Agenda — Sonoma City Council, February 18, 2026

City Council:

Ron Wellander, Mayor
Sandra Lowe, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Patricia Farrar-Rivas
John Gurney

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers, 177 First Street West
Wednesday, February 18, 2026
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84876986131
6:00 PM Regular Meeting

ACCESSING PUBLIC MEETINGS
As a public service to the community, City Council meetings are held in-person, and viewable through a live webcast on the City’s CivicWeb Portal at https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/Portal/Video.aspx, City of Sonoma YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChZjUrg2rNLYxTgQHhFy-Tg, and televised on Comcast Cable Channel 27. Members of the public can also view the meeting via ZOOM, at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84876986131.

If a technical issue arises with Zoom video or the listening phone dial-in option, the City Council meeting will continue unless a Council Member is participating remotely pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54953.8.3.

Members of the public who wish to address the Council by providing public comments during the meeting may do so in-person in the Council Chambers at 177 First Street West, where the meeting is being publicly held. As an alternative, members of the public may also provide written public comment submitted via the City’s online Public Comment form at https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/Portal/CitizenEngagement.aspx or by email to:
[email protected]
PROCESS FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: There will be two opportunities for members of the public to address items not appearing on the agenda. The early public comment period, Agenda Item 1, will be limited to ten speakers. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes. Speakers who do not have an opportunity to speak during the first public comment section will be allowed to make their comments during the later public comment period, Agenda Item 10, provided there were more than 10 people in the first public comment section. When the Mayor announces these agenda items, please form a line to speak.

In the event a Council Member participates remotely for just cause Government Code Section 54953.8.3, the City will allow for public comment through the Zoom link.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (707) 933-2216. Notification 48 hours before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Be Courteous - TURN OFF your cell phones and watches while the meeting is in session.

The City Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on the agenda irrespective of how the items are described.

No new items will begin after 9:00pm unless a majority of the members present vote to allow the items to be heard.

Page

Page 1 of 110 ends

REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL (Lowe, Gurney, Farrar-Rivas, Ding, Wellander)

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
At this time members of the public may address the Council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. This public comment period will be limited to ten speakers. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes.

Speakers who do not have an opportunity to speak during the first public comment section will be allowed to make their comments during the later public comment period, Agenda Item 10, provided there were more than 10 people in the first public comment section. When the Mayor announces these agenda items, please form a line to speak.

Under State Law, unless otherwise permitted under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the merits of the matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the City Council at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Council consideration. Please begin by stating your name.

2. MEETING DEDICATIONS

3. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Committee Reports - Council Members are appointed to various boards and committees - local, county-wide and regional. Any updates from a council member will be shared at this time.

A list of all appointments is available on our City Website for easy reference.

Council Members may also make appointments to city commissions at this time.

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

5. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS

6. PRESENTATIONS

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Council or staff request specific items to be removed for separate action.

7.1: Waive further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of Ordinances by Title Only. (Standard procedural action - no backup information provided)

7.2: Receive Minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 26, 2026 (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Minutes.

01.26.2026 Regular Meeting Minutes
5 - 7

7.3: Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of January 2026 (David Guhin, City Manager)
RECOMMENDATION: Accept report.

Agenda Report - Expenditure Report - January 2026 - Pdf 8 - 23

8. PUBLIC HEARING

9. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
(Matters requiring discussion and/or action by the City Council)

9.1: A Resolution Accepting the Urban Canopy Assessment and Tree Inventory 24 - 95

Page 2 of 110 ends

(Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director, Dave Jahns, Parks & Recreation Director, and Jacob Dunn, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving a Resolution accepting the Urban Canopy Assessment and Tree Inventory Reports.

Agenda Report - Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and Tree Inventory Summary - Pdf

9.2: Utility Box Art Wrap Pilot Program: Artwork Selection (Dave Jahns, Parks & Recreation Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Review the Cultural and Fine Arts Commission's recommended artwork selections and make a motion to approve the designs and initiate the installation process.

Agenda Report - Utility Box Art Wraps - Pdf
96 - 104

9.3: A Resolution Ratifying the 2026 City Council Goals (David Guhin, City Manager)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that the City Council provide any additional feedback and then adopt the resolution ratifying the 2026 City Council Goals as presented or as amended.

Agenda Report - 2026 City Council Goals - Pdf
105 - 110

10. SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT (ONLY REQUIRED IF EARLIER PUBLIC SPEAKERS

REMAIN)
At this time members of the public who did not have the opportunity to speak during the early comment period may address the Council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes. Please form a line to speak.

11. CLOSED SESSION

11.1: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Pursuant to Government Code 54957
Title: City Manager

11.2: PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT / PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT - Pursuant to Government Code 54957
Title: City Manager & Acting/Interim City Manager

12. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

13. ADJOURNMENT
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted as legally required. Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk.
*********************************************************************************************************************************** Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to any item of business referred to on the agenda are usually available for public inspection the Wednesday before each regularly scheduled meeting at City Hall, located at No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA. Any documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will be made available for inspection at the City Clerk’s office, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA during regular business hours. If you challenge the action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on the agenda or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing.

Page 3 of 110 ends

Appointments to Commission/Committees: The Council may establish and make appointments to a Council committee (made up of two Council Members) with respect to any item appearing on this agenda.

Closed Session: If action is taken during a Closed Session meeting that is required to be reported out at this meeting, the Council will return to Open Session and report out immediately. However, if the Council is unable to do so due to time constraints, it will report out at the immediately following Regular Council Meeting under "REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION".

Motion for Consideration: A Council Member voting with the majority on any item appearing on this agenda may move for reconsideration of that vote provided the motion is in conformance with the rules adopted by the Council governing such motions.

NOTE: Portions of this document may have been drafted with support from AI-based tools, consistent with City of Sonoma policy on use of artificial intelligence. All information represented in this document has been reviewed by City of Sonoma staff.

Page 4 of 110 ends

City Council:

Ron Wellander, Mayor
Sandra Lowe, Vice Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas
John Gurney
Jack Ding

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
177 First Street West
Monday, January 26, 2026

6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2026

REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Wellander called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: Mayor Wellander, Vice Mayor Lowe, Council Member Farr-Rivas, Council Member Gurney, and Council Member Ding
Vice Mayor Lowe participated in the meeting remotely in accordance with Government Code section 54953.8.3, pursuant to the Just Cause exception, due to a caregiving need for a grandchild.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session held.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Council Member Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Council Member Ding, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously.

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Monique Muhlenkamp, Madolyn Edwards, Kimberly Torres, Morgan Taylor, Macy Tossman, Lisa Storment, Judi Ratto, Kim Pack, Judah White, and Belinda Head provided public comments.

Council Member Farrar-Rivas requested that the request for a Pride Flag Support Resolution, brought up during Public Comment, be agendized for further discussion by the Council.

2. MEETING DEDICATIONS
Vice Mayor Lowe dedicated the meeting to Gary Griffith, and Council Member Farrar-Rivas dedicated the meeting to Hannah Aclufi.

3. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Council Member Gurney attended a Sonoma Tourism Improvement District (STID) meeting on January 8, 2026, as well as a Sonoma Valley Library Advisory Board meeting.

Council Member Farrar-Rivas attended the 2026 Annual League of California Cities (LOCC) Mayors & Council Members Academy in Sacramento from January 21 to January 23, 2026. Mrs. Farrar-Rivas also attended meetings with State Assembly Member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and Senator Christopher Cabaldon. On January 7, 2026, she attended a Sonoma Ecology Center (SEC) meeting. She also reported that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) reduced the amount that the Pacific, Gas, & Electric Company (PG&E) and other utilities can charge over their costs.

Council Member Ding also attended the 2026 Annual LOCC Mayors & Council Members Academy from January 21 to January 23, 2026. At the Academy, he attended a Policy Committee meeting.

Additionally, he was appointed as a Commissioner to the State Revenue and Taxation Committee for a one-year term. On January 26, 2026, Council Member Ding attended a Sonoma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVGSA) meeting.

Mayor Wellander toured the new facility at Hannah Boys Center, “Today and Together,” which provides adult day care services to Sonoma Valley. He also had the opportunity to attend another homeless ad-hoc board meeting. Along with other councilmembers, he also attended the 2026 Annual LOCC Mayors & Council Members Academy from January 21 to January 23, 2026. Mayor Wellander met with the head of the County of Sonoma Parks to discuss a joint tree-planting enhancement project.

Mayor Wellander also provided an update to the council committee appointments for 2026 as follows:

Board/Committee/Commission 2026 City Representative 2026 Alternate 1 City Finance Committee John Gurney Patricia Farr-Rivas 2 Sonoma Disaster Council Ron Wellander Sandra Lowe
3 Sonoma Housing Corporation Ron Wellander Sandra Lowe
4 Sonoma Valley Fire & Rescue Authority Oversight
Committee
Ron Wellander Sandra Lowe
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 5 of 110 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2026
5 Sonoma Tourism Improvement District Board John Gurney City Manager 6 Sonoma Valley Library Advisory Committee John Gurney Patricia Farr-Rivas 7 Sonoma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Board of Directors
Jack Ding John Gurney
8 Sonoma Clean Power Authority Patricia Farrar-Rivas Jack Ding 9 Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Ron Wellander Jack Ding 10 Sonoma County Mayor and Councilmembers
Association Board of Directors
Ron Wellander Sandra Lowe
11 Sonoma County Mayor and Councilmembers
Association Legislative Committee
Jack Ding Patricia Farrar-Rivas
12 Sonoma County Transportation & Climate Authorities Sandra Lowe Patricia Farr-Rivas 13 Zero Waste Sonoma Jack Ding John Gurney
14 Sonoma Valley Community Advisory Commission Ron Wellander Patricia Farrar-Rivas 15 Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Board of
Directors
Ron Wellander Sandra Lowe
16 Economic Development Steering Committee Ron Wellander Patricia Farrar-Rivas 17 Water Advisory Committee Ron Wellander Jack Ding
18 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Sandra Lowe Patricia Farr-Rivas 19 State Route 37 Policy Committee Sandra Lowe John Gurney 20 North Bay Watershed Association Board of Directors Patricia Farrar-Rivas Jack Ding

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager Guhin announced that the State of the Valley will take place on Thursday, January 29, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. at the Sebastiani Theater, and the annual City Council Goal Setting will take place on Friday, January 30, 2026, from 12 – 5:00 p.m. at the Sonoma Community Center. He also shared that the City was able to surplus another ambulance and send it to Ukraine to assist the frontline medics currently at war. Mr. Guhin also shared that the Department of Health Services at the County of Sonoma, which operates the Measure O HomeFirst program, was awarded $709,000 to help support homeless services. Lastly, City Manager Guhin reported that the Lovall Valley Road Bridge Repair project is now complete.

5. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
City Attorney Ruderman summarized a case challenging development impact fees in Los Angeles that was presented to the Executive Committee of the League of California Cities’ Legal Advocacy Committee, which reviews potential amicus brief support.

6. PRESENTATIONS
Item 6.1: Proclamation Proclaiming the Month of January 2026 as National Mentoring Month in the City of Sonoma
Item 6.2: Presentation on Sonoma Police Department 2025 Statistics by Brandon Cutting, Chief of Police
Item 6.3: Extreme Cold Weather Response Planning: Review of Activation Criteria & Emergency Warming Center Operations by Sarah Tracy, Senior Management Analyst/PIO)
Public Comment: Robert Demler and Annie Falandes

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Motion by Council Member Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Council Member Ding, to approve the consent calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 7.1: Waive further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of Ordinances by Title Only. (Standard procedural action - no backup information provided) Item 7.2: Receive the Minutes for the Regular Meetings of December 3, 2025, and December 17, 2025 (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)
Action: The minutes were received.

Item 7.3: Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of December 2025 (Prapti Aryal, Finance Director)
Action: The expenditure report was accepted.

Item 7.4: Adopt 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 (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Adopted as Ordinance 01-2026 and 02-2026.

Item 7.5: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract for the Demolition of the Front Entry Trellis and the Deck Framing at Fire Station #1 in the Amount of 34,650.00, and Authorizing the City Manager to Approve $3,465 (10%) in Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 6 of 110 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2026
Contingency, and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Budget Amendment to Increase Expenditures from the Long Term Building Maintenance Fund (Fund 610) (Ashley Cotter, Public Works Admin & Project Manager)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 01-2026.

8. PUBLIC HEARING
None.

9. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Item 9.1: Selection of the 2026 City of Sonoma Alcalde (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk) Action: Gary Edwards was chosen as the 2026 Alcalde for the City of Sonoma.

Public Comment: Robert Demler and Bill Lynch
Item 9.2: Mid-Year Budget Update Report for FY 2025-26 and a Resolution of the City Council Approving Mid-Year Budget Adjustments (Prapti Aryal, Finance Director) Action: The Mid-Year Budget Update Report was received and adopted as Resolution 02-2026.

Motion by Council Member Gurney, seconded by Council Member Farrar-Rivas, to Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Approving Mid-Year Budget Adjustments. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 9.3: Update on 2025 Council Goals (David Guhin, City Manager) Action: The 2025 Council Goals update was received.

Motion by Council Member Ding, seconded by Council Member Farrar-Rivas, to continue the meeting after 9:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 9.4: Letters of Interest Received and Direction to Mayor Wellander or His Designee Regarding Nominations for Appointees to Regional Commissions & Committees on Behalf of the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association of Sonoma County (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)
Action: The letters of interest were received, and direction was given to Mayor Wellander to nominate Stephen Zollman to the Childcare Planning Council and Mark Stapp and Tanya Potter to the Charles M. Schultz Sonoma County Aviation Commission.

10. SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT (ONLY REQUIRED IF PUBLIC SPEAKERS REMAIN FROM ITEM 2.0) None.

11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Wellander adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly received at a regular meeting of the Sonoma City Council on the 4th of February 2026.
____________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 7 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 18 Feb 2026
Department Staff Contact
David Guhin, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
Accept the Expenditure Report for the Month of January 2026 Summary
The attached report shows disbursements for the month of January 2026.

Resolution 02-2026 amended several General Fund departments’ budgets, as well as, the budgets for Fund 501 (Cemeteries), Fund 510 (Water Utility) and Fund 301 (City CIP) as part of the mid-year budget review.

A detailed list of disbursements is available at the web site indicated at the bottom of the report.

Recommended Council Action
Accept report.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
Monthly Payables Report, January 2026
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Disbursement Report - January 2026
Resolution 02-2026
Fund Glossary
Alignment with Council Goals:

Not Applicable
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 8 of 110 ends

DISBURSEMENT REPORT JANUARY 2026
Year to Date Monthly Year to Date Annual Percent of Fund Fund Revenue Expenditure Expenditure Budget Budget Balance General Fund 30000 14,813,433 29,543,090 50% 14,641,590 City Council 41001 6,366 65,696 150,401 44%
City Clerk 41002 28,833 283,656 463,743 61%
City Manager 41003 85,951 777,296 1,265,317 61%
Finance 41004 55,155 506,812 903,151 56%
City Attorney 41005 - 149,533 285,000 52%
Police 42101 505,511 3,449,168 7,778,032 44%
Fire 42201 27,738 4,529,026 8,122,755 56%
Public Works - Admin 43020 52,156 336,217 641,510 52%
Public Works - Streets 43022 92,448 879,948 1,498,358 59% Parks & Recreation 43023 88,100 979,765 1,869,606 52%
Planning 43030 46,849 847,398 2,019,937 42%
Building 43040 40,126 606,311 1,221,111 50%
Community Activities 43101 63,442 746,268 1,223,734 61% Successor Agency 43199 7,154 80,813 184,500 44%
Non-Departmental 43200 56,133 468,781 829,040 57%
Emergency Response 43201 4,623 43,709 117,189 37%
Public Information 43203 11,354 113,954 208,492 55%
Transfers 43999 100,000 921,728 1,220,000 76%
Total General Fund Expenditures 1,271,938 15,786,080 30,001,876 53% Other Funds
Public Education & Gov 202 9,689 - - - 0% (14,324)
Strong Motion 203 175 - - - 0% 6,954
Asset Forfeiture 211 345 - - - 0% 17,716
SLESF C.O.P.S Grant 217 59,827 - 120,000 120,000 100% 355,971 Bond Property 220 - - - - 0% (19,144)
Maysonnave Property 221 - - - - 0% (15,195)
Schell Drainage 234 4,178 - - - 0% 73,260
Abandoned Vehicle 240 500 1,066 6,452 15,000 43% (35,939) Streets/Transport/Drain 301 301,747 14,642 165,014 300,000 55% 167,790 Gas Tax 302 173,971 100,878 138,674 414,545 33% 881,554 SB-1Road Maint 303 133,727 63,369 104,200 204,200 51% 690,714 Parks & Facilities 304 631,238 41,356 73,055 625,000 12% 641,011 Fire Measure H 312 193,188 - - 708,000 0% 193,188
Transportation Measure M 313 60,575 - 200,000 200,000 100% 301,730 Parks-In-Lieu/Quimby Act 314 16,201 - - 225,000 0% 16,201 Parks Measure M 315 51,734 - - 84,999 0% 716,469
Prop 68 Parks 316 - - - - 0% (162,690)
Successor Agency 391 1,302,932 60,869 1,255,003 2,599,306 48% (17,516,185) CREBS 495 - - - - 0% -
2012 POB 498 25 - - - 0% (5,206)
Cemeteries 501 289,563 17,697 240,498 791,396 30% (2,140,655) Cemetery Replacement 502 - - - - 0% 288,613
Cemetery Endowment 504 26,242 - 47,000 47,000 100% 722,173 Water Utility 510 5,222,277 337,165 4,323,415 7,396,976 58% 10,482,551 Water CIP 512 722,003 - 5,172 655,000 1% 1,183,919
Water Equip Replacement 513 14,344 - - - 0% 740,602
EMS Equip Replacement 521 1,688 - - - 0% 86,338
Mgmt Information Srvcs 601 349,256 51,940 336,260 613,288 55% 402,514 Vehicle Replacement 603 715,969 - 267,183 671,985 40% 1,699,707 Insurance 604 1,006 - - - 0% 51,671
Building Maintenance 610 372,165 7,800 197,800 289,915 68% 3,760,200 Computer Loan 614 1,291 - - - 0% 66,338
Hardscape Maint 615 525 - - - 0% 26,949
Admin Hearings 620 164 - - - 0% 988
Grants Restricted 630 6,896 - - - 0% 38,442
Culture Fine Art 701 241 - - - 0% 12,567
Tree Trust 702 379 - - - 0% 19,792
Public Art 703 26,370 - 766 35,000 2% 96,461
Pool Scholarship 715 4,186 - 25,000 25,000 100% 184,046 Senior Housing 731 3,841 - 25,454 25,454 100% 194,917
Housing Trust 732 312,553 - 250,000 250,000 100% 2,619,148 IGT 796 380,122 82,003 1,180,400 1,585,968 74% 1,207,807 SVFRA Operations 798 17,212 - - - 0% 610,470
TOTAL 26,221,777 2,050,724 24,747,426 47,884,908 52%
Monthly disbursement detail reports can be found at www.sonomacity.org/financial-documents Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 9 of 110 ends

m_
.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 10 of 110 ends

300
:
.00

0.3 n H30
_.0_
038
000
30 020
3 Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 11 of 110 ends

