbors' light, views, and privacy. As much as possible, I urge the City to prioritize concern for the impact on neighbors, who in these cases have no recourse if a tall or two‐story ADU is built next door, compromising their privacy, light and view.
Related to this concern is the question of how many ADUs can be built in a given part of town? Will the City have a limit on ADUs per 10 block area, for example? Or some other measure? I haven't seen any data on how many ADUs have been built, or are being planned, or a mechanism to spread out the ADUs evenly over town.
Another issue is that many people would like to build ADUs not for additional housing stock, but to offer to friends and relatives who visit. How will this issue be addressed? Will the City require that new ADUs must be rented at low or very low market rates? What is the mechanism to regulate that? In the pressure to create housing, Piedmont is overriding longstanding and very important aesthetic and privacy considerations that will negatively impact both the overall milieu, and impact neighbors. As we adapt to changes, I hope you keep these issues in mind and develop guidelines to minimize the impact of ADUs.
Sincerely, Anita Stapen
Irene Cheng:
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 263 of 293
I am writing to offer comment on Piedmont’s draft Multi‐Family Design Standards and ADU Incentives.
The statements below represent my views as an individual, as an almost decade‐long resident of Piedmont, and as a professional architectural historian and tenured professor of architecture.
The draft Multi‐Family Design Standards are, in my view, conservative and overly restrictive. Many of the measures impose excessive costs on new multifamily development, placing burdensome obstacles in the way of new construction, and particularly new construction of affordable housing. They are also out of line with best practices in architectural design today, which operate under the guiding principle that each era should produce an architecture appropriate for its time rather than create faux‐historicist built forms. The historicist perspective often equates ornament and variety with “good” or “appealing” design, but requirements for curved parapets, recesses, and brackets are no guarantee of beautiful architecture. In fact, they often lead to just the opposite.
By law, design standards must be objective not subjective. By this measure, there is no justification for “promoting development in a general Mediterranean architectural style” as the draft standards claim to do on page 3. Piedmont is fortunate to have architecture in a variety of styles, including Arts & Crafts, Mediterranean, Colonial Revival, modern, and contemporary. Why should the city elevate one style over another? Doing so suggests a conservative cultural and aesthetic attitude rather than an embrace of diversity and openness to change. Moreover, although the politics of architectural style is a complex and nuanced subject, recent research has explored the troubling racial politics underlying the popularization of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture (a variant of “Mediterranean”) in early‐20th‐century southern California, a period of white Anglo migration and settlement. (See Phoebe Kropp’s California Vieja:
Culture and Memory in a Modern American Place, University of California Press, 2008.) This complex cultural history is just one more reason not to enshrine one style over any others. Instead, I hope the City will adopt objective design standards that concern themselves with universal concerns such as light, air, density, and privacy, while leaving aside subjective and culturally fraught questions of style and aesthetics.
I urge the City and its consultants to revise the proposed standards to ensure that new housing can feasibly be built, and that our city’s architecture reflects an embrace of the present and future rather than remaining unduly tethered to a singular version of the past.
Yours truly, Irene Cheng, PhD, Architectural History, Columbia University, M.Arch, Columbia University Cynthia Kroll:
Here are a couple of concerns I would like to see considered:
1) Will ADUs and JADUs add affordable housing to the city? How will this be ensured, to avoid them becoming simply Airbnb's or granny flats? How will building requirements take this into account (eg. high cost of new building vs manufactured units)?
2) What about parking? There are already neighborhoods grappling with parking congestion and overflows from nearby districts. Is the plan considering the parking needs generated by a) ADUs, b) changing a SF lot into a 2 plex or 4 plex, or c) building larger apartment buildings in our more commercial areas. It would be nice for the neighborhoods to know these things are being taken into consideration. That doesn't mean every ADU needs a garage, but what about ensuring the lot has ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 264 of 293
enough parking area in a driveway before allowing still more driving adults to be added? Will approaches to parking requirements depend on proximity to transit, so we don't assume just because Piedmont is seen as a transit accessible high opportunity area that transit is a realistic option in all parts of the city.
3) I would like to see as much new housing as possible added to the Grand Ave area and the Highland commercial area, so that we are not accommodating all of our RHNA through ADUs and JADUs.
Thanks, Cynthia Kroll
Will Adams:
Thank you all for the work you are doing on the housing mandate! The work done to date is impressive.
Cleary the issue is complicated and interconnected to virtually all planning requirements, not the least of which, is preserving (and even improving) the beauty and charm of this place.
My comments center around two main concerns: cars and urban design.
1. Cars: Adding the required 575 (+‐) units in Piedmont could, at 1.5 cars/unit, add ultimately 860 + cars to the city. I think any viable city expansion solution requires, for aesthetic, cost, congestion and parking reasons, a creative, innovative approach to reducing the number of and expenses associated with cars.
This is part and parcel of 1a below.
1a. Parking: at $45,000/structured parking space, $68,000 (1.5 cars/unit) will be added to the average unit’s building cost. Unfortunately this is the exact opposite of what is needed for affordable and low cost housing. I found the thinking in the following report a good outline of issues with a number of possible mitigations: https://www.vtpi.org/park‐hou.pdf Also, there are some thoughts in Piedmont Post Sept 21, 2021, p. 21; Feb 10, 2021 p. 23. I wonder why the draft section on parking reduction only applies to non‐residential use? Do you know if it has ever been a condition of lease or sale that vehicle ownership be limited? I would hope that with the state mandated huge, fast changes that are a part of getting new housing built, we could add new reasonable conditions that differ from current formulas.
2. Urban Design: because of its location and (assumed) availability, the Civic Center Subarea test site is certainly the most important development parcel in the Civic Center. Currently, it contains the essential Mulberrys and its parking lot, which, however lacking, function as the chief public outdoor space, certainly the most active, of the center. The building shown in the site massing study is nicely done, but I think the associated urban design needs development. Some sort of small replacement plaza should be incorporated into the plan (complementing/relating to the city hall plaza across Vista). Where do I sit to drink my coffee I just bought? Where is the student backpack pile located? Where do I park my bike? I also wonder if more of the parking could be buried behind even a minimum of additional commercial space at the sidewalk level. Although I think the addition of residential (and increased commercial) in this area will improve the center (and city) by adding activity and vitality, maybe this is not a good test parcel because of it’s unique prominence and required urban design/civic duty to the center of town.
