[{"_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",6455645,"mediaKeyId","5796934-4192e702459e01cd3620874aee9dbe00","parentId",5796934,"title","Planning commission approves Montalvo Apartments EIR and entitlements for 50-unit rental development","audioSeconds",3267,"startMs",483000,"endMs",3750000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5796934-4192e702459e01cd3620874aee9dbe00&start=483&end=3750","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5796934-4192e702459e01cd3620874aee9dbe00/thumbnail_483000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6455645/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-Montalvo-Apartments-EIR-and-entitlements-for-50-unit-rental-development","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455645-9e9eb6615d03bde454230f53e0a1de5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151348&Signature=AI7fh67glkUvzgoat28wy-8Btn45RsozW1FrfynTL8QRxRmVC6-NW7w9Sk6Q5BDIffy38fNo1B-vMWEi4yOvtXPkw2KzqoHo6zMv3txCIPuJ8v61udjJeH6ZALfs2QGMAUJVuWV5qF6q1HDKkCO6cdCFgPUXHKLRYDuWWV905edgn3W~gDDpXnrucCwXxyzaccay3wPbEyIDTaGcfODlefBCj19ewBOf3NTrm3tf9B27BTHfYyCS97SlNULSRt-bDvIjigBMpRpbCvmxzfLqHdwW3xTgKCKSYfgSJPmIe6km1kCO0rGJ9sgkGlWtODNS98r-icHGPn2hU00HmZRHwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Sonoma, CA","date","2025-09-19T16:07:53Z","article","The Sonoma City Planning Commission unanimously approved the entitlements for the Montalvo Apartments project on Sept. 18, voting to certify the final environmental impact report (EIR), adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approve accompanying design review, a density bonus request, a demolition permit and a parcel merger for a 50-unit rental community at 19320 Sonoma Highway.

The project site would consolidate two parcels into a 2.15-acre development and remove an existing single-family house that staff determined eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. The applicant, Denova Homes, proposed seven buildings with a mix of two- and three-story units and a total of 50 rental apartments; 25 percent of the units (13 apartments) would be deed-restricted affordable, distributed across income categories labeled by the applicant as extremely low, very low and low income.

Why it matters: the commission had to weigh unavoidable environmental effects tied to demolition of an eligible historic resource against the public benefits the city found the project would provide. Because the EIR found a significant, unavoidable impact to historic resources, the planning commission adopted a statement of overriding considerations to approve the project while also adopting the MMRP that lists mitigation measures the city will implement as conditions of approval.

Staff presentation and project details

City staff described the project timeline, environmental review triggers and the entitlements requested. According to staff, the project originated with a preliminary SB 330 housing application submitted in 2021 under the state Housing Crisis Act of 2019; that filing vested certain development fees and objective standards at the time the preliminary application was deemed complete. After supplemental studies and a CEQA process that included a draft EIR, the final EIR was published in August 2025.

Staff noted the site sits on the east side of Highway 12, near multifamily and single-family neighborhoods and commercial properties to the north and west. The applicant proposes 50 rental apartments in seven buildings, providing approximately 89 parking spaces primarily within garages and roughly 24,000 square feet of common open space, including a central multipurpose turf area and a children's play zone. Twenty-five percent of units (13) are proposed as deed-restricted affordable housing: the staff and applicant materials list 8 low-income, 3 very-low-income and 2 extremely-low-income units.

The EIR identified demolition of the existing home as a significant environmental impact due to the house's historic-eligibility determination; the EIR therefore analyzed project alternatives. The consultant and staff explained the environmentally superior alternative was an on-site relocation of the historic structure, but that alternative was judged financially infeasible and inconsistent with project objectives given structural, hazardous materials (lead and asbestos) and relocation cost estimates provided in the record.

Applicant and public comments

Carrie Watt, director of entitlements for Denova Homes, summarized revisions the applicant made since the initial 2021 study session and described the project's unit mix, parking layout and landscaping approach. She said the affordable units would be dispersed across buildings and that the project meets applicable development standards except for one requested concession to the floor-area ratio (0.70 to 0.71) and one waiver for a portion of a trash enclosure setback. Watt described site constraints (grading, sewer connections, retaining walls and tree protection measures) and said her team intends to begin construction next year, subject to final approvals and standard biological and construction-season constraints.

Two members of the public spoke in favor of the project during the hearing. Omar Lopez, policy coordinator at Generation Housing, said the project \"represents the kind of thoughtful housing Sonoma needs\" and urged the commission to certify the EIR and approve the project. Caitlin Cornwall of the Sonoma Valley Collaborative also supported the development, while noting the collaborative intends to monitor that the dedicated below–market-rate units serve intended households over time.

Commission discussion and action

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant about SB 330 protections, the nature and scope of the density bonus and the difference between waivers and concessions. Staff and the city attorney explained SB 330 (the Housing Crisis Act framework) preserved the project's vesting of objective standards when the preliminary application was deemed complete and that density-bonus concessions and waivers are allowed by state law when projects provide qualifying affordability. Staff clarified traffic study findings — approximately 350 vehicle trips per day, about 20 AM-peak and 28 PM-peak hour trips — and outlined standard construction-period mitigation for noise, dust and traffic control.

Several commissioners expressed reservations about unit mix (noting the project is predominantly two-bedroom units) or about the limits of local discretion given state housing laws, but the commission voted unanimously to approve the two resolutions on the staff agenda: (1) certify the final EIR, adopt the MMRP and make findings (including the statement of overriding considerations), and (2) approve design review, the requested density bonus, demolition permit and parcel merger for the proposed 50-unit rental development. The motion passed on a recorded roll call with all members voting aye, including the youth member.

Next steps and conditions

The project approval includes standard conditions described in the staff report and the MMRP. The entitlement approvals are exercisable for the statutory period provided in the city's code; the developer may seek building permits and must comply with the mitigation measures in the MMRP (including biological surveys, construction best-management practices, and historic‑resource mitigation measures specified in the EIR). Staff noted nesting-bird and other seasonal restrictions could affect timing of certain construction activities. The entitlements may be transferred or sold, but any substantive changes to the approved project would return to the commission for review.

Actions

The planning commission adopted two resolutions authorizing the environmental certification and discretionary entitlements for the Montalvo Apartments project. The record shows a motion to adopt both resolutions was made and seconded and the motion passed unanimously on roll call (all members present voted aye). The action includes certification of the final EIR, adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adoption of the statement of overriding considerations for unavoidable historic-resource impacts, and approval of design review, density bonus (including one requested concession and one waiver), demolition permit and parcel merger to permit construction of the 50-unit rental community.

Ending

Materials referenced at the hearing include the final EIR, the staff report, mitigation monitoring and reporting program and design review exhibits; the record also includes consultant reports on structural condition, hazardous materials, and relocation cost estimates for the existing house. The applicant and staff indicated construction timing is contingent on final permit processing, mitigation timing (including bird-nesting season restrictions) and market conditions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 18 Sep 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Sonoma City Planning Commission unanimously certified the Montalvo Apartments final EIR and approved related entitlements Sept. 18, allowing a proposed 50-unit rental development on Sonoma Highway to move forward despite an identified, unavoidable historic-resource impact.","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},6455635,"Planning commission reviews conservation and open‑space draft; commissioners press for clarity on implementation and wildfire resilience",4657,5443000,10100000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5796934-4192e702459e01cd3620874aee9dbe00&start=5443&end=10100","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5796934-4192e702459e01cd3620874aee9dbe00/thumbnail_5443000.jpg","/articles/6455635/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-commission-reviews-conservation-and-openspace-draft-commissioners-press-for-clarity-on-implementation-and-wildfire-resilience","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455635-1e9a78bb0d6f8f0c10f4c0e31e4ede12/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151348&Signature=maf0fhJvCbRYtiIm1PnCDXH9uR3z6d5-Tocgsh3cwrrWYgLWBq21xoAsYRlY3s1YDYBOzopilvzvmAN8PEL~o0lN04jMzi7bGZLSna~aHXVAeKSegOubCn2FOsSxUoXq2BB6-pcU5Fd15pRZk8U6Z48uqf~LA8QgyzQsosvmYE5rVMg5y6haI3A10isUdZhOc8nifa-jaAgd1FPwRwgyIdPee05gz~WoWinAGR6iqaferRqxdSEewrvZSytnAP4JnWXZgXWgs38rP80zJQ-QFngg~eJdae6PmFHM8FR2FZ677NUCpynIOEw9Y5t6ebYQBggrw22vvAzaLkDXXxEjkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sonoma City Planning Commission spent substantial time on Sept. 18 reviewing the draft Conservation and Open Space element of the city's general plan, probing the level of implementation detail, enforcement expectations and how the element should address wildfire resilience, groundwater and tree‑canopy strategies.

Staff context and timeline

Planning staff said the element is one of several being reviewed in a multi-month update cycle; comments from the commission would be compiled with feedback from other local stakeholders and the general‑plan consultant. Staff asked commissioners to submit any additional edits by the next day so staff could bundle remarks for the consultant. The commission will revisit remaining elements at future meetings, with the next circulation element review scheduled for an upcoming session.

Level of specificity and implementation responsibilities

Commissioners asked whether the element should list detailed, prescriptive actions — such as required on-site soil surveys for landscape projects or specific buffers and nesting‑bird mitigation steps — or remain higher level. Staff and several commissioners noted that certain implementation details are used as standard mitigation measures in discretionary project review and that the general plan often includes specific actions to create a self-mitigating policy framework that project reviewers can apply.

Wildfire resilience and tree canopy

Several commissioners raised wildfire-related tensions: state and insurer-driven requirements for defensible space, tree trimming and vegetation management can conflict with urban canopy objectives and other cooling strategies (shade trees, permeable surfaces). Commissioners asked that the conservation element better cross‑reference wildfire preparedness and resiliency measures (vegetation management, defensible space, coordination with utilities and PG&E) and clarify enforcement responsibilities. Staff confirmed the city is participating in a county hazard‑mitigation update and that the safety element will address emergency hazards in more depth.

