City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
iv | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
International Conference of
Building Officials
Northern California Emergency
Response Committee
President Sacramento Valley
Chapter ICBO
Committee Chairman California
Energy Regulations 1986
Audit Committee California
Building Officials (CALBO)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Business Development Director--------------------------------- 2010 – Present Shums Coda Associates, CA
Mr. Knox oversees the operations, quality control, marketing, and client relations of the Building Inspection, Plan Review, and administrative support. His responsibilities include preparing rough drafts for proposals, developing offsite training programs, and overseeing the augmentation of all Building Department Services.
Educator----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Over the past four decades, Mr. Knox has had the privilege of conducting comprehensive training programs nationwide, centered on diverse subjects such as customer service, transformational leadership, time management, and building codes. The target audience for these programs has been government agencies. These programs have been tailored to provide comprehensive guidance and support to attendees, facilitating their growth and development in their respective fields.
Operations Manager--------------------------------------------------- 2008 – 2009 KC2A
Oversaw the quality control, marketing, and client relations of the Building Inspection, Plan Review, and administrative support. Prepare rough drafts for proposals, prepare offsite training programs, and oversee all the augmentation of all Building Department Services.
Division Manager Code Compliance – West --------------------- 1997 – 2008 Bureau Veritas North America
Director of Education -------------------------------------------------- 2001 – 2007 Lp2A Training Institute, Citrus Heights, CA
Chief Building Official-------------------------------------------------- 2005 – 2006 County of Tehama
Chief Building Official-------------------------------------------------- 1997 – 2005 City of Citrus Heights
Chief Building Official------------------------------------------------------- 20 years City of Grass Valley
Temporary Instructor-------------------------------------------------- 1990 – 1991 Butte College, Oroville, CA
Building Inspection Technology Program and Building Department Administration and Law.
Building Inspector / Plans Examiner ------------------------------- 1979 – 1984 Community Development Department, Yuba County, CA
*Full Resume can be provided if requested.
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
v | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Kurt McMullin, P.E.
Senior Plan Check Engineer
Education
Ph.D., Civil Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley
M.S., Civil Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley
B.S., Agricultural Engineering, Iowa
State University
Licenses & Certifications
Professional Civil Engineer, State of
California, License # C47595
Publications
Books (5)
Patents (1)
Peer-Reviewed Journals (9)
Online Webinar (1)
National/International Conference
Papers (32)
External Funded Grants & Awards
(11)
Awards (Partial List)
College of Engineering Researcher
of the Year (2008)
National Science Foundation
Research Grant - $1.3M (2006)
College of Engineering Teacher of
the Year (2006)
National Science Foundation
Research Grant - $8.4M (2003)
College of Engineering Award:
Research on College Teaching and
Learning Institute for Teaching
and Learning (2000)
CUREe-Caltech Research Grant -
$87K (1999)
Graduate Student Instructor Award,
U.C. Berkeley (1995)
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Kurt McMullin is an experienced design engineer and college professor, that oversees our staff of plan review engineers. He has reviewed every type of structural system and building type, as it relates to the four building materials (wood, steel, concrete, and masonry). Mr. McMullin’s wealth of theoretical engineering application and practical design experience allows for our structural reviews to be focused and on-point for only critical structural issues.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plan Check Engineer---------------------------------November 2015 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Reviews complex plans for building construction.
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Professor --------------------------------------------------------------2008 – Present San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
Teaches the following courses:
Engineering Graphics, AutoCAD and Programming (Lower division required), Statics (Lower division required), Mechanics of Materials (Upper division required), Mechanics of Material Laboratory (Upper division required), Structural Analysis Laboratory (Upper division required), Design of Steel Structures (Upper division elective), Design of Timber Structure (Upper division elective), Earthquake Resistant Design (Upper division elective), Advanced Seismic Resistant Design (Graduate elective), Advanced Steel Design (Graduate elective), Structural Engineering Seminar (Graduate elective), Special Problems (Graduate elective), Master’s Thesis (Graduate elective) Consultant-------------------------------------------------------------1991 – Present • Evaluation of building designs for conformance with U.S. and California building codes.
• Evaluation of various engineering structural systems for performance goals. • Forensic engineering for legal proceedings.
• Analytical evaluation of complex structural systems.
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
vi | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Rouhi El-Rabaa, P.E., CASp
Senior Plan Check Engineer
Education
Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering,
California State University, Los
Angeles
Licenses & Certifications
Professional Civil Engineer, State of
California, License # 92565
Certified Access Specialist (CASp),
Cert # CASp-973
ICC # 8868081
ICC Building Plans Examiner
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Rouhi El-Rabaa is a skilled professional with private consultancy and municipality experience. He is an expert in identifying architectural, structural, accessibility, MEP, and energy compliance issues early in the plan review process. Rouhi is an experienced structural plan review engineer but also reviews non-structural systems. Rouhi will provide all types of plan reviews for our core team but will be the primary contact point for any CASp/accessibility issue that may arise with plan reviews.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plan Check Engineer -------------------------------December 2021 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Supervising Plan Check Engineer --------------------Dec. 2018 – Dec. 2021 Willdan Engineering, San Bernardino, CA
• Conduct full scope plan reviews for various disciplines, including architectural, structural, fire-resistive, accessibility, energy, MEP, and green. • Electronic review (Bluebeam, ePlansoft, Adobe) and paper plan review. • Highly experienced reviewing the following types of buildings; single-family and multi-family residential, hotels, mixed-use, medical clinics, industrial, commercial, assembly, factory-built, and miscellaneous structures such as conveyors and platforms.
• Technical structural calculation review for regular and irregular buildings, podium structures, tilt-up construction, steel buildings, modular buildings, components, and freestanding structures.
• Train staff to recognize proper non-structural and structural design methodologies in plan review.
• Prepare correction letters issued to applicants as hardcopy or electronic. • Design coordination meetings with design professionals and permit applicants.
Plans Examiner--------------------------- December 2017 – December 2018 City of Redlands, Redlands, CA
Graduate Structural Engineer ------------------------Feb. 2015 – Nov. 2017 Arcadis Design & Consultancy, Doha, Qatar
Student Worker------------------------------------------------------- 2005 – 2011 L.A. County DPW, Alhambra, CA
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
vii | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Ryan Loh, S.E.
Plan Check Engineer
Education
M.S. in Civil Engineering, San Jose
State University
B.S. in Civil Engineering, Oklahoma
State University
Licenses & Certifications
Professional Structural Engineer,
State of California, License # 5192
Professional Civil Engineer, State of
California, License # 5491
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Ryan Loh is an accomplished structural engineer that has 30 years of experience in design and plan reviews. Ryan reviews the more complicated structural systems and complex building types; however, Ryan can also review nonstructural systems. .
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plan Check Engineer -----------------------------------------------2017 - Present Shums Coda Associates
• Reviews complex plans for building construction.
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients. *Additional past work history can be provided if requested.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Office Building Projects -------------------------------------------------------------- Mountain View Research Center, Mountain View
San Rafael Business Park, San Rafael, CA
Novellus Tualatin, Tualatin, OR
Police City Service Center, Menlo Park, CA
Multi Units Projects------------------------------------------------------------------- Opportunity Center of mid-peninsula, Palo Alto
Holiday Express Inn, Watsonville
Sleep Inn, San Jose, CA
Retail Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mckevitt Volvo, San Leandro, CA
Mckevitt Lincoln and Volvo, Margate, FL
Mitsubishi Dealership, Victorville, CA
Fountains Building M, Roseville, CA
The Plant, Building 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 9 and 10, San Jose, CA Nut Tree Outlet, Buildings 2, 3 and 4, Vacaville, CA
Creek Bridge Village, Building R1 and R3
Church Projects------------------------------------------------------------------------- Golden State Baptist Church, Santa Clara, CA
Foothill Community Church, San Jose, CA
Twin Palms Church, San Jose, CA
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
viii | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Su Fong, P.E.
Plan Check Engineer
Education
M.S. Civil Engineering, San Jose
State University
B.S. Architectural Engineering,
California Polytechnic State
University
Licenses & Certifications
Civil Engineer, State of California,
License # 89055
Professional Engineer, State of
Colorado, License # PE. 0060863
Civil Engineer, State of Nevada,
License # 030674
Professional Engineer, State of
Utah, License # 12972852-2202
ICC # 8391877
ICC Building Plans Examiner
Memberships
Union Local 21 South Bay Chapter
—Secretary/ Treasurer of AEA
Board
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Su Fong has almost 10 years of design engineering experience, jurisdictional plan review experience and private consulting plan review service. Su has demonstrated the ability to review and coordinate large-scale building code plan reviews, with multiple phases and complex engineering systems. She provides excellent communication of code concerns and works with applicant/designers to facilitate quick solutions, with a goal to keep projects on schedule. Su is equally adept at non-structural reviews, as well as structural concerns.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plan Check Engineer------------------------------------ October 2021 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Associate Engineer------------------------------- June 2015 – September 2021 City of San Jose, CA
• Examine construction documents for new mixed-use buildings, commercial tenant improvements, industrial improvements, multi-family dwellings, and single-family dwellings for compliance with local building codes and ordinances.
• Facilitate meetings and correspondence between applicants and associated Development Services departments to advance the permitting process. • Advise owners, architects, engineers, contractors, and developers of code requirements through the design process and construction phase. • Inform the Public of local zoning, M/P/E, energy conservation, and fire protection regulations relating to building codes in order to mitigate critical design oversights.
• Collaborate with building inspectors, M/P/E inspectors, code enforcement inspectors, planning, public works, and fire engineers to streamline the permit process and resolve field issues.
• Manage project timelines based on target dates, resource assessment, and situational diagnosis by balancing priority, organized multitasking, and anticipating conflicts.
• Ensure life safety through code enforcement while maintaining professional customer service.
Design Engineer----------------------------------- September 2013 – June 2015 Applied Engineering, Milpitas, CA
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
ix | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Ehab Barakat
Plan Check Engineer
Education
B.S. in Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI
Licenses & Certifications
Licensed EIT
ICC # 9626572
ICC Residential Plans Examiner
ICC Residential Building Inspector
ICC Electrical Plans Examiner
ICC Commercial Electrical Inspector
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Ehab Barakat has nearly five years working for jurisdictions as a plan checker, providing full reviews for residential, multi-family residential and commercial/industrial projects. Ehab will be taking his PE exam in March and looks to complete his CASp certification in the summer.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plan Check Engineer----------------------------------December 2024 - Present Shums Coda Associates
• Reviews complex plans for building construction.
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Senior Plans Examiner -------------------------March 2022 – December 2024 Willdan
• Articulate nuanced interpretations of complex building codes and serving as a reliable point of reference for project teams and clients alike. • Use knowledge of building codes to help the team and clients understand what will work best in real-world construction.
• Review structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, green building, and energy requirements for compliance with adopted building codes for both residential and commercial projects.
Plans Examiner------------------------------ September 2021 – February 2022 Bureau Veritas (Part-Time)
• Prepare correction letters to document deviations in submittals and provide applicants with recommendations to meet minimum code requirements. • Respond to questions from architects, engineers, and owners regarding codes and other issues with projects.
Plans Examiner------------------------------ September 2020 – February 2022 City of Glendora
Plan Examiner Engineer --------------------------- March 2020 – August 2020 RADCO
Bridge Design Engineer -------------------------- May 2019 – December 2019 MDOT
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
x | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Alberto Barrios Marquez, P.E.
MEP Plans Examiner
Education
Bachelors of Science in Mechanical/
Electrical Engineering, University
of Guadalajara, GDL., Jalisco,
México
Licenses & Certifications
Professional Engineer, State of
Colorado, License # PE.0041140
Master Electrician, State of
Colorado, License # ME.0026505
ICC Building Plans Examiner
ICC Mechanical Plans Examiner
ICC Plumbing Plans Examiner
LEED AP BD+C, U.S. Green Building
Council
Certified Spanish
Translator/Interpreter
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Alberto Barrios Marquez has been in the industry for 25 years, 22 of which have been as a Plans Examiner. Alberto is an electrical plans examiner that can also do various nonstructural reviews. He is certified as a master electrician with the State of Colorado.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
MEP Plans Examiner----------------------------------December 2020 - Present Shums Coda Associates, CO
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing ----------------- 2006 – December 2020 Code Consultant
Colorado Code Consulting LLC, Denver, CO
*Acquired by Shums Coda Associates in December 2020
Plans Examiner III -------------------------------------------------------2002 – 2007 City of Aurora, Aurora, CO
Project Engineer---------------------------------------------------------2000 – 2002 Belfay Engineering, Denver, CO
Foreman/Master Electrician------------------------------------------1999 – 2000 Quality Electric, Denver, CO
Production Supervisor -------------------------------------------------1998 – 1999 IBM of México – Guadalajara, JAL., México
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xi | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
David Logsdon
Plans Examiner
Education
Associated Builders and ContractorsElectrical 4-year Program Licenses & Certifications
ICC # 5317382
ICC Residential Electrical Inspector
ICC Electrical Plans Examiner
ICC Commercial Electrical Inspector
ICC Electrical Inspector, Certification
Safety and Health Practitioner, State
of Nevade Division of Industrial
Relations
Master Electrician, State of
Maryland, License # 2270
(Inactive)
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
David Logsdon is a complete plans examiner, but he is extremely knowledgeable in electrical reviews of medium and high voltage systems. Prior to his long career with Clark County, NV, where he served as Building Plan Review Manager; David was the project manager for the expansion of terminal 3 at the Harry Reed Airport/McClaren Field.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plans Examiner--------------------------------------------- April 2021 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Manager Plans Examination-------------------August 2019 – August 2020 Department of Building & Fire Prevention, Clark County Government Manage all aspects of the plan review process. I organize, administer, coordinate reviews, and evaluate the work of plan examination and associated staff through subordinate supervision. Coordinate and oversee projects that are reviewed by a contracted consultant, plan check employees, verify service provided and authorize request for payment. Participate in new employee interview process, attend staff meetings, and confer with and represent the department with developers, engineers, architects, contractors, and property owners to give information regarding codes, regulations, and procedures.
Assistant Manager ----------------------------- October 2017 – August 2019 Department of Building & Fire Prevention, Clark County Government Managed the Plumbing Mechanical, Electrical, and Residential Plan Examiner staff.
In addition to these duties, I manage the hired consultant staff and their work assignments. These duties include:
• Assigns daily work schedules to Plans Examiners and consultant staff. • Provide technical assistance consistent code interpretation to staff and the public.
• Assist customers with the resolution of complex or difficult situations to ensure that the plans will comply with codes and regulatory requirements. • Attend meetings with developers, engineers, architects, contractors, and property owners to give information regarding codes, regulations, and procedures.
• Participate in the new employee recruitment process.
• Prepare and administer Employee Performance Reports.
*Additional past work history can be provided if requested.
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xii | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Dean Kuenzi, CBO
Plans Examiner/ Building Inspector/ Instructor
Education
B.S., Colorado State University –
Global, Present
A.S. - Energy Systems Photovoltaics,
Diablo Valley College
Licenses & Certifications
ICC # 8173711
ICC Commercial Electrical Inspector
ICC Combination Inspector
ICC Commercial Energy Plans
Examiner
ICC Residential Plans Examiner
ICC Commercial Building Inspector
ICC Accessibility Inspector/Plans
Examiner
ICC Fire Plans Examiner
ICC Residential Mechanical Inspector
ICC Master Code Professional
ICC Certified Building Official
ICC Building Plans Examiner
ICC Fuel Gas Inspector
ICC Residential Electrical Inspector
ICC Commercial Plumbing Inspector
ICC Residential Plumbing Inspector
ICC Residential Building Inspector
ICC Commercial Mechanical
Inspector
ICC Plumbing Plans Examiner
ICC Residential Energy
Inspector/Plans Examiner
ICC Building Inspector
ICC Mechanical Inspector
ICC Electrical Inspector
ICC Plumbing Inspector
ICC Building Code Specialist
ICC Plumbing Code Specialist
ICC Residential Combination
Inspector
ICC Commercial Combination
Inspector
NABCEP Entry Level Certification
(Photovoltaic)
Post-Disaster Safety Assessment
Program (SAP)
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Dean Kuenzi has been in the industry for 23 years. Dean can provide complete plan reviews and specializes in electrical systems, as he teaches courses on the electrical codes, as well as having extensive experience with construction and inspection of these building systems. Dean leads much of our large PV solar array reviews.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plans Examiner-----------------------------------------October 2020 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Building Inspector ------------------------------------October 2020 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Enforce codes to the extent of stopping work or occupancy of a building, when necessary, until requirements are satisfied.
• Read and interpret building codes, plans, and specifications. • Detect hazards and violations and recommend corrective measures during field inspections.
• Follow through to ensure that final inspections for all departments are completed in a timely manner.
• Operate a computer to access and use permits and inspection records. • Establish and maintain effective working relationships with the jurisdiction building department and the general public.
Instructor------------------------------------------------October 2020 – Present Shums Coda Associates
Operations Supervisor ------------------------------- January 2019 – Present Building Inspector III------------------------- February 2016 – January 2019 El Dorado County, Placerville, CA
Building Inspector---------------------------------May 2014 – February 2016 Town of Danville, Danville, CA
*Additional past work history can be provided if requested.
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xiii | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Myron Williams
Plans Examiner/ Building Inspector
Education
General Education Courses, Utah
Valley State College
National Electrical Code
Davis Area Technology Center,
Kaysville, Utah
Licenses & Certifications
Combination Inspector, State of
Utah, License # 4958496-5601
ICC # 5044251
ICC Mechanical Inspector
ICC Accessibility Inspector/Plans
Examiner
ICC Plumbing Inspector
ICC Mechanical Plans Examiner
ICC Residential Energy
Inspector/Plans Examiner
ICC Electrical Inspector
ICC Building Plans Examiner
ICC Combination Inspector
ICC Building Inspector
ICC Commercial Combination
Inspector
Memberships
Utah Chapter of ICC, Bonneville
Chapter
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Myron will serve as our plan review team leader on mechanical and plumbing systems, as Myron has extensive experience with construction and inspection of these building systems. Myron has an extensive career in complex plan review projects and coordinating team comments to provide a focus on critical code issues. Myron has reviewed prison expansions, hospital construction, large office campus construction and several large-scale multi-family housing projects.
Mr. Williams has been in the industry for over 25 years. He has been the acting Building Official for Centerville City for 10 years and does inspections & plan reviews for multiple jurisdictions.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Building Inspector-------------------------------------- February 2021 – Present Shums Coda Associates, UT
• Enforce codes to the extent of stopping work or occupancy of a building, when necessary, until requirements are satisfied.
• Read and interpret building codes, plans, and specifications. • Detect hazards and violations and recommend corrective measures during field inspections.
• Follow through to ensure that final inspections for all departments are completed in a timely manner.
• Operate a computer to access and use permit and inspection records. • Establish and maintain effective working relationships with the jurisdictions building department and the general public.
Plans Examiner------------------------------------------ February 2021 – Present Shums Coda Associates, UT
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify plan check comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Building Official/ Plans Examiner/ -------------------------------------- 20 Years Building Inspection/ Project Manager Examiner
Sunrise Engineering
*Additional past work history can be provided if requested.
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xiv | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Barbara Rice, CBO, CFM, EFO
Fire Service Manager
Education
M.S. in Public Administration/
Emergency Management,
Columbia Southern University
B.S. in Fire Science, National Fire
Academy Executive Fire Officer
Program, Columbia Southern
University
Fire Service Leadership, EMT, Haz
Ops for First Responder, Yavapai
Community College:
Fire Science Classes, Portland
Community College
A.A., Skyline College, San Bruno, CA.
Licenses & Certifications
(Partial List)
ICC # 0863852
ICC Safety Assessment Program
(Disaster Mitigation)
ICC Certified Fire Marshal
ICC Building Plans Examiner
ICC /AACE Property Maintenance
and Housing Inspector
ICC Fire Inspector II
ICC Permit Technician
ICC Fire Plans Examiner
ICC Certified Building Official
ICC Zoning Inspector
ICC Permit Specialist
ICC Fire Code Specialist
IFSAC
Fire Inspector I
Fire Inspector II
Plans Examiner
Fire Investigator
IAAI-CFI
Certified Fire Investigator
Safety Assessment Program, (Disaster
Mitigation)
Arizona State Fire Training Committee
Fire Instructor I
Fire Instructor II
State of Colorado – Division of Fire
Prevention and Control
Fire Inspector III – Plans Examiner
Fire Inspector I
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Barbara Rice has 24 years in municipal and local government as a building official, plans examiner, fire marshal, inspector, permit technician, code enforcement and fire investigator. Barbara can provide complete plan reviews and specializes in fire systems, as Barbara teaches courses on fire codes, as well as having extensive experience with construction and inspection of these building systems.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Fire Service Line Manager------------------------------January 2022 – Present Shums Coda Associates
Responsible for all fire plan review, inspection, and evaluation reports on behalf of our jurisdictional clients and various fire districts throughout Arizona, Utah, Montana, Nevada, California, and Colorado.
Arizona Regional Manager-----------------------------January 2022 – Present Shums Coda Associates
Responsible for business services and client relations in Arizona. Serves as local point of contact and project manager for plan review, inspection, staff augmentation and other services provided.
Adjunct Faculty ----------------------------------------- February 2008 – Present Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ & Yavapai Community College, Clarkdale, AZ • Teach fire code, investigation, prevention, and public education courses for Fire Science program.
• Develop curriculum for new courses and material.
Building Safety Manager/ ------------------------------- Sept. 2020 – Jan. 2022 Building Official/ Fire Marshal
Town of Sahuarita, AZ
Community Development Director/Fire Marshal--Feb. 2020 – Sep. 2020 Town of Florence
Plans Examiner/ Fire Marshal-------------------------- April 2012 – Feb. 2020 City of Casa Grande, Casa Grande
Fire Marshal ----------------------------------------------May 2007 – March 2012 Camp Verde Fire District
Reserve ------------------------------------------------------ Sep. 2006 – May 2009 Verde Valley Fire District, Cottonwood, AZ
Building Safety Manager ------------------------------Sep. 2006 – March 2007 City of Glendale, AZ
Fire Marshal -----------------------------------------------March 2005 – Sep 2006 City of Cottonwood Fire Department
Deputy Fire Marshal--------------------------------------- July 2001 – Feb. 2003 City of Albany Fire Department, Life Safety Division
*Additional past work history can be provided if requested.
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xv | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Hope Medina, CBO, CSP
Instructor/ Plans Examiner/ Building Inspector
Licenses & Certifications
ICC Certified Sustainability
Professional
ICC Residential Energy
Inspector/Plans Examiner
ICC Green Building - Residential
Examiner
ICC IgCC Plans Examiner
ICC IgCC Commercial Inspector
ICC Certified Building Official
ICC Residential Mechanical
Inspector
ICC Residential Building Inspector
ICC Building Plans Examiner
ICC Accessibility Inspector/Plans
Examiner
ICC Commercial Building Inspector
ICC Residential Plumbing Inspector
ICC Residential Plans Examiner
ICC Permit Technician
ICC Mechanical Plans Examiner
ICC Building Inspector
ICC Residential Combination
Inspector
ICC Management Module
ICC Legal
ICC Building Codes and Standards
ICC Building Code Specialist
ICC Permit Specialist
ICC Residential Electrical Inspector
On Site Plan Review and
Inspections, Train the Trainer,
DOE Building Energy Codes
Safety Assessment Program Building
Inspector, State of California
Publications
ICC - 2021 Green Construction Code
Essentials
Memberships (Partial list)
International Code Council &
Committees
Colorado Chapter of ICC &
Committees
National Green Building Standard
Colorado Energy Code Compliance
Collaboration Committee
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Hope Medina has been in the industry for 15 years. She started her career as a permit technician and worked her way up to an inspector and plans examiner.
Hope can provide complete plan reviews and specializes in energy and sustainability systems, as Hope teaches extensive classes in energy and sustainability codes. Her focus has been on the energy and sustainability codes, standards, and practices and has been a part of the “Green Team” for over 10 years. This has led to her receiving the ICC designation of Certified Sustainability Professional.
COURSE INSTRUCTOR
• Department of Energy
• International Code Council -
Conference Education
• American Institute of
Architects- Colorado
• Colorado Chapter of ICC -
Education Institute & Chapter
Meeting Training
• Colorado State, Ft Collins
• Construction Specification
Institute- Pikes Peak Chapter
• Colorado Jurisdictions
• Oregon Building Officials
Association
• Midwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance
• Southern Nevada Chapter ICC
EduCode
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Instructor----------------------------------------------- December 2020 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Prepare customized slides, handouts, and supporting documents according to the topic of training.
• Answer questions from participants in the training.
