[{"_1":2,"_121":-5,"_122":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6592651,"mediaKeyId","2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4","parentId",2809087,"title","Planning Commission reviews 2024 general-plan annual report; members press for stronger action on low-income housing","audioSeconds",926,"startMs",5860000,"endMs",6786000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4&start=5860&end=6786","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4/thumbnail_5860000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6592651/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-Commission-reviews-2024-general-plan-annual-report-members-press-for-stronger-action-on-low-income-housing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592651-f7cc79b25bbe66645c8815ad2b7d807b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206264&Signature=VkvywGxDaXlI8mBQqgg9GN4J-UANZKs-DmKGaiK-w0VYnROjkYgWaeVRKkgHUpDylpV4UnTKanNtJz6fJ1SJgYxsvTwI-LdZlAB9-eimF2kdT~-cSFn02VXUVa1MY7BwP5UPkMBxSkyfrt-wonAHIMPN6-WDtDJwwDyjivJF149W8adElAqSl-HHiXcUiSRGTZchmhlOw5R5SU8eg6E82FIoAqxpwNYxPaA8GUtjoeE4hjoN3R0ZsmNNTQKySzlO1NBS0QQMoRqC1EVo8wS3vmBd66RiY1Yox9i4WoQTacEBzxqY3PccfYtz3DNj6hGxcNT9Bx854KNMtexmysvfYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Sonoma, CA","date","2025-03-28T09:15:33.833Z","article","Planning staff presented the City of Sonoma’s 2024 General Plan Annual Progress Report and the housing-element implementation update at Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting, and commissioners used the discussion to press for new funding and land strategies to meet the city’s state-assigned housing targets.

Planner Diane (staff) told the commission the city’s housing allotment for the current RHNA cycle is 311 units. Since the beginning of the cycle, staff reported, a total of 39 new units have been permitted — 10 in 2023 and 29 in 2024. The presentation listed several larger projects and code updates in progress, including the Montaldo (50 units, 25% affordable component) environmental review and the Hummingbird subdivision (15 units, presently under construction). Staff also summarized code and procedural changes made to support housing production, including updates for two-unit development, urban lot splits, reduced parking requirements and a longer post-approval extension period for entitlements.

Commissioners and public speakers expressed concern that the city is falling far short on the low- and very-low-income components of the RHNA allocation. Commissioner Barnett proposed that the city consider direct acquisition or optioning of private parcels — citing the McArthur and Broadway site as an example — and use the Affordable Housing Trust Fund or partner with a nonprofit housing developer to enable low-income housing. Barnett noted the parcel’s asking price referenced in the discussion was about $4.6 million and urged the commission and council to pursue an option or acquisition strategy.

Other commissioners urged outreach to nonprofit affordable-housing developers and to explore surplus-government lands and partnership opportunities. Staff noted constraints: many public parcels are held with deed restrictions or were donated for specific public uses, and that state funding formulas prioritize corridors served by major transit investments, which limits certain statewide funding sources in some smaller jurisdictions. Commissioners suggested a focused effort — including ad hoc committees and partnerships with the business community and housing authorities — to identify funding, land-banking options and advocacy strategies. Several commissioners volunteered to serve on new ad hoc groups to explore general plan code changes, an affordable-housing trust fund strategy and demolition-by-neglect/ vacant-structure remedies.

Why it matters: Sonoma faces a sizable state-assigned housing target and several commissioners warned the city’s current pace of permitting is insufficient to meet low- and very-low-income housing goals. The commission’s direction to form ad hoc groups signals an intent to pursue local policy and funding options ahead of upcoming general-plan and zoning amendments.

What’s next: Staff will continue housing-element implementation tasks and bring draft code updates, an updated work plan and proposed ad hoc charters to the commission and City Council for direction. The commission’s ad hoc groups will identify options for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, potential land-acquisition strategies, surplus-site outreach and streamlining measures for production of smaller multifamily units.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Planning Commission - 27 Mar 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff reported 39 housing units permitted since the start of the current RHNA cycle and presented code and project updates; commissioners urged stronger action to close the city’s shortfall in low- and very-low-income housing.","taxTitle","Sonoma City, Sonoma County, California","taxId",72202,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6592654,"Planning Commission approves variances, design review for reconstruction at 792 Austin Avenue after detailed debate",2897,2601000,5498000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4&start=2601&end=5498","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4/thumbnail_2601000.jpg","/articles/6592654/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-Commission-approves-variances-design-review-for-reconstruction-at-792-Austin-Avenue-after-detailed-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592654-cd683007394c71a3e42f4e6d2e88be61/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206264&Signature=PAqM7hw2QSwq5nWFA20lkWkw9uQQCYqfkukr8VUT~zbFDga~aPfcsVVLlpX05xsP4A5EWUC82~QX3MJgpKOkV7xSnAVSjMIEf~oNGHMfe4JNDHpD~EUP~5YoYcD4YQljtmnAtUeDMOniQAomk~vuco3h-x0TlkzBkAABCQBqO~Bt~oAgAYrQ2XkZHVyLvpiS8By~c2eVk~xTzW910rpaxMx7EXK0dBhNacxK4BTNmTaCUyjBDeBqewUCZleXB-LHWA2LF0PZ~TymuPgI3Irbqk9zyId1VKED4poeE7lgh39al7HLGtwr5mi7Ybjv6ETY4nsa7r6M~iC5uTK7ILZoDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sonoma Planning Commission unanimously approved variances and design review for a near-complete reconstruction and additions at 792 Austin Avenue after extended discussion about setbacks, floor-area ratio and neighborhood impact.

The 1951 house sits on a 0.1-acre (4,250-square-foot) corner lot in the historic overlay and Residential Low zone. Staff told commissioners the project triggers multiple variances because the scope of demolition and reconstruction means the house would not qualify for treatment as a nonconforming structure; the proposal effectively constitutes a new house. The owner’s design team requested five variances for setbacks and increases in floor-area ratio (FAR) and site coverage. Staff recommended approval subject to findings and conditions and provided suggested modifications commissioners could adopt to reduce impacts.

Architect and applicant George Bevin described the proposal as a 488-square-foot net addition to a compact corner lot and said design choices were driven by neighborhood scale and site constraints. “It’s probably the smallest lot in Sonoma,” Bevin said, and he described efforts to keep massing low, to place new volume toward the center of the lot, and to use high-quality, durable materials including stucco, stone and metal-clad windows.

Key project numbers cited by staff and the applicant:
- Lot size: 0.1 acres (4,250 sq ft)
- Existing FAR: 0.43; proposed FAR: 0.52
- Existing site coverage: 66%; proposed site coverage: 69%
- Proposed increase in living area: approximately 488 sq ft
- Identified setbacks: front 10'2\" (proposed to remain), street side 13'7.5\" (required 20'), rear setback current ~14'8\" to proposed 9'8\" in area of addition

Commission debate focused on Finding 4 (whether the variance would constitute a special privilege or be consistent with surrounding properties). Commissioner Willers said he was troubled by the extent of the FAR and site-coverage increases and suggested reducing the southern extension on the Chase Street frontage. Commissioner Barnett warned about precedent, noting that once multiple variances of this magnitude are approved, it may be difficult to deny similar requests elsewhere. Other commissioners, including O'Neil and Nugent, voiced support for the design and its single-story approach, saying a modest single-story expansion is preferable to a taller two-story alternative on a small lot.

Following discussion, the commission voted unanimously to approve the variance requests and design review as proposed, with the findings and conditions provided by staff.

Why it matters: The commission concluded that the corner-lot constraints and the desire to retain a single-story, context-sensitive design justified variances in this case, but several commissioners urged caution about precedent and emphasized the project’s compact massing and high-quality materials.

What’s next: Staff will finalize findings and conditions of approval; the owner may proceed to building permits consistent with the approved design and conditions.","The commission unanimously approved variances and design review for a substantial reconstruction and additions at 792 Austin Avenue, finding the lot’s small size and corner condition constrained buildable area. Commissioners debated the extent of nonconformity and potential precedent before approving the application.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6592659,"Planning Commission continues Brockman Lane addition exception, asks owner for construction schedule",1324,1294000,2618000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4&start=1294&end=2618","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4/thumbnail_1294000.jpg","/articles/6592659/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-Commission-continues-Brockman-Lane-addition-exception-asks-owner-for-construction-schedule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592659-1836374b116cf808d91e7772c9d14c45/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206264&Signature=VZoyB9nb7u~IGTnGAMaDiHuk8q55T0AeW3smGEixWRwHrSZU4KHVULu5ScCcvyLta52-FJxFqZZ0a7cBPKkOIbDVg-UCDP3xnYf9nQ5j8ExfGVbMB7IduKl9gH7gfS2SblS07ZUBS-QZYB5fWpxZfHcKlhP0u4ou-6t1~Oy3UHO7lJBW5awdtVc4wQ0QlC4Rqr6Lbf54eZTO0~HuSTv5Ki808Fn2uMj8VYPiH4cax-qKOHqAPYCbVuAnsUPRHyu0vhqmnEI1O-IyNhOBJBVt7jon2UJbJe4xOwFU9fJLvJoAg7CDcM964YaqEWgT1PADU~OpaYB7CKZA0jcFiLFDyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sonoma Planning Commission on Thursday continued deliberation on an exception request to expand a kitchen at 370 Brockman Lane after neighbors described prior long-running construction and noise problems and the applicant was not present.

The application would increase the floor-area ratio and site coverage on a house in the Sonoma residential zone. Staff said the project triggers an exception because the existing home and prior development do not meet current standards; staff recommended approval subject to findings and conditions. Two letters from neighbors expressing concerns were uploaded into the public record, staff said.

Neighbor Cheryl Costner, who lives next door at 366 Brockman, told commissioners she endured three years of disruptive construction when a previous renovation occurred and fears a similar long timeline for the current project. “It just dragged on and on,” Costner said. “We couldn't keep our windows open most times.” She said the ongoing noise, deliveries and contractor traffic reduced her ability to enjoy her property and asked for assurance the work would not take years.

Commissioners discussed the limits of their authority to impose construction timelines; planning staff and commissioners explained that building-permit inspection schedules are governed by state law and building-code inspection timetables. Commissioners noted the difference between approval of an entitlement and actual construction scheduling under building permits.

Because the applicant — identified in the packet as John Ballard (contractor) and with an absent property owner — did not appear, commissioners voted to continue the item to a later date and requested the applicant provide a construction schedule from the contractor. The motion to continue passed on a roll call with one commissioner recorded as voting no and the remainder voting to continue.

Why it matters: Neighbors’ testimony highlights that construction duration and noise can be a major source of friction in infill neighborhoods. While planning commissions decide entitlements and site exceptions, limits on regulating construction timelines can leave adjacent residents concerned about enforcement and the pace of work.

What’s next: The item will be re-noticed for a future hearing date; staff will confirm applicant attendance and include a contractor-provided construction schedule in the resubmitted materials.","The commission continued an exception request for a rear addition at 370 Brockman Lane after neighbors raised concerns about noise, construction duration and lack of applicant attendance. The commission asked the applicant to provide a construction schedule before the continued hearing.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6592665,"Planning Commission approves two design-review permits, adopts consent calendar",379,473000,852000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4&start=473&end=852","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4/thumbnail_473000.jpg","/articles/6592665/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-Commission-approves-two-design-review-permits-adopts-consent-calendar","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592665-6f341fe4d0b9ee97021666e57ffb61c4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206264&Signature=ihUokaIpbzwPdmec6~OhdCulQ3tk6-F7E94jPni-JOvfSdtFKD1nSDCysc4vABKEwDAXuNIeqQJvcnsNnxxsO4B93XlNRc84gAKZ~~QZsFSwqGA4QN7Z5FdA~wz1IRHeMmCbqZqEe6q3-W968xMTMe26S2tE7Mk92UDcRKYHeNMJAecV7gZFxNM3UcQ-syyLztbJsfSwWUMyScKszaM10AtS59RjkG4Mw~ASUEvd81LRwB0~ZXacFQy149o1mz5ridXz1plT5GQX4ddKqHYlxCAGJJwYF0gLoO3yNvjnWc4-7V38xmi6tJXl65Ehn~5evjXyFDM2d7r3WlX299hEoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sonoma Planning Commission on Thursday approved two design-review permits and adopted the consent calendar.

The commission voted unanimously to approve a new blue awning and related findings for the commercial property at 34 West Bain Street. Staff recommended the project and also asked commissioners to adopt a categorical exemption under the State CEQA Guidelines, citing sections 15301 and 15311. The applicant thanked city staff and said the replacement awning fabric is stronger than the prior material and is treated with a fire-retardant resin.

Commissioners also voted unanimously to approve a design-review permit and a categorical exemption (CEQA section 15301) for replacement windows at an existing single-family residence at 437 Andrew Street. Staff said the house is not in a historic overlay and the proposed replacement windows meet the design-review findings and conditions of approval.

The consent calendar — which included approval of minutes and authorization to install banners on the plaza — passed overall. The chair noted one abstention on the minutes from a commissioner who was not present at the prior meeting.

Votes at a glance:
- 34 West Bain (awning color change): approved; roll-call: Commissioners Nugent, O'Gorman Jenkins, O'Neil, Willers, Vice Chair Weirich, Chair Dunbach — all yes.
- 437 Andrew Street (window replacement): approved; roll-call unanimous.
- Consent calendar (minutes and plaza banners): approved; one abstention recorded on Item 3.1 (minutes).

Why it matters: The approved design changes are limited in scope, but the commission’s use of categorical CEQA exemptions and the unanimous roll-call votes clear the projects to move to the building-permit stage. The approvals also reflect staff and applicant coordination and the commission’s continued use of streamlined review for minor exterior changes.

What’s next: Applicants will proceed with building and permit submittals as applicable. Staff remained available to answer follow-up questions about permit timing and conditions.","The Sonoma Planning Commission unanimously approved an awning color change at 34 West Bain Street and a window-replacement design review at 437 Andrew Street, and adopted the consent calendar. Both design-review approvals were cleared under categorical exemptions in the State CEQA guidelines.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":103,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":106,"_51":117,"_53":118,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":119,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":120,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6592647,"Neighbors urge caution on Sebastiani rezoning, citing density and evacuation concerns",159,632000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2809087-72f5e42f6babda56bd1b51e7ad9ca7f4&start=473&end=632","/articles/6592647/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Neighbors-urge-caution-on-Sebastiani-rezoning-citing-density-and-evacuation-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592647-ac87d6bfd84b8ae426f8102254292247/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206264&Signature=eoAMCXfGqtjXU5Sfc1m93WzF8oaYgILmU-jh3XXzvr3mw5~WOXSCquA1djoI5pHhihuGATs5pHaMAhvzKQF~uC55tfBXxSCl~WnE-BcZ9GJpBfZXKx-HF9-6etGrVMkF5hjOpTcgn96P4F0cspgdcU8ZUpnHZ~mnodXR3-4QlaiIDSv03PMCaFbthWyYS8eCUa~CAE-UTOJhm4T6yPmstbKdA9RkEnjXvMlVbv4c5gXkm6i3upp-AoJLrBbCUK0ZdZFWcKUS7TnUkYfIk3G~5PAoWmoyd4E5iUHcx7PiJahgpmiFV80posEi3eqAVvZslbwpRuFjYFZ9ojbw6eXNIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the public-comment period, resident Carrie Gerster addressed the Planning Commission about early plans for a potential rezone of the Sebastiani warehouse site and urged the city to limit allowed housing density and consider fire-evacuation and driveway impacts.

Gerster said she lives adjacent to the warehouse driveway and has met individually with commissioners. She told the commission the current proposal’s density range — which staff described to the public as between 7 and 25 units per acre in the early concept — feels too high for the surrounding low-density neighborhood. “I feel that the current proposal of 7 to 25 units of housing an acre is too dense and should not be permitted,” Gerster said. She said the site is in an area of elevated fire risk and that higher density could complicate evacuations and increase vehicle traffic on narrow suburban streets.

Gerster suggested the city consider mixed land uses across the site — for example, allocating lower-density housing to portions of the property while dedicating other areas to commercial uses — and recommended keeping density closer to the existing Sonoma residential category of up to eight units per acre. She also asked the city to note that a narrow driveway connecting the warehouse parcel to East Bain Street is adjacent to several historic homes and that driveway changes could substantially affect those property owners.

Why it matters: The Sebastiani site is in the early conceptual stage for potential rezone and future development. Public comment highlights neighborhood safety, traffic and historic-property concerns that commissioners and staff may need to address as rezoning concepts and a zoning map are developed.

What’s next: The comment will be part of the public record. If and when the city advances a formal rezoning or specific plan for the property, the Planning Commission will take up the project in a noticed public hearing with staff analysis, environmental review and formal opportunities for written and oral public comment.","During public comment, a resident urged the commission and city to limit density and consider fire-evacuation and driveway impacts in the early-stage Sebastiani rezone discussion. The speaker recommended aligning new zoning with Sonoma residential limits and flagging historic homes bordering site access.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission reviews 2024 general-plan annual report; members press for stronger action on low-income housing

Planning Commission approves variances, design review for reconstruction at 792 Austin Avenue after detailed debate

Planning Commission continues Brockman Lane addition exception, asks owner for construction schedule

Planning Commission approves two design-review permits, adopts consent calendar

Neighbors urge caution on Sebastiani rezoning, citing density and evacuation concerns