0::

0.00. 3.0.0
0:.
0:
330

00.00 . 8
@000
8:

00. 0::
8 .0:
mhu

00. 1:0
.:0
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 12 of 110 ends

<
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 13 of 110 ends

Mid-year Budget Adjustment Request Form
Request Date: 1/5/2026 Fiscal Year: 2025-26
— Requesting Department: City Clerk
\ Requester: Rebekah Barr
\ Department Director Approval Rebekah Barr Date: 1/5/2026 City Manager Approval David Guhin Date: 1/12/2026
Type of request (Select One) El New Appropriation (increase to existing budget) Cl Reallocation (move existing budget within department) D New One-Time Request
New Ongoing Request
U Capital Project Adjustment'3 Revenue AdjustmentD Other:
-\
Account (Enter the account string) 100-43200-780-70780and 510-62001-780—70780 Total Requested Amount $10,000.00 for SF and $5,000 for Water \
Description of the Request (Clear explanation of what is being requested. Include item names, services, contracts, quantities, etc.) This request is needed to pay liabilityclaim costs incurred during the fiscal year. While these costs have not been separately budgeted in prior years, the City is required to pay the applicable premiums and related claim costs as they occur. This adjustment ensures timely payment and accurate budgeting for the current fiscal year. \
Impact if not Approved: Failure to approve this request would result in insufficient budget authority to cover required liabilityclaim costs for the current fiscal year, increasing the risk of delayed payments and inaccurate ?nancial reporting. i _an e eALmeJJ/e O?y '3 Reviewed and Approved
El Additional Information NeededEl Not Recommended
Notes:

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 14 of 110 ends

Mid-year Budget Adjustment Request Form
Request Date: 12/22/2025 Fiscal Year: FY25—26
Requesting Department: Public Works
\ Requestor: Ashley Cotter
Department Director Approval Mike Berger Date: 12/22/2025 City Manager Approval David Guhin Date: 1/12/2026
Type of request (Select One) New Appropriation (increase to existing budget) El Reallocation (move existing budget within department) D New One-Time RequestD New Ongoing Request
Capital Project Adjustment
D Revenue AdjustmentD Other:

Account (Enter the account string) 301-50000—703—70703
Total Requested Amount $100,000
Description of the Request (Clear explanation of what is being requested. Include item names, services, contracts, quantities, etc.) Additional funding required for CIP CD—7;Stormdrain Condition Assessment. CIP requests were cut during FY25-26 Budget Development, Set to be re-evaluated for mid year budget adjustments. This project currently has $50,000 in funding from FY24—25but that is insufficient for a condition assessment.

Iffunding can’t be allocated during mid year, a larger funding request will be submitted for FY26—27.The risk of not accruing enough funding ($200,000 estimated) to conduct this is that problem areas willsurface and the City will have to act on an Impact if not Approved: emergency basis to rectify. manee?egmme?wsepgw [1 Reviewed and Approved
El Additional InformationNeededEl Not Recommended
Notes:

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 15 of 110 ends

Mid-year Budget Adjustment Request Form
Request Date: 1/5/2026 Fiscal Year: 2025—26
Requesting Department: Finance
Requester: Prapti Aryal
Department Director Approval Prapti Aryal Date: 1/5/2026 City Manager Approval David Guhin Date: 1/12/2026
\
Type of request (Select One) New Appropriation (increase to existing budget) Reallocation (move existing budget within department)New One-Time RequestNew Ongoing Request Capital Project Adjustment
Revenue Adjustment
Other:
\
Account (Enter the account string) 100-XXXX-750—70750and 510-62001-750-70750 Total Requested Amount $9,834.25 for GF and $28,778.61 for Water fund 510 —\

DECIDED
Description of the Request (Clear explanation of what is being requested. Include item names, services, contracts, quantities, etc.) During budget adoption, the interdepartmental transfer out between the General Fund departments and the Water Fund for Long-Term Building Maintenance (LTBM)was inadvertently budgeted at an amount lower than intended. This budget adjustment corrects the transfer out to align with the corresponding transfer in that was approved at the time of budget adoption. if this budget adjustment is not approved, the transfer-in revenue budget for Fund 610 (Long-Term Building Maintenance) will not reconcile with the corresponding transfer-out expenditure budget, resulting in a budget Impact if not Approved: imbalance and inaccurate ?nancial reporting. \
Finance Qeganmegt Use Only E] Reviewed and Approved
El Additional Information NeededCi Not Recommended
Notes:

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 16 of 110 ends

Mid-year Budget Adjustment Request Form
Request Date: 1/8/2026 Fiscal Year: 2025-26
Requesting Department: Parks and Recreation
Requestor: Dave Jahns
Department Director Approval Dave Jahns Date: 1/8/2026
City Manager Approval David Guhin Date: 1/12/2026
\
Type of request (Select One) New Appropriation (increase to existing budget) Reallocation (move existing budget within department)
New One-Time RequestNew Ongoing Request
Capital Project Adjustment
Revenue Adjustment
Other:

DDDIHUD
\
Account (Enter the account string) 100-43101—404-60407
\ Total Requested Amount $11,000\
Description of the Request (Clear explanation of what is being requested. Include item names, services, contracts, quantities, etc.) Recreation Management Software - New platform to schedule, promote, receive recreation program offerings and manage facility and park rentals. Can be utilizedby and in collaboration with existing recreation program providers. Includes format to ensure online user ADA compliance $11,000 for year one (Includes start-Up Costs). $7,000 annually beginning in year 2. Common technology solution for most, if not all, Parks and Recreation agencies. \
N0 streamlined method to accept recreation program, facility, and park reservations. Would need to find Impact if not Approved: secondary solution fi??QQELenr-i?me?L H 0 Jr III Reviewed and Approved
El Additional Information NeededIII Not Recommended
Notes:

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 17 of 110 ends

Request Date:

Requesting Department: Parks and Recreation
Mid-yearBudget Adjustment Request Form
1/8/2026 Fiscal Year: 25-26 —— Requester: Dave Jahns
Department Director Approval Dave Jahns Date: 1/8/2026
City Manager Approval David Guhin Date: 1/12/2026
Type of request (Select One) E) New Appropriation (increase to existing budget) ‘3 Reallocation (move existing budget within department)D New One-Time Request New Ongoing Request
El Capital Project AdjustmentD Revenue AdjustmentC] Other:
\
Account (Enter the account string) 100—43101-404—50407
Total Requested Amount
\ $10,000\
Description of the Request (Clear explanation of what is being requested. Include item names, services, contracts, quantities, etc.) Recreation Programming - Instrutor Payments. Parks and Recreation to pilot summer camp offerings starting summer of 2026. Expense covers cost of third party instructors willcome with accompanying revenue. (Ex: Instructor receives 70% of total revenue. City retains 30%). Estimate based off recreation programs offered during current fiscal year.

Recreation offerings continue as is, perceived service gap(s) continues. City willnot have representation in Parks Impact if not Approved: and Recreation programs, at least until July. \
Notes:

El Reviewed and ApprovedEl Additional information Needed[I Not Recommended Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 18 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma

CITY OF SONOMA

FUND DESCRIPTIONS
General Fund (Fund 100): The general operating fund of the City is used to account for all financial resources except those that require accounting in another fund.

Public Education & Government (Fund 202): Special revenue fund accumulates fees from telecommunication operators to support public, educational and government telecommunications, including broadcasting public meetings. Costs associated with acquiring equipment, renovating and constructing PEG-related facilities and broadcasting are paid from this fund.

Strong Motion (Fund 203): Accounts for State of California "strong motion" fees paid by building permit applicants. Funds are paid regularly to State Department of Conservation.

Asset Forfeiture (Fund 211): Accounts for funds received from seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, crime. Funds are expended according to legal restrictions.

SLESF (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund)/COPS (Citizen Option for Public Safety) (Fund 217): Supplemental law enforcement funding is distributed by the State to the County which passes through the funding to local agencies. These funds have traditionally been used to support the costs of the Community Service Officer staff in the Police Department.

Bond Property (Fund 220): The Bond Property, a six acre parcel located at 19990 Seventh Street, was bequeathed to the city in 1977 by Pauline Bond, for the purpose of “creating and maintaining a public park” and is now home to the Sonoma Garden Center. The parcel is leased to the Sonoma Ecology Center who maintains the property and administers public programs at the site. Not Currently Active Fund Maysonnave Property (Fund 221): The Maysonnave Property, consisting of two parcels of land totaling

1.44 acres located at 291 and 289 First Street East, was bequeathed to the city in 1990 by Henri Maysonave for the purpose of “creating and maintaining a public park”. The parcel at 291 First Street East is leased to the League for Historic Preservation who maintains the property and administers public programs at the site while the parcel identified as 289 First Street East is leased to the Valley of the Moon Petanque Club, which maintains the property and administers public programs at that site. Not Currently Active Fund
Schell Drainage (Fund 234): Accounts for funds used for tracking of mitigation fees for specific projects.

Not Currently Active Fund
Abandoned Vehicle (Fund 240): Accounts for funds received from the Sonoma County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (SCAVA) program and must be expended in compliance with legal restrictions.

Streets/Transport/Drain (Fund 301): This Capital Improvement Fund represents a transfer of funds from the General Fund to support improvements to the City's streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and storm drainage system.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 19 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
Gas Tax (Fund 302): The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes and sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles with allocations dedicated to transportation purposes. Gas taxes can be used for any street or road purpose; however, it is best practice to focus on maintenance and rehabilitation costs only.

SB-1 Road Maintenance (Fund 303): The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) increased pergallon excise taxes and sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and vehicle registration taxes, stabilized price-based fuel tax rates and provided for inflationary adjustments to rates in future years. Funds may be used for road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety projects, “complete street” components, and traffic control devices.

Parks & Facilities (Fund 304): This Capital Improvement Fund represents a transfer of funds from the General Fund to support improvements to the City's 17 parks encompassing nearly 40 acres, nine play structures, two public restrooms, Class I bike trails, hiking trails, a duck pond, and a rose garden. Park needs that exceed the capacity of City and contract workers are included in this fund.

Fire Measure H (Fund 312): Sonoma County measure uses a ½ cent countywide sales tax to improve fire services.

Transportation Measure M (Fund 313): The Traffic Relief Act for Sonoma County (Measure M) provides for a ¼ cent sales tax that is apportioned to local jurisdictions to maintain their streets, as well as other County-wide street, highway, transit, and safe bicycle and pedestrian routes.

Parks-In-Lieu/Quimby Act (Fund 314): The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477) authorized the City to pass ordinances requiring developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees, which can only be used for new and rehabilitating existing parks and recreational facilities and cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities The City currently has a parkland dedication (exaction) requirement as a condition of approval for Tentative Subdivision Maps or Tentative Parcel Maps.

Parks Measure M (Fund 315): Sonoma County Parks Improvement, Water Quality and Fire Safety Measure (Measure M) is a one-eighth cent sales tax that supports Sonoma County’s regional and city parks Prop 68 Parks (Fund 316): Known as the California Clean Water and Safe Parks Act, Proposition 68 allocates funds to construct and rehabilitate parks, implement water improvements for safe drinking water, increase recycling and flood protection, and encourage climate change adaptation projects.

Successor Agency (Fund 391): The City of Sonoma has elected to serve as the Successor Agency to the Sonoma Redevelopment Agency, which was dissolved by the State through the Redevelopment Dissolution Act in 2012. The City as Successor Agency receives pass through revenue when property taxes are remitted to the City by the County via RPTTF (Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund). The City then makes authorized payments from Successor Agency for expenses, such as debt service costs, contract services for contracts issued before the dissolution of the development agency, and other expenses, including legal services.

CREBS (Clean Renewable Energy Bonds) (Fund 495): Bonds to pay for solar projects at the Police Station and Corporation Yard. Not Currently Active Fund
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 20 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
2012 POB (Pension Obligation Bond) (Fund 498): Bond issued to refund the City’s side fund loan obligations to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). Not Currently Active Fund Cemeteries (Fund 501): Accounts for funding to support the City’s three cemeteries’ operations and maintenance, including burial and inurnment preparation and coordination, cemetery improvements, tree hazard assessment and abatement, grounds maintenance, mausoleum maintenance, road maintenance, and vandalism abatement.

Cemetery Replacement (Fund 502): Not Currently Active Fund Cemetery Endowment (Fund 504): The Cemetery Endowment Fund was created to record the income received from Cemetery sales that is designated as endowment care. The City’s Municipal Code defines endowment care as the general maintenance of the City’s three cemeteries that is necessitated by natural growth and ordinary wear.

Water Utility (Fund 510): This enterprise fund is responsible for the delivery of high quality, dependable water service for a variety of needs including consumption, irrigation, and fire protection. It operates and maintains 3 active City-owned tanks with a combined storage capacity of 5.5 million gallons, 7 production wells and appurtenant treatment facilities, 2 pump stations with a combined 140 horsepower maximum output, 56 miles of active water main ranging from 8” to 14” in diameter, 513 fire hydrants, and approximately 4,500 active service connections
Water Construction in Progress (CIP) (Fund 512): This Capital Improvement Fund represents a transfer of funds from the Water Utility Fund to support improvements to the City's drinking water infrastructure.

Projects include replacing aging water mains and appurtenances (e.g. tees, crosses, couplers, saddles, valves), neighborhood-scale water service replacement projects, renewing tank coatings and corrosion control systems, replacing well or pump station equipment, replacing Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and equipment, improvements to well and pump station buildings (e.g. replacing roofs or electrical systems).

Water Equipment Replacement (Fund 513): Accounts for costs to replace water equipment. Not Currently Active Fund
EMS Equipment Replacement (Fund 521): Accounts for costs to replace EMS equipment.

Management Information Services (Fund 601): The fund provides a mechanism for funding the operational costs, maintenance, and planned replacement of installed computer systems, equipment, software, telephone systems and other critical electronic office equipment through annual transfers from other City departments and funds.

Vehicle Replacement (Fund 603): Accounts for costs to replace vehicles based on a depreciation schedule.

Costs are distributed among user departments and transferred as approved in the annual budget process.

Insurance (Fund 604): Account from which liability, property, earthquake, vehicle, and other insurance premiums are paid. Funding is transferred from other City departments and funds on a pro rata share.

Not Currently Active Fund
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 21 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
Building Maintenance (Fund 610): The fund allows the City to set aside funding received through annual transfers made by other City departments and funds for future replacement or repair of certain items in City owned and maintained facilities.

Computer Loan (Fund 614): Created by the City Council in 2000 and funded by an initial transfer of $50,000 from the Employee Benefit Fund, this fund provides low interest loans to employees for the purchase of computers for both personal and professional use. Loans must be repaid through payroll deductions within two years.