Plans Examiner---------------------------------------- December 2020 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards.
• Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Building Inspector------------------------------------ December 2020 – Present Shums Coda Associates
Energy/Green Code Consultant----------------------- 2012 – December 2020 Colorado Code Consulting, CO
*Acquired by Shums Coda Associates in December 2020
*Additional past work history can be provided if requested.
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xvi | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Andre Jaen, CBO, MCP, CSP
Plans Examiner/ Building Inspector/ Instructor
Education
Bachelor of Arts: Political Science,
University of Colorado Boulder
Licenses & Certifications
ICC Commercial Building Inspector
ICC Property Maintenance and
Housing Inspector
ICC Green Building - Residential
Examiner
ICC Commercial Plumbing Inspector
ICC Residential Energy
Inspector/Plans Examiner
ICC Commercial Mechanical
Inspector
ICC Commercial Energy Inspector
ICC Accessibility Inspector/Plans
Examiner
ICC Residential Mechanical
Inspector
ICC Residential Plans Examiner
ICC Residential Plumbing Inspector
ICC Commercial Electrical Inspector
ICC Combination Inspector
ICC Master Code Professional
ICC Commercial Energy Plans
Examiner
ICC Residential Fire Sprinkler
Inspector/Plans Examiner
ICC Certified Building Official
ICC Residential Building Inspector
ICC Residential Electrical Inspector
ICC Building Plans Examiner
ICC Building Inspector
ICC Mechanical Inspector
ICC Electrical Inspector
ICC Plumbing Inspector
ICC Building Code Specialist
ICC Energy Code Specialist
ICC Residential Combination
Inspector
ICC Commercial Combination
Inspector
ICC Certified Sustainability
Professional
CalOES Disaster Assessment
Certification
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Andre Jaen has been in the building safety industry for thirteen years, including eight years of supervisory experience. Andre is a educator and exceptional communicator with experience in day-to-day operations for building code compliance as well as related policy, code adoption, and implementation. Andre regularly trains and educates building plan reviewers, permit technicians and inspectors on department policies, code requirements, customer service and building plan review. Performed educational seminars for contractors, Home Builders Association, local architects and engineers.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Instructor-------------------------------------------------------June 2024 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Prepare customized slides, handouts, and supporting documents according to the topic of training.
• Answer questions from participants of the training.
Plans Examiner------------------------------------------------June 2024 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards. • Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Building Inspector -------------------------------------------June 2024 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Enforce codes to the extent of stopping work or occupancy of a building, when necessary, until requirements are satisfied.
• Read and interpret building codes, plans, and specifications. • Detect hazards and violations and recommend corrective measures during field inspections.
• Follow through to ensure that final inspections for all departments are completed in a timely manner.
• Operate a computer to access and use permit and inspection records. • Establish and maintain effective working relationships with the jurisdiction building department and the general public.
Manager of Operations----------------------------- October 2023 – June 2024 Jefferson County, Colorado
Building Permit Supervisor ---------------------August 2015 – October 2023 Jefferson County － Golden, CO
Building Inspector--------------------------------------May 2012 – August 2015 Jefferson County － Golden, CO
Building Inspector------------------------------------------ July 2011 – May 2012 City of Lakewood － Lakewood, CO
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xvii | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Stephen “Steve” Thomas, CBO
Education Director/ Colorado Regional Manager
Education
B.S. in Business Administration,
University of Phoenix
Course Work in Civil Engineering
Technology, University of Phoenix
Community College of Denver at
Red Rocks Lakewood, CO
Licenses & Certifications
ICC # 829160
ICC Building Plans Examiner
ICC Building Code Specialist
ICC Plumbing Inspector
ICC / AACE Property Maintenance
and Housing Inspector
ICC Building Inspector
ICC Building Code Official
ICC Accessibility Inspector/Plans
Examiner
ICC Housing Code Official
ICC Mechanical Inspector
ICC Residential Plans Examiner
ICC Certified Building Official
Publications
Building Code Basics, 2009 IBC
Building Code Basics, 2012 IBC
Building Code Essentials, 2015 IBC
Building Code Essential, 2018 IBC
2006 IBC Transition from the 1997
UBC One- and Two-Family
Dwelling Provisions
Applying the Codes to Cannabis
Facilities
Memberships
International Code Council
Codes and Standards Council
Code Technology Committee
National Fire Protection Association
Colorado Chapter ICC
Code Changes Committee
Colorado Municipal League
Utah Chapter ICC
Arizona Building Officials
American Institute of Architects
(AIA) Provider
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Steve Thomas has over 40 years in the Building and Safety Industry. From Inspector, Plans Examiner, and a Building Official he has done it all. Through his experiences, he created Colorado Code Consulting and was the president of the company between 1999 and 2020. He joined SCA in 2020 and continues to provide building code services to our clients, including complete plan reviews, and course instructor for a variety of courses.
COURSE INSTRUCTOR
Steve is a successful course instructor for many courses including:
• International Code Council – Instructor
• Colorado Chapter ICC Educational Institute – Instructor • Southern Nevada Chapter ICC EduCode – Instructor
• Washington Association of Building Officials – Instructor • Arizona Building Officials – Instructor
• Oregon Building Officials Association – Instructor
• Utah Chapter ICC – Instructor
• AIA Colorado – Instructor
• Johnson County Contractor Licensing Department, Overland Park, KS – Instructor
• Community College of Denver, Lakewood Colorado – Instructor (Class:
Intro. to Building Codes)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Education Director------------------------------------December 2020 - Present Shums Coda Associates
Colorado Regional Manager -----------------------December 2020 - Present Shums Coda Associates
Responsible for business services and client relations in Colorado. Serves as local point of contact and project manager for plan review, inspection, staff augmentation and other services provided.
President and Owner------------------------------------ 1999 – December 2020 Colorado Code Consulting, Denver, CO
*Acquired by Shums Coda Associates in December 2020
Building Official/ Community Development Director----------1981 – 1999 City of Glendale, Glendale, CO
Building Official/ Building Inspector/ Plans Examiner---------1978 – 1981 The Building Department, Inc., Denver, CO
Quality Control Testing Technician --------------------------------1977 – 1978 Materials Testing, Inc., Denver, CO
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Building Division Consulting Services
xviii | Page
Resumes
Shums – (Noun): 1. Sun; 2. Light; 3. Brilliance; 4. Knowledge Coda – (Noun): 1. Final section of a musical piece – a final section that adds dramatic energy to the work as a whole, usually through intensified rhythmic activity; 2. Extra text – an additional section at the end of a text, for example, a literary work or speech that gives additional information.
Douglas W. Thornburg, AIA, CBO
Building Code Educator/Specialist
Education
Bachelor of Architecture
Kansas State University
Licenses & Certifications
Registered Architect
Kansas, License No. C25605
ICC Certified Building Official
ICC Certified Building Plans Examiner
ICC Certified Commercial
ICC Combination Inspector
ICC Certified Residential
Combination Inspector
ICC Certified Building Inspector
Certified Mechanical Inspector
Certified Plumbing Inspector
Certified Electrical Inspector
Certified Accessibility Inspector
Certified Fire Inspector II
Memberships
American Institute of Architects
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Plans Examiner--------------------------------------------------------2025 – Present Shums Coda Associates
• Review plans, calculations, and specifications for compliance with the most current adopted codes and ordinances.
• Preparation of Plans Comments Letter according to industry and SCA standards. • Meet and confer with the clients as needed to clarify comments. • Travel to jurisdictions on an as-needed basis to support clients.
Vice President and Technical Director ------------------------------2004 – 2025 International Code Council
• Provided leadership in development of support publications for International Codes • Developed building code seminars for presentation purposes • Instructed numerous building code seminars
• Authored and co-authored a variety of ICC technical publications Building Code Educator and Consultant----------------------------1995 – 2004 Self Employed
• Developed several support publications based on initial version of International Building Code
• Performed contract building official duties for several small jurisdictions • Represented jurisdiction in building department oversight of new regional covered mall building
• Developed and instructed a large number of building code seminars Vice President, Education and Certification -----------------------1988 – 1995 International Code Council
Training Specialist--------------------------------------------------------1985 – 1988 International Code Council
• Led model code group education and certification activities • Developed and instructed a variety of seminars on the Uniform Building Code • Oversaw development and implementation of video training activities • Represented ICBO on numerous regional and national boards and committees Building Code Administrator ------------------------------------------1984 – 1985 City of Wichita, Kansas
• Provided direction and oversight for field inspection staff of 20+ • Assisted in establishment of combination inspection program • Represented jurisdiction on board of appeals
Plans Examiner------------------------------------------------------------1983 – 1984 City of Wichita, Kansas
Building Inspector--------------------------------------------------------1980 – 1983 City of Wichita, Kansas
Shums Coda Associates
Building Life-Safety Plan Review and
Inspection
Permit Technician Services
Building Department Augmentation
Fire Protection Engineering
Civil Engineering
Follow SCA on LinkedIn
Agenda Item #7.6:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Dec 2025
Department
Community Development
Department
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Page and Turnbull to Complete a Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statements
Summary
City of Sonoma Housing Element and City Council Goal is to streamline the entitlement process for future development while maintaining our historic community character. To do this, the city needs to complete a citywide historic resource survey and development of historic context statements. These will be used to identify, document, and evaluate potential historic resources within the city limits and to provide a framework for understanding Sonoma’s architectural, cultural, and developmental history. This effort will inform local planning, preservation policy, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to streamline future development processes.
The city circulated a Request for Proposals from qualified historic preservation consultants from October 17, 2025, to November 17, 2025, and received six responses. Staff selected Page and Turnbull based on the proposal methodology, professional qualifications and experience. The proposal estimates the cost of $199,520 to complete the survey and historic contexts within a 15 month period. The proposal also includes three community meetings/workshops and four hearings.
Recommended Council Action
Adoption of Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, with any modifications subject to legal review, with Page and Turnbull prepare a citywide historic resource survey and historic context statements in the amount not to exceed $199,520, through June 30, 2027.
Alternative Actions
City Council discretion.
Financial Impact
The agreement is not to exceed $199,520. The FY25-26 Budget included $200,000 for the completion of this survey which exceeds the contract amount. At this time, no additional funding is needed to authorize this contract.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report Approved/Certified
Agenda Item #7.7:
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
CC Resolution - Citywide Survey
P&T Sonoma Citywide HRS and HCS Proposal
Agenda Item #7.7:
City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH PAGE AND TURNBULL TO PREPARE CITYWIDE HISTORIC
RESOURCE SURVEY AND HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma (“the City”) desires identify, document, and evaluate potential historic resources within the city limits and to provide a framework for understanding Sonoma’s architectural, cultural, and developmental history; and WHEREAS, this effort will inform local planning, preservation policy, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to streamline future development; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Request for Proposals from October 20, 2025, to November 17, 2025, and received six responses; and
WHEREAS, based on a review of the proposals received, Page and Turnbull was deemed most qualified to provide the service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Page and Turnbull to provide services in the amount not to exceed $199,520 through June 30, 2027.
RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.7:
City of Sonoma
Citywide Historic Resource Survey and
Historic Context Statement
Response to Request for Proposals
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
[P25387]
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SONOMA BY
©NoeHill Travels in California
Agenda Item #7.7:
We imagine change in historic and contemporary environments to cultivate thriving, sustainable, and resilient communities.
170 MAIDEN LANE 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415.362.5154 November 17, 2025
City of Sonoma
Jennifer Gates, Community Development Director
#1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
RE: City of Sonoma Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Dear Jennifer & Selection Committee,
PAGE & TURNBULL is thrilled to be teaming with Gretchen Hilyard Boyce from Groundwork Preservation to provide a proposal for consideration to prepare a comprehensive citywide historic resource survey and historic context statement for the City of Sonoma. Both our firms have experience with the City of Somona and have provided similar services to cities and local civic agencies throughout California. We offer the following key strengths:
ABILITY TO MEET SCHEDULES AND BUDGETS. Our project management tools—based in clear communication—allow for the careful execution, monitoring, control, and collaboration. We set realistic deadlines, address potential issues and challenges early, and prepare clear and clean documents that minimize comments.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EXPERTISE. Our work often includes an important community and stakeholder process. We start by listening and understand how to build consensus among people with differing viewpoints and interests.
AN EXCEPTIONAL TEAM. P&T with Groundwork Preservation provides full-service architecture and planning services focused on historic and buildings and settings. We have an in-house Cultural Resources Planners assigned to this contract.
We are your one-stop shop for research, understanding, and documenting.
We are eager to continue our long-standing working relationship with the City of Sonoma and look forward to speaking with you further about our qualifications. Thank you for this opportunity.
Sincerely,
Christina Dikas Brobst, AICP
Principal in Charge, Page & Turnbull
[email protected] | 415.593.3246
Gretchen Hilyard Boyce
Principal and Founder, Groundwork Preservation
[email protected] | 415.640.0626
Agenda Item #7.7:
3 Page & Turnbull
SAN FRANCISCO 415.362.5154
LOS ANGELES 213.221.1200
SACRAMENTO 916.662.8532
SAN JOSE 415.593.3226
WASHINGTON, DC 703.459.9528
www.page-turnbull.com
@pageturnbull
pageturnbull
imagines change in historic and contemporary
environments to cultivate thriving, sustainable, and resilient communities. We understand the past, respect our clients and their stakeholders, and revitalize historic buildings and places to benefit current and future users.
For over 50 years, Page & Turnbull has led architecture, preservation, and planning projects for civic, cultural, educational, and commercial clients. Our work has impacted some of California’s most significant buildings; and, more importantly, our projects have made a difference in people’s lives. Page & Turnbull’s staff of architects, architectural historians, cultural resource planners, and materials specialists believe that preservation and adaptive reuse are about valuing a community’s stories and envisioning a better future.
Sonoma Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
LEGAL NAME OF FIRM
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
ESTABLISHED / INCORPORATED
1973 / 1975
FIRM SIZE
50 full-time employees
OFFICES
Los Angeles San Jose
San Francisco Washington, DC
Sacramento
OFFICE CONDUCTING WORK
170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
ORGANIZATION
Corporation
PRIMARY EXPERTISE
Architectural Design
Historic Preservation
Historic Architecture
Cultural Resources Planning & Research
Preservation Technology
Materials Conservation
Urban Planning
M/W/SBE CERTIFICATIONS
State of California Small Business
Enterprise (SBE)
CA DGS Cert. No 10737
State of California Women-Owned
Business Enterprise (WBE)
CUPC Cert. No. 20000919
One Firm, Three Studios
CULTURAL RESOURCE PLANNING Architectural Historians and Cultural Resources Planners evaluate and analyze historic resources to assess their historic significance and integrity The studio authors a wide range of award-winning reports, completes National Register and California Register documentation, and works on citywide and long-range planning projects.
ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN As prime architect, architect of record, and design architect, we collaborate with clients and specialty consultants to design buildings, places, and spaces that are simultaneously contemporary and contextual.
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE Our historic architecture team is comprised of architects, designers, and materials specialists who are experts at investigating and analyzing materials, securing entitlements, and designing for the adaptive reuse of historic buildings and places for the way we live today, and into the future.
FIRM PROFILE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
4 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement F
G
a
rou
I
n
C
d
a
R
w
li
o
fo
r
r
k
n
MP
ia
r
-
e
b
s
a
e
s
r
e
v
d
a
Ption
c
R,
u
L
l
L
tu
C
r
Oa
is
l FILE
resources consulting firm
dedicated to helping communities
understand, document, and care
for the places that tell their
stories. A federally certified
Woman-Owned Small Business
and California-certified Micro
Small Business, Groundwork was
founded by Gretchen Hilyard
Boyce, who brings two decades of
experience leading historic
preservation projects across
California and beyond.
We specialize in the documentation and evaluation of historic properties, landscapes, and districts, providing clients with clear pathways through local, state, and federal review processes. We believe every place holds multiple histories worthy of recognition. Our focus on cultural landscape preservation underscores a holistic approach that bridges cultural and natural resource practices to reveal the broader contexts shaping our shared heritage.
Our team is highly experienced in archival research, field documentation, and applying the evaluative frameworks of the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Our experience includes preparing documentation under CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 and we have guided hundreds of projects to compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. We work closely with clients to craft design solutions, preservation alternatives, and mitigation strategies that meet regulatory requirements while supporting project goals. We also help clients celebrate and sustain historic properties through proactive measures such as landmark designation, interpretive planning, Mills Act contracts, and tax incentive programs.
Groundwork’s clients include public agencies, non-profits, design teams, and private property owners. Collaboration and mentorship are at the heart of our practice: we build interdisciplinary teams, foster learning opportunities for emerging professionals, and share knowledge generously to strengthen preservation practice across California. Based in Colfax, California, we work statewide to bring practical expertise, creative thinking, and a deep respect for place to every project. 04 FIRM PROFILE: GROUNDWORK PRESERVATION LLC
Groundwork staff conducting field work in Woodside, CA, 2025.
FIRM PROFILE /
Groundwork Preservation, LLC
Agenda Item #7.7:
5 FIRM PROFILE /
Our team has expertise in historic resource surveys
and historic context statements, familiarity with
Sonoma’s rich architectural history, and a history
of successfully working with the City’s Planning
Department.
Page & Turnbull, a full-service architecture, preservation, and planning firm, will lead the Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement. The project will be staffed with members of our Cultural Resources Planning Studio, each of whom meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history.
As Principal in Charge, Christina Dikas Brobst, AICP will be responsible for the quality and suitability of all deliverables, and guide the team to ensure that the project goals and milestones are in alignment with the City’s expectations. Project Manager Stacy Kozakavich, PhD, RPA will serve as the point-of-contact and provide regular updates regarding deliverables and schedule.
Stacy will lead the day-to-day research and fieldwork strategy, and work with our project Cultural Resources Planner, Clare Flynn as the primary researcher and author preparing Historic Resources Survey and Historic Context Statement. Gretchen Hilyard Boyce, Principal of Groundwork Preservation, will serve as Cultural Resources Planner and contribute to developing the framework for the project as well as QA/QC for the survey findings.
Our current workload will allow us to maintain the proposed staff members who will be dedicated to this project. Should additional services be required, our flexible staffing model enables us to quickly shift additional personnel as needed. We have a pool of qualified Prime Consultant
Page & Turnbull (SBE, WBE)
Christina Dikas Brobst, AICP | Principal in Charge
Stacy Kozakavich, PhD, RPA | Project Manager
Clare Flynn | Cultural Resources Planner
Subconsultant
Groundwork Preservation, LLC
(SBA, WOSB)
Gretchen Hilyard Boyce | Cultural Resources Planner
Organizational Chart
Agenda Item #7.7:
6 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement
EDUCATION
University of Virginia, Master of Architectural
History, Certificate in Historic Preservation
University of California, Los Angeles,
Bachelor of Arts in Sociology, Minor in
Museum Studies
LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Planner
AFFILIATIONS
California Preservation Foundation, Former
Member of Board of Trustees
San Francisco Architectural Heritage,
Member
American Planning Association (APA),
Member
Association of Environmental Professionals
(AEP), Member
Christina Dikas Brobst AICP
Principal in Charge
Christina is Principal of Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Planning Studio and stands out for her exceptional communication skills and keen sensitivity to clients’ needs, prioritizing flexibility and open dialogue. In her work, she values the sense of place, historical perspective, and sustainability inherent in cultural resource management and historic preservation. As a Principal, she leads Page & Turnbull’s large-scale survey projects, Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs), CEQA documentation, Section 106 Technical Reports, Design Guidelines and Standards, contributions to General Plans and Specific Plans, and other planning documents. She has also developed a number of interpretive programs. Christina meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for Architectural History and is an AICP certified planner.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Sonoma Downtown District Preservation
Design Guidelines, Sonoma, CA
Comprehensive guidelines that specify the
preservation principles and elements of
neighborhood character to be considered as
property owners develop their projects.
Mill Valley Historic Context Statement &
Survey Update, Mill Valley, CA
Historic Context Statement and Survey
Update to identify development themes,
patterns, and types of 175 properties.
Mountain View Historic Preservation
Ordinance & Register Update,
Mountain View, CA
Historic Context Statement, citywide survey,
and Preservation Ordinance update.
San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation
Ordinance & Historic Context Statement
Update, San Luis Obispo, CA
Revisions to the HCS include updates to
the Historic Context Statement to expand
discussion of diverse communities and
recent growth and development trends.
Salinas Historic Resources Survey Update,
Salinas, CA
Preparation of citywide Historic Context
Statement and update to the city’s Historical
and Architectural Resources Survey to
support informed preservation planning.
Whittier Historic Districts Historic Context
Statement & Survey, Whittier, CA
Historic Context Statement and updated
survey of the Central Park and HadleyGreenleaf Historic Districts.
Napa 2040 General Plan Update, Napa, CA
Historic Resources Existing Conditions
document that includes a brief historic
context of the city; summary of current
Historic Resources Inventory and aspects of
the existing historic preservation program;
and identifies goals and policies that should
be updated.
1211 Broadway, Sonoma, CA
Peer review of the previously completed
historic resource evaluation and proposed
project analysis.
FIRM PROFILE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
7 Stacy has worked as a historian and archaeologist in cultural resources management and planning for over twenty years, including more than ten years in California. She is experienced in the cultural resource review process for Section 106 and CEQA compliance, has successfully led and conducted archaeological field surveys and data recovery projects, material culture analyzes, historic resource evaluations, and project impact analyzes for a wide variety of property types. Stacy is a skilled researcher, and has conducted records searches and archival research at numerous repositories, undertaken oral history interviews, and enthusiastically seeks the stories of significant places in our midst. Stacy meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (SF 36 CFR Part 61) for Archeology and Architectural History.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Sonoma Historic District Review,
Sonoma, CA
Evaluation and updated documentation for
three historic districts to help inform future
planning direction and decisions.
San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation
Ordinance & Historic Context Statement
Update, San Luis Obispo, CA
Revisions include updates to the Historic
Context Statement to expand discussion of
diverse communities and recent growth and
development trends.
SLAC Historic Resource Survey & Section
106 Consultation, Menlow Park, CA
Survey of all 280 buildings and structures
associated with the facility, as well as
evaluations of a select number of resources
for their eligibility in the National Register.
Salinas Historic Resources Survey Update,
Salinas, CA
Preparation of citywide Historic Context
Statement and update to the city’s Historical
and Architectural Resources Survey to
support informed preservation planning.
Mountain View Historic Preservation
Ordinance & Register Update,
Mountain View, CA
Historic Context Statement, citywide survey,
and Preservation Ordinance update.
Palo Alto Preservation On-Call
Consultations, Palo Alto, CA
As-needed Cultural Resources Planning
services for the City of Palo Alto Planning
Department since 2016.
Sonoma Cheese Factory, Sonoma, CA
Proposed Project Impact Analysis of its
retention of the building’s character-defining
facade.
Luis Butcher Shop, Sonoma, CA
Historic resources services for the one-story
commercial building located within the
Sonoma Plaza Historic District.
1211 Broadway, Sonoma, CA
Peer review of the previously completed
historic resource evaluation and proposed
project analysis.
EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley, Ph. D,
Anthropology
University of Saskatchewan, Master of Arts,
Anthropology and Archaeology
University of Saskatchewan, Bachelor of
Arts, Anthropology and Archaeology
AFFILIATIONS
Register of Professional Archaeologists No.
433620
Society for Historical Archeology
California Preservation Foundation
Oakland Heritage Alliance
Stacy Kozakavich PhD, RPA
Project Manager
FIRM PROFILE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
8 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Clare Flynn
Cultural Resources Planner
EDUCATION
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Masters,
Architectural Conservation
University of California, Los Angeles,
Bachelor of Art, History
AFFILIATIONS
California Preservation Foundation, Member
of Board of Trustees
American Planning Association (APA),
Member
American Institute of Certified Planners
(AICP) Candidate
Clare is a Cultural Resources Planner (CRS) with experience in researching, documenting, and evaluating historic buildings, sites, districts, and cultural landscapes, including the history of underrecognized communities. She has conducted reconnaissance and intensive surveys and developed preservation design guidelines for historic districts. Clare has worked on some of P&T’s most important projects, including the City of Sacramento’s African American and LGBTQ+ Historic Experience Projects and the Santa Barbara African American Historic Context Statement, which was recognized in 2023 by Fast Company for Equitable Historic Preservation.
In addition to her work with underrecognized communities, “her specialties include preparing federal historic preservation tax credits, evaluating cultural landscapes, and developing concept and master plans for historic districts. Clare meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61) for Architectural History.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Sonoma Historic District Review,
Sonoma, CA
Evaluation and updated documentation for
three historic districts to help inform future
planning direction and decisions.
