The Penngrove Station Project DRH24-0005:
A Long, Sloppy Gameplan with High Stakes for Penngrove
From the outset, the timeline of the Penngrove Station Project reveals a deliberate strategy by the developer, Martin Sessi:
2021 – Developer Martin Sessi receives approval of a Lot Line Adjustment of a small easement in front of Penngrove Market, combining the two and splitting the larger Penngrove Station parcel into two lots - the large yellow area is the approximate original lot, the red box is the adjusted lot for this 12-unit residential project:
2022 – Lot Line Adjustment recorded by the Sonoma County Assessor.
Feb 2023 – Sonoma County falls into Builder’s Remedy, a punitive measure by the State that strips counties of zoning rights when they fail to meet the State’s Housing EIR deadline; Builder's Remedy" allows developers to bypass many typical and strict local zoning requirements in exchange for providing projects with a minimum of 25% affordable housing.
Aug 2023 – Supervisors meet to approve housing sites to satisfy the State’s Housing EIR requirements and to begin process of bringing an end to Builder’s Remedy; during this meeting, the developer submitted his Builder’s Remedy application for Penngrove Station at 6 p.m. PST as soon as housing was assigned to 9 sites in Penngrove; HOWEVER, when the developer submitted his application to take advantage of all the benefits of Builder’s Remedy he used the wrong Parcel Number or APN, and wrong site address. Supporting materials referenced the parcel number for the original Penngrove Station lot before the split 047-166-023 which no longer existed as of 2022 when the developer split one lot into two as described above. Technically and legally, any one of these errors should have meant his Builder’s Remedy application was invalid unless corrected within a certain time period, which it was not. (The requirement for the correct APN will be addressed in more detail below.). The applicant signed a letter of Indemnification in the application holding the county harmless for any mistakes he made.
Oct 2023 – The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified Sonoma County Housing EIR, ending the opportunity to file for Builder’s Remedy.
Nov 2023: Sonoma County planning director Tennis Wick announces in a radio interview: "...since we now have a certified housing element, builder's remedies that weren't perfected can no longer be processed"; it should be noted that because the developer had not corrected or “perfected” the APN or Permit Number issue on his Builder’s Remedy application at the time of the permit director’s statement, Sonoma County is in violation of its own stated policy when it comes to this Builder’s Remedy application. Per the planning director’s own words, this application “...can no longer be processed,” yet for some reason Sonoma County keeps processing it and allowing the project to move forward with Builder’s Remedy.
Critical Issues:
Builder’s Remedy (Government Code § 65589.5(d) section5) is being applied to a parcel that, by county density metrics (16–20 units/acre), should normally only support 2–3 units.
Because the original pre-application granting Builder’s Remedy used the wrong Parcel Number and address, the developer should not be allowed to take advantage of any Builder’s Remedy benefits like the ability to build 12 units where normally only 2-3 would be allowed or Bonus Density Parking..
Permit Sonoma has taken the position that an APN and address are simply general references and not binding to a project or Builder’s Remedy application despite their requirement on the pre-application form on Section B.
However, accurate parcel identification is a legal requirement under SB 330, SEC. 8. Section 65941.1(a)(1) . This is not a clerical detail—it is a foundational element of any Builder’s Remedy application. As the law states:
If Permit Sonoma and the Board of Supervisors allow DRH24-0005 to proceed despite these errors, they will:
Violate the requirements of State law, as shown in the point above;
Contradict public statements made by Permit Sonoma leadership, like Director Wick’s November 2023 statement;
Set a precedent for revisiting rejected Builder’s Remedy applications, potentially reopening controversial projects such as the Sonoma Developmental Center proposal;
Undermine public trust by creating the perception of favoritism toward a specific developer.
Why It Matters
If this is allowed to stand, future developers will learn they can bypass basic requirements. Should the county again fall out of compliance during the next housing cycle in 2028—as has already happened—developers will know they can submit flawed applications and still move forward.
The Real Cost of “Housing at All Costs” to Penngrove
The project will bring added parking demands to downtown Penngrove, without providing anywhere near enough parking for its new tenants and guests; this lack of required parking for the project is allowed only because of Builder’s Remedy.
Loss of parking will threaten local businesses; for instance, closure of Penngrove Market because the new Penngrove Station with 12 apartments would monopolize most of the parking currently available to shoppers; this would mean the loss of a local business that has in just over six years become the hub of the community, and its loss would also create a food desert in Penngrove. It would also violate a signed lease with the market that has a guarantee of 16 of the 20 available spaces through 2028.
Overflow of Parking would impact not only those businesses in Penngrove Station but also the US Post Office, the Grove, mid-town and uptown as parking is scarce in Penngrove.
Increased traffic congestion.
Narrow easement impeding emergency services. By law a firelane shall be constructed to provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet according to Sonoma County Municipal Codes 19.12.030 section b.2;
Additional strain on an already overburdened sanitation system which is currently being assessed and a report is slated for December 2025 to assess sewer capacity.
Waste management complications due to lack of turnaround space for service.
The Housing EIR may satisfy state paperwork, but in practice, many sites listed in Penngrove will never yield real housing—only the appearance of progress on paper.
Why We Must Protect Penngrove
Penngrove sits between two larger cities, retaining a rural charm and historic character rooted in the legacy of pioneers and the railroad. Our identity lies in our neighborliness—where we know each other’s names, wave in passing, and look out for one another.
We are not opposed to change. We welcome growth that respects the history, pace, and spirit of our town. But we will not accept projects that erase the very qualities that draw people here.
To save Penngrove Station is to protect our legacy. We call for collaboration with developers, planners, and county officials to ensure that future growth strengthens Penngrove, rather than diminishes it.
You Can Take Action -Sample message or write your own.
Note in your Subject line: Penngrove Station Project # DRH24-0005
“Penngrove Station Project # DRH24-0005 has adverse impacts on parking, sewer, sanitation, and emergency response. The applicant’s paperwork is riddled with mistaken APN numbers. Accurate parcel identification is a legal requirement under SB 330 and Government Code § 65589.5(d). This is not a clerical detail—it is a foundational element of a valid application.
Traffic and parking impacts alone are likely to cause small business failures.
I am not opposed to change, but growth must not erase the qualities of Penngrove.”
Signed – name, address, phone, email
Send comments to this list of email addresses:
Ms. Azine Spalding, County Permit Dept.
azine.spalding@sonomacounty.gov