The Historic Preservation Review Commission (HPRC) held a study session on interim design standards for multi-family housing proposals put forth by Senate Bill 35 at its Thursday meeting.

The goal of SB 35 is to require cities to approve qualifying multi-family housing projects consistent and objective and design review standards when the California Department of Housing and Community Development decides that an agency has issued fewer building permits than its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). It went into effect on Jan. 1. In March, the Benicia City Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance that halted work/live quarters and established objective planning standards for mixed-use and residential housing developments subject to a streamlined ministerial review per SB 35. A presentation was delivered to the Planning Commission in July but did not elicit discussion. As the Planning Division is working on a zoning text amendment to establish permanent design standards before the expiration of the interim ordinance on March 20, 2019, a stakeholder meeting with affordable housing providers and design professionals on Aug. 17 to solicit feedback. The Planning Division also sought feedback at the HPRC meeting on Friday via a study session.

Associate Planner Charles Enchill said the purpose of the study session was to encourage affordable housing with existing development, and the objective was to develop feasible design requirements that “won’t be too burdensome or prohibit affordable housing development.”

Enchill said that SB 35 applies to Benicia.

“It applies if there is a housing development with at least two residential units and at least 10 percent of those units are affordable,” he said. “The state has determined different affordability levels for various jurisdictions throughout the state of California, and Benicia, someone would just have to provide 10 percent of the units on site as affordable to qualify for a ministerial process.”

Enchill said ministerial permits would be possible in areas that allow residential and mixed-use development. However, he said there would be areas that would be exempt from Senate Bill 35. These would include non-urbanized areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as well as hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas such as coastal zones, wetlands, earthquake fault zones, hazardous waste sites, floodplains or conservation easement lands. Moreover, the project may not involve the demolition of historic structures, rent-controlled housing or housing occupied by tenants in the last 10 years.

In terms of building heights, Enchill said the city was proposing a maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum eave height of 30 feet for SB 35 eligible projects. Additionally, a first floor would be a minimum of 12 feet, and the second floor a minimum of 9 feet.

Enchill also went over building form. Under the proposal, courtyards are required in the Arsenal District and two-story and rooftop desks are not permitted.

“We were worried about privacy concerns for second-story rooftop decks when there’s no design review involved, so for the interim standards, we proposed that there were no second-story rooftop decks,” he said. “That’s something that, along with everything else, is open to consideration.”

Commissioner Gilbert von Studnitz asked what the definition of a historic structure was for the purposes of the bill.

“I don’t know if the state defined it, but I believe it’s defined as a local resource, state-designated resource or a national resource,” Enchill said.

Chair Tim Reynolds asked how often the city would be revisiting the topic. Principal Planner Suzanne Thorsen it would likely be brought back twice.

Reynolds asked what would constitute demolition of a historic structure. Enchill said he did not think demolition was defined in the zoning ordinance but speculated that any kind of modification to the existing portion of a historic structure would be subject to review.

“We would need to address that in the standards to be clearer,” Thorsen said.

Reynolds asked if California Environmental Quality Act exemptions would be applied to the modification of historic structures.

“To modification: yes, to demolition: no” Thorsen said. “We are allowed to adopt our own development standards, we are allowed to adopt our own objective planning standards. Obviously, we need to coordinate with HCD (Housing and Community Development) and flesh out this discussion a bit more, but I think if we were objectively to say the project must do this, then I think we may be able to address some of the concern that I think you guys expressed.”

Further information on SB 35 can be found on the city of Benicia’s website at ci.benicia.ca.us.

There were no other business items on the agenda, but Reynolds dedicated the meeting to local author, historian and historic preservation advocate Donnell Rubay, who died on Aug. 2. Reynolds even gave a report on her 2011 children’s novel “Emma and the Oyster Pirate” about an encounter with Jack London.

The HPRC is next slated to meet on Thursday, Sept. 27.