San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation
Ordinance & Historic Context Statement
Update, San Luis Obispo, CA
Revisions include updates to the Historic
Context Statement to expand discussion of
diverse communities and recent growth and
development to help lay groundwork.
Palo Alto Preservation On-Call
Consultations, Palo Alto, CA
As-needed Cultural Resources Planning
services for the City of Palo Alto Planning
Department since 2016.
Sacramento LGBTQ+ Historic Context
Statement & Survey, Sacramento, CA
Development of Sacramento’s first LGBTQ+
historic context statement, identifying key
sites and recommending landmark and
district eligibility based on survey, research,
and extensive community outreach.
San Diego College Area Historic Context
Statement, San Diego, CA
Historic context statement to support the
Community Plan Update, documentation of
key development themes, and identification
of potential historic resources.
Santa Barbara African American Historic
Context Statement, Santa Barbara, CA
Award-willing historic context statement
documenting the history and contributions
of Santa Barbara’s African American/Black
community.
870 Broadway, Sonoma, CA
Preparation of a memorandum evaluating
whether the proposed demolition of three
buildings is consistent with DPR form
findings.
Sacramento Historic District Plans,
Sacramento, CA
Historic District Plans prepared for 27 of
Sacramento’s locally listed historic districts,
representing more than 2,800 parcels.
FIRM PROFILE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
9 FIRM PROFILE /
RESUME: GROUNDWORK PRESERVATION LLC
Gretchen Hilyard Boyce is a regional expert and national leader in preservation planning and cultural landscapes with more than 20 years of experience in the public and private sectors. As Founder and Principal of Groundwork
Preservation, she is known for developing effective
compliance strategies that balance diverse stakeholder
values with complex regulatory requirements, helping clients adapt historic resources while protecting their cultural significance. Her work includes major California projects such as San Francisco’s Better Market Street, California HighSpeed Rail, the redesign of the State Capitol, India Basin Shoreline Park, and Yosemite National Park, as well as
numerous local planning and residential efforts. Before founding Groundwork in 2021, Gretchen held positions with the National Park Service, the San Francisco Planning
Department, and several private consulting firms. She
teaches and lectures widely on historic preservation and cultural landscapes and currently serves on the Board of Trustees for the California Preservation Foundation and the Historic Colfax Downtown Association.
EDUCATION
M.S. Hi s toric
Preservation, Univer s ity
of Pennsylvania
B.A. Architectural
Hi s tory, Univer s ity of
Virginia
CERTIFICATIONS
Meet s the Secretary of
the Interior’ s Profes s ional
Qualification Standards in
Hi s tory and Architectural
Hi s tory
NOTABLE PUBLICATIONS
Co-author, National Park
Service’ s Profes s ional
Procedures Guide for the
Preparation of Cultural
Landscape Inventories ,
2009
An Analys i s of Campus
Preservation Planning
Strategies : Wes leyan
Univer s ity’ s Center for
the Art s , Mas ter’ s Thes i s ,
Univer s ity of
Pennsylvania, 2006
Gretchen Hilyard Boyce, Principal and Founder
City of Sonoma General Plan Update, cultural resources
sensitivity mapping and cultural resource policies.
10724 CA-160, Hood, CA. Stillwater Orchards Packing &
Cold Storage Facility, Historic Context Statement, DPR
Forms and CEQA/Section 106 Technical Report.
U.S. Coast Guard Station, Point Reyes Station, CA.
CEQA/Section 106 Historic Resource Evaluation, Historic District Evaluation, and DPR Forms.
Port Costa Schoolhouse, Port Costa, CA. CEQA/Section
106 Technical Report, and DPR Forms.
324-350 Alhambra Boulevard, Sacramento, CA. HRE and
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Report.
Better Market Street, San Francisco, CA.
CEQA/NEPA/Section 106 compliance, Historic Resource
Evaluation and DPR forms, Cultural Landscape
Evaluation, EIR, EA, mitigation implementation, 4f
analysis, and Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.
SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Agenda Item #7.7:
10 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement
APPROACH TO WORK /
Approach to Work
TASK 1. PROJECT INITIATION
i. Project Startup: P&T will execute the project contract and submit required documentation. This task includes setting up the project accounting and other internal structures and preparing draft Work Plan and Schedule for client review in anticipation of the Project Kick-off Meeting.
ii. Kickoff Meeting: The P&T Team will participate via virtual meetings with the City of Sonoma staff (Staff) to confirm roles and responsibilities, align expectations about format and content of deliverables, and confirm the project schedule and budget. The fee for this task assumes participation by two P&T staff and Gretchen Hilyard Boyce from Groundwork Preservation.
iii. Project Management: Ongoing project management will entail regular communication with Staff to coordinate upcoming milestones and issues to ensure that the project remains on schedule; internal review of all project deliverables; and budgeting, invoicing, and other management tasks. We anticipate 30-minute monthly virtual meetings with Staff and one or two P&T team members to keep apprised of the project.
TASK 2. HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
P&T will develop a Historic Context Statement (HCS) to guide the assessment of potential historic resources across the City and create a framework for future preservation efforts. The document will focus on the history of Sonoma’s built environment, and will identify important themes, patterns, trends, and property types that shaped the City’s development to the recent past. A discussion of eligibility and integrity thresholds for each property type according to local, state, and national register criteria will be a key component of the document. The document will be clearly organized for easy reference by planners and members of the public, and will be illustrated with photographs, maps, and other exhibits. The document’s format will follow the standards for historic context statements developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP).
Our work to complete the HCS will be conducted as follows:
i. Review Existing Documentation: P&T and Groundwork
Preservation will review existing reports and archival materials in our files which are relevant to previous surveys, evaluations, and context development in Sonoma, as well as ) and any other reports, planning documents, or historic resource documentation provided by Staff.
This may include but is not limited to GIS data and survey databases from the City and Sonoma League for Historic Preservation, and other relevant documents. Review of these materials will focus our research and project efforts.
ii. Historic Research: P&T will conduct historic research at local and online repositories regarding the history and significance of the area.
This includes but is not limited to the records of the City and County of Sonoma, Sonoma Valley Historical Society, Sonoma League for Historic Preservation, and Sonoma County Library, and other repositories.
iii. Windshield Survey: P&T will conduct a windshield survey of property types in Sonoma to confirm development patterns, relevant historical themes, areas of previously unrecorded potential historic resources, and architectural styles. Field work will include photography and notes, and the methodology will be summarized in the HCS.
Agenda Item #7.7:
11 Approach to Work
APPROACH TO WORK /
iv. HCS Outline: Based on the background review and preliminary survey findings, P&T, with input from Groundwork Preservation, will develop an outline for the HCS document. The outline will include the potential significant historic themes and subthemes, contributions of diverse communities to Sonoma’s development, and likely property types associated with the themes and communities. We will recommend development periods for the HCS that best relate to the City’s development history, beginning with early settlement of the area up to about 1990). P&T will submit the outline to the City for review and feedback.
Based on our previous experience and Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) guidelines, we anticipate that the HCS will include:
à Title Page
à Table of Contents
à Executive Summary
à Project Background & Objectives
à Definition of Geographic Area
à Methodology & Research
à How To Use This Document
à Frequently Asked Questions
à Guidelines For Evaluation
à Evaluation Criteria: National, State and local levels à Historic Context
à Historical Overview
à Relevant Development Periods and Themes (e.g.,
settlement, agriculture, transportation, industry,
civic development, tourism, underrepresented
communities)
à Associated Property Types (for each time period)
à Eligibility Criteria & Integrity Considerations (for each property type)
à Selected Bibliography
à Appendices (such as lists of architectural styles found in Sonoma, previously designated historic resources at the national, state, and local levels, etc.).
v. Historic Context Statement: Following City review and approval of the HCS Outline, P&T will develop the HCS document. As noted, the historic context will summarize existing documentation, include a narrative history of Sonoma’s built environment and cultural landscapes, discuss significant historic themes, identify property types, establish eligibility standards and integrity thresholds for property types, and establish a framework and criteria for evaluating the significance and integrity of individual properties.
The Sonoma Historic Context Statement will be a working document.
We anticipate the following drafts and review steps:
à Administrative Draft HCS: Submit to Staff for review
à Public Review Draft HCS: Receive and log comments from Staff on the Administrative Draft. Revise the Administrative Draft based on City comments into the Public Review Draft.
Submit to Staff for review and posting for public comment, including review by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Sonoma Valley Historical Society, the Sonoma
League for Historic Preservation, and California State Parks. à Final Draft HCS: Receive and log comments submitted by groups and individuals on the Public Review Draft. Revise the Public Review Draft based on HPC and community
comments into the Final Draft. Submit to City Staff for City Council review, comment, and adoption.
à Final Adopted HCS: Receive and log any comments on
the Final Draft HCS from City Council. Revise the Final Draft HCS based on City Council comments into the Final Adopted HCS. Submit Final Adopted HCS to City Staff for distribution.
Agenda Item #7.7:
12 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Approach to Work
APPROACH TO WORK /
TASK 3. CITYWIDE SURVEY
The primary goal of Sonoma’s citywide historic resources survey will be to identify and evaluate previously unrecorded potential historic resources, including individual resources and districts, for eligibility for designation at the local level. As a secondary goal, P&T will review the existing condition of previously evaluated eligible or designated resources to identify those which have been demolished/relocated or substantially altered since their last evaluation. To be useful for environmental review though, P&T will also evaluate according to California and National Registers.
P&T understands that, based on County of Sonoma data, the 2.74 square mile incorporated City of Sonoma includes approximately 2,300 parcels with year-built dates between 1845 and 1980 which are age-eligible for evaluation as historical resources. Of these, approximately 280 parcels are recorded in the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) as having status codes of “5” or higher, indicating that they have been found eligible or been designated at the local, state, or national level. This includes over 100 properties that are contributors to National Register of Historic Places (National Register)-listed districts and about 36 contributors to California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)-listed districts. In addition to these properties listed in the BERD, the City of Sonoma has identified two additional historic districts, a Historic Overlay Zone, and several individually eligible properties not included in OHP records.
The primary focus of the survey will be on neighborhoods and parcels which are outside of the areas already identified as historically significant. P&T will undertake a two-tiered methodology for conducting the citywide historic resources survey. We have used this tiered methodology for other successful survey projects, including the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory Survey Update, Mill Valley Historic Resources Inventory Update, and Mountain View Citywide Survey and have found it effective and efficient for documenting large numbers of properties and producing useful and consistent results.
Our work to complete the Citywide Historic Resource Survey will be conducted as follows:
i. Pre-Fieldwork Research: P&T will review previous individual resource evaluations prepared for the City and by local organizations such as the Sonoma League for Historic Preservation. P&T will review the OHP Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and other previous studies such as the General Plan and project Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). As part of the HCS task, P&T will review primary and secondary sources such as aerial and historical photographs, Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps, and tract maps, which will additionally inform our understanding of citywide development for the purposes of the survey. This review of past survey data, historic evaluations, and archival materials will inform P&T and Groundwork Preservation’s approach to survey fieldwork by providing a baseline understanding of the City’s existing and identified historic resources and overall development patterns.
ii. GIS Database & Mobile Survey Application Setup: The use of field survey tools for digital data collection is a cost saving measure when used effectively. P&T will utilize GIS parcel data maintained by the County as well as lists of previously evaluated resources to map properties that will be surveyed and build a customized mobile survey application for use in the field with tablets or mobile devices. This data will provide baseline property information including Assessor Parcel Number (APN), address, and year built. We have experience using several mobile survey applications and propose using the Fulcrum application for this project, as it can collect customized, geolocated cloud-based data that can be exported to easily update the City’s existing GIS data.
GIS Data - Downtown Sonoma District Preservation Design Guidelines Agenda Item #7.7:
13 Approach to Work
APPROACH TO WORK /
iii. Reconnaissance-Level Survey: P&T will conduct a
reconnaissance-level survey of all age-eligible (at least 45 years old) properties which have not previously been identified as eligible or listed, using the HCS’s evaluative criteria as the basis of preliminary field evaluation. This reconnaissance survey will be undertaken as a street-by-street windshield survey of approximately 2,000 age-eligible properties. This effort will inform development of a list of potential historic resources and historic districts to be recorded and evaluated as part of the Intensive Survey. In consultation with Groundwork Preservation, we will prepare a list and maps of potential historic resources and districts to be recorded and evaluated for review by the City. We anticipate including approximately 100 individual properties and up to three historic districts on our list for intensive level survey. iv. Intensive-Level Survey and Evaluation: P&T will conduct an intensive-level survey of all individual resources and districts identified as potentially significant during the course of the reconnaissance-level survey. This intensive-level survey will record properties that are potentially eligible for designation in the National Register, California Register, and/or the Local Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The intensive-level survey will utilize the HCS evaluation guidance and integrity considerations to determine eligibility, and will require additional property-specific historic research in some cases. Properties will be documented using the customized mobile survey application and database, which will allow P&T to record the following relevant information for preparation of survey forms:
à Digital photograph
à Assessor Parcel Number (APN)
à Address
à Year built
à Property type
à Architect or builder (if known)
à Architectural style
à Architectural features, materials, and alterations
à Assessment of integrity
à Development period
à HCS significance theme [if Phase 3, Option B selected] à Statement of significance
à California Historical Resource Status Code
During this intensive-level survey, P&T will identify previously recorded eligible or designated properties that are no longer extant or which have lost historic integrity, and will confirm the boundaries of previously identified historic districts.
Following completion of field recording and property-specific research, P&T will evaluate the significance of properties recorded during the intensive survey according to the framework established in the HCS. We will prepare brief DPR 523 survey forms for all properties found eligible for designation. These forms can be auto-generated from the customized mobile survey application and database, which Agenda Item #7.7:
14 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Approach to Work
APPROACH TO WORK /
will allow for an efficient and streamlined process. These forms will include bullet-point architectural descriptions and a clear and concise record of historic information. Each form will include a statement of significance based on either property type/architectural style or on the development periods and historical themes established in the Historic Context Statement, and an assessment of integrity. These forms will provide the information necessary to inform the City’s individual property and/or historic district designation, as well as project review processes. We anticipate completing up to 75 sets of DPR 523A (Primary Record) and DPR 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms for individual resources, and up to two sets of DPR 523A (Primary Record) and DPR 523D (District Record) forms for historic districts. Individual forms will not be prepared for historic district contributors which have not also been identified as individually eligible. Groundwork Preservation will provide QA/QC review.
v. Survey Report: P&T will synthesize the survey methodology and findings in a written Survey Report which will summarize the project objectives, the properties surveyed, and the research design. The report will list the findings of reconnaissance and intensive surveys in summary tables and will include an Appendix with the survey forms prepared for eligible historic resources and districts. A discussion of the findings will provide recommendations for local designation, zoning overlays, and future preservation policies. The survey report will also include a statement of the status of the historic resource survey, and its adoption by the City of Sonoma, as a project for the purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Survey Report drafts will be delivered as follows, and will include rounds of comments and revisions like the HCS as described previously:
à Administrative Draft Survey Report
à Public Review Draft Survey Report
à Final Draft Survey Report
à Final Adopted Survey Report
vi. Data Integration: The findings of the Citywide survey, including information on eligible and ineligible properties, will be consolidated into a spreadsheet and GIS shapefile for the purposes of updating the City’s GIS database. P&T will work with the City’s GIS staff to provide appropriately formatted content for integration into the City of Sonoma Historic Resources web application. For the purposes of this scope, it is assumed that the actual data upload and integration will be completed by the City’s GIS staff or consultant.
Community Engagement - Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance & Register Update Agenda Item #7.7:
15 TASK 4. OUTREACH AND MEETINGS
i. Community Meetings: The P&T team will work with Staff to host up to three community meetings/workshops to which community stakeholders, including the Sonoma Valley Historical Society, Sonoma League for Historic Preservation, and representatives of California State Parks, area residents, property owners, and other interested parties, will be invited. We will coordinate with Staff to develop the meeting and invitation format and create graphics for outreach materials for each of the community meetings/workshops.
Staff will be responsible for identifying specific groups and individuals to invite, publicizing the workshops through community news bulletins, the city websites, social media, and other public notification methods, printing and sending invitations, maintaining the response list, securing meeting locations, providing language translation, and other logistics. P&T will develop the content of the workshops, including presentation materials and activities. Materials prepared for the community workshops, including a Frequently Asked Questions document, will be made available for the City to post on the City’s website.
One meeting/workshop will be held early in the project effort to inform the community about the project and the tasks
involved, including educating the public about how
HCS and survey advance the City’s historic preservation program. The purpose of the workshop will also be to
gather information from community members that
may augment our formal research for the survey, and
to facilitate a discussion about the significant historical themes of the city.
After P&T incorporates City Staff comments on the
Administrative Drafts of the survey findings into a Public Review Draft, P&T will host a second and, if necessary, third meeting/workshop to present the survey findings
and receive feedback from members of the community.
Comments received during the event will be documented
and added to the comments received from City Staff for
incorporation into the Final Draft. P&T recommends that public comments may also be emailed to City Staff during the public comment period.
The fee for this task assumes in-person attendance at
meetings/workshops by two P&T team members.
ii. Public Hearings: P&T will plan to prepare brief presentations to support the City’s staff reports and attend up to two meetings each of the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council, for discussion and adoption of the HCS and survey findings. The fee for this task assumes in-person attendance by one P&T team member.
PROJECT DELIVERABLES
à Administrative Draft, Public Review Draft, Final Draft, and Final Adopted Historic Context Statement.
à Reconnaissance-Level Survey findings memorandum and
recommendation list for Intensive-Level Survey
à Administrative Draft, Public Review Draft, Final Draft, and Final Adopted Historic Resource Survey Report (including DPR 523 forms for all eligible properties).
à Survey database and GIS shapefiles for all properties recorded during the Intensive-Level Survey
à Community meeting/workshop presentation, GIS-based
informational map, and FAQ handouts
à Presentations for Historic Preservation Commission and City Council hearings
Approach to Work
APPROACH TO WORK /
Agenda Item #7.7:
16 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement City of Sonoma Experience
P&T’s experience in the City of Sonoma has been both enriching and rewarding. We have completed a range of services including historic resources evaluations and project analyses, historic districts reviews, project assessments, and the development of preservation design guidelines to ensure that projects align with the city’s historical context and preservation goals.
PROJECTS
Sonoma Mission Inn Historic Resource Evaluation
Sonoma Cheese Factory Historic Resource Evaluation & Project Analysis
Downtown Sonoma Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Sebastiani Theatre Consultation
Sonoma Historic District Review
Sonoma Objective Design Standards
Sonoma Depot Hotel Project Analysis
MacArthur Place Historic Resource Evaluation
153 West Napa Street Historic Resource Evaluation
117 West Napa Street Historic Resource Evaluation
300 East Napa Street Historic Resource Consultation
1211 Broadway Peer Review
362 East Napa Street Project Analysis
19 West Napa Street Project Analysis
570 Broadway Historic Resource Evaluation
216 & 226-230 1st Street Peer Review
564 East 1st Street Project Analysis
Sonoma Historic District Review Downtown Sonoma Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
17 Mill Valley Historic Context
Statement & Survey Update
Page & Turnbull produced a Historic Context Statement & Survey Update to implement the historic preservation policies and goals established in the city’s 2040 General Plan.
The Historic Context Statement (HCS) identifies development themes, patterns, and property types and provides eligibility standards and integrity thresholds for the evaluation of historic properties. The HCS follows the standards developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
Page & Turnbull conducted a reconnaissance survey of 175 properties that were identified as historically or potentially historically significant to determine their integrity and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, using the HCS’s eligibility standards. P&T worked with a local Advisory Committee and facilitated extensive public engagement. Following two rounds of public review, the HCS and Historic Resources Survey Inventory Report was unanimously approved by City Council in June of 2021.
Location
Mill Valley, CA
Size
Citywide, 175 parcels
Timeline
2017-2021
Scope
Historic Context Statement,
Historic Resource Survey,
Community Engagement
Cost
$86,300
Client Reference
City of Mill Valley
Lisa Newman, Senior Planner
415.388.4033
[email protected]
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
18 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Heritage Napa Historic
Context Statement & Survey
Page & Turnbull worked on Heritage Napa, a multi-phase project sponsored by the City of Napa Planning and Community Redevelopment departments.
The first phase, completed in 2009, consisted of a citywide historic resources survey and historic context statement, and was followed by a second phase involving a focused survey and context statement of the Soscol Gateway/East Napa neighborhood. Efforts were focused on intensive-level surveys and context statements of the Spencer’s Addition and West Napa neighborhoods, which were funded by a grant from the California Office of Historic Preservation. We worked with the City on an intensive-level survey, context statement, and Historic Resources Design Guidelines for Downtown Napa as part of the upcoming Downtown Napa Specific Plan. Survey methodology included reconnaissance-level observation of neighborhoods and age-eligible properties throughout the city, as well as intensive-level documentation of specific properties in individual neighborhoods, which entailed use of a customized survey database, as well as completion of DPR 523A & B forms and District Records. In addition to this survey work and accompanying context statements, Page & Turnbull mapped historic resources using GIS applications, restructured Napa’s existing Historic Resources Inventory rating system for compatibility with State systems, and created a survey field guide.
Location
Napa, CA
Size
Citywide
Timeline
2008-2012
Scope
Historic Context Statement,
Historic Resource Survey
Cost
$114,900
Client Reference
City of Napa
Jennifer La Liberte, formerly of
City of Napa
707.302.5111
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
19 Mountain View Historic Preservation
Ordinance and Register Update
This multi-phase project includes the development of a Historic Context Statement, citywide historic resources survey, National Register nomination forms and an update to the City of Mountain View’s Preservation Ordinance.
Page & Turnbull developed a Historic Context Statement to guide the assessment of Mountain View’s potential historic resources and create a framework for future preservation efforts. The Historic Context Statement focuses on the history of the built environment and identifies important themes, patterns, trends, and property types that shaped the City’s development. P&T is conducting a citywide survey to inform an update to the Mountain View Historic Register and update its existing historic preservation ordinance to provide an improved legal framework for recognizing, protecting, and managing changes to the City’s historic resources.
Location
Mountain View, CA
Size
Citywide, 7,855 acres,
175 parcels
Timeline
2022-present
Scope
Preservation Ordinance, Historic
Context Statement, Historic
Resource Survey
Cost
$455,340
Client Reference
City of Mountain View
Eric Anderson, Principal Planner
650.903.6306
[email protected]
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
20 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Salinas Historic Resources
Survey Update
Page & Turnbull is updating the Salinas’ 1989 Historical and Architectural Resources Survey to support informed preservation planning.
The project includes a Historic Context Statement (HCS) that identifies the significant themes, development patterns, and architectural trends that have shaped Salinas’ built environment through the 1980s. The HCS defines locally prevalent architectural styles and provides evaluative guidance for assessing the historical significance and integrity of property types in accordance with local, California Register, and National Register standards. Informed by this contextual framework, P&T is conducting a citywide reconnaissanceand intensive-level survey, to identify eligible and potential historic resources and historic districts. The results will be documented in a comprehensive Survey Report, with updated findings to aid future planning and preservation decisions and the development of municipal policies and procedures.
Location
Salinas, CA
Size
Citywide
Timeline
2024-present
Scope
Historic Context Statement,
General Plan, Preservation
Plans, Historic Resources Survey
Cost
$355,000
Client Reference
City of Salinas
Grant Leonard, AICP, Planning
Manager
831.837.8536
[email protected]
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
21 EXPERIENCE & TECHNICAL COMPETENCE /
Whittier Historic Districts Historic Context Statement & Survey (in progress)
San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement Update (in progress)
Mountain View Historic Context Statement and Citywide Survey (in progress)
San Francisco Cemeteries, Columbaria, and Funeral Homes Historic Context Statement (in progress)
San Francisco Club & Social Halls Historic Context Statement (in progress)
San Francisco Health & Medicne Historic Context Statement (in progress)
San Francisco Large Apartments Historic Context Statement, 2024 San Diego Mid-City Historic Context Statement, 2024
Sacramento LGBTQ+ Historic Context Statement , 2024
San Francisco Modern & Postmodern Architectural Styles, 1960-2000 Historic Context Statement, 2024
Sacramento African American Black Experience Project Historic Context Statement, 2023
San Jose Martha Gardens Historic Resources Survey, 2023 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1970 Amended Context, adding new themes and an additional community, Vietnamese Americans, 2023
Glendale Historic Context Statement, focused on theme of race/ ethnicity, 2023
Santa Barbara African American & Black Historic Context Statement, 2022
San Diego College Area Historic Context Statement, 2021 Historic Resource Survey and
Context Statements
San Diego Bungalow Courts and Apartment Courts Historic Context Statement, 2021
Sacramento Historic District Plans, 2019
Asian American Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1970 Statewide Historic Context Statement, 2019
Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory update, 2019 Mill Valley Historic Context Statement & Survey update, 2018 Korean Americans in Los Angeles, 1905-1980, SurveyLA efforts, 2018
Southeastern San Diego Historic Context Statement, 2014 Pebble Beach Historic Context Statement, 2013
SOMA Filipino Heritage Addendum to the South of Market Historic Context Statement, San Francisco, 2012
Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory and Historic Context Statement, 2011
Arroyo Grande Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey, 2011
Japantown Historic Context Statement, San Francisco, revised 2011 San Ysidro Reconnaissance Survey and Historic Context Statement, 2010
Heritage Napa Historic Resource Inventory Update & Surveys, 2010 NASA Jet Propulsion Labroatory Survey, Inventory, & Historic Context Statement, Pasadena, 2009
Project PRISM (Preserve Richmond to Interpret & Support Memories) Historic Context Statement, Richmond, 2009
City of Charleston Historic Preservation Plan Update, 2008 Mission / SOMA Area Plans Historic Resource Survey, San Francisco, 2006
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
22 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Project Type: Historic Resource Evaluation, Peer Review, Long-Range Planning Date: 2024 - Present
Location: Sonoma, California
Client: City of Sonoma
Groundwork Preservation LLC provides ongoing historic preservation consulting services to the City of Sonoma, including the preparation and peer review of Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs) for properties throughout the city and cultural resources support for long-range planning. These projects help the City comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and maintain consistency with California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria and local preservation policies. As a subconsultant to De Novo Planning Group, Groundwork is developing cultural resources sensitivity mapping and providing guidance on cultural resource policies to inform the City’s General Plan Update.
