On Monday, August 3, 2026, a standing-room crowd filled The Saloon at the Jack London Lodge to hear Permit Sonoma Director Scott Orr. He told them the draft environmental report for the former Sonoma Developmental Center would likely come out in September. Four weeks later, Permit Sonoma posted an update saying the draft "will not be ready for release in 2026." Orr now expects spring 2027, The Press Democrat reported.
Most coverage treated the delay as the news. For anyone weighing a home in Glen Ellen or Eldridge, a different exchange from that night matters more. When residents asked whether the county's own plan for the site could limit how many homes get built, Orr said no. That answer changes who has a say over the 180-acre campus on Arnold Drive.
The plan on file isn't the plan in charge
The developer chosen by the California Department of General Services, or DGS, is Eldridge Renewal. It's a partnership between Napa-based Rogal & Partners and The Grupe Company of Stockton, and DGS selected it in February 2025. The current proposal calls for 990 homes, 130,000 square feet of commercial space and a 150-room hotel on the core campus. Under a 2025 version of the application, 200 of those homes would be deed-restricted for lower-income households.
The housing count got that high through California's builder's remedy. The provision sits inside the state's Housing Accountability Act. When a jurisdiction is out of compliance with state housing rules, it lets developers bypass local general plans and zoning to build at higher densities. Sonoma County was out of compliance when the SDC developers filed their latest plan, so the project qualified, according to the Sonoma Index-Tribune's account of the forum.
Here is how the Index-Tribune summarized Orr's explanation:
The builder's remedy allows a developer to sidestep local planning documents, with no pathway for local appeal of that state-conferred status. At SDC, that means the project is not bound by the area's specific plan or the county's General Plan.
Orr described his agency's role as limited. It oversees the environmental report, written by a county contractor, and then the Board of Supervisors decides whether that study and its mitigation measures are adequate. He also described a narrow exception. In theory, a project could be denied a permit and lose builder's-remedy status if it would cause irreparable harm to public health and safety.
So the familiar way to read a neighborhood's future, by pulling the zoning and the adopted plan, doesn't work on this parcel. Two processes will set the outcome. One is the environmental impact report. The other is a lawsuit aimed at the state agency that owns the land.
This is a general explanation of a state housing law as local reporting described it. It isn't legal advice, and anyone whose purchase depends on how it applies should confirm the details with a qualified land-use attorney.
Lever one: the environmental review, now on a 2027 clock
This is the county's second attempt. In late 2022, the county approved a Specific Plan and EIR for the campus. In October 2024, Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Brad DeMeo set both aside under the California Environmental Quality Act, after a suit by Sonoma County Advocates for a Livable Environment, known as SCALE, and Sonoma County Tomorrow. Reports differ on that earlier plan's housing count. The Sonoma Valley Sun puts it at 750 homes, while a January 2024 Press Democrat account said up to 620. Either way, that plan no longer stands. Permit Sonoma and its consultant, Dyett & Bhatia, are now studying both a new Specific Plan and the Eldridge Renewal proposal.
Orr told The Press Democrat the delay comes from technical studies that depend on one another, including traffic, land use and emergency access. "We can't release just parts of it," he said. Under state law, the report must also analyze alternatives. Those include a no-development option and a historic-preservation alternative that would keep historic core buildings and develop around them.
Once the draft is released, these steps follow:
- A 30-day public comment period opens.
- Permit Sonoma considers all comments before the draft moves to the Sonoma County Planning Commission.
- The Board of Supervisors decides whether the study and its mitigation measures are sufficient.
Spring 2027 is the earliest the first step can start. The county hasn't announced dates for the later steps.
Lever two: a lawsuit against the landowner
The second process targets DGS, not the county. Sonoma Valley Next 100 sued the state agency over how it handled the property. The Sonoma Valley Sun lists the group's claims:
- DGS chose the Rogal-Grupe team before a Specific Plan was in place. The group argues this conflicts with enabling legislation that says surplus state property should first be offered to nonprofit affordable housing sponsors.
- DGS signed the developer's builder's-remedy application before an adopted Specific Plan, EIR and General Plan Amendment existed.
- DGS didn't consult the California Office of Historic Preservation about its demolition plans.
- DGS hasn't maintained the property as required. State-budgeted maintenance funds ended June 30, 2025.
- DGS approved transferring 50 acres at the site's southeast corner, along Highway 12, to expand a CAL FIRE facility.
On March 11, 2026, Judge Pat Broderick rejected DGS's motions to strike the suit, allowing it to proceed. Next 100 has also filed a writ of mandamus, which the Sun reported as set for a hearing in November. Norman Gilroy, a Sonoma architect who helps guide the group, told the paper that a successful writ would effectively halt the county's planning process. No exact hearing date has been published. In September, the Sonoma Index-Tribune reported that the case was moving into discovery and that the group was raising $150,000 to $200,000 for the next phase.
Residents at the August forum asked whether the county could pause its review until the case was resolved. Orr said it couldn't stop work on a permit because of a separate process outside its control. That means the two tracks run on separate calendars, and either one could reset the other.
What's settled, and what isn't
For a buyer, the practical question is what will sit beside a Glen Ellen or Eldridge property over the next few years. The parts of the site differ widely in how certain they are.
| Part of the former SDC | Status as of October 2026 | Who controls it |
|---|---|---|
| Roughly 650 acres of open space | Transferred to California State Parks January 1, 2024; slated to become part of Jack London State Historic Park | California State Parks |
| Camp Via, 11.4 acres | Transfer to Jack London State Historic Park announced complete June 3, 2024 | California State Parks |
| 180-acre core campus | Proposal under review; no approved entitlement; draft EIR expected spring 2027 | DGS owns it; county reviews environmental impacts |
| 50 acres along Highway 12 | Proposed CAL FIRE expansion; no reported construction or schedule | Challenged in the Next 100 suit |
The open space is the settled part, and people use it now. State Parks keeps it open for hiking, biking and horseback riding during interim management. A July 2026 State Parks newsletter describes two routes: the flat Sunrise/Baker loop, about 45 to 50 minutes, and an unpaved walk of about 2.5 miles around Lake Suttonfield. Suttonfield and Fern Lake still belong to the local water district, and fishing and swimming are prohibited. Dogs other than assistance dogs are allowed only on paved roads. State Parks says the land will be formally added to Jack London State Historic Park through a public General Plan Amendment process. That includes its own EIR, though no meeting dates have been posted.
The core campus is still in limbo, under state maintenance. In early October, the Sonoma Valley Fire District found the campus in compliance with county fire code after DGS restored hydrants that had been out of service for at least six months because of a water main break. Supervisor Rebecca Hermosillo said DGS had found funding for a security team. Temporary fencing now surrounds buildings damaged by copper theft and vandalism, along with areas where crews are doing soil and water testing for the environmental review. Permit Sonoma says the fencing is temporary and isn't expected to block public access to the adjacent open space. No source reports demolition, a groundbreaking or construction infrastructure on the campus.
Taken together, the reporting points to a clear outlook. Through at least 2027, the campus will be a fenced, state-maintained site under review, next to permanent public parkland. The open space is effectively locked in. Everything about the campus waits on an environmental report that doesn't exist yet and a court case whose next hearing has no published date.
Questions buyers ask about the SDC site
Is the 990-home plan approved? No. It's a proposal under environmental review. The only plan the county ever approved, in 2022, was invalidated in October 2024.
Can the county shrink the project through its Specific Plan? According to Orr's account at the forum, no. The builder's-remedy status frees the project from the Specific Plan and the General Plan. The county's tools are the environmental review and the health-and-safety exception he described.
What will the environmental report study? Reporting lists wildfire, traffic, noise, water, air quality and other resources. Emergency access on Arnold Drive is among the studies still being finished.
Where can I follow official updates? Permit Sonoma posts project notices on its SDC project page. That's where the 2027 delay was first announced.
If you're looking at a home in Glen Ellen or Eldridge and want to understand where the SDC process stands, Berg Group can walk you through the latest county and court milestones and show you the trails and lanes around Arnold Drive firsthand. Request a tour, and we'll plan the visit around the questions that matter for that particular property.
