Editor’s Note:
This letter, from Angela Nardo-Morgan, president and board chair of the Glen Ellen Historical Society, was sent on February 25 to Tennis Wick, director of Permit Sonoma – the Sonoma County planning agency – and to the Board of Supervisors, following the fourth submission of a plan to build close to 1,000 homes on the campus of the Sonoma Developmental Center.
By Angela Nardo-Morgan
On behalf of the Glen Ellen Historical Society, we write to express our continued opposition to the latest development proposal for the historic Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) campus. Despite the prior legal ruling against the County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), this fourth resubmittal once again ignores critical concerns about historic preservation, sustainability, climate resilience, fire safety and the integrity of the Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor.
Preserving History, Not Erasing It
The proposed demolition of a majority of the SDC campus – including the historic Sonoma House (1897) – is unacceptable. The applicant, Mr. Rogal, has suggested that the building’s history is “repugnant” and should be erased. We strongly reject this reasoning. Erasing historic structures does not erase history, nor does it allow for meaningful reflection, learning or reconciliation. Instead, it removes valuable reminders of the past that help ensure injustices are never repeated. The world has preserved sites such as Dachau and Auschwitz, and memorializes this history at the U.S. National Holocaust Museum, not to glorify suffering, but to educate and remember. The same principle must apply here. By preserving Sonoma House and other historic structures we remember the history, culture and architecture of this remarkable campus.
By repurposing and adapting SDC’s historic structures, we can honor the past while ensuring a sustainable future – a principle deeply rooted in responsible urban planning and climate-conscious development.
The greenest building is the one that already exists. Demolition will release substantial carbon emissions and create unnecessary environmental waste, contradicting California’s climate goals. A full analysis of these environmental consequences must be included in any new EIR before further approvals are granted.
Environmental and Safety Concerns: A Flawed Plan
This proposal also disregards the reality of developing a high-density urban project within a high wildfire risk area, distant from critical public services and transit. Increasing the population density in this location without comprehensive fire evacuation planning and climate resilience measures places lives at risk.
Additionally, the Sonoma Valley Wildlife Corridor – a critical and irreplaceable habitat – will be severely compromised. The County must require a full mapping and comprehensive protection plan for this corridor, ensuring that this ecological lifeline remains intact for future generations.
SDC’s Historic Designation: A Binding Commitment
The SDC campus has been officially recognized as a historic district under both state and national criteria:
- The Sonoma State Home Historic District is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for its pioneering role in health, medicine, and social history.
- It meets the eligibility requirements of the California Historical Landmarks Program, recognized as the first and most significant institution of its kind in the state.
- It has been placed on the Master List of Historic Resources pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5024(d).
These determinations – affirmed by the California State Office of Historic Preservation – must be upheld. The County and the applicant must honor these designations and integrate historic preservation into any future development plans. The destruction of the campus, including historic landscapes, bridges, rock drainage sites, and heritage plantings associated with Luther Burbank’s horticultural legacy, is simply unacceptable.
A Call for Responsible Stewardship
We urge Permit Sonoma and the Board of Supervisors to deny this application in its current form. The plan remains incomplete and inadequate, failing to address the crucial topics of historic preservation, sustainability, fire safety, and environmental integrity. Until these concerns are fully resolved, no further approvals should be granted.
The SDC campus represents an irreplaceable piece of California’s history and natural environment. Its future should not be dictated by short-term development profits, but by a vision that respects the past, embraces sustainability, and protects this historic and ecological treasure for future generations.
We remain committed to collaborating on solutions that balance development with preservation, growth with sustainability, and progress with responsibility. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and we welcome further discussion on this critical issue.
Photo of Sonoma House by David Bolling
Be First to Comment