Groundwork’s services for the City have included evaluating nine residential properties for potential historic and architectural significance, developing historic contexts for various neighborhoods and property types, and conducting archival and contextual research using local records, library collections, historic maps, newspapers, and genealogical sources. The firm has also completed peer reviews of consultant-prepared HREs to assess methodology, documentation quality, and conformance with professional standards and City requirements. Across these assignments, Groundwork’s analyses have provided the City with clear, defensible findings and practical recommendations to guide project review and decision-making.
CITY OF SONOMA HISTORIC RESOURCE
EVALUATIONS AND PEER REVIEWS
522 Avenue del Oro, Sonoma, CA 656 San Miguel Way, Sonoma, CA PROJECT EXAMPLES: GROUNDWORK PRESERVATION LLC
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
23 RIVERFRONT HOTEL PROJECT, HOOD, CA - STILLWATER
ORCHARDS FRUIT PACKING HISTORIC DISTRICT
Project Type: Historic Resource Evaluation, Historic Context, DPR Forms, CEQA/Section 106 Technical Report
Date: 2025
Location: Hood, California
Client: West River Hotels LLC
Groundwork Preservation LLC was retained by West River Hotels LLC to prepare a Historical Resources Technical Report for the Riverfront Hotel project in Hood, California. The project involves the construction of a four-story, 60-room boutique hotel and two-story parking structure at 10724 State Highway 160, requiring demolition of two historic buildings. The study was completed in accordance with CEQA and Section 106 to identify and evaluate historical resources within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE).
Groundwork evaluated the Stillwater Orchards Packing & Cold Storage Facility Historic District— eligible for the California and National Registers for its association with the growth of Delta agriculture—as well as five contributing buildings and eight adjacent age-eligible properties.
Research was conducted at the California State Railroad Museum, the Sacramento River Delta Historical Society, and other local repositories. Research topics included the history of agriculture and fruit packing industries in the Delta; river, railroad and early highway transportation networks; and the history of Stillwater Orchards and its founders. The report provided impact analysis and mitigation measures to ensure compliance with CEQA and Section 106, supporting federal and state review processes led by Sacramento County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
PROJECT EXAMPLES: GROUNDWORK PRESERVATION LLC
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
24 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement POINT REYES U.S. COAST GUARD HOUSING FACILITY
- DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Project Type: Determination of Eligibility, CEQA and Section 106 Date: 2023
Location: Point Reyes, California, Marin County
Client: County of Marin, Eden Housing, and Panorama Environmental Inc.
Groundwork Preservation LLC was hired by Panorama Environmental Inc. on behalf of Eden Housing and the County of Marin to write a Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for the former United States Coast Guard Housing Facility for the Communications Area Master Plan Pacific (CAMSPAC) at Point Reyes Station, California. The CAMSPAC Housing Facility operated from 1972-2015 and initially housed about 175 CAMSPAC Coast Guard employees and their families. The DOE was structured in the form of a historic resource technical report with accompanying State of California DPR 523 series forms and determined whether the conversion of the former housing complex to an affordable housing development by Eden Housing Inc. complied with Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CAMSPAC Housing Facility contained 17 buildings, two structures, and four landscape features and was evaluated as a potential historic district.
Research topics included the development of the town of Port Costa, the creation of the U.S. Coast Guard, and the history of the property as a U.S. Coast Guard Housing Station. The DOE concluded that the Point Reyes U.S. Coast Guard Housing Facility was not eligible for listing in the California nor National registers and did not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. The County of Marin will utilize the information in the DOE to inform the adaptive reuse of property for affordable housing and meet regulatory requirements under CEQA and Section 106.
PROJECT EXAMPLES: GROUNDWORK PRESERVATION LLC
PROJECT EXPERIENCE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
25 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Fee Schedule
STAFF HOURLY RATES
Founding Principal $315.00
Principal $265.00-$305.00
Director $170.00-$245.00
Senior Architect / Senior Project Manager $225.00
Architect 2 / Project Manager $185.00
Architect 1 $155.00
Senior Designer / Senior Project Manager $195.00
Designer 2 / Project Manager $160.00
Designer 1 $135.00
Junior Designer $125.00
Senior Cultural Resources Planner $170.00
Cultural Resources Planner 2 $150.00
Cultural Resources Planner 1 $135.00
Junior Cultural Resources Planner $120.00
Sr Preservation Specialist / Sr Project Manager $195.00 Preservation Specialist 2 / Project Manager $170.00
Preservation Specialist 1 $140.00
Junior Senior Preservation Specialist $125.00
Interns $115.00
Marketing Director $230.00
Marketing Manager $195.00
Marketing Coordinator 2 $170.00
Marketing Coordinator 1 $150.00
Controller $230.00
Senior Project Accountant $190.00
Project Accountant 2 $170.00
Project Accountant 1 $140.00
Office Administrator $125.00
REIMBURSABLES
Reimbursable expenses shall include the following:
à Cost of printing or duplication of drawings, specifications, reports, and cost estimates. à Tolls, parking fees, and local travel charged in accordance with IRS code. à Long distance telephone service and facsimile charges. à Cost of models, special renderings, photography, special printing of publications, maps, and other supplies required for the project. à Postage and delivery charges.
à Fees for local licenses and permits required to perform professional services. à Travel, lodging, subsistence, and out-of-pocket expenses for authorized travel in connection with contract services.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
Fees for consultant services and subcontractors retained with approval of client shall be billed at cost plus 10%.
EFFECTIVE 01/2025
Subject to annual review and adjustment
FEE SCHEDULE /
Agenda Item #7.7:
COST PROPOSAL /
26 SONOMA CITYWIDE HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY & HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT Scope Fee Hours
Schedule
2026 2027
January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March Project Initiation
Project Startup
Kickoff Meeting
Project Management
$9,255 43
Historic Context Statement
Review Existing Documentation
Historic Research
Windshield Survey
HCS Outline
Write HCS
Admin Draft HCS
Public Review Draft HCS
Final Draft HCS
Final Adopted HCS
$53,315 337
Citywide Survey Update
Pre-Fieldwork Research
GIS Data & Mobile Survey App Setup
Recon Survey (2000 buildings)
Reconnaissance Survey of 2000 buildings
Compile lists and maps for intensive survey
Intensive Survey
Conduct Fieldwork (100 new, 2 new districts, review 200 previously evaluated/designated) Conduct Property-Specific Research (assume max 100 properties) Prepare Draft Survey Forms (100 ind. and 2 district, incl peer review) Write Survey Report
Administrative Draft Survey Report & DPRs Submittal
Public Review Draft Survey Report & DPRs Submittal
Final Draft Survey Report & DPRs Submittal
Final Adopted Survey Report & DPRs Submittal
$117,750 766
Agenda Item #7.7:
COST PROPOSAL /
27 SONOMA CITYWIDE HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY & HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT Scope Fee Hours
Schedule
2026 2027
January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March Meetings and Hearings
Community Meetings / Workshops (up to 3)
Hearings (up to 4)
$12,700 66
TOTAL $193,020 1212
Expenses
Fulcrum App Customization (DPR Forms) $1,000
Travel; mileage; parking; printing of drafts, incidental printing, materials, and services. $5,500 TOTAL FEE + EXPENSES $199,520 1212
Legend:
P&T Work
City Review
Agenda Item #7.7:
28 Citywide Historic Resource Survey and Historic Context Statement Agreement Review
AGREEMENT REVIEW /
5. Consultant’s Services 5.1 Time is of the essence in Consultant’s performance of service under this agreement. Not withstanding the foregoing, in no event will Consultant be responsible for damages due to delays beyond Consultant’s reasonable control.
5.4 Consultant shall perform all work to the highest standards of Consultant’s profession and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the City consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by firms practicing in the same of similar locality under the same or similar circumstances (hereinafter the “Standard of Care”).
10.1 The parties agree that City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers should, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be protected from any and all loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, taxes, or any other cost arising out of or in any way related to the performance of this Agreement. Accordingly, the parties intend the provisions of this indemnity provision to be interpreted and construed to provide the City with the fullest protection possible under the law. Consultant acknowledges that City would not enter into this Agreement in the absence of Consultant’s commitment to indemnify and protect City as set forth herein.
10.2 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless, and when the City requests with respect to a claim provide a deposit for the defense of, and defend (with counsel satisfactory to City) and such approval shall not be unreasonable withheld, City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, losses, costs and expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person, whether physical, emotional, consequential or otherwise, and injury to any property arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct or other wrongful negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant or any of its officers, employees, servants, agents, or subconsultants, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either Consultant or its subconsultants, in the performance of this Agreement or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees due to counsel of City’s choice, expert fees and all other expenses of litigation. Consultant shall not be entitled to any refund of attorneys’ fees, defense costs or expenses in the event that it is adjudicated to have been nonnegligent.
Agenda Item #7.7:
29 523 W. 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213.221.1200 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 450 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95816 TEL 916.662.8532 333 WEST SAN CARLOS STREET, SUITE 600 SAN JOSÉ, CALIFORNIA 95110 TEL 415.593.3226 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415.362.5154 1201 WILSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 27 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 TEL 703.459.9528 We imagine change in historic and contemporary environments to cultivate thriving, sustainable, and resilient communities.
Agenda Item #7.7:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Dec 2025
Department
Community Development
Department
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group to Prepare a Historic Landscape Survey Report for the Sonoma Plaza and Amending the FY2025-26 Adopted Budget Summary
The Sonoma Plaza is a designated National Historic Landmark, central to the City’s identity and history. While the built environment surrounding the Plaza has been well documented, the landscape itself—its design evolution, plantings, spatial organization, and civic use—has not been comprehensively surveyed. To guide future design, maintenance, and preservation decisions, a historic landscape survey is needed to document and evaluate the Plaza’s historic landscape features. This survey will help ensure that landscape modifications, infrastructure improvements, and ongoing stewardship maintains the Plaza’s historical integrity that many tourists come to see.
The city circulated a Request for Proposals from qualified historic preservation consultants from October 17, 2025, to November 10, 2025, and received three responses. Staff selected Architectural Resources Group based on the proposal methodology, professional qualifications, experience, and timeline. The proposal estimates the cost of $40,900 to complete the historic landscape survey report within a 4 month period.
Recommended Council Action
Adoption of Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, with any modifications subject to legal review, with Architectural Resources Group to prepare a historic landscape survey report for the Sonoma Plaza in the amount not to exceed $40,900, through June 30, 2026 and amending the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Adopted Budget by $45,000.
Alternative Actions
City Council discretion.
Financial Impact
The agreement is not to exceed $40,900. The adopted budget for FY25-26 did not include this expense and requires a FY 2025-26 budget amendment of $45,000 for the completion of this landscape survey and any contingency. The expense will be paid out of account 100-43030- 347-50347.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report Approved/Certified
Agenda Item #7.8:
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
CC Resolution - Plaza Survey
Exhibit A Budget Adjustment Form FY 2025-26 Plaza Survey Sonoma Plaza Park Historic Landscape Survey ARG
Agenda Item #7.8:
City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2025
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP TO PREPARE A HISTORIC LANDSCAPE SURVEY REPORT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ADOPTED BUDGET WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma (“the City”) desires identify, document, and evaluate the Plaza’s historic landscape features and providing a foundation for preservation planning, maintenance, and interpretation consistent with state and federal standards; and WHEREAS, this effort will help ensure that landscape modifications, infrastructure improvements, and ongoing stewardship respect the Plaza’s historical integrity; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Request for Proposals from October 20, 2025, to November 10, 2025, and received two responses; and
WHEREAS, based on a review of the proposals received, Architectural Resources Group was deemed most qualified to provide the service; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025, the City Council adopted the budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and this expense was not included; and
WHEREAS, the changes in expenditures of the City of Sonoma necessitates amendment to the appropriations for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and
WHEREAS, the budgeted expenditures do not exceed anticipated revenue and available fund balance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sonoma that the budget amendment for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as contained in Exhibit A to this resolution is hereby adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group to provide services in the amount not to exceed $40,900 through June 30, 2026.
RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.8:
Batch ID#:
Entered By:
Date:
Request Date: 12/10/2025 Fiscal Year: 2025-26
Requesting Department: Communilty Development Department Adjustment Description: Plaza Historic Landcape Survey
Requestor: Jennifer Gates
Department Head Approval: Jennifer Gates Date: 12/10/2025 Finance Review: Prapti Aryal Date: 12/10/2025
City Manager Approval (if required)*: Date:
Net Adjustment:
Justification:
City Clerk Signature (if required)**: Date:
* City Manager Approval required for transfers between departments within the same fund, any changes to salary/benefit budgets, or matching increases to revenue and expense budgets.
** City Clerk Signature indicates that the requested Budget Adjustment was approved by Council. 45,000.00
Increase / (Decrease)
$ 45,000.00
$ 45,000.00
TOTAL DEBIT
This budget adjustment is done to increase the expenditure budget for account 100-43030-347-50347 for Plaza Historic Landscape Survey and also increase the revenue budget for account 100-00000-000-37201 which will be a transfer from the General Fund reserve.
$ 45,000.00
TOTAL CREDIT
Total Expenditure Adjustments: $ 45,000.00
$ 45,000.00
Total Revenue Adjustments:
Account Description of Adjustment
100-43030-347-50347 Plaza Historic Landscape Survey
100-00000-000-37201 Plaza Historic Landscape Survey 45,000.00 Budget Adjustment Form
Account Description of Adjustment Increase / (Decrease) Finance Department Use Only
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architecture
Planning
Conservation
PROPOSAL:
Sonoma Plaza Park
Historic Landscape Survey
City of Sonoma | November 10, 2025, revised November 12, 2025 Agenda Item #7.8:
Table of Contents
Cover Letter
Firm/Team Profile ............................................................................................................................... 1 Approach to the Work ...................................................................................................................... 10 Project Experience and References..................................................................................................12 Fee Schedule .................................................................................................................................... 16 Insurance........................................................................................................................................... 19 Agenda Item #7.8:
ARGcreate.com
November 10, 2025; revised to include schedule, November 12, 2025 Jennifer Gates, Community Development Director
City of Sonoma
#1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
Subject: Request for Proposals for a Historic Landscape Survey of Sonoma Plaza Park Dear Ms. Gates:
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) is pleased to submit this proposal in response to the City of Sonoma’s Request for Proposals for a Historic Landscape Survey of Sonoma Plaza Park, dated October 20, 2025.
ARG has more than 45 years of experience working with municipal governments on the West Coast to complete historic resource surveys and other preservation planning documents. We are excited for the opportunity to collaborate with the City of Sonoma to prepare documentation that will support responsible management of Sonoma Plaza Park, a nationally significant landscape that is designated a National Historic Landmark.
We have assembled a team that maximizes the unique skills and expertise needed for this project.
Matthew Davis, AICP, will be the Principal-in-Charge, leveraging his extensive experience in preservation planning to provide team leadership and project guidance. Stacy Farr will serve as Project Manager and lead author of the survey documentation, and will be the City’s primary point of contact throughout the project. Stacy is a seasoned architectural historian with recent cultural landscape experience, and has completed continuing education in the analysis of historic landscapes.
We are pleased to be partnering with Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey (RHAA), Landscape Architects, to complete the Historic Landscape Survey. RHAA is a firm with arguably unrivaled significance in the history of designed landscapes in the Bay Area. We have been immensely satisfied with our collaborative work with RHAA and are excited to work alongside them again.
ARG has read and agree to the terms of the City’s draft professional services agreement sample attached to the Request for Proposals. We will obtain a City of Sonoma Business License upon contract for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our qualifications and hope the enclosed materials are helpful as you consider our team for this project.
Sincerely,
Matthew Davis Stacy Farr
Principal Associate
971.256.5320 415.421.1680 ext. 251
[email protected] [email protected]
Agenda Item #7.8:
1 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Firm/Team Profile
FIRM INTRODUCTION
Architectural Resources Group (ARG) is a certified WomenOwned Business Enterprise (WBE) in the states of California and Oregon. Founded in 1980 as one of the first architectural firms focused on preserving the West Coast’s rich built heritage, our practice is guided by a dialogue between historic places, contemporary design, and conservation approaches to create spaces that are both engaging and memorable.
We are committed to enhancing the vitality of historic buildings and places, spanning preservation, adaptive reuse, and contextsensitive new construction. Our work is robustly informed by our expertise in preservation policy and standards, our technical conservation capacities, and our passion for realizing creative design solutions in historic environments.
Balanced Approach
ARG brings a deep understanding of balancing existing
conditions and desired outcomes. Drawing on the wide-ranging potential of preservation, we approach cultural resources with deep respect, and respond to current needs in ways that align stewardship and client aspirations.
Awards and Recognition
ARG’s work is widely recognized as exemplary and has been honored with over 150 awards from organizations including the American Institute of Architects, California Preservation Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, and Restore Oregon.
In 2006, ARG was named Firm of the Year by the AIA’s California Council, which cited our consistently distinguished design and multidisciplinary expertise.
Francisco Park
PRESERVATION PLANNING
Preservation planning is a core element of ARG’s practice.
ARG’s Preservation Planning group comprises architectural historians, preservation planners, and historic architects who meet The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in multiple disciplines. The group has varied interests and areas of specialization in the fields of history, architectural history, historic preservation, cultural resource management, cultural landscapes, city planning, architecture, environmental compliance, and urban design.
This breadth of professional experience enables the group to provide a diverse array of planning, research, and design services to public and private clients. The group brings relevant work experience on a wide range of projects in historic and cultural resource management and preservation planning throughout the Western states, including California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, and Alaska.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal Name:
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Principal/Local Office:
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA 94111
Additional Office:
720 SW Washington, Suite 107
Portland, OR 97214
Organization Type:
ARG is a California corporation in business since 1980.
Incorporated in 1994.
Point of Contact:
Matthew Davis, Principal-in-Charge
971.256.5320 | [email protected]
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 2 Firm/Team Profile
SERVICES & DISCIPLINES
Architecture
ARG’s architects are a diverse group
brought together by strengths in
preserving and enhancing existing
places, from modest vernacular
structures to iconic showpieces. We
work at all scales and in any situation
that calls for giving new life to heritage
buildings and environments.
▪ Preservation
▪ Restoration
▪ Rehabilitation
▪ Programming
▪ Adaptive Reuse
▪ Seismic Strengthening
▪ New Design
▪ Sustainable Design
▪ Universal Access Design
▪ Building Assessments
▪ Feasibility Analysis
▪ Construction Administration
Preservation Planning
ARG provides strategic guidance
on historic resource management
for property owners, preservation
organizations, and government
entities. Our preservation planners
deploy their expertise in research
and regulatory environments to offer
effective direction on stewardship and
development of historically significant
places.
▪ Historic Context & Resource Surveys
▪ Cultural Resource Inventories
▪ Historic Structure Reports
▪ Cultural Landscape Reports
▪ Historic Resource Evaluations
▪ Local, State, and National Register
Nominations
▪ Eligibility Determinations
▪ Design Guidelines
▪ HABS Documentation
▪ Environmental Compliance
Documentation
▪ Historic Preservation Ordinances
▪ Historic Preservation Plans
▪ Master Planning
▪ Tax Credit Certifications
Materials Conservation
ARG’s architectural conservators
develop and implement customized
treatments for historic buildings on a
project-by-project basis. Our trained
staff gather specific data on material
properties and conditions from on-site
investigations and research optimal
repair strategies in ARG’s in-house
laboratory.
▪ Materials Conservation
▪ Conditions Surveys
▪ Facade Inspections
▪ Repair & Maintenance Plans
▪ Conservation Construction
Management
▪ Maintenance & Remedial Work
▪ Non-Destructive Materials
Investigation
Agenda Item #7.8:
3 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Selected Cultural Landscape Studies asnd Reports
▪ McLaren Park Cultural Landscape Report – San Francisco, CA ▪ Crocker Amazon Playground Cultural Landscape Report – San Francisco, CA
▪ Capitol Reef National Park, Mission 66 Cultural Landscape Inventory and National Register Nomination – Torrey, UT ▪ Cabrillo National Monument Visitor Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Report – San Diego, CA
▪ Filoli Estate Cultural Landscape Report and Historic Structure Report – Woodside, CA
▪ Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument Cultural Landscape Report – Crow Agency, MT
▪ 4 Lazy F Ranch Cultural Landscape Report – Grand Teton National Park, WY
▪ Trail Ridge Road CLR, Rocky Mountain National Park, CO ▪ Ansel Adams Gallery Cultural Landscape Report – Yosemite National Park, CA
▪ Marconi-RCA Transmitting and Receiving Stations Cultural Landscape Report – Point Reyes National Seashore, CA
▪ Point Reyes Lighthouse Cultural Landscape Report – Point Reyes National Seashore, CA
▪ Presidio of San Francisco, Cultural Landscape Report and Cultural Resource Study – San Francisco, CA
▪ Ahwahnee Hotel Cultural Landscape Report and Historic Structural Report – Yosemite National Park, CA
▪ Pipe Spring National Monument Cultural Landscape Report – Pipe Spring, NM
▪ Lockwood Valley Cultural Survey – Maricopa, CA
▪ Fort Mason Cultural Landscape Report – Golden Gate National Recreation Area, CA
▪ Pecos National Historic Park Cultural Landscape Inventory – Pecos, NM
▪ Devils Tower National Monument Cultural Landscape Report – Yellowstone National Park, WI
▪ Thurston Lava Tube, Cultural Landscape Report – Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park, HI
Firm/Team Profile
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE STUDIES
ARG’s Preservation Planning group has produced many Cultural Landscape Reports (CLRs) and related types of cultural landscape documentation for clients whose goals are to identify the history, significance, and/or treatment of a cultural landscape for the purposes of documentation and long-term management.
ARG has experience working with various types of cultural landscapes, including historic designed landscapes, vernacular landscapes, historic sites, and ethnographic landscapes.
Depending on the client goals, ARG’s cultural landscape studies typically include most or all of the following: a narrative of a site’s historical development; existing conditions, including landscape characteristics and associated features; an analysis and evaluation of historic significance; a conditions assessment; and/ or treatment recommendations. ARG has worked with landscape architecture subconsultants to successfully complete in-depth studies for public parks, estates, and municipalities across a diverse array of physical landscapes and historic contexts.
The Presidio of San Francisco
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 4 Fulton Street Mall, Fresno California Presidio Main Post, San Francisco, California Firm/Team Profile
SUBCONSULTANT
RHAA has a long history of environmental stewardship and a holistic design vision. We are known for our site sensitive design approach that provides the maximum benefit for the least use of available resources while creating places that enrich the fabric of their communities. Whether working in the heart of a city or in a pristine natural environment, the firm strives to find the spirit of the place and weave together history, nature, human relationships, stories, art, environment and culture to create unique and beautiful landscapes. Our goal is to let the context – the site and its user community – speak for itself.
RHAA offers extensive experience working on properties with historic designations including National Historic Landmarks, National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, and local landmarks. Our projects regularly undergo historic review with the State Historic Preservation Office, the National Park Service, and local preservation commissions. We design our projects for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. We work closely with agency staff to ensure that projects are designed from the beginning to comply with requirements for historic and cultural resources.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Legal Name:
Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey, Inc.