Whatever is done it needs to be an integral part of an overall urban design concept. See P.Post Dec 10, 2020 p.22. I understand that this is only a test and not a design proposal, but worry it could become one (a fixed design proposal).
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 265 of 293
2a. ADU’s: the ADU work looks very impressive and appropriate. It’s not clear to me though how exactly it works. The siting of the units can make all the difference. How is this regulated/determined without a design review process? Also I imagine there are a fair amount of ADU’s possible within larger houses, maybe with small modifications—same question as above. There doesn’t seem to be any mention of parking for ADUs in the draft, either for new units or vacated garage conversions….bringing us back to 1a above.
3. Building Costs: who knows, but the residential $195/sf figure seems very low.
I hope these thoughts are in some way helpful.
Garrett Keating:
Below are my comments on the draft document, "Multi‐family Design Standards and ADU Incentives".
Is difficult to assess the need for the ADU incentives in the draft without an analysis of the existing ADU program in Piedmont. That analysis would include the number ADUs that have been permitted, the number that are actually rented, the size of the added ADU and the number that are rented to low/very low‐income tenants. Given all the analysis that went into other aspects of the report, it is surprising that so little has been done of existing and proposed ADU in Piedmont.
The impacts of ADU on neighborhoods is another analysis missing from the report. Piedmont has a long tradition of preserving the light, views and privacy of new development on neighboring properties but the report makes no acknowledgement of that. To the contrary, the report ignores these variables when proposing garage conversions, structures that are usually in close proximity to the property line. “While noted as a potential affordable incentive in our report, relieving the height limit for an ADU constructed over an existing garage, assuming the footprint remains the same, would enable residents to maintain on‐site covered parking while adding a dwelling unit to their property. This Carriage House model is a traditional way of providing an additional dwelling unit over a garage or storage building, and would seem consistent with much of Piedmont’s existing residential fabric. Other California jurisdictions (Santa Monica and Orange County, for example) have adopted this option to encourage retaining existing parking counts. A similar limit on overall building height, and/or accommodation of roof pitch, as noted in the previous recommendation, would be appropriate.” Suggesting that a residential unit within 4 feet of the property line is consistent with Piedmont’s residential “fabric” demonstrates an ignorance of Piedmont’s neighborhoods, particularly Zone A.
The only two controls that Piedmont has on ADU are building height and design compatibility and these controls should be preserved. Do not consider any increase in allowable ADU height at this time. Instead, incentivize ADU in other ways, most notably through increasing the allowed square footage of ADU and the raising of the FAR. The draft proposes modest increase in these two parameters but square footage and FAR should be expanded further before the city proposes height increases that impact neighbors. If at all, these incentives rightfully impact the ADU applicant and not the privacy and light of neighboring properties. Raising the height limit on ADU is an attempt to shoe‐horn in units of ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 266 of 293
sub‐optimal housing while horizontal expansion would create better housing. If a height incentive is to be considered, then limit it to 18 feet for rent‐restricted units only.
Incentivizing ADU development to increase available housing in Piedmont is an accepted community goal. But so is preservation of the city’s residential character and some of these ADU incentives are a real threat to that. Absent any analysis of the efficacy of the existing ADU program or a projection of how these incentives will help achieve the RHNA target, limit the current incentives to horizontal expansion only. With SB 9 and tax incentives, the city has other resources with which to incentivize additional and affordable housing.
Finally, one recommendation needs clarification. The report raises the possibility, not the requirement, of a 6 – 8 ft setback when a height limit of 20‐22 feet is allowed and suggests this will mitigate impact on neighboring properties. That statement needs a lot more valid planning analysis.
Garrett Keating
Mr. Randolph Wu:
As Piedmont plans for multi‐family and mixed‐use project design in the next housing cycle, consideration should be given to integrating net zero energy housing designs into Piedmont's traditional building design standards. There is an important intersection between affordable multi‐family housing and climate change. Higher density multi‐family housing built near mass transit not only can be compliant with Reach Code standards but designed as net zero energy housing. This will be affordable and not reliant on the utility grid. Allowing architects, builders and homeowners to maximize renewable energy though nontraditional roof designs should be a high priority in Piedmont. Continuing improvements in solar panel efficiency and dramatic cost reductions in battery storage systems will make net zero energy housing feasible and cost effective for affordable multi‐family housing projects in the next RHNA cycle.
There are two proposed standards (repeated in both the multi‐family and mixed use building standards) that should be amended to enable cost effective, solar energy production:
Building Design Standard B.2. Roof Form and Design
An exception should be created for solar roofs or Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) roof designs. Net zero energy housing will require roof designs that will maximize solar energy production. This may not conform to traditional roof forms and designs in Piedmont, but it will help us reduce carbon emissions. This exception should be added as B.2.e as follows: "Solar roofs and other Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) roof designs are exempt from these standards if needed to achieve a net zero energy result on site." It is important to tie this exception to net zero energy on site as otherwise the homeowner may use more energy than is produced on site and defeat the overall purpose to add housing with zero emissions.
Building Design Standard B.8.a. Equipment Screening
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 267 of 293
The second sentence which reads: "If solar panels are mounted on a flat roof and cannot be parallel to the roof surface, building parapets . . ." should be clarified. This sentence may be read to require a parallel mounting of solar panels on a flat roof unless it is physically impossible or "cannot" be done. This would be unfortunate as solar arrays in Piedmont should face south with a 38 degree tilt or angle to maximize annual solar energy production. A requirement for parallel or flat mounting will reduce energy production by as much as 10%. While this may not be intended, the standard should not suggest there is a requirement for parallel or flat mounting. This sentence should be amended to read:
"If solar panels are mounted on a flat roof and are tilted or angled to maximize solar energy production, building parapets . . ." Tilted or angled solar arrays can be screened by a parapet from public ROW viewing. This seems to be the primary intent of B.8.a. (Please note that even a low parapet can create shade around the roof perimeter during the winter months and reduce the roof area that may be used for solar panels.)
Piedmont's building design standards should enable affordable multi‐family housing and climate change initiatives.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Randy Wu
Ms. Susan Miller Davis:
Thanking Randy for weighing in and providing his expertise.
Ms. Diana Edgerton:
Can this affordable housing be restricted to Piedmont teachers and Piedmont City employees? A 2‐ bedroom apartment cannot accommodate a family. Currently, Piedmonters pay high taxes to support our own Police, Fire, other city services, etc. and, particularly, our excellent schools. How will these renters pay their fair share for these services?
