[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6579764,"mediaKeyId","3045439-7ff196eb8b75982ee118f29e07c5b832","parentId",3045439,"title","Staff proposes redesign of design‑review rules; commission discusses limiting historic design review to resource properties","audioSeconds",1652,"startMs",4844000,"endMs",6496000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045439-7ff196eb8b75982ee118f29e07c5b832&start=4844&end=6496","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045439-7ff196eb8b75982ee118f29e07c5b832/thumbnail_4844000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6579764/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Staff-proposes-redesign-of-designreview-rules-commission-discusses-limiting-historic-design-review-to-resource-properties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579764-bf2f33cf242a6fa72d94579b8e2745cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206965&Signature=W4MYmIOOEKrTRc~L9YWBKO-78rag69NpgqGrAb87pl6jZyHON34C-~BKvq6jPaNMheDguUOUUw3bl6DN~h-xUSXHe4XGqEftAVfGQUGhVIwDzw5lddp2r5bMqOCWG07X4FxEQdWrm0DWHWuDAC58-TfBnLpTw0ohVt291baBniNbW6Us3pzultauvyprHlb~9rBEa51iRHfrdJxdF9AMfPJCO8UuR-MEEj225r08KnNm9KBVEtj3cpz-QRu~EeOwNEMDm5grNKSk6YDUKJpNsdoNdslR8TiJDc5IP8PQDOdsLIq-0JQKjcep70l9yuMgqjycBw7uOJtr2VuH-nThxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Sonoma, CA","date","2025-04-18T03:16:54.247Z","article","SONOMA CITY — At a study session on April 17, city planning staff proposed a rewrite of Sonoma City’s design‑review procedures intended to clarify when projects require major review, when they can be handled administratively and which projects are fully exempt.

Community Development Director Jennifer Gates and staff outlined the rationale: fewer stand‑alone design‑review cases are triggered under current code and much of today’s design review overlaps with historic‑resource review. The proposal would route most design‑review decisions to the Planning Commission for projects that meet defined thresholds (examples: new commercial/public structures; residential additions that create a new upper story or exceed 15 feet above adjacent grade; new multifamily over a size threshold). Staff proposed a separate administrative minor review for smaller exterior changes with mailed and posted notice and an appeal path to the Planning Commission.

Staff also proposed narrowing the Historic Preservation Commission’s duties to focus on citywide surveys, nominations and public education rather than routine project design review; staff said that would preserve a recommending body that focuses on historic resources while moving decision‑making to the Planning Commission for clarity and consistency.

Key elements discussed

- Major vs. minor review: Major review would apply to large commercial/public projects, additions above a percentage/size threshold, and projects that add visible new upper stories. Minor review would be an administrative process for smaller additions, exterior changes not visible from the public right of way and limited parking improvements; minor approvals would be noticed and appealable to the Planning Commission.

- Exemptions: Staff proposed exempting many ordinary maintenance items — routine window replacements that match predominant materials, reroofing with Class A materials that do not change pitch or dimensions, repainting unless the paint was specified as a condition of approval, and reconstruction of conforming structures after damage when rebuilt to the original footprint.

- Historic resources: Windows, roof materials and other character‑defining elements on properties listed or eligible for listing in the local register would be treated more conservatively (\"like‑for‑like\" replacement recommended). Gates said staff will propose separate language clarifying which historic properties remain subject to review and which routine maintenance items could be administratively handled.

- Fees and process: Staff said projects would pay for historic resource evaluations (HRE) if a building’s eligibility is unknown; staff is seeking to establish standard fees where consultants are used. The department plans a citywide historic‑resource survey subject to funding.

Commissioner questions focused on notice, appeals, the boundaries of what triggers design review, and practical examples (for instance, when an HOA paint change or a roof replacement requires review). Commissioners asked staff to clarify window language (percent of windows replaced vs. predominant material) and to make the exemptions/tests more explicit in the draft code.

What happens next

Staff said they will return with a formal ordinance draft that incorporates the study‑session feedback and with edits clarifying appeals, notice periods, eligibility processes and how the Historic Preservation Commission would be reconstituted for an advisory/survey role. The department intends to request funding for a citywide historic‑resource survey and an evacuation/safety study tied to the general plan process.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 17 Apr 2025","oneSentenceSummary","SONOMA CITY — City planning staff presented a package of proposed changes to the design‑review process at a study session April 17, proposing to move most major project decisions to the Planning Commission and refocus the Historic Preservation Commission on survey and advisory work.","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},6579769,"Neighbor voices concern over broad reclassification of Sebastiani Winery property in public comment",6680,250000,6930000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045439-7ff196eb8b75982ee118f29e07c5b832&start=250&end=6930","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045439-7ff196eb8b75982ee118f29e07c5b832/thumbnail_250000.jpg","/articles/6579769/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Neighbor-voices-concern-over-broad-reclassification-of-Sebastiani-Winery-property-in-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579769-1286ae1ba940d61ae8d4c400447e076f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206965&Signature=LoX-OUyVoGSupi~Or2BjyP7gstaY2X7yptET25SMP3dIh9ABemsE~IWmVjWutwEyRaskyq3At9RK4z3WOKxfQnCvj9dguGq6TAbRDEZ1QIEvL4Myrk8IthhYaUBqlxYBfdzkt~lAJBjJnpHUpqz8Wev9gJ5Y7AYHY2lEEPoIgvz8nwvX-iP~~qa7h8WeJTcmEyhVtGkDY1Uhpik28yLQo9vngibW5jxaffqSC5vswzcPAS6JojRFaIJDidv3mxQIhK4Zmpi8Y06rk2cW-zk1v6qitEdL3R20Ba4YsbcCbaAb0KGY0qJUyq~0sEEqJEhCFdJ3iBN6b0ZyRC31N3G3JA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","SONOMA CITY — During the public‑comment period at the April 17 Planning Commission meeting, Becky Sager of Wilking Way urged commissioners to reconsider a proposed broad reclassification of the Sebastiani Winery property in the draft general plan.

Sager said she and nearby residents are not opposed to development but are alarmed that the current draft uses a broad Sonoma mixed‑use designation that, in her view, no longer limits commercial uses to visitor‑oriented activities and now lists housing as “high‑density.” She urged the city to retain agricultural and park space and to reconsider housing density across the property because of wildfire evacuation and congestion concerns.

\"We really need somebody to say, 'Hey, we're hearing you and this is what we think,'\" Sager said during public comment. She referenced a Sonoma area fire evacuation study and the recent Cal Fire reclassification of properties, which she said increased the area’s wildfire hazard designation.

Why it matters: The comment reflects neighborhood concern that broad land‑use categories in a general plan draft could enable higher‑density housing and expanded commercial uses on a large property adjacent to established residences. The issues raised — evacuation capacity, fire‑risk mapping and compatibility of new uses with open space — intersect with public‑safety, traffic and long‑term planning choices that will be addressed in later steps of the general‑plan process.

What the speaker asked for: Sager asked the commission to \"reconsider the blanket reclassification of this land, that you keep the agriculture and the park space that already exists, and that you reconsider the density of the housing.\" She asked for clarity about how residents can find out whether the city is considering their suggestions and what the next opportunities for input would be.

Staff and process notes: The public comment occurred during the non‑agenda public comment period; no formal action on the general plan or the Sebastiani parcel was taken at the April 17 meeting. City staff later noted in the meeting that the general plan process will include additional elements, studies (including a safety/evacuation study) and public comment opportunities. The director said comments are being collected and will be part of the draft elements and environmental review when they are prepared.

Next steps for residents: City staff said the general plan drafting process will generate draft elements and environmental analyses that will be released for public review; additional public comment opportunities will follow while code amendments and implementing regulations are developed. The commission’s role at this stage is to review agenda items; further policy direction on the general plan would follow staff analysis and formal public hearings.

","A resident told the Sonoma City Planning Commission she and neighbors are frustrated that the draft general‑plan language reclassifying the Sebastiani Winery property to a broad \"Sonoma mixed‑use\" category does not reflect prior concerns about density, fire risk and preserving agricultural and park space.",{"_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},6579774,"Planning commission approves house additions, food truck permit and three design items in unanimous votes",1340,2416000,3756000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3045439-7ff196eb8b75982ee118f29e07c5b832&start=2416&end=3756","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3045439-7ff196eb8b75982ee118f29e07c5b832/thumbnail_2416000.jpg","/articles/6579774/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-house-additions-food-truck-permit-and-three-design-items-in-unanimous-votes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579774-56b4f8a1f40aafd8f0d0856783c9c0af/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206965&Signature=gyE6B7Aq2V3hHdcxeENwu6fn83FhOjbS80S21Jb1ms6WCRJH82c13xAM2C2Hu6u5HTi8xHHX4eYyVQb3E9lZx9xzv5-ab6FXij64l5-muKZc1V8vdI~y6G5kLG11H9XP21zzCddVRxoFpbWl1zCTwYu4oIvt8HgYrhn~0hnzlb64A4FTe7I5oGM1gjaERyRF6QvWYZOB7YgmGLJXpdlb74TrhXr0cyjt30lQbUi8zBInE9uhs6zspR9GlWwm~gQXR3N9sbRQbvw0sk1ImAP~df3WVCCRfKPI7sZzdFXvZfsaBBk-2cqaTXEIcbEUvQS5hh7Z3q6l17M2VlVMAQFu5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","SONOMA CITY — The Sonoma City Planning Commission on April 17 approved four land‑use permits and confirmed the March meeting minutes in unanimous roll‑call votes.

The commission voted to approve an exception request for an addition to a residence at 370 Brockman Lane; a use‑permit modification to allow a food truck (El Coyote) to operate at 455 West Napa Street alongside existing businesses; a modified design review and variance for a remodel at 429 Brazil Street; and a use permit for outdoor seating and a reduction in rear parking at 31 East Napa Street (the restaurant Mosaic). The commission also approved the consent calendar (March minutes) without comment.

Why it matters: The items affect housing and neighborhood development rules (the Brockman Lane exception), small business operations and parking in the downtown plaza (food truck and Mosaic), and design approvals for an historic‑area residence (Brazil Street). Each action was framed as either minor design or site‑specific compliance and carried without objection.

What the commission voted on

- 370 Brockman Lane: The commission approved an exception request for an addition to an existing single‑family residence on an 8,540 square‑foot lot. Staff said the addition would not change the property’s use or cause negative impacts; staff recommended approval and asked the commission to adopt a categorical CEQA exemption. The motion passed unanimously on roll call (Commissioners Nugent, Wellers, Barnett, Vice Chair Weyrich and Chair Donbach recorded aye votes).

- 455 West Napa Street (food truck, “El Coyote”): The commission approved a use‑permit modification to allow a food truck to operate on a commercial 8,840 square‑foot lot that already hosts Wingo Motorcycles and Cafe Scuderia. Staff described operating rules in the application: Wingo Motorcycles and Cafe Scuderia hours 6 a.m.–12 p.m.; El Coyote hours 12 p.m.–10 p.m.; bollards/planters to block the eastern driveway during food‑truck service; two standing tables; one portable sign; trash/recycling on site. Staff recommended approval under the applicable use‑permit findings and the commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.

- 429 Brazil Street (design review/variance): The commission approved a modification to a previously authorized design review and variance for a remodel in the historic overlay. Staff said the project is a modest redesign of a roof and includes a roughly 40‑square‑foot kitchen bump‑out; the project alters roof truss direction and raises the front elevation from about 13 feet 6 inches to about 15 feet but remains below the 30‑foot maximum. Staff recommended approval of the categorical CEQA exemption for existing facilities and the commission voted unanimously to approve the modified design review.

- 31 East Napa Street (Mosaic; outdoor seating/parking reduction): The commission approved a use permit allowing outdoor seating in the rear parking area, adding 18 exterior seats to the previously approved maximum of 20 indoor seats, with conditions requiring compliance with the city’s lighting and noise regulations and the Alfresco program standards. Staff noted the code requires retaining at least four grandfathered parking spaces for the restaurant use; planning staff recommended approval and offered the commission the option to approve a temporary permit if desired. The commission voted unanimously to approve the permit.

How the votes were recorded

Roll‑call votes for each motion show unanimous support. In each case commissioners recorded aye votes in this order during the roll calls: Commissioner Nugent; Commissioner Wellers; Commissioner Barnett; Vice Chair Weyrich; Chair Donbach. Specific movers/seconders were not consistently named in the audio record; where a speaker made the motion the transcript records the speaker saying “I will make a motion,” but the transcript does not always attach a full printed name to that speech.

Staff recommendations and CEQA

Staff recommended categorical exemptions under CEQA for the Brockman Lane addition, the food‑truck permit and the design review changes, citing the State CEQA Guidelines categorical exemptions for existing facilities (State CEQA Guidelines §15301). The commission adopted staff recommendations in each case.

Next steps

Approved permits and exceptions proceed to the building‑permit/administrative implementation steps or are implemented under the conditions adopted by the commission. Any party seeking to challenge an administrative approval must follow the city’s appeal procedures.

Votes at a glance

- Exception request — 370 Brockman Lane: approved unanimously (ayes: Nugent, Wellers, Barnett, Weyrich, Donbach). Motion: recommend approval of the exception and adopt categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines §15301). Notes: applicant-present; timeline and parking impacts discussed; neighbor questioned site‑coverage basis for the exception.

- Use permit — 455 West Napa Street (El Coyote food truck): approved unanimously. Motion: recommend approval of use‑permit modification to add food truck and related site controls. Notes: operating hours and blocking driveway with planters/bollards discussed; applicants present (owner of Cafe Scuderia and food‑truck operator).

- Design review/variance — 429 Brazil Street: approved unanimously. Motion: recommend approval of modified design review and categorical exemption for existing facilities. Notes: changes include a new roof plan, a 40 sq. ft. kitchen bump‑out and modest height increases; project remains within maximum height.

- Use permit — 31 East Napa Street (Mosaic outdoor seating): approved unanimously. Motion: approve outdoor seating in rear parking area and categorical exemption; conditions for lighting/noise and Alfresco program compliance included. Notes: staff reported letters of support (26) and two letters of concern; public comment from neighbors and business supporters recorded.

","The Sonoma City Planning Commission on April 17 unanimously approved an exception for a single‑family addition at 370 Brockman Lane, a use permit for a food truck at 455 West Napa Street, a revised design review for 429 Brazil Street and a use permit allowing outdoor seating at 31 East Napa Street. Minutes from March were also approved.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Staff proposes redesign of design‑review rules; commission discusses limiting historic design review to resource properties

Neighbor voices concern over broad reclassification of Sebastiani Winery property in public comment

Planning commission approves house additions, food truck permit and three design items in unanimous votes