Organization Type:
RHAA is a California corporation in business since 1958.
Incorporated in 1967.
Principal/Local Office:
225 Miller Ave
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Point of Contact:
Nathan Lozier, Principal-in-Charge
415.762.2481 | [email protected]
Agenda Item #7.8:
5 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Selected Cultural Landscape Studies and Reports
▪ Golden Gate Park National Register Nomination – San
Francisco, CA
▪ Golden Gate Park Music Concourse Master Plan and
Rehabilitation – San Francisco, CA
▪ Conservatory Valley Historic Landscape Report, Golden Gate Park – San Francisco, CA
▪ Presidio Main Post Cultural Landscape Report – San Francisco, CA
▪ Marconi Wireless Stations Cultural Landscape Report – Pt.
Reyes National Seashore, CA
▪ McKinley Park Cultural Landscape Report – Sacramento, CA ▪ McKinley Park HALS Documentation – Sacramento, CA
▪ McKinley Park National Register Nomination Report –
Sacramento, CA
▪ Golden Gate Park HALS Documentation – San Francisco, CA ▪ Glacier Point Site History – Yosemite National Park, CA ▪ Palace of Fine Arts Historic Landscape Report – San Francisco, CA
▪ Japanese Tea Garden, Historic Landscape Report – San
Francisco, CA
▪ Curry Village Historic Core Landscape Rehabilitation – Yosemite National Park
▪ Old City Cemetery Master Plan – Sacramento, CA
▪ Old City Cemetery National Register Nomination –
Sacramento, CA
▪ Sanchez Adobe Historic Site Master Plan – Pacifica, CA ▪ Jack London State Historic Park Dam and Lake Historic Structures Report – Glenn Ellen, CA
▪ Fort Mason Center Cultural Landscape Report – San Francisco, CA
▪ Casa Grande Historic Landscape Report – New Almaden, CA ▪ Edghill Mansion Rehabilitation, Dominican University – San Rafael, CA
▪ Ahwahnee Hotel Landscape Rehabilitation – Yosemite National Park, CA
▪ Ansel Adams Gallery Cultural Landscape Report – Yosemite National Park, CA
Firm/Team Profile
▪ La Purisima Mission Historic American Landscape Survey – Lompoc, CA
▪ Mountain Theater Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) Documentation – Mt. Tamalpais State Park, Mill Valley, CA ▪ Fresno Fulton Mall Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) Documentation – Fresno, CA
▪ State Library and Courts Building and Landscape Rehabilitation – Sacramento, CA
▪ Casa Peralta Historic Landscape Improvement Plan, San Leandro, CA
▪ Union Iron Works Historic District – Irish Hill Remnant Determination of Individual Eligibility – San Francisco, CA ▪ VA San Francisco Medical Center Cultural Landscape Report – San Francisco, CA
▪ Pershing and Doughboy Monuments, Golden Gate Park
Historic American Landscape Survey Documentation, San
Francisco, CA
▪ Lytton Square Historic American Landscape Survey
Documentation, Mill Valley, CA
▪ Old Town San Diego Cultural Landscape Report – San Diego, CA
▪ Visitor Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Report – Cabrillo National Monument, San Diego, CA
▪ Bidwell Mansion State Historic Park, Historic Landscape Report – Chico, CA
▪ Thurston Lava Tube Cultural Landscape Report – Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI
Ansel Adams Gallery, Yosemite National Park, CA
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 6 Project Team
ARG’s team for the Sonoma Plaza Park Historic Landscape Survey will be organized in the manner illustrated on the organizational chart on the right.
Principal Matthew Davis, AICP. will serve as Principal-inCharge providing project oversight and review of all work products. Matthew is an experienced preservation planner and architectural historian who has managed many planning projects in historic sites, including parks settings.
Stacy Farr will serve as Project Manager and the City’s primary point of contact for the project. Stacy is a seasoned architectural historian with recent cultural landscape experience, and has completed continuing education in the analysis of historic landscapes.
The RHAA team includes Principal Nathan Lozier, AIA, LEED AP, who oversees many of RHAA’s historic landscape projects.
Nathan will work closely with John Martin, who will serve the role of Project Manager.
Firm/Team Profile
PROJECT TEAM
We have assembled a dynamic and talented team to address the complex requirements of this project. Our consultant team consists of landscape architects with whom we have a long-term working relationship and who are very familiar with the documention of historic landscapes. All team members are ready to start the project immediately and will be staffed to the project from start through completion. Resumes can be found on the following pages.
CITY OF SONOMA
Stacy Farr
Project Manager &
Architectural Historian /
Preservation Planner
Matthew Davis, AICP
Principal-in-Charge
Landscape Architect
RHAA
Nathan Lozier, PLA, SITES AP
Principal-in-Charge
John Martin, PLA, LEED AP
Project Manager
Matthew Davis 10%
Stacy Farr 35%
Nathan Lozier 20%
John Martin 25%
Availability chart
Staff Availability
ARG projects are staffed with qualified team members who are available to commit to projects from start to finish. Before assigning staff to projects, we carefully evaluate workloads and depth of relevant experience to arrive at the best possible team.
The team members assigned to the Sonoma Plaza Park Historic Landscape Survey have both the experience and availability to successfully execute this project. Likewise, RHAA’s team RHAA’s team is available to commit to this project’s proposed schedule.
Agenda Item #7.8:
7 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Firm/Team Profile
MATTHEW M. DAVIS, AICP
Principal | Preservation Planner
Matthew is a preservation planner and architectural historian with over 19 years of project management experience in the treatment of historic properties. His specialties include conducting historic resource evaluations; completing National Register nominations and environmental compliance documentation; assessing project design for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; communicating with local and state historic review commissions; and developing preservation plans and design guidelines. Matthew received his Master of City Planning (MCP) degree from UC Berkeley, where he focused on land use and historic resource issues. Matthew serves on the Board of Directors for the Architectural Heritage Center and recently completed terms as Secretary of APA Oregon’s Board of Directors and President of Restore Oregon’s Board of Directors. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).
Relevant Project Experience
▪ Tolay Lake Regional Park Master Plan, Sonoma County, CA ▪ Marconi-RCA Bolinas Transmitting Station, Cultural Landscape Report, Point Reyes, CA ▪ McLaren Park, Cultural Landscape Report, San Francisco, CA ▪ Balboa Park Pool Building, Historic Preservation Consulting, San Francisco, CA ▪ Alta Heights Neighborhood Survey, Napa, CA
▪ Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Historic Resource Study and Determinations of Eligibility, Santa Monica, CA
▪ Point Reyes National Seashore National Register Nominations: Point Reyes Peninsula Dairy Ranches Historic District; Olema Valley Dairy Ranches Historic District; Naval Radio Compass Station; Tocaloma Bridge, Marin County, CA
▪ Degnan’s Deli, Determination of Eligibility/National Register Nomination and Historic Structural Report, Yosemite National Park, CA
▪ Crane Cove Park and Pier 70 Special Use District, Union Iron Works National Register Historic District, Project Design Review, San Francisco, CA
▪ Dolores Park, Historic Resource Evaluation Report Peer Review, San Francisco, CA ▪ Alta Plaza Park, Historic Resource Evaluation, San Francisco, CA ▪ Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial, National Register Nomination, Richmond, CA ▪ Country Club Park, HPOZ Survey, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Fay House Assessment, San Francisco, CA
▪ Olympic & Crater Lake National Park, Mission 66 Properties Determinations of Eligibility, WA ▪ Downtown Monterey & Old Town National Historic Landmark District, Historic Context Statement and Survey, Monterey, CA
Education
Master of City Planning, University
of California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts with Honors,
Mathematics, Harvard University
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History
Registrations
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
Memberships
Architectural Heritage Center
Restore Oregon
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
American Planning Association
Boards/Committees
Board Member, Architectural
Heritage Center
Past Board Secretary, American
Planning Association - Oregon
Chapter
Past Board President, Restore
Oregon
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 8 Firm/Team Profile
Education
Master of Science in Architectural
History, University of California,
Berkeley
Bachelor of Science in the History
of Art and Architecture, University
of California, Santa Barbara
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History and History
Supplemental Education
National Preservation
Institute - Cultural Landscapes:
Understanding, Planning for, and
Managing a Dynamic Resource,
Spring 2024
National Preservation Institute -
Cultural Landscapes: Advanced
Tools for Managing Change, Spring
2024
Memberships
California Garden & Landscape
History Society
EDEN Journal (Editorial Board)
Documentation and Conservation
of buildings, sites, and
neighborhoods of the Modern
Movement (DOCOMOMO)
Oakland Heritage Alliance
STACY A. FARR
Associate | Architectural Historian & Preservation Planner Stacy has over fifteen years’ experience in cultural resource documentation and evaluation, preservation planning, and environmental review and compliance. Her recent projects have included Historic Structure Reports and National Register Nominations for the National Park Service, Historic Resource Evaluation reports, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards design reviews, and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation. Stacy is a thirty-year resident of the San Francisco Bay Area and has worked on projects throughout California, Washington, Texas, and New England.
Relevant Project Experience
▪ McLaren Park, Cultural Landscape Report, San Francisco, CA ▪ Crocker Amazon Playground, Cultural Landscape Report, San Francisco, CA ▪ Filoli Historic House and Garden Estate, Cultural Landscape Report, Woodside, CA ▪ UC Berkeley, People’s Park Historic Landscape Documentation, Berkeley, CA ▪ Joseph D. Grant County Park, Multi-Property and Landscape Features Historic Resource Evaluation, Santa Clara County, CA
▪ CSU Stanislaus, Stockton Campus Historic Resource Evaluation and Cultural Resource Support for EIR, Stockton, CA
▪ San Mateo Central Park, Historic Landscape Documentation and Cultural Resource Support, San Mateo, CA
▪ Martial Cottle Park, Cottle Ranch Life Estate & Chynoweth Pumphouse Historic Structure Report, San José, CA
▪ African Americans in California, National Register Multiple Property Designation Form (contributing author), CA
▪ San Francisco Planning Department Staff Support, Local Landmark Designation Reports (Trocadero Clubhouse, Allegory of California, and Clay Theater), San Francisco, CA ▪ Ferryboat Eureka, Historic Structure Report, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, San Francisco, CA
▪ Ferryboats Cabrillo and Silvergate, National Register Nominations, San Diego, CA ▪ UC San Francisco, Toland Hall, Bernard Zakheim Murals Historic Documentation, San Francisco, CA ▪ 200 Rhode Island Street, Takahashi Building Local Landmark Designation, San Francisco, CA ▪ Alexander House Historic Structure Report and Historic Preservation Guidelines, Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park, TX
▪ CIty of San Jose, Eastside Alum Rock and Saratoga Historic Resource Surveys, San Jose, CA Agenda Item #7.8:
9 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Education
Master of Landscape Architecture,
University of California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental
Studies, University of California,
Santa Cruz
Registration
Landscape Architect, CA: 5433
LEED Accredited Professional
Memberships
American Society of
Landscape Architects
NATHAN LOZIER, PLA, SITES AP
Principal
Nathan brings a focus on the integration of ecology and infrastructure with the design of landscapes.
Nathan is particularly interested in creating people-friendly spaces that evoke the site’s history and reveal ecology and natural process. He believes in a collaborative approach, seeking creative solutions that realize the opportunities and needs of the site, client, and community. Nathan’s talents range from master plan writing to conceptual design, construction detailing and construction administration.
He has worked on a variety of projects for RHAA, including large-scale master planning; streetscapes; storm water management; and civic/educational institutions.
Relevant Project Experience
▪ Fulton Mall Historic Streetscape Renovation, Fresno, CA (w/ ARG) ▪ Stanford University Hanna House Improvements, Stanford, CA (w/ ARG) ▪ Building 993 Renovation, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, Vancouver, WA (w/ ARG) ▪ Feasibility Study and Long Term Stabilization, Oregon Caves Chateau, Cave Junction, OR (w/ ARG) ▪ Fulton Mall Historic American Landscape Survey, Fresno, CA ▪ Japantown Peace Plaza, San Francisco, CA
▪ Dublin Pioneer Cemetery, Dublin, CA
▪ Hunters Point Shoreline, San Francisco, CA
▪ Salesforce Tower Mission Square, San Francisco, CA
Firm/Team Profile
Education
Master of Landscape Architecture,
University of California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts, Integrative
Biology, Minor in Italian Studies,
University of California, Berkeley
Registration
Landscape Architect, CA: 5987
LEED Accredited Professional
ReScape Qualified Professional
Memberships
Board Member - California Garden
& Landscape History Society
American Society of
Landscape Architects
California Preservation Foundation
JOHN MARTIN, PLA, LEED AP
Senior Associate | Project Manager
John brings a background in integrative biology to landscape architecture and an interest in urban and cultural landscapes that connect communities to their surroundings. He believes enduring and memorable public spaces emerge from the creative melding of a site’s ecology, its history, and the functional needs of the individuals using it. John’s interests lie at the intersection between thoughtful planting design and sustainability. It is with this combination he is able to elicit experiential qualities through design that contribute to a more vibrant future for the public realm.
Relevant Project Experience
▪ Fulton Mall Historic Streetscape Renovation, Fresno, CA (w/ ARG) ▪ Stanford University Hanna House Improvements, Stanford, CA (w/ ARG) ▪ Presidio Battery Bluffs, San Francisco, CA (w/ ARG)
▪ VA Honolulu National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu, HI ▪ Tanforan Memorial, San Bruno, CA
▪ Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Rohnert Park, CA
▪ Fulton Street Historic American Landscape Survey, Fresno, CA ▪ Victorian Park, Maritime National Historic Site, San Francisco, CA ▪ Presidio Ft. Scott Officers Club, San Francisco, CA
▪ Dublin Historic Park, Dublin, CA
▪ Historic Murphy Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Sunnyvale, CA Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 10 information on any associated design professionals. The context statement will be illustrated with photographs and other visual materials, and its construction chronology will be supported with period plans depicting the appearance of the plaza at key milestones in its history.
Task 2, including research and narrative development of context statement, can be completed during months two and three of the project timeline.
3. Field Survey and Documentation
ARG and RHAA staff members will participate in a site visit to Sonoma Plaza Park in order to photograph the plaza’s cultural landscape features, including its circulation, spatial organization, vegetation, buildings and structures, water features, small-scale features, and views. The City of Sonoma will assist ARG with site visit coordination and access to all areas of the plaza. ARG and RHAA staff members may elect to conduct additional site visits as the project progresses to gather additional information on the plaza’s physical conditions.
The field survey will directly support the preparation of physical descriptions of the plaza’s current landscape features, which will be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523-series forms. At the present time, ARG and RHAA anticipate preparing 523A (Primary Record) forms for each relevant cultural landscape feature category, which will include sketch maps and photographs to document locations and current conditions.
Task 3, including field survey and documentation, can be completed during months two and three of the project timeline.
Approach to the Work
c.1852 watercolor image of Sonoma Plaza and surrounding buildings (Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley) ARG and RHAA propose to complete the Sonoma Plaza Park
Historic Landscape Survey using the approach outlined below, which follows the tasks outlined in the RFP.
1. Project Initiation
ARG and RHAA staff members will participate in a project initiation meeting with the City of Sonoma to confirm schedule, sequence of deliverables, and other details for the project.
Members of the consultant team will also review previously prepared documentation of Sonoma Plaza Park provided by the City, including existing designation materials prepared for its National Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places designations.
Task 1, including kick off and review of existing documentation, can be completed within one month of receipt of a signed contract.
2. Historic Context Development
ARG and RHAA staff members will conduct additional historical research to understand the development history of the plaza, which is anticipated to include historical photographs, drawings and surveys, and additional primary and secondary sources.
Using the materials reviewed and research completed during this phase of the project, ARG and RHAA will develop a narrative historic context statement that establishes the physical development and historical uses of Sonoma Plaza to the present day. The context statement will also describe influences on the plaza’s historical landscape designs and will provide biographical Agenda Item #7.8:
11 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park
4. Description of existing physical conditions, addressing landscape characteristics including natural systems,
spatial organization, constructed water features,
circulation, topography, views and vistas, and
vegetation, as well as buildings, structures, and smallscale features;
5. Analysis of the historical significance of the plaza and its significance for the National Register and
California Register, along with assignation of period of significance, integrity evaluation, and contributing and non-contributing features;
6. Bibliography; and
7. Appendices to include graphics, maps, historic and
existing condition photographs, and DPR forms of
individual cultural landscape categories.
ARG anticipates formatting the Draft Historic Landscape Survey Report using InDesign.
Task 5, including submittal of the Draft Historic Landscape Survey Report, can be completed by the close of month four of the project timeline.
Following receipt of one round of consolidated comments from the City on the draft report, ARG and RHAA will revise the document and submit a Final Historic Landscape Survey Report. Revisions and submittal of the Final Historic Landscape Survey Report can be completed within one month of receipt of consolidated comments.
Members of the consultant team will also be avaialble to prepare presentations for and attend up to three public hearings of the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council, as requested and scheduled by City staff.
Note that the Historic Landscape Survey Report will not include a detailed conditions assessment or treatment recommendations.
However, ARG and RHAA would be available to complete these additional tasks under a new or amended contract, should the City wish to undertake them in the future. These additional tasks would provide the City with the information that is typically contained in a Cultural Landscape Report, a planning document that is frequently used to plan for sensitive maintenance and preservation of significant cultural landscapes.
4. Evaluation of Significance
ARG and RHAA staff members will draft a narrative evaluation of the Sonoma Plaza Park using the evaluative criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and local landmark registry. The evaluation will define the plaza’s period of significance and will also present an assessment of the resource’s historical integrity. The integrity assessment will consider how well the plaza conveys its historical significance based upon its design during the identified period(s) of significance. The evaluation will be supported by lists of contributing and non-contributing landscape features and associated maps.
Task 4, including evaluation of significance, can be completed during month four of the project timeline.
5. Draft and Final Historic Context Statement and DPR Forms ARG and RHAA will compile a Draft Historic Landscape Survey Report that includes the following:
1. Introduction and methodology;
2. Overview of previous documentation and historical
resource status;
3. Historic context statement, including natural and
Indigenous use periods, all phases of physical
development and use, relevant design contexts, and a
consolidated construction chronology;
Approach to the Work
1913 photograph of the Sonoma Plaza fountain and Broadway, viewed facing south from City Hall (Sonoma County Library)
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 12 Project Experience
Client
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department
Reference
Kerstin Kalchmayr
Planner II, Capital & Planning Division
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department
628.652.6601 | [email protected]
Project Duration
2022-2024
Cost
$99,850
Team Members
▪ Matthew Davis - Principal-in-Charge
▪ Stacy Farr - Project Manager, Lead Author, Architectural Historian & Preservation Planner
MCLAREN PARK
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
San Francisco, California
McLaren Park is the second largest public park in San Francisco, encompassing over 500 acres of rugged terrain in the city’s far southeast quadrant. The park was established in the 1920s, partially developed during the Great Depression, and more robustly developed in the 1960s as part of the city’s great investment in public recreation after World War II. Park facilities include two lakes, three recreation buildings, an amphitheater, horse stables, and Gleneagles Golf Course, as well as multiple playgrounds, sport courts, roads, paths, and trails.
ARG completed a Cultural Landscape Report for McLaren
Park under an on-call contract with the San Francisco
Recreation and Parks Department. The department sought a deliverable that could inform specific treatment protocols for the preservation and rehabilitation of historically significant features within the park. Working with a historical landscape architect subconsultant, the McLaren Park CLR included an evaluation of the potential historic significance of individual and district resources within the park; a conditions assessment of the historic resources within the park; and treatment recommendations to guide park improvements.
The project required a complex approach, due to the park’s size, multiple phases of development, and varied types of potential Master Plan of McLaren Park, William G. Merchant and Associates, 1959 (San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department Archives) resources, including buildings, structures, objects, and designed landscapes. ARG completed a 75% draft CLR within ten months.
Following review by both the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department and historic preservation specialists within the San Francisco Planning Department, ARG submitted a 100% draft CLR in December 2024. The completed McLaren Park CLR will provide the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department with a clear framework to guide planned and future undertakings within the park.
Agenda Item #7.8:
13 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Project Experience
Cabrillo National Monument Visitor Center
CABRILLO NATIONAL MONUMENT VISITOR CENTER
HISTORIC DISTRICT
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
San Diego, California
Cabrillo National Monument occupies approximately 160 acres on the southern end of the Point Loma Peninsula in San Diego, California. The monument protects a diverse collection of cultural and natural resources, including the Old Point Loma Lighthouse, constructed in 1854, and a second light station at the southern tip of the peninsula, constructed in 1891.
The Visitor Center complex was constructed under the National Park Service’s Mission 66 program in 1967 and includes three buildings connected by covered walkways with view terraces, two prominent overlook points (Ballast View Rest Area and Cabrillo Statue Overlook), an entry drive, a large parking lot, pedestrian pathways, and a designed landscape. The Cabrillo National Monument Visitor Center Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1998.
ARG worked with a historical landscape architect subconsultant to prepare a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for the Cabrillo National Monument Visitor Center Historic District. The CLR built on a previously completed Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI), and incorporated new information regarding modifications to the site completed since 2009. Part I of the CLR included a site history, existing conditions information, and analysis of contributing features. Part II of the CLR provided treatment recommendations including strategies for both short-term and long-term management based on significance, existing conditions, and use. The treatment section addressed specific landscape characteristics and features within the historic district and provided a prioritized list of maintenance and treatment tasks to guide future work at the site.
ARG completed a 75% draft CLR within five months. Following review by the National Park Service and a 95% draft submittal, ARG submitted a 100% draft CLR in July 2019 and a final draft in February 2020.
Client
National Park Service
Reference
Vida Germano, Regional Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program Manager
415.859.1777 | [email protected]
Project Duration
2018-2020
Cost
$77,447
Team Members
▪ ARG - Architect/Historic Architect
▪ RHAA - Landscape Architects and Planners (subconsultant) Visitor Center Viewing Building
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 14 Project Experience
Overview of park area, ca. 1878 - 1898; Bernal house in forground (Joseph D. Grant Collection of the Santa Clara County Park Archives) JOSEPH D. GRANT COUNTY PARK
HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
Santa Clara County, California
Joseph D. Grant County Park is located in the foothills of Mt.
Hamilton and serves as Santa Clara County’s largest regional park, covering most of the scenic Hall’s Valley. The park is included in the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory and is a designated California Point of Interest. ARG worked with RRM Design Group and Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation to complete a Historic Resource Evaluation for unused buildings, structures, and objects at the park, with the goal of ascertaining these features’ potential historic resource status prior to developing a revised master plan for the park.
Historically occupied by Tamien (Tamyen) indigenous people, this area was granted by Mexican authorities to members of the Bernal family in the 1830s. Bernal-era development is still extant within the boundaries of the park. In the 1880s, after decades of subdivision and sale, San Francisco capitalist and rancher Joseph D. Grant started to purchase and reconstitute the historic Bernal-era ranch, and by the time of his death in 1942 he had assembled more than two thirds of the 15,700-acre Bernal land grant. The property was transfered to county ownership in the 1970s.
Grant kept this land under intense cultivation. Although he constructed several new buildings, he also retained many buildings, structures, and objects that predated his ownership.
For the historic evaluation, ARG completed a robust research effort in order to understand the land ownership, subdivision, development, demolition, and construction history of this complicated ranching landscape. ARG also made serveral
site visits to the park in order to develop a detailed existing conditions report. ARG found multiple buildings, structures, and objects within the park to contribute to a historic district, and recommended an approach to preserve the Bernal-era resouces within the park.
ARG completed a 95% draft Historic Resource Evaluation within nine months of starting our project work. Following review by park staff, ARG received two requests for additional services to evaluate additional areas of the park. A 100% draft report was completed in August 2025.
Client
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation
Reference
Kimberly Brosseau, Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Senior Planner
408.355.2200| [email protected]
Project Duration
2023-2025
Cost
$81,650 (including two add service orders)
Team Members
▪ Lisa Yergovich - Principal-in-Charge
▪ Stacy Farr - Lead Author, Architectural Historian &
Preservation Planner
Joseph D. Grant County Park, existing componants of the historic ranching landscape (ARG, 2024)
Agenda Item #7.8:
15 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Project Experience
FILOLI ESTATE
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT AND HISTORIC
STRUCTURE REPORT
Woodside, California
Designed in 1916 by noted architects Willis Polk and Arthur Brown Jr., Filoli was the estate of water baron William Bowers Bourn II. The house is an adaptation of the Georgian style and demonstrates a formal Beaux Arts site plan. The property’s extensive gardens are noted for their variety of plantings and the excellence of Bruce Porter’s landscape design. Today, Filoli is administered by the National Trust for Historic Preservation under the stewardship of the Filoli Center, a nonprofit organization. The house and gardens are open for tours with over 50,000 visitors annually.