Ms. Mary Louise Morrison:
I live on Moraga Ave. It already has buildings two deep.
Why not build in the land near the corporation yard, where the goats cleared the grass? I just lost two oak trees ‐ one 150 years old because of building over roots. Once you start housing in the old trees you are setting up either direct or indirect deforestation.
Street parking is impossible on Moraga and there really is no good public transit for Piedmont, especially for the elderly.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 268 of 293
At this time in my life , I vote for the trees and high rises in the center of Piedmont so all Piedmont shares the consequences.
Mary Louise Morrison
Mr. Alexander Czarnecki:
I write to you today as the CEO of Cottage Technologies to encourage the Committee to implement a program for designer‐owned preapproved ADU plans, in order to encourage the production of additional housing units in Piedmont through faster, cheaper, and more streamlined ADU creation.
As Piedmont looks to promote ADUs, a well‐structured preapproval program provides several important incentives at once: 1) a less daunting experience for homeowners, 2) time savings, and 3) cost savings.
1. Streamlined process. Cottage supports a preapproved ADU program like those in San Jose and Cupertino, that allow designers and architects to submit non‐site‐specific ADU plans for preapproval and then work directly with homeowners throughout the course of their projects.
We would also support a program that lets site‐specific projects be concurrently processed for preapproval, similar to the program recently started in Fremont. Designer‐owned preapproved plans, in contrast to city‐owned preapproved plans, create a more streamlined experience for homeowners. In the latter type of program, homeowners must still seek out general contractors, consultants, and other professionals on their own, and challenges can occur when requests for information arise or the homeowner desires small modifications to the plans. In designer‐owned plan programs, ADU experts are able to walk homeowners through the process from start to finish and assist homeowners through minor design changes, unforeseen site conditions, handoffs to contractors, and more.
2. Reduced turnaround time for permitting ADUs. In many municipalities, it can take over a year for a homeowner to receive a permit for and build an ADU, at a time when having additional rental income or a safe place to house elderly family members is more important than ever. And as rental prices rebound post‐pandemic, an adequate supply of affordable rental units for local workers is critical to ensuring that cities and their economies can thrive upon reopening. An upfront guarantee of a fast permit process will help Piedmont more quickly meet the needs of its residents.
3. Reduced costs. Selecting a preapproved plan not only guarantees homeowners a faster permit turnaround time, but could also offer cost savings to both homeowners and Piedmont through less time spent in review. And when designers are able to offer homeowners an ADU cost estimate that includes both city fees and construction pricing for a preapproved plan, homeowners can rest easier knowing that their project will be within their budget and can pass some of these savings on to ADU occupants.
Fear of a cumbersome and costly permit process should not be a hindrance to homeowners looking to expand Piedmont’s housing supply by building an ADU. An end‐to‐end, cost‐effective preapproved ADU program would go a long way in broadening access to affordable housing opportunities for the elderly, local workers, and more. We’re excited by Piedmont’s engagement on this issue, and we look forward to ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 269 of 293
continuing to work with you and the community’s homeowners.
Sincerely, Alexander Czarnecki, Founder & CEO, Cottage Technologies PREC Housing Committee:
Attached please find feedback from the Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign Housing Committee on the draft Multifamily Design Standards and ADU Incentives.
Please contact us if you have any questions about our comments. Thank you! Yours truly,
Irene Cheng
[email protected]
Sarah Karlinsky
[email protected]
On behalf of the PREC Housing Committee
‐‐/:/‐‐
The members of the Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign Housing Committee have reviewed the draft "City of Piedmont Multifamily Design Standards and ADU Incentives.” We appreciate the opportunity to review this important document. We have several specific comments, detailed below, but also an overall preliminary suggestion: Since the City is currently engaged in a thorough review of its Housing Element policies, and will probably revise its zoning regulations after that process is complete, we are concerned that many of these recommendations may soon be obsolete. For example, if Zone C is amended to allow for more density, in order to make multifamily housing feasible, the requirement that entrances serve no more than three units may no longer make sense (p.8). That is just one example. For that reason, we recommend that the City consider keeping these objective design standards in draft form for now, and come back to them after the Housing Element update is complete. It seems unnecessary to adopt detailed objective design standards that would be in place for only a little more than a year.
If the City decides to move forward with the standards, below are our comments on the draft document:
Part 2: Objective Design Standards
The proposed standards are overly prescriptive with regards to architectural design and style and will lead to excessive and unwarranted expense in multifamily construction.
Many of the provisions will increase the cost of multifamily housing without ensuring high quality design. The standards may also restrict developers from being able to utilize modular design construction strategies. While we appreciate the desire for new buildings to match the character of the existing building stock, we believe the standards hew to an overly narrow definition of architectural character, especially given the rich diversity of architecture that exists in Piedmont.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 270 of 293
Overall, we recommend reducing the number of prescriptions and requirements to ensure that multifamily housing development will be viable. We encourage the City to solicit further feedback from local affordable housing developers and architects to understand the feasibility and impact of the design standards on affordable housing development.
Note: We understand that the City and LWC will be studying further changes to the zoning requirements for Zones C and D (such as potentially increasing allowable density, FAR, and building height, and reducing parking requirements) as part of the Housing Element process.
Therefore, we are limiting our comments to feedback on the draft Objective Design Standards.
In the proposed guidelines for Division 17.24 Zone C: Multi‐family Residential:
1. A1a. Remove requirement for front and street side facade setback (mirroring the proposed standards for Zone D). Keep requirement for interior and rear facade setback when abutting Zone A. (p. 5)
2. B1a.i. Revise requirement that buildings have two of the following: bay windows, frequent recesses, or porches/decks‐‐to requiring just one of these features. (p.6)
3. B1a.ii. Eliminate requirement that building facades longer than 45 feet incorporate a change in roof parapet, form, or building height (p. 7)
4. B1b. Eliminate requirement that balconies and porches be integrated into recesses or overhangs on at least one side of the porch or balcony. (p. 7)
5. B2b. Regarding the requirement that the pitch of the roof must be 3:12 to 5:12 ratio: Please clarify that flat roofs are permitted. (p. 8)
6. B2d. Eliminate prohibition on roof decks (p. 8 and 11)
7. B3a.i. Delete requirement that shared entrances may serve no more than three units. (p. 8)
8. B3b. Eliminate prohibition on external stairs to upper units. (p. 8)
9. B3c‐d. Reduce prescriptions on frontage types. (p. 9) Note that the terrace frontage is inconsistent with accessible design standards. To be accessible, entrances should be level at grade.
10. B4. Eliminate requirement that ground floor finish floor elevation be 24 inches above sidewalk. This is not consistent with accessible design standards. (p. 10)
11. B5b. Revise requirement that windows be recessed from outer wall surface. (p. 10) This is not aligned with current window design and installation practices.
12. B5c. Eliminate prohibition on vinyl windows. This entails significant additional cost.
13. B5g. Eliminate requirement for “residential signifiers” (such as window bays or doors with balconies) every 10 horizontal feet. (p. 10)
14. B6c. Delete minimum requirement for private open space. (p.10) Consider increasing per unit amount of shared open space instead.
15. B7d.ii. Change maximum width of entrance to shared parking facilities to 20 feet. (p. 11)
16. C1a. Increase limit on blank walls from 8 feet to 16 feet (p. 12)
17. C2a. Why are facade materials limited to stucco stone, brick or EIFS? Why not allow wood and fiber cement siding? (p. 12)
18. C2c. Eliminate maximum percentages of secondary and tertiary colors or otherwise make building color requirements less prescriptive. (p. 12) ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 271 of 293
19. C2e. Why specify change in exterior building must occur a minimum of 8 feet beyond an outside corner? (p. 12)
20. C2i. Why are roof materials limited to composition shingle, spanish tile, or cool roof membrane in grey? Why not allow standing seam metal roofs, concrete roof tiles, or solar roofs? Also, standard white cool roof membranes should be permitted in areas where they are not visible. (p. 13)
21. C3a. Delete requirement that structural elements visible on exterior frame building apertures and modules. (p. 13)
22. C3b. Eliminate requirement that parapets exhibit a combination of steps and curves (p. 13)
23. C3d. Eliminate requirement that downspouts be concealed within building walls. (p. 13)
24. C3f. Reduce or eliminate requirement that buildings exhibit two of the following ornamental features for 15 percent of each facade: patterned accent titles, carved insets, stucco or tile decorative vents, decorative chimney top. (p. 13)
25. D2b.i. Revise requirement that landscape be planted maximum of 1 foot on center, or clarify if this is intended for ground cover, since shrubs can be planted farther apart. (p. 15)
In the proposed guidelines for Division 17.26 Zone D: Commercial and Mixed‐Use:
1. A2a. Eliminate requirement that building facades longer than 65 feet incorporate a change in roof parapet, form, or building height (p. 18)
2. B1a.ii. Eliminate requirement that building facades longer than 65 feet incorporate a change in roof parapet, form, or building height (p. 18)
3. B1b. Eliminate requirement that balconies and porches be integrated into recesses or overhangs on at least one side of the porch or balcony. (p. 19)
4. B1d. Eliminate requirement for articulation of building massing at corners. (p. 19)
5. B2b. Regarding the requirement that the pitch of the roof must be 3:12 to 5:12 ratio: Please clarify that flat roofs are permitted. (p. 19)
6. B2c. Eliminate requirement for brackets, rafter tails, or beams on roofs with deep eaves (p.20)
7. B5b. Revise requirement that windows be recessed from outer wall surface. (p. 22) This is not aligned with current window design and installation practices.
8. B5h. Eliminate requirement for “residential signifiers” (such as window bays or doors with balconies) every 10 horizontal feet. (p. 22)
9. C2a. ‐Why are facade materials limited to stucco stone, brick or EIFS? Why not allow wood and fiber cement siding? (p. 24‐25)
10. C2c. Eliminate maximum percentages of secondary and tertiary colors or otherwise make building color requirements less prescriptive. (p. 25)
11. C2i. Why are roof materials limited to composition shingle, spanish tile, or cool roof membrane? Why not allow concrete tile, solar or standing seam metal roofs? (p. 25)
12. C3b. Eliminate requirement that parapets exhibit a combination of steps and curves. (p. 25‐26)
13. C3f. Eliminate requirement that buildings exhibit two of the following ornamental features every twelve horizontal feet: patterned accent titles, carved insets, stucco or tile decorative vents, decorative chimney top. (p. 26) ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 272 of 293
Part 3 Test Massing Studies
The Zone D test massing and financial feasibility studies offer interesting and helpful analysis.
However, the costs estimated in the analysis are far too low. The study assumes a land cost of $240/sf and a construction cost of $195/sf. In the East Bay, residential construction starts at $400/sf. Since only one of the three test cases LWC evaluated was deemed financially feasible (and barely so), it seems that none of the test projects would be feasible. This suggests that the City will need to consider higher densities, allowable heights, reduced parking requirements, and other measures to make housing development in Zone D feasible. The financial feasibility analysis needs to be revised with higher construction costs based on credible recent sources, so that the City and LWC can develop policy recommendations that are more likely to succeed in spurring multifamily residential development. We also recommend that an analysis be done on financial feasibility using all of the state authorities pertaining to density bonuses and streamlining for affordable housing development. Finally, we note that the estimated cost of parking is too low, and that the assumption of a parking ratio of 1.5‐1.7 is too high. As the City studies moves forward on its Housing Element and related zoning amendments, we encourage a shift to developing parking maximums rather than minimums, as other cities are beginning to do.
Part 4 ADU Recommendations
Regarding the pre‐approved ADU plans. In addition to the plans supplied here, we encourage the city to consider developing pre‐approved plans that enable modular or kit construction. This is a step many other cities have taken, including the City of San Jose.
We generally support the recommendations for creating incentives to owners to create deed‐restricted limitations on rents. These ideas include allowing two‐story ADUs or an additional ADU in exchange for deed restrictions.
At the same time, we believe we need accurate data on the effectiveness of ADUs as a path to affordable housing production in Piedmont in order to create more effective policies for the future. We want to better understand whether the city’s past deed‐restricted ADU program (in which deed‐restrictions were exchanged for parking requirement waivers) or the current affordable ADU incentive (allowing for an increase in area to 1000‐1200 sf in exchange for low and very‐low‐income rent restrictions) succeeded in creating housing units that were rented out at affordable rates during the 10‐year deed‐restricted term, and after the 10‐year term.
We are concerned that incentivizing ADUs at the expense of other forms of small‐site housing production may reinforce some of the challenges to affordability in a city like Piedmont‐‐for example, by gradually diminishing the stock of smaller homes and creating larger, higher‐price homes out of reach to more and more homebuyers, while not significantly increasing the affordable rental housing stock (if the created ADUs are not rented out). Anecdotal evidence suggests that a fair number of ADUs built in Piedmont are not used as housing. The City collects business taxes on rental receipts and should be able to share how many ADUs in the city are being rented out. We urge the City to transparently share data on the rate of ADU production and rentals, so that it can craft effective housing production policies moving forward.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 273 of 293
10/21/2021 SB 2 Community Workshop Notes
Small Group Break‐out Session Reports
Reported by Ellen Greenberg – clarification that the zoning map was an image of the existing zoning map. Important to confirm that there are no planned rezoning. Thoughtful comment about architectural style. Is it appropriate to lean into traditional styles? Irene referenced recent contemporary designed development on Piedmont Avenue near Mountain View Cemetery. Useful reference and example of high‐quality design. We need to understand how the design standards could influence the cost of development and our ability to achieve affordability aims and affordability objectives under state law.
Reported by David Bergman – a lot of time with the concept of objective design standards. Intelligent question about why they need to be there. Circulate this information widely throughout the community.
How is the objective standards process different from the current process. Concern about ODS being too prescriptive. Team is struggling with this question under state law. One can always go to a voluntary process as an alternative to the ODS process. Why are we only showing four stories in the site testing illustrations?
Reported by Stefano Richichi –Wanted more time to discuss. Residents and others had difficulty finding the public review copy of the objective design standards. Make the presentation available online.
Dismayed that Zone D building envelope is subject to the existing street yard setback. Several liked the “stepbacks” to make buildings less imposing.
Reported by Arleta Chang – Discussion about not having a front setback for multifamily. Examples in presentation are similar to Piedmont Avenue which do not have street yard setbacks. These buildings are built right to the front property line.
Additional comments by Maria Morga – Height limits for Zone C and D properties that are adjacent to and close to single‐family residences. Are stepbacks appropriate in these cases? Consider a difference in the height maximums between Zone C and Zone D. Consider a distinction between Grand Avenue and Civic Center height standards for Zone D.
Reported by John Malick – Want to point out that as a developer, the prices and rental rates are no where near the cost of construction and rental rates needed to convince someone to build in Piedmont.
Min $350 per s.f. $3.50 per s.f. for normal rental market housing. $3.50 per s.f. for a 9 x 20 parking space also. Feasibility analysis is off by 75% (too low). Willing to share an appraisal/proforma that is necessary to get a bank to loan.
Reported by Mary Davis – Questions about why the specific styles for ADUs. These are predominant styles in Piedmont. The pre‐approved ADU styles do not preclude residents from building other designs so long as they meet the normal requirements (that do not specify style). Comment that ADU standards should be dependent on whether or not the ADU is visible from the street. Concerns about privacy.
Concerns that current setbacks are insufficient and that the standards could include more measures to maintain privacy. Incentive to encourage renting ADUs out.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 274 of 293
Reported by Ian Dunn – Where do we get these plans? When can I get them? Clarify how the height of ADUs is measured. Adapt for hillside sites. How much customization is permitted? Dimensions, roof orientation, etc? Contemporary or Modern prototype? If there are state‐approved ADUs, include these are resources in the ADU incentives doc.
Reported by Mark Hogan – Do we really need to match the style of the existing residence? Does the pre‐approved ADU need to match the existing house? Current standards are too rigid. PG&E metering and new meter is a burden. Question about is anyone looking at manufactured housing? Prototypes looks expensive to construct. How to maintain affordability longer than 10 year deed restriction? More Modern design options.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 275 of 293
From: Jane Lin
To: Piedmont Is Home
Subject: Comments for Objective Design Standards
Date: Sunday, November 20, 2022 11:16:46 AM
Attachments: Comments for ODS_JLin.docx
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
To the Planning Department,
Please see my comments for Objective Design Standards in the attachment.
Thank you,
Jane Lin
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 276 of 293
From: Jane Lin
To: Pierce Macdonald
Subject: Fwd: Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS) Date: Thursday, June 08, 2023 11:37:48 AM
Attachments: image004.png
image003.png
image001.png
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
To the Planning Commission and Senior Planner Pierce Macdonald, My name is Jane Lin. I am a member of the Piedmont Housing Advisory Committee. I am writing about the adoption of the Piedmont Multi-family Objective Design Standards (MODS) that is set for a hearing on July 10, 2023. I have been following the development of the MODS since the beginning of the process. I am particularly interested in this aspect of housing policy because my professional work includes preparing multi-family objective design standards for other municipalities including the Cities of Emeryville, Albany, San Leandro, and Union City. I am writing in support of the MODS prepared for the hearing.
The process that was used to prepare the MODS included public meetings and a public comment period. Staff made a comprehensive effort to involve public voices, the expertise of citizens, and work with those who have concerns. I have always thought of MODS as one of our best chances for input at a local level on the character of new housing. I submitted a detailed letter during the public comment period with general support for the MODS, but also some more detailed criteria that could be considered. I have reviewed the changes with staff and have found the changes to be responsive to my comments. The MODS are inline with other nearby jurisdictions and reasonably flexible while upholding common characteristics of building design present today. I am glad to see that the decisions about design criteria are backed by the intention to make developing housing less onerous and, in some cases, less expensive.
There may be others who find the MODS to be conservative, highly technical, and perhaps a bit hard to understand. I want to reassure those who are worried that these MODS will be too limiting; creativity can still be considered if applicants opt out of ministerial review (if applicable) with a discretionary review to consider alternative designs.
What you see before you is a good start given the process to date. This definition of good housing design is likely to evolve over time. There will inevitably be some standards that are tested as projects come forward and apply them in the future. I am hopeful that the future discussions of design criteria will consider changing taste and technology so that these standards remain relevant and provide more options to the design preferences of the ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 277 of 293
neighborhoods.
Please adopt the MODS so that housing project review can be streamlined.
Thanks,
Jane
-Lin
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Pierce Macdonald <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS)
To: Jane Lin
Hello Jane,
Please find below the link to the staff report prepared for the draft Piedmont MODS:
https://www.piedmontishome.org/event/planning-commission-meeting-3-c7992-6mm37it42dl-kwzk8-g8c65-dtf26 On pages 4 to 6, you can find the revisions that were made to the first draft and the recommended revisions to the current, second draft that are supported by staff.
These recommendations incorporate comments received from members of the public, including your comment letter. The Planning Commission may direct staff to make additional changes.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 278 of 293
Sincerely,
Pierce Macdonald
Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
[email protected] | (510) 420 - 3063
Effective February 28, 2022, the Piedmont Planning & Building and Public Works Departments will be open for counter service, including unscheduled inquiries via walk-in, telephone and email, during the following hours:
Monday through Thursday: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (open including the lunch hour) Friday: Closed to members of the public.
Receive Planning & Building Department news emails by subscribing at:
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/rMGm1oM/PiedmontPlanBuild ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 279 of 293
Irene Cheng
Sunnyside Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
November 22, 2022
City of Piedmont
Planning Department
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
Re: Comments on City of Piedmont’s Multi-family Objective Standards Dear Piedmont Planning Department:
I am writing to offer feedback on Piedmont’s latest draft Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS). I am a resident of Piedmont, design professional, and professor of architectural history at the California College of the Arts. My academic specialization is nineteenth-century American architecture, including Arts and Crafts design, but I have a deep appreciation of a range of architectural styles.
I appreciate the numerous changes that have been made in the current draft, incorporating feedback that I and others gave the City last fall. The current document is improved from the previous version. However, I continue to find the current MODS overly restrictive, complicated, aesthetically conservative, and stylistically subjective. Many of the measures impose excessive costs on new multifamily development and are so out of line with best practices in present-day multifamily housing design that they would likely discourage market-rate development, and effectively make the construction of affordable housing meeting the MODS impossible.
However, my primary objection to the MODS is that they will not contribute to creating high-quality design and, in fact, are likely to produce just the opposite. As someone who has practiced or taught architectural design for twenty years, I can attest that excessive requirements for variation in facade treatment, rooflines, and other ornamental treatments often lead to over-complicated, cacophonous, and unsightly architectural design. The MODS seem targeted to create one particular style of architecture: The faux-Mediterranean-historicist Il Piemonte building on Piedmont Ave is the favored model. In contrast, most of the guidelines would disallow a more modern style of architecture such as the Amador apartments just up the street. Both of these works of architecture are high-quality and within Piedmont’s orbit–and hence contextual. Within its borders, Piedmont has examples of both historicist 1 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 280 of 293
(Mediterranean, Craftsman, and more) and modern/contemporary architecture. So why is one style being favored in the new “objective” design guidelines? Il Piemonte (left) and the Amador (right) - two mixed-use multifamily buildings on Piedmont AVe.
To return the MODS to an objective basis, I ask that the City remove or revise the following standards, which are aesthetically arbitrary and unnecessary:
B.1. (p.6 and 18-19) Eliminate or reduce requirements for window bays or recesses to enable more modern, less cluttered facade designs.
B.1.a.ii and B.2.a.iv. (p.6, 18-19) and C.3.b. (p.26) Delete the requirement for changes in roof parapet height, roof form or building height. Roofs should be allowed to have clean, straight lines without decorative jogs. This standard has no objective basis and essentially disallows modern building styles.
B.5.d. (p.10 and 22) Remove requirements that 50 (in multifamily) or 100 percent of residential (in mixed-use developments) windows must have divided lite design. Divided lites are not consistent with modern architectural styles. There is no objective basis for this requirement.
C.3.e. (p.13-14) and C.3.cii (p.27) Delete the requirement that buildings exhibit TWO ornamental features for “over 15% or more of each facade.” Requiring buildings to have patterned accent tiles, carved insets with grilles, stucco or tile motifs, or terra-cotta tile chimney top will produce schlocky ornamented facades.This standard has no objective basis and will actually have a very negative design impact, in my view.
In addition, I strongly recommend revision of the following standards:
A.1.a. (p.5 and 17) Remove requirement for 5 foot stepback along front and street side facade to allow for more continuous facade designs, up to 4 stories. Stepback above four stories may be fine.
2 ATTACHMENT
Attachment D
D Agenda Report Page 281 of 293
A.4.a and b. (p. 6 and 17) Change the prohibition on balconies and decks abutting single-family uses in Zone A on upper story facades or roofs, and the requirement that they be oriented toward street yards. This will bar roof decks from most of the most promising multifamily sites in Piedmont, most of which abut single-family parcels in Zone A. Roof decks are desirable features, and will help multifamily buildings meet the open space requirements specified elsewhere in the MODS. We should not make them effectively impossible to incorporate.
B.3.c. (p. 8) Do not require recessed forecourts, or reduce dimensions.
B.4. (p. 10) Eliminate requirement for ground floor finish floor elevation to be 18 inches above the sidewalk elevation. This will make it more expensive to meet accessibility requirements.
B.1.a.c. (p. 18) Reduce specification for porches or decks over a minimum of 25 percent of the facade to 15 percent. The 25% guideline may be hard to meet, especially given the restrictions on decks in other parts of the document.
B.2.a.v. (p. 7 and 19) The standard allows roof decks that are enclosed, “provided the deck and deck occupants are not visible from the right-of-way or adjacent single-family property within 300 feet.” This requirement will disallow roof decks in a large proportion of parcels. For example, most of the mixed-use parcels on Grand Ave abut properties on Olive that sit high above Grand. It may be impossible to put a roof deck on a building on Grand that is not visible to neighbors on Olive Ave. The same condition exists on Linda Ave, with respect to neighbors on Sunnyside Ave. See comment to A.4. above.
B.2.e. (p.19) Please remove limitation on roof decks to a maximum of 30 percent of a building footprint. See comments to A.4 and B.2.a.v. above.
C.2.a.(p. 12 and 25) Add fiber cement siding as an allowed primary cladding material.
Fiber cement siding (for example, Hardie board) is commonly used on small multifamily buildings in our area, and is higher quality than EIFS, which is listed as an allowed primary cladding material.
As the City moves forward to encourage multifamily housing production, it is important that we get these design guidelines right. I urge the City to revise the MODS to be truly objective and able to give rise to high-quality, urbanistically sensitive architecture in a variety of styles. Thank you.
Yours truly,
Irene Cheng
3 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 282 of 293
1 Pierce Macdonald
From: Lisa Joyce
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Pierce Macdonald
Subject: Re: Multi-family Objective Design Standards
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Thanks Pierce.
One question of clarification when you get a chanceͲI know that affordable housing cannot be subjective to design reviewͲso my comment about that would not apply.But are these standards to apply to any multiͲfamily housing proposed in the city?And would those be subject to design review?How might projects that have some of both be handled?
Thanks also to you and your colleagues for all the work you have done on the housing element.I have appreciated the out reach efforts and find the website very informative.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving ~
Lisa
________________
Lisa Joyce Architecture
Grand Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94610
On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:01 AM, Pierce Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you, Lisa. We will review your comments.