Climate standards and groundwater

Commissioners flagged that the draft references AB 32 and SB 32; staff agreed to flag more recent state greenhouse‑gas standards for consultant review. Groundwater and stormwater capture were discussed as actions the city could promote; staff noted existing local ordinances (water‑efficient landscape rules) and said staff will consider clarifying when soil studies or groundwater‑capture measures are triggered in project review.

Process and next steps

Staff reiterated the review timetable, noting several elements remain to be reviewed (land use, safety, utilities) and that comments would be assembled for the consultant. Commissioners asked staff to identify accountable departments for each action and to ensure realistic timelines and funding paths are evident in the implementation program. The commission did not take formal votes on the draft element but directed staff to incorporate the commission’s comments into the consolidated comment package for the consultant.

Ending

The conservation and open-space element review identified areas for editing (level of detail for mitigation and implementation, wildfire language, groundwater/soil clarifications and a tree‑canopy inventory). Staff asked commissioners to submit remaining comments by the deadline to ensure the consultant receives consolidated feedback.","Commissioners reviewed the draft Conservation and Open Space element of Sonoma's general plan, discussed specificity of action measures (including bird‑nesting protections), groundwater and canopy studies, and requested clearer assignment of responsibilities and timelines for implementation.",{"_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},6455640,"Commission approves ordinance amendments clarifying awnings and projections into public right of way",1701,3799000,5500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5796934-4192e702459e01cd3620874aee9dbe00&start=3799&end=5500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5796934-4192e702459e01cd3620874aee9dbe00/thumbnail_3799000.jpg","/articles/6455640/Sonoma-City/Sonoma-County/California/Commission-approves-ordinance-amendments-clarifying-awnings-and-projections-into-public-right-of-way","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455640-0215e2744440cd9093a08801301d92b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151348&Signature=CqZMLv68fdZpqGPksV8hfe52vzLG92vNoRWk9-0Z0ttkhWbw09~I6ukfeUve5abtxlZ2EYNaAymCPuKfG~1QsOoJLayF-hsQi9te6C8QopQFsyY9ffW~pY2aovH8HI~ynddAsIgALYCaipf5VI1EGDEroqKS0m6Gw3LxpFpjPW0lIp1jinDFTySWZX-rbF2RpgPnMCjafBerZC0lcPnG~5h9g8O5RSjQhR3p5VvMF8q-2uCuMeUnKveOuh5wAlvf39BXI5Kx9nLaYeoD9PVs-6CPuj3Rm8jPInomhhQEIrq4OyB1V-JMaaw3Rtds-ESkz9R9PWQgefzYzfbMLwf~xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sonoma City Planning Commission on Sept. 18 approved amendments to municipal design-review language intended to clarify when awnings, marquees and similar projections into the public right of way can be treated as exempt from design-review review by staff and when they should be referred to the commission for review.

Staff presented revised language to reduce subjectivity and to specify objective thresholds for projection width, clearance and placement relative to storefront openings and architectural features. The proposed amendments amend provisions in the design review and public‑right‑of‑way sections of the municipal code (referenced in the staff presentation as sections 19.41.10(d) and 19.54.080(d)).

What changed

Staff explained the amendments remove vague terms and add clear measurements and placement rules: awnings should generally fit within a storefront opening or associated commercial window opening, be set at a minimum clearance so pedestrians do not strike a valance, and may not project closer than three feet from the curb where typical street furniture or utilities are located. Staff also proposed limits intended to keep awnings subordinate to the building’s architectural features (for historic and contributing buildings, awnings should not exceed the storefront bay or transom area).

Commission discussion

Commissioners and staff reviewed several photographs of local awnings and marquees to illustrate where staff would allow an administrative exemption and where larger, building‑wide canopies would trigger design review. Several commissioners said the visual examples helped clarify the policy intent; others raised maintenance and enforcement questions for existing awnings with worn fabric or damaged structures.

Public comment and outcome

Tom Graves of Sonoma urged staff to retain design flexibility and recommended that, where property owners disagree with a staff determination, owners be able to bring the matter to the commission. After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the amendments as presented (with the clarified reference to window head/sill language), a second was recorded and the motion passed unanimously on roll call. The commission’s action leaves existing awnings in place (grandfathered) but requires compliance with the new standards when an awning structure is replaced or substantially modified.

Next steps

The ordinance amendments will be incorporated into the municipal code language as adopted by the commission and staff will implement the clarified administrative exemption process; items that exceed the stated dimensions or that wrap building-wide will be routed to design review. Staff indicated ongoing coordination with the city attorney’s office to finalize ordinance text before publication.

Ending

The changes were framed as an effort to reduce subjectivity in staff-level reviews while reserving the commission’s oversight for awning or canopy treatments that meaningfully alter a building’s appearance or affect the public right of way.","The planning commission unanimously approved changes to design-review exemptions and right‑of‑way projection rules to clarify how awnings, marquees and canopies are treated on commercial storefronts and when projects must return to design review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission approves Montalvo Apartments EIR and entitlements for 50-unit rental development

Planning commission reviews conservation and open‑space draft; commissioners press for clarity on implementation and wildfire resilience

Commission approves ordinance amendments clarifying awnings and projections into public right of way