ARG has a long working relationship with the administration and the Board of the Filoli Estate. Previously, we designed a new Visitor and Education Center for the site and subsequently served as the architect for the phased seismic strengthening of the Main House. We also conducted a conditions assessment of the exterior of the Garden House and reviewed the seismic upgrade work proposed for the building.
ARG prepared a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) and Historic Structure Report (HSR) to accompany a Master Plan for the site prepared by landscape architects Nelson Byrd Woltz. The CLR documented the site’s history, which included Indigenous presence in the Filoli site area prior to the Spanish, Mexican, and early American settlements.
ARG stared work on the Filoli CLR and HSR in February 2020.
Progress on the project was significantly disrupted by COVIDrelated closures. However, ARG moved the project along and submitted a 75% draft CLR in June 2021. Following client review and ARG revisions, the 100% final CLR was completed in September 2022.
The CLR and HSR form vital components of the Master Plan, which will ensure the preservation of the significant historic, cultural, and natural features of the site, and serve as a guide for ongoing maintenance, preservation, and stewardship of the buildings and landscapes of Filoli.
Client
Filoli Center
Reference
Kara Newport
President & CEO, Filoli Center
650.421.7350 | [email protected]
Project Duration
2020 - 2022
Cost
$210,790
Team Members
▪ Naomi Miroglio - Principal-in-Charge
▪ Stacy Farr - Architectural Historian & Preservation Planner Filoli estate and garden site
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 16 Fee Schedule
KEY PERSONNEL HOURLY RATES
Team members’ labor will be billed at the following rates. Any additional work beyond the base proposal will be billed at ARG’s standard rates, as listed in the full rate sheet included below. ARG will not bill for any work outside the contracted scope without first consulting with the City.
Role Staff Hourly Rate
Principal in Charge Matthew Davis $230
Project Manager Stacy Farr $175
PROPOSED FEE
ARG proposes to complete the Request for Proposals’ scope of services, per the project approach presented in this proposal, for the following fee broken down by task:
Task 1. Project Initiation $3,300
Task 2. Historic Context Development $13,000
Task 3. Field Survey and Documentation $13,700
Task 4. Evaluation of Significance $3,720
Task 5. Draft and Final Deliverables $6,310
Reimbursable Expenses $870
PROJECT TOTAL: $40,900
Role Staff Hourly Rate
Principal in Charge Nathan Lozier $300
Project Manager John Martin $160
Architectural Resources Group
RHAA Landscape Architects
Agenda Item #7.8:
17 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Fee Schedule
STANDARD BILLING RATES
1. Direct personnel expense shall be billed at the following rates, including time for meetings, public meetings, and presentations:
Principal $260 to $330/hour
Senior Project Manager $200 to $250/hour
Project Manager $180 to $210/hour
Senior Architect $190 to $240/hour
Architect 3 $180 to $210/hour
Designer 3 $175 to $210/hour
Historian/ Planner 3 $175 to $210/hour
Conservator 3 $175 to $210/hour
Architect 2 $165 to $175/hour
Designer 2 $155 to $170/hour
Historian/ Planner 2 $155 to $170/hour
Conservator 2 $155 to $170/hour
Architect 1 $145 to $160/hour
Designer 1 $145 to $150/hour
Historian/ Planner 1 $145 to $150/hour
Conservator 1 $145 to $150/hour
Intern $100 to $140/hour
Administrative Personnel $100 to $140/hour
2. Reimbursable Expenses shall be billed at cost plus 15% and shall include the following:
a. Reproduction costs such as printing or duplication of drawings, specifications, and written reports. b. Lodging, subsistence, and out-of-pocket expenses for authorized travel in connection with work. c. Travel: (including local) IRS allowable rate plus tolls and parking, or cost of air travel. d. Special teleconference or database access charges.
e. Cost of models, special renderings, photography, special process printing, special printed reports or publications and maps.
f. Postage and delivery charges.
g. Professional consultants retained with client approval. h. Specialized equipment rental (required by the project).
3. Equipment Use Fee of $300 shall be charged for specialized equipment like the Thermal Imaging Camera, 3D Camera, or Binocular Microscope.
4. Rates shall increase 5% each year until the project is completed.
5. Rates effective January 1, 2025 thru December 31, 2025.
Agenda Item #7.8:
Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park 18 Fee Schedule
Terms of Agreement
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Charges for Basic and Extra Services will be based on hourly rates shown in the following table:
2025 Hourly Billing Rates
Principal Partner 1.........................................................$300 Principal Partner 2.........................................................$295 Associate Principal........................................................$290 Senior Associate 1.........................................................$270 Senior Associate 2.........................................................$240 Associate 1 ......................................................................$220 Associate 2 ......................................................................$200 Project Landscape Architect 1 ..................................$210 Project Landscape Architect 2 ..................................$195 Senior Designer 1...........................................................$190 Senior Designer 2...........................................................$175 Designer 1........................................................................$170 Designer 2........................................................................$160 Project Accountant .......................................................$190 Controller.........................................................................$200 These rates include all applicable fringe, overhead and profit calculations. No additional percentages for overhead, profit, or any other costs related to labor will be charged.
Billing rates are current for six months from the date of Agreement for Professional Services or until the next calendar year, whichever comes first. RHAA anticipates an annual hourly rate increase of 5% effective January 1st of each new year without prior notice. For projects that span multiple years, an updated Schedule of Rates will be sent with the first invoice that reflects the annual increase.
EXPENSES
The following expenses will be billed at cost plus a 10 percent markup:
• Automobile Travel (IRS allowable rate per mile), tolls and parking • Airfare, car rental, lodging, meals and expenses associated with out-of-town travel • Plotting, reproductions and copies (including CADD, renderings and planning documents) • Photographic charges
• Presentation materials, including charrette/meeting supplies, foam core and mounting costs • Courier and shipping charges
• Professional Consultants
Reimbursable expenses are in addition to Compensation for Basic Services and include actual expenditures made by the Landscape Architect, their employees, and their professional consultants in the interest of the project.
PAYMENTS
Invoices for services will be billed monthly in proportion to the amount of work completed. Invoices unpaid after one month will be subject to a 1.5% per month charge or an annual rate of 18%.
Landscape
Architecture
& Planning
225 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
415.383.7900
rhaa.com
Agenda Item #7.8:
19 Architectural Resources Group | Historic Landscape Survey - Sonoma Plaza Park Insurance
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :
INSURER E :
INSURER D :
INSURER C :
INSURER B :
INSURER A :
NAIC #
NAME:
CONTACT
(A/C, No):
FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:
PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):
PHONE
INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$ PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
AUTOS ONLY
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS
NON-OWNED
OWNED SCHEDULED
ANY AUTO
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N
WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTH- STATUTEPER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY)
POLICY EFF LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)
EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $
DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
POLICY PROJECT LOC
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
CANCELLATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED
AUTOS ONLY
9/3/2025
AssuredPartners Design Professionals Insurance Services, LLC 3697 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 230
Lafayette CA 94549
Allison Barga
360-626-2007
[email protected]
License#: 6003745 XL Specialty Insurance Company 37885
ARCHRES-04 The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut 25682 Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco CA 94111
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America 25674
1734437703
B X 2,000,000
X 1,000,000
X Contractual Liab 10,000
Included 2,000,000
4,000,000
X
Y Y 6802H186591 9/1/2025 9/1/2026
4,000,000
B 1,000,000
X X
Y Y BA1S985277 9/1/2025 9/1/2026
C Y UB6Y264914 9/1/2025 9/1/2026 X
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
A Professional Liability & Contractors Pollution Legal
Liability
DPR5047708 9/1/2025 9/1/2026 Per Claim/$2,000,000 Included $2,000,000/Agg lmt
Insured owns no company vehicles; therefore, hired/non-owned auto is the maximum coverage that applies.
FOR USE ON PROPOSALS.
30 Day Notice of Cancellation
* * S A M P L E * *
Agenda Item #7.8:
SAN FRANCISCO
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, California 94111
T: 415.421.1680
F: 415.421.0127
ARGcreate.com
LOS ANGELES
360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225
Los Angeles, CA 90012
T: 626.583.1401
PORTLAND
720 SW Washington Street, Suite 605
Portland, Oregon 97205
T: 971.256.5324
Agenda Item #7.8:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Dec 2025
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item Title
Receive Report on City Commissions and Committee Attendance Summary
On February 7, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance #01-2024, amending portions of the municipal code pertaining to commissions & committees including attendance requirements. In conjunction with this change, a new process was introduced whereby a commissioner attendance report would be presented to the City Council for their review and receipt on an annual basis.
Directly appointed members serve at the will of the Council Member who appointed them.
At-large members are subject to the attendance requirements stated in Sonoma Municipal Code 2.40.010, which says that if an at-large member is absent for three consecutive meetings or one third of any calendar year's meetings, the office becomes vacant automatically. Upon request by a commissioner, the council may waive the attendance rules due to special circumstances.
Attached to this report are the attendance records for all Group A commissions for City Council's review and information.
Recommended Council Action
Receive report.
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact from this action.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Commission Attendance
Agenda Item #7.9:
Commissioner
David Morell
Commissioner
Tom Conlon
Commissioner
Philip Hinerman
Commissioner
Amber Ward
Commissioner
Leo McCloskey
Commissioner
John Baston
Commissioner
Norma Folgelberg
Youth Commissioner
Alina Castro
Ding's DA At-Large Gurney's DA Lowe's DA At-Large Wellander's DA Farr-Rivas's DA Youth FEBRUARY 2025
2/12/2025 Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Mar-25
3/24/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present MAY 2025 Resigned 05/01/25
5/14/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Present AUGUST 2025
8/13/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Present NOVEMBER 2025 Appointed 08/20/25
11/4/2025 Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present 11/12/2025
Total Meetings Present 5 5 4 5 4 1 5 1
Total Meetings Absent 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Total Meetings Held in 2025 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 2
CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE TRACKING - 2025
CANCELLED
Agenda Item #7.9:
Commissioner
Connie Schlelein
Commissioner
Deb Emerson
Commissioner
Lauren Kershner
Commissioner
Morgan Momsen
Commissioner
Ryan Smull
Commissioner
Scott Van Wagner
Commissioner
Meredith Knudsen
Commissioner Robin
Reiners
Youth Commissioner
Margaret Brown
Farrar-Rivas DA Gurney DA Wellander DA Lowe DA Ding DA At-Large At-Large Wellander DA Youth JANUARY 2025
1/21/2025 Absent Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Present APRIL 2025
4/15/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 4/22/2025 Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present AUGUST 2025 Appointed 9/29/25
8/14/2025 Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Absent NOVEMBER 2025 Resigned 8/29/25 Resigned 8/28/25
11/18/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Total Meetings Present 4 5 2 5 3 5 4 2 3
Total Meetings Absent 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1
Total Meetings Held in 2025 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 2 4
CULTURAL AND FINE ARTS ATTENDANCE TRACKING - 2025
Agenda Item #7.9:
Commissioner
Kelly Amar
Vacant Commissioner
Kara Haren
Commissioner
Micaelia Randolph
Commissioner
Daniel H. Sohn
Commissioner
Julie Goldberg
Commissioner
Peter Drake
Youth Commissioner
Mikey Wangbickler
Ding's DA Gurney's DA Wellander's DA Farrar-Rivas's DA At-Large Lowe's DA At-Large Youth JANUARY 2025
1/14/2025 Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent FEBRUARY 2025 Resigned 1/31/25
2/11/2025
MARCH 2025
3/11/2025
APRIL 2025
4/8/2025 Present Present Present Present Absent Absent
MAY 2025
5/13/2025
JUNE 2025
6/10/2025
JULY 2025
7/8/2025
AUGUST 2025
8/12/2025 Present Present Present Present Absent Absent SEPTEMBER 2025
9/9/2025 Present Absent Present Present Absent Present
OCTOBER 2025
10/14/2025
NOVEMBER 2025
11/13/2025
DECEMBER 2025
12/9/2025
Total Meetings Present 4 0 3 3 4 1 1 1
Total Meetings Absent 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3
Total Meetings Held in 2025 4 0 4 4 4 1 4 4
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE TRACKING - 2025
CANCELLED - NO QUORUM
CANCELLED - NO QUORUM
CANCELLED - NO QUORUM
CANCELLED - NO QUORUM
CANCELLED - NO QUORUM
CANCELLED - NO QUORUM
CANCELLED - NO QUORUM
CANCELLED
Agenda Item #7.9:
Commissioner
John Donnelly
Commissioner
Patricia Cullinan
Commissioner
Jessica Misuraca
Commissioner
Charlie Tolbert
Commissioner
Jeffrey Roush
Commissioner
Dana Isetta
Commissioner
Savannah Wellander
Youth Commissioner
Jared Mellinger
Farrar-Rivas's DA At-Large Gurney's DA Lowe's DA Ding's DA Wellander's DA At-Large Youth MARCH 2025
3/12/2025 Present Absent Teleconference-Just Cause Present Present Present Absent Present JUNE 2025
6/11/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present SEPTEMBER 2025 Resigned 9/02/25 Resigned 09/01/25
9/10/2025 Present Present Present Present Absent Present DECEMBER 2025
12/10/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Present Total Meetings Present 4 3 4 4 3 3 1 2
Total Meetings Absent 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Total Meetings Held in 2025 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2
PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION ATTENDANCE TRACKING - 2025 Agenda Item #7.9:
Commissioner
Larry Barnett
Commissioner
Donna Dambach
Commissioner
Amy O'GormanJenkinsCommissioner
Shelia O'Neill
Commissioner
Bill Willers
Commissioner
Matt Wirick
Commissioner
Therese Nugent
Commissioner
Stephen Latimer
Youth
Commissioner
Isabel Petersen
Ding's DA Farrar-Rivas's DA Lowe's DA At-Large Gurney's DA Wellander's DA At-Large Alternate Youth JANUARY 2025
1/16/2025 Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present FEBRUARY 2025
2/20/2025 Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present MARCH 2025
3/20/2025
3/27/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent APRIL 2025
4/17/2025 Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present MAY 2025 Appointed 4/21/25
5/15/2025 Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present JUNE 2025
6/17/2025 Present Present Present Absent Absent Absent Present Present Present JULY 2025
7/17/2025 Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Absent AUGUST 2025
8/19/2025 Present Present Absent Present Absent Absent Present Absent Absent SEPTEMBER 2025
9/18/2025 Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present OCTOBER 2025
10/16/2025 Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Absent Absent NOVEMBER 2025
11/20/2025 Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Absent DECEMBER 2025
12/18/2025
Total Meetings Present 11 9 7 8 9 8 11 5 6
Total Meetings Absent 0 2 4 3 2 3 0 2 5
Total Meetings Held in 2025 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 12
PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE TRACKING - 2025
CANCELLED
Agenda Item #7.9:
Committee Member
Adam Lobsinger
Committee Member
Greg Brennan
Committee Member
Mark Branconi
Committee Member
Mark DeMenno
Committee Member
Shelby Wirick
Committee Member
Peter Coster
Committee Member
John Newman
Youth Committee Member
Vincenzo Mansfield
Lowe's DA Gurney's DA Wellander's DA Ding's DA Farrar-Rivas's DA At-Large At-Large Youth FEBRUARY 2025
2/4/2025
MAY 2025
5/6/2025 Present Present Absent Present Absent Absent Present Present AUGUST 2025
8/4/2025 Present Absent Present Present Absent Present Present Present OCTOBER 2025
10/7/2025 Present Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Present NOVEMBER 2025
11/3/2025 Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Present Total Meetings Present 4 2 2 4 1 2 4 4
Total Meetings Absent 0 2 2 0 3 2 0 0
Total Meetings Held in 2025 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE TRACKING - 2025
CANCELLED
Agenda Item #7.9:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Dec 2025
Department
Community Development
Department
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director
Agenda Item Title
Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sonoma Municipal Code to Implement Housing Element Program 15 and an Ordinance to Implement Housing Element Program 20 and Finding the Ordinances Exempt from the California Environmental Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) - General Rule - of the CEQA Guidelines Summary
In March 2023, the City Council approved the City’s Housing Element which contains a number of implementation programs. Program 15 and Program 20 require ordinances to update the City's Development or Zoning Code (Title 19). The Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 20, 2025 (Link to Agenda, Staff Report and Video) reviewed the proposed ordinances and recommended approval with modifications. The following staff report describes the updates required under state law incorporated in each Ordinance and the Planning Commission modifications.
Housing Element Program 15, provides that the City will amend its Zoning Code to accommodate low barrier navigation center, supportive housing, transitional housing, residential care facilities, qualified employee housing, single room occupancy, and emergency shelters consistent with state law. To fulfill this requirement, staff updated the City’s Zoning Code (Title 19) in multiple sections. The full language is provided in the draft CC Ordinance HE Program 15 (Attachment 1) and summarized below.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Government Code Section 65660 through 65668 define low barrier navigation centers and provide requirements including treating low barrier navigation centers as a by-right use in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. The Sonoma Municipal Code (SMC) has been updated to provide a definition for a Low Barrier Navigation Center and identified the zones where allowed per state law. Staff also created standards for operation in a new SMC Section 19.50.034.
Supportive and Transitional Housing
Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) states that supportive and transitional housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same types in the same zone. In addition, Government Code Section 65650 specifies when supportive housing is a use by right if certain criteria are met (Government Code Section 65651) and includes administrative office space.
To implement the State law and Housing Element Program 15, the draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) includes proposed amendments to the land use tables in SMC Section 19.10.050 to allow supportive and transitional housing throughout the City where other residential uses of the same type (single family or multifamily) are permitted or conditionally permitted. The draft Ordinance also includes new definitions for supportive housing consistent with state law Agenda Item #8.1:
definitions in California Government Code Sections 65582(n) and 65650 and transitional housing in Government Code Section 65582(q), to be incorporated into Chapter 19.92 (Definitions) of the Sonoma Municipal Code.
Residential Care Facilities
The draft Ordinance amends the existing definition to clarify this type of facility is intended to serve as a residence for individuals in need of assistance with daily living activities, specifying that they are to be treated in the same manner as a residential use of the same type in the same zone (Health & Safety Code § 1569.85). A footnote was also added to clarify that the conditions of approval are to be objective as specifically stated in Housing Element Program
15. Employee Housing
Program 15 of the housing element identified that the City would amend the Zoning Code to accommodate agricultural worker housing and employee housing pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act (Section 17000 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code). The State Law states that employee housing for agricultural workers consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household is to be approved in the same manner as any other agricultural activity in the same zone and is considered an agricultural use. Employee housing as defined in the State Employee Housing Act is regulated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Act also requires that any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees be treated as a single-family structure, with no conditional or special use permit or variance required.
The draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) proposes Agricultural Employee Housing be renamed to Employee Housing, and a new definition be provided in Section 19.92 (Definitions) of the Sonoma Municipal Code as defined in Section 17008 of the California Health and Safety Code.
To implement the provisions of the State Law, the draft Ordinance includes adding qualified employee housing for seven or more employees in the land use tables and lists in the same manner and in the same zones that agricultural uses are currently permitted. It also includes adding employee housing for six or fewer employees in the land use tables found in SMC Section 19.10.050 in the same manner and in the same zones that single family dwellings are currently permitted.
Additionally, the draft Ordinance proposes new requirements to implement employee housing in the City in SMC Section 19.50.075. These include:
Criteria for housing for seven or more employees as an accessory use to agricultural use,
Standards for temporary trailers,
Require compliance with applicable State Laws,
Obtain Permit from Department of Housing and Community Development, Require Covenant on the Property identifying the requirements in conjunction with the use as a qualified employee housing, and
Require the removal or obtain approval for use after the activity ceases.
Single Room Occupancy Housing
Single Room Occupancy Housing (SRO) is identified in Housing Element Program 15 as a specialized housing type to be accommodated. State law requires that the City accommodate this housing type, as they provide smaller, less expensive housing units to meet our regional housing needs for lower incomes but it does not provide other requirements as it does for other special housing types. To implement the State law and Housing Element Program 15, the draft Agenda Item #8.1:
Ordinance (Attachment 1) includes amendments to the Zoning Code that include a new definition for single residential occupancy housing and adding the use in the land use tables and lists in the same manner and in the same zones that multiple family dwellings are currently permitted.
The draft Ordinance also provides regulations for single room occupancy housing units and facilities that would be applied in addition to the regulations of the underlying zoning districts where SRO development would be permitted in a new SMC Section 19.50.090. The regulations include:
Unit size shall be limited to a minimum of 150 square feet and a maximum of 250 square feet (reduced by the Planning Commission from 500 square feet), Bathroom, kitchen, laundry facility, common area, and parking requirements, Facility management plan, including a requirement for an on-site manager if over ten units, and
Units shall not be rented for less than 30 days.
The proposed amendment includes a provision that a single room occupancy housing unit, regardless of existence of a kitchen or kitchenette, shall NOT be considered a dwelling unit for purposes of density. Planning Commission recommended that density standards not apply and that the development standards of the zoning district and unit size determine the number of single residential occupancy housing units possible.
Emergency Shelters
To implement the Housing Element Program 15, the draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) includes an amendment to the land use table in the Municipal Code to allow emergency shelters with up to 30 beds, which was previously up to 15 beds, as a permitted use in the public zone. In addition, a provision was added to state that parking for emergency shelters shall comply with the requirements of off-street parking for residential or commercial uses within the same zone as required by Government Code Section 65583.
Housing Element Program 20 provides that the City will rezone to allow developments by right pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in the Housing Element’s Appendix A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that were previously identified in past housing elements. (See proposed Zoning Code amendments in draft CC Ordinance HE Program 20, Attachment 2). To implement this Program, definitions were added to Chapter
19.92 that include “affordable rent”, “affordable sales price,” “area median income,” “by right review,” and “lower income household.” In addition, the land use table was amended to include a provision, as identified in Program 20, that by right approval for 20 percent or more units are being provided affordable applies to Site 11 (590 W Napa St, APN 127-221-033), Site 28 (477 W Napa St, APN 018-241-054), and Site 70 (69 Napa Rd and 45 Napa Rd, APNs 128-321-032 and 128-321-034).
Environmental Review:
City Planning Staff has determined that the adoption and implementation of the Ordinances are exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Recommended Council Action
Conduct the Public Hearing and:
Agenda Item #8.1:
1. Introduce an Ordinance adopting amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to accommodate low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, transitional housing, residential care facilities, qualified employee and agricultural employee housing, single room occupancy, and emergency shelters in compliance with state law
2. Introduce an Ordinance adopting amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to allow developments by-right on nonvacant and vacant sites previously identified to accommodate the lower income regional housing needs allocation in compliance with state law.
Alternative Actions
City council discretion.
Financial Impact
These ordinances are required by state law. Any additional costs to implement the ordinances will be covered by fees for application review.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
CC Ordinance HE Program 15
CC Ordinance HE Program 20
HE Programs 15 and 20
PC Resolution Final
Agenda Item #8.1:
City of Sonoma
ORDINANCE #_____ - 2025
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 (INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND
GUIDELINES) OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ACCOMMODATE LOW
BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE AND
AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY, AND
EMERGENCY SHELTERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65583 requires that all jurisdictions remove constraints and accommodate qualified employee housing, supportive housing and transitional housing, emergency shelters, and single-room occupancy units in compliance with state law; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17000 et. seq.) and the Employee Housing Regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 25 - Housing and Community Development) outline specific requirements for the construction of housing, maintenance of grounds, buildings, sleeping space and facilities, sanitation and heating; and WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Housing Element approved by the City Council on January 31, 2023 contains Housing Element Program 15, which provides that the City will amend its Development Code to accommodate low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, transitional housing, residential care facilities, qualified employee and agricultural employee housing, single room occupancy, and emergency shelters consistent with state law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 20, 2025 for the purpose of considering amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to implement Housing Element Program 15 and considered public testimony and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments with modifications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of an ordinance making such amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 17, 2025 for the purpose of considering amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to implement Housing Element Program 15; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the totality of the record and all evidence submitted into the record, including public testimony and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at such public hearing; and WHEREAS, public hearing notices were made at the time and in the manner required by law.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
Agenda Item #8.1:
The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.
SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS
The Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Pursuant to Section 19.86.070(B) of the Sonoma Municipal Code, the City Council finds proposed amendments of the development code under this ordinance are as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goal, policies, and actions of the General Plan;
The City of Sonoma Development Code carries out the policies and implementation measures of the General Plan and State Law. Consistency between Sections of the Development Code and State Law ensure accuracy of the Development Code review process and therefore the amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. The proposed amendment implement Program 15 of the Housing Element of the General Plan and are therefore consistent with the goals, policies and actions thereof.