Hardscape Maintenance (Fund 615): Accounts for the City's hardscape maintenance reserve programs.

Not Currently Active Fund
Administrative Hearings (Fund 620): Accounts for all activities of the City's Administrative Hearings as charged to departments. Not Currently Active Fund
Grants Restricted (Fund 630): The purpose of the fund is to separately track grant monies that are received and spent for capital improvement projects.

Culture Fine Art (Fund 701): Accounts for assets held to be used for cultural fine art programs. Not Currently Active Fund
Tree Trust (Fund 702): Accounts for assets held to be used for planting and replacement of trees. Not Currently Active Fund
Public Art (Fund 703): Accounts for assets held to be used for public art displays. Not Currently Active Fund
Pool Scholarship (Fund 715): In 2014, the City entered an agreement with Sonoma Valley Health and Recreation Association to support the construction of a swimming pool within the Sonoma Valley. The City’s financial commitment is for a total of $250,000 to be paid in 10 annual installments of $25,000 for the value of free and reduced-fee services to be provided to Sonoma Valley residents Senior Housing (Fund 731): Sonoma Creek Senior Housing is a thirty-four unit rental apartment complex for very low income senior citizens located on Oregon Street and administered by the Board of Directors of the Sonoma Community Housing Corporation (SCHC), a non-profit housing corporation created by the City’s Community Development Agency (CDA). The Board of the SCHC is comprised of two City Councilmembers, the City Manager, a staff member designated by the City Manager and a public member. The operation of the apartment complex is contracted out to Hank Fisher Properties, a rental management firm, with the resident managers being employed by the firm. All accounting and finance for the complex is handled through the rental management contract. Rental income is used to repay the indebtedness issued for the purchase of the complex and to cover annual maintenance and other operational costs. Not Currently Active Fund
Housing Trust (Fund 732): The fund accumulates and distributes funding in accordance with the City Council’s Affordable Housing Plan. The main source of funding is from General Fund transfers of one percent of the Transient Occupancy Tax.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 22 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
IGT (Intergovernmental Transfer) (Fund 796): State of California program that provides an opportunity to receive federal matching funds to support health services for Medi-Cal Managed Care beneficiaries served by the Fire Department.

SVFRA (Sonoma Valley Fire Rescue Association) Operations (Fund 798): Accounts for operational activities in which revenues and expenses are split between the City and SVFD.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 23 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 18 Feb 2026
Department
Community Development
Department
Staff Contact
Jacob Dunn, Associate Planner
Agenda Item Title
A Resolution Accepting the Urban Canopy Assessment and Tree Inventory Summary
Background
The Tree Inventory and Urban Canopy Assessment represent an effort to establish a data driven baseline for the existing trees in the City. The reports aim to provide guidance for future decision-making and provide the community with details regarding the existing condition of trees throughout the City. The reports were prepared for the City by PlanIT Geo, an urban forestry consulting and software firm that prioritizes planning for urban forestry, parks and arboriculture.

Public Outreach and Public Comments
Public outreach and engagement included:
 January 2024 – Joint Commission Meeting – Discussed tree policies and commissions provided initial direction on priorities
 February 2024 – City Council Meeting – Goal was set that incorporated Trees  February 2024 – Joint Commission Meeting – Tree priorities were identified by the Joint Commission
 February 2025 – City Council Meeting – Goal was continued around the importance of Trees
 March 2025 – City Council Meeting – Adopted the City Master Tree List  April 2025 – City Council Meeting – Approved contract for PlanIT Geo  January 2026 – Joint Commission Meeting – Reviewed Draft Final Report for consideration by the City Council
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Overview
The key goals of urban tree canopy assessment include:

1. Quantify the amount and location of tree canopy and other land cover types

2. Measure the ecosystem services provided by the tree canopy to the community

3. Identify areas where tree canopy can be expanded (Potential Planting Area analysis (PPA))

4. Determine priority areas for tree preservation and planting initiatives based on socioeconomic, environmental, and climate-related factors

5. Provide data to inform future planning and to establish canopy coverage goals The assessment used high-resolution multi-spectral imagery obtained from the US Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) in 2022. The tree canopy and land cover data from Earth Define US Tree Map provided a six-class land cover data set to Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 24 of 110 ends

extract tree canopy cover and other land cover types. The land cover types provide a set of layers that distinguish between each type of vegetation and ground type.

The report identified planting opportunities and limitations that should be considered in planning efforts. Areas where tree planting is possible were identified as Potential Planting Areas (PPA) within spaces already classified as vegetation. Unsuitable areas were manually delineated and included locations where planting is not feasible without significant land modification.

Multiple boundary types were included for analysis including city-wide plantable spaces, census block groups, city properties and hexagons. These boundary types provided a visual frame of reference for existing tree canopies and areas for improvement.

The tree canopy assessment results reveal both the strengths and challenges of its urban forest. With 25% of the city’s land area covered by tree canopy and 14% identified as suitable for future planting, Sonoma has a significant opportunity to protect and expand its green infrastructure. The report addresses wildfire challenges based on updated mapping, ecosystem benefits from the existing urban forest, and prioritization ranking made up of multiple variables.

The prioritization variables include the urban heat island effect, low existing urban tree canopy (UTC), possible UTC, unemployment percent, vulnerable population ratio, median income, percentage of population without a GED, and poverty. These variables help shape the overall recommendations of the assessment.

The report recommends:

1. Target High-Priority Planting Areas Identified in the Assessment

2. Expand and Diversify Public Canopy

3. Integrate Canopy Goals into City Planning and Policy

4. Enhance Jurisdictional Engagement

5. Monitor, Evaluate, and Report Progress
Tree Inventory Overview
The tree inventory was conducted over a week by ISA certified arborists on the ground and manually entered into an online platform accessible by City staff and the public. A record was created for each tree to track maintenance and other details about the tree including its location, common and Latin names, trunk diameter, estimated tree height and spread, overall health and maintenance needs. Each tree record will be traceable on the online platform, TreePlotter, and updates can be entered as progress is made on tree plantings, removals and maintenance.

TreePlotter will provide an opportunity to continue collecting data and reinform our understanding of the current urban tree canopy.

The tree inventory provided an in-depth analysis of species diversity and their size distribution with tables and graphs that summarize results clearly. A key piece of information that will support future tree work includes the tree conditions and recommended maintenance for all existing trees. This information will provide details that can be incorporated into larger maintenance plans to support the existing canopy.

Joint Commission Meeting
A joint commission meeting was held on January 21, 2026, (Link to Agenda, Video, and Staff Report) to discuss the results of the urban tree canopy assessment and tree inventory with the Planning Commission, Climate Action Commission, and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission. This meeting provided an opportunity for the commissioners from each Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 25 of 110 ends

individual commission to request revisions and ask questions about the reports for approval by the City Council. The meeting included a presentation from staff and gave insight into the documents and how the data may be used going forward.

The comments and questions from commissioners varied but were primarily shared among each commission. There was a large focus on education and incentives to encourage proper care and maintenance of trees across the City by providing pamphlets or improving the City webpage. The commissioners also felt that post approval monitoring of tree plantings is undertaken to ensure that the urban tree canopy is maintained. The reports used specific variables for determining plantable areas, but it was mentioned that future management plans should consider hard surfaces as possible plantable areas through redevelopment. Other items of concern included wildlife habitat, fire hazards, lighting, damage to infrastructure, improved tree protection standards, and improvements to urban greenways.

Next Steps and Utilization of Data
Staff will utilize the data collected to create an action-oriented workplan, which include the following priority areas:
 Maintenance and planting
o Compare findings to existing practice and incorporate recommendations into a streamlined maintenance plan.
o Schedule proactive tree plantings, prioritizing identified high-priority, lowcanopy, and high heat areas.  Process and policy
o Utilize findings to inform, standardize, and update the City’s tree permit processes and ordinances.
o Continue to review/modify the master tree list, as necessary, to meet current conditions and needs of our community’s changing conditions.  Education and community participation
o Provide community access to the TreePlotter GIS database, giving the ability to track tree conditions in real time.
o Update communication materials to remain current with recommended tree care, removal/replacement requirements, and education about the importance of a healthy tree canopy.
o Coordinate tree planting and volunteer opportunities with community partners, service clubs and schools.
 Long-term management and planning
o Establish measurable citywide tree canopy targets
o Track planting, removals, and survival rates of newly introduced trees o Utilize recommended maintenance efforts to create a prioritized project list that will guide regular operations and future budgeting efforts. o Consider the feasibility of completing an Urban Forest Management Plan.

Collectively, these studies provide staff and the community with a snapshot of current conditions and recommended next steps to maintain and enhance tree canopy system wide. These are intended to be dynamic tools that continue to guide our maintenance and planning efforts as we move from study format into implementation and long-range planning.

Recommended Council Action
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 26 of 110 ends

Staff recommends approving a Resolution accepting the Urban Canopy Assessment and Tree Inventory Reports.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
The contract was funded by the $75,000 allocated in FY 24-25 (Account 100-43030-347- 50347).

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Final Resolution
Attachment 2 - Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
Attachment 3 - Tree Inventory Summary
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 27 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ___-2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ACCEPTING A TREE

INVENTORY AND URBAN CANOPY ASSESSMENT PREPARED BY PLANIT GEO WHEREAS, on April 21, 2025, the City of Sonoma (the “City”) awarded a contract to PlanIT Geo to prepare a Tree Inventory and Urban Canopy Assessment; and

WHEREAS, the City coordinated with PlanIT Geo to conduct the work and prepare draft reports for approval; and
WHEREAS, the City received reports summarizing the total urban tree canopy and tree inventory prepared by PlanIT Geo; and
WHEREAS, the City has been provided with a list of recommendations to be adopted by the City Council for future maintenance and expansion of the City’s urban forest; and WHEREAS, the City held a joint meeting on January 21, 2026, with the Planning Commission, Climate Action Commission, and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission to review the reports and provide feedback; and
WHEREAS, the City coordinated with PlanIT Geo to incorporate the Commissions’ recommendations and prepare final draft reports for approval; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sonoma hereby accepts the Urban Canopy Assessment and Tree Inventory completed by PlanIT Geo.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma on this 18th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Ron Wellander, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 28 of 110 ends

The City of Sonoma, California
February | 2026
Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment
Photo by Dan Soine
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 29 of 110 ends

Prepared by:

PlanIT Geo, Inc., Arvada, Colorado
Prepared for:

The City of Sonoma
Completed:

February 2026
"As nature’s largest
and longest-lived
creations, trees play an
extraordinarily important
role in our cities; they
are living landmarks that
define space, cool the air,
soothe our psyches, and
connect us to nature and
our past."
-Jill Jonnes, Urban Forests: A
Natural History of Trees and People
in the American Cityscape
Sonoma, CA
Urban Tree
Canopy
Assessment
Soine
Photo by Erin Collins
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 30 of 110 ends

1. Assessment Overview
Introduction �� 1 Methods Overview�� 2 Key Takeaways �� 3

2. Project Methodology
Data Sources �� 4 Mapping Land Cover in California and Identifying Trees �� 4 Identifying Planting Opportunities and Limitations ��6 Defining Assessment Boundaries ��6

3. State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Sonoma's Land Cover�� 8 City-Wide Tree Canopy Cover ��9 Tree Canopy and Impervious Surfaces �� 10 Tree Canopy Cover by Sonoma's City Limits and Sphere of Influence �� 11 City-Wide Plantable Space ��13 Understanding the Plantable Space Analysis�� 17 Tree Canopy Cover by Priority Conservation Areas �� 18 Tree Canopy Cover by Census Block Groups��20 Tree Canopy Cover by City Property�� 23 Tree Canopy Cover by Hexagons �� 24

4. Sonoma's Wildfire Challenge
Best Practices �� 27 Sonoma's Tree Inventory ��30

5. Tree Planting Prioritization by Census Block Groups
Prioritization Analysis Overview��31 Variables Considered ��31 Scoring Ranges �� 33

6. Ecosystem Benefits
The Value of Sonoma's Urban Forest�� 36

7. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion��38 Recommendations��38

8. Appendix
A. Expanded Methodology �� 40 B. Accuracy Assessment �� 41 C. Quantifying Urban Forest Benefits via i-Tree Landscape��43 D. Glossary and Key Terms��45 Table of Contents
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 31 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 1 Assessment Overview
Introduction
The City of Sonoma is located in Sonoma County within the North Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. Its climate is Mediterranean, characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Known for its proximity to the heart of California’s renowned wine country, historic architecture, and scenic mountain views, Sonoma blends charming suburban living with world-class culture. Iconic gathering spaces like Sonoma Plaza are focal points for the community, hosting the local farmers market, festivals, and livemusic events. Tree-lined neighborhoods are a defining feature of the city and comprise a mix of native species, heritage oaks, and non-native ornamentals, which highlights the region’s natural aesthetic and the influence of human stewardship.

Sonoma is taking significant steps to protect its natural resources, with the development of the Parks and Recreation Department in early 2025. This department will be responsible for maintaining parks, trails, and open space, supporting recreational programs, and managing the city’s public art program. All of these initiatives will deepen the city’s commitment to climate resilience, outdoor recreation, and urban forestry. Sonoma County is developing an update to its Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, in collaboration with the City of Sonoma and 23 other jurisdictions. This plan identifies natural hazards to enhance community resilience and safety. This plan will address wildlife risk, landslide hazard areas, and potential flooding in Sonoma. The city’s urban forest provides essential environmental services that can help mitigate some of these risks.

Assessment Overview
Figure 1. Nestled west of Sacramento, the City of Sonoma spans approximately 2.75 square miles (about 1,750 acres) and shares its northern boundary with the scenic Mission Highlands.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 32 of 110 ends

2 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Assessment Overview
Sonoma continues to plan and strategize to promote people, the planet, and the community as a whole. Climate Smart Sonoma is a city-wide outreach initiative that highlights all the ways Sonoma is advancing its green initiatives. These projects range in scope, from conducting a tree inventory and creating an updated tree canopy database to promoting outreach programs like Zero Waste Sonoma, which provides resources on composting and smart trash removal. The city has also outlined its climate initiatives in the Climate Action Strategies adopted in 2024, including improvements in water and energy conservation, transportation accessibility, and waste reduction. These programs highlight Sonoma's community-centric nature and its strong commitment to environmental sustainability.

The urban tree canopy in Sonoma is dynamic and continually shaped by both natural processes and human activities. Sonoma’s tree canopy is influenced not only by the stewardship of local landowners but also by urban development, drought, and disease.

By leveraging aerial imagery and community-driven data, Sonoma can track its tree canopy coverage and identify areas where restoration or new plantings will have the most significant impact. This assessment focuses on Sonoma’s urban tree canopy (UTC), exploring current coverage and opportunities for additional plantings.

Methods Overview
This assessment utilized imagery from the USDA’s National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) and applied US Forest Service standards, along with machine learning techniques, to analyze land cover in Sonoma in 2022. This enables the City of Sonoma and its stakeholders to revise existing programs and develop new priorities for protecting and expanding the urban forest. This study used machine learning techniques to create land cover data, facilitating more uniform comparisons in future tree canopy assessments. Following US Forest Service standards, this assessment focuses on tree canopy as a percentage of land, excluding water.

The key goals of this urban tree canopy assessment include:
▶ Quantify the amount and location of tree canopy and other land cover types. ▶ Measure the ecosystem services provided by the tree canopy to the community. ▶ Identify areas where tree canopy can be expanded (Possible Planting Area analysis).
▶ Determine priority areas for tree preservation and planting initiatives based on socioeconomic, environmental, and climate-related factors. ▶ Provide data to inform future planning and to establish canopy coverage goals.

For more information about the methodology used to complete this assessment, see the Project Methodology section or Appendix A.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 33 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 3 Assessment Overview
Key Takeaways
Sonoma’s tree canopy currently covers 25% (443 acres) of the city, with the most robust coverage found to the north and to the east. 14% of Sonoma is suitable for future tree plantings after excluding recreation fields, golf courses, and agricultural fields from consideration. The remaining 60% of Sonoma’s land cover is considered unsuitable for planting without significant land modification. Percentages have been rounded for clarity and readability.

Sonoma’s Priority Conservation Areas and city-owned property contain nearly a quarter of the city’s potential planting areas. Planting in the city’s Priority Conservation Areas can support the local ecosystem by providing additional habitat and protecting sensitive environments. While planting on city-owned property benefits all residents by providing additional shade, fostering a more relaxed atmosphere, and enhancing wellbeing through expanded natural spaces. Focusing on planting efforts in public spaces with low canopy cover or high levels of use will maximize the benefits of the urban forest.

The City of Sonoma includes three Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ): Moderate, High, and Very High, as well as a Non-Wildland designation for urban areas. All four areas contain ample tree canopy coverage and potential planting space. Strategically managing and planting in these areas can enhance the city's existing ecosystem benefits and help reduce wildfire risk. For example, increasing the distance between existing tree canopy limbs and buildings, as well as increasing the spacing between new trees planted on slopes, are active management strategies that can support Sonoma in its wildfire prevention efforts.

In addition to their ecological importance, Sonoma’s urban forest also provides environmental services. These benefits were calculated using i-Tree tools to quantify reductions in air pollutants, gallons of water mitigated from stormwater runoff, and carbon storage. Sonoma’s existing trees provide substantial monetary benefits to the community, with an estimated annual value of $547,170, or $1,235 per acre. Focusing tree plantings on underutilized areas will strengthen environmental equity, enhance air quality, and improve overall community livability.

Sonoma's urban forest shades a quarter of
the city, equating to 443 acres of robust
urban tree canopy.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 34 of 110 ends

4 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Project Methodology
Data Sources
This assessment used high-resolution (60 centimeter) multi-spectral imagery obtained from the US Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), collected in 2022. The tree canopy dataset was created for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and has been made publicly available.

Mapping Land Cover in California and Identifying Trees
The land cover data set is the most fundamental component of a tree canopy assessment. Tree canopy and land cover data from the EarthDefine US Tree Map provided a six-class land cover data set. The US Tree Map is produced using a modern machine-learning technique to extract tree canopy cover and other land cover types from the latest available 2022 NAIP imagery. These six classes are shown in Figure 2.

Tree canopy is defined as the “layer of leaves, branches, and stems that cover the ground” (Raciti et al., 2006) when viewed from above. It serves as the metric for quantifying the extent, function, and value of the urban forest. Trees were distinguished from shrubs and bushes using an object-based approach that considered each pixel’s spectral characteristics, shape, size, and context. Typically, trees exhibit darker, denser foliage, taller, rounder canopies exceeding 12 feet, and more uniform shapes. In contrast, shrubs generally are lighter in color, shorter, and irregularly shaped, often blending in with surrounding grasses.

An impervious surface prevents water from passing through, preventing natural infiltration of rainwater into the ground. This land cover class is characterized by surfaces like roads, sidewalks, and rooftops, but can also include artificial turf or any man-made hardscapes. These surfaces increase water runoff from rain and heavy storms, which can contribute to flooding, water pollution, and the degradation of hardscapes.

Additionally, it is important to note the distinction between other non-canopy vegetation and bare earth and soil, especially in California's naturally dry climate. Noncanopy vegetation refers to areas covered mainly by living grass and open space where there are no trees. This can include residential lawns and wild open spaces. Bare soil refers to spots where plant material is dried, dead, and brown. This land class is often characterized by construction sites and land that has been cleared for development.

The earth materials that typically make up this class include gravel, rock, exposed earth or dead grasses.

Project Methodology
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 35 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 5 Project Methodology
Figure 2. This study identified six (6) unique land cover classes within the 2022 assessment imagery: tree canopy, shrubs, other non-canopy vegetation, bare soil and dry vegetation, impervious surfaces, and water.

Tree Canopy:

Leaves, branches, and stems generally
greater than 10-15’ tall.

Shrubs:

Woody plants with multiple stems arising
from the base, generally less than 10' tall.

Other Vegetation:

Healthy grasses, herbaceous plants, open
pastures, and turf grass.

Bare Soil and Dry Vegetation:

Exposed earth, sand, or dead/dormant
grasses.

Impervious Surfaces:

Roads, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings,
and other paved areas.

Water:

Rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands.

Land Cover Classes & Examples
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 36 of 110 ends

6 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Project Methodology
Identifying Planting Opportunities and Limitations
In addition to quantifying the City of Sonoma’s existing tree canopy cover, areas where trees can be planted (PPA- Possible or Potential Planting Area) were also identified. To assess this, all land area in the City of Sonoma that was not currently tree canopy was classified as either possible planting area or unsuitable for planting.

Possible planting area was identified within spaces classified as vegetation. Unsuitable areas or areas where it was not feasible to plant trees (e.g., recreation fields, stateowned property, and agricultural land, etc.) were manually delineated and overlaid with the existing land cover data set (Figure 3). The unsuitable delineation is intended to describe current land conditions, but planting in areas marked as unsuitable may be possible in the future through land-use changes and community development projects. The unsuitable layer included parcels that have been developed since 2022.

The final results were reported as Urban Tree Canopy, Possible Planting Area, Unsuitable Impervious, Unsuitable Vegetation, Unsuitable Slated for Development, Unsuitable Soil, or Water.

Figure 3. The study identified vegetated areas where tree plantings would be feasible but are undesirable based on their current usage. An example includes recreational areas, such as these baseball and soccer fields (left image) which is delineated as “Unsuitable,” highlighted in yellow (right image).

Defining Assessment Boundaries
The analysis of Sonoma’s urban tree canopy is presented at the city level to provide a general overview of the current state of the urban forest. To allow comparison at finer scales, canopy metrics are also explored using different geographic boundaries.

These include comparisons of Sonoma’s City Limits and Sphere of Influence, Priority Conservation Areas, Fire Zones, Census Block Groups, City-Owned Property, and a uniform grid of 1,000 Hexagons.

Unsuitable for Tree Planting Example:

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 37 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 7 Project Methodology
Assessment Boundaries:

Figure 4. The assessment boundaries above include Sonoma's City Limits and Sphere of Influence, the Priority Conservation Areas, the Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Sonoma's City Property, Census Block Groups, and Hexagons.

Sonoma's City Limits and Sphere
of Influence
Priority Conservation Areas
Fire Hazard Severity Zones City Property
Census Block Groups Hexagons
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 38 of 110 ends

8 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Sonoma's Land Cover
This urban tree canopy assessment analyzed detailed land cover data to identify existing urban tree canopy and potential planting areas across the City of Sonoma.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of land cover in Sonoma's City Limits. Impervious surfaces accounted for the most significant portion of the city’s land area at 52%, of which 17% accounted for building footprints and 35% was other impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways, and sidewalks. Tree canopy was the second-largest land cover type, accounting for 25% of the land cover. Non-canopy vegetation, such as herbaceous plants and grass, accounted for 22% of Sonoma’s land area. And finally, water bodies and areas of bare soil or dry vegetation accounted for less than 1% of land cover.

Note: While this assessment analyzed land cover for Sonoma’s Sphere of Influence, this report focuses exclusively on metrics within Sonoma’s City Limits, unless otherwise specified.

Figure 5. Pie chart showing the distribution of land cover classes throughout Sonoma's City Limits (percentages based on the total area including water bodies).

State of the Canopy and Key
Findings
Land Cover Classes Distribution Pie Chart:
(0.03%)
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 39 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 9 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Figure 6. Map of land cover classification results in Sonoma. The inset map shows a residential area east of the Maxwell Village Shopping Center and south of Olsen Park.

Land Cover Classes Distribution Map:

City-Wide Tree Canopy Cover
This assessment organized results by a range of geographic boundaries to provide a detailed understanding of tree canopy distribution. For each assessment geography, the 2022 canopy cover was analyzed. American Community Survey data were incorporated into census block group-level data to help identify where planting opportunities align with community needs. This comprehensive approach supports the development and outreach of target programs, ensuring resources are directed to the highest-priority areas for management and urban greening.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 40 of 110 ends

10 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Tree Canopy and Impervious Surfaces
Sonoma’s 443 acres of urban tree canopy were further divided into subcategories based on whether the canopy was overhanging pervious or impervious surfaces. Tree canopy overhanging an impervious surface offers many ecological advantages, such as localized cooling through shading and increased stormwater absorption.

Sonoma’s UTC was predominantly overhanging pervious surfaces at 79% while 21% was overhanging impervious surfaces. Increasing tree canopy over paved areas, such as rights-of-way, along streets, and on sidewalks, helps reduce urban heat, stormwater runoff, and noise and air pollution. These trees also protect hardscapes from deteriorating, lowering maintenance costs. Strengthening ordinances for planting in and around these areas can enhance these benefits. Targeted canopy expansion supports environmental resilience while balancing priorities like safety, accessibility, and infrastructure needs.

Sonoma’s city boundary encompasses 1,750 land acres. As of 2022, 25.3% (443 acres) of the city’s land area was covered by urban tree canopy, with 14.4% (252 acres) identified as suitable for future planting. These plantable spaces include residential yards, parks (excluding recreational fields), and other open spaces where new trees could be established. The remaining 60.3% (1,055 acres) was considered unsuitable for planting without significant land modifications. Of these unsuitable areas, impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, and buildings, accounted for 87% (917 acres). Other unplantable spaces include highly maintained sports fields, agricultural fields, conflicts with infrastructure, or ongoing land uses. Areas deemed unsuitable for future tree plantings were manually delineated, for more information see Limitations of Potential Plantable space on page 17.

With 14.4% of Sonoma’s land still suitable for planting, the city has significant potential to expand its urban forest. Planting city-wide has immense benefits for residents, wildlife, and the broader environment. Additionally, planting in prioritization areas or the city’s Priority Conservation Areas will support both underserved communities and ecosystems.

Figure 7. This photo depicts the Spring Overlook Trail in Sonoma. The grassy open space contains summer wildflowers.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 41 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 11 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Tree Canopy Cover by Sonoma's City Limits and Sphere of Influence The City of Sonoma contains 1,750 land acres, and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) adds another 259 land acres, for a total of 2,009 acres. The Sonoma SOI stands as the probable physical boundary and service area for the City of Sonoma. The SOI promotes the reliable delivery of local and regional services to current and future residents and fosters collaboration among county agencies.

The SOI's land area is covered by 39% UTC, equating to 101 acres of tree canopy within the boundary. A quarter of Sonoma’s City Limits are covered by tree canopy, consisting of 443 acres. These two areas together contain 544 acres of tree canopy, covering 27% of the combined area (City Limits and SOI). In terms of plantable space, the City Limits contain 252 acres or 73% of the combined available PPA. The SOI includes 94 acres of available planting space.

These areas together total 347 acres of PPA, which provides Sonoma with a significant opportunity to plant additional trees. Sonoma is already on a path to improve its natural resources. With the creation of the Sonoma Parks and Recreation Department in 2025, the city is focused on enhancing maintenance of parks, trails, and open spaces.

Additionally, given the immense ecosystem services trees provide, planting additional trees throughout Sonoma supports the goals outlined in the Climate Action Strategies.

Figure 8. Photo of the Duck Pond in the Sonoma Plaza. The Plaza is one of Sonoma's major parks and is located in the city center. Photo by B. Durrance.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 42 of 110 ends

12 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Map of Potential Planting Area within Sonoma's City Limits and Sphere of Influence:

Figure 9. The map illustrates Sonoma's City Limits and Sphere of Influence (denoted by a black cross hatch) as well as the 2022 urban tree canopy and potential planting areas.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 43 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 13 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
City-Wide Plantable Space
The City of Sonoma contains 252 acres of potential plantable space (PPA). Availability is evident throughout the city, with high levels of plantable space in the north, northeast, and south. The area with the highest PPA is the neighborhood north of East Napa Street, which also contains Sonoma Valley Little League and Sonoma Plaza Park. This neighborhood includes 59 acres of PPA, or 23% of the city’s total PPA. Generally, the neighborhoods in the eastern neighborhoods of Sonoma contain the most PPA acres.

Arnold Field
Sonoma Overlook
Trail and Mountain
Cemetery
East Napa Street
High Amounts of Potential Plantable Space Map:

Figure 10. Map of Sonoma neighborhood with the highest amount of potential plantable space. This area is north of East Napa Street and includes Arnold Field, the Sonoma Overlook trail and the Mountain Cemetery. Map labels are meant to provide spatial context and do not indicate potential plantable space.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 44 of 110 ends

14 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
On the other hand, the neighborhood north of Sonoma Valley High School has only 8% PPA, totaling 13 acres of plantable space. This is likely due to the high proportion of impermeable surfaces, such as roads, sidewalks, and residential rooftops. Another area illustrating a similar story is the area to the west of West Fifth Street and South of West Napa Steet. This neighborhood, which includes both the Moon Valley and Pueblo Serena residential communities, comprises 15 acres of PPA, representing only about

0.06% of the total plantable space in Sonoma.

East MacArthur Street
West First Street
West Napa Street
West Fifth Street
Figure 11. These two maps illustrate neighborhoods with low potential plantable space in Sonoma. The map to the left is located north of Sonoma Valley High School and east of West First Street. The map to the right is located on the western edge of Sonoma and is south of West Napa Street.

Low Amounts of Potential Plantable Space Map:

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 45 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 15 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Figure 12. Pie chart showing the distribution of tree canopy, possible planting area, and areas unsuitable (impervious, soil, vegetation) for tree canopy. Percentages exclude water.

Prioritizing these areas for future tree planting is essential to reducing flood risk, an issue that Sonoma actively manages each year by providing free resources to residents, such as sandbags, emergency supply checklists, and community alerts. In fact, Sonoma Creek, which is susceptible to seasonal flash floods, runs adjacent to the neighborhood that lies west of Fifth Street and South of West Napa Street (Figure 9). This neighborhood, with its high proportion of impervious surfaces, should be prioritized for tree planting to increase stormwater absorption.

The northern areas of Sonoma are also in a high landslide-susceptibility zone; planting trees in these areas can reduce landslide risk by stabilizing the soil through denser root systems. As Sonoma continues to manage the effects of climate change through the adoption and implementation of the Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), it's essential to remember that trees provide crucial environmental services that can protect residents, infrastructure, and the local landscape.

Urban Tree Canopy Potential Classes Distribution Pie Chart:

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 46 of 110 ends

16 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Urban Tree Canopy Potential Classes Distribution Map:

Figure 13. Map of tree canopy, possible planting area, and area unsuitable (impervious, soil, vegetation) for tree canopy throughout Sonoma. The inset map shows a residential area east of the Maxwell Village Shopping Center and south of Olsen Park.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 47 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 17 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Understanding the Plantable Space Analysis
This assessment estimates potential planting areas based on a manually delineated unsuitable layer. The unsuitable layer, developed from multiple data sources and reviewed by the City of Sonoma, identifies areas where tree planting is currently infeasible due to existing land uses such as agriculture or active recreational fields.

For example, since it is highly unlikely that the city would plant a tree in the middle of a baseball field, areas like this have been removed from the PPA analysis. Each unsuitable area was carefully defined through manual review to ensure accuracy and relevance. For example, in recreational spaces, only the portions actively used for sports were classified as unsuitable, while adjacent areas, such as the perimeters of soccer fields, were left available for potential planting.

The assessment provides a citywide overview of current site conditions; however, identified potential planting areas should be field-verified by local experts to confirm on-the-ground feasibility. As land uses evolve over time, opportunities to expand the planting area can increase. Tying tree plantings into new community development projects is an excellent way to improve canopy over impervious surfaces. Planting in medians or parking lots can improve ecosystem benefits, such as reducing stormwater runoff and providing additional shade. Additionally, through city-wide improvement projects, it's possible that impervious surfaces or surfaces previously marked as unsuitable for future planting may be repurposed for city greenification. For example, adding planting medians to parking lots or repurposing recreational fields into accessible city parks. Potential land-use changes like these could provide Sonoma with even more planting space and enable creative city greening initiatives.

Figure 14. Photo of a woman and her child splashing in a grassy open space.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 48 of 110 ends

18 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Tree Canopy Cover by Priority Conservation Areas
To support the Bay Area’s regional conservation objectives, Sonoma identified four Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) in 2025 (Figure 14). These areas are meant to be further protected to improve city-wide greening efforts and recreational opportunities.

They are primarily intended to link trails and protect sensitive ecosystems, such as Sonoma Creek. All the PCAs combined contain 94 acres of UTC. The Regional Trail, which includes Sonoma State Historic Park, accounts for 43% of the combined UTC, with 41 acres of tree canopy. Nathanson Creek, which runs through the center of Sonoma, contains 30 acres of tree canopy, while Sonoma Creek contains 17 acres of UTC. Fryer Creek, the smallest PCA (11 acres), has only 6 acres of tree canopy, yet given its small size, this acreage covers over half (55%) of its land area.

Combined, the PCAs contain 41 acres of potential planting space. 18% of Fryer Creek is suitable for future planting, although given its smaller size, this equates to 2 acres of PPA. Sonoma Creek, the second-smallest PCA (34 acres), has 17% of its land available for planting, totaling 6 acres. The Regional Trail, the largest PCA (199 acres), contains 63% of the total PPA, with 26 acres identified as suitable for future plantings. Nathanson Creek includes 7 acres of available space, about 12% of its land cover.

The PCA designation allows Sonoma to apply for grant funding to further prioritize recreation, urban greening, and climate adaptation in these areas. Expanding and maintaining tree canopy within the PCA's will deliver multiple ecological benefits. A robust canopy supports wildlife biodiversity by creating habitat corridors, nesting sites, and food sources for pollinators and other native species. Greater canopy continuity also helps reconnect fragmented ecosystems, allowing wildlife to move safely between green spaces. Prioritizing tree planting in the PCAs will support wildlife biodiversity, provide shade for increasingly used trails, and protect the landscape from weather events such as flash floods and landslides.

