CITY OF HEALDSBURG
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
City Hall Council Chamber Meeting Date: August 21, 2023 401 Grove Street Time: 6:00 PM
Healdsburg, CA 95448 Date Posted: August 16, 2023
(707) 431-3317
To join by computer, tablet, or mobile device:
Go to https://zoom.us/join and type in the Webinar ID: 815 8894 3494 or follow this link:
healdsburg.gov/zoom (Pre-registration for the meeting is not required.) Process to watch the meeting and submit Public Comment as a part of the Zoom Webinar .
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Approval of Agenda
2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION(S)
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
A. Women's Equality Day Proclamation
B. Proclamation recognizing the Healdsburg Prune Packers 2023 Championship C. Healdsburg Humane Society Update
Receive an update on the Healdsburg Humane Society from Executive Director Lindsay McCall.
D. Senior Citizens Advisory Commission Update
Receive an update on the Senior Advisory Commission from Commission Chair Donna O’Brien.
4. CITY MANAGER REPORTS
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND NON
AGENDA ITEMS
This time is set aside to receive comments from the public regarding matters of general interest not on the agenda, but related to City Council/RSA business. Pursuant to the Brown Act, however, the City Council cannot consider any issues or take action on any requests during this comment period. Public comment on non-agenda items is limited to thirty (30) minutes total for all speakers, with each speaker given no more than three (3) minutes. If there are more than ten (10) City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Agenda
August 21, 2023
audience/public comment speakers, the Mayor may reduce each speaker’s time from three (3) minutes so that all speakers have an equal time to speak. At the Mayor’s discretion, the public comment period may be extended past 30 minutes. Members from the public wishing to speak on a Consent Agenda item should notify the Mayor during Public Comments.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine in nature or have been previously reviewed by the Council and require little or no further discussion by the Council, public, or applicant and action will be taken by the City Council by a single motion. A Councilmember may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and action taken separately. Consent by a majority of the Councilmembers present will be required in order to remove the item. In the event an item is removed, the matter will be considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Calendar.
A. Reject Bids for the Biosolids Conveyor Installation
By four-fifths vote, adopt a Resolution rejecting all bids received for the Water Reclamation Facility Biosolids Conveyor Installation Project and direct staff to construct the project using City forces.
B. Sewer Utility Loan
Approve a Resolution authorizing a loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Utility Fund and amending the Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget.
C. Final Master Plan for the New Public Park in the Saggio Hills Area and Addendum to the Saggio Hills Project Environmental Impact Report Adopt a Resolution approving an addendum to the Saggio Hills Project Environmental Impact Report and approving the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. Presentation of planned and possible alternate SMART station location in Healdsburg
Receive a presentation and provide direction whether an alternate station location shall be pursued.
B. Chamber of Commerce Professional Services Agreement for Fiscal Year 2023-24 City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Agenda
August 21, 2023
Adopt a Resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
C. North Village Fire Substation Project Bid Award
Adopt a Resolution rejecting the bid protest made by Carr’s Construction Service, Inc.; conditionally awarding the North Village Fire Substation Project construction contract to Holly Construction, Inc. of Santa Rosa, California, in the amount of $5,599,000.00; authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract; authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and approve contract change orders up to 15% of the original contract amount; approving a Professional Services Agreement with Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. for the not-to-exceed amount of $270,480.00 to provide Inspector of Record Service; approving a Professional Services Agreement with RRM Design Group for the not-toexceed amount of $309,300.00 to provide Architectural Construction Support and Testing Services, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreements and amending the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Adopted Budget.
9. NEW BUSINESS
None.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS ON MATTERS OF INTEREST OCCURRING SINCE
PREVIOUS REGULAR MEETING/EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT REPORTS
11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
12. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL / RSA MEETING
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Future Agenda Items for 2023
SB 343 - DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency Board regarding any item on this agenda after the posting of this agenda and not otherwise exempt from disclosure, will be made available for public review in the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, during normal business hours. If supplemental materials are made available to the members of the City Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency Board at the meeting, a copy will be available for public review at the City Hall Council Chambers, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448.
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Agenda
August 21, 2023
These writings will be made available in appropriate alternative formats upon request by a person with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
DISABLED ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Healdsburg will make reasonable accommodations for persons having special needs due to disabilities. Please contact Raina Allan, City Clerk, at Healdsburg City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, California, 431-3317, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, to ensure the necessary accommodations are made.
CIUDAD DE HEALDSBURG
CONSEJO MUNICIPAL/AGENCIA DE DESARROLLO SUCESORA
ORDEN DEL DÍA DE LA REUNIÓN ORDINARIA DEL CONSEJO
MUNICIPAL
Cámaras del Consejo Municipal Fecha de la reunión: 21 de agosto de 2023 401 Grove Street Hora: 6:00 PM
Healdsburg, CA 95448 Fecha de publicación: 16 de Agosto de 2023 (707) 431-3317
Para participar por computadora, tableta o dispositivo móvil:
Vaya a https://zoom.us/join y teclee el número de identificación (ID) del seminario web: 815 8894 3494 o siga este enlace: healdsburg.gov/zoom (No es necesario inscribirse previamente a la reunión).
Para enviar comentarios públicos como parte del seminario web de Zoom. .
1. LLAMADA AL ORDEN/PASAR LISTA
A. Juramento a la bandera
B. Aprobación del orden del día
2. INFORME SOBRE LA SESIÓN/LAS SESIONES A PUERTA CERRADA
3. ANUNCIOS/PRESENTACIONES
A. Proclamación del Día de la igualdad de la Mujer
B. Proclamación de reconocimiento del Campeonato Healdsburg Prune Packers 2023 C. Actualización de Healdsburg Humane Society
Recibir una actualización de la Healdsburg Humane Society de la directora ejecutiva Lindsay McCall.
D. Actualización de la Comisión Asesora de Ciudadanos Mayores Recibir una actualización de la Comisión Asesora de Ciudadanos Mayores de la presidenta Donna O’Brien.
4. INFORMES DEL GERENTE DE LA CIUDAD
5. COMENTARIOS PÚBLICOS SOBRE LOS PUNTOS EN EL CALENDARIO ACORDADO Y LOS PUNTOS NO INCLUIDOS EN EL ORDEN DEL DÍA
Orden del día de la Reunión Ordinaria del Consejo Municipal /RSA 21 de agosto de 2023
Página 6
Este tiempo se reserva para recibir comentarios del público sobre asuntos de interés general no incluidos en el orden del día, pero relacionados con los asuntos del Consejo Municipal/RSA. Sin embargo, conforme la Ley Brown, el Consejo Municipal no puede considerar temas o tomar medidas sobre cualquier solicitud hecha durante este período de comentario. Los comentarios del público sobre los puntos no incluidos en el orden del día están limitados a treinta (30) minutos en total para todos los oradores, concediéndose a cada orador un máximo de tres (3) minutos. Si hay más de diez (10) comentarios públicos, el alcalde puede reducir el tiempo de tres (3) minutos de cada orador para que así todos los oradores tengan el mismo tiempo para hablar. A discreción del alcalde, el periodo de comentarios del público podrá prolongarse más de 30 minutos. Los miembros del público que deseen hablar sobre un asunto en el orden del día acordado deben notificárselo al alcalde durante los comentarios públicos.
6. CALENDARIO ACORDADO
Los siguientes puntos enumerados en el orden del día acordado se consideran rutinarios o han sido revisados previamente por el Consejo y requieren poca o ninguna discusión por parte del Consejo, el público o solicitante y el Consejo Municipal tomará medidas en una sola moción. Un miembro del consejo puede solicitar que se excluya un punto del calendario acordado y se pueden tomar medidas por separado. Para excluir un punto, se requiere el consentimiento de una mayoría de los miembros del consejo presentes. En caso de que se excluya un punto, el asunto se considerará de inmediato después de la adopción del orden del día acordado.
A. Rechazar las licitaciones para la instalación del transportador de biosólidos Por cuatro quintos de los votos, adoptar una Resolución que rechace todas las licitaciones recibidas para el Proyecto de Instalación del Transportador de Biosólidos de la Instalación de Reciclaje de Agua y ordenar al personal que construya el proyecto utilizando la mano de obra de la Ciudad.
B. Préstamo para servicios de alcantarillado
Aprobar una Resolución que autorice un préstamo del Fondo General al Fondo del Servicio de Alcantarillado y que enmiende el presupuesto adoptado para el año fiscal 2023-2024.
C. Plan Maestro Final para el nuevo parque público en el área de Saggio Hills y Apéndice al Informe de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto Saggio Hills Adoptar una Resolución que apruebe un Apéndice al Informe de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto Saggio Hills y el Plan Maestro para el parque de Saggio Hills.
7. AUDIENCIAS PÚBLICAS
Ninguna.