B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city;
The proposed amendments are required to be compliant with State Law and clarify standards and permit requirements to accommodate low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, transitional housing, residential care facilities, qualified employee housing, single-room occupancy, and emergency shelters consistent with state law.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.
C. Comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described in Section 4 below; and
The amendments fall under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule.
The General Rule, also known as the “Common Sense Exemption” applies to projects in which it is clear and definitive that the project will not have any significant impacts on the environment.
D. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this development code.
The proposed amendments provide clarity and consistency throughout the zoning code with state law to implement the City of Sonoma Housing Element.
SECTION 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the city. City Planning Agenda Item #8.1:
Staff has determined that the adoption and implementation of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions without any physical project being approved and not involving a commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council concurs in these findings and adopts them as its own. The City Council, therefore, directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Sonoma in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage thereof.
SECTION 7. PUBLICATION
This ordinance shall be published in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 36933, subdivision (c)(1).
SECTION 8. THIS ORDINANCE PREVAILS WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT To the extent that this ordinance conflicts with any other provision in the Sonoma Municipal Code or city ordinance (urgency or otherwise), policy or regulation, this ordinance will control.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular Council Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma held on the __ day of _________, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Sonoma, Sonoma County, California, at a meeting thereof, held on the _____________, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1:
EXHIBIT A
SECTION ONE: Chapter 19.92 Definitions Amended
Chapter 19.92, Definitions of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding or amending the following definitions, and shall be integrated into the existing Section in alphabetical order, to read as follows (strikeout is used to denote existing text being deleted; underline is used to denote new text being added):
“Agricultural employee housing” means housing as described in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, and employee housing as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17008.
“Community care facility” means a residential care facility serving six or fewer persons as provided for under Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. “Emergency shelters” means temporary lodging for homeless persons with minimal on-site supportive services that may be is limited to occupancy of six months or less. "Employee housing" means both of the following:
A. Qualified employee housing providing accommodations for six (6) or fewer employees, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 17021.5(b).
B. Qualified employee housing providing accommodations for seven (7) or more employees and consisting of no more than thirty six (36) beds in group quarters or twelve (12) units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6(b).
Employee housing is not included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, single room occupancy residence, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling.
Employee housing does not include housing that is provided by someone other than an agricultural employer or an agent thereof if such housing is offered and rented to nonagricultural employees on the same terms that it is offered to agricultural employees, none of the occupants of the housing are employed by the owner or property manager of the housing, none of the occupants of the housing have rent deducted from their wages, negotiation of the terms of occupancy of the housing is conducted between each occupant and the owner or manager of the property, the occupants of the housing are not required to live in the housing as a condition of employment, and the occupants of the housing are not referred to live in the housing by the employer of the occupants or the employer's agent, or an agricultural employer.
"Employee" as used in this definition does not include a person engaged in household domestic service or a person employed under circumstances in which his or her wages are incidental to professional training or training for a religious vocation and where the employer is exempt from taxation under the California Constitution. In addition to the requirements of this definition, employee housing shall comply with the requirements of Agenda Item #8.1:
the Employee Housing Act (Calif. Health & Safety Code, section 17000 et seq.). "Family" means an individual or group of two (2) or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit on a continuous non-transient basis. Each member of the family has access to all parts of the dwelling; interact with each other; share meals; and/or share household activities. If the dwelling unit is rented, all adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, under a single written lease with joint use and responsibility for the premises. Further, the makeup of the household occupying the rental is determined by the residents of the dwelling unit rather than the landlord, property manager, or agency. The term "family" shall not include institutional group living situations such as dormitories, fraternities, sororities, monasteries, convents, or similar group living arrangements whose association is temporary or of limited duration (i.e., school term, completion of a program, rehabilitation, etc.); nor does it include group living arrangements such as boarding houses, single-room occupancy residences, hotels, or motels. Indications that a household may not be operating as a "family" may include but are not limited to: members of the household have separate, private entrances; each member of the household has locks or deadbolts on their bedroom door; members of the household have separate food storage facilities; members have restricted access to certain portions of the dwelling; and/or lease a specific room or portion of the dwelling. “Low barrier navigation center” has the same meaning as Government Code Section 65660. They are a housing first facility that provides temporary housing, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.
“Residential care homes” has the same meaning as in California Health and Safety Code section 1502. means intermediate care They are facilities that serve as a residence for individuals in need of assistance with daily living activities providing and provides residential, social, habilitative, and personal care for children, the elderly, the developmentally disabled, and persons with limited ability for self-care, but where medical care is not a major element. Includes: children’s homes; transitional houses; orphanages; rehabilitation centers; self-help group homes. A residential care facility serving six or fewer clients (excluding members of the resident family or persons employed as facility staff) is considered a single family dwelling and shall be a selfcontained entity located and operated within a single parcel of record and shall not be operated or managed in conjunction with the same or similar use on any adjoining parcel. A residential care home is subject only to those restrictions that apply to other dwellings of the same type within the same zone. Convalescent homes and similar facilities providing medical care are included under the definition of “Medical services – Extended care.”
"Single room occupancy housing" means a facility providing six or more guest rooms or efficiency units in a "residential hotel" as defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 50519(b)(1), as may be amended from time to time, and shall be offered on a monthly basis or longer.
“Supportive housing” means permanent affordable housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population as defined in Health and Safety Code Agenda Item #8.1:
Section 53260(d), and that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community (Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14(b)). Supportive housing shall be subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
For example, such housing structured as single-family is permitted in the RL and RS residential zones, whereas supportive housing structured as multifamily is limited to the RM and RH residential zones and the Mixed Use zone.
"Supportive housing" means either:
A. Supportive housing occupied by the target population, as those terms are defined in California Government Code section 65582; or
B. Supportive housing occupied by the target population, as those terms are defined in California Government Code section 65650.
Supportive housing is a "dwelling" in the individual zone chapters. Supportive housing occupied by the target population (as defined in Calif. Gov. Code section 65582) is subject only to those restrictions that apply to other dwellings of the same type within the same zone. Supportive housing occupied by the target population (as defined in Calif. Gov. Code section 65650) is eligible for streamlined ministerial review, in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted if the proposed housing development satisfies the requirements of California Government Code section 65651, subdivision (a). "Transitional housing" has the same meaning as in California Government Code section 65582. Transitional housing is a "dwelling" and is subject only to those restrictions that apply to other dwellings of the same type within the same zone. “Transitional housing” means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months (Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2(h)). The housing may take several forms such as group housing and multifamily units and may include supportive services to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living. Transitional housing shall be subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. For example, such housing structured as single-family is permitted in the RL and RS residential zones, whereas transitional housing structured as multifamily is limited to the RM and RH residential zones and the Mixed Use zone.
SECTION TWO: Section 19.10.050 Allowable land uses and permit requirements Amended
Section 19.10.050 Allowable land uses and permit requirements of Chapter 19.10, of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following to Table 2-1, Table 2-2, Table 2-3 and Table 2-4, including the corresponding footnotes, and shall be integrated into the existing Tables in alphabetical and chronological (footnotes) order, to read as follows (underline is used to denote new text being added):
Agenda Item #8.1:
Table 2-1. Residential Uses and Permit Requirements
P Use permitted
UP Use permit required
L License required
Allowed Uses and Permit
Requirements for Residential
Districts (1)
Permit Required by
District (2)
– Use not allowed
Land Use (1) R-HS R-R R-L R-S R-M R-H R-O R-P Specific Use Regulations
RESIDENTIAL USES (2)
Employee Housing – Six or
Fewer Employees (5)
UP P P P – – – – SMC 19.50.075
Employee Housing - Seven
or More Employees (6)
P P UP – – – – – SMC 19.50.075
Residential Care Homes, Six
or Fewer Clients (7)
UP P P P P – – –
Residential Care Homes,
Seven or More Clients
– – – UP P/UPP/UP– –
Single Room Occupancy
Housing (8)
– – – UP UP UP P– – SMC 19.50.090
Supportive Housing (3) UP P P/UP P/UPP/UPP/UPP –
Transitional Housing (3) UP P P/UP P/UPP/UPP/UPP –
Notes:
3. Supportive and transitional housing shall be subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. For example, such housing structured as singlefamily is permitted in the R-HS, R-R, R-L and R-S residential zones, whereas supportive and transitional housing structured as multifamily is limited to the R-S, R-M, and R-H and R-O residential zones and the mixed use zone.
…
5. Employee Housing of six or fewer shall be deemed a single-family residence and subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
6. Employee Housing of seven or more employees is permitted as an accessory use in conjunction with approved agricultural use per Section 19.50.075 and is subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to other agricultural activity in the same zone.
7. For Residential Care Homes requiring use permits, the conditions of approval shall be objective and shall not create barriers for housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, or other special needs populations.
8. Single room occupancy housing is subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to multiple-family residential buildings in the same zone and specific standards as set forth in Section 19.50.090.
Agenda Item #8.1:
Table 2-2. Commercial Uses and Permit Requirements
P Use permitted
UP Use permit
required
L License required
– Use not allowed
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for
Commercial Zoning Districts (1)
Permit Required by
District (2)
WTUP Wine tasting use
permit
Land Use C CG Specific Use
Regulations
RESIDENTIAL USES (32)
Residential Care Homes, Seven or More Clients (9) UP UP Single-Room Occupancy Housing (10) UP – SMC 19.50.090
Supportive Housing (3) UP UP
Transitional Housing (3) UP UP
SERVICES
Low Barrier Navigation Center P P SMC 19.50.034
3. Supportive and transitional housing shall be subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Single family and duplexes are not permitted in the Commercial and Commercial Gateway Zones. For example, such housing structured as single-family is permitted in the R-HS, R-R, R-L and R-S residential zones, whereas supportive and transitional housing structured as multifamily is limited to the R-M and R-H residential zones and the mixed use zone.
9. For Residential Care Homes requiring use permits, the conditions of approval shall be objective and shall not create barriers for housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, or other special needs populations.
10. Single room occupancy housing is subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to multiple-family residential buildings in the same zone and specific standards as set forth in Section 19.50.090.
Table 2-3. Mixed Uses and Permit Requirements
P Use permitted
UP Use permit required
L License required
– Use not allowed
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for
Commercial Zoning Districts (1)
Permit Required by
District (2)
WTUP Wine tasting use
permit
Land Use MX Specific Use Regulations
RESIDENTIAL USES (4)
Single-Room Occupancy Housing (9) UP SMC 19.50.090
Supportive Housing, Four or Fewer Units (10) P
Agenda Item #8.1:
Supportive Housing, Five or More Units (10) UP
Transitional Housing, Four or Fewer Units (10) P
Transitional Housing, Five or More Units (10) UP
SERVICES
Low Barrier Navigation Center P SMC 19.50.034
9. Single room occupancy housing is subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to multiple-family residential buildings in the same zone and specific standards as set forth in Section 19.50.090.
10. Supportive and transitional housing shall be subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Single family and duplexes are not permitted in the Mixed Use Zone.
Table 2-4. Special Purpose Uses and Permit Requirements P Use permitted
UP Use permit
required
L License required
Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Special
Purpose Zoning Districts
Permit Required by
District
– Use not allowed
Land Use (1) A Pk P W
Specific Use
Regulations
RESIDENTIAL USES (2)
Agricultural Employee Housing P – – –
Emergency Shelters, 15 30 or Fewer Beds – – P – SMC 19.50.033 Emergency Shelters, 16 31 or More Beds – – UP – SMC 19.50.033 Employee Housing – 6 or Fewer Employees (5) P – P SMC 19.50.075 Employee Housing - 7 or More Employees (6) P – P SMC 19.50.075
5. Employee Housing of six or fewer shall be deemed a single-family residence and subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
6. Employee Housing of seven or more employees is permitted as an accessory use in conjunction with approved agricultural use per Section 19.50.075 and is subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to other agricultural activity in the same zone.
SECTION THREE: Section 19.50.033 Emergency shelters Amended Subsection 19.50.033(A) Site Development Standards of Section 19.55.033 Emergency shelters) of Chapter 19.50 Special Use Standards of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (strikeout is used to denote existing text being deleted; underline is used to denote new text being added):
Agenda Item #8.1:
19.50.033 Emergency shelters.
A. Site Development Standards. In addition to any other applicable requirements of the development code and any other applicable statutes and regulations, all emergency shelter facilities shall be subject to the following development standards:
1. Client Intake and Waiting Area. Each emergency shelter facility shall provide an indoor client intake and waiting area.
2. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be provided throughout the facility to ensure the safety of all persons on site. The placement, illumination, and shielding of such lighting shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the municipal code.
3. Proximity to Other Emergency Shelters. No emergency shelter facility shall be less than 300 feet from any other emergency shelter facility. In determining the distance between two emergency shelter facilities, the distance shall be measured from the property line of one facility to the nearest property line of another facility.
4. Parking. Off-street parking requirements shall comply with Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 19.48 Parking and Loading Standards. In accordance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) sufficient parking shall be provided to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter; provided, that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
…
SECTION FOUR: Section 19.50.034 Low barrier navigation centers Added Section 19.50.034 (Low barrier navigation centers) of Chapter 19.50 Special Use Standards of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
19.50.034 Low Barrier Navigation Centers
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65660 et seq. relating to low barrier navigation centers.
B. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the terms listed below of the following meaning.
“Low barrier” means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to:
1. The presence of partners or co-habitants if it is not a population-specific site (such as limited to survivors of domestic violence, crimes, women, or youth).
2. Allowing personal pets.
3. Allowing the storage of personal possessions.
4. Providing privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms.
Agenda Item #8.1:
“Low-barrier navigation centers” has the meaning provided in Chapter 19.92 SMC (Definitions).
“Use by right” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (i) of California Government Code Section 65583.2. Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the California Public Resources Code shall not apply to actions taken by a public agency to lease, convey, or encumber land owned by a public agency, or to facilitate the lease, conveyance, or encumbrance of land owned by a public agency, or to provide financial assistance to, or otherwise approve, a low-barrier navigation center constructed or allowed by this section.
C. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all low-barrier navigation center projects.
D. Allowed Zones. Low barrier navigation centers shall be allowed as a permitted use in areas zoned for mixed uses, and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily residential developments, provided they meet the requirements of this section SMC 19.50.034.
E. Permit Required. A building permit, certificate of occupancy, and/or zoning clearance review is required prior to establishment of any low-barrier navigation center project. The permit or zone clearance shall be a ministerial action without discretionary review or a hearing. If site development or new construction is proposed that meets the criteria of this Title 19 then a public hearing shall not be required unless a related permit or other entitlement requires a public hearing in accordance with the zoning regulations. The city shall notify a developer whether the developer's application is complete within thirty (30) days, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943. Action shall be taken within sixty (60) days from the date an application has been deemed complete.
F. Development and Operational Standards. A low-barrier navigation center project is a use by-right in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, if it meets the following requirements:
1. Connected Services: It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.
2. Coordinated Entry System: It is linked to a coordinated entry system, so that staff in the interim facility or staff who co-locate in the facility may conduct assessments and provide services to connect people to permanent housing. "Coordinated entry system" means a centralized or coordinated assessment system developed pursuant to Section 576.400(d) or Section 578.7(a)(8), as applicable, of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those sections read on January 1, 2020, and any related requirements, designed to coordinate program participant intake, assessment, and referrals.
3. Interagency Council on Homelessness Compliance: It complies with Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
4. Homeless Management Information System: It has a system for entering information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income, and exit Agenda Item #8.1:
destination through the local Homeless Management Information System, as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SECTION FIVE: Section 19.50.075 Employee Housing Added
Section 19.50.075 Employee Housing of Chapter 19.50 Special Use Standards of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby added toread as follows.
19.50.075 Employee Housing
A. Employee Housing Defined. The Employee Housing Act allows for flexibility in housing types for employee housing, including conventional and nonconventional structures, such as: living quarters, boardinghouse, tent, bunkhouse, mobile home, manufactured home, recreational vehicle and travel trailers. The laws and regulations governing these structures depends on the housing type; however, all qualified employee housing must comply with: the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17000 et seq.) and the Employee Housing Regulations (Title 25—Housing and Community Development), which outline specific requirements for the construction of housing, maintenance of grounds, buildings, sleeping space and facilities, sanitation and heating; and the provisions of this section.
Employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5(b), shall be deemed a single-family dwelling and is allowed in residential zones subject to all municipal codes, regulations and other standards generally applicable to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Employee housing of seven or more employees is permitted as an accessory use in conjunction with approved agricultural use as described below.
B. Accessory Use. Qualified employee housing for seven or more employees is a permitted accessory use in conjunction with an approved permitted agricultural use provided that:
1. The number of living units or beds is reasonably related to the number of agricultural employees required for agricultural operations on the parcel on which the qualified employee housing is located, provided it does not consist of more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household.
2. Qualified employee housing shall be occupied only by agricultural employees (and the members of the employee's household as permitted by HCD) engaged in agricultural labor and shall not be otherwise occupied or rented.
3. All temporary or permanent structures that contain qualified employee housing shall meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and other development standards applicable to the zone in which it is located.
Agenda Item #8.1:
4. Pre-manufactured or mobile home dwelling units intended as permanent housing shall be installed on a permanent foundation and shall provide permanent utility connections (potable water, sewer line, electricity, etc.) including permanent heating and cooling facilities.
5. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 19.48, unless the applicant provides substantial evidence demonstrating that the actual parking need is lower, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.
6. Employee housing shall be reviewed and approved subject to the same requirements as other permitted agricultural uses within the same zone.
7. If an existing agriculture use does not have a required permit, a permit for both the agricultural use and qualified employee housing must be obtained.
8. Qualified employee housing shall be removed or converted to another permitted use at such time as the agricultural activity to which it relates ceases operation for more than 12 consecutive months.
C. Standards for Temporary Trailers. A maximum of one (1) temporary trailer may be used to provide housing for seasonal or temporary agricultural employees or animal caretakers, and their families, on a limited term basis. The trailer must be located on the same lot where the agricultural employees or animal caretakers are employed that meets the following requirements:
1. A qualifying temporary trailer shall be permitted with a building permit and zoning clearance, which will serve as a ministerial limited term trailer permit, permitted for a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) consecutive calendar days or fewer in any twelve (12) month period pursuant to the following:
a. The permit application shall include a description of the number of seasonal or temporary agricultural employees or animal caretakers to occupy the temporary trailer, the area of cultivation and crops requiring these workers, and the time period for which seasonal or temporary agricultural employees or animal caretakers are required.
b. The permit application shall clearly identify the location of sewer connections, dump stations, or otherwise demonstrate adequate sewage disposal by, for example, including a plan or contract for regular service through registered or permitted septage pumping vehicles, or a combination thereof, which will serve the trailer.
c. In addition to meeting all ministerial and zoning clearance application requirements, the applicant shall submit an affidavit in a separate signed statement affirming that the temporary trailer will only be used to house seasonal or temporary agricultural employees or animal caretakers solely employed on the site for agricultural production or animal keeping.
Agenda Item #8.1:
d. After the issuance of a zoning clearance authorizing use of the temporary trailer as housing for seasonal or temporary agricultural employees or animal caretakers, all electrical and plumbing connections to the trailer(s) must be approved and inspected (and obtain a building permit, if required) by the Building Division prior to occupancy of the trailer.
2. The Community Development Director may extend a limited term trailer permit by an additional ninety (90) days, on a one-time basis, provided that the applicant submits documentation to justify the additional seasonal employment necessary for the agricultural activity.
3. General Requirements:
a. A maximum of one temporary trailer will be allowed on any lot. b. The temporary trailer must be a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, recreational vehicle, or camping trailer, that is self-contained and habitable, and that is either self-propelled, truck-mounted, or permanently towable on roadways without a permit under the California Vehicle Code.
c. A temporary trailer used to house seasonal or temporary agricultural employees or animal caretakers shall be occupied for no more than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive calendar days in any twelve (12) month period, unless the permit is extended.
d. The maximum size of a temporary trailer occupying a space on the lot shall be three hundred (300) square feet of living area. Living area does not include built-in equipment such as wardrobes, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, or bath and toilet rooms.
e. The temporary trailer is "habitable" if it meets all the following criteria:
i. The temporary trailer must contain sleeping, cooking, bathing, and sanitary facilities;
ii. The temporary trailer must either contain an adequate source of potable water through an internal tank or be connected to a permanent source of potable water;
iii. Composting toilets are not allowed. The temporary trailer's wastewater must be disposed of by one of the following means:
(a) Through a connection to an existing sewer utility connection; or (b) Through the use of an incorporated wastewater tank that is located within or outside the vehicle, provided that such tank is regularly serviced, for the duration of the vehicle's use as temporary housing, by a wastewater disposal provider, or a septage pumping vehicle. The permittee shall provide proof of such regular wastewater disposal service, in the form of a contract or receipts, to the Planning Division or Building Division upon request.
iv. The temporary trailer must be connected to an approved electrical source.
Acceptable electrical connections include the use of an existing electrical source on the lot or a temporary power pole. Generators are not considered an approved electrical source; and
v. Heating and cooling facilities shall be in accordance with those associated with trailers, or equipment initially installed or designed for trailers. No temporary heating facilities will be allowed.
f. Utility conduits shall be installed underground in conformance with applicable Agenda Item #8.1:
state and local regulations.
g. When the temporary trailer is not in use, utilities shall be disconnected, and such housing shall be removed from the site or stored during the remainder of the year. The temporary trailer shall be removed from the site within five (5) days of the expiration of the permitted period. It may be stored on-site for the remaining days of the calendar year if screened from public view and stored in a rear yard. A temporary trailer stored on-site shall be covered when not in use. h. Site Design Criteria:
i. Building height and setbacks shall be as prescribed in the applicable zone, except where Title 25 of the California Administrative Code is more restrictive. ii. The temporary trailer shall be located a minimum of six feet (6') from any other structure on the lot.
iii. Roadways and vehicle pads shall not be permitted in areas of natural slope inclinations greater than fifteen percent (15%) or where grading would result in slope heights greater than ten feet and steeper than two to one (2:1).
D. Occupancy Restrictions for Agricultural Employee Housing:
1. Agricultural employee housing shall only be occupied by agricultural employees and members of their household (however, group living quarters shall only be occupied exclusively by agricultural employees).
2. The applicant shall demonstrate that the agricultural employee housing shall only be used for agricultural employees (on a permanent or seasonal basis) who meet the employment criteria in subsection E. This requirement shall not apply to housing occupied by agricultural employees who subsequently retire or become disabled and continue to reside in the unit pursuant to subsection E3.
This requirement shall not apply to a surviving spouse or domestic partner who continues to reside in the unit pursuant to subsection E4.
3. A deed restriction in a form approved by the city that runs with the land shall be recorded with the county recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction for all agricultural employee housing except for temporary trailers, limiting the use of such housing to agricultural employee housing and setting forth the conditions and requirements applicable to such use. The property owner shall also be required to provide written disclosure of all such conditions and requirements before any sale, lease, or financing of the subject lot(s) and dwelling units. This use restriction shall not be amended, released, terminated, or removed from the property without the prior written consent of the city. In the event the agricultural employee housing use is terminated and/or structures are removed in accordance with this municipal code and other applicable law as confirmed in writing by the Community Development Director, the deed restriction that accompanies the development shall be released and removed from the property.
E. Employment Criteria for Agricultural Employees:
1. Agricultural employee dwelling units shall only be rented or provided under the terms of employment to agricultural employees who are employed on a full-time (minimum of thirty two (32) hours per week), full-time seasonal, or temporary Agenda Item #8.1:
basis by the property owner or lessee of the lot upon which the dwelling unit is located to work onsite or on other land in Sonoma County that is under the same ownership or lease. Agricultural employees may retain their employment status during periods of non-agricultural employment, as long as they meet the full-time requirement for at least nine (9) months of the calendar year.
2. Units in a agricultural employee housing complex shall only be rented or provided to persons who are principally employed within Sonoma County for activities directly associated with agriculture. This includes agricultural employees who work on a full-time, full-time seasonal, temporary or part-time basis.
3. A qualified agricultural employee who has been renting or occupying a agricultural employee dwelling unit, or a unit in a agricultural employee housing complex, and who subsequently retires or becomes disabled, may continue to reside in the unit along with members of their household.
4. After the death of a qualified agricultural employee who has been renting or occupying a agricultural employee dwelling unit, or a unit in a agricultural employee housing complex, their surviving spouse or domestic partner may continue to reside in the unit.
5. Temporary trailers shall only be rented or provided to agricultural employees who are employed on a full-time, full-time seasonal, or temporary basis by the property owner or lessee of the lot to work on the land upon which the temporary trailer is located.
6. Proof of qualifying employment for occupants of agricultural employee housing shall be provided at the time of permit approval, which can be satisfied by providing a combination of at least two (2) of the following documents, as applicable:
a. Employee's income tax return;
b. Employee's pay receipts;
c. Employee's W-2 form;
d. Employer's DE-34 form;
e. Employer's ETA 790 form;
f. Employer's DLSE-NTE form;
g. A document signed by both the employer and the employee, which states that the occupant of the agricultural employee housing is employed in agriculture, and includes a description of the employee's job duties; or
h. Other proof approved in writing by the Community Development Director.
F. Annual Verification of Employment of Agricultural Employees:
1. The owner or lessee of the property, property management company, and/or designated agent of the owner or lessee, shall submit an annual employment verification declaration, and any applicable city-required verification fees as established by resolution of the city council, no later than May 15 of each year to the Community Development Director or designee to verify that all the dwelling units or sleeping quarters in the agricultural employee housing are Agenda Item #8.1:
occupied by persons who meet the employment criteria established above. For purposes of this section, permanent agricultural employee housing includes all agricultural employee housing except for temporary trailers. The completed verification declaration and supporting documentation shall require the property owner to meet all the following requirements:
a. Verify and provide evidence that any permanent agricultural employee housing was occupied by agricultural employees during the preceding calendar year;
b. Declare that any permanent agricultural worker housing will be occupied by agricultural employees during the current calendar year; and, c. Provide proof of qualifying employment for occupants of agricultural employee housing, upon request by the city, by using a combination of at least two of the documents as listed in subsection E6.
G. Enforcement:
1. The provisions of subsections E and F of this Chapter shall be referenced or set forth in deed restrictions and/or conditions of approval that shall be recorded in the subject property's chain of title. Violations of subsections E and F may be enforced through any other available legal means, including but not limited to Chapter 1.12 SMC (General penalty).
2. Within thirty (30) days after receiving approval for permanent or seasonal employee housing from the Community Development Department, and before issuance of any building permit(s), the applicant shall record with the county recorder, a deed restriction in a form approved by the city that runs with the land on which the agricultural employee housing is located declaring that:
a. The agricultural employee housing will continuously be maintained in compliance with this Section 19.50.75 and all other applicable sections of this municipal code; and
b. If required for pre-manufactured housing and/or mobile home units used for agricultural employee housing, the property owner shall obtain the appropriate permit(s) from the City of Sonoma and/or California Department of Housing and Community Development.
c. The deed restriction shall not be amended, released, terminated, or removed from the property without the prior written consent of the city. In the event the agricultural employee housing use is terminated and/or structures are removed in accordance with this Chapter and other applicable law as confirmed in writing by the Community Development Director, the deed restriction that accompanies the development shall be released and removed from the property.
3. In addition to all other available enforcement and legal remedies, the city may require the removal of a housing unit and restoration of the site (including any affected agricultural soils) based on the unpermitted or unverified use of the agricultural employee housing units or based on other violations of this Title 19.
SECTION SIX: Section 19.50.090 Single room occupancy housing Added Section 19.50.090 Single Room Occupancy Housing of Chapter 19.50 Special Use Standards of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
19.50.090 Single room occupancy housing.
Agenda Item #8.1:
A. Purpose. The purpose of these provisions is to allow the development of reducedsize dwelling units, defined as single room occupancy (SRO) housing units, with limited parking requirements to provide additional options for affordable housing opportunities.
These SRO regulations are considered to be in addition to the regulations of the underlying zoning districts where SRO development is permitted.
B. General Provisions
1. Any single room occupancy facility shall conform to the standards of the zoning or specific plan district in which it is located. In case of districts where mixed uses are permitted, single room occupancy facilities shall be subject to the standards applying to non-residential development. Where any provision of this section conflicts with another provision of this title or any adopted specific plan, the more restrictive shall apply.
2. Density standards (i.e., lot area per dwelling unit) shall not apply to single room occupancy housing.
3. Tenancy shall not be less than thirty (30) days.
4. All units shall comply with the requirements of the current edition of the California Building Code.
5. The proposed conversion or retrofit of an existing structure into a single room occupancy facility shall conform to all applicable development standards unless a physical constraint or characteristic of the subject property makes such conformance infeasible. The Community Development Director (or Planning Commission if a use permit is required) is authorized to modify, reduce, or waive one or more development standard(s) of this section if determined that strict adherence to the standard(s) is infeasible due to physical conditions or constraints of the subject property. The applicant shall bear the burden of proof that imposing the development standard(s) in question would make the project physically or financially infeasible.
6. All facilities and units shall not be subdivided or individually sold.
7. This section shall not be applicable to short-term rentals in the city and shall not be construed to permit or authorize short-term rental facilities in the city.
8. Other provisions or permit requirements of the municipal code may be applicable, including for properties located within local historic districts and/or designated as a local historic resource.
C. Standards.
1. Single Room Occupancy Housing Units. The following standards shall apply to single room occupancy units. In the event of conflict between these standards and the underlying zoning district regulations, the provisions of this section shall Agenda Item #8.1:
apply.
a. Unit Size. The minimum size of a unit shall be one hundred fifty (150) square feet and the maximum size shall be two hundred fifty (250) square feet.
b. Bathroom Facilities. An SRO unit is not required to but may contain partial or full bathroom facilities. A partial bathroom facility shall have at least a toilet and sink; a full bathroom facility shall have a toilet, sink, and bathtub, shower, or bathtub/shower combination. If a full bathroom facility is not provided, common bathroom facilities shall be provided in accordance with California Building Code for congregate residences with at least one full bathroom per every three units on a floor. The shared shower or bathtub facility shall be accessible from a common area or hallway. Each shared shower or bathtub facility shall be provided with an interior lockable door.
c. Closet. Each SRO shall have a separate closet.
2. Single Room Occupancy Housing Facility. In addition to the development standards in the underlying zoning district, the following standards shall apply to single room occupancy housing. In the event of conflict between these standards and the underlying zoning district regulations, the provisions of this section shall apply.
a. Common Area. Ten (10) square feet of interior common space per unit shall be provided, with at least two hundred (200) square feet in area of interior common space, and shall exclude shared bathrooms and kitchens, maintenance areas, laundry facilities, storage areas, and hallways. All common areas shall comply with all applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility and adaptability requirements. b. Kitchen. A full kitchen includes a sink, a refrigerator, and a stove, range top, or oven. Common kitchen facilities shall be provided within the project for every ten (10) units.
c. Laundry Facilities. Laundry facilities shall be provided in a separate room at the ratio of one washer and dryer for every ten (10) units. d. Cleaning Supply Room. A cleaning supply room or utility closet with a wash tub with hot and cold running water shall be provided on each floor of the SRO facility.
e. Trash. Refuse disposal service and receptacles shall be provided by the property owner. Garbage receptacles must be located on the lot or property in a manner that does not hinder access to any required offAgenda Item #8.1:
street parking spaces, driveways, or any means of emergency ingress or egress.
f. Mailboxes. A mailbox shall be provided for each unit in a commonly accessible location within the single room occupancy facility. g. Facility Management. An SRO facility with ten (10) or more units shall have an on-site manager and shall include a dwelling unit designated for the manager. An SRO facility with less than ten (10) units shall provide a management office on-site.
h. Facility Management Plan. A management plan shall be submitted with the development application for an SRO housing facility and shall be approved by the Community Development Director. The management plan shall contain management policies, maintenance plans, rental procedures and rates, information for residents to contact management twenty four (24) hours daily, residency and guest rules and procedures, security procedures, and staffing needs including job descriptions. i. Parking. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 19.48, unless the applicant provides substantial evidence demonstrating that the actual parking need is lower, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. If rent or a separate charge is assessed for use of on-site parking spaces, the owner or management shall be required to rent or charge a separate fee for use of the space by an individual tenant (i.e., unbundled parking).
j. Accessibility. All SRO facilities shall comply with all applicable ADA accessibility and adaptability requirements.
SECTION SEVEN: Section 19.48.040 Number of parking spaces required is Amended Section 19.48.040 Number of parking spaces required of Chapter 19.48, of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following to Table 4.4 and shall be integrated in alphabetical order, to read as follows (underline is used to denote new text being added):
Land Use Type:
Residential Uses
Vehicle Spaces Required
Employee housing – seven or more
employees
1 space per unit or 1 space for
every 3 beds. If a unit is provided
for an on-site manager, one (1)
Agenda Item #8.1:
space for the resident manager.
Emergency Shelters and Low Barrier
Navigation Centers
Staff parking equal to the highest
number of staff working in the
emergency shelter at any time or
the number of parking spaces
required for other residential or
commercial uses within the same
zoning district, whichever is lower.
The community development
director shall reduce the parking
requirements if the shelter/center
can demonstrate a lower need.
Group quarters (including boarding
houses, rooming houses, Single room
occupancy housing, and dormitories)
One-half space for each bed. If a
unit is provided for an on-site
manager, one (1) space for the
resident manager.
Agenda Item #8.1:
City of Sonoma
ORDINANCE #_____ - 2025
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 (INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND
GUIDELINES) OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENTS
BY RIGHT ON NONVACANT AND VACANT SITES PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LOWER INCOME REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
ALLOCATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Housing Element approved by the City Council on January 31, 2023 contains Housing Element Program 20, which provides that the City will rezone to allow developments by right under Government Code Section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Appendix A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that were previously identified in past housing elements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 20, 2025 for the purpose of considering amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to implement House Element Program 20 and considered public testimony and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments with modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of an ordinance making such amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 17, 2025 for the purpose of considering amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to implement Housing Element Program 20; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the totality of the record and all evidence submitted into the record, including public testimony and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at such public hearing; and WHEREAS, public hearing notices were made at the time and in the manner required by law.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.
SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS
The Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
Agenda Item #8.1:
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Pursuant to Section 19.86.070(B) of the Sonoma Municipal Code, the City Council finds proposed amendments of the development code under this ordinance are as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goal, policies, and actions of the General Plan;
The City of Sonoma Development Code carries out the policies and implementation measures of the General Plan and State Law. Consistency between Sections of the Development Code and State Law ensure accuracy of the Development Code review process and therefore the amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. The proposed amendment implements Program 20 of the Housing Element of the General Plan and are therefore consistent with the goals, policies and actions thereof.
B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city;
The proposed amendments are required to be compliant with State Law and the City’s Housing Element, which has been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The proposed amendments further development of housing affordable to lower income households on sites previously identified by past housing elements and therefore further the City’s housing policies and those of the region to advance the public interest, and contribute to public welfare and convenience.
C. Comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described in Section 4 below; and
The amendments fall under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule. The General Rule, also known as the “Common Sense Exemption” applies to projects in which it is clear and definitive that the project will not have any significant impacts on the environments.
D. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this development code; and
The proposed amendments provide clarity and consistency throughout the Sonoma development code with state law to implement the City of Sonoma Housing Element.
SECTION 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the city. City Planning Staff has determined that the adoption and implementation of the ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions without any physical project being approved and not involving a commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the Agenda Item #8.1:
environment, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council concurs in these findings and adopts them as its own. The City Council, therefore, directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Sonoma in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage thereof.
SECTION 7. PUBLICATION
This ordinance shall be published in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, subdivision (c)(1).
SECTION 8. THIS ORDINANCE PREVAILS WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT To the extent that this ordinance conflicts with any other provision in the Sonoma Municipal Code or city ordinance (urgency or otherwise), policy or regulation, this ordinance will control.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular Council Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma held on the __ day of _________, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Sonoma, Sonoma County, California, at a meeting thereof, held on the _____________, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1:
EXHIBIT A
SECTION ONE: Chapter 19.92 Definitions Amended
Chapter 19.92, Definitions of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding or amending the following definitions, and shall be integrated into the existing Section in alphabetical order, to read as follows (underline is used to denote new text being added):
“Affordable rent” means the maximum allowable rent for a unit affordable to lower income households, equal to one-twelfth (1/12th) of 30 percent of area median income adjusted for affordability level and assumed household size of one person in a studio affordable unit, two persons in a one-bedroom affordable unit, and one additional person for every additional bedroom; or as determined by the financing for the project, such as rents established for projects receiving tax credits.
“Affordable sales price” means the maximum purchase price that will be affordable to a lower income household. The purchase price shall be considered affordable only if it is based on a reasonable down payment, and monthly housing payments (including interest, principal, mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners insurance, homeowners association dues, property maintenance and repairs, and a reasonable allowance for utilities), all as determined by the city, that total no more than one-twelfth (1/12th) of 30 percent of area median income adjusted for affordability level and assumed household size of one person in a studio affordable unit, two persons in a one-bedroom affordable unit, and one additional person for every additional bedroom; or as determined by the financing for the project.
“Area median income” means the area median income applicable to Sonoma County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated in the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932.
“By right review” is as defined in Government Code Section 65583.2(i). By right review does not exempt the use from design review. By right review that includes design review approval is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Review of these projects shall be limited to conformance with objective standards established by the general plan, development code, and design guidelines.
“Lower income household” means a household whose household income does not exceed the low income limits applicable to Sonoma County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated in the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932.
SECTION TWO: Section 19.10.050 Allowable land uses and permit requirements Amended
Section 19.10.050 Allowable land uses and permit requirements of Chapter 19.10, of Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following footnotes to Table 2-2 and Table 2-3, and shall be integrated into the existing Tables in chronological Agenda Item #8.1:
(footnotes) order, to read as follows (underline is used to denote new text being added):
Table 2-2. Commercial Uses and Permit Requirements
P
Use
permitted
UP Use permit
required
L
License
required
–
Use not
allowed
Allowed Uses and Permit
Requirements for
Commercial Zoning
Districts (1)
Permit Required
by District (2)
WTUP Wine tasting
use permit
Land Use C CG Specific Use Regulations
RESIDENTIAL USES (32)
Multifamily Dwelling (Five or More Units)
(11)
UP UP
11. As required by Government Code Section 65583.2, residential development projects proposed to include at least 20 percent of the total number of housing units to be available to lower income households at an affordable rent or affordable sales price, and not including an application for a subdivision map, shall be subject only to by right review. This only applies to sites identified in Appendix A of the Housing Element to accommodate the lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation that that were previously identified in past housing elements including Site 11 (APN 127-221-033), Site 28 (APN 018-241-054), and Site 70 (APNs 128-321-032 and 128-321-034).
Table 2-3. Mixed Uses and Permit Requirements
P Use permitted
UP Use permit
required
L License required
– Use not allowed
Allowed Uses and Permit
Requirements for
Commercial Zoning
Districts (1)
Permit
Required by
District (2)
WTUP Wine tasting use
permit
Land Use MX Specific Use Regulations
RESIDENTIAL USES (4)
Multifamily Dwelling (Five or More Units) (11) UP
11. As required by Government Code Section 65583.2, residential development projects proposed to include at least 20 percent of the total number of housing units to be available to lower income households at an affordable rent or affordable sales price, and not including an Agenda Item #8.1:
application for a subdivision map, shall be subject only to by right review. This only applies to sites identified in Appendix A of the Housing Element to accommodate the lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation that that were previously identified in past housing elements including Site 11 (APN 127-221-033), Site 28 (APN 018-241-054), and Site 70 (APNs 128-321-032 and 128-321-034).
Agenda Item #8.1:
City of Sonoma Housing Element Adopted January 2023
Program 15: Development Code Amendments – Housing Constraints Amendments to the Development Code are needed to address various recent changes to State law and create consistency with the Housing Element. The amendments shall address the following:
A. Low Barrier Navigation Centers: The Development Code will be updated to define and permit low barrier navigation centers consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65660 through 65668, including treating low barrier navigation centers as a by-right use in areas zoned for mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses.
B. Transitional and Supportive Housing: The Development Code will be revised to ensure that transitional and supportive housing are allowed in residential and mixed-use zones subject to the same standards as a residence of the same type in the same zone consistent with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), and to allow eligible supportive housing as a by-right use in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65650 through 65656.
C. Residential Care Facilities: The Development Code will be amended to fully address small and large residential care facilities consistent with State law. Specifically, the City will amend the Development Code (1) to allow residential care facilities for six or fewer persons to be allowed in the same manner as a residential use of the same type in all residential zoning districts, and (2) to allow residential care facilities that serve seven or more people in all zones that allow residential uses, in the same manner as a residential use of the same type, and to ensure all conditions of approval are objective and do not create barriers for housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, or other special needs populations, and to clarify that this type of facility is intended to serve as a residence for individuals in need of assistance with daily living activities.
D. Streamlined and Ministerial Review for Eligible Affordable Housing Projects: The Development Code will be updated to ensure that eligible multifamily, mixed use, and multi-unit projects are provided streamlined ministerial (by-right) review and are only subject to objective design and development standards consistent with relevant provisions of State law, including AB 2011, SB 330, SB 35, and SB 9, as provided by applicable sections of the Government Code, including but not limited to Sections 65905.5, 65912.100 through 65912.131, 65913.4, 65940, 65941.1, 65950, and 66300.
State law defines objective design standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.” The City will also prepare application materials and written procedures for projects processed under State requirements for ministerial or streamlined projects, including SB 330, SB 35, AB 2011, and SB 9. PART OF COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE AFTER THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
E. Employee Housing and Agricultural Employee Housing: The Development Code will be amended to 1) define “employee housing” and to clarify that employee housing Agenda Item #8.1:
City of Sonoma Housing Element Adopted January 2023
serving six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure and shall be subject to the same standards for a single-family residence in the same zone in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 17021.5, and 2) to permit agricultural (farmworker) employee housing in accordance with HSC Sections 17021.6 through 17021.8.
F. Single-Room Occupancy (SRO): The Development Code will be updated to define single-room occupancy units and to establish objective standards for SROs.
G. Emergency Shelters: The Development Code will be updated to allow emergency shelters with up to 30 beds as a permitted (ministerial, by-right) use in the P zone and to require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in an emergency shelter, provided that the standards will not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with AB 139.
H. Design Standards: The City will review and modify the Design Review criteria to address potentially subjective terminology in order to provide objectivity in the design review process. PART OF COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE AFTER THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
I. Affordability in Perpetuity: The City will review its conversion provisions for marketrate to affordable housing and for non-residential uses to affordable housing to ensure that affordable units that are required by the City are provided in perpetuity. PART OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UPDATE.
J. Use Permits: The Development Code will be updated to revise the findings for use permits, including the language at Section 19.54.080.G.1.c. “the project responds appropriately to the context of adjacent development, as well as existing site conditions and environmental features,” to ensure that subjective language for the findings associated with residential uses, including mixed use, commercial, and other projects with a residential component, is either defined or replaced with objective language and that the findings do not constrain accommodating a variety of housing types or otherwise constrain residential development. PART OF COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE AFTER THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
K. Building Heights and Setbacks: The Development Code will be updated to allow a maximum building height of 36 feet (3 stories) for projects that: 1) exceed the maximum permitted density and include at least 20% of units for special needs households or affordable to lower income households, or 2) demonstrate that a 36-foot height is necessary to accommodate features unique to the site, such as protection of on-site riparian features, historic structures, or open space. As part of this effort the City will review the feasibility of increasing heights to 4 stories and reducing setbacks along Highway 12. PART OF COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE AFTER THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
L. Chapter 19.42: The City will review its guidelines and requirements related to historic Agenda Item #8.1:
City of Sonoma Housing Element Adopted January 2023
preservation and infill development in the historic zone to clarify in regard to residential development whether the guidelines are a requirement or are optional for a project to implement and, if the guidelines are required, to ensure that subjective language is removed or clarified and to ensure that projects can be implemented consistently in a predictable manner. PART OF COMPREHENSIVE CODE UPDATE AFTER THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
Responsible
Department/Agency:
Planning Department
Funding Sources: General Fund
2023-2031 Objectives: Ensure that the City’s Development Code is consistent with State law and update the Development Code as needed to comply with future changes. Review development standards in all residential districts every three years to identify if standards have constrained potential development and revise standards when necessary to remove constraints to multifamily residential developments, including mixed use development.
Timeframe: Identified Development Code Amendments adopted by December 2023. Periodic review of development standards every three years.
Program 20. Adequate Sites for Lower Income Households on Nonvacant and Vacant Sites Previously Identified
The City of Sonoma will rezone to allow developments by right pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Appendix A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that were previously identified in past housing elements. Specifically, the City will rezone Site 11 (APN 127-221-033), Site 28 (APN 018-241-054), and Site 70 (APNs 128-321-032 and 128-321- 034). Site A (APNs 127-202-006 and 127-202-007) and Site H (APNs 018-131-012, 018-131- 013, and 018-131-018) are not required to be rezoned as they are included in pending projects.
Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Financing: General fund
Program Objectives: Create opportunity for at least 30 units of rental housing for lower income households.
Schedule: Site rezoned by October 2023.
Agenda Item #8.1:
CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION # __ -2025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SONOMA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ACCOMMODATE LOW
BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING,
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTURAL
EMPLOYEE HOUSING, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY, AND EMERGENCY SHELTERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19.92 DEFINITIONS AND 19.10.050 ALLOWABLE LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT BY-RIGHT IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65583 requires that all jurisdictions remove constraints and accommodate qualified employee housing, supportive housing and transitional housing, emergency shelters, and single-room occupancy units in compliance with state law; WHEREAS, the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17000 et. seq.) and the Employee Housing Regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 25 - Housing and Community Development) outline specific requirements for the construction of housing, maintenance of grounds, buildings, sleeping space and facilities, sanitation and heating; WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Housing Element approved by the City Council on January 31, 2023 contains Housing Element Program 15, which provides that the City will amend its Zoning Code to accommodate low barrier navigation center, supportive housing, transitional housing, residential care facilities, qualified employee and agricultural employee housing, single room occupancy, and emergency shelters consistent with state law and Housing Element Program 20, which provides that the City will rezone to allow developments by right pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Appendix A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that were previously identified in past housing elements; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2025; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 19.86.070(B) of the Sonoma Municipal Code, the proposed amendments of the development code under this ordinance are:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goal, policies, and actions of the General Plan;
The City of Sonoma Development Code carries out the policies and implementation measures of the General Plan and State Law. Consistency between Sections of the Development Code and State Law ensure accuracy of the Development Code review process and therefore the amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan. The proposed amendment implements Program 15 and Program 20 of the Housing Element of the General Plan and are therefore consistent with the goals, policies and actions thereof.
B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city;
Agenda Item #8.1:
The proposed amendments are required to be compliant with State Law and clarify standards and permit requirements to accommodate low barrier navigation center, supportive housing, transitional housing, residential care facilities, qualified employee housing, single room occupancy, and emergency shelters consistent with state law. In addition, The proposed amendments further development of housing affordable to lower income households on sites previously identified by past housing elements and therefore further the City’s housing policies and those of the region to advance the public interest, and contribute to public welfare and convenience.
C. Comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described in Section 4 below; and
The amendments fall under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) General Rule. The General Rule, also known as the “Common Sense Exemption” applies to projects in which it is clear and definitive that the project will not have any significant impacts on the environments.
D. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this development code.
The proposed amendments provide clarity and consistency throughout the zoning code with state law to implement the City of Sonoma Housing Element.
WHEREAS, City Planning Staff has determined that the adoption and implementation of the Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinances with modifications, as attached in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of November 2025 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Recuse:
Chair Dambach
Attest
Jennifer Gates
Agenda Item #8.1:
City of Sonoma
ORDINANCE #_____ - 2025
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 19 (INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND
GUIDELINES) OF THE SONOMA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ACCOMMODATE LOW
BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE AND
AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING, SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY, AND
EMERGENCY SHELTERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65583 requires that all jurisdictions remove constraints and accommodate qualified employee housing, supportive housing and transitional housing, emergency shelters, and single-room occupancy units in compliance with state law; WHEREAS, the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17000 et. seq.) and the Employee Housing Regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 25 - Housing and Community Development) outline specific requirements for the construction of housing, maintenance of grounds, buildings, sleeping space and facilities, sanitation and heating; WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Housing Element approved by the City Council on January 31, 2023 contains Housing Element Program 15, which provides that the City will amend its Development Code to accommodate low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, transitional housing, residential care facilities, qualified employee and agricultural employee housing, single room occupancy, and emergency shelters consistent with state law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 20, 2025 forthe purpose of considering amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to implement Housing Element Program 15 and considered public testimony and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments with modifications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of an ordinance making such amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 17, 2025 for the purpose of considering amendments to Title 19 of the Sonoma Municipal Code to implement Housing Element Program 15; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the totality of the record and all evidence submitted into the record, including public testimony and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at such public hearing; and
WHEREAS, public hearing notices were made at the time and in the manner required by law.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item #8.1: