St. Helena City Council
October 14, 2025

City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 14, 2025 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena

PLEASE NOTE: Any person who wishes to speak regarding an item on the agenda or make a comment under the "Oral Communication" portion of the agenda may do so, but please observe the time limit of four minutes.

The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on Comcast Channel 28 and on the City’s website.

Public comment for City Council meetings will be accepted via email to [email protected]. All public comments must be received three hours prior to the meeting. All other public comments received after the deadline will be attached to the item the next business day or soon thereafter. Public comments will not be read out loud but will be publicly available and attached to the on-line City Council agenda.

Simultaneous Spanish interpretation services during meetings can be scheduled upon request. To ensure interpreters are available, requests must be made at least 72 hours in advance by calling the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 968-2640 or emailing [email protected].

The schedule of upcoming meetings and published meeting agendas can be found on the City of St. Helena website at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Servicios de interpretación en español durante la reunión pueden ser solicitados por el público. Para asegurar que los intérpretes estén disponibles, los servicios tienen que ser solicitados al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión llamando a la oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (707) 968-2640 o por correo electrónico a [email protected]. El horario de las reuniones publicadas y próximas puede ser localizado en el sitio de web de la Ciudad en https://sthelena.civicweb.net/portal/.

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Mayor: Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor: Michelle Deasy, City Council Members:

Aaron Barak, Kate Spadarotto, Billy Summers

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Estimated start time: 6:05 p.m.

5.1. Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of 9 - 15

September 23, 2025.

Regular City Council - 23 Sep 2025 - Minutes

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during Public Forum. Each person’s comments shall be limited to 4 minutes. Each person is entitled to speak on any non-agendized item only once at any meeting. Brief questions by Council Members for clarifications may be posed and answered, and Council Members may make requests that items be placed on future agendas, but in accordance with state law, no substantive discussion or action may take place unless and until the matter properly appears on the agenda.

Estimated start time: 6:10 p.m.

6.1. Public Comment - Joshua Parke (1)
Public Comment - Joshua Parke (2)
Public Comment - Joshua Parke (3)
Public Comment - Joshua Parke (4)
Public Comment - Leslie Stanton
Public Comment - Jerry & Michele Hyde
Public Comment - Jessica Hague
Public Comment - Jessica Hague (2)
Public Comment - Jordan Coonrad
Public Comment - Julia Bolander
Public Comment - Julia Bolander (2)
Public Comment - Julie Ann Kodmur
Public Comment - Karen Williams
Public Comment - Kelly Wheaton
Public Comment - Lana Ivanoff
Public Comment - Larry Vermeulen & Connie Wilson
Public Comment - Leslie Dunlap
Public Comment - Mark Smithers
Public Comment - Matthew Walter
Public Comment - Michelle Liu Covell
Public Comment - Nicole Abiouness
Public Comment - Pam Smithers
Public Comment - Pat Friday
Public Comment - Phil Murphy
Public Comment - Priscilla Dell
Public Comment - Priscilla Dell (2)
Public Comment - Priscilla Dell (3)
Public Comment - Resident
Public Comment - Richard Seiferheld
Public Comment - Robert Fiumara
Public Comment - Ross Allen
Public Comment - Ross Allen (2)
Public Comment - Sarah MacDonald
Public Comment - Shannon Lail
Public Comment - Stephanie Smithers
Public Comment - Stephanie Smithers (2)
17 - 238

Public Comment - Stu Smith
Public Comment - Susan & Terry McWilliams
Public Comment - Susan Davis
Public Comment - Ted Shuel
Public Comment - Terence Ford
Public Comment - Terence Ford (2)
Public Comment - Tom Belt
Public Comment - Tom Belt (2)
Public Comment - Adam Rotello
Public Comment - Albright
Public Comment - Bryan Sandoli
Public Comment - Christine Hale
Public Comment - Daniel Hale
Public Comment - Darcy Dunlap
Public Comment - Elaine de Man
Public Comment - Erin Lail
Public Comment - Grace Kistner
Public Comment - Charles Covell

7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND AB 1234 REPORTS:

Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda. Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.

Estimated start time: 6:20 p.m.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
Estimated start time: 6:25 p.m.

8.1. Proclaiming October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Proclamation
239 - 240

8.2. Presentation by Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee members regarding collaborative efforts to address Water Quality issues.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Joseph Leach, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Staff Report - Presentation of Matters related to Water Quality by W/WW AC Subcommittee - Pdf
Presentation
241 - 259

9. STAFF BRIEFING AND PRESENTATIONS
Estimated start time: 6:45 p.m.

9.1. Provide status report of the Fiscal Year 2025-26, 1st Quarter for the City of St. Helena's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
261 - 271

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Joseph Leach, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst
Recommendation:

Receive the report and provide direction as appropriate. No Council action is required.

Staff Report - CIP Project Update - FY26Q1 - Pdf
Presentation

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public (present at the meeting) may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote) Estimated start time: 7:15 p.m.

10.1. Consideration of Resolution converting a portion of a Red Zone to a Loading Zone located at 1309 Main Street, update the City’s List of Red Zones (parking prohibitions) and rescinding Resolution 2024-96.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation:

Approve the request to convert a portion of a Red Zone to a Loading Zone in front of St. Helena Hotel, rescind Resolution 2024-96 and adopt a new Resolution documenting the updated curb parking restrictions.

Staff Report - Converting a portion of a Red Zone to a Loading Zone in front of St. Helena Hotel - Pdf
273 - 292

10.2. Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Sole Source Professional Services Agreement with ATG Lighting, Inc. for Holiday Decoration Installation and Removal in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $13,815.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - PSA with ATG Lighting Inc. for Holiday Decorations - Pdf 293 - 311

10.3. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Professional Services Agreements with Haley & Aldrich, Inc. for Owner's Representative Services for Capital Improvement Program projects and Staff Augmentation Services in support of general engineering, operations, capital improvement plan and special support.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

Staff recommends approving the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Owner's Representative/Staff Augmentation Services for CIP Projects - Pdf
313 - 339

10.4. Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution (1) Delegating Authority to the City Manager to award and execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with West Yost for Engineering Design Services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Reclamation Plant Effluent Pump Station Upgrades in an amount no-to-exceed $326,332; (2) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve Change Orders not-to-exceed 15% or $48,950 for a total contractor budget of $375,282; (3) Establish a new Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project S26-04 WWTP Effluent Pump Station; and (4) Complete Budget Amendments to fund the new CIP Project.

CEQA Determination: This project qualifies for a Class 6 Categorical Exemption ‘Information Collection’ under Section 15306 of CEQA. Any future project will require additional analysis and a formal determination regarding the environmental impacts of that project.

Prepared By: Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - WWTP Effluent Pump Station Design PSA - Pdf 341 - 369

10.5. Consideration and Proposed Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Land Revision for Pond Levee Weed Control and Upkeep in an amount notto-exceed $30,632.

CEQA Determination: This project is deemed exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15301, Existing Facilities; and Section 15061(b) (3), which identifies that a rulemaking activity which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment is therefore, exempt per the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact on the environment.

Prepared By: Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.

Staff Report - PSA with Land Revision for WWTP Weed Abatement - Pdf
371 - 398

10.6. Authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kleinfelder Associates for preparation and submittal of the Annual Instrumentation Reports for the St. Helena Lower Reservoir Dam for 2025, 2026, and 2027, in an amount not to exceed $65,229.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kleinfelder Associates for preparation and submittal of the Annual Instrumentation Reports for the St. Helena Lower Reservoir Dam for 2025, 2026, and 2027, in an amount not to exceed $65,229.

Staff Report - Proposal Authorization – Kleinfelder, Inc. Annual Instrumentation Report for the St. Helena Lower Reservoir Dam - Pdf 399 - 434

10.7. Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution approving the project plans for Capital Improvement Project W-101 Tank 2 Rehabilitation and authorizing the advertisement for bids.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mario Traverso, Project Manager
Recommendation:

Approve the Resolution
Staff Report - W-101 Tank 2 Rehab Plan Approval and Bid Authorization - Pdf
435 - 444

10.8. Waiver of second reading and adoption of an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25-003) to amend Chapters

17.24.050 B(1) and 17.32, Definition of Terms, Visibility Triangle of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding vision triangle standards.

CEQA Determination: Exempt from the requirements of CEQA under the “General Rule”, Section 15061 (b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will have no impact on the environment.

Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:

Waive the second reading of and adopt the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed changes to Chapter 17.30 of the Zoning Code are exempt from CEQA Guideline 15061 (b)(3); and

2. Approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25- 003) to amend Chapters 17.24,050 B (1) and 17.32, Definition of Terms, Visibility Triangles of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding vision triangle standards.

Staff Report - 2nd Reading - Visibility Triangle - Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25-003) - Pdf
445 - 453

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

12. OLD BUSINESS
None

13. NEW BUSINESS
Estimated start time: 7:25 p.m.

13.1. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Recruitment for an Assistant Public Works Director (Operations), Chief of Police, and Community Services Director.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:
455 - 459

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - Authorization to Recruit - Pdf

13.2. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute up to three Professional Services Agreement with up to two Professional Recruiting Firms for up to $25,000 each and a total not-to-exceed amount of $75,000 funded through existing salary savings.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Mandy Kellogg, Administrative Services Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

Staff Report - PSA for Recruiting Firm - Pdf
461 - 465

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

14.1. A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) H. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
I. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) J. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
K. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee L. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
M. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports

15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council meeting is scheduled for October 28, at 6:00 p.m.

This agenda was posted at City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, and at Vintage Hall, 465 Main Street, St. Helena, California on October 9, 2025.

Andrew Bradley, City Clerk
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special

assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Office (707) 967-2792. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of St. Helena is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing.

If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of St. Helena, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA
Any supplemental writings or documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena, California, during normal business hours and by appointment. In addition, such writings or documents will be made available on the City’s web site at https://sthelena.civicweb.net and will be available for public review at the respective meeting.

MINUTES
City of St. Helena
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, September 23, 2025 @ 6:00 PM
Vintage Hall Board Room - Second Floor
465 Main Street, St. Helena
A complete video recording of this meeting, except for closed session, can be found at https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/ or by calling the City Clerk at (707) 968-2742. The City Council video is the official record of the Council meeting.

Present: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, Council Member Kate Spadarotto, and Council Member Billy Summers

Absent:

1. CALL TO ORDER
Prior to Roll Call Mayor Dohring made a statement about the recent national violence in the United States and called for a moment of silence.

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Dohring led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

4.1 Council Member Aaron Barak moved to adopt the agenda. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on voice vote carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, Council Member Kate Spadarotto, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.1 Consideration and proposed approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2025, and the Special City Council Study Session meeting of September 16, 2025.

Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
September 23, 2025
Council Member Aaron Barak moved to approve the Regular Meeting minutes of September 9, 2025, and the Special City Council Study Session minutes of September 16, 2025. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on voice vote carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, Council Member Kate Spadarotto, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

6. PUBLIC FORUM:

Michelle Covell and Mark Smithers addressed the City Council.

7. REPORTS BY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, and AB 1234 REPORTS:

7.1 City Manager Anil Comelo provided brief updates.

8. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS
None.

9. STAFF BRIEFING
None.

10. CONSENT ITEMS
Members of the Council or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of considering alternative action, for extended discussion, or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. (Roll Call Vote)

10.1 August 2025 Review and Forecasting of City Water Supply Availability.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Ian Dale, Environmental Services Tech
Recommendation:

Receive and file.

10.2 Consideration and proposed adoption of a Resolution (1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with ERS Industrial Services, Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $165,730 (2) Authorizing the Director of Public Works to approve Change Orders not-to-exceed 15% ($24,860) for a total contractor budget of $190,590; and (3) Declaring of Sole Source to ERS Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
September 23, 2025
Industrial Services, Inc. for Filter Media Replacement at Stonebridge Wells.

CEQA Determination: Exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, which exempts the operation, leasing, or minor alteration of existing facilities
Prepared By: Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.

10.3 Consideration and Approval of Payment for Sludge Hauling Services provided by Upper Valley Disposal in FY2024-25 in the Amount of $37,549.26.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Stephanie Killingsworth, Public Works Financial Analyst Recommendation:

Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.

10.4 Consideration and proposed approval of a resolution approving the Final Map for 1446 Sulphur Springs Avenue and authorizing the City Clerk to record the Final Map.

CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Eric Janzen, Assistant Public Works Director, Rebecca White, Administrative Assistant
Recommendation:

Approve the attached resolution.

10.5 Adopt a Resolution authorizing the approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Arise Solutions LLC for Planning Services in a not to exceed contract amount of $25,000.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council approve the attached resolution.

Council Member Aaron Barak moved to adopt the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, Council Member Kate Spadarotto, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
September 23, 2025

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.1 Closeout of State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) agreements.

CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Martin Beltran, Finance Manager
Recommendation:

Receive a report summarizing the accomplishments performed under the State Community Development Block Grant Agreements 20-CDBG-CV1-00103, 20- CDBG-CV2-3-00294, and 21-CDBG-ED-10004; conduct a public hearing to solicit public input regarding expenditures and accomplishments of the funding received under these contracts; and direct staff to proceed with submitting required documents for closeout.

Finance Manager, Martin Beltran made presentation.

Mayor Dohring opened the public hearing; no comments were received.

Discussion was brought back to the Council where comments and questions were made. The Council directed staff to proceed with submitting the required documents for closeout.

11.2 Introduction and waive the first reading of an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25-003) to amend Chapters 17.24.050 B(1) and

17.32, Definition of Terms, Visibility Triangle of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding vision triangle standards.

CEQA Determination: Exempt from the requirements of CEQA under the “General Rule”, Section 15061 (b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will have no impact on the environment.

Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:

Introduction and waive the first reading of the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find that the proposed changes to Chapter 17.30 of the Zoning Code are exempt from CEQA Guideline 15061 (b)(3); and

2. Approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25-003) to amend Chapters 17.24,050 B (1) and 17.32, Definition of Terms, Visibility Triangles of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding vision triangle standards.

Community Development Director, Maya DeRosa made a presentation on the item.

Mayor Dohring open the Public Hearing; no comments were made.

The discussion was turned over to the Council where questions and comments Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
September 23, 2025
were made.

Council Member Aaron Barak moved to waive the first reading of the proposed Ordinance to:

1. Find the proposed changes to Chapter 17.30 of the Zoning Code are exempt from CEQA Guideline 15061 (b)(3); and

2. Approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25-003) to amend Chapters 17.24,050 B (1) and 17.32, Definition of Terms, Visibility Triangles of Title 17 of the St. Helena Municipal Code regarding vision triangle standards
The motion was seconded by Council Member Kate Spadarotto and on roll call carried by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Paul Dohring, Vice Mayor Michelle Deasy, Council Member Aaron Barak, Council Member Kate Spadarotto, and Council Member Billy Summers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None

12. OLD BUSINESS
None.

13. NEW BUSINESS

13.1 Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (RCAAP) Update and Discussion CEQA Determination: Exempt
Prepared By: Andrew Bradley, Program Manager
Recommendation:

Receive a presentation on the City of St. Helena’s progress on the administrative draft of the Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and an update on the Countywide Climate Action Committee activities. Provide input to staff and city representative on potential actions and next steps.

City Manager Comelo introduced the item. Eric de Kok of Ascent Environmental presented on the item.

Mayor Dohring called for Public Comment; Public comment was received by Chris Warner.

The discussion was turned over to the Council where feedback was provided.

Mayor Dohring called for a brief recess at 7:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
September 23, 2025
at 7:30 p.m.

13.2 Receive Report from Staff and Consultant on Housing Element Site 10 (1933 Spring Street) Alternatives Analysis
CEQA Determination: Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director Recommendation:

Receive report from staff and consultant.

Community Development Director, Maya DeRosa introduced the Housing Element consultant Ryan Lester who made a presentation on the item.

Mayor Dohring opened Public Comment; Public Comment was made by William Wagner, Beth Novak, Pat Kenealy, Scott Anderson, Steve Goldfarb, Michelle Covell, David Prueter, Michael Sweeney, Corey, Cameron Krebs, Mike Anderson and Linda Reiff
The discussion was turned over to the Council, during which the City Attorney and City Manager provided input. Council directed staff to work with interested members of the community to explore potential solutions. Mayor Dohring and Council Member Barak volunteered to serve as part of this effort.

14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

No reports were made.

14.1 A. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - Executive Board B. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) - General Assembly C. Napa Valley Tourism Corporation (Umbrella for Napa County) D. League of California Cities – North Bay Division
E. Napa County City Selection Committee
F. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District G. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) H. Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
I. Napa County Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) J. Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
Agenda Item #5.1.

Regular City Council
September 23, 2025
K. Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee L. Napa County Regional Climate Action Committee
M. Council Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Reports

15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dohring adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.

CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES
APPROVED:
______________________________
Paul Jamison Dohring, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Erika Opp, Acting City Clerk
Agenda Item #5.1.

From: Joshua Parke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 5:27 PM
To: Erika Opp <[email protected]>
Subject: RHNA Numbers and ADUs
Hi Erica, could you please submit the attached for public comment? Thank you Good afternoon council members,
I’m writing to express ideas we have generated over the years, and to provide examples of policies adopted by other jurisdictions regarding the accommodation of state mandated RHNA numbers. There will be more emails to follow. If any of you read this please respond and let us know you received it. If there’s anything we can do to help further a positive direction please let us know. You have many issues with lack of direction and creative thinking toward positive outcome for the town, time and again it seems the easiest route is presented as the only route, nothing great comes from this.

Over the course of the last several months we've watched the conversation around housing affordability evolve in St Helena and I believe there is a misguided undertone to the impact vs benefit of the broad state mandated approach. The altruistic notion of these mandates as a tool to create affordable housing is disproportionately small compared to their impact in devaluing surrounding properties and consuming of open space within the community.

The municipal/community conversation around housing within St Helena is missing the critical descriptor of creating code engrained pathways for specific tiers of affordability of housing. “Housing” as a general descriptor does little to further the sophistication of the conversation to garner real impact. The state is continually providing new direction and obligations for municipalities, hence the appropriate response from a local municipality perspective should be to create methodologies for nimble evolutions of zoning language in conformance to the general plan with the aim to further the cause of affordability as needed and preserve the sense of place within our community.

Our high density zoning designation and objective standards as written discourage the housing that is needed to appropriately accommodate moderate to low income price structures. Lower the height, and increase the density. Draft to encourage multiple configurations prioritizing entry level with the opportunity for mobility across expense brackets.

We are missing an opportunity for broad spectrum community involvement regarding meeting of RHNA numbers and utilization of ADUs toward our affordable housing allotment. ADU’s are not just guest houses, they can serve a need and have minimal impact on the sense of place that is community. The laws have evolved to allow the Agenda Item #6.1.

individual sale of ADUs on residential parcels, there are examples established non-profits for the furthering of affordable housing for seniors through ADU occupations, and plenty of jurisdictions have used them as a tool for RHNA compliance furthering the goal of affordable housing through incentivizing their construction as a contributing low income housing factor.

There are many home owners in town who would like to move into an ADU on their property and rent their main home, or downsize and move into an ADU on another parcel, or build an ADU for local consumption. St Helena is doing a poor job of encouraging their construction and providing pathways. The current state law requires municipalities to provide pre approved plan sets for ADU’s. Rather than using this as a tool St Helena simply hired an outside consulting firm to provide a web link in affiliation with the town, there are no site built options and the pre-fab plans are very poor quality and in the end prohibitively expensive. Checking a box is not enough. Here is a better example that incentivizes low income units by waving permit fees and providing multiple plan sets in several styles drawn by the city, and provides a pathway for quality submittals. It’s a simple elegant creative solution, isn’t that nice.

The planning & building director for the city of Piedmont (population 10,816) does not make more money than our planning director.

Here’s a path:
-Create a policy to incentivize creation of ADUs. Wave fees for committed low income rentals, and partner with a non profit like Our Town to advance housing stock through ADUs without the timeline and cost commitment of large developments. -Create a data base of interested homeowners to see what potential there is. Through outreach find or create a non profit to help connect citizens in need of ADUs with the right resources and those interested in needing units (employers in town, CIA, etc.). Through outreach in the community find pathways for potential help with funding of construction. -Engage local architects and pay them to create official plans for the city ADU inventory set of options. Have an agreement in place that signs over licensing rights so they become property of the city, or provide a streamlined pathway for connecting interested parties with the firms to further streamline site placement and any needed guidance. (this is not a pathway to income for my firm, we recuse ourselves from contributing) -Eliminate requirement of separate meters and hook-up fees. Most electrical and all sewer is in the streets in St Helena. Every time a new hook up is required it destroys sidewalks and pavement while at the same time we are trying to improve our poor quality pave scape. The state does not require new hook-ups, we need to stop.

Agenda Item #6.1.

-Eliminate on site parking requirements. Previous staff interpreted access to transit as uniformly available in St Helena due the Vine. Many ADU’s were passed under this interpretation of the code, it’s my understanding that the current staff interpretation does not allow for this. This is a big problem for many reasons.

Stop creating hurdles. There is no benefit.

Ask staff how many ADU’s have been permitted since the start of the current RHNA period.

Ask how many are in process. Then take that number and multiply based on the recent ADU laws that have further streamlined permitting and adoption. Immediately you have increased your numbers with a significant contribution.

Please see the attached references, please browse them, they are interesting and informative in many ways……..

HIP housing non-profit. Includes language for Atherton and Hillsborough ADU match program:

Piedmont ADU Memorandum:

RHNA ADU pathway:

Article on how Atherton is using ADU’s for RHNA contribution:

Agenda Item #6.1.

Simple language from Los Gatos website regarding use of ADU’s for RHNA:

Sincerely,
Joshua Parke
Design Principal | PARKE
C 707.312.0346
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

Agenda Item #6.1.

City of Piedmont

CALIFORNIA

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

August 14, 2023
Planning Commission
Kevin Jackson, Planning & Building Director
Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to City Code and
Piedmont Design Guidelines to Implement New ADU
Incentives Program and New Objective Design Standards
(recommended CEQA action: exempt under Public
Resources Code section 21080.17, CEQA Guidelines
sections 15282(h), 15301 and 15303)
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Find that the proposed amendments to the Piedmont Municipal Code and the revisions to the City’s Design Guidelines are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. Approve the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance adding division 17.67 to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont Municipal Code for Ministerial Design Review Permits; amending Division 17.38 and Section 17.64.020 pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, and adding provisions for the use of Pre-approved Plans; and amending Piedmont Municipal Code sections

17.02.010, 17.32.020, 17.34.020, 17.36.030, 17.36.040, 17.42.040, 17.46.080, 17.50.020,

17.62.030, 17.64.030, 17.66.010, 17.66.020, 17.66.040, 17.66.060, 17.78.040, 17.90.010, and 17.90.020 to update references to Piedmont’s Design Guidelines and Standards and clarify application requirements.

3. Approve the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines, including re-naming the document to “City of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines,” and establishing objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use development and pre-approved plans for ADUs.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In 2020, the City received grant funds under SB 2, which funds must be used for implementation plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production (SB 2 programs). Accordingly, staff is bringing forward proposed amendments to the Piedmont Municipal Code, which incentivize production of ADUs that can be offered at affordable rents to very low-income renters, and which streamline review of multifamily housing developments and mixed-use developments, which are often the most affordable housing types.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Staff is also bringing forward amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines to support the ADU program, establish standards for streamlined review of multifamily development and mixed-use development, and to ensure projects that require ministerial approval under State law meet the City’s requirements.

The policy research and analysis completed for the SB 2 programs were incorporated into the Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element policies and programs and presented at public events in support of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on March 20, 2023. This item was last presented at a public meeting of the Planning Commission on July 10, 2023. The staff reports for the July 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting are included as Attachments H and I to this staff report.

BACKGROUND:

In 2019, the Piedmont City Council authorized staff to pursue, enter into, and execute an SB 2 grant agreement to develop new fair housing programs, including new ADU incentives and objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development. On August 17, 2020, the City Council approved a contract with Lisa Wise Consulting (LWC) to prepare the draft SB 2 programs. City staff published the first draft of new Piedmont affordable ADU incentives and multifamily objective design standards on October 19, 2021. Detailed background on the legal basis, robust public engagement, guiding principles, review by the Housing Advisory Committee, and information about the development of the SB 2 programs is provided in the staff reports prepared for the June 12 and July 10 Planning Commission meetings (included as Attachment G and Attachments H and I, respectively).

ANALYSIS:

Proposed Changes to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont Municipal Code

1. City Approved ADU Plans. After a robust public engagement process, the City’s housing team have developed Planning permit-ready designs for a variety of ADU solutions appropriate to Piedmont’s landscape and setting. This program reduces the cost to an applicant to prepare architectural floor plans and elevations for a Planning permit as an incentive to create a rentrestricted ADU. The draft resolution (Attachment A) recommends City Council adoption of proposed amendments to the City Code to establish a new City Code section 17.38.075 for a voluntary ADU incentive program.

The proposed amendments related to ADU incentives allow the Planning & Building Director or his/her designee to authorize the use of ADU floor plans and elevations, pre-approved by the City Council for very low income households, so long as the location and design of the unit meet the normal requirements for ADUs required by section 17.38.060, the roofing material and exterior siding material of the proposed unit are the same as that of the primary residence, and the applicant’s plans are the same as those approved by the City Council with only a 3 percent variation or less in any one dimension.

When approval of the Planning Division’s ADU permit is granted, the applicant must provide a covenant requiring a rent level affordable to households of very low income (50 percent of the area median income or less), for a period of 10 years, beginning either: (a) on the date of recordation or date of final building inspection, whichever is later; or (b) according to the terms of the

Agenda Item #6.1.

conditions of approval for a recorded declaration. This staff report recommends that the City Council-approved ADU plans be added as a new Appendix A to the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.

2. Revising Definitions of ADU and JADU. The proposed draft resolution (Attachment A) recommends City Council adoption of amendments to the existing definitions of accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit to align with State law. A redlined version of the City Code changes is provided as Attachment C.

3. Amending Division 17.66 to clarify review authority and procedures. The proposed amendments related to division 17.66 (Attachment A) would update references to the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines, and clarify the role of the Director to provide guidance to applicants on the types of design review applications, and to review and approve applications for ministerial design review pursuant to State law. These amendments refer applicants to a proposed new division 17.67, described below.

4. Adding New Division 17.67 for Ministerial Design Review. The draft resolution (Attachment A) recommends City Council adoption of an amendment to the Chapter 17 of the City Code to create a new division 17.67, entitled Ministerial Design Review. Pursuant to State law and SB 35, a residential or mixed-use development application that meets the eligibility criteria specified in the law must be ministerially reviewed and approved without a public hearing, neighbor comments, or CEQA review. However, under State law, the City is authorized to impose objective design standards on such projects. The proposed code amendments establish that Piedmont’s objective standards, which the Planning Commission is also being asked to consider, apply to SB 35 ministerial projects.

The proposed new division 17.67 in Attachment A includes the following sections: Intent, Implementation, Permit required, Approval authority, Procedure (“Procedure: Application; Notice; Decision; Effective date; Decision by Director is final”), and Standards; Findings. The new division 17.67 would not apply to improvements that are not eligible for streamlined review under State law. Improvements such as remodeling of existing residences will continue to require a discretionary design review process subject to public hearing, neighbor comments, and CEQA review. In addition, the proposed division 17.67 allows an applicant to voluntarily seek discretionary review under division 17.66 if the applicant chooses discretionary review.

As proposed, the Planning & Building Director would apply division 17.67 in concert with City Code regulations and new objective standards to review applications eligible for SB 35 streamlined review. The determination of whether a proposed project complies with objective standards will be made by the Director. This agenda item also includes proposed amendments to the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines to establish new objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development.

5. Amendments for Internal Consistency. The proposed amendments to the Piedmont Municipal Code (Attachment A) include changes to update the title of the City of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines and make necessary corresponding revisions to sections 17.02.010, 17.32.020,

17.34.020, 17.36.030, 17.36.040, 17.42.040, 17.46.080, 17.50.020, 17.62.030, 17.64.030,

17.66.010, 17.66.020, 17.66.040, 17.66.060, 17.78.040, 17.90.010, and 17.90.020 to update references to Piedmont’s Design Guidelines and Standards throughout Chapter 17.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Proposed Revisions to the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines

1. Change Title to Read Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines. The draft resolution (Attachment B) recommends City Council adoption of amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines (current title) to change the title of the document on the cover and throughout the text, photographs, and diagrams. The new title of the document will read, “The City of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines,” which more accurately reflects the purpose and contents of the document.

2. City approved Plans for Rent-restricted ADUs and JADUs. The draft resolution (Attachment B) recommends City Council adoption of amendments to insert a new ADU incentive program into Division 5.03 of Chapter 5 of the Design Standards and Guidelines, entitled Building Design:

Single-Family, Accessory Dwelling Units. A new section 5.03.05 will be added to the document to support the use of the pre-approved plans for the production of rent-restricted housing. The City approved ADU floor plans and elevations will be inserted as Appendix A. As prepared, the Director may authorize an applicant’s use of the pre-approved ADU designs so that an applicant can submit them, along with a detailed site plan, to Piedmont’s Planning division staff for issuance of a Planning ADU permit. The ADU designs must then be further developed with items, including engineering plans, Title 24 compliance, and construction details, and then submitted to Piedmont’s Building division for formal review and issuance of a building permit.

3. Ministerial Design Review for Multifamily Development in Chapter 6. The draft resolution (Attachment B) recommends City Council adoption of amendments to Chapter 6. Building Design:

Multi-family of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines to establish the purpose and implementation of the objective design standards for multifamily housing development. Following an introduction, the draft resolution recommends City Council adoption of a range of measurable standards for building envelope design, building design, site design, and terms for multifamily development.

4. Ministerial Design Review and Objective Design Standards for Mixed-Use Development in Chapter 7. The draft resolution (Attachment B) recommends City Council adoption of amendments to Chapter 7. Building Design: Mixed-Use of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines to establish the purpose and implementation of the objective design standards for mixed-use commercial and residential housing development. Following an introduction, the draft resolution recommends City Council adoption of a range of measurable standards for building envelope design, building design, site design, parking, and terms for mixed-use commercial and residential development.

5. Revisions for Internal Consistency. The draft resolution (Attachment B) recommends City Council adoption of general revisions to the City of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines to make Chapter 1. Introduction and Chapter 2. The Design Review Process internally consistent with the amendments described above.

Public Comments
Public comments about community values, design elements, and architectural styles directly informed the draft ADU incentives program and objective design standards for multifamily

Agenda Item #6.1.

development and mixed-use commercial and residential development, as described in the staff reports prepared for the June 12 and July 10, 2023 Planning Commission meetings (Attachment G and Attachments H and I, respectively). All of the public comments received by staff are included in this staff report as Attachment D.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN:

ADU Incentives Programs in the Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element Policies, including 3.1: Rent-restricted ADUs, 3.2: Occupancy of Permitted ADUs, and 3.3:

Legalization of ADUs, and implementing programs in the 6th Cycle Housing Element (Attachment E) of the Piedmont General Plan were developed with SB 2 funding. These policies and programs were adopted by City Council on March 20, 2023, and are consistent with the proposed amendments to the City Code and Design Standards and Guidelines:
• Program 1.C Public Engagement for ADUs
• Program 1.S ADU Compliance
• Program 3.A Affordable ADU Public Information Campaign • Program 3.C Monitoring ADU Missed Opportunities
• Program 3.D Monitoring ADU Development Opportunities
• Program 3.E Affordable Housing Fund
• Program 3.F Incentives for Rent-Restricted ADUs
• Program 5.H Housing for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and Households • Program 5.I Housing for Extremely Low-Income Families Permit Streamlining and Objective Standards in the 6th Cycle Housing Element The following policies and programs in the Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element (Attachment E) were developed with SB 2 funding as part of the development of objective design standards. These policies and programs were adopted by City Council on March 20, 2023, and are consistent with the proposed amendments to the City Code and Design Standards and Guidelines:
 Policy 4.2 Planning and Building Standards
 Policy 4.3 Expeditious Permitting
 Policy 4.4 Updating Standards and Codes
 Program 4.R Permit Streamlining
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

City staff reviewed the proposed changes to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont Municipal Code and to the Design Standards and Guidelines for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as policies and programs in the City of Piedmont General Plan that reduce the potential for adverse impacts from development within the context of Piedmont’s natural and built environment. City staff considered the programs pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, including review of the following potential impacts:

Agenda Item #6.1.

1. Aesthetic Considerations: The Zoning Ordinance and General Plan policies and programs protect aesthetics, and account for protection of scenic vistas. The amendments to implement the SB 2 programs do not change or increase the development potential permitted in the zoning ordinance of any property in Piedmont. Neither the ADU incentives program nor the multifamily objective design standards (MODS) change the City regulations for residential densities, floor area ratios, heights, minimum setbacks, lot coverage, or parking standards for any zoning district. Piedmont is a developed and urbanized area, there is no designated state scenic highway within the City limits, and no part of Piedmont is visible from vehicles on a state scenic highway. The ADU incentives and MODS require exterior lighting to be fully shielded and directed downward onto the building façade and onto paving of entrance areas, and prohibits floodlights. Sites with recognized historic resources on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register approved by the City Council are not eligible for redevelopment under the MODS program. For the foregoing reasons, there is no possibility of a significant impact on aesthetics.

2. Climate Change and Sustainability: Neither the ADU incentives nor the MODS in the SB 2 programs change or increase the development potential permitted in the zoning ordinance of any property in Piedmont. The ADU pre-approved plans call for electrical cooking appliances and heating systems. The MODS do not change the City regulations for clean energy, residential densities, floor area ratios, heights, minimum setbacks, lot coverage, or parking standards for any zoning district. Emissions would be no greater than those generated from buildings meeting the existing Piedmont Design Guidelines. The MODS section D., subsection 6., Energy Efficiency, reinforce Piedmont City Code Chapter 8., Building, Construction, & Fire Protection, and the Piedmont Reach Codes, sections

8.02.070 and 8.02.080. Furthermore, MODS section D., Site Design, subsection 7., provides procedures to implement shared parking reductions and implement transportation control measures and transportation demand management (TDM) to reduce future emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks, consistent with the Piedmont Transportation Element, Piedmont Safer Streets plan, and the Piedmont Climate Action Plan 2.0. There is no possibility of a significant impact.

3. Transportation: General Plan policies and programs protect the City transportation system.

The ADU incentives program would construct a small structure adjacent to an existing or proposed residence(s). The Piedmont MODS section B., Building Design, subsection 7., Parking and Driveway Design, support City policies to carefully plan for complete streets, pedestrians, transit, and bicycles, and MODS section D., Site Design, subsection 7., provides procedures to implement shared parking reductions and implement transportation control measures and transportation demand management (TDM) to reduce emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks, consistent with the Piedmont Transportation Element, Piedmont Safer Streets plan, and the Piedmont Climate Action Plan 2.0. The ADU incentives and Piedmont MODS in the SB 2 programs are consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and metrics to determine the significance of transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The MODS encourage a reduction in VMT by setting a framework for transportation demand management and shared parking reductions. Neither the ADU incentives nor MODS propose to change standards for the public right-of-way and do not change the adopted Piedmont Public Works Standard Details, which govern the design of roadways, sidewalks, intersections, utilities, signage, etc. Neither the ADU incentives nor the Piedmont MODS propose to

Agenda Item #6.1.

change standards for the public right-of-way related to emergency response. There is no possibility of a significant impact.

4. Landslide and Seismic Stability. Landslide and seismic hazards are present in most parts of Piedmont, and the Piedmont General Plan addresses the risk of development on hillside lots within a mile of active earthquake fault lines. According to the General Plan, no part of Piedmont is within a Special Study Zone, mapped by the State of California. The slope of many sites in Piedmont is 20% or more. The Piedmont General Plan anticipates construction on slopes of 20% or more and requires geotechnical reports at the time of issuance of a building permit. The extent, size, and degree of grading proposed by the SB 2 programs are anticipated by the Piedmont General Plan Environmental Hazards Element.

There is no possibility of a significant impact.

5. Roadway Impacts. Construction under the SB 2 programs could include the construction of retaining walls and imported soil and materials. Truck traffic related to construction can include 300 trips or more into and out of Piedmont during the course of grading. This amount of truck traffic related to grading is anticipated by Piedmont General Plan policies, programs, and actions, subject to a detailed construction management plan, including coordination with emergency response personnel. A standard condition of approval placed on design review permit applications requires a construction management plan, construction completion schedule, City facilities deposit, security deposit, and route maps to address construction traffic. There is no possibility of a significant impact.

6. Construction Noise Impacts. Construction in Piedmont is associated with noise from trucks, drilling, pile driving, jackhammering, voices, saws, and hammering. This noise can exceed 70 dBA per occurrence. The Piedmont Noise Element (included in Environmental Hazards Element) anticipates these noise impacts from construction. The General Plan notes that construction noise is limited by the Piedmont Municipal Code which prohibits construction noise between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., extending to 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Sundays. A standard condition of approval of a design review permit requires that the applicant prepare a construction management plan and construction completion schedule specific to the project scope prior to issuance of a building permit. There is no possibility of a significant impact. For a large project, an acoustical study with noise reduction measures is required consistent with Noise Element Action 22.B. General Plan Action

22.B. states,
“Acoustical Study Requirements - On an ongoing basis, require acoustical studies for projects which could potentially elevate noise levels above the “normally acceptable” limits specified in Table 6.4, or introduce noise-sensitive uses in areas where the existing noise levels presently exceed the normally acceptable levels described in Table 6.4. Such analyses should be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and should include sufficient sampling data to adequately describe existing and future conditions.”

7. Biological Resources and Urban Forest. The Piedmont City Code does not have an implementing ordinance for the removal of trees on private property. A number, type, and degree of tree removals are anticipated by the Piedmont General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element. A standard condition of approval requires compliance with a tree protection plan and measures to avoid construction impacts to remaining trees. Land in Piedmont consists of urbanized lots

Agenda Item #6.1.

and many lots are developed with residences, other buildings, and accessory structures.

Piedmont is surrounded on all sides by developed and urbanized land in the City of Oakland. All of Piedmont is connected to existing roadway systems and public utilities.

Sites in Piedmont are unlikely to provide significant habitat value for special status species as defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is no possibility of a significant impact.

The adoption of the amendments to the City Code and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines for a new incentive program for rent-restricted Accessory Dwelling Units are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because: (1) pre-approved architectural plans for ADUs are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which exempts adoption of ordinances to implement Government Code section 65852.2 regarding accessory dwelling units, and (2) exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. sections 15301(e) and 15303(a) because the amendments address the construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

Also, starting in 2021, City staff focused the scope of the Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS program) on exterior design elements, such as exterior materials, roof forms, windows, doors, and building features. The proposed MODS program does not change the underlying development potential of property in any zone in Piedmont. The amendments to the City Code and Piedmont Design Guidelines to change the title of the Design Guidelines document and to implement objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of Multifamily Objective Design Standards may have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources Code section 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15061(b)(3), 15378.) Further, these amendments are exempt under CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15301 and 15303 for existing facilities and the construction or conversion of small structures.

Exceptions to the Exemptions. Categorical exemptions are typically not applicable to projects which may have significant environmental impacts. The exceptions are listed in section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. These exceptions typically apply for particular locations (Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located); where there is a cumulative impact (exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant); where there are unusual circumstances (exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances); for scenic highways; for hazardous waste sites; or for historical resources (exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource). The proposed SB 2 program does not present any unusual exceptions. As outlined above, City staff have identified no substantial evidence that the project falls within any of the exceptions listed in section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.

CONCLUSION:

The supply of new townhouses and apartments through the production of ADUs, multifamily development, and mixed-use development is critical to meeting the City’s fair housing goals. The

Agenda Item #6.1.

extension of the SB 2 grant deadline for completion of the new ADU incentives program and objective design standards program, made possible by the State of California 2022 Budget Act, gave the City the opportunity to include programs to support new affordable ADUs and permit streamlining policies in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, adopted by City Council on March 20, 2023. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the draft resolutions prepared by staff, the staff report, agenda materials, and community member feedback and to make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on September 5, 2023.

ATTACHMENTS:

A Pages 10-25 Draft Resolution Recommending Adoption of Amendments to City of Piedmont Municipal Code
B Pages 26-75 Draft Resolution Recommending Adoption of Amendments to The City of Piedmont Design Guidelines
C Separate Redline Version of City Code Amendments
D Pages 76 - 105
E Online
F Online
G Online
H Online
I Online
Public Comment
6 th Cycle Housing Element
Planning Commission Staff Report for June 12, 2023
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 12, 2023
Planning Commission Staff Report for MODS for July 10, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report for ADU Incentives for July 10, 2023

Agenda Item #6.1.

RESOLUTION No.____

A RESOLUTION OF

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PIEDMONT

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING DIVISION 17.67 TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL CODE FOR MINISTERIAL DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS; AMENDING DIVISION 17.38 AND SECTION 17.64.020, PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND

JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND ADDING PROVISIONS FOR THE USE OF PREAPPROVED PLANS; AND AMENDING PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.02.010, 17.32.020, 17.34.020, 17.36.030, 17.36.040, 17.42.040, 17.46.080,

17.50.020, 17.62.030, 17.64.030, 17.66.010, 17.66.020, 17.66.040, 17.66.060, 17.78.040,

17.90.010, AND 17.90.020 TO UPDATE REFERENCES TO PIEDMONT’S

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
WHEREAS, to comply with State housing element law, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element (the 6th Cycle Housing Element) on March 20, 2023; and WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element complies with State law, accommodates the RHNA, affirmatively furthers fair housing, and facilitates and encourages a variety of housing types for households of all income levels, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes multiple policies and programs to facilitate the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), including policies 3.1: Rent-restricted ADUs, 3.2: Occupancy of Permitted ADUs, and 3.3: Legalization of ADUs, and programs 1.C:

Public Engagement for ADUs, 1.S: ADU Compliance, 3.A: Affordable ADU Public Information Campaign, 3.C: Monitoring ADU Missed Opportunities, 3.D: Monitoring ADU Development Opportunities, 3.E: Affordable Housing Fund, 3.F: Incentives for Rent-Restricted ADUs, 5.H:

Housing for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and Households, and 5.I: Housing for Extremely Low-Income Families, which support the construction of ADUs to provide housing affordable to households with a range of income levels; and
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes multiple policies and programs to facilitate ministerial review of the development of multifamily housing for households of all income levels, including policies 4.2: Planning and Building Standards, 4.3: Expeditious Permitting, and 4.4:

Updating Standards and Codes, and program 4.R: Permit Streamlining, which support objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use commercial and residential development consistent with State law; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach in support of the Housing Element update process over the last 22 months with an innovative and robust public engagement process, including two community workshops, five City Council meetings, 20 Planning Commission meetings, two meetings of the Housing Advisory Committee, a meeting of the Recreation Commission, a meeting of the Park Commission, two online forums, two open houses, and tables at community events, as well as online engagement tools, regular news stories in local media, Attachment A Page 10 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

email newsletters to over 4,000 email subscribers, emails to the School District employees and City employees, correspondence with Piedmont religious institutions, meetings with property owners in Zones A, B, C, and D, citywide streetlight banners announcing the Housing Element website, and posters at local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the Piedmont City Council adopted guiding principles for new fair housing programs on June 21, 2021, including principles to support equitable distribution of affordable units across the City, promote and enhance community design and neighborhoods, remove barriers to development and access to housing through clear and objective standards, facilitate the development of new housing units through strategic partnerships between the City and the broader community, and greater social equity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Multifamily Objective Design Standards and proposed ADU Incentives programs were presented and discussed at a virtual community workshop on October 21, 2021, and at the Housing Advisory Committee meeting held on March 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Piedmont Planning Commission held regular meetings on October 10, 2022, June 12, 2023, and July 10, 2023, during which City staff provided information and updates on the proposed Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS), and during which members of the public had the opportunity to comment on the proposed MODS; and WHEREAS, proposed ADU incentives and incentive programs were presented and discussed at a public meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2023, during which members of the public had the opportunity to comment on the proposed ADU incentives; and WHEREAS, the draft amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines for a new incentive program for a rent-restricted ADUs and for the objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development, were published for public review on July 3, 2023, and have been available for public comment for approximately 40 days; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a noticed public hearing on the proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 17 on August 14, 2023, consistent with Government Code sections 65854 and 65855 and existing City Code section 17.36; and WHEREAS, evidence provided in the August 14, 2023, staff report to the Planning Commission demonstrates that the adoption of the proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 17 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h), Public Resources Code section 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15061(b)(3), 15378; and CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.

Code of Regs. Section 15301 and 15303, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Piedmont does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order, based on substantial evidence in the record, as follows:

Attachment A Page 11 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are correct and are incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 2. Recommendation – revisions to Chapter 17. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the revisions to Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached.

SECTION 2. All portions of this resolution are severable. If an individual component of this Resolution is adjudged by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remaining portions will continue in effect.
[END OF RESOLUTION]
Attachment A Page 12 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ORDINANCE NO. ____ N.S.

AN ORDINANCE
ADDING DIVISION 17.67 TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL CODE FOR MINISTERIAL DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS; AMENDING DIVISION 17.38 AND SECTION

17.64.020, PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND ADDING SECTION 17.38.075 FOR PROVISIONS FOR THE USE OF PREAPPROVED PLANS; AND AMENDING PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.02.010, 17.32.020, 17.34.020, 17.36.030, 17.36.040, 17.42.040,

17.46.080, 17.50.020, 17.62.030, 17.64.030, 17.66.010, 17.66.020, 17.66.040, 17.66.060,

17.78.040, 17.90.010, AND 17.90.020 TO UPDATE REFERENCES TO PIEDMONT’S

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS AND MAKE OTHER CONFORMING

REVISIONS
The City Council of the City of Piedmont hereby ordains as follows:

SECTION 1 – INTENT
It is the intent of the City Council of the City of Piedmont to adopt updated provisions in City Code Chapter 17 related to:
 The definitions of Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit;  Providing a new section 17.38.075 for an incentive and for allowing for the use of preapproved plans for Accessory Dwelling Units;
 The addition of a new division 17.67 Ministerial Design Review Permit and minor revisions to sections 17.62.030.E, 17.66.020, 17.66.040 to provide consistency with division 17.67; and
 Changing references to the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines, by updating the references to refer to the new title “City of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.” SECTION 2 – CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The proposed City Code amendments related to ADUs are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which exempts adoption of ordinances to implement Government Code section 65852.2 regarding accessory dwelling units (Public Resources Code section 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15061(b)(3), 15378.) and exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15301 and 15303. In addition, the proposed revisions to Chapter 17 unrelated to Accessory Dwelling units are categorically exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of proposed amendments to Chapter 17 may have a significant effect on the environment (Public Resources Code section 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15061(b)(3), 15378.) and also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15301 and 15303.

SECTION 3 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.02.010.B.6
Subsection 17.02.010.B.6 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 13 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

“6. ensure excellence of architectural design, and compliance with the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines, as approved by the City Council and amended from time to time;” SECTION 4 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.32.020.B
Subsection 17.32.020.B of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“B. Standards. A design review permit is not required, but a trash enclosure within a street setback will be reviewed at the planning counter for compliance with this chapter and the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines (Trash Enclosures). The enclosure must be:

1. located as far away from the street as possible;

2. as small as is necessary to enclose the carts;

3. as low in height as necessary to adequately screen the carts; and

4. designed in compliance with the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.” SECTION 5 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.34.020.C
Subsection 17.34.020.C of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“C. Contents. Plans must clearly set forth the areas and types of existing and proposed landscaping, and their relation to the structure(s) requiring the approval or permit. Landscaping must conform to Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines as well as any state regulations, including the California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (23 Cal. Code of Regulations Division 2, Chapter 2.7).”
SECTION 6 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.36.030.B
Subsection 17.36.030.B of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“B. Exceptions.

1. City Buildings and Facilities. The Director of Public Works may approve the installation of a sign by the City on City-owned buildings and facilities located on City-owned property and within the public rights-of-way provided the sign conforms to the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.

2. Sidewalks. A temporary freestanding sign no larger than four square feet on a side (excluding the frame) may be placed on a City sidewalk or curbside planting strip on Saturdays and Sundays between 12 p.m. and 5 p.m., as long as the sign does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic or otherwise constitute a safety hazard.

3. Piedmont Park and Veterans’ Memorial Building. A group or individual hosting a permitted event in Piedmont Park or at the Veterans’ Memorial Building may place up to two temporary freestanding signs no larger than four square feet on a side (excluding the frame) in Piedmont Park, on the adjacent curbside strips, or on the exterior of the Veterans’ Memorial Building during the permitted event and for a period not to exceed 2 hours before the start of the permitted event and 2 hours after the conclusion of the permitted event, as Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 14 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

long as the sign does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic or otherwise constitute a safety hazard.

4. Other public property. The Director of Public Works may issue a sign permit to display a sign in the following locations:
a. Across Magnolia Avenue at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Magnolia Avenue.
b. On the fence outside of the Piedmont Corporation Yard. c. On backstops or fences within or surrounding Coaches Field, Beach Playfield, Hampton Field, Vista Street tennis courts, the City pool, and other City-owned recreation facilities.

It is the City’s intent that these locations constitute a non-public forum to promote community events benefiting residents and provide residents with information on non-partisan or noncommercial matters of general community interest. Signs in these locations will serve to notify citizens and visitors of upcoming events that are (i) City-sponsored, (ii) City cosponsored, (iii) sponsored by any other local governmental or educational entity, (iv) sponsored by a local non-profit, or (v) sponsored by a local business. Signs in these locations must conform to the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines and the stated purpose of this division.” SECTION 7 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.36.040.C.2.b.vi
Subsection 17.36.040.C.2.b.vi of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“vi. The design of the sign is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.”
SECTION 8 – AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17.38.020 “DEFINITIONS” a. The definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit in section 17.38.020 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: “Accessory dwelling unit means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit may also include (1) an efficiency unit, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 17958.1 and (2) a manufactured home as defined in Health and Safety Code section 18007. (Formerly called second dwelling unit. See section 17.38.030 for types of accessory dwelling units and permits.)” b. The definition of Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit in section 17.38.020 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: “Junior accessory dwelling unit means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained within a single-family residence, with a separate entrance.

A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure, but shall include an efficiency kitchen that provides for a cooking facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.” Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 15 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

SECTION 9 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.38.060.B.5
Subsection 17.38.060.B.5 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“5. Design Criteria. The design of the structure(s) housing the proposed accessory dwelling unit must meet applicable objective design criteria in the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines and any additional design standards applicable to accessory dwelling units approved by City Council resolution.”
SECTION 10 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.38.060.B.6.a
Subsection 17.38.060.B.6.a of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“a. Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the City shall not require the replacement of off-street parking spaces. (Gov't. Code §65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(xi).)”
SECTION 11 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.38.060.C.2.j
Subsection 17.38.060.C.2.j of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“j. An expansion to an accessory structure of up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet to accommodate ingress and egress for a proposed junior accessory dwelling unit must meet applicable design criteria in the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.” SECTION 12 – ADDITION OF SECTION 17.38.075
The City Code is amended to add Section 17.38.075 to read in its entirety as follows:
“17.38.075 Pre-approved Plans Incentive
A. The Director may authorize an applicant’s use of floor plans and elevations, owned by the City of Piedmont and approved by the City Council, Appendix A of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines, to obtain Planning Division approval of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit if all of the following findings are made:

A. The design unit meets the requirements of section 17.38.060.

B. The roofing material and exterior siding material of the proposed unit are the same as that of the primary residence.

C. The plans are the same as those in Appendix A of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines with only a 3 percent variation or less in any one dimension.

Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 16 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

If the approval is granted, the applicant must agree to the imposition of a rent restrictions on the unit requiring that any rent for the unit be affordable to households of very low income, and the accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all the requirements set forth below.

B. Additional requirements. If an accessory dwelling unit permit using City-owned plans in Appendix A of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines is approved, it is subject to the following additional requirements.

1. Rent restriction.
a. Declaration of rent restrictions. The accessory dwelling unit permit constructed using City-owned plans shall be subject to declaration of rent restrictions (in a form provided by the city), which shall be recorded in the county recorder's office, as a declaration of rent restrictions, and will remain in effect for ten years.

The ten-year period of rent restriction begins either: (a) on the date of recordation or date of final building inspection, whichever is later; or (b) according to the terms of the recorded declaration.

If, after ten years, the termination of the recorded declaration is not automatic (by its terms), the city will record a document terminating the declaration of rent restrictions, upon the written request of the property owner. b. Affordable rent certification. An owner who has executed a declaration must submit to the city an accessory dwelling unit affordable rent certification: (i) on an annual basis, by each December 31 and as part of the annual city business license application and renewal; and (ii) upon any change in occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit affordable rent certification must be on a form provided by the city and must specify whether or not the accessory dwelling unit is being occupied; the rent charged; the utilities that are included in the cost of rent; the household size of the accessory dwelling unit; the names and ages of the accessory dwelling unit occupants; the gross household income of the accessory dwelling unit household; and other information as determined appropriate by the city.”
SECTION 13 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.42.040.D
Subsection 17.42.040.D of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“D. Exterior design modifications (e.g., window and door changes) necessary to meet the health and safety requirements of Chapter 8 Building, Construction & Fire Prevention of this Code conform to the standards of the City of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.” SECTION 14 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.46.080.D.1.d
Subsection 17.46.080.D.1.d of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 17 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

“d. The proposed design is consistent with the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.” SECTION 15 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.50.020.B.3.a
Subsection 17.50.020.B.3.a of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“a. such modifications comply with objective standards in the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines; and”
SECTION 16 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.62.030.B.2
Subsection 17.62.030.B.2 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“2. Expedited design review by Director. The applicant for an expedited design review permit under section 17.66.040.B.3 may be required to notify adjacent neighbors as specified in the Design Standards and Guidelines or the application instructions.” SECTION 17 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.62.030.E
Subsection 17.62.030.E of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“E. Schedule of notice requirements. Notice of an application will be given under this chapter as set forth in the following schedule:

Notice by City at least 14 days before the hearing, measured from the project boundary. 2
Notice
by
applicant
30 days
before
hearing1
to
adjacent
property
owners
to
property
owners
within 100
feet
to
property
owners
within 200
feet
to
property
owners
within 300
feet
to property
owners
within 500
feet
Design review permit Variable depending on application. See division 17.66.

Ministerial design review No public notice. See division 17.67.

Variance
Single (other than for
height or floor area ratio)
X X
More than one, or for
height or floor area ratio
X X
Signs X4 X
Landscape plan X4 X4
Lot line adjustment
Between two lots
More than two lots
X
X
Wireless communication
facility permit
X4 X
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Permit
No notice for an ADU permit application is permitted.

See division 17.38.

Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 18 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Negative declaration or
Environmental Impact
Report required
X4 X
Tract map or parcel map X X
Conditional use permit, or
modification
X
Reasonable
accommodation3
X
Zoning Regulation
Amendment
Publish notice in newspaper of general circulation within the City.5 Zoning Map Amendment Publish notice in newspaper of general circulation within the City. 5 Other applications X
Appeal, Call for Review Subject to Section 17.78.030.A. 1 See section 17.62.030B.
2 See section 17.62.030C.
3 Subject to section 17.76.040.
4 For an application considered by Planning Commission
5 Subject to section 17.62.030, subsections A and C.”
SECTION 18 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.64.020.A AND 17.64.020.B Sections 17.64.020.A and 17.64.020.B of the City Code are amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“17.64.020 Term of approval.

A. General. An approved conditional use permit, design review permit, accessory dwelling unit permit or variance lapses one year after its date of final approval, or at an alternative time specified as a condition of approval, unless one of the following has occurred:

1. A building permit has been issued, substantial money expended, and construction diligently pursued; or

2. A final inspection has been issued; or

3. The conditional use is established in reliance on the approval.

An applicant is not allowed to proceed with construction if the approval has expired.

B. Administrative extension. The Director will grant one six-month extension for any permit or variance approval by the Planning Commission, City Council, or staff, upon written application by the property owner on a form provided by the Director, along with submission of the extension fee, prior to expiration of the original approval. The extension fee is the amount established by City Council resolution.”
SECTION 19 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.64.030.A.1
Subsection 17.64.030.A.1 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 19 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

“1. Achieve the general purposes of this chapter or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, or to make it consistent with the general plan and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines;”
SECTION 20 – AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17.66.010
Section 17.66.010 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“17.66.010 Intent.

Design review is intended to: promote orderly, attractive, safe and harmonious development; uphold the aesthetic values of the community; and ensure excellence of architectural design; all as set forth in the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.” SECTION 21 – AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17.66.020
Section 17.66.020 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“17.66.020 Implementation.

A. Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines. The City Council has adopted the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines that are available online and at city hall. The Standards and Guidelines are the criteria for the applicant and hearing body in determining whether a specific project conforms to section 17.66.060, Standards.

B. Director. The Director will prepare:

1. the permit application forms; and

2. public lists for guidance to applicants on which applications are subject to each type of design review.

SECTION 22 – AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.66.040
Section 17.66.040 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“17.66.040 Approval authority
A. Planning Commission.

1. Applicability. The Planning Commission has the responsibility to review a design review permit if the project is:
a. part of an application for a variance or conditional use permit; b. is valued at $125,000 or more (adjusted for inflation 1); Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 20 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

c. a site feature greater than 7 feet high and located in a side or rear yard setback, or a site feature of any height located within a 20-foot street setback;
d. a retaining wall greater than 30 inches in height located within a street yard setback or a fence of any height located within a street yard setback; or
e. referred to the Planning Commission by the Director.

However, if any component of a project application requires final approval by the City Council, including a City project, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation and the Council is the final decision-making body. The Planning Commission shall not review any development application that is eligible for ministerial review under State law unless the applicant voluntarily requests discretionary review (See division 17.67).

2. Notice. If a project is subject to Planning Commission approval, the city will give notice:
a. in the same manner required for the underlying application of which design review is a part; or
b. to property owners within 100 feet of the property for a stand-alone design review permit application, including those for nonresidential signs under section 17.36.040.C.2 and landscape plans under section 17.34.020.A.2, except that design review permit applications for a new house shall require notice to property owners within 300 feet of the property. (See division 17.62. In some cases, the applicant provides the notice to other property owners.)

3. Standards. In reviewing an application for a design review permit, the Planning Commission will apply the standards set forth in section 17.66.060, Standards.

B. Director.

1. Applicability. The Director has the authority to approve a design review permit application if the project is not covered by the Planning Commission applicability threshold under subsection A.1 above. The Director may refer an application to the Planning Commission.

2. Notice. The city will give notice of a design review permit application to the adjacent property owners if the proposal represents a significant change. The Director determines what is a significant change. (See section 17.66.020 B.)

3. Expedited review. An application for a minor modification is entitled to expedited review. The Director determines what is a minor modification, and will maintain a list, available to the public. (See section 17.66.020 B.)

4. Ministerial design review permit application. Application for a ministerial design review permit, as provided in division 17.67, shall be reviewed and approved by the Director.

Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 21 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

5. Standards. In reviewing an application for a design review permit, the Director will apply the standards set forth in section 17.66.060, Standards.

6. Changes.
a. Conditions of approval. Only the approving hearing body may approve a change to a condition of approval, unless the condition provides otherwise. b. Plans. A change in the plans will be reviewed by the approving hearing body, except that the Director may approve a change to plans approved by the Planning Commission or City Council if the change does not meet the threshold applicability provisions for review by the Planning Commission (see section 17.66.040 A 1), or is a minor modification. (See section 17.66.020 B.)”
SECTION 23 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.66.060.A
Subsection 17.66.060.A of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“A. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.”
SECTION 24 – ADDITION OF DIVISION 17.67
The City Code is amended to add division 17.67 as follows:
“DIVISION 17.67 MINISTERIAL DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
Sections:

17.67.010 Intent

17.67.020 Implementation

17.67.030 Permit required

17.67.040 Approval authority

17.67.050 Procedure: Application; Notice; Decision; Decision of Director is final

17.67.060 Standards; Findings

17.67.010 Intent.

It is the intent of the City in establishing this ordinance to support equitable distribution of affordable housing units across the City; promote and enhance community design and neighborhoods; remove barriers to development and access to housing through clear and objective standards; and facilitate the development of new multifamily housing units.

17.67.020 Implementation.

A. Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines. The City Council has adopted the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines that are available online and at city hall. The Piedmont Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 22 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Design Standards and Guidelines are one of the criteria for the applicant and Director in determining whether a specific project conforms to section 17.67.060, Standards; Findings.

B. Director. The Director will prepare:

1. The permit application forms; and

2. Information to provide technical assistance to residents and applicants.

C. Voluntary discretionary review. Any applicant eligible for ministerial design review pursuant to section 17.67.030, may submit in writing to the Director a voluntary request to have the design review permit application considered according to the provisions of division 17.66 to receive discretionary design review for the applicant’s development proposal.

17.67.030 Permit required.

A. Permit required. A ministerial design review permit is required for any development application which meets the eligibility criteria of Government Code section 65913.4, including a multifamily or mixed-use development application of four or more new housing units, and development applications consisting of two or more new housing units;
B. The building official will not issue a building permit under chapter 8 of the City of Piedmont City Code until the applicant has obtained the required ministerial design review permit. The city will not allow demolition pursuant to division 17.67 unless the applicant has approval of plans for a replacement structure pursuant to this chapter 17 and has obtained a building permit under chapter 8.

17.67.040 Approval authority.

A. Director.

1. Applicability. The Director has the authority to review and approve a ministerial design review permit application submitted pursuant to section 17.67.030, and any application to amend a previously approved ministerial design review permit, pursuant to State law.

2. Notice. No notice shall be provided for ministerial design review applications submitted pursuant to section 17.67.030.

3. Standards and Findings. In reviewing an application for a ministerial design review permit, the Director shall apply the standards set forth in section 17.67.060, Standards; Findings.

17.67.050 Procedures: Application; Notice and hearing; Decision; Effective date; Appeal A. Application. An applicant for a ministerial design review permit must submit a complete application, accompanied by plans and materials in the form approved by the Director, and the application fee, which fee shall be established by resolution. The Director may waive in writing submission of items deemed unnecessary to determine compliance with this chapter.

An application is considered complete in accordance with section 17.60.020.

Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 23 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

B. Notice and hearing. The Director shall review the ministerial design review permit application without notice or public hearing, unless otherwise required by State law.

C. Decision. The Director shall notify the applicant of the decision in writing.

D. Director’s decision is final. Permits approved by the Director for ministerial design review permit applications are final.

17.67.060 Standards; Findings
The Director may not approve a ministerial design review permit unless the Director first finds that the design of the project conforms to all of the following standards:

A. The proposed development meets the criteria of Government Code section 65913.4.

B. The proposed development meets applicable design standards as provided in the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines, as they may be amended from time to time by the City Council.

C. The proposed development complies with zoning ordinance regulations for the zone in which the project site is located.”
SECTION 25 – AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION 17.78.040.A.2.c
Subsection 17.78.040.A.2.c of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“c. there is a significant error in the application of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines; or
SECTION 26 – AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17.90.010
a. The definition of Street in section 17.90.010 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows: “Street means a public vehicular roadway. It does not include a public alley, or a private roadway. (A list of streets is set forth in the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.)”
b. The definition of Site Feature in section 17.90.010 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows: “Site feature means a subordinate structure that is intended to functionally or decoratively enhance a property and that is primarily used for recreation, decoration or as a utility feature. A list of site features is set forth in the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines. Site feature does not include an accessory structure, primary structure, or built feature listed in Building Code section 5.2.2 subsection 8.02.020.B.” SECTION 27 – AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17.90.020
The definition of Coverage in section 17.90.020 of the City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Coverage means the percentage of the lot area that is covered. Coverage may refer either to (1) all structures and site features including their vertical projections to the ground except eaves, Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 24 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

sills, cornices, awnings that project three feet or less from the wall surface, (2) hardscape surfaces, or (3) to both, as may be specified in the context. (See Design Standards and Guidelines.)”
SECTION 28 - CONFLICTS
If a previous City Council ordinance or resolution is in conflict with this ordinance, that ordinance or resolution is superseded and the provisions of this ordinance prevail.

SECTION 29 – SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the Ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.

SECTION 30 – CODIFICATION
The City Clerk is directed to codify this ordinance in a manner which reflects the legislative intent of the City Council
SECTION 31 – POSTING, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND SUBMISSION
This Ordinance shall be posted at City Hall after its second reading by the City Council for at least 30 days and shall become effective 30 days after the second reading. The City Clerk is directed to submit a copy of this ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development in the manner required by law.
[END OF ORDINANCE]
Attachment A - Exhibit A Page 25 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

RESOLUTION No. _____

A RESOLUTION OF

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PIEDMONT

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO

THE CITY OF PIEDMONT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND TO CHANGE ITS TITLE TO

THE CITY OF PIEDMONT DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, Division 17.66 and Division 17.67 of the Piedmont Municipal Code require a Design Review permit for most types of construction in Piedmont; and WHEREAS, Division 17.38 of the Piedmont Municipal Code requires that an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit comply with the Piedmont Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council initially adopted Design Guidelines in 1988 to provide criteria for the applicant and the appropriate hearing body to determine whether a specific project conforms to the City’s design standards and achieves the purposes of the Piedmont Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Piedmont Design Guidelines have been updated from time to time, most recently on February 18, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the Piedmont City Council authorization the City Administrator to pursue, enter into, and execute a grant agreement under the State of California SB 2 Planning Grant program to develop new fair housing programs, including new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) incentives and objective design standards for the construction of multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development (herein referred to as “SB 2 fair housing programs”); and
WHEREAS, the City will benefit from incentives for ADUs that are restricted to rents affordable to very-low-income households for a period of 10 years that are based on objective standards specific to the design of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in Piedmont in conformance with Government Code sections 65583(c)(7), 65852.2 and 65852.22; and WHEREAS, the City will benefit from objective standards for ministerial review of multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development, in compliance with State laws including Senate Bill 35 (Government Code section 65913.4); and WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development adopted Updated Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Government Code Section 65913.4 Guidelines on March 30, 2021, which were originally issued on November 29, 2018, to provide technical assistance with implementation of Senate Bill 35; and WHEREAS, the Piedmont City Council adopted guiding principles for the SB 2 fair housing programs on June 21, 2021, including principles to support equitable distribution of affordable units across the City, promote and enhance community design and neighborhoods, Attachment B Page 26 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

remove barriers to development and access to housing through clear and objective standards, facilitate the development of new housing units through strategic partnerships between the City and the broader community, and greater social equity; and WHEREAS, public input on the SB 2 fair housing program amendments, reports, and City Code changes, was solicited through a citywide survey, community workshops, open houses, and public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the SB 2 fair housing program amendments, reports, and City Code changes were prepared to satisfy State law, community input and preferences, and the SB 2 Planning Grant Program requirements; and
WHEREAS, the research and analysis prepared for the SB 2 fair housing programs were incorporated in the policies and programs of the Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on March 20, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element includes policies 3.1: Rentrestricted ADUs, 3.2: Occupancy of Permitted ADUs, and 3.3: Legalization of ADUs, and programs 1.C: Public Engagement for ADUs, 1.S: ADU Compliance, 3.A: Affordable ADU Public Information Campaign, 3.C: Monitoring ADU Missed Opportunities, 3.D: Monitoring ADU Development Opportunities, 3.E: Affordable Housing Fund, 3.F: Incentives for Rent-Restricted ADUs, 5.H: Housing for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and Households, and 5.I: Housing for Extremely Low-Income Families, which support the construction of ADUs to provide housing affordable to households with a range of income levels; and WHEREAS, the Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element includes policies 4.2: Planning and Building Standards, 4.3: Expeditious Permitting, and 4.4: Updating Standards and Codes, and program 4.R: Permit Streamlining, which support objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use commercial and residential development consistent with State law; and WHEREAS, the draft amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines for a new incentive program for a rent-restricted ADUs and for the objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development, were published for public review on July 3, 2023, and have been available for public comment for approximately 40 days; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission convened a public hearing on the draft amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines on August 14, 2023, and provided an opportunity for public and Commissioner comments at that time; and
WHEREAS, the draft document has been revised to incorporate and respond to public comments; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval of the new Piedmont design standards for Accessory Dwelling Units, including Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, and for objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development, is required before they become effective; and
Attachment B Page 27 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, after reviewing the revised document, staff report, and all documents and public testimony received, the Planning Commission of the City of Piedmont does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:

SECTION 1. The Planning Commission finds as follows:

1. The proposed amendments for a new incentive program for rent-restricted ADUs (Exhibit A) are consistent with and will advance the goals, actions, policies, and programs of the Piedmont General Plan because the amendments are consistent with Housing Element goals, policies and programs, described herein;

2. The proposed amendments for a new incentive program for rent-restricted ADUs (Exhibit A) will support and improve the City’s ability to promote orderly, attractive, safe, and harmonious development that upholds the aesthetic values of the community and ensures excellence of architectural design;

3. The proposed City-approved architectural plans for ADUs (Exhibit A) were developed with community input regarding design preferences;

4. The proposed amendments for objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development (Exhibit A) are consistent with and will advance the goals, policies, actions, and programs of the General Plan because the amendments are consistent with Housing Element goals, policies, and programs, described herein;

5. The proposed amendments for objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development (Exhibit A) will support and improve the City’s ability to promote orderly, attractive, safe, and harmonious development that upholds the aesthetic values of the community and ensures excellence of architectural design; and

6. The proposed objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development (Exhibit A) reflect community design preferences.

SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds that evidence provided in the August 14, 2023 staff report demonstrates that the new incentive program for rent-restricted Accessory Dwelling Units are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because preapproved architectural plans for ADUs are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which exempts adoption of ordinances to implement Government Code section 65852.2 regarding accessory dwelling units, and exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. sections 15301(e) and 15303(a) because the amendments address the construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

Attachment B Page 28 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that evidence provided in the August 14, 2023 staff report demonstrates that the adoption of these amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines to change the title of the document and to implement objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the title change and adoption of Multifamily Objective Design Standards may have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources Code section 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15061(b)(3), 15378.). Further, these amendments are exempt under CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. section 15301 and 15303.

SECTION 4. The amendments to the Piedmont Design Guidelines specific to ADUs and specific to objective design standards for multifamily development and mixed-use commercial and residential development, attached as Exhibit A, are recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption by the City Council.

SECTION 5. All portions of this resolution are severable. If an individual component of this Resolution is adjudged by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remaining portions will continue in effect.
[END OF DOCUMENT]
Attachment B Page 29 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Exhibit A
Part I.

The title and all references to the Piedmont Design Guidelines throughout the document shall be amended to read the “The City of Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.” Part II.

Chapter 5. Building Design: Single-Family Residential is amended to add new section 5.03.05 entitled, “City Approved Plans for Rent-Restricted ADUs,” to division 5.03, as follows:

5.03.05 CITY APPROVED PLANS FOR RENT‐RESTRICTED ADUs
California law and Health and Safety Code section 65583(c)(7) require cities, towns, and counties to develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can be offered at affordable rent to lower‐income renters. Division 17.38.075 of the City Code establishes an incentive program to homeowners to use City approved plans consistent with this section of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.

The pre‐approved plans, approved by the City Council and owned by the City of Piedmont, for the construction of a new detached ADUs and/or a JADU conversion can be found in Appendix A of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines. The digital files will be shared with applicants according to this section.

The Director may authorize an applicant’s use of floor plans and elevations to obtain Planning Division approval of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit, if all of the following findings are made:

A. The design unit meets the requirements of section 17.38.060.

B. The roofing material and exterior siding material of the proposed unit are the same as that of the primary residence.

C. The plans are the same as those in Appendix A of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines with only a 3 percent variation or less in any one dimension.

If the approval is granted, the applicant must provide a covenant requiring a rent level affordable to households of very low income, and the accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all the requirements set forth in City Code section 17.38.075.

Attachment B Page 30 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Part III.

Chapter 6. Building Design: Multi-Family Residential is amended to add a new division 6.05, entitled, “6.05 Objective Design Standards – Multi-family,” as follows:

DESIGN STANDARDS:

Objective design standards, rather than discretionary standards, are mandated by State law.

Their purpose is to streamline the review of multifamily and mixed‐use housing, which is often a more affordable housing type than single‐family houses, duplexes, and triplexes. If a development application is consistent with the objective design standards and meets other eligibility criteria, the City may be required by State law and City Code division 17.67 to approve the development application without a public hearing, neighbor comments, or CEQA review.

The objective design standards for multi‐family development are provided on the following pages.

6.05 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS – MULTI‐FAMILY
Attachment B Page 31 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

6.05.01 Objective Design Standards
Multi-family Residential Design Standards
A. Building Envelope Design.

1. Building Placement.
a. Frontage. A minimum 70% percent of ground-floor building frontage must be built at or within 18 inches of the front setback to create a continuous street wall. b. Corner Lot. At street corners, buildings must be placed at the street yard setback lines and for a minimum 25 feet distance from the intersecting front and street side setback lines.

2. Building Massing Abutting Zone A. Building façade planes facing and abutting properties in Zone A may not exceed 35 feet in width without a break a minimum 6 feet depth.

3. Privacy.
a. Outdoor Habitable Space. Balconies, decks, and other habitable outdoor spaces are not allowed on any upper-story facades on facing and abutting lots in Zone A. b. Balcony and Deck Placement. Primary living spaces located along a side setback shall orient balconies and decks towards the front and rear of the building. c. Privacy and Window Placement. Windows to primary living spaces within 10 feet of or facing a side setback or within 25 feet of and facing another unit on-site must:
i. Be angled away from the adjacent side setback line a minimum of 30 degree, measured from a line perpendicular to the side setback line; ii. Have a minimum sill height of 42 inches from the finished floor; or Attachment B Page 32 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

iii. Use permanently translucent or “frosted” glazing.

B. Building Design.

1. Street-Facing Building Articulation and Façade Bays. a. Vertical Articulation.
i. Building facades up to 45 feet in length along a public right-of-way must incorporate one of the following:
(a) Window bays a minimum 2 feet in depth from building façade every 10 horizontal feet.
(b) Recesses a minimum 2 feet in depth from building façade every 10 horizontal feet.
(c) Porches or decks over a minimum of 25 percent of the façade. ii. When a building façade exceeds 45 feet in length along a public right-ofway, it must be separated into façade bays no greater than 30 feet in width defined by a recess a minimum of 2 feet in depth and at least one of the following strategies:
(a) Change in roof parapet height or shape of at least 6 feet. (b) Change in roof form and type (e.g., flat pitch roof to gable).

Attachment B Page 33 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

(c) Change in building height, minimum 8-foot difference. b. Bay Articulation. The eave or roof form of a recessed façade bay shall be no higher than the those of bays not recessed.
c. Townhouses/Rowhouses. In townhouse and rowhouse development types, facades of adjacent attached units must be staggered or off-set a minimum of 12 inches to avoid monotony in design.

2. Roof Form and Design.
a. Allowed Roof Forms. Roof forms shall be limited to:
i. Hipped
ii. Gable
iii. Dormers, which may not exceed 8 feet in length.
iv. Parapet and flat membrane roofing. Parapet segments may not exceed 25 feet in length without interruption in height or form.
v. Roof decks that are enclosed on the sides and rear, either partially or completely, provided the deck and deck occupants are not visible from the right-of-way or adjacent single-family property within 300 feet. b. Pitch. The pitch of the roof must be 3:12 to 5:12 ratio. Flat roofs with parapets are also permitted.
c. Eaves. Where eaves exceed 18 inches in depth, exterior brackets or beams are required.
d. Form and Design. Solar roofs and other Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) roof designs are exempt from these roof form standards if needed to achieve a net zero energy consumption result on site.

3. Building Entries.
a. Ground Floor Entrances.
i. Shared entrances must be located on the front of the building and must face a public right-of-way. Entrances are limited to a minimum 2 per facade facing and abutting the public right-of-way or 1 for every 20 housing units per facade facing the public right-of-way, whichever is greater, in Zone D.

Attachment B Page 34 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ii. Individual entrances must face either a public right-of-way, an internal access drive, or a shared forecourt.
b. Upper Floor Entrances. Exterior stairs to entrances to upper floor units above the second floor are not permitted.
c. Frontage Types. Building frontages must take one of the following forms:
i. Shared landscaped forecourt with dimensions as indicated below:
(a) Forecourt depth: Minimum 15 feet
(b) Forecourt width: Minimum 15 feet
(c) Ratio of forecourt width-to-height: Maximum 2:1
(d) Entrance maximum 3 feet above level of forecourt.
ii. Shared entrance forecourt level above or below sidewalk: Shared or individual terrace frontage with dimensions as indicated below:
(a) Terrace depth: Minimum 8 feet
(b) Terrace width: Minimum 15 feet, maximum 120 feet
(c) Distance of terrace between stairs: Maximum 50 feet (d) Terrace level above sidewalk: Minimum 18 inches, maximum 5 feet
Attachment B Page 35 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

iii. Entrances for individual units with covered dooryard frontages with dimensions as indicated below:
(a) Dooryard width: Minimum 6 feet
(b) Dooryard depth: Minimum 4 feet, maximum 8 feet
(c) Dooryard overhead projection depth: Maximum 6 feet
(d) Dooryard clear height: Minimum 8 feet
(e) Dooryard wall/planter/fence height: Maximum 3 feet
(f) Not permitted in Zone D.
iv. Individual covered stoop frontages with dimensions as indicated below:
(a) Stoop clear height: Minimum 8 feet
(b) Stoop height above sidewalk: Minimum 18 inches
(c) Stoop width: Minimum 4 feet, maximum 8 feet
(d) Stoop depth: Minimum 4 feet, maximum 8 feet
(e) Stoop entry recession: Minimum 6 inches, maximum 6 feet.

Attachment B Page 36 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

(f) Not permitted in Zone D.
d. Forecourt. Forecourts must:
i. Be visible from and linked to abutting public rights-of-way by a clear, noncombustible accessible path of travel; ii. Be enclosed on at least three sides by buildings; and iii. Remain open to the sky (arbors and trellises are allowed). e. ADA Accessibility. All frontages must comply with ADA accessibility requirements.

4. Ground Floor Finish Floor Elevation. The ground floor finish floor elevation must be minimum 18 inches above sidewalk elevation. However, the ground floor interior lobby serving 55% or more of multifamily residential units may be a minimum 6 inches above sidewalk elevation.

5. Window and Door Design.
a. Window Shape. Primary windows may be square, vertically-oriented and rectangular, or vertically-oriented and arched. Secondary windows must be smaller in size than primary windows and may be square, vertically-oriented and rectangular, or vertically-oriented and arched.
b. Window Recess and Trim.
i. For windows on building walls of wood exterior materials, include trim at least 2 inches in width (foam or vinyl trim not permitted).

Attachment B Page 37 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ii. For windows on building walls of stucco or primary exterior materials, be recessed a minimum of 2 inches from the outer wall surface. c. Windows Material. Vinyl is not a permitted window material. d. Divided Lites. Simulated divided-lite grilles are acceptable only if they are located on both the outside and inside faces of the window, have spacer bars between the double panes of glass, and a thickness of at least 1/2 inch on each side of the window. A minimum 50 percent of windows must have a divided lite design. e. “360-Degree” Design. All primary windows on each floor of each façade must be the same design, proportions, trim, material, and color. f. Glazing. All glazing types are permitted except reflective or opaque tinting of glazing, which are prohibited.
g. Residential Signifiers. Residential facades shall incorporate at least one of the following elements that signal habitation: window bays, usable balconies, or horizontal cornices or string courses at every floor.

6. Residential Unit Design.
a. Affordable Unit Design. Affordable units and market rate units in the same development shall be constructed with the same exterior materials so that the units are not distinguishable.
b. Private Open Space.
i. Minimum 100 square feet per unit.
ii. Private open space may be at-grade or elevated.
c. Common Open Space.
i. Minimum 500 square feet per lot or 25 square feet per unit, whichever is greater.
ii. Minimum dimension 15 feet.
iii. Shared open space may be at-grade, elevated, or rooftop. iv. Where required common open space abuts private open space, an access drive, or the public right-of-way, then a minimum 2-foot-wide buffer is required. The buffer must be planted or otherwise designed to be screened from view from the private open space.

7. Parking and Driveway Design.
a. Parking Design. Parking must be located in:
i. Tuck-under individually secured garages on the ground level of a structure in Zone C; or
ii. Shared secured garage (podium or underground) in Zone C or D. b. Driveway Width. Driveways may not exceed 20 feet in width. c. Parking Visibility. Street-facing structured parking levels are not permitted at the ground-level unless the parking level exterior matches that of the living area. d. Garage Doors.
i. All garage doors must be motorized.

Attachment B Page 38 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ii. Controlled entrances to shared parking facilities (gates, doors, etc.) shall be located a minimum 10 feet from the back of sidewalk and may not exceed 20 feet in width.
e. Long-term Bicycle Parking.
i. A minimum of one long-term bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 4 residential units.
ii. Long-term bicycle parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves and:
(a) In a parking facility;
(b) In an enclosed bicycle locker; or
(c) In a fenced, covered, and locked bicycle storage area. f. Bicycle and Auto Parking Clearance. 5 feet of horizontal clearance shall be provided between vehicle and bicycle parking spaces. 2 feet of horizontal clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and adjacent walls, poles, landscaping, street furniture, drive aisles, and pedestrian walkways.

8. Equipment Screening.
a. Solar Equipment. Rooftop solar panels shall have a low-profile, flush-mounted design, with a maximum of 6-inch gap between the solar panel and the roof material unless the roof is flat. If solar panels are mounted on a flat roof and are tilted or angled to maximize solar energy production, building parapets or other architectural elements shall provide screening from view from the public right-ofway and from adjacent single-family uses within 300 feet. Screening shall be architecturally continuous with the building in color, material, and trim cap detail. b. Height of Roof-mounted Equipment. Roof mounted equipment greater than 12 inches above the roof line, except for roof exhaust vents, plumbing vents, and solar panels on pitched roofs, shall be screened from being viewed from the public rightof-way and from adjacent single-family uses within 300 feet. c. Location of Ground-mounted Equipment. Neither mechanical nor electrical equipment is allowed in street-facing setbacks facing and or interior side setbacks abutting single-family uses on lots in Zone A.
d. Visibility of Ground-mounted Equipment. Site-and ground-mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall be screened using plant materials, fencing, or walls from public right-of-way. Conduits shall not be exposed on exterior walls and shall be embedded in walls or within a chase designed for such use. e. Screening Height. All screen devices shall be as high as the highest point of the equipment being screened.
f. Drain-Waste-Vent System. Supply, exhaust and venting plumbing, conduits, and flues shall be concealed within the walls of a building.

9. Additions and Remodels. In order to ensure that proposed additions and remodels match the existing building, any remodels and additions must incorporate only the architectural design elements, proportions, materials, and details that are already present on the existing building.

C. Façade Design.

1. Blank Walls.
a. Limit on Blank Walls. Blank walls on any floor may not exceed 12 horizontal feet.

Attachment B Page 39 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

b. Enhancement on Blank Walls. Blank walls at the ground level must include one or more of the following:
i. A pattern of motifs or insets in tile or stucco;
ii. A base or water table at least 2.5 feet in height and a cornice at the top of the ground level;
iii. Landscaping that, at maturity, obscures a minimum 50 percent of the wall area, and that is guaranteed for a period of 10 years, minimum; or iv. Landscaped trellises or lattices over a minimum 50 percent of the wall area that is guaranteed for a period of 10 years, minimum.

2. Building Materials, Colors, and Finish.
a. Primary Building Materials. A primary building material shall mean a material that covers 60 percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces. When there is a change in exterior building material, the material change must occur at the inside corner of a building form, or a minimum of 8 feet beyond an outside corner. The following primary cladding materials are allowed:
i. Stucco (minimum 2-coat)
ii. Stone (must extend vertically to the foundation)
iii. Stone-colored brick (must extend vertically to the foundation) b. Secondary Building Materials. A secondary building material shall mean a material that covers 40 percent or less of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces. The following secondary cladding materials are allowed:
i. Metal (wrought iron, copper, bronze) with a non-reflective finish ii. Wood
iii. Split-face Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU)
iv. Terra cotta tile
v. Brick or brick veneer
vi. Glazed tile
c. Building Colors. A maximum of four colors shall be applied to be the building façade:
i. Primary color comprising 60 percent or more of the façade. ii. Secondary color comprising no more than 30 percent of the façade. iii. Tertiary color comprising no more than 10 percent of the façade. iv. Accent color for use on trim and architectural details.

Materials with naturally occurring colors such as wood or stone, materials with prefinished color such as stucco, and colorized metal shall constitute a color for this requirement.
d. Porches, Balconies, Decks, and Exterior Stairs. Porches, balconies, decks, and exterior stairs must be stucco or wood. Railings must be stucco, wood, or metal.

Attachment B Page 40 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

e. Timber Protection. Exterior timber shall be protected from decay by stain and sealant.
f. Ferrous Material Protection. Exterior ferrous metals shall be protected from corrosion either through the use of galvanized, stainless, or weathering steel. g. Roof Materials. Roof materials must be:
i. Composition shingle (Timberline Lifetime Architectural or equivalent), brown or brown-red in color;
ii. Spanish barrel tile, regularly or irregularly laid, and brown or brown-red in color;
iii. Standing seam metal in a nonreflective dark brown or dark bronze color; iv. Concrete roof tiles; or
v. Cool roof membrane roofing, non-reflective and medium gray color.

3. Architectural Details.
a. Structural Elements. Structural elements visible on the building exterior (e.g. rafters, purlins, posts, beams, balconies, brackets, trusses, columns, arches, etc.), even when ornamental, shall be placed to frame building apertures and bays. b. Parapet Design. Patterns of steps, angles, and/or curves must be symmetrical within each segment or establish symmetry across the building façade. c. Gutters. All gutters shall contain features to direct rainwater away from exterior walls including one or more of the following:
i. Projecting eaves (minimum 12-inch projection)
ii. Scuppers (minimum 12-inch projection if no downspouts are used) iii. Gutters with downspouts
d. Street Address Number. Street address numbers must be metalwork or tiled. e. Ornamental Features. Buildings must exhibit at least two of the following ornamental features over 15% or more of each facade:
i. Patterned accent tiles applied consistently across all street-facing building facades
ii. A pattern of carved insets with grilles on all street-facing building facades iii. A pattern of stucco motifs or tile motifs or vents on all street-facing building facades
iv. Terra-cotta tile chimney top (enclosing equipment or not) f. Exceptions. All building façades must comply with applicable standards with the following exceptions:
i. Materials used for the building base or podium need not be repeated. ii. Where a building is designed to appear as separate buildings, each portion that appears as a separate building shall be subject to the Building Design and Façade Design standards separately.

4. Additions and Remodels. Notwithstanding the design standards of this Chapter, new or replacement windows or doors in an existing wall must have the same design, detail, and placement of existing windows or doors present on the building.

Attachment B Page 41 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

D. Site Design.

1. Walls and Fences.
a. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall be the same materials and color with that of the primary or secondary building materials.
b. Retaining Walls. The design of new retaining walls that are visible from the abutting public right-of-way, as well as those that are within the side and rear yard areas, shall be constructed in a stepped or terraced fashion with the maximum height for any single wall no more than 4 feet unless an engineering assessment finds that physical limitations do not make such terracing feasible. If the change in grade is greater than 4 feet, a series of retaining walls, interspersed by planting areas in a stepped or terraced fashion shall be constructed to minimize the retaining walls visual prominence and avoid a monolithic appearance. A minimum 6 foot masonry wall must be provided on property lines shared with single-family uses on lots in Zone A.
c. Retaining Wall Design.
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.
ii. Retaining wall material shall be concrete or CMU covered with plaster stucco a minimum of 2 inches thick.
d. Screening of Retaining Walls. Where a single large retaining wall is used, its design shall incorporate a planting strip and irrigation system at its toe strip to allow for the planting of screening vegetation and/or a planting strip with irrigation system at the top of the wall. Planting strip must be a minimum 12 inches wide e. Gates. Residential security gates, when installed, shall be the same color as the secondary building materials and be no more than 50 percent opaque.

2. Landscaping.
a. Landscape Design.
i. Landscape species must be native, low-water usage, and low maintenance, meeting Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements.
ii. Landscaping shall be placed according to sunlight needs. iii. Landscaping shall be located to cover the entire development site and provide shade in south-facing and west-facing areas.
iv. Plant size at maturity must not exceed:
(a) 30 inches within 10 feet of a sidewalk or driveway
(b) The height of any building aperture within 10 feet of the aperture. v. Existing mature trees shall be preserved and incorporated as part of the overall landscape design.
b. Required Landscaping.
i. Ground cover must be planted a maximum of 1 foot on center.

Attachment B Page 42 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ii. The following does not count toward the required landscape area:
(a) Artificial turf; and
(b) Any area with a minimum dimension less than 30 inches. c. Prohibited Species and Materials. Plant species that are listed by California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) as invasive are prohibited as is flammable mulch. d. Frontage Landscaping.
i. The required street setback area must be landscaped except for areas of ingress and egress.
ii. Landscaping may include container plantings, groundcover, turf, climbing vines, shrubs, low hedges, and trees.
iii. A maximum of 20 percent of the required front setback area may be turf.

Such turf area may not be counted toward the required landscaped area. e. Interior Side and Rear Setback Landscaping.
i. Landscaping within side and rear setback areas shall be located to delineate property lines.
ii. All interior side and rear setbacks on lots which abut Zone A shall be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs. At least one tree of at least 15- gallon size shall be planted per 20 linear feet or as appropriate to create a tree canopy over the required setback. In addition, at least three shrubs shall be planted per 20 linear feet.
f. Grading. To minimize impacts on existing terrain, the maximum amount of cut shall not exceed 5 feet below the natural grade and the amount of fill shall not exceed 3 feet above the natural grade.
g. On-site Drainage. Drainage shall be provided on-site using natural drainage channels, bioretention areas, or other landscape areas that filter surface water runoff before it enters the storm drain system. h. Backflow Preventer and Public Utilities. Any backflow preventer or public utility, such as panels and meters, must be screened with landscaping as high as the equipment and landscaping must be guaranteed for a period of 10 years. Public utility connections must be installed in underground vaults and conduit.

3. Site Circulation.
a. Hardscape Materials. On-site hardscape material shall be permeable or pervious and gray or light gray in color with a higher solar reflective index. b. Paving within Setback Area. Paving within required setback areas shall be distinct from the adjacent public sidewalk in color, design, or texture. c. Curb Cut Frequency. A maximum of one curb cut for driveway access may be permitted per street frontage per development project site.

4. Refuse and Recycling Areas.
a. Location. Common refuse and recycling containers shall not be located:
i. Within any required street-facing setback;
ii. Any required parking and landscaped areas; or
Attachment B Page 43 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

iii. Any other area required to remain unencumbered, according to fire and other applicable building and public safety codes.
b. Visibility. Common refuse and recycling containers shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and shall be screened by landscaping. Fences or walls may be used if located outside a required setback.
c. Enclosure and Container Materials.
i. Enclosure materials shall be the same as those of the primary building. ii. Containers used for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall meet the standards of the waste collection company and be:
(a) Constructed of a durable waterproof and rustproof material; (b) Enclosed and covered when the site is not attended; (c) Secured from unauthorized entry or removal of material; and (d) Shall be sized to accommodate the volume of materials collected between collection schedules.
(e) Required refuse collection must be grouped together and equally accessible to residents.
d. Clear Zone. The area in front of and surrounding all enclosure types shall be kept clear of obstructions and accessible.
e. Drainage. The floor of the enclosure shall have a drain that connects to the sanitary sewer system.

5. Lighting.
a. Entrance Lighting. Light fixture(s) at all building entries are required. b. Façade Lighting. Lights on the building façade shall be incorporated into façade design for all facades. Fixtures shall be:
i. Fully shielded and directed downward onto the building façade and onto paving of entrance areas; and
ii. The same materials as the building trim/accent.
c. Low-level Lighting. Low-level lighting shall be provided to ensure entry paths, entry stairs and driveways, garage and building entries are illuminated.

6. Energy Efficiency.
a. All appliances must meet the applicable adopted Reach Codes. b. All appliances, HVAC and lighting shall be electric and energy-efficient.

Attachment B Page 44 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

6.05.02 Terms
Arched Window. Window that is rounded at the top.

Blank Wall. A portion of a façade on any floor of a building that that does not include a transparent window or door between the level of the finished floor and the level of the ceiling.

Common Open Space. Courtyards, sport courts, play areas, gardens, or other open spaces for communal use within a development and accessible by all residents of the development.

Dentilled Cornice. A dentil, or small block, used as a repeating ornament under a cornice.

Divided Lites. A window with individual panes of glass separated by muntins, typically arranged in a grid.

Simulated divided lite windows are made from a single, large pane of glass with a surface grid attached to one side.

Façade Bay. A section of a building between vertical lines or planes, as defined by columns, pilasters, bay windows, or other horizontal projections or recesses.

Finished Floor. The top layer of flooring.

Forecourt. A type of frontage with a portion of the façade set back from the primary façade creating a small courtyard space. The courtyard may be used as an entry court or as shared garden space for apartment buildings, or as an additional shopping or restaurant seating area within retail and service areas.

Private Open Space. A yard, patio, porch, or balcony directly accessible from the dwelling unit for which the open space provides an opportunity for private outdoor recreation and relaxation of the resident(s) of the associated dwelling unit.

Rowhouse. A single-family dwelling that shares a party wall with another of the same type placed side-byside with individual entries along the front and dedicated private open space for each unit typically located in the rear. Each unit has its own front access at the ground floor. Also known as a townhouse or townhome.

Secured. An area where access is restricted to tenants or to people employed by businesses in a building.

Shared Garage. A structured parking area that is shared by multiple residential units or commercial spaces.

Shopfront. A type of frontage, typically for commercial and retail use, where the façade is aligned close to the frontage line with the building entrance at the level of the sidewalk.

Townhouse. See Rowhouse.

Attachment B Page 45 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Part IV.

Chapter 7. Building Design: Commercial and Mixed-use is amended to add a new division 7.07, entitled, “7.07 Objective Design Standards – Mixed-Use,” as follows:

DESIGN STANDARDS:

Objective design standards, rather than discretionary standards, are mandated by State law.

Their purpose is to streamline the review of multifamily and mixed‐use housing, which is often a more affordable housing type than single‐family houses, duplexes, and triplexes. If a development application is consistent with the objective design standards and meets other eligibility criteria, the City may be required by State law and City Code division 17.67 to approve the development application without a public hearing, neighbor comments, or CEQA review.

The objective design standards for mixed‐use commercial and residential development are provided below and on the following pages.

7.07.01 Objective Mixed‐Use Design Standards
A. Building Envelope Design.

1. Building Placement.
a. Frontage. A minimum 85 percent of ground‐floor building frontage must be built at or within 18 inches of the front setback or sidewalk to create a continuous street wall.

7.07 OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS – MIXED‐USE
Attachment B Page 46 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

b. Corner Lot. At street corners, buildings must be placed at street yard setback line, and for a minimum 25 feet distance from, the intersecting street yard setback lines.

2. Building Massing Abutting Zone A. Building façade planes facing and abutting singlefamily uses on lots in Zone A may not exceed 40 feet in width without a break in massing minimum 6 feet in depth.

3. Privacy.
a. Outdoor Habitable Space: Balconies, decks and other habitable outdoor spaces facing and abutting single-family uses on lots in Zone A are not allowed on upperstory facades or roofs. b. Balcony and Deck Placement. Development shall place and orient balconies and decks accessed from the living room of each unit toward the street yards of a building.
c. Window Placement. Windows to primary living spaces within 10 feet of and facing an interior side setback must be:
i. Be angled away from the adjacent side setback line a minimum of 30 degree, measured from a line perpendicular to the side setback line; ii. Have a minimum sill height of 42 inches from the finished floor; or iii. Use permanently translucent or “frosted” glazing.

Attachment B Page 47 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

B. Building Design.

1. Street-Facing Building Articulation and Façade Bays. a. Vertical Articulation.
i. Building facades up to 65 feet in length along a public right-of-way must incorporate at least one of the following:
(a) Window bays a minimum 3 feet in depth from building façade (b) Recesses a minimum 3 feet in depth from building façade (c) Porches or decks over a minimum 25 percent of the façade length. ii. When a building façade exceeds 65 feet in length along a public right-ofway, it must be separated into façade bays no greater than 30 feet in width defined by a recess a minimum of 3 feet in depth and at least one of the following features:
(a) Change in roof parapet height or shape a minimum of 6 feet (b) Change in roof form and type (e.g., gable roof to flat roof) (c) Change in building height, minimum 8-foot difference b. Bay Articulation. The eave or roof form of a recessed façade bay shall be no higher than those of the façade bay located at the setback line. c. Corner Design. Development must accentuate building massing at roadway intersections with one of the following elements:
i. A tower element at least 80 square feet in area;
ii. A decorative parapet; or
iii. A rounded corner and plaza.

2. Roof Form and Design.
a. Allowed Roof Forms. Roof forms shall be limited to:
i. Hipped
ii. Gable
Attachment B Page 48 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

iii. Dormers, which may not exceed 8 feet in length
iv. Parapet. Parapets segments may not exceed 20 feet in length without interruption in height or form.
v. Roof decks that are enclosed on the sides and rear, either partially or completely, provided the deck and occupants are not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent single-family uses within 300 feet. vi. Dentilled cornice minimum 3 feet high and continuous at roof line on all building facades.
b. Pitch. The pitch of the roof must be 3:12 to 5:12 ratio. Flat roofs are also permitted. c. Eaves. Eaves shall exceed 18 inches in depth and exterior brackets or beams are required wherever building height exceeds 30 feet.
d. Form and Design. Solar roofs and other Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) roof designs are exempt from these roof standards if needed to achieve a net zero energy consumption result on site.
e. Roof decks. Roof decks are limited to a maximum of 30 percent of the building footprint.

3. Building Entries.
a. Ground Floor Entrances.
i. Entrances to non-residential ground floor uses must be located on the front of the building and must face a public right-of-way. Entrances are limited to a minimum 2 per facade facing and abutting the public right-of-way or 1 for every 20 housing units per facade facing the public right-of-way, whichever is greater, in Zone D.
ii. Any shared or individual entrance to residential unit must be a minimum 8 horizontal feet from any entrances to non-residential uses. iii. Shared entrances to residential units must have a roofed projection or recess with a minimum depth of 4 feet and a minimum horizontal area of 40 square feet.
b. Upper Floor Entrances. Exterior stairs to upper floor units above the second floor are not permitted.
c. Frontage Types. Building frontages must take one of the following forms:
i. Shopfront frontage with dimensions as indicated below:
(a) Shopfront covered projection depth: Minimum 4 feet
(b) Shopfront covered projection distance from curb: Minimum 2 feet (c) Shopfront covered projection height: Minimum 8 feet, maximum 10 feet
(d) Shopfront finish floor level above sidewalk: Minimum 6 inches, maximum 30 inches
Attachment B Page 49 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

(e) Shopfront bay width: Minimum 6 feet, maximum 20 feet ii. Terrace frontage with dimensions as indicated below:
(a) Terrace depth: Minimum 8 feet
(b) Terrace width: Maximum 120 feet
(c) Distance of terrace between stairs: Maximum 50 feet (d) Terrace level above sidewalk: Minimum 18 inches, maximum 5 feet
d. Shopfront Design. On buildings on lots with street frontages that exceed 50 feet, shopfront and terrace frontages must incorporate:
i. A building recess of a maximum depth of 4 feet and minimum width of 6 feet to provide additional window display space; and
ii. Variations in bulkhead, awnings, materials and/or color to visually articulate the shopfront into bays a maximum of 20 continuous feet wide. e. ADA Accessibility. All frontages must comply with ADA accessibility requirements.

4. Ground Floor Design.

Attachment B Page 50 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

a. Ceiling Height. The ground floor ceiling height must be a minimum 12 feet in the Grand Avenue subarea and 15 feet in the Highland Avenue subarea and a minimum 12 inches taller than upper floor levels’ floor-to-ceiling height. b. Finish Floor Elevation. The ground floor finish floor elevation may be a maximum 24 inches above sidewalk elevation.

5. Window and Door Design.
a. Residential Window Shape. Primary windows may be square, vertically-oriented and rectangular, or vertically-oriented and arched. Secondary windows must be smaller in size than primary windows and may be square, vertically-oriented and rectangular, or vertically-oriented and arched.
b. Window Recess and Trim. All windows must:
i. For windows on building walls of wood exterior materials, include trim at least 2 inches in width (foam or vinyl trim not permitted); or ii. For windows on building walls of stucco or EIFS exterior materials, be recessed a minimum of 2 inches from the outer wall surface. c. Windows Material. Foam and vinyl are not permitted window materials. d. Divided Lites. Simulated divided-lite grilles are acceptable only if they are located on both the outside and inside faces of the window, have spacer bars between the double panes of glass, and a thickness of at least 1/2 inch on each side of the window. Residential primary windows must be a divided lite section. e. Ground Floor Commercial Windows. Ground floor windows must be horizontal or square in proportion rather than vertically oriented.
f. “360-Degree” Design. All upper-story primary windows on each floor of each façade must have the same design, including proportions, trim, material, and color. g. Glazing. All glazing types are permitted except reflective or opaque tinting of glazing, which are prohibited.
h. Residential Signifiers. Residential facades shall incorporate at least one of the following elements that signal habitation: window bays, usable balconies, or horizontal cornices or string courses at every floor.

6. Residential Unit Design.
a. Affordable Unit Design. Affordable units and market rate units in the same development shall be constructed of the same exterior materials and details such that the units are not distinguishable.

Attachment B Page 51 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

b. Private Open Space. Minimum 100 square feet per unit. May be at-grade or elevated.
c. Common Open Space.
i. Minimum 400 square feet per lot or 20 square feet per unit, whichever is greater.
ii. No dimension (length, width, or diameter) may be less than 15 feet. iii. May be at-grade, elevated or rooftop.
iv. Where required common open space abuts private open space, access drive, or public right-of-way a minimum 2-foot buffer is required. The buffer must be planted or otherwise designed to be screened from view from the private open space.

7. Parking and Driveway Design.
a. Parking Design. Parking may be located in:
i. A shared secured garage (podium or underground)
ii. Secured above-ground parking structure enclosed with street-facing residential or retail uses. This configuration is known as a “wrap” or “lined” building.
b. Driveway Width. Driveways to shared garages may not exceed 30 feet in width. c. Parking Visibility. Visible structured parking must be screened from view from the right-of-way by:
i. Regular punched openings designed to resemble windows of habitable spaces; or
ii. Trellis/living wall surfaces.
d. Parking Separation. Parking for residential units shall be separated from parking for non-residential uses through a controlled fence, gate, or other barrier. e. Garage Doors.
i. All garage doors must be motorized.
ii. Controlled entrances to shared parking facilities (gates, doors, etc.) may not exceed 20 feet in width.
f. Short-term Bicycle Parking.
i. Short-term bicycle parking must be provided at a rate of 10 percent of required vehicular spaces or housing units, whichever is greater. ii. Short-term bicycle spaces must be a stationary, securely anchored bicycle rack to which a bicycle frame and one wheel (two points of contact) can be secured if both wheels are left on the bicycle. One such bicycle rack may serve multiple bicycle parking spaces.
g. Long-term Bicycle Parking.
i. Required long-term bicycle parking shall be provided as follows:
(a) Residential Uses: A minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 4 residential units.
(b) Other Uses: 15 percent of required vehicular spaces.

Attachment B Page 52 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ii. Long-term bicycle parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves in a parking facility; an enclosed bicycle locker; a fenced, covered, and locked bicycle storage area; or another secure area approved by the Planning Director.
h. Bicycle and Auto Parking Clearance. 5 feet of horizontal clearance shall be provided between vehicle and bicycle parking spaces. 2 feet of horizontal clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and adjacent walls, poles, landscaping, street furniture, drive aisles, and pedestrian walkways.

8. Equipment Screening.
a. Solar Equipment. Rooftop solar panels shall have a low-profile, flush-mounted design, with a maximum of 6-inch gap between the solar panel and the roof material or on a flat roof. If solar panels are mounted on a flat roof and are tilted or angled to maximize solar energy production, building parapets or other architectural elements shall provide screening from view from the right-of-way and from adjacent single-family uses within 300 feet. Screening shall be architecturally continuous with the building in color, material, and trim cap detail. b. Height of Roof-mounted Equipment. Roof mounted equipment greater than 12 inches above the roof line, except for roof exhaust vents, plumbing vents, and solar panels on pitched roofs, must be screened from being viewed from the public right-ofway and from adjacent single-family uses within 300 feet. c. Location of Ground-mounted Equipment. Mechanical and electrical equipment is not allowed in setbacks.
d. Visibility of Ground-mounted Equipment. Site-and ground-mounted mechanical or electrical equipment shall be screened using plant materials, fencing, or walls from public right-of-way. Conduits shall not be exposed on exterior walls and shall be embedded either in walls or a chase designed for such use. e. Screening Height. All screen devices shall be as high as the highest point of the equipment being screened.
f. Drain-Waste-Vent-System. Supply, exhaust and venting plumbing, conduits, and flues shall be concealed within the walls of a building.

9. Additions and Remodels. In order to ensure that proposed additions and remodels match the existing building, any remodels and additions must incorporate only architectural design elements, proportions, materials, and details that are already present on the existing building.

C. Façade Design.

1. Transparency and Blank Walls.
a. Required Ground-Floor Transparency.

Attachment B Page 53 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

i. A minimum 50 percent of commercial ground floor street-facing facades between 2 and 7 feet in height shall be transparent window surface with unobstructed views to the interior commercial spaces.
ii. Ground floor leasable commercial space shall have a minimum interior floor-to-ceiling height of 14 feet.
iii. Ground floor leasable commercial space shall have a minimum depth of 50 feet for at least 50 percent of the length of the building or a minimum of 30 feet of width, whichever is larger.
iv. Opaque, reflective, or dark tinted glass is not allowed. b. Limits on Blank Walls. The maximum length of blank walls is 12 feet on any floor. c. Enhancement on Blank Walls. Blank walls at the ground level must include one or more of the following or 15% of all building facades:
i. A pattern of insets, tiles, or stucco motifs;
ii. A base or water table at least 2.5 feet in height and a cornice at the top of the ground level;
iii. Landscaping that, at maturity, obscures a minimum 50 percent of the wall area and that is guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years; or iv. Landscaped trellises or lattices over a minimum 50 percent of the wall area and that is guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years.

2. Building Materials, Colors, and Finish.
a. Primary Building Materials. A primary building material shall mean a material that covers 60 percent or more of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces. The following primary cladding materials are allowed:
i. Stucco (minimum 2-coat)
ii. Stone (must extend vertically to the foundation)
iii. Stone-colored brick, tan in color (must extend vertically to the foundation) iv. Exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) panels b. Secondary Building Materials. A secondary building material shall mean a material that covers less than 40 percent of a façade surface area excluding transparent surfaces. The following secondary cladding materials are allowed:
i. Metal (wrought iron, copper, or bronze) with a non-reflective finish Attachment B Page 54 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ii. Wood
iii. Split-face Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU)
iv. Terra cotta tile
v. Brick or brick veneer
vi. Glazed tile
c. Building Colors. A maximum of 4 colors shall be applied to be the building façade:
i. Primary color comprising 60 percent or more of the façade ii. Secondary color comprising no more than 30 percent of the façade iii. Tertiary color comprising no more than 10 percent of the façade iv. Accent color for use on trim and architectural details.

Materials with naturally occurring colors such as wood or stone, materials with prefinished color such as stucco, and colorized metal shall constitute a color for this requirement.
d. Porches, Balconies, Decks, and Exterior Stairs. Porches, balconies, decks, and exterior stairs must be stucco or wood. Railings must be stucco, wood, or metal. e. Change in Exterior Building Material. When there is a change in exterior building material, the material change must occur at the inside corner of a building form, or a minimum of 8 feet beyond an outside corner.
f. Timber Protection. Exterior timber shall be protected from decay by stain and sealant.
g. Ferrous Material Protection. Exterior ferrous metals shall be protected from corrosion either through the use of galvanized, stainless, or weathering steel. h. Roof Form and Materials. Roof form shall be gable, hipped, or a flat roof. Flat roof must have a continuous parapet or cornice a minimum of 3 feet high. Roof materials must be:
i. Composition shingle (Timberline Lifetime Architectural), brown or brownred in color; ii. Spanish barrel tile, regularly or irregularly laid, and brown or brown-red in color;
iii. Standing seam metal in a non-reflective dark brown or dark bronze color; iv. Concrete roof tiles;
v. Cool roof membrane roofing, in a non-reflective medium gray.

3. Architectural Details.
a. Structural Elements. Structural elements visible on the building exterior (e.g. rafters, purlins, posts, beams, balconies, brackets, trusses, columns, arches, etc.), even when ornamental, shall be placed to frame building apertures and bays. b. Parapet Design. Parapets longer than 12 feet in length shall exhibit a combination of steps, angles, and/or curves. Patterns of steps and curves must be symmetrical within each segment or establish symmetry across the building façade. If parapets terminate with coping, the coping must be stone, concrete, tile, or molded stucco.

Attachment B Page 55 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

c. Gutters. Features to direct rainwater away from exterior walls shall include one or more of the following:
i. Projecting eaves (minimum 12-inch projection)
ii. Scuppers (minimum 12-inch projection if no downspouts are used) iii. Gutters with downspouts.
d. Street Address Number. Street address numbers must be metalwork or tiled. e. Ornamental Features. Buildings must exhibit at least two of the following ornamental features over a minimum 15% of building facades:
i. Patterned accent tiles applied consistently across all street-facing building facades
ii. A pattern of carved insets with grilles on all street-facing building facades iii. A pattern of stucco motifs or tile decorative vents on all street-facing building facades
iv. Terra-cotta tile chimney top (enclosing equipment or not) f. Exceptions. All building façades must comply with applicable standards with the following exceptions:
i. Materials used for the building base or podium need not be repeated. ii. Where a building is designed to appear as separate buildings, each portion that appears as a separate building shall be subject to the Building Design and Façade Design standards separately.

4. Additions and Remodels. Notwithstanding the design standards of this Chapter, new or replacement windows or doors in an existing wall must have the same design, detail, and placement of existing windows or doors present on the building.

D. Site Design.

1. Walls and Fences.
a. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall have the same materials and color as that of the primary or secondary building materials.
b. Retaining Wall Height. The design of new retaining walls that are visible from the abutting public right-of-way, as well as those that are within the side and rear yard areas, shall be constructed in a stepped or terraced fashion with the maximum height for any single wall no more than 4 feet, unless an engineering assessment finds that physical limitations do not make such terracing feasible. If the change in grade is greater than 4 feet, a series of retaining walls, interspersed by planting areas in a stepped or terraced fashion shall be constructed to minimize the retaining wall’s visual prominence and avoid a monolithic appearance. A minimum 6 foot masonry wall must be provided on shared property lines with single-family uses on lots in Zone A.
c. Retaining Wall Design.
i. In order to provide visual interest, retaining walls shall incorporate one or more of the following: use of form, texture, detailing, and/or planting. When a retaining wall contains an entry stairway to the building, the design of the wall shall include features that emphasize the entryway, such as plantings or design features that match those of the primary building.

Attachment B Page 56 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ii. Retaining wall material shall be concrete or CMU covered with plaster stucco a minimum of 2 inches thick.
d. Screening of Retaining Walls. Where a single large retaining wall is used, its design shall incorporate a minimum one foot deep planting strip and irrigation system at its toe strip for the length of the wall to allow for the planting of screening vegetation and/or a planting strip with irrigation system at the top of the wall.

Landscape screening shall be guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years. e. Gates. Residential security gates, when installed, shall be the same color as the building materials and be no more than 50 percent opaque.

2. Landscaping.
a. Landscape Design.
i. Landscape species must be native, low-water usage, and low maintenance, meeting Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirement. ii. Existing mature trees shall be preserved and incorporated as part of the overall landscape design.
b. Required Landscaping. Landscape plantings must cover all unbuilt areas of a lot. i. Required landscaping coverage is 30 to 20 percent of the area of a lot in Zone C and 10 percent of a lot in Zone D.
ii. Ground cover must be planted a maximum of 1 foot on center. iii. The following may not count toward the required landscape area:
(a) Artificial turf
(b) Any area with a minimum dimension less than 30 inches c. Prohibited Species and Materials. Plant species that are listed by California Invasive Plan Council (Cal-IPC) as invasive prohibited as is flammable mulch. d. Frontage Landscaping.
i. Civic Center Subarea: Planter beds, window boxes, and/or container plantings are required at all façade insets, niches, and entries. ii. Grand Avenue Subarea: The required street yard setback area must be landscaped except for seating areas, on-site plazas, and areas of ingress and egress. Landscaping may include container plantings, planter beds, groundcover, climbing vines, shrubs, low hedges, and trees. e. Interior Side and Rear Setback Landscaping.
i. Landscaping within side and rear setback areas shall delineate property lines.
ii. All interior side and rear yard setbacks abutting Zone A shall be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs. At least one tree of at least 15-gallon size shall be planted per 20 linear feet or as appropriate to create a tree canopy over the required setback. In addition, at least three shrubs shall be planted every 20 linear feet.
f. Grading. To minimize impacts on existing terrain, the maximum amount of cut shall not exceed 5 feet below the natural grade and the amount of fill shall not exceed 3 feet above the natural grade.

Attachment B Page 57 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

g. On-site Drainage. Drainage shall be provided on-site using natural drainage channels, bioretention areas, or other landscape areas that filter surface water runoff before it enters the storm drain system. h. Backflow Preventer and Public Utilities. See design standards for multi-family development.

3. Site Circulation.
a. Hardscape Materials. On-site hardscape material shall be permeable or pervious and gray or light gray in color with a higher solar reflective index. b. Paving within Setback Area. Plazas or outdoor seating areas located within streetfacing setbacks must be separated from the sidewalk by landscaping or raised planters. Paving within required setback areas shall be different from the adjacent public sidewalk and consist of individual paving blocks. c. Curb Cut Frequency. A maximum of one curb cut for driveway access may be permitted per street frontage per lot.

4. Refuse and Recycling Areas.
a. Location. Common refuse and recycling containers shall not be located:
i. Within any required street-facing setback;
ii. Any required parking and landscaped areas; or
iii. Any other area required to remain unencumbered, according to fire and other applicable building and public safety codes.
b. Visibility. Common refuse and recycling containers shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from adjacent residential uses and shall be screened by landscaping. Fences or walls may be used if located outside a required setback. c. Enclosure and Container Materials.
i. Enclosure materials shall be the same as those of the primary building. ii. Containers used for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall meet the standards of the waste collection company and be:
(a) Constructed of a durable waterproof and rustproof material; (b) Enclosed and covered when the site is not attended; (c) Secured from unauthorized entry or removal of material; and (d) Shall be sized to accommodate the volume of materials collected between collection schedules.
(e) Required refuse collection must be grouped together and equally accessible to residents.
d. Clear Zone. The area in front of and surrounding all enclosure types shall be kept clear of obstructions and accessible.
e. Drainage. The floor of the enclosure shall have a drain that connects to the sanitary sewer system.

5. Lighting.
a. Entrance Lighting. Light fixture(s) at all building entries required.

Attachment B Page 58 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

b. Façade Lighting. Lighting on facades shall be incorporated into façade design for all facades. Fixtures shall:
i. Be shielded and directed downward onto the building facade and onto entry paving.
ii. Exhibit the same architectural style, design, and character as the primary building.
c. Low-level Lighting. Low-level lighting shall be provided to ensure entry paths, entry stairs and driveways, garage and building entries are illuminated.

6. Energy Efficiency.
a. All appliances must meet the applicable adopted Reach Codes. b. All appliances, HVAC and lighting shall be electric and energy-efficient.

7. Parking Reductions. One of the following parking reductions may be taken per development proposal:
a. Shared Parking Reductions. Where a parking facility serves more than one nonresidential use, the required parking spaces for both the residential and nonresidential uses may be reduced up to 40 percent if:
i. The peak hours of use do not overlap or coincide by more than 2 hours; or
ii. A parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineering professional approved by the City finds that a proposed reduction will meet the development’s projected parking demand.
b. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Parking Reductions. The required parking for non-residential uses that incorporate one or more of the following Transportation Demand Measures may be reduced by 40 percent:
i. A minimum of three designated car-share, vanpool, or carpool parking spaces;
ii. On-site showers and lockers in a secured area contiguous with long-term bicycle storage area; or
iii. Transit subsidies or reimbursement offered to all residents and employees.

Attachment B Page 59 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

7.07.02 Terms
Arched Window. Window that is rounded at the top.

Blank Wall. A portion of a façade on any floor of a building that that does not include a transparent window or door between the level of the finished floor and the level of the ceiling.

Common Open Space. Courtyards, sport courts, play areas, gardens, or other open spaces for communal use within a development and accessible by all residents of the development.

Dentilled Cornice. A dentil, or small block, used as a repeating ornament under a cornice.

Divided Lites. A window with individual panes of glass separated by muntins, typically arranged in a grid.

Simulated divided lite windows are made from a single, large pane of glass with a surface grid attached to one side.

Façade Bay. A section of a building between vertical lines or planes, as defined by columns, pilasters, bay windows, or other horizontal projections or recesses.

Finished Floor. The top layer of flooring.

Forecourt. A type of frontage with a portion of the façade set back from the primary façade creating a small courtyard space. The courtyard may be used as an entry court or as shared garden space for apartment buildings, or as an additional shopping or restaurant seating area within retail and service areas.

Private Open Space. A yard, patio, porch, or balcony directly accessible from the dwelling unit for which the open space provides an opportunity for private outdoor recreation and relaxation of the resident(s) of the associated dwelling unit.

Rowhouse. A single-family dwelling that shares a party wall with another of the same type placed side-byside with individual entries along the front and dedicated private open space for each unit typically located in the rear. Each unit has its own front access at the ground floor. Also known as a townhouse or townhome.

Secured. An area where access is restricted to tenants or to people employed by businesses in a building.

Shared Garage. A structured parking area that is shared by multiple residential units or commercial spaces.

Shopfront. A type of frontage, typically for commercial and retail use, where the façade is aligned close to the frontage line with the building entrance at the level of the sidewalk.

Townhouse. See Rowhouse.

Attachment B Page 60 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Part V.

The approved amendments include administrative and formatting changes to update the table of contents, and references to the ADU, multifamily development, mixed-use development and City processes in Chapter 1. Introduction and Chapter 2. The Design Review Process, including sections 2.05 (List of Exceptions to Design Review Permits), 2.06 (Design Review Submittal Guidelines and Checklist), 2.07 (Story Poles), and 2.08 (Site Visits).

Part VI.

The approved amendments include the addition of ADU Prototype Plans as Appendix A to the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines consisting of the following prototype building elevations and floor plans.

Attachment B Page 61 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Appendix A ADU Prototype Plans
The following pages provide prototype drawings sets for three different single-story accessory dwelling units that are code-compliant, feasible on a typical Piedmont lot, and demonstrative of design priorities and preferences expressed by the Piedmont community. Included are:
• Pages A1-1 through A3-2: A detached studio ADU, 500 gross square feet, shown in Tudor, Craftsman, and Spanish styles.
• Pages B1-1 through B3-2: A detached one-bedroom ADU, 800 gross square feet, shown in Tudor, Craftsman, and Spanish styles.
• Page C1-1: A garage conversion, 484 gross square feet.

These are “Planning permit-ready” designs that can be submitted to Piedmont’s Planning Division pursuant to division 17.38.075 of the City Code for issuance of Planning permit for rent-restructed AUDs for a period of 10 years. The ADU designs must then be further developed with items including engineering plans, Title 24, and construction details, and then submitted to Piedmont’s Building Division for formal review and issuance of a Building Permit.

Attachment B Page 62 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

A1 B1
C1
A1-2
1 UNIT ENTRANCE

MUST FACE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR

INTERIOR OF PROPERTY
EGRESS WINDOW, 3'-0" SILL

HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
PORCH +/-6" ABOVE EXISTING
GRADE, 30" MAXIMUM.

STORAGE LOFT ABOVE

SLEEPING NOOK WHERE

ROOF IS PITCHED
A1-2
2 3 A1-2
A1-2 4
HVAC
DUCTED ELEC. FAN COIL

WITH OUTDOOR
CONDENSER. SOUND
LIMIT - 50 dBA MEASURED

AT NEAREST PROPERTY
LINE

HVAC MAY NOT PROJECT
INTO REQ. SETBACKS

ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER
HEATER

KITCHEN

ALL APPLIANCES

FOR BATHROOM FIXTURES

TO BE ELECTRIC
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

CLEARANCE
30" SHOWER
A1
CS3
CS2
FA1
B0
B2
CS2
AW1
B1
C1

W/D KITCHEN WH
BATH
CLOSET
274 SF

LIVING / SLEEPING

REAR YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

REAR YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

FENCE

ADU AND PATH OF

TRAVEL MUST BE
SCREENED BY 6'

TALL FENCE,

EXCEPT WITHIN
THE 20' STREET

YARD SETBACK
19'-0" 8'-2"
11'-3" 5'-10"
28'-11"
16'-1" 2'-5"
3'-3" 15'-1" 10'-8" 8'-4"
CS FA

FIXED OVER
AWNING

DOUBLE CASEMENT

WIDTH WIDTH HEIGHT
HEIGHT
AW
AWNING
HEIGHT
WIDTH
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 500 SF
CEILING HEIGHTS: 8'-0", WITH POTENTIAL TO

MAKE VAULTED
LIGHT AND AIR REQUIREMENTS:

LIVING / SLEEPING - 274 SF
- LIGHTING: 21.9 SF (8%) IS REQUIRED.

APPROXIMATELY 49.0 SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 11.0 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 50.8 SF
PROVIDED.

OTHER NOTES:
- FRONT ENTRANCE FACES THE PUBLIC

RIGHT OF WAY OR THE INTERIOR OF

PROPERTY
- THE UNIT FEATURES ALL ELECTRICAL

APPLIANCES
- WUI FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS AT PORCH,

ROOF, DECKING, AND EAVES
- FOR DOWNSLOPING LOTS, BUILDING BASE

WILL REQUIRE WATER TABLE / COURSE BAND

WITH CONTRASTING DARKER STUCCO TO THE

GROUND LEVEL
- REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE 4' FOR REAR AND
SIDE YARDS AND 20' FOR STREET YARDS. ROOF

EAVES MAY PROJECT INTO SETBACKS

CODE NOTES

WINDOW NOTES

1. ANY NEW WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN ADJACENT DWELLING SHALL HAVE FROSTED GLAZING.

2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE RECESSED 2" FROM THE WALL PLANE.

3. RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ THE FOLLOWING:
- MIN. OPENING HEIGHT 24"
- MIN. OPENING WIDTH 20"
- MAX. 44" MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR
- 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA

4. BATHROOM WINDOWS AND WINDOWS WITHIN DOOR SWING TO BE TEMPERED.

SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
As indicated
10/4/2022 1:44:20 PM
A1-1
10/04/2022

FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM

WINDOW SCHEDULE

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
AW1 AWNING 2'-6" 2'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD TEMPERED GLASS AT BATHROOM CS2 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-6" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD EGRESS WINDOWS INDICATED W/ ★ CS3 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-6" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD
FA1 FIXED OVER
AWNING
2'-8" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD

DOOR SCHEDULE

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
A1 EXT. UNIT ENTRY 3'-0" 7'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

SIDELIGHTS VARY BY STYLE, SEE

ELEVATIONS
B0 EXTERIOR DOOR 2'-0" 6'-8" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

TO WATER HEATER CLOSET
B1 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-4" 6'-8" WD
B2 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-8" 6'-8" WD
C1 DOUBLE SLIDING -

SINGLE FLAT PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD
1/2" = 1'-0" A1 STUDIO - TUDOR - FLOOR PLAN 1

A - STUDIO

ROOM AREA

A - STUDIO
LIVING / SLEEPING 274 SF
KITCHEN 78 SF
BATH 41 SF
CLOSET 14 SF
W/D 9 SF
WH 5 SF
421 SF
GSF: 500 SF

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 63 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

10" / 12"
16'-0"

PV PANELS

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE

WOOD ACCENT TRIM

AROUND OPENINGS

EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON

BOTH SIDES OF ENTRANCE
8'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"
16'-0"

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"
16'-0"
HVAC

OUTDOOR CONDENSER

DOOR TO ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER HEATER

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"
16'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE
SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
1/4" = 1'-0"
10/4/2022 1:44:22 PM
A1-2
10/04/2022

ELEVATIONS

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/4" = 1'-0" A1 - TUDOR - SOUTH ELEVATION 1
1/4" = 1'-0" A1 - TUDOR - NORTH ELEVATION 2
1/4" = 1'-0" A1 - TUDOR - EAST ELEVATION 3
1/4" = 1'-0" A1 - TUDOR - WEST ELEVATION 4

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 64 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

A1 B1
C1
A2-2
1 UNIT ENTRANCE

MUST FACE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR

INTERIOR OF PROPERTY
HVAC
DUCTED ELEC. FAN

COIL WITH OUTDOOR
CONDENSER. SOUND
LIMIT - 50 dBA

MEASURED AT

NEAREST PROPERTY
LINE

HVAC MAY NOT
PROJECT INTO REQ.

SETBACKS

ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER
HEATER

KITCHEN

ALL APPLIANCES

TO BE ELECTRIC
EGRESS WINDOW, 3'-0" SILL

HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
PORCH +/-12" ABOVE EXISTING
GRADE, 30" MAXIMUM.

STORAGE LOFT ABOVE

SLEEPING NOOK WHERE

ROOF IS PITCHED
A2-2
2 3 A2-2 A2-2 4 FOR BATHROOM FIXTURES 24" MIN. CLEARANCE

FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

CLEARANCE
30" SHOWER
SH1
A1
B1
CS2
CS2
AW1
B0
FA1
B2
C1
274 SF

LIVING / SLEEPING

W/D KITCHEN WH
BATH
CLOSET

REAR YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

SIDE YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

FENCE

ADU AND PATH OF

TRAVEL MUST BE
SCREENED BY 6'

TALL FENCE,

EXCEPT WITHIN
THE 20' STREET

YARD SETBACK
19'-0" 8'-2"
28'-11"
5'-10" 11'-3"
16'-1" 2'-5"
3'-3" 15'-1" 10'-8"
CS
FA

FIXED OVER
AWNING

DOUBLE CASEMENT
WIDTH
WIDTH
HEIGHT
HEIGHT
AW
AWNING
HEIGHT
WIDTH
SH

TRIPLE SINGLE
HUNG
WIDTH
HEIGHT
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 500 SF
CEILING HEIGHTS: 8'-0", WITH POTENTIAL TO

MAKE VAULTED
LIGHT AND AIR REQUIREMENTS:

LIVING / SLEEPING - 274 SF
- LIGHTING: 21.9 SF (8%) IS REQUIRED.

APPROXIMATELY 49.0 SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 11.0 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 50.8 SF
PROVIDED.

OTHER NOTES:
- FRONT ENTRANCE FACES THE PUBLIC

RIGHT OF WAY OR THE INTERIOR OF

PROPERTY
- THE UNIT FEATURES ALL ELECTRICAL

APPLIANCES
- WUI FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS AT PORCH,

ROOF, DECKING, AND EAVES
- FOR DOWNSLOPING LOTS, BUILDING BASE

WILL REQUIRE WATER TABLE / COURSE BAND

WITH CONTRASTING DARKER STUCCO TO THE

GROUND LEVEL
- REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE 4' FOR REAR AND
SIDE YARDS AND 20' FOR STREET YARDS. ROOF

EAVES MAY PROJECT INTO SETBACKS

CODE NOTES

WINDOW NOTES

1. ANY NEW WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN ADJACENT DWELLING SHALL HAVE FROSTED GLAZING.

2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE RECESSED 2" FROM THE WALL PLANE.

3. RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ THE FOLLOWING:
- MIN. OPENING HEIGHT 24"
- MIN. OPENING WIDTH 20"
- MAX. 44" MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR
- 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA

4. BATHROOM WINDOWS AND WINDOWS WITHIN DOOR SWING TO BE TEMPERED.

SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
As indicated
10/4/2022 1:44:26 PM
A2-1
10/04/2022

FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM

DOOR SCHEDULE

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
A1 EXT. UNIT ENTRY 3'-0" 7'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

SIDELIGHTS VARY BY STYLE, SEE

ELEVATIONS
B0 EXTERIOR DOOR 2'-0" 6'-8" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

TO WATER HEATER CLOSET
B1 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-4" 6'-8" WD
B2 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-8" 6'-8" WD
C1 DOUBLE SLIDING -

SINGLE FLAT PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD
1/2" = 1'-0" A2 STUDIO - CRAFSTSMAN - FLOOR PLAN 1

WINDOW SCHEDULE - CRAFTSMAN

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
AW1 AWNING 2'-6" 2'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD TEMPERED GLASS AT BATHROOM CS2 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-6" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD EGRESS WINDOWS INDICATED W/ ★ CS3 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-6" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD
FA1 FIXED OVER
AWNING
2'-8" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
SH1 TRIPLE SINGLE
HUNG
2'-0" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD

A - STUDIO

ROOM AREA

A - STUDIO
LIVING / SLEEPING 274 SF
KITCHEN 78 SF
BATH 41 SF
CLOSET 14 SF
W/D 9 SF
WH 5 SF
421 SF
GSF: 500 SF

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 65 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

5" / 12"
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

PV PANELS

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE

WOOD ACCENT TRIM

AROUND OPENINGS

EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON

BOTH SIDES OF ENTRANCE

STUCCO PORCH

DECORATIVE WOOD

DETAILS, TRUSSES AND

BRACKETS
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-6"
8'-0" 16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-6"
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING FINISH MASONRY

VENEER BASE
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-6"
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE
HVAC

OUTDOOR CONDENSER

DOOR TO ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER HEATER
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-6"
SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
1/4" = 1'-0"
10/4/2022 1:44:28 PM
A2-2
10/04/2022

ELEVATIONS

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/4" = 1'-0" A2 - CRAFTSMAN - SOUTH ELEVATION 1
1/4" = 1'-0" A2 - CRAFTSMAN - WEST ELEVATION 4 1/4" = 1'-0" A2 - CRAFTSMAN - NORTH ELEVATION 2 1/4" = 1'-0" A2 - CRAFTSMAN - EAST ELEVATION 3

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 66 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

A1 B1
C1
A3-2
1 UNIT ENTRANCE

MUST FACE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR

INTERIOR OF PROPERTY
3 A3-2
A3-2
2 A3-2 4

FOR BATHROOM FIXTURES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

CLEARANCE
30" SHOWER
HVAC
DUCTED ELEC. FAN

COIL WITH OUTDOOR
CONDENSER. SOUND
LIMIT - 50 dBA

MEASURED AT

NEAREST PROPERTY
LINE

HVAC MAY NOT
PROJECT INTO REQ.

SETBACKS

ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER
HEATER

KITCHEN

ALL APPLIANCES

TO BE ELECTRIC
EGRESS WINDOW, 3'-0" SILL

HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
PORCH +/-12" ABOVE EXISTING
GRADE, 30" MAXIMUM.

CS2
AW1
B0
B2
FA1
A1
CS3
B1
CS2
C1
CLOSET

W/D KITCHEN WH
BATH
274 SF

LIVING / SLEEPING

REAR YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

SIDE YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

FENCE

ADU AND PATH OF

TRAVEL MUST BE
SCREENED BY 6'

TALL FENCE,

EXCEPT WITHIN
THE 20' STREET

YARD SETBACK
19'-0" 8'-2"
5'-10" 11'-3"
28'-11"
16'-1" 2'-5"
3'-3" 15'-1" 10'-8"
CS FA

FIXED OVER
AWNING

DOUBLE CASEMENT

WIDTH WIDTH HEIGHT
HEIGHT
AW
AWNING
HEIGHT
WIDTH
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 500 SF
CEILING HEIGHTS: 8'-0", WITH POTENTIAL TO

MAKE VAULTED
LIGHT AND AIR REQUIREMENTS:

LIVING / SLEEPING - 274 SF
- LIGHTING: 21.9 SF (8%) IS REQUIRED.

APPROXIMATELY 49.0 SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 11.0 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 50.8 SF
PROVIDED.

OTHER NOTES:
- FRONT ENTRANCE FACES THE PUBLIC

RIGHT OF WAY OR THE INTERIOR OF

PROPERTY
- THE UNIT FEATURES ALL ELECTRICAL

APPLIANCES
- WUI FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS AT PORCH,

ROOF, DECKING, AND EAVES
- FOR DOWNSLOPING LOTS, BUILDING BASE

WILL REQUIRE WATER TABLE / COURSE BAND

WITH CONTRASTING DARKER STUCCO TO THE

GROUND LEVEL
- REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE 4' FOR REAR AND
SIDE YARDS AND 20' FOR STREET YARDS. ROOF

EAVES MAY PROJECT INTO SETBACKS

CODE NOTES

WINDOW NOTES

1. ANY NEW WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN ADJACENT DWELLING SHALL HAVE FROSTED GLAZING.

2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE RECESSED 2" FROM THE WALL PLANE.

3. RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ THE FOLLOWING:
- MIN. OPENING HEIGHT 24"
- MIN. OPENING WIDTH 20"
- MAX. 44" MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR
- 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA

4. BATHROOM WINDOWS AND WINDOWS WITHIN DOOR SWING TO BE TEMPERED.

SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
As indicated
10/4/2022 1:44:32 PM
A3-1
10/04/2022

FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM

WINDOW SCHEDULE

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
AW1 AWNING 2'-6" 2'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD TEMPERED GLASS AT BATHROOM CS2 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-6" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD EGRESS WINDOWS INDICATED W/ ★ CS3 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-6" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD
FA1 FIXED OVER
AWNING
2'-8" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD

DOOR SCHEDULE

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
A1 EXT. UNIT ENTRY 3'-0" 7'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

SIDELIGHTS VARY BY STYLE, SEE

ELEVATIONS
B0 EXTERIOR DOOR 2'-0" 6'-8" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

TO WATER HEATER CLOSET
B1 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-4" 6'-8" WD
B2 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-8" 6'-8" WD
C1 DOUBLE SLIDING -

SINGLE FLAT PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD
1/2" = 1'-0" A2 STUDIO - SPANISH - FLOOR PLAN 1

A - STUDIO

ROOM AREA

A - STUDIO
LIVING / SLEEPING 274 SF
KITCHEN 78 SF
BATH 41 SF
CLOSET 14 SF
W/D 9 SF
WH 5 SF
421 SF
GSF: 500 SF

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 67 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH

EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON

BOTH SIDES OF ENTRANCE

DECORATIVE IRON

RAILINGS

WOOD ACCENT TRIM

AROUND OPENINGS
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"
8'-6" 16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"
HVAC

OUTDOOR CONDENSER

DOOR TO ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER HEATER
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"
SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
1/4" = 1'-0"
10/4/2022 1:44:35 PM
A3-2
10/04/2022

ELEVATIONS

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/4" = 1'-0" A3 - SPANISH - SOUTH ELEVATION 1
1/4" = 1'-0" A3 - SPANISH - NORTH ELEVATION 2
1/4" = 1'-0" A3 - SPANISH - EAST ELEVATION 3
1/4" = 1'-0" A3 - SPANISH - WEST ELEVATION 4

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 68 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

B1-2
1 HVAC
DUCTED ELEC. FAN COIL WITH
OUTDOOR CONDENSER. SOUND LIMIT -
50 dBA MEASURED AT NEAREST

PROPERTY LINE
HVAC MAY NOT PROJECT INTO REQ.

SETBACKS

KITCHEN

ALL APPLIANCES TO

BE ELECTRIC

EGRESS WINDOW,
3'-0" SILL HEIGHT

ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
PORCH 12" ABOVE EXISTING
GRADE, 30" MAXIMUM
3 B1-2
B1-2
2 B1-2 4

ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER
HEATER
CS4
FA1
CS1 CS1
A1
FA1
FA1 CS4
FA1
FA1 AW1
C1 C1
D1
B2
B3
B2

FOR BATHROOM FIXTURES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

CLEARANCE
30" SHOWER

UNIT ENTRANCE

MUST FACE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR

INTERIOR OF PROPERTY
321 SF

LIVING RM
135 SF

BEDROOM
CLOSET
KITCHEN CLOSET HALL LINEN CL.

UTILITY CLOSET
BATH

REAR YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

SIDE YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

FENCE

ADU AND PATH OF TRAVEL MUST
BE SCREENED BY 6' TALL FENCE,
EXCEPT WITHIN THE 20' STREET

YARD SETBACK
10'-8" 9'-1" 8'-4" 9'-7"
39'-9"
11'-4" 10'-9"
12'-10"
16'-9" 7'-2"
3'-3" 19'-1" 17'-6"
A1 B1
C1 D1
CS FA

FIXED OVER
AWNING

DOUBLE CASEMENT

WIDTH WIDTH HEIGHT
HEIGHT
AW
AWNING
HEIGHT
WIDTH
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 800 SF
CEILING HEIGHTS: 8'-0", WITH POTENTIAL TO

MAKE VAULTED
LIGHT AND AIR REQUIREMENTS:

LIVING RM - 321 SF
- LIGHTING: 25.7 SF (8%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 49.0
SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 12.8 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 56.4
SF PROVIDED.

BEDROOM - 135 SF
- LIGHTING: 10.8 SF (8%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 25.4
SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 5.4 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 28.71
SF PROVIDED.

CODE NOTES
OTHER NOTES:
- FRONT ENTRANCE FACES THE PUBLIC

RIGHT OF WAY OR THE INTERIOR OF

PROPERTY
- THE UNIT FEATURES ALL ELECTRICAL

APPLIANCES
- WUI FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS AT

PORCH, ROOF, DECKING, AND EAVES
- FOR DOWNSLOPING LOTS, BUILDING

BASE WILL REQUIRE WATER TABLE /

COURSE BAND WITH CONTRASTING

DARKER STUCCO TO THE GROUND LEVEL

WINDOW NOTES

1. ANY NEW WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN ADJACENT DWELLING SHALL HAVE FROSTED GLAZING.

2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE RECESSED 2" FROM THE WALL PLANE.

3. RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ THE FOLLOWING:
- MIN. OPENING HEIGHT 24"
- MIN. OPENING WIDTH 20"
- MAX. 44" MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR
- 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA

4. BATHROOM WINDOWS AND WINDOWS WITHIN DOOR SWING TO BE TEMPERED.

SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
As indicated
10/4/2022 1:44:39 PM
B1-1
10/04/2022

FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/2" = 1'-0" B1 1-BED - TUDOR - FLOOR PLAN 1
DOOR SCHEDULE - 1 BEDROOM

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
A1 EXT. UNIT ENTRY 3'-0" 7'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

SIDELIGHTS VARY BY STYLE, SEE

ELEVATIONS
B0 EXTERIOR DOOR 2'-0" 6'-8" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

TO WATER HEATER CLOSET
B1 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-4" 6'-8" WD
B2 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-8" 6'-8" WD
C1 DOUBLE SLIDING -

SINGLE FLAT
PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD
D1 DOUBLE SWING -

SINGLE FLAT
PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD WITH PARTIAL LOUVERS
WINDOW SCHEDULE - 1BED

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
AW1 AWNING 2'-6" 2'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD TEMPERED GLASS AT BATHROOM CS1 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-0" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD
CS4 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
3'-0" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD EGRESS WINDOWS INDICATED W/ ★ FA1 FIXED OVER
AWNING
2'-8" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
B - 1 BEDROOM

ROOM AREA

1.1 1-BEDROOM
LIVING RM 321 SF
BEDROOM 135 SF
KITCHEN 106 SF
BATH 53 SF
HALL 30 SF
CLOSET 21 SF
UTILITY CLOSET 14 SF
COAT CLOSET 7 SF
LINEN CL. 3 SF
689 SF
GSF 800 SF

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 69 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

9" / 12"

PV PANELS

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE

WOOD ACCENT TRIM

AROUND OPENINGS

EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON

BOTH SIDES OF ENTRANCE
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"
8'-0"

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH

MASONRY

VENEER BASE
HVAC

OUTDOOR CONDENSER
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH MASONRY

VENEER BASE
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"

SHINGLE ROOFING

STUCCO FINISH MASONRY

VENEER BASE
FINISHED FLOOR 6"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 8'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 16'-0"
TOP OF PLATE 9'-0"
SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
1/4" = 1'-0"
10/4/2022 1:44:41 PM
B1-2
10/04/2022

ELEVATIONS

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/4" = 1'-0" B1 - TUDOR - SOUTH ELEVATION 1
1/4" = 1'-0" B1 - TUDOR - WEST ELEVATION 4 1/4" = 1'-0" B1 - TUDOR - NORTH ELEVATION 2 1/4" = 1'-0" B1 - TUDOR - EAST ELEVATION 3

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 70 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

B2-2
1 B2-2
2 3 B2-2
B2-2 4
HVAC
DUCTED ELEC. FAN COIL WITH OUTDOOR
CONDENSER. SOUND LIMIT - 50 dBA

MEASURED AT NEAREST PROPERTY LINE
HVAC MAY NOT PROJECT INTO REQ.

SETBACKS

KITCHEN

ALL APPLIANCES TO

BE ELECTRIC

EGRESS WINDOW,
3'-0" SILL HEIGHT

ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
PORCH 12" ABOVE EXISTING
GRADE, 30" MAXIMUM.

ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER
HEATER

FOR BATHROOM FIXTURES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

CLEARANCE
30" SHOWER
FA1 AW1
FA1 CS3
FA1
A1
SH2
FA1
CS4
B2
B2
D1
B3
C1 C1
4'-0"

UNIT ENTRANCE

MUST FACE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR

INTERIOR OF PROPERTY
BATH
CLOSET
CLOSET
LINEN CL.

UTILITY CLOSET

KITCHEN
HALL
135 SF

BEDROOM
321 SF

LIVING RM
FA1

REAR YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

SIDE YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

FENCE

ADU AND PATH OF TRAVEL MUST
BE SCREENED BY 6' TALL FENCE,
EXCEPT WITHIN THE 20' STREET

YARD SETBACK
10'-8" 9'-1"
8'-4" 9'-7"
11'-4" 10'-9"
12'-10"
39'-9"
16'-9" 7'-2"
3'-3" 19'-1" 17'-6"
CS
FA

FIXED OVER
AWNING

DOUBLE CASEMENT
WIDTH
WIDTH
HEIGHT
HEIGHT
AW
AWNING
HEIGHT
WIDTH
SH

TRIPLE SINGLE
HUNG
WIDTH
HEIGHT
A1 B1
C1 D1
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 800 SF
CEILING HEIGHTS: 8'-0", WITH POTENTIAL TO

MAKE VAULTED
LIGHT AND AIR REQUIREMENTS:

LIVING RM - 321 SF
- LIGHTING: 25.7 SF (8%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 49.0
SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 12.8 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 56.4
SF PROVIDED.

BEDROOM - 135 SF
- LIGHTING: 10.8 SF (8%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 25.4
SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 5.4 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 28.71
SF PROVIDED.

CODE NOTES
OTHER NOTES:
- FRONT ENTRANCE FACES THE PUBLIC

RIGHT OF WAY OR THE INTERIOR OF

PROPERTY
- THE UNIT FEATURES ALL ELECTRICAL

APPLIANCES
- WUI FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS AT

PORCH, ROOF, DECKING, AND EAVES
- FOR DOWNSLOPING LOTS, BUILDING

BASE WILL REQUIRE WATER TABLE /

COURSE BAND WITH CONTRASTING

DARKER STUCCO TO THE GROUND LEVEL

WINDOW NOTES

1. ANY NEW WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN ADJACENT DWELLING SHALL HAVE FROSTED GLAZING.

2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE RECESSED 2" FROM THE WALL PLANE.

3. RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ THE FOLLOWING:
- MIN. OPENING HEIGHT 24"
- MIN. OPENING WIDTH 20"
- MAX. 44" MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR
- 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA

4. BATHROOM WINDOWS AND WINDOWS WITHIN DOOR SWING TO BE TEMPERED.

SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
As indicated
10/4/2022 1:44:46 PM
B2-1
10/04/2022

FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/2" = 1'-0" B2 1-BED - CRAFTSMAN - FLOOR PLAN 1
WINDOW SCHEDULE - 1BED CRAFTSMAN

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
AW1 AWNING 2'-6" 2'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD TEMPERED GLASS AT BATHROOM CS1 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-0" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD
CS4 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
3'-0" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD EGRESS WINDOWS INDICATED W/ ★ FA1 FIXED OVER
AWNING
2'-8" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
SH2 TRIPLE SINGLE
HUNG
2'-6" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD
DOOR SCHEDULE - 1 BEDROOM

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
A1 EXT. UNIT ENTRY 3'-0" 7'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

SIDELIGHTS VARY BY STYLE, SEE

ELEVATIONS
B0 EXTERIOR DOOR 2'-0" 6'-8" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

TO WATER HEATER CLOSET
B1 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-4" 6'-8" WD
B2 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-8" 6'-8" WD
C1 DOUBLE SLIDING -

SINGLE FLAT
PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD
D1 DOUBLE SWING -

SINGLE FLAT
PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD WITH PARTIAL LOUVERS
B - 1 BEDROOM

ROOM AREA

1.1 1-BEDROOM
LIVING RM 321 SF
BEDROOM 135 SF
KITCHEN 106 SF
BATH 53 SF
HALL 30 SF
CLOSET 21 SF
UTILITY CLOSET 14 SF
COAT CLOSET 7 SF
LINEN CL. 3 SF
689 SF
GSF 800 SF

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 71 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

PV PANELS

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING

MASONRY

VENEER BASE

WOOD ACCENT TRIM

AROUND OPENINGS

EXTERIOR LIGHTING ON

BOTH SIDES OF ENTRANCE

STUCCO PORCH

DECORATIVE WOOD

DETAILS, TRUSSES

AND BRACKETS
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"
8'-6"

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING

MASONRY

VENEER BASE
HVAC

OUTDOOR CONDENSER
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING MASONRY

VENEER BASE
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"

SHINGLE ROOFING

WOOD SIDING MASONRY

VENEER BASE
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 15'-8"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"
SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
1/4" = 1'-0"
10/4/2022 1:44:48 PM
B2-2
10/04/2022

ELEVATIONS

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/4" = 1'-0" B2 - CRAFTSMAN - SOUTH ELEVATION 1
1/4" = 1'-0" B2 - CRAFTSMAN - NORTH ELEVATION 2
1/4" = 1'-0" B2 - CRAFTSMAN - EAST ELEVATION 3
1/4" = 1'-0" B2 - CRAFTSMAN - WEST ELEVATION 4

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 72 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

B3-2
1 3 B3-2
B3-2
2 B3-2 4
HVAC
DUCTED ELEC. FAN COIL WITH OUTDOOR
CONDENSER. SOUND LIMIT - 50 dBA

MEASURED AT NEAREST PROPERTY LINE
HVAC MAY NOT PROJECT INTO REQ.

SETBACKS

KITCHEN

ALL APPLIANCES TO

BE ELECTRIC

EGRESS WINDOW,
3'-0" SILL HEIGHT

ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
PORCH 12" ABOVE EXISTING
GRADE, 30" MAXIMUM

ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER
HEATER

FOR BATHROOM FIXTURES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCES
24" MIN. CLEARANCE

CLEARANCE
30" SHOWER
FA1 AW1
FA1 CS4
FA1
A1
CS1 CS1
FA1
CS4

UNIT ENTRANCE

MUST FACE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR

INTERIOR OF PROPERTY

KITCHEN CLOSET
CLOSET
HALL
LINEN CL.

UTILITY CLOSET
BATH
135 SF

BEDROOM
321 SF

LIVING RM

REAR YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

SIDE YARD SETBACK
4'-0" REQ.

FENCE

ADU AND PATH OF TRAVEL MUST
BE SCREENED BY 6' TALL FENCE,
EXCEPT WITHIN THE 20' STREET

YARD SETBACK
10'-8" 9'-1" 8'-4" 9'-7"
11'-4" 10'-9"
12'-10"
39'-9"
16'-9" 7'-2"
3'-3" 19'-1" 17'-6"
CS FA

FIXED OVER
AWNING

DOUBLE CASEMENT

WIDTH WIDTH HEIGHT
HEIGHT
AW
AWNING
HEIGHT
WIDTH
A1 B1
C1 D1
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 800 SF
CEILING HEIGHTS: 8'-0", WITH POTENTIAL TO

MAKE VAULTED
LIGHT AND AIR REQUIREMENTS:

LIVING RM - 321 SF
- LIGHTING: 25.7 SF (8%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 49.0
SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 12.8 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 56.4
SF PROVIDED.

BEDROOM - 135 SF
- LIGHTING: 10.8 SF (8%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 25.4
SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 5.4 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 28.71
SF PROVIDED.

CODE NOTES
OTHER NOTES:
- FRONT ENTRANCE FACES THE PUBLIC

RIGHT OF WAY OR THE INTERIOR OF

PROPERTY
- THE UNIT FEATURES ALL ELECTRICAL

APPLIANCES
- WUI FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS AT

PORCH, ROOF, DECKING, AND EAVES
- FOR DOWNSLOPING LOTS, BUILDING

BASE WILL REQUIRE WATER TABLE /

COURSE BAND WITH CONTRASTING

DARKER STUCCO TO THE GROUND LEVEL

WINDOW NOTES

1. ANY NEW WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN ADJACENT DWELLING SHALL HAVE FROSTED GLAZING.

2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE RECESSED 2" FROM THE WALL PLANE.

3. RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ THE FOLLOWING:
- MIN. OPENING HEIGHT 24"
- MIN. OPENING WIDTH 20"
- MAX. 44" MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR
- 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA

4. BATHROOM WINDOWS AND WINDOWS WITHIN DOOR SWING TO BE TEMPERED.

SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
As indicated
10/4/2022 1:44:52 PM
B3-1
10/04/2022

FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/2" = 1'-0" B3 1-BED - SPANISH - FLOOR PLAN 1
WINDOW SCHEDULE - 1BED

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
AW1 AWNING 2'-6" 2'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD TEMPERED GLASS AT BATHROOM CS1 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
2'-0" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD
CS4 DOUBLE

CASEMENT
3'-0" 4'-6" ALUM. CLAD WD EGRESS WINDOWS INDICATED W/ ★ FA1 FIXED OVER
AWNING
2'-8" 4'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
DOOR SCHEDULE - 1 BEDROOM

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT MATERIAL COMMENTS
A1 EXT. UNIT ENTRY 3'-0" 7'-0" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

SIDELIGHTS VARY BY STYLE, SEE

ELEVATIONS
B0 EXTERIOR DOOR 2'-0" 6'-8" ALUM. CLAD WD
OR WD

TO WATER HEATER CLOSET
B1 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-4" 6'-8" WD
B2 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-8" 6'-8" WD
C1 DOUBLE SLIDING -

SINGLE FLAT
PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD
D1 DOUBLE SWING -

SINGLE FLAT
PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8" WD WITH PARTIAL LOUVERS
B - 1 BEDROOM

ROOM AREA

1.1 1-BEDROOM
LIVING RM 321 SF
BEDROOM 135 SF
KITCHEN 106 SF
BATH 53 SF
HALL 30 SF
CLOSET 21 SF
UTILITY CLOSET 14 SF
COAT CLOSET 7 SF
LINEN CL. 3 SF
689 SF
GSF 800 SF

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 73 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

16'-0" MAX ALLOWED

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH

DECORATIVE IRON

RAILINGS

WOOD ACCENT TRIM

AROUND OPENINGS
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-5"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH
HVAC

OUTDOOR CONDENSER
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-5"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-5"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"

PARAPET WITH BARREL

TILE AT EDGE

STUCCO FINISH
16'-0" MAX ALLOWED
FINISHED FLOOR 1'-0"
GROUND LEVEL 0"
CEILING FINISH 9'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 14'-5"
TOP OF PLATE 10'-0"
SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
1/4" = 1'-0"
10/4/2022 1:44:55 PM
B3-2
10/04/2022

ELEVATIONS

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/4" = 1'-0" B3 - SPANISH - SOUTH ELEVATION 1
1/4" = 1'-0" B3 - SPANISH - NORTH ELEVATION 2
1/4" = 1'-0" B3 - SPANISH - EAST ELEVATION 3
1/4" = 1'-0" B3 - SPANISH - WEST ELEVATION 4

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 74 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

283 SF

LIVING / SLEEPING
22'-0"
22'-0"

KITCHEN
WH W/D

BATH RM
CLOSET
HVAC
DUCTED ELEC. FAN

COIL WITH

OUTDOOR
CONDENSER.

SOUND LIMIT - 50
dBA MEASURED AT

NEAREST

PROPERTY LINE

HVAC MAY NOT

PROJECT INTO
REQ. SETBACKS

ELECTRIC HEAT

PUMP WATER
HEATER

KITCHEN

ALL APPLIANCES TO

BE ELECTRIC

FOR BATHROOM FIXTURES
2'-0" MIN. CLEARANCE

FOR KITCHEN APPLIANCES
2'-0" MIN. CLEARANCE

CLEARANCE
30" SHOWER

ADDITIONAL WINDOWS

WHERE PERMITTED
B3 B3 B3
A1
B1 B1
B2
C3
15" MIN.

EXISTING

RESIDENCE
3'-0" WIDE PLANTER ACROSS

PRIOR GARAGE DOOR
8'-10" 8'-11"
11'-9" 9'-0"
20'-8"
B3

SINGLE HUNG
WIDTH
HEIGHT
A1 B1
C1
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE: 484 SF
CEILING HEIGHTS: DEPENDENT ON EXISTING
CONDITION, MIN 7'-6"
LIGHT AND AIR REQUIREMENTS:

LIVING / SLEEPING - 283 SF
- LIGHTING: 22.6 SF (8%) IS REQUIRED.

APPROXIMATELY 26.6 SF PROVIDED.
- VENTILATION: 11.32 SF (4%) IS
REQUIRED. APPROXIMATELY 16.08 SF
PROVIDED.

OTHER NOTES:
- THE UNIT FEATURES ALL ELECTRICAL

APPLIANCES
- 3'-0" WIDE PLANTER REQUIRED ACROSS THE

LOCATION OF THE PRIOR GARAGE DOOR,

EXCEPT FOR WIDTH OF THE ENTRANCE DOOR

CODE NOTES

WINDOW NOTES

1. ANY NEW WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN ADJACENT DWELLING SHALL HAVE FROSTED GLAZING.

2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE RECESSED 2" FROM THE WALL PLANE.

3. RESCUE WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ THE FOLLOWING:
- MIN. OPENING HEIGHT 24"
- MIN. OPENING WIDTH 20"
- MAX. 44" MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR
- 5.7 SQ. FT. MIN. AREA

4. BATHROOM WINDOWS AND WINDOWS WITHIN DOOR SWING TO BE TEMPERED.

SCALE

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT

PRINTED
BUILDING DEPT STAMPINGARCHITECTURE | URBANISM | DESIGN

CONSULTANTS
As indicated
10/4/2022 1:44:56 PM
C1-1
10/04/2022

FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT ADDRESS
1915

PIEDMONT
ADU

PROGRAM
1/2" = 1'-0" C1- GARAGE 1

2.1 GARAGE CONVERSION

ROOM AREA

2.1 GARAGE
LIVING / SLEEPING 283 SF
KITCHEN 55 SF
BATH RM 48 SF
CLOSET 12 SF
W/D 8 SF
WH 6 SF
412 SF
GSF 484 SF

DOOR SCHEDULE - GARAGE

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT COMMENTS
A1 EXT. UNIT ENTRY 3'-0" 7'-0" DETAIL TO MATCH ARCHITECTURAL

STYLE OF MAIN HOUSE
B1 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-4" 6'-8"
B2 INTERIOR DOOR 2'-8" 6'-8"
C3 DOUBLE SLIDING -

SINGLE FLAT PANEL
4'-0" 6'-8"

WINDOW SCHEDULE - GARAGE

TYPE DESCRIPTION WIDTH HEIGHT COMMENTS
B3 DOUBLE HUNG 3'-0" 4'-0" DETAIL TO MATCH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF

MAIN HOUSE

REVISIONS
NO. DATE.

Attachment B Page 75 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

ODDS and ADU Incentives Comments and Edits
Compiled March 2022
Ms. Jane Lin:

I have gone through the draft and made comments on the PDF. Please see below.

I hope that the LWC Team finds these suggestions helpful.

Generally the approach is good and the team has done some nice work. ‐Jane

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 Page 76 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 77 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 78 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 79 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 80 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 81 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 82 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 83 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 84 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 85 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 86 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 87 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 88 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 89 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 90 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 91 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 92 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 93 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

neighborhoods.

Please adopt the MODS so that housing project review can be streamlined.

Thanks,
Jane
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jane Lin
Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:15 AM
Subject: Fwd: Multifamily Objective Design Standards (MODS) To: 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 Page 94 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 95 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

Irene Cheng
135 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 Page 96 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

(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 D Page 97 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 98 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

1 Pierce Macdonald
From: Lisa Joyce <[email protected]>
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 chance ‐ I know that affordable housing cannot be subjective to design review ‐ so my comment about that would not apply.  But are these standards to apply to any multi‐family 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
1416 Grand Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94610
Mobile: 510.541.2661
Officel/fax: 510.653.2116
[email protected]
http://www.houzz.com/pro/ljarch/__public
On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:01 AM, Pierce Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you, Lisa. We will review your comments.

From: Lisa Joyce <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 6:03 PM
To: Piedmont Is Home <[email protected]>
Subject: Multi‐family Objective Design Standards
Attachment D Page 99 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 reaction ‐ they are overwhelming and excessively detailed.

As both a resident of Grand Avenue (where multi‐family housing might ‐ and should ‐ be developed) for 33 years and as an architect who specialized in multi‐family 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 style ‐ there can be successful multi‐family 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 single‐family property within 300 feet."  Yet throughout Piedmont there are many decks visible to the adjacent single‐family 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 award‐winning 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 Page 100 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

3 I suggest that the city invite some local architects with multi‐family 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
1416 Grand Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94610
Mobile: 510.541.2661
Officel/fax: 510.653.2116
[email protected]
http://www.houzz.com/pro/ljarch/__public
Attachment D Page 101 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 102 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 103 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 104 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

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 Page 105 of 105
Agenda Item #6.1.

6/14/2022 1
Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA
Technical Memo
Background
Jurisdictions are allowed to use ADUs to help satisfy their RHNA requirements; however, the process is somewhat different than other aspects of the sites inventory. The standard method is to estimate the number of ADUs that will be developed in the planning period, then distribute those estimated units into each of the income categories.

Estimating Production
The estimate should be based on the average number of ADU building permits issued each year, multiplied by eight (because there are eight years in a housing element cycle). Most cities base their determination of annual ADU permits by averaging the building permits approved each year since 2018, when state law made it easier to construct the units. This is generally considered a safe harbor.

There is a small amount of flexibility in the calculations. If numbers were low in 2018 (or 2019) but were high in 2020, 2021, and 2022, a jurisdiction could potentially use 2019-2021 or 2020-2022 as the baseline.

Because this is outside the safe harbor, these calculations would need to be bolstered by a logical explanation for the methodology, e.g., the jurisdiction further loosened regulations in 2019.

Projecting a higher number of ADUs than what has been demonstrated through permit approvals in recent years may be possible, but more challenging. A slightly larger number may be warranted if a robust, funded, and clear plan to increase production has been put in place. However, you are strongly encouraged to coordinate with HCD before deviating from the standard methodology.

ADU sites are not listed in the site inventory, rather they are summarized and tallied in their own subsection.

Agenda Item #6.1.

6/14/2022 2
Determining the Income Distribution
ABAG conducted an analysis of ADU affordability and concluded that in most jurisdictions, the following assumptions are generally applicable. Many jurisdictions are choosing to use these numbers in lieu of conducting their own affordability analysis.

Table 1. Percent of ADUs Affordable to Different Income Categories Percent Income Category
30% Very low income
30% Low income
30% Moderate income
10% Above moderate
Please contact your County Collaborative Technical Assistance Provider for more information on affordability. A few key points are summarized below:
• Use building permits issued for the estimate.
• Jurisdictions do not need to list the addresses for potential ADUs. • Make sure the assumptions in your Housing Element match the numbers reported in past year APRs.

Please visit the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance page for more information, including a webinar that covers this topic.

Sample Housing Element Write Up
The following is what a jurisdiction might include in their sites inventory section of the housing element.

Since City amended its ordinance in 2019, the number of ADUs permitted has significantly increased. City’s ordinance goes beyond state law and allows 1,200 square foot ADUs. Additionally, the City website has an entire section devoted to ADUs with clear information about the standards and approval process. On average, the building department provides comments to completed ADU applications in 10 days. 2018 is not used as a base year because the old ADU standards were very restrictive and the City did not have much information on its website. Production has been consistently higher since the new ordinance went into effect.

Since 2019, the City has issued an average of 12.75 ADU permits per year, as listed below.

Year Building Permits
2017 2
2018 1
2019 10
2020 15
2021 10
2022 16 (estimate based
on first 6 months)
Agenda Item #6.1.