8. ASUNTOS PENDIENTES
Orden del día de la Reunión Ordinaria del Consejo Municipal /RSA 21 de agosto de 2023
Página 7
A. Presentación de la ubicación prevista y posible alternativa de la estación SMART en Healdsburg.
Recibir una presentación y dar instrucciones para decidir si se debe buscar una ubicación alternativa para la estación.
B. Acuerdo de Servicios Profesionales con la Cámara de Comercio para el año fiscal 2023-2024
Adoptar una Resolución por la que se apruebe un Contrato de Servicios Profesionales con la Cámara de Comercio de Healdsburg y se autorice al Gerente de la Ciudad a ejecutar el contrato.
C. Adjudicación de la licitación del proyecto de la subestación de bomberos de North Village
Adoptar una Resolución que rechace la protesta de licitación presentada por Carr's Construction Service, Inc.; adjudicar condicionalmente el contrato de construcción del Proyecto de la Subestación de Bomberos de North Village a Holly Construction, Inc. de Santa Rosa, California, por un monto de $5,599,000.00; autorizar al Gerente de la Ciudad a ejecutar el contrato; autorizar al Gerente de la Ciudad a negociar y aprobar las órdenes de cambio del contrato hasta por un 15% del monto original del contrato; aprobar un Acuerdo de Servicios Profesionales con Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. por un importe no superable de $270,480.00 para proporcionar el Servicio de Inspector de Registro; aprobar un Acuerdo de Servicios Profesionales con RRM Design Group por un importe no superable de $309,300.00 para proporcionar Servicios de Pruebas y Apoyo a la Construcción Arquitectónica, autorizando al Gerente de la Ciudad a ejecutar los Acuerdos y enmendar el presupuesto adoptado para el Año Fiscal 2023-2024.
9. ASUNTOS NUEVOS
Ninguna.
10. INFORMES DEL CONSEJO SOBRE ASUNTOS DE INTERÉS QUE HAN OCURRIDO DESDE LA REUNIÓN ORDINARIA ANTERIOR/INFORMES DE
REEMBOLSO DE GASTOS
11. COMUNICACIONES ESCRITAS
12. LEVANTAR LA REUNIÓN DEL CONSEJO MUNICIPAL/RSA
13. PUNTOS FUTUROS PARA EL ORDEN DEL DÍA
A. Futuros puntos del orden del día para 2023
Orden del día de la Reunión Ordinaria del Consejo Municipal /RSA 21 de agosto de 2023
Página 8
SB 343 - DOCUMENTOS RELACIONADOS CON EL ORDEN DEL DÍA DE LAS SESIONES ABIERTAS: Cualquier escrito o documento provisto a una mayoría de la Junta del Consejo Municipal/Agencia de Desarrollo Sucesora con respecto a cualquier punto en este orden del día después de la publicación de la misma y que no esté exento de divulgación, se pondrá a disposición del público en la Oficina de la Secretaría Municipal ubicada en City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, durante horas hábiles. Si el material complementario se pone a disposición de los miembros de la Junta del Consejo Municipal/Agencia de Desarrollo Sucesora, una copia estará disponible para la revisión pública en las Cámaras del Consejo Municipal, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448.
Estos escritos se pondrán a disposición en formatos alternativos apropiados a petición de una persona con discapacidad, tal y como exige la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades.
ADAPTACIONES POR DISCAPACIDAD: La ciudad de Healdsburg realizará adaptaciones razonables para las personas con necesidades especiales debidas a discapacidades. Por favor, contacte a Raina Allan, secretaria municipal, en Healdsburg City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, California, 431-3317, por lo menos 72 horas antes de la reunión para garantizar que se realicen las adaptaciones necesarias.
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
PROCLAMATION
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HEALDSBURG DECLARING AUGUST 26, 2023 AS
WOMEN’S EQUALITY DAY IN THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG
WHEREAS, August 26, 2023, will mark the 103rd1anniversary of the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution which secured the right to vote for women; and WHEREAS, in 1976, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors established one of the first Commissions on the Status of Women in the State of California with the purpose of promoting “equal rights and opportunities that enhance the quality of life for all women and girls” and addressing “issues of discrimination and prejudice that negatively affect women in Sonoma County”; and
WHEREAS, women now constitute nearly 50 percent of our workforce, the majority of the students in our colleges and graduate schools, and an increasing number of primary breadwinners; and
WHEREAS, in 2016-2020, Sonoma County women as a whole earned approximately 88% of what men earned; and
WHEREAS, women in Sonoma County are more likely than men to live below the federal poverty threshold. The greatest poverty rate among families is for those headed by single women caring for their own children. One in five (21%) households headed by single mothers with 1-2 minor children of their own in 2016-2020 lived on income less than the federal poverty threshold; and
WHEREAS, even with the gains women have made, work remains to be done in many areas that directly impact equal pay for equal work including access to quality, affordable childcare, affordable housing and comprehensive healthcare for women including reproductive and mental health care; and
WHEREAS, fair pay strengthens the security of families today and eases future retirement costs while enhancing the American economy.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City Council of the City of hereby proclaims August 26, 2023 as Women’s Equality Day, in the City of Healdsburg.