From: Lisa Joyce
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 6:03 PM
To: Piedmont Is Home <[email protected]>
Subject: MultiͲfamily Objective Design Standards
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 283 of 293
2
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Over the past several weeks I have looked at the proposed standards several time.Each time I come away with the same reactionͲthey are overwhelming and excessively detailed.
As both a resident of Grand Avenue (where multiͲfamily housing mightͲand shouldͲbe developed) for 33 years and as an architect who specialized in multiͲfamily affordable housing early in my career, I am very interested in the proposed standards.Design standards are difficult to develop as they can be followed to the letter and still result in mediocre or even bad building design because excessive standards squelch creativity.(Kind of like telling Picasso he can only paint in the style of Da Vinci!)
In a nutshell, the design standards as written work against both good design and reasonable construction costs.The following are just a few examples of this:
Mitigate against good design by being overly prescriptive The guidelines seem to be based on one successful building type; in reality there are many. These guidelines hamper the ability of the architect to develop an appropriate overall design that suits the site, the client, and the future occupants.While Piedmont’s housing stock is mostly traditional in styleͲthere can be successful multiͲfamily housing built that is modern in style.
Discourage development of affordable housing by increasing costs both in design time and construction
Some of the provisions show a lack of understanding of how buildings are built.For example, the requirement to have all windows recessed at least 2” from the face of the finish requires significant additional labor to achieve.Incorporating these numerous requirements will also add cost for design time AND the work of city staff to confirm they are all met.
Apply standards to future residents of these dwellings that do not apply to current Piedmont residents
For example, there is a requirement that roof decks, if provided, must not allow “...the deck or the deck occupants to be visible from ….adjacent singleͲfamily property within 300 feet."Yet throughout Piedmont there are many decks visible to the adjacent singleͲfamily properties.Due to our local topography, some of the decks are often so close neighbors can reach across to each other!
I looked back at both the work of my former partner, Sam Davis (who has both won awards for and written books about affordable housing design) as well as the recent work of other awardͲwinning Bay Area housing architects such as David Baker Architects and Michael Pyatok Architects.Most of the attractive and successful projects these renowned architects have designed would not meet the design guidelines as written.
In my experience designing affordable housing, we presented our projects to the local government bodies and explained and defended our design work.Adjustments and compromises were made to assure the goals of the city and the local neighborhood were also met.Can these standards be streamlined, knowing the designs will ultimately be subject to design review?
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 284 of 293
3 I suggest that the city invite some local architects with multiͲfamily and affordable housing design experience to provide their insight on what might constitute reasonable design guidelines to achieve the City’s goals but not hamper good design or increase construction cost unnecessarily.
Thanks for the opportunity for input.
Lisa Joyce
________________
Lisa Joyce Architecture
Grand Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94610
ATTACHMENT
Attachment D
D Agenda Report Page 285 of 293
From: Stefanie Pruegel
To: Piedmont Is Home
Subject: multifamily buildings: Recycling and composting enclosures/structures Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 8:11:51 AM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Please make sure the new multifamily design codes include provisions for useful and functional recycling and composting infrastructure.
Under SB 1383 and the Alameda County ty Organics Reduction & Recycling Ordinance (see link below), multifamily properties are required to separate and compost all food scraps and other organic materials, and recycle properly. Multifamily buildings are far behind on doing a good job on this, often because infrastructure is terrible, requiring residents to walk all the way down to a dark scary basement to empty their compost pails into green bins while trash chutes on each floor are for garbage only, encouraging people to not separate and just landfill everything. There are much better designs out there but they have to be REQUIRED to be put into all new multifamily buildings. I would be very interested to know how Piedmont’s rules for MF buildings handle this. www.stopwaste.org/rules
Thank you,
Stefanie Pruegel
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 286 of 293
July 24th, 2023
Kevin Jackson
Director of Planning & Building
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
RE: Piedmont’s Draft Objective Design Standards dated June 2023 Mr Jackson:
East Bay for Everyone is a network of people fighting for the future of housing, transit, tenant rights, and long-term planning in the East Bay. We write to give comment on the June 2023 draft of Piedmont’s Objective Design Standards.
Building Sites + Applicability
The City of Piedmont has a limited number of sites that fall under Zone C and Zone D zoning, and there are therefore a limited number of sites for which these development standards can be applied. Among these sites, most are quite small by multi-family standards, while the Objective Design Standards imply much larger buildings. The standards are often out of scale for the “missing middle” style development that would be most appropriate for the typical Piedmont multifamily site.
Restrictive Design Standards
Contrary to HCD guidelines, the Objective Design Standards produced are extensive and restrictive to variety in development. Due to their length and rigidness, the Design Standards as presented would produce repeated and monotonous development patterns. Design Standards should be loosened to provide reasonable flexibility while ensuring the overall aesthetics of a project will match the City of Piedmont’s desired look.
These Objective Design Standards also do not adequately allow for minor variances or deviations to be approved at the staff level, particularly with regards to site constraints. As written, the standards imply a flat site, particularly with regard to project frontages and entrances which do ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 287 of 293
not provide enough flexibility to appropriately grade a sloped site, while maintaining ADA accessibility. Design Standards should include allowances for deviation from the code in the case of sloped sites, allowing Design Professionals and Planning Staff to design sensible and code-compliant entrances.
Cost-Escalating Requirements
Several of the Design Standards listed in the document add measurable cost increases to proposed developments, which are often counter to the contextual development patterns of the City:
Facade Articulation - While horizontal articulation of facades is a typical and productive standard, articulations every 10 feet of horizontal wall is an excessive standard, producing many corners, each adding cost to a project for structure, building envelope, and trim. Additionally, this modulation creates problematic floor plans, where interior rooms are either limited to 10’ widths, or contain oddly shaped, non-rectangular rooms. Facade articulation requirements should be minimized to a larger module.
Facade Ornamentation - Requirements that 15% or more of the facade be ornamented is high, and even many beloved historic buildings do not meet this threshold. These minimums should be reduced or removed altogether.
Vinyl Windows - Vinyl windows present a cost-conscious and energy efficient option for fenestration. Vinyl windows are common on multi-family projects across the State and Country, and their profiles do not deviate significantly from other, more costly materials like wood and fiberglass.
Simulated Divided Lites - These are additional features which add costs to the fenestration of a project. Additionally, the Design Standards as written require the most expensive version of simulated divided lites, with the requirement for interior, exterior, and inter-pane grilles.
Undergrounding of Electrical Service - The requirement to provide electrical service via underground conduit rather than through overhead lines contradicts the patterns of development across much of the City of Piedmont. Undergrounding utilities can add significant costs to a project, particularly for “missing middle” scaled multi-family projects, which are the most likely development pattern on the stock of developable sites in Piedmont. Carve outs should be made for smaller projects to maintain above ground electrical service connections where existing homes are served in this manner.
Non-measurable Standards
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 288 of 293
Several of the Design Standards written veer away from HCD requirements to be objective and “measurable” such that different designers and reviewers will interpret them precisely and in the same way. Vague standards leave room for interpretation and provide a possible avenue for a compliant development application to be rejected.
Residential Signifiers - While the Design Standards require that one from a list of four design strategies be used, the scope and extent of these strategies is not adequately defined. Section should be rewritten to provide more clarity as to how many bay windows or balconies should be provided.
Lighting Standards - Each category of lighting standard (entrance, facade, and low-level) is written vaguely and open to interpretation by reviewing authorities. These standards should be rewritten to provide a measurable standard with which to comply Thank you for taking into consideration our comments on this draft version of the Piedmont Objective Design Standards. We look forward to continuing to engage with the City of Piedmont in this process.
Signed,
The 2500 members of East Bay for Everyone
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 289 of 293
Aug 14, 2023
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Ave
Piedmont, CA 94611
By Email: [email protected], [email protected] CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Re: Multifamily Objective Design Standards & Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentives Dear Planning Commissioners,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Commission of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when considering the Multifamily Objective Design Standards & Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentives, Item 4 on tonight’s agenda. Specifically, the Council must comply with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) and other state housing laws. The proposed standards, as currently drafted, do not adhere to these laws: many of them fail to articulate objective standards.
SB 330 bars cities from “[i]mposing or enforcing design standards [...] that are not objective.” (Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(C).) In addition, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) renders non-objective standards unenforceable. (See California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal. App.5th 820, 839-44 (overturning city’s denial of housing project based on design guidelines requiring “a transition or step in height” where a building is more than one story taller than its neighbors on the grounds that it was not objective).) SB 330 and the HAA define “objective” as “being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(8); Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (a)(7).)
Unfortunately, one provision in the Draft Standards falls short of this requirement:
● Section 6.05.01(D)(1)(c)(i): “Retaining walls shall provide visual interest through the use of form, texture, detailing and planting. When a retaining wall contains an entry stairway to the residence, the design of the wall shall include features that emphasize the entryway, plantings or design features that match those of the primary building” 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 290 of 293
The phrases “provide visual interest” “emphasize the entryway, plantings, or design gestures that match those of the primary building” are not objective. “Visual interest” is not clearly defined, and what counts as “emphasis” or “match[ing] the primary building” is in the eye of the beholder. An applicant cannot know ex ante and with certainty whether their proposed design will satisfy the ordinance, and thus the ordinance is unenforceable on this point.
● Section 7.07.01(D)(5)(b)(ii): Lighting fixtures shall: “Exhibit the same architectural style, design, and character as the primary building.” Compatibility within a style is not an objective standard, as it cannot be applied uniformly. Architectural styles, and their materials and design details, are subjectively defined and therefore cannot be enforced by the City.
CalHDF appreciates Piedmont’s effort to establish objective design standards. We remind the City, however, that it must take care to follow the law in doing so. The current Draft needs revisions before it can be finalized and implemented in accordance with state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
Courtney Welch
CalHDF Director of Investigations and Enforcement
2 of 2
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 291 of 293
Via email to Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and City Council August 14, 2023
Dear Members of the Piedmont Planning Commission, City Council, and Planning Staff, We are are writing on behalf of the members of the Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign Housing Committee to provide feedback on the City of Piedmont’s Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS) and ADU Incentives, which are being considered for adoption by the Planning Commission this evening. We enthusiastically support the City’s efforts to create new policies that can help incentivize new housing production in Piedmont, particularly affordable housing. Some of the concerns we raised in our letter on an earlier draft of the MODS, in November 2021, still apply to the current version.
Multifamily Objective Design Standards
Regarding the MODS, we continue to believe the standards as currently drafted are too prescriptive, and will unnecessarily raise the cost of multifamily housing construction, without ensuring high-quality design. We urge the City to:
● Follow through on its stated intention to treat the MODS as a living document, and commit to a timeline to assess the ongoing impact of the standards on affordable and multifamily housing production in the city. ● Reach out to local architects with experience in affordable multifamily housing design, to get feedback on whether the proposed standards are aligned with current best practices, and whether any of the standards will lead to excessive costs.
● Review the standards for their appropriateness for the smaller size lots that constitute the majority of parcels in Zones C and D. Many of the standards seem written for much larger lots than exist in Piedmont.
ADU pre-approved plans and affordability incentives
Regarding the pre-approved plans for ADUs and related affordability incentives, we appreciate the City’s efforts to incentivize affordable units, especially considering that the City is relying on ADUs to meet a significant portion of its low-income RHNA targets.
However, we believe that these incentive programs need to be designed to encourage homeowners to actually rent out their ADUs. As the policy is currently written, a homeowner could utilize one of the city’s pre-approved plans in exchange for a 10-year deed restriction, but choose not to rent out the unit. We suggest the City explore policies focused on incentivizing rental of ADUs, not just their construction. For example, the City could provide a forgivable loan for the value of its pre-approved plans, and forgive a portion of the loan each year that the homeowner demonstrates that the ADU has been rented out to an income-eligible household at an affordable rent.
1 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 292 of 293
We also continue to believe that ADU incentive programs need to be monitored for effectiveness. We ask the City to commit to reporting yearly on how many ADUs have been created under the pre-approved plan / deed restriction program, and–crucially–how many ADUs are actually being rented out under existing and new deed restriction programs.
The City collects business taxes on rental receipts and should be able to share how many ADUs in the city are being rented out. We urge the City to transparently share data on the rate of ADU production and rentals, so that it can craft effective housing production policies moving forward.
We want to thank the City’s leaders and staff for all your hard work to create new housing opportunities in Piedmont, to work toward fair housing goals and the creation of racially and economically integrated neighborhoods, and to do our community’s part in solving the regional housing crisis.
Yours truly,
Irene Cheng and Deborah Leland
On behalf of the PREC Housing Committee
2 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 293 of 293