Priority Conservation
Area
Land Area
Acres
Urban Tree
Canopy
Percent
Urban Tree
Canopy
Acres
Possible
Planting
Area Percent
Possible
Planting
Area Acres
Fryer Creek 11 55% 6 18% 2
Nathanson Creek 60 49% 30 12% 7
Regional Trail 199 20% 41 13% 26
Sonoma Creek 34 50% 17 17% 6
Table 1. Land area, urban tree canopy (in percent and acres), and potential planting area (in percent and acres) by Priority Conservation Areas.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 49 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 19 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Figure 15. This map illustrates the location of the four Priority Conservation Areas as well as their urban tree canopy and potential planting areas. The inset map shows a portion of Nathanson Creek that intersects with Chase Street.

Map of Priority Conservation Areas:

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 50 of 110 ends

20 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Tree Canopy Cover by Census Block Groups
Urban tree canopy metrics were assessed at the census block group (CBG) level, which is valuable for determining the equitable distribution of tree canopy throughout Sonoma, as CBG units are linked to readily available demographic and socioeconomic data. Census block groups are the second smallest unit of measure at which the U.S.

Census publishes statistical data within a state, representing between 600 and 3,000 people.

Sonoma has 12 census block groups. The average UTC area amongst all the block groups was 37 acres. The CBGs with the highest percentage of UTC (25% or higher) are located in the north and east of Sonoma, primarily in areas with large parks, such as Plaza Park, as well
as neighborhoods east of
West First Street (Figure 16).

Of Sonoma’s 12 census block
groups, eight have a canopy
percent of 20% or higher. CBGs
with lower UTC were located in
western Sonoma; these areas
had less than 20% tree canopy
coverage.

The average potential planting
area across the census block
groups was 21 acres. However,
three census block groups
contained 30 acres or more of
PPA each. These census block
groups were located along the
perimeter of Sonoma, to the
north and southeast.

Seven of the twelve census
block groups had impervious
areas exceeding 50%,
significantly limiting opportunities to expand the urban tree canopy. Although planting in these areas may be limited, planting trees over paved surfaces such as roads and sidewalks provides significant environmental benefits, including reducing stormwater runoff and mitigating the urban heat island effect.

Figure 16. Photo depicting tree work requiring a bucket truck in the City of Sonoma.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 51 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 21 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Map of Urban Tree Canopy Percent by
Census Block Groups:

Figure 17. The map illustrates the urban tree canopy percentage in Sonoma by census block groups. Dark green indicates a higher percentage of tree canopy coverage, while yellow indicates the least amount of tree canopy coverage.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 52 of 110 ends

22 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Map of Potential Plantable Area by
Census Block Groups:

Figure 18. The map illustrates the potential plantable area (PPA) in Sonoma by census block groups. The acreage amount of PPA is labeled by census block group.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 53 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 23 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Tree Canopy Cover by City Property
The City of Sonoma manages 77 parcels equating to approximately 175 acres of land.

Each parcel ranges in size from less than one acre to 42 acres. These parcels are also diverse in their land use; some areas are used as office buildings or community parks, while others serve as community gathering places, such as the city library. Together, city-owned properties contain 75 acres of UTC, with the average canopy cover over 40%.

The majority of parcels (74%) were less than 2 acres; therefore, because of their small size, only 12 of the 77 city-owned parcels (16%) contained at least 1 acre of tree canopy.

City-owned properties combined contain 65 acres of potential plantable space, with an average PPA of 22%. Ten of the 77 city properties (13%) include one or more acres of PPA. In comparison, 40% of city-owned parcels contain more than 20% impervious cover, limiting future planting options.

While planting on some city-owned property may be unattainable, the city owns several parks, including Montini Preserve, Olsen, and Nathanson Creek, where tree planting will likely be
encouraged, as these areas
overlap the PCA’s. Montini
Preserve, the largest parcel,
is over 40 acres in size and
contains more than 20
acres of UTC. This park has
the highest PPA among
all city-owned properties;
more than 52% of Montini
Preserve is considered
suitable for future tree
plantings. Nathanson
Creek Park has 82% canopy
coverage, equating to
more than 2 acres of UTC.

This park has the potential
to contain robust canopy
coverage, as its PPA acreage
is small, at around 0.5 acres.

Olsen Park is the smallest of the three parks and proudly occupies two land acres.

UTC covers 28% of the park's land area, and 38% is ideal for tree plantings. Olsen Park is likely to be prioritized for future plantings, as it aligns with the Regional Trail PCA.

The development of Sonoma’s Parks and Recreation Department will have immense opportunity for positive impacts on the beauty, health, and safety of Sonoma’s parks and community spaces as park maintenance increases.

Figure 19. Photo depicting city-managed pile burning at Montini Preserve in Sonoma.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 54 of 110 ends

24 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Tree Canopy Cover by Hexagons
Hexagons provide a consistent framework for assessing spatial patterns of urban forest cover. Unlike administrative boundaries, which can vary widely in area and shape, a uniform grid allows for direct comparison across the landscape and helps visualize where canopy coverage is high or low without the constraints of preexisting geographies. Hexagons are also helpful in representing real natural features of an area.

Figures 19 and 20 present maps that illustrate urban tree canopy and potential planting areas, providing clear visual insights into these key metrics. Each hexagon represents approximately two acres.

Figure 20. Photo depicting Fryer Creek in Sonoma during the winter months. Photo shows a creek and wooded grassy area. Photo by Darlene DuCharme.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 55 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 25 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Map of Urban Tree Canopy Percent by
Hexagons:

Figure 21. The map illustrates the urban tree canopy percentage in Sonoma by Hexagons.

Dark green indicates a higher percentage of tree canopy coverage, while yellow indicates the lowest percentages of tree canopy coverage.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 56 of 110 ends

26 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Map of Potential Plantable Space Percent by
Hexagons:

Figure 22. The map illustrates the potential plantable space in Sonoma by Hexagons.

Dark green indicates a higher percentage of potential plantable space, while light blue indicates the lowest percentages of potential plantable space.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 57 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 27 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Sonoma's Wildfire
Challenge
The City of Sonoma includes three Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ): Moderate, High, and Very High, as well as a Non-Wildland designation for more developed areas. These areas are classified by Cal Fire based on specific traits, including terrain, vegetation, climate, and fire history. FHSZ are intended to inform land-use policy, building ordinances, and wildfire preparedness initiatives. These zones indicate hazard potential and should not be used to determine immediate risks to buildings or infrastructure.

Additionally, the zones are broad classifications and do not reflect site-specific wildfire mitigation measures, such as fire-resistant construction or the maintenance of cleared, managed buffers, an area known as defensible space, between buildings and vegetation.

In Sonoma, 1,129 acres, or 64% of the city, is located within a FHSZ (excluding NonWildland). 40% of Sonoma is in a Very High hazard area, 17% is located in a Moderate zone, and 8% of the city is in a High hazard zone. In Moderate zones, wildfire risk is lower but still present, with fewer and less intense fires. High zones are at risk for more frequent and severe wildfires, requiring stricter building and landscaping standards.

Very High zones are the most at risk to wildfires, meaning these areas follow the most stringent safety, landscaping, and construction regulations. Additionally, 35% of Sonoma is in a Non-Wildland zone; these areas are typically more densely populated and urban, with low wildfire hazards.

Best Practices
Each Fire Hazard Severity Zone has distinct best practices and regulations. Moderate and High Fire Severity Zones have very few restrictions; for example, it is strongly recommended that these zones contain a Zone 0 (five-foot) ember-resistant buffer.

Whereas the Very High Zone is subject to the strictest regulations. This zone requires defensible space around structures that is free of vegetation and routinely inspected.

This area also contains additional building material compliance for businesses or homes.

The practices discussed below are recommended for fire prevention. For more information on legally enforceable requirements related to fire hazard mitigation, review information from the Sonoma Valley Fire District or contact your local fire marshal.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 58 of 110 ends

28 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Non-Wildland:
▶ With lower wildfire risk, tree plantings in this area are recommended to provide additional ecosystem benefits to the community.
▶ Give priority to native and climate-adapted species for planting. The inclusion of ornamental trees for aesthetic enhancement is acceptable on a limited basis within this zone.
▶ No mandatory defensible space requirements.

Fire Hazard Severity Map:

Figure 23. The map illustrates the location of the Fire Hazard Severity Zones within Sonoma's city limits. Northern Sonoma is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone while the southern portion of the city is located in a Non-Wildland area.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 59 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 29 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone:
▶ Employ the practice of right tree, right place; meaning, plant wildfire-resistant tree species with appropriate spacing to reduce wildfire risk. Trees, such as the Coast Live Oak, are naturally more resistant to wildfire due to features like thick bark, higher moisture content, and the natural shedding of lower branches. ▶ Plant new trees with appropriate spacing in mind, including vertical and horizontal spacing. Vertical spacing refers to the space between the lowest tree branches and the ground. Horizontal spacing refers to the distance between vegetated canopies. For example, increasing the spacing between tree canopies by an additional 20-30 feet on slopes will be crucial to reducing potential fire spread.
▶ A defensible space buffer around structures is strongly encouraged to reduce wildfire risk.

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones:
▶ In addition to the recommendations for Moderate and High Zones, tree maintenance, such as pruning dead and fallen branches and collecting leaf litter from the ground, will be crucial to maintaining a safe distance between the canopy and structures in High and Very High Zones.
▶ Defensible space should include a five-foot buffer directly surrounding structures, as well as a maintained 100-foot buffer extending beyond impacted buildings.
▶ Refer to local experts, such as the Sonoma Valley Fire District and the City of Sonoma, for updates on maintenance requirements to protect the community from wildfire hazards.

Figure 24. Photo depicts the sun setting in Sonoma from the shade of a tree. The grassy areas in the photo are brown, illustrating the dry summer landscape.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 60 of 110 ends

30 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Planting Prioritization by Census Block Groups
Sonoma's Tree Inventory
Sonoma recently completed a tree inventory that collected tree traits and geospatial data for the city’s urban forest. The inventory identified tree species, their frequency, and their fire risk. The inventory identified more than 175 species in Sonoma, with the majority having a low to medium fire risk. Out of the more than 5,000 trees that were inventoried, just over 200 of them were of high fire risk. In Very High Fire Severity Zones, only 5% of the trees surveyed were high fire risk, 51% of the canopy was medium risk, and 44% was low risk. The High Fire Hazard Severity Zone told a similar story, with 95% of its canopy classified as either medium- or low-risk. In comparison, the majority of the Moderate FHSZ’s canopy was low risk, at 53%.

This is exciting data for the city, as it provides up-to-date, accurate insights into the existing tree canopy. With less than 0.5% of inventoried trees posing a high fire risk and the majority being medium-to low-risk, Sonoma can use this data in its Hazard Mitigation Plan and future planting efforts.

Figure 25. Photo depicting tree maintenance on Broadway in Sonoma. The sidewalk is closed due to tree work and a detour is accessible for pedestrians.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 61 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 31 Planting Prioritization by Census Block Groups
Variables Considered:

Low Existing Tree Canopy:

Census block groups with lower tree canopy cover percentages and higher non-canopy land are prioritized for planting. This metric represents the percentage of land area that is not covered by UTC. The range among Sonoma's census blocks is 59% to 86%.

Possible Urban Tree Canopy:

Census block groups with greater plantable areas are prioritized for expanding urban tree canopy. This metric represents the percentage of area available for planting. The range among Sonoma's census blocks is 6% to 20%.

Poverty Rate:

Census block groups with higher percentages of residents below the poverty level are prioritized for planting to enhance benefits. The range among Sonoma's census blocks is 4% to 28% Unemployment Rate:

Census block groups with higher unemployment rates are prioritized for planting opportunities. The range among Sonoma's census block groups is 1% to 29%.

Tree Planting Prioritization
by Census Block Groups
Increased tree canopy cover can provide a wide array of benefits to a local community and its residents and visitors. To locate specific areas in need, eight variables representing a range of socio-economic, demographic, and accessibility factors were analyzed at the census block group (CBG) level. The five socioeconomic variables were sourced from the 2022 U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year summaries, and the urban heat island was derived from Landsat temperature bands captured on July 29, 2025. Each variable was normalized and assigned equal weight in the prioritization criteria. The final score for each CBG was calculated by summing the normalized values. The rankings range from high priority (dark blue) to low priority (light yellow) and were calculated for each criterion and overall to highlight where multiple needs overlap.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 62 of 110 ends

32 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Planting Prioritization by Census Block Groups
Vulnerable Populations:

Census block groups with higher proportions of residents under 18 or over 65 are prioritized for planting to support vulnerable populations. This metric is the ratio of the population aged under 18 or over 65. The range among Sonoma's census blocks is 0.5 to 1.5.

Median Household Income:

Census block groups with lower median household incomes are prioritized for planting to address environmental inequality. The range in Sonoma is between $61,645 and $143,487.

Educational Attainment:

Census block groups with lower percentages of residents with a high school diploma or GED are prioritized for planting to improve outcomes. This metric represents the percentage of the population without a GED. The range among Sonoma's census blocks is zero to 16%.

Urban Heat Island:

Census block groups with higher surface temperatures are prioritized for planting to mitigate heat effects. This metric represents the average surface temperature, with the range in Sonoma being between 102°F and 111°F.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 63 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 33 Planting Prioritization by Census Block Groups
Figure 26. The graph illustrates the urban heat metric in degrees Fahrenheit. The numbers on the x-axis represent the census block group ranking.

Figure 27. The graph illustrates the percentage of population without a GED (education metric). The numbers on the x-axis represent the census block group ranking.

Scoring Ranges
In this analysis, each indicator was put on a common 0–1 scale so that they could be compared fairly. For most indicators, higher values were scaled to represent higher need, while median income was reversed so that lower incomes corresponded to higher need. These normalized scores were then averaged for each census block group to create a single composite score. When block groups were ranked by this composite score, the top‑priority census block group showed the greatest overall level of need, even though it did not have the highest value in every individual category.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 64 of 110 ends

34 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Planting Prioritization by Census Block Groups
Prioritization Rank Map:

Figure 28. The map shows Sonoma’s prioritization rankings, with 1 (dark blue) representing the highest need and 12 (yellow) indicating the lowest priority.

Prioritization Score Map and Variable Table
The map above shows census block groups from highest to lowest priority for future tree planting. Each block group on the map has a ranking that matches its position in the table on the next page. The table shows the source data of key factors, such as canopy cover, heat vulnerability, and median income, that shape each area’s overall priority score. By using the map and table together, you can see which areas are of the highest priority and what drives their rankings.

How to Interpret the Table:
▶ Look at the top blue row of the table to find the same ranking numbers displayed on the map.
▶ Move down by column to see the variable data for each census block group.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 65 of 110 ends

Prioritization Variables
#1
Priority
CBG
#2
Priority
CBG
#3
Priority
CBG
#4
Priority
CBG
#5
Priority
CBG
#6
Priority
CBG
Urban Heat Island
Effect 107°F 109°F 109°F 107°F 107°F 108°F
Low Existing UTC (%
of area not covered by
canopy)
78% 81% 81% 81% 78% 78%
Possible UTC (% of
area available for
planting)
15% 12% 14% 10% 18% 14%
Unemployment
Percent 16% 4% 2% 1% 0% 2%
Vulnerable Population
Ratio 1.32 0.71 0.65 1.49 0.96 0.68
Median Income 101K 62K 82K 69K No
Data 87K
Percentage of
Population without a
GED
16% 9% 0% 6% 0% 7%
Poverty (% of
population below the
poverty level)
13% 28% 16% 9% 4% 10%
Composite Score 0.64 0.62 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.43
Prioritization Variables
#7
Priority
CBG
#8
Priority
CBG
#9
Priority
CBG
#10
Priority
CBG
#11
Priority
CBG
#12
Priority
CBG
Urban Heat Island
Effect 102°F 111°F 104°F 106°F 107°F 105°F
Low Existing UTC (%
of area not covered by
canopy)
59% 86% 65% 75% 79% 67%
Possible UTC (% of
area available for
planting)
20% 12% 18% 17% 6% 8%
Unemployment
Percent 29% 8% 5% 5% 2% 2%
Vulnerable Population
Ratio 0.53 0.73 1 0.69 0.79 0.84
Median Income 95K 143K 96K 112K 131K 108K
Percentage of
Population without a
GED
9% 6% 5% 1% 2% 1%
Poverty (% of
population below the
poverty level)
10% 6% 7% 11% 5% 4%
Composite Score 0.42 0.41 0.37 0.35 0.24 0.19
Table 2. Prioritization variables displayed by census block groups (CBG) priority ranking.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 66 of 110 ends

36 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Ecosystem Benefits
Diagram of Urban Forest Benefits:

The Value of Sonoma's Urban Forest
i-Tree tools were used to calculate the benefits and functions of Sonoma’s tree canopy using the latest available research. Trees produce oxygen, indirectly reducing pollution by lowering air temperatures, and directly reducing air pollutants by capturing gases and dust, which can cause respiratory illness and death. Likewise, canopy coverage has been demonstrated to mitigate stormwater runoff, which in turn minimizes flood risk, stabilizes soil, reduces sedimentation in streams and riparian areas, and absorbs pollutants, thereby improving water quality and habitats. Trees play a crucial role in sequestering carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and storing it in their biomass over the long term. Sonoma's existing canopy provides over $547,000 annually in avoided infrastructure costs and removes the following particulate matter from the air: 301 lbs of carbon monoxide, 1,544 lbs of nitrogen dioxide, 7,704 lbs of ozone, 330 lbs of PM 2.5, and 1,849 lbs of PM 10. For more information on how these metrics were calculated, see Appendix C on page 43.