DATED: AUGUST 21, 2023
SO ORDERED:
_______________________________
Ariel Kelley, Mayor
3.A.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Proclamation (4154 : Women's Equality Day Proclamation)
PROCLAMATION
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HEALDSBURG RECOGNIZING THE HEALDSBURG PRUNE
PACKERS BASEBALL TEAM AS THE 2023 CALIFORNIA
COLLEGIATE LEAGUE CHAMPIONS
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2023, the Healdsburg Prune Packers Baseball team won the 2023 California Collegiate League Championship against the Arroyo Seco Saints Baseball Team by a score of 8-5; and
WHEREAS, the Prune Packers won the California Collegiate League Championship for the third straight year in a row thus becoming the first team to accomplish this feat in the recent history of the CCL; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to officially recognize the Healdsburg Prune Packers Baseball team and Coach Joey Gomes and his staff on winning consecutive championships; and WHEREAS, the Healdsburg Prune Packers are an historic Healdsburg baseball club, established in 1921 along with Recreation Park by the Healdsburg Chamber of Commerce and spread its roots deep into the town’s culture during the Roaring 20’s and the Fabulous 50’s; and WHEREAS, these consecutive championships were made possible through a great history resting on the shoulders of those visionaries and athletes coming before them, including over 50 Prune Packers who have moved onto professional baseball careers, as well as the great athletic skills and perseverance of this amazing team and the outstanding coaching ability of Coach Joey Gomes and his staff; and
WHEREAS, Healdsburg Prune Packers Baseball Club is a local non-profit whose mission is to provide student athletes and paid interns with a positive learning experience that develops their social and athletic skills while providing fans with the finest amateur baseball in not only Sonoma County but in California and beyond; and
WHEREAS, the City Council thanks the many volunteers, host families and board of directors for making the season possible; and
WHEREAS, the Prune Packers continue to be a tremendous community partner, providing economic vitality and a renewed sense of community engagement that only baseball can provide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg hereby congratulates the Healdsburg Prune Packers Baseball team, Coach Joey Gomes and his staff on their 2023 season.
DATED: August 21, 2023
SO ORDERED:
_______________________________
Ariel Kelley, Mayor
3.B.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Proclamation (4159 : Healdsburg Prune Packers Proclamation)
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Reject Bids for the Biosolids Conveyor Installation PREPARED BY: Patrick Fuss, Water/Wastewater Engineer
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):
Pursue Initiatives that Promote Environmental Stewardship Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
By four-fifths vote, adopt a Resolution rejecting all bids received for the Water Reclamation Facility Biosolids Conveyor Installation Project and direct staff to construct the project using City forces.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:
The Project was advertised for public bidding on the City’s website, and staff directly reached out to six contractors.
BACKGROUND:
The Water Reclamation Facility uses a biological process to remove pollutants from Healdsburg’s wastewater. The process is a bacterial biomass that increases as the pollutants are consumed. Periodically, a portion of the biomass must be removed to maintain optimal biomass levels. The biomass removed is dewatered to reduce weight, and the dewatered mass is referred to as biosolids. These biosolids must be hauled off site for disposal. Approximately 40 to 50 tons of biosolids are removed each week from the Water Reclamation Facility.
Prior to 2020, biosolids were loaded via automatic screw conveyor into 9-cubic yard bins. After 2020, a change in the hauling approach by the hauler required that 40-foot end dump trailers be used rather than 9-cubic yard bins. The 40-foot trailers do not fit for automatic conveying, so the biosolids have been handled in 1.5 cubic yard hoppers by telehandler. The 1.5-cubic yard hopper approach is labor intensive and ties up an operator and the telehandler for most of the week.
To reduce the staff and equipment time committed to biosolids conveying, staff investigated. modification the existing screw conveyors. A purchase order to furnish the screw conveyor was issued in 2021. However, the manufacturer was not able to fill the order for the agreed price and
6.A
Packet Pg. 11
the order was cancelled.
Staff again investigated alternative approaches to convey the biosolids with less manpower and equipment commitment. Staff concluded that a belt conveyor, