Following discussion of proposed draft text amendments for Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations, the Planning Commission approved a resolution making recommendations to the City Council at its Thursday meeting.

Discussions on ADUs, also called in-law or secondary units, have been held at city meetings since March, including a public hearing by the Planning Commission and two study sessions with the Historic Preservation Review Commission. In a presentation, Principal Planner Suzanne Thorsen said that Benicia already allows ADUs, generally with an administrative permit. ADUs in Benicia also require one parking space, a design review for exterior changes in the historic district and the owner must occupy either the unit or primary dwelling.

However, changes have been made to housing laws since the regulations were last updated. Cities can only conduct a ministerial review on ADUs, conversions of existing structures are allowed without a zoning permit and there are no longer parking requirements. As a result, the city of Benicia is working to update the zoning code to align with state law, establish design standards and re-evaluate floor areas and height limitations, Thorsen said.

Additionally, staff is proposing to keep deed restrictions on ADUs where the owner must live in either the main dwelling or secondary unit and prohibiting one of the dwellings from being sold to another owner or the ADUs being rented out for less than 30 days.

The city is also proposing to include junior ADUs in the definition of “Accessory Dwelling Unit.” Junior ADUs do not exceed 500 square feet, have a bedroom and efficiency kitchen and a shared or independent bathroom.

“If we don’t incorporate junior accessory dwelling units into the definition of an ADU, then there is the potential for someone to create an in-law suite plus an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and that’s not really what it practically is,” Thorsen said. “We would like to make sure that this text amendment is consistent with what we presented for the community, which is one Accessory Dwelling Unit per residential lot.”

Currently, the Benicia Municipal Code allows the floor areas of detached units to be 800 square feet or the size of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. Staff is proposing to change this number to 1,000 square feet. For attached units, the floor areas must currently be 800 square feet or the size of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. Staff is proposing the size be half the size of the floor area of a primary dwelling or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. For homes that have 1,200 square feet or more, an ADU may have a floor area of 60 square feet.

Under the proposal, detached units would continue to have a maximum wall height of 12 feet. However, the maximum peak height would vary based on the pitch of the roof, allowing for the peak height to be as small as 15 feet and as large as 20 feet.

The topics that prompted the biggest discussions from commissioners were the deed restrictions and unit heights. Commissioner Daina Dravnieks Apple asked what would happen if the property owner sold the house but the ADU was rented out.

“Does that mean the new owner can ask the ADU occupant to leave?” she asked. “Are there any kind of rental protections like in other cities?”

Contract attorney Kat Wellman said she did not believe Benicia had rental protections.

Commissioner George Oakes, a realtor, expressed concerns that deed constrictions would be “an impediment to a sale.”

“The whole purpose of ADUs is to increase people in our city and give them affordable housing,” he said. “I think any restriction you put on the deed is counterproductive to that goal.”
Oakes remarked that he would like to see the deed restriction removed if possible.

During a public comment, resident Evan Davidson said his father-in-law recently became disabled and moved from Eureka to live with Davidson and his wife. They were looking for a place for him to stay and found the building codes for ADUs to be unattainable. They did find some ADUs that would be suitable bit were unhappy with the height requirements.

“Twenty feet doesn’t really cut it,” he said. “I’m not quite sure if the historical commission actually looked at what that 20 feet affords you.”

Davidson suggested raising the maximum height to 25 feet.

Chair Kari Birdseye asked how the 20-foot limit was decided upon. Thorsen said it was to accommodate upper storage space. However, she suggested that staff was also recommending returning to the issue in a year to see how the ADU regulations are performing once some have been built.

“We may find that we pulled back too hard on some things and we didn’t think about others,” she said. “We can always relax this again later on if we find that it’s too restrictive.”

Commissioner Kathleen Catton motioned to approve the resolution with recommendations to the City Council to make minor corrections to wording, allow for the option of 25 feet and research temporary relief for a deed restriction requirement. The commission voted 4-0— commissioners Trevor Macenski and Elizabeth Radtke were absent— to approve the recommendation.

The commission will next meet Thursday, July 12.