A discussion on proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulation amendments to the Benicia Municipal Code prompted a lot of feedback and even some recommendations by Benicia City Councilmembers at Tuesday’s meeting. 

   An ADU, also known as an in-law unit, is a room or a set of rooms within a single-family home that has been configured to be utilized as a separate dwelling unit and has been established by a permit. California has amended housing law over the last two years to streamline the permitting process for new ADUs. Among the changes are requiring local agencies to allow ADUs on all residentially zoned lots without discretionary review, simplifying processes and establishing exemptions for parking.

   Since Benicia’s zoning regulations for ADUs were last amended in 2007, the city has been updating its zoning regulations to comply with state law. Among the elements the city is trying to address are a ministerial review process for all such units— including those in historic districts, a streamlined permitting process for converting existing structures to ADUs and parking exemptions for units within half a mile of public transit, which Principal Planner Suzanne Thorsen noted would include bus stops.

   The proposed amendments have been presented at numerous Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Review Commission meetings this year, and both groups have provided feedback to the city. The proposal went before the council Tuesday for the first reading of an introductory ordinance.

   “We hope that we picked up the priorities of the community and the feedback of our commissioners,” Thorsen said.

   The councilmembers were generally receptive to many of the proposals, although some elements were scrutinized by the council. Councilmember Mark Hughes raised concerns about the requirement for ADUs to have a similar color and similar window styles to the primary dwelling. Community Development Director Shawna Brekke-Read said the intent was for ADUs to have exterior compatibility with the rest of the neighborhood, but Hughes felt the standards were too much. 

   “I just think it’s an overreach,” he said. “I don’t want the city to get involved with the type of windows I’m putting in an accessory dwelling unit.”

   Vice Mayor Steve Young and Councilmember Tom Campbell concurred. 

   “We can’t legislate everything,” Campbell said. 

   Another heavily discussed topic was the distribution of utilities. Thorsen said utility distribution would be placed underground for ADUs. Hughes and Young felt that requiring underground utilities for overhead electrical components was “overkill,” in Young’s words. 

   “What if there was already overhead lines in a converted garage for the ADU?” Young asked. “Are you telling them that they’re gonna have to not allow that overhead line to connect to underground?”

   Brekke-Read said converted structures would only need to follow building codes, not zoning codes. However, new ADUs would be required to have underground utilities. 

   Another big topic was decks. Thorsen said decks and platforms would not exceed 30 inches above grade to comply with privacy-related standards. 

   “If you allowed a deck that was oriented away from neighboring properties, you would get to that privacy issue,” Young said. “I think if we said that decks were allowed but not looking into a neighbor’s property or adjacent to a property line that it addresses some of the concerns.” 

   The biggest discussion came from an owner occupancy requirement where the owner must live in the primary dwelling or ADU but may rent one of the units out if they choose. Councilmember Alan Schwartzman said he was not in favor of a deed restriction, citing a case of a house in St. Catherine’s Woods which was required to not be sold unless it was to an owner occupant that lived in both the main residence and had at least a resident who lived in the ADU. 

   “It took a long time for that place to sell,” he said. 

   Schwartzman cited the affordable housing shortage as the main reason he did not support the owner occupancy requirement.

   “We’re short at least a million units overall, and we’re short probably a couple hundred thousand units a year in building,” he said. “We’re way, way behind.”

   All of the councilmembers agreed with Schwartzman, except for Hughes who said he would rather see the city go a year with the deed limitations and see what happens. 

   Schwartzman made a motion to approve the ordinance as is while striking the requirements on exterior compatibility and underground utilities and requiring decks to not face side yards. It was unanimously approved by the council. In a separate vote, the council voted 3-1 to strike the owner occupancy requirement from the ordinance. Hughes was the lone “no” vote, and Mayor Elizabeth Patterson was not present at the meeting because she was on a trip to Utah. The ordinance will go before the council for a second reading on Sept. 18 and would be effective Oct. 18 if adopted. 

   In other business, the council unanimously voted to accept an Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs agreement from the county and approve a request for proposals from interested parties to provide city attorney services for after Heather McLaughlin leaves her position in March.

   The council will next meet Tuesday, Sept. 18.