Ecosystem Benefits
Figure 29. Ecosystem service benefits of Sonoma's canopy cover. Data sourced from i-Tree, the US Forest Service, the Arbor Day Foundation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 67 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 37 Conclusions and Recommendations
The total annual benefits from urban tree canopy coverage increase by an estimated $1,235 per acre of added coverage, providing a significant incentive for Sonoma to expand its tree canopy coverage. Sonoma’s canopy also provides an additional $6.98 million in stored carbon.

Trees are essential to a sustainable future and are pivotal to Sonoma’s Climate Action Strategies. The city is committed to enhancing energy and water conservation, improving transportation, reducing waste, and promoting sustainable tourism; each is a critical component of Sonoma’s environmental mission. The city has already implemented policies and practices to achieve these goals, such as the Turf Removal Rebate Program, which provides cash rebates for removing turf. Since 2014, this program has incentivized residents to remove more than 125,500 square feet of turf in Sonoma. This incentive program reduces the need for irrigation throughout the city. Taking the program one step further by encouraging residents to plant native, climate-adaptive trees after turf removal would provide additional shade, stabilize soil, and reduce air pollution. Improving existing programs can further enhance ecosystem services and overall livability in Sonoma.

Figure 30. Photo depicting a volunteer collecting data at the Sonoma Garden Park. The volunteer is crouched by a small tree conducting preventative tree maintenance.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 68 of 110 ends

38 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion
The City of Sonoma’s 2025 tree canopy assessment reveals both the strengths and challenges of its urban forest. With 25% of the city’s land area covered by tree canopy and 14% identified as suitable for future planting, Sonoma has a significant opportunity to protect and expand its green infrastructure. Regular, high-resolution assessments are crucial for tracking canopy trends, identifying priority planting areas, and informing adaptive management strategies. The assessment’s detailed breakdown provides a roadmap for strategic action, ensuring that resources are directed to neighborhoods and public spaces with the greatest need and opportunity.

Recommendations

1. Target High-Priority Planting Areas Identified in the Assessment Focus tree-planting efforts in residential neighborhoods, parks, and other areas with the lowest existing canopy and the highest concentrations of impervious surfaces, with overlapping socioeconomic needs, as identified through the prioritization analysis.

In particular, central Sonoma, including downtown, and the southeastern residential neighborhoods offer adequate plantable space and would benefit most from increased canopy. Planting in these areas can help mitigate urban heat island effects, manage stormwater, and improve environmental equity for residents.

2. Expand and Diversify Public Canopy
Continue to invest in tree planting and maintenance on city-owned lands, rights-of-way, and parks. Prioritize planting in parks and along streets with low canopy cover or high public use, such as community hubs and key corridors downtown. Capitalize on existing public improvement projects like the Olsen Park Improvement Project to further expand Sonoma's urban forest. Utilize the city’s plantable area analysis to maximize ecological benefits, including stormwater management and shade provision. Use Sonoma’s Tree List, curated by the UC Master Gardener Program of Sonoma County. This selection of trees has been identified as most likely to thrive in the climate projected for Sonoma between 2050 and 2100. This will help ensure long-term canopy survival and maximize ecosystem benefits.

3. Integrate Canopy Goals into City Planning and Policy Utilize assessment data to establish an ambitious yet achievable, measurable city-wide canopy cover goal. Set incremental, attainable targets and ensure plantable space is fully utilized. Integrate tree protection and planting requirements into Sonoma’s municipal code and policies, with special emphasis on new construction and redevelopment projects. Strengthen local ordinances to preserve mature trees and require replacement plantings when removals are unavoidable.

Conclusions and
Recommendations
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 69 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 39 Conclusions and Recommendations

4. Enhance Jurisdictional Engagement
With collaboration already established through the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities (SCTCA), cities across Sonoma County can work together to develop goals and strategize for the future. Currently, urban canopy cover stands at 14% in Petaluma, 23% in Napa, and 30% in El Verano, according to TreeCanopy.US. Sonoma, with 25% coverage, can collaborate with cities across the county and compare green initiatives. This will allow municipalities to determine which policies and practices are generating the best results.

5. Monitor, Evaluate, and Report Progress
Conduct canopy assessments at regular intervals to measure progress toward goals, evaluate the effectiveness of planting and protection strategies, and adapt approaches as needed. Utilize and update the tree Inventory data to determine where maintenance is most urgently needed. Report findings to the community to build transparency, accountability, and continued public support.

Figure 31. Photo depicting a wooded trail in Sonoma during the spring. Photo shows a grassy area with mossy trees and mountains in the background. Photo by Julia L.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 70 of 110 ends

40 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Appendix
Appendix
A. Expanded Methodology

1. Data Acquisition and Preparation
PlanIT Geo utilized 2022 EarthDefine US Tree Map data (derived from 60-centimeter multispectral NAIP imagery and LiDAR) to map tree canopy and land cover. The tested accuracy of the US Tree Map in California is 99.3% according to EarthDefine’s accuracy assessment using 1,150 random points throughout the state.

2. Land Cover Classification
Training labels for seven land cover classes—tree canopy (including overhanging impervious surfaces), shrub vegetation, herbaceous/grass, bare soil/dry vegetation, impervious surfaces, open water, and tree canopy over impervious—were developed using NAIP imagery, LiDAR, and external datasets. Identical Deep Convolutional Neural Network (DCNN) workflows were applied to 2022 imagery with hyperparameter-optimized models performing semantic segmentation.

Post- classification refinements included knowledge-based rules (e.g., masking water bodies using NDWI) and manual QA/QC.

3. Possible Planting Areas Delineation
All areas lacking tree canopy were further classified as either suitable or unsuitable for planting. Unsuitable areas for canopy expansion (e.g., airports, sports fields, utility corridors, wetlands) were excluded by manually digitizing these features.

These areas, while vegetated and potentially suitable for tree planting from a biophysical perspective, are considered unsuitable due to land use constraints. The original seven-class land cover data was then converted into Urban Tree Canopy potential classes, resulting in the following final classifications: Possible Planting Area, Unsuitable Impervious, Unsuitable Vegetation, Unsuitable Soil, and Water.

This refined classification provides a detailed spatial framework for prioritizing tree planting efforts.

4. Multi-Scale Spatial Analysis
Land cover metrics (area and percent cover) were calculated for the entire Area of Interest and for each assessment geography. Both raster and vector outputs supported fine-grained analysis and regional planning.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 71 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 41 Conclusions and Recommendations
B. Accuracy Assessment
Classification accuracy serves two primary purposes. Firstly, accuracy assessments provide information to technicians producing the classification about where processes need to be improved and where they are effective. Secondly, accuracy measures provide information about how to use the classification and how well land cover classes are expected to estimate actual land cover on the ground. Even with high-resolution imagery, slight differences in classification methodology, and image quality can significantly impact overall map area estimations. The classification accuracy error matrix illustrated in Figure 29 contains confidence intervals reporting the high and low values that could be expected to compare the classification data and the actual on-ground land cover in 2022. This accuracy assessment was completed using high-resolution aerial imagery, with computer and manual verification. This study did not include field verification.

The internal accuracy assessment was completed in these steps:

Approximately 28 points per square mile area in Sonoma's full area of interest (3.14 sq. miles, including the Sphere of Influence), were randomly distributed across the study area and assigned a random numeric value by a trained technician. ▶ Each sample point was then referenced using the NAIP aerial photo and assigned one of the five generalized land cover classes (“Ref_ID”) mentioned above.
▶ If the technician could not discern the reference value from the imagery, the point was dropped from the accuracy analysis.
▶ An automated script was then used to assign values from the classification raster to each point (“Eval_ID”). The classification supervisor provides unbiased feedback to quality control technicians regarding the types of corrections required. Misclassified points (where reference ID does not equal evaluation ID) and corresponding land cover are inspected for necessary corrections to the land cover.
▶ Accuracy is re-evaluated (repeat steps 3 & 4) until an acceptable classification accuracy is achieved.

Sample Error Matrix Interpretation
Statistical relationships between the reference pixels (representing the actual conditions on the ground) and the intersecting classified pixels are used to understand how closely the entire classified map represents Sonoma’s landscape.

The error matrix in Figure 29 represents the intersection of reference pixels manually identified by a human observer (columns) and the classification category of pixels Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 72 of 110 ends

42 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Conclusions and Recommendations
in the classified image (rows). The blue boxes along the diagonals of the matrix represent agreement between the two-pixel maps. Off-diagonal values represent the number of pixels manually referenced to the column class classified as another category in the classification image.

Overall accuracy is computed by dividing the total number of correct pixels by the total number of pixels reported in the matrix (32 + 21 + 23 + 5 + 6 = 87/90 = 97%), and the matrix can be used to calculate per-class accuracy percentages. This relationship is called the “Producer’s Accuracy” and is calculated by dividing the agreement pixel total (diagonal) by the reference pixel total (column total). Therefore, the Producer’s Accuracy for non-canopy vegetation is calculated as “21/22 = 0.95”, meaning that one can expect that ~95% of all 2022 tree canopy vegetation in the Sonoma study area was classified as tree canopy in the 2022 classification map. This same procedure was utilized for tree canopy classifications as well.

Conversely, the “User’s Accuracy” is calculated by dividing the number of agreement pixels by the number of classified pixels in the row category. For example, 33 classification pixels intersecting reference pixels were classified as Tree Canopy, and 32 pixels were identified as canopy in the reference map. Therefore, the User’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as “32/33 =.97”, meaning that ~97% of the pixels classified as Tree Canopy in the classification were actual tree canopy. It is important to recognize the Producer’s and User’s accuracy percent values based on a sample of the existing ground cover, represented by the reference pixels at each sample point. Interpretation of the sample error matrix results indicates this assessment accurately mapped land cover and, more importantly, tree canopy in Sonoma in 2022.

Figure 32. Accuracy assessment for Sonoma 2022 land cover raster.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 73 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 43 State of the Canopy and Key Findings
C. Quantifying Urban Forest Benefits via i-Tree Landscape Purpose
To quantify the ecosystem services provided by tree canopy cover using the i-Tree Landscape tool. This assessment provides standardized metrics for air quality improvement, carbon dynamics, and hydrological benefits to support state-level natural resource management and assigned values to each assessment boundary.

Methodology
Primary Data Source: Analyses are conducted using the i-Tree Landscape web application.

Air Quality (Pollutant Removal)
The model estimates annual pollutant removal based on local tree cover, leaf area index, and local weather/pollution data. Gaseous pollutants are absorbed via stomatal uptake.

Particulate matter is captured through physical interception on leaf surfaces. Calculations integrate local Leaf Area Index (LAI), hourly weather data, and local pollution concentrations.

I-tree cites U.S. EPA Monitoring Stations (AQS) as a primary data source. ▶ Pollutants Tracked: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (O3), Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). ▶ Units Explained: Annual removal is recorded in pounds (lbs) and the associated economic value ($) based on avoided healthcare costs and environmental damage.

Carbon Dynamics
The methodology accounts for the lifecycle of carbon within the forest ecosystem by distinguishing between annual rate of uptake and the long-term storage capacity. The model estimates carbon based on the tree's dry-weight biomass includes both aboveground (trunk, branches, leaves) and below-ground (root systems) biomass. Calculations account for net sequestration, which is the gross carbon uptake minus the carbon released through microbial decomposition. The annual sequestration rate is adjusted based on the estimated frost-free period (growing season length) of the state and the estimated age/ maturity of the canopy (note these values must be estimated for large statewide study areas). I-tree cites U.S. Forest Service FIA Data as a primary data source. ▶ Pollutants Tracked: Carbon storage as the total amount of carbon bound in tree tissue over the life of the forest. Carbon sequestration is the annual rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and converted to biomass.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 74 of 110 ends

44 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California Feb. 2026 Conclusions and Recommendations
▶ Units Explained: Both metrics are reported in pounds (lbs) and economic value ($).

The economic value assigned to carbon sequestration and storage is derived from the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). This metric is a estimate of the economic damages that would result from emitting one additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The SCC accounts for a wide range of global impacts, including changes in net agricultural productivity, human health risks (such as increased respiratory illness or heat-related deaths), property damage from climate change, and more. This allows the canopy to be viewed as a "mitigation asset" or infrastructure cost savings.

Hydrological Services (Avoided Runoff)
The model calculates the volume of precipitation captured by the leaf surface (interception) and the water returned to the atmosphere through the leaves (evapotranspiration), preventing it from ever hitting the pavement. For the portion of rain that reaches the ground, the methodology accounts for the increased infiltration capacity of forested soils compared to turf or impervious surfaces. I-tree cites NOAA Hourly Weather Stations as a primary data source.
▶ Pollutants Tracked: Avoided runoff measured as the volume of water (in gallons) intercepted by vegetation that does not enter the storm sewer system. Beyond volume, the methodology assumes that avoided runoff also results in avoided pollution loading (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment) into local waterways. ▶ Units Explained: Reported in annual gallons and economic value ($) based on estimated cost of treatment at local wastewater facilities or the avoided capital costs of building larger retention basins.

Limitations & Assumptions
Results are primary estimates based on canopy density and do not account for individual tree health, precise age classes, or specific species composition unless localized inventory information is integrated. Economic valuations for air quality and carbon depend on the Social Cost of Carbon and the national median externalities, as defined by the i-Tree 2024/2025 update cycles. Environmental benefits are subject to variability in local weather patterns and pollution concentrations, so these values represent standardized annual averages rather than real-time fluctuations.

Figure 33. This photo depicts Sonoma's amphitheater lit up with string lights.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 75 of 110 ends

Feb. 2026 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment | Sonoma, California 45 Conclusions and Recommendations
D. Glossary and Key Terms
Land Acres: Total land area, in acres, of the assessment boundary (excludes water).

Non-Canopy Vegetation: Areas of grass and open space where tree canopy does not exist.

Possible Planting Area - Vegetation: Areas of grass and open space where tree canopy does not exist, and it is biophysically possible to plant trees.

Shrub: Areas of shrub or other leafy and woody vegetation (smaller than 6ft tall) that are not classified as tree canopy.

Soil/Dry Vegetation: Areas of bare soil and/or dried, dead vegetation.

Total Acres: Total area, in acres, of the assessment boundary (includes water).

Unsuitable Impervious: Areas of impervious surfaces that are not suitable for tree planting. These include buildings and roads and all other types of impervious surfaces.

Unsuitable Planting Area: Areas where it is not feasible to plant trees. Airports, ball fields, golf courses, etc. were manually defined as unsuitable planting areas.

Unsuitable Soil: Areas of soil/dry vegetation considered unsuitable for tree planting.

Irrigation and other modifiers July be required to keep a tree alive in these areas.

Unsuitable Vegetation: Areas of non-canopy vegetation that are not suitable for tree planting due to their land use.

Urban Tree Canopy (UTC): The “layer of leaves, branches and stems that cover the ground” (Raciti et al., 2006) when viewed from above; the metric used to quantify the extent, function, and value of the urban forest. Tree canopy was generally taller than 10-15 feet tall.

Water: Areas of open, surface water not including swimming pools.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 76 of 110 ends

February | 2026
Urban Tree
Canopy
Assessment
The City of Sonoma, California
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 77 of 110 ends

SONOMA, CA
OCTOBER | 2025
TREE

INVENTORY

SUMMARY
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 78 of 110 ends

(This page left intentionally blank)
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 79 of 110 ends

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
TREE DIVERSITY AND COMPOSITION...........................................................................................................................................9 SIZE DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................................................................................................................11 9 TREE INVENTORY STRUCTURE
URBAN FOREST CONDITION ................................................................................................................................................................13 RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE....................................................................................................................................................14 13 TREE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
LAND USE...............................................................................................................................................................................................................15 PLANTING SITE WIDTH...............................................................................................................................................................................16 GROWING SPACE............................................................................................................................................................................................16 15 TREE INVENTORY DISTRIBUTION AND GROWING SPACE
17 RECOMMENDATIONS
7 INVENTORY RESULTS AT-A-GLANCE
SPECIES DIVERSITY........................................................................................................................................................................................7 SIZE DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................................................................................................................8 TREE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................................................................................................................8 RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE....................................................................................................................................................8 5 SONOMA, CA TREE INVENTORY SUMMARY
METHODOLOGY AND QUALITY CONTROL..............................................................................................................................6 Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 80 of 110 ends

(This page left intentionally blank)
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 81 of 110 ends

Having a healthy, diverse urban forest can provide many benefits to residents as well as the ecosystem. In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, trees also provide a number of ecosystem services. For example, they scrub the air of pollutants, slow the release of stormwater runoff into the watershed, filter stormwater, provide oxygen, reduce energy costs, provide shade, and offer habitat and food for wildlife.

Trees in urban environments not only contribute services to the area, but also provide residents with invaluable green space and health benefits. Research has shown that proximity to green space is linked to better mental health, as well as increases in social connections, and physical well-being. (Barton et al., 2010; Holtan et al., 2014; Takano, 2002).

SONOMA, CA TREE INVENTORY

SUMMARY REPORT
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 82 of 110 ends

INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA OCTOBER 2025

TREE INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT
6 METHODOLOGY AND QUALITY CONTROL
ISA Certified Arborists conducted a comprehensive tree inventory to document and assess trees located along city streets and within select parks designated by the City. Data was collected using TreePlotter software on Sonoma’s own TreePlotter app (https://pg-cloud.com/SonomaCA/), ensuring consistent data entry, spatial accuracy, and efficient quality control. Arborists identified each tree as being located on either public or private property based on parcel line data and best professional judgment in the field. Private trees were inventoried if they measured 12 inches in diameter or greater, with exceptions made for smaller trees that conflicted with right-of-way or utility clearances.

In total, 3,287 public trees and 1,783 private trees were inventoried.

Each tree record included the following attributes: location (street address and GPS coordinates recorded), record number, photograph, common and Latin names, trunk diameter at standard height (DSH, measured at 4.5 feet above grade), estimated tree height and canopy spread, overall health condition, structural condition, observations, primary maintenance needs, pruning recommendations, presence of overhead utilities, site type and planting area dimensions, notes for trees requiring further inspection or risk assessment, right-of-way (ROW) status, and growing space type. All trees located within the public ROW were photgraphed.

Quality control was performed remotely by the arborists using TreePlotter’s advanced filtering tools to identify incomplete fields, inconsistencies, and to conduct spot checks for species identification and location accuracy. A final review and quality assurance check were completed by the PlanIT Geo project manager to ensure data integrity and consistency prior to final reporting and data delivery.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 83 of 110 ends

7 INVENTORY RESULTS AT-A-GLANCE
OCTOBER 2025 INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA

INVENTORY RESULTS

AT-A-GLANCE
The following report sections provide the results and recommendations based on the 5,070 trees inventoried. The results are organized by Structure, Management, and Distribution, followed by the Recommendations section. The summary results presented below will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

SPECIES DIVERSITY
A total of 183 unique tree species and/or cultivars were identified throughout the inventory. The top 10 species comprise 60% of the total inventory, with common crapemyrtle being the most prevalent with 555 trees, or 11% of the total inventory.

COMMON NAME COUNT PERCENT
Common crapemyrtle 555 10.9%
London planetree 492 9.7%
Southern magnolia 477 9.4%
Coastal live oak; California
live oak
278 5.5%
Sweetgum 251 5.0%
Chinese pistache 241 4.8%

COMMON NAME COUNT PERCENT
Valley oak; California white
oak
222 4.4%
Coast redwood 192 3.8%
Red maple 182 3.6%
Olive 175 3.5%
All other species 2,005 39.5%
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 84 of 110 ends

INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA OCTOBER 2025

INVENTORY RESULTS AT-A-GLANCE
8 RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE
All trees inventoried had a recommended maintenance task assigned to them. The most prominent maintenance need was ‘Routine Prune’, recommended for 96% of trees inventoried.

MAINTENANCE

PRIORITY COUNT PERCENT
Large Tree Routine
Prune
3,001 59.2%
Small Tree Routine
Prune
1,898 37.4%
Training Prune 54 1.1%
Priority 2 Prune 41 0.8%

MAINTENANCE

PRIORITY COUNT PERCENT
Priority 3 Removal 29 0.6%
Priority 1 Prune 19 0.4%
Priority 2 Removal 15 0.3%
Priority 1 Removal 13 0.3%

TREE CONDITIONS
Most trees inventoried had a ‘Good’ condition, making up 71%, or 3,600 trees in the inventory. Only a quarter of 1% of trees were identified as 'Critical' condition.

CONDITION COUNT PERCENT
Excellent 91 1.8%
Good 3,600 71.0%
Fair 1,182 23.3%

CONDITION COUNT PERCENT
Poor 173 3.4%
Critical 11 0.2%
Dead 13 0.3%

SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Large trees with a diameter of more than 6 inches made up a majority of all trees and made up a higher percentage than the ideal distribution.

DSH RANGE COUNT PERCENT
0-5in 886 17.5%
6-11in 1,545 30.5%
12-17in 1,516 29.9%

DSH RANGE COUNT PERCENT
18-23in 555 11.0%
24-29in 317 6.3%
>30in 251 5.0%
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 85 of 110 ends

9 TREE INVENTORY STRUCTURE
OCTOBER 2025 INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA

COMMON NAME COUNT PERCENT
Common crapemyrtle 555 10.9%
London planetree 492 9.7%
Southern magnolia 477 9.4%
Coastal live oak;
California live oak
278 5.5%
Sweetgum 251 5.0%
Chinese pistache 241 4.8%

TREE INVENTORY

STRUCTURE
Urban forest structure describes the tree population in an area in terms of its species composition, number of trees, age classes, and tree distribution. These summaries assist municipal tree managers in proper tree management and planting to ensure long-lasting canopy and benefits distributed equally throughout the city.

TREE DIVERSITY AND COMPOSITION
Species composition data are essential since the types of trees present throughout the city dictate the amount and type of benefits produced, tree maintenance activities required, and budget considerations.

The 5,070 trees inventoried consist of 183 different species and cultivar classifications. The top 10 species comprise 60% of the tree population. The highest percentage consists of common crapemyrtle with 11% (555 trees) of the total tree population, followed by London planetree with 9.7% (492 trees) and Southern magnolia with 9.4% (477 trees).

This figure shows the top species compared to the other 173 species inventoried.

COMMON NAME COUNT PERCENT
Valley oak; California
white oak
222 4.4%
Coast redwood 192 3.8%
Red maple 182 3.6%
Olive 175 3.5%
All other species 2,005 39.5%
Species Diversity - Top 10 Species Compared to All Species Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 86 of 110 ends

INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA OCTOBER 2025

TREE INVENTORY STRUCTURE
10 The most common genus inventoried was Quercus with 14.4% of the total inventory. This genus, per the inventory, includes:
▶ California black oak (Quercus kelloggii)
▶ Coastal live oak; California live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ▶ Cork oak (Quercus suber)
▶ Holly oak (Quercus ilex)
▶ Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
▶ Pin oak (Quercus palustris)
▶ Red oak species (Quercus spp.)
▶ Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea)
▶ Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
▶ Valley oak; California white oak (Quercus lobata)

GENUS COUNT PERCENT
Quercus 730 14.4%
Lagerstroemia 702 13.9%
Magnolia 505 10.0%
Platanus 504 9.9%
Acer 398 7.9%
Most Common Genus - Top 10

GENUS COUNT PERCENT
Liquidambar 251 5.0%
Pistacia 241 4.8%
Sequoia 192 3.8%
Olea 175 3.5%
Ginkgo 125 2.5%
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 87 of 110 ends

11 TREE INVENTORY STRUCTURE
OCTOBER 2025 INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA
DSH Range of All Inventoried Trees

SIZE DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of tree sizes is a crucial factor in shaping the structure of an urban forest and determining its current and future costs. A diverse range of tree sizes ensures a steady stream of ecological benefits now and into the future, and utilizing this information can assist the city in allocating maintenance schedules and budgets with greater accuracy. In contrast, an urban forest with unevenly distributed tree ages may not provide that steady stream of ecological benefits for future generations. Careful consideration of size distribution is essential for ensuring a sustainable and healthy urban forest.

The inventoried trees were categorized into the following diameter size classes: young trees (0-5 inches DSH or diameter at standard height measured at 4.5 feet), established (6-11 inches DSH), maturing (12-17 and 18-23 inches DSH), and mature trees (24-29 and >30 inches). Since tree species have different lifespans and mature at different diameters, heights, and crown spreads, actual tree age cannot be determined from diameter size class alone.

However, general classifications of size can be extrapolated into relative age classes.

To optimize the value and benefits of the City’s trees, the urban forest should have a high percentage of large canopy trees, as these provide greater ecosystem benefits. On the other hand, there must be a suitable number of younger, smaller trees in the urban forest to account for and eventually replace large and mature trees in decline. Having a healthy percentage of young trees in the urban forest will ensure a sustainable tree population as well as age distribution in future years. The below charts represent the size distribution of inventoried trees in Sonoma.

Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 88 of 110 ends

INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA OCTOBER 2025

TREE INVENTORY STRUCTURE
12 An ideal age distribution in the tree population allows managers to allocate and project annual maintenance costs uniformly. This ensures continuity in overall tree canopy coverage and associated benefits which are often dependent on the growing space of individual trees (e.g. open grown versus restricted growing areas). It is recommended to monitor and strategically manage large trees throughout the city and weigh the risks and benefits that are associated with large, mature trees.

DSH Range of Private Inventoried Trees
DSH Range of Public Inventoried Trees
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 89 of 110 ends

13 TREE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
OCTOBER 2025 INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA

TREE INVENTORY

MANAGEMENT
Tree characteristics and environmental factors affect the management needs for urban trees. An analysis of the condition and maintenance requirements assists managers in planning for the City’s urban forest.

Tree condition indicates how well trees are managed and how well they perform, given site-specific conditions. Tree maintenance needs are assigned for public safety reasons and for the health and longevity of the trees themselves.

Understanding the maintenance needs of an urban forest assists tree managers in establishing daily work plans and maintaining public safety.

URBAN FOREST CONDITION
The inventory data were analyzed to identify potential trends in tree condition and management needs. Information on the condition of trees plays an important role in planning, budgeting, and use of resources. Each inventoried tree’s health was evaluated by an ISA Certified Arborist® based on the condition of the wood and the foliage as well as the structure.

The chart below summarizes the 5,070 trees and shows the detailed information for each condition class. ▶ Excellent - Trees in this category show no structural or biotic defects. They represent a tree that is 100% healthy ▶ Good - Trees in this category show minor structural or biotic defects and represent a tree that is below 100% but above 80% healthy
▶ Fair - Trees in this category show structural or biotic defects and represent a tree that is below 80% but above 50% healthy
▶ Poor - Trees in this category show significant structural or biotic defects and represent a tree that is below 50% healthy often with serious decline
▶ Critical - Trees in this category require immediate attention to management needs ▶ Dead - Trees in this category are dead and have no live growth on them Out of 5,070 trees, 1.8% were categorized as Excellent. The majority of living trees were categorized as Good (71%), and about a quarter (23.3%) were categorized as Fair. A total of 3.4% of trees were categorized as Poor (173 trees), while 11 trees were categorized as Critical. Finally, 13 trees were categorized as Dead.

CONDITION COUNT PERCENT
Excellent 91 1.8%
Good 3,600 71.0%
Fair 1,182 23.3%

CONDITION COUNT PERCENT
Poor 173 3.4%
Critical 11 0.2%
Dead 13 0.3%
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 90 of 110 ends

INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA OCTOBER 2025

TREE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
14 RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE
The arborists assigned a predetermined maintenance need for each tree. Overall tree condition and severity of potential defects present were used to guide the maintenance recommendations and prioritizations.

This table provides a summary of the maintenance and pruning recommendations for Sonoma’s trees. All 5,070 inventoried trees were assigned a maintenance task. 4,899, or 96.6% of trees were recommended for a Routine Prune. This suggests that these trees require routine pruning to correct structural problems or growth patterns, which would eventually obstruct traffic, become unsafe, or interfere with nearby infrastructure. A Training Prune involves the pruning of young trees to promote the growth of a strong central leader, and to ensure the growth form and health of the tree for the future. 1.1% (54) of the trees were recommended for Training Prune. Under 1% (13 trees), were recommended for a Priority 1 Removal, which means these trees pose a safety risk and have defects that cannot be cost effectively or practically treated, and should be removed immediately.

Priority 2 Prune was recommended for 41 trees. These trees have dead, dying, diseased, or weakened branches between two and four inches in diameter and are potential safety hazards, but not as high of a priority to prune as a Priority 1 Prune.. A Priority 2 Removal was prescribed to 15 trees. Trees prescribed a Priority 2 Removal should be removed, but do not pose as great of a liability and safety risk as priority one removals. Priority 2 removals should be removed in a timely manner, but they do not pose as much risk as Priority 1 Removals. 19 trees were prescribed a Priority 1 Prune, meaning they should be pruned to remove hazardous deadwood, hangers, or broken branches.

Properly maintained and healthy trees are key to the success of Sonoma’s urban forest. It is recommended that the city utilize the TreePlotter software and the assigned Maintenance Needs to remove the trees marked for Priority 1 Removal and prune the trees marked for Priority 1 Pruning as soon as possible.

Additional maintenance tasks were assigned to 3,003 trees. Some trees were recommended more than one additional maintenance task. 5.8% of trees inventoried were recommended to be further assessed for risk, based on tree condition, structure, and location to potential targets. Almost half of trees inventoried (47.6%), were recommended for a clearance prune, or to prune to remove branches to provide clearance from structures, vehicles, and other objects. Less than 3% of trees were recommended for a structural prune, or to prune to establish a strong arrangement or system of scaffold branches. 40 trees were recommended to be monitored for future condition changes or hazards.

MAINTENANCE PRIORITY COUNT PERCENT
Large Tree Routine Prune 3,001 59.2%
Small Tree Routine Prune 1,898 37.4%
Training Prune 54 1.1%
Priority 2 Prune 41 0.8%

TREE WORK COUNT PERCENT
Prune-Clearance 2,499 47.6%
Not Specified 2,249 42.8%
Needs Risk Assessment 305 5.8%
Prune-Structural 147 2.8%

MAINTENANCE PRIORITY COUNT PERCENT
Priority 3 Removal 29 0.6%
Priority 1 Prune 19 0.4%
Priority 2 Removal 15 0.3%
Priority 1 Removal 13 0.3%

TREE WORK COUNT PERCENT
Monitor 40 0.8%
Prune-Thin 6 0.1%
Remove Hanger 5 0.1%
Prune-Reduce 1 0.0%
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 91 of 110 ends

15 TREE INVENTORY DISTRIBUTION AND GROWING SPACE
OCTOBER 2025 INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA

TREE INVENTORY

DISTRIBUTION AND

GROWING SPACE
The distribution of trees across different land use types can have a significant impact on various aspects of urban forest management, including maintenance costs, schedules, potential risks such as pests or diseases, and the effects of climate change. Properly distributed trees can also help advance the city's efforts to achieve an equitable distribution of tree canopy and associated benefits, ensuring that all residents have equal access to this valuable resource. By strategically planting trees in areas where they are most needed, urban forest managers can promote sustainability and resilience while also enhancing the well-being of local communities.

LAND USE
Trees located near a Single Family residence made up the majority of the inventory with 66.7% (3,384 trees). 14.7% (744 trees) were located in Parks, followed by 9.4% (478 trees) on property adjacent to Small Commercial businesses.

4.1% (210 trees) were found in Vacant/Other land use types, and 4.0% (201 trees) were located near Multi Family dwellings. The remaining 1% of trees were classified as being on Industrial/Large Commercial property.

Tree Percent by Land Use
*Not present in label: Large Commercial (1.0%)
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 92 of 110 ends

INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA OCTOBER 2025

TREE INVENTORY DISTRIBUTION AND GROWING SPACE
16 PLANTING SITE WIDTH
Trees require adequate growing space to thrive and maintain their health over time. The amount of space available for tree roots to expand and access soil nutrients, water, and oxygen can have a significant impact on tree growth, development, and longevity. When trees are planted in areas with limited space, they may experience stunted growth, weakened structure, and increased susceptibility to pests and diseases. In contrast, trees with ample growing space can develop deep, strong root systems that enhance their ability to withstand environmental stressors and support their overall health. An analysis of planting site width can assist tree managers in making future tree species selections for sites with similar characteristics.

The smallest planting site width measurements were collected for each inventoried tree and are summarized in the table below. A majority of trees inventoried are growing in small and medium growing spaces (80.4%) or 4,076 trees.

The remaining 994 trees (19.6%) are growing in Class III sites, 11 feet or greater.

SITE WIDTH COUNT PERCENT
Small (1-5 ft) 3,093 61.0%
Medium (6-10 ft) 983 19.4%
Large (11ft+) 994 19.6%

GROWING SPACE COUNT PERCENT
Tree Lawn/Planting Strip 2,450 48.3%
Front Yard 1,373 27.1%
Open/Unrestricted 738 14.6%
Cutout/Well/Pit 406 8.0%

GROWING SPACE
Similarly to the Planting Site Width, the Growing Space of a tree can also impact tree growth, health, and maintenance costs over time. Analyzing the growing space of trees can also provide valuable insights for tree managers when selecting future tree species. By assessing the growing space, managers can determine which species are best suited for a given location and which species should be avoided.

GROWING SPACE COUNT PERCENT
Median 35 0.7%
Unmaintained 35 0.7%
Island 20 0.4%
Raised Planter 13 0.3%
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 93 of 110 ends

17 RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 2025 INVENTORY SUMMARY REPORT | SONOMA, CA
The city's trees are a defining and valued characteristic of Sonoma, making it a desirable place to live, work and play.

It is a resource that has a history and legacy of care and management; however, certain trees require immediate removal or maintenance.

The city should prioritize the implementation of a regular monitoring and maintenance schedule for all trees and proactively plant new trees, especially after removal, to enhance the natural beauty of the city and maximize the benefits provided by trees. While this effort will require additional resources and work, it is crucial for ensuring that Sonoma’s trees remain appreciated and valued by both residents and visitors. By maintaining and planting trees, the city can promote a healthy environment, improve air and water quality, reduce energy consumption, and provide recreational opportunities for the community. Ultimately, a well-maintained urban forest can contribute to the wellbeing and quality of life for all who call Sonoma home. ▶ Remove the 57 trees that are prescribed for priority removals and plant trees after removal ▶ Conduct risk assessments on the 305 trees recommended for further inspection ▶ Consider treating the 38 trees identified as having disease present, and the 78 trees with pests or pest damage present
▶ Monitor trees in less than Fair condition (197 trees) ▶ Consider pruning the 2,499 trees with clearance conflicts to bike paths, buildings, vehicles, signs/signals, utilities and sidewalks to enhance safe walking and biking facilities ▶ Utilize inventory data and analysis to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan ▶ Maintain or establish a cyclical, routine tree monitoring and maintenance schedule ▶ Conduct Structural Pruning on trees to promote a healthy structure (147 trees) ▶ Educate the community about the tree inventory population, the associated benefits, and the tree management program
▶ Continue to track maintenance, plantings, and removals in the TreePlotter application ▶ Ensure industry standards and best management practices are followed during the planting and care of trees

RECOMMENDATIONS
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 94 of 110 ends

OCTOBER 2025

INVENTORY

SUMMARY REPORT

SONOMA, CA
Agenda Item #9.1:

Page 95 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 18 Feb 2026
Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Staff Contact
Dave Jahns, Parks & Recreation Director
Agenda Item Title
Utility Box Art Wrap Pilot Program: Artwork Selection
Summary
Background:

The Cultural and Fine Arts Commission (CFAC) has long expressed interest in implementing public-facing art initiatives for the Sonoma community. The commission initially discussed the concept of a utility box artwork project in 2022 and began initial steps to create a framework for a pilot program in 2024. The Utility Box Art Wrap Pilot Program is the City's first initiative using vinyl-wrapped artwork on public utility boxes to help beautify infrastructure, support local artists, and enhance community identity. The pilot program was designed to be scalable and manageable, enabling staff and the CFAC to test administrative processes ahead of potential future public art program expansion.

With the adoption of the updated Public Art Policy and Procedures by City Council on November 26, 2024, the CFAC was provided authority to recommend utilization of Public Art Funds to support temporary art installations. Following adoption of the policy, the CFAC formed an ad hoc committee to identify potential utility box locations, initiate cost estimates, and formulate an application process for artists to submit proposed artwork. During the summer of 2025, staff and the ad hoc committee initiated a call for artists which received design proposals from 16 artists, showcasing strong representation from Sonoma Valley and a strong interest in creative projects. The committee initially reviewed the submissions and began to work on determining which designs would not only be a good fit artistically but also transfer well onto the various utility boxes. Through this process, staff recognized that creating templates and installation services would require the support of a professional design and installation company.

On September 17, 2025, City Council approved a resolution authorizing staff to enter into a professional services agreement with a wrap manufacturer and installer, Fast Signs. Following council approval, Fast Signs and City staff collaborated to complete site-specific measurements and templates to accompany the selected artwork.

Discussion:

The ad hoc committee reconvened in late 2025 to finalize their recommendation for commission and council consideration. A key component to determining which artwork should be placed in specific locations came down to the various dimensions of each utility box and ensuring the selected design would transfer in a way that featured the art prominently and kept the integrity of the original artwork intact. If this program continues in the future, staff and the CFAC recommend providing templates as part of the initial call for art, which would allow artists to tailor their submitted designs to specific locations.

While a difficult task to narrow down the creative field of submissions, staff and the CFAC recommend moving forward with a pilot program showcasing artwork from following artists and accompanying locations:

Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 96 of 110 ends

 Misha Cittadini – 2nd Street West and West Napa Street  Alex Cole – 617 Broadway
 Judah and Silas Herrera – Broadway and Patten Street
 Jonny Hirschmugl – 5th Street West and West Napa Street  Veronica Napoles – 19 West Napa Street
The Cultural and Fine Arts Commission reviewed the selected artworks during their February 10 meeting and provided unanimous support to move the designs forward to City Council for their consideration. Should the Council concur with recommended designs, the installation process will move forward in Spring 2026.

As this is part of a pilot and test program, the length of the installation has not been specifically defined. A common length of time for installations of this nature is three to five years, but varies based on location, exposure to the elements, and community interaction. Staff is proposing reviewing the status of the wraps after a 12-month period and reporting back to the CFAC and/or City Council to set a more concrete timeline.

Recommended Council Action
Review the Cultural and Fine Arts Commission's recommended artwork selections and make a motion to approve the designs and initiate the installation process.

Alternative Actions
Council may provide direction to move forward with only certain artworks and/or request staff bring back additional information or designs for consideration.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact resulting from this item. Funding for completion of this project has been approved by way of City Council resolution and allocated from the Public Art Fund.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Utility Box Wraps_ Recommended Artwork
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 97 of 110 ends

Location 2: Black Bear Diner
Meter Box
This template shows visual
measurements. FASTSIGNS
will adjust for paneling,
bleed/overlap as necessary to
accomplish the wrap
Side Front Side
Top
Rear
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 98 of 110 ends

Location 2: Black Bear Diner
Utility Box
This template shows visual
measurements. FASTSIGNS
will adjust for paneling,
bleed/overlap as necessary to
accomplish the wrap
Front
TOP
Side 2 Rear
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 99 of 110 ends

Location 4: The Post Oce
This template shows visual measurements. FASTSIGNS will adjust for paneling, bleed/overlap as necessary to accomplish the wrap Side Front Side
Top
Rear
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 100 of 110 ends

Location 5: The Badge
This template shows visual measurements. FASTSIGNS will adjust for paneling, bleed/overlap as necessary to accomplish the wrap Front Side 1 Back Side 2
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 101 of 110 ends

Side 1 Front Side 2 Rear
Side 1 Front Side 2 Rear
Location 1: Safeway,
Utility Box
This template shows visual
measurements. FASTSIGNS
will
adjust for paneling,
bleed/overlap as necessary
to accomplish the wrap
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 102 of 110 ends

Location 1: Safeway, Meter Box
This template shows visual measurements.

FASTSIGNS will
adjust for paneling, bleed/overlap as necessary
to accomplish the wrap
Side 1 Front Side 2 Rear
Side 1 Front
TOP
Side 2 Rear
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 103 of 110 ends

Location 3: Bank of America
This template shows visual measurements.

FASTSIGNS will adjust for paneling,
bleed/overlap as necessary to accomplish
the wrap
***The rear of this electrical box is not
accessible. Fastsigns will wrap 3” around
edges of back.***
Side Front Side
Top
Agenda Item #9.2:

Page 104 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 18 Feb 2026
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
David Guhin, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
A Resolution Ratifying the 2026 City Council Goals
Summary
On Friday, January 30, 2026, the Sonoma City Council convened for its annual goal-setting workshop dedicated to identifying key priorities for the year ahead. Facilitated by Jennifer Cavenaugh of Cavenaugh Coaching + Consulting, the session took place at Sonoma Community Center and provided council members with an opportunity to reflect on accomplishments, assess ongoing challenges, and define strategic objectives for 2026.

Council members engaged in discussions on a range of important topics, resulting in the identification of key priorities in housing, economic development, parks and recreation, climate adaptation, and governance. These preliminary goals will guide policy discussions and strategic initiatives in the months ahead.

Preliminary 2026 City Council Goals

HOUSING
The Council reaffirmed its commitment to addressing housing affordability and availability by identifying the following priorities:
 Implement Housing Element
 Continue streamlining development processes/policies
 Identify incentives for affordable housing
 Identify renter protections that promote affordability and ensure access to essential utilities and habitability needs, including heating and cooling.  Create funding plan and policy for use of the Housing Trust Fund  Explore partnership with School District, Hospital, and private landowners for housing options
 Monitor housing development targets
 Prioritize affordable, senior, supportive and transitional housing solutions  Participate in local housing policy advocacy with regional & state organizations  Participate in Regional Housing Summit to identify housing solutions  Continue providing support for those experiencing homelessness & under-resourced in the Sonoma Valley
 Assess the State of California’s proposed statewide housing bond initiative and its potential impacts, opportunities, and implementation considerations for the City of Sonoma.

PARKS, ARTS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY (PARC) SERVICES
An emphasis was placed on enhancing Sonoma’s parks, recreational opportunities, and community services, including:

Agenda Item #9.3:

Page 105 of 110 ends

 Progress in the development of a park on the west side of town  Enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility throughout the city  Identify ways to increase tree canopy, shade, sidewalk network and benches  Consideration of establishment of green links throughout town  Develop Plaza Maintenance Plan
 Explore ideas to generate funding on the plaza
 Advance the long-term sustainability of City cemeteries while celebrating their historical significance and establishing a ‘Friends of the Historic Cemetery’  Strengthen support for non-profit organizations
 Develop arts programs, projects and cultural partnerships—including Sister Cities— and identify funding sources to support these efforts
 Move the Ting Project forward consistent with approved council direction  Assess activity needs and gaps for youth

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / FINANCIAL STABILITY
The Council identified several priorities aimed at fostering a strong and resilient local economy:
 Enhanced focus on revenue stewardship and budget management  Explore grant opportunities to reduce impact on general fund  Identify and evaluate strategies to support local businesses, including bike racks, parklets, and selective street closures around the Plaza  Identify opportunities to strengthen and diversify business sector including cultural and creative enterprises
 Initiate steps for a Comprehensive Plaza Corridor Master Plan (scoping, timeline and cost estimate)
 Participate in regional discussions to understand and address the impacts of the changing wine industry on the region
 Review and evaluate reserve policies, including reserve levels and criteria governing the use of reserves
 Explore strategies to attract and incentivize businesses to locate in Sonoma  Identify after-hours transportation options that support employees, visitors, and overnight guests staying in local hotels

SONOMA VALLEY REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS, UNIFICATION, IMMIGRATION SUPPORT

AND ANNEXATIONS
The Council discussed the importance of engaging with Sonoma’s unincorporated neighbors and exploring potential opportunities for shared services:
 Continue to identify and implement connections to and inclusion of unincorporated neighbors
 Continue disaster preparedness with a regional approach  Coordinate with County on regional issues including immigration services  Evaluate shared services opportunities
 Evaluate valley wide EIFD
 Evaluate the limits of the Urban Growth Boundary as part of a strategic approach to meeting housing and long-term community needs
 Evaluate opportunities to improve regional transportation connectivity between Sonoma and nearby destinations, including Napa, Petaluma, and SMART Agenda Item #9.3:

Page 106 of 110 ends

CLIMATE MITIGATION & ADAPTATION
The City Council prioritized sustainability and climate resilience efforts, with a focus on:
 Support Climate Commission to implement and track the Climate Action Strategies adopted in 2024, annual strategic plan, and other sustainability initiatives  Develop green infrastructure policies and initiatives  Enhance Tree policies and expand tree plantings with an emphasis on native species  Prioritize vulnerable populations in climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, including warming and cooling centers
 Advance resilience measures to address fire, flood, solid waste, and water supply challenges
Recommended Council Action
Staff recommend that the City Council provide any additional feedback and then adopt the resolution ratifying the 2026 City Council Goals as presented or as amended.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact as a result of this action; however, as the goals are moved forward there will be additional costs, which is unknown at this time.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution - 2026 City Council Goals
Agenda Item #9.3:

Page 107 of 110 ends

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ________ - 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA RATIFYING THE 2026 CITY COUNCIL GOALS
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2026, the City Council met in a Special Goal Setting Session, received public input and after careful deliberation identified five main goals for 2026; and, WHEREAS, on February 18, 2026, the City Council considered these goals and gave additional input.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby ratifies the 2026 City Council Goals as listed below and expanded in Exhibit A to this resolution:
2026 City Council Goals
Housing
Parks and Recreation & Community Services
Economic Development & Financial Stability
Sonoma Valley Regional Partnerships, Unification, Immigration Support & Annexations Climate Mitigation & Adaptation
PASSED, RESOLVED, AND ADOPTED, at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma, on this 18th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Ron Wellander, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.3:

Page 108 of 110 ends

Exhibit A
2 2026 City of Sonoma Council Goals
HOUSING - The Council reaffirmed its commitment to addressing housing affordability and availability by identifying the following priorities:
 Implement Housing Element
 Continue streamlining development processes/policies
 Identify incentives for affordable housing
 Identify renter protections that promote affordability and ensure access to essential utilities and habitability needs, including heating and cooling.
 Create funding plan and policy for use of the Housing Trust Fund  Explore partnership with School District, Hospital, and private landowners for housing options  Monitor housing development targets
 Prioritize affordable, senior, supportive and transitional housing solutions  Participate in local housing policy advocacy with regional & state organizations  Participate in Regional Housing Summit to identify housing solutions  Continue providing support for those experiencing homelessness & under-resourced in the Sonoma Valley
 Assess the State of California’s proposed statewide housing bond initiative and its potential impacts, opportunities, and implementation considerations for the City of Sonoma.

PARKS, ARTS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY (PARC) SERVICES - An emphasis was placed on enhancing Sonoma’s parks, recreational opportunities, and community services, including:
 Progress in the development of a park on the west side of town  Enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility throughout the city  Identify ways to increase tree canopy, shade, sidewalk network and benches  Consideration of establishment of green links throughout town  Develop Plaza Maintenance Plan
 Explore ideas to generate funding on the plaza
 Advance the long-term sustainability of City cemeteries while celebrating their historical significance and establishing a ‘Friends of the Historic Cemetery’  Strengthen support for non-profit organizations
 Develop arts programs, projects and cultural partnerships—including Sister Cities—and identify funding sources to support these efforts
 Move the Ting Project forward consistent with approved council direction  Assess activity needs and gaps for youth
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / FINANCIAL STABILITY - The Council identified several priorities aimed at fostering a strong and resilient local economy:
 Enhanced focus on revenue stewardship and budget management  Explore grant opportunities to reduce impact on general fund  Identify and evaluate strategies to support local businesses, including bike racks, parklets, and selective street closures around the Plaza
 Identify opportunities to strengthen and diversify business sector including cultural and creative enterprises
 Initiate steps for a Comprehensive Plaza Corridor Master Plan (scoping, timeline and cost estimate)
 Participate in regional discussions to understand and address the impacts of the changing wine industry on the region
 Review and evaluate reserve policies, including reserve levels and criteria governing the use of reserves
 Explore strategies to attract and incentivize businesses to locate in Sonoma  Identify after-hours transportation options that support employees, visitors, and overnight guests staying in local hotels
Agenda Item #9.3:

Page 109 of 110 ends

Exhibit A
3 SONOMA VALLEY REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS, UNIFICATION, IMMIGRATION SUPPORT AND ANNEXATIONS - The Council discussed the importance of engaging with Sonoma’s unincorporated neighbors and exploring potential opportunities for shared services:
• Continue to identify and implement connections to and inclusion of unincorporated neighbors • Continue disaster preparedness with a regional approach • Coordinate with County on regional issues including immigration services • Evaluate shared services opportunities
• Evaluate valley wide EIFD
• Evaluate the limits of the Urban Growth Boundary as part of a strategic approach to meeting housing and long-term community needs
• Evaluate opportunities to improve regional transportation connectivity between Sonoma and nearby destinations, including Napa, Petaluma, and SMART CLIMATE MITIGATION & ADAPTATION - The City Council prioritized sustainability and climate resilience efforts, with a focus on:
• Support Climate Commission to implement and track the Climate Action Strategies adopted in 2024, annual strategic plan, and other sustainability initiatives • Develop green infrastructure policies and initiatives • Enhance Tree policies and expand tree plantings with an emphasis on native species • Prioritize vulnerable populations in climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, including warming and cooling centers
• Advance resilience measures to address fire, flood, solid waste, and water supply challenges Agenda Item #9.3:

Page 110 of 110 ends

Sonoma City CouncilFebruary 18, 2026

Sonoma City Council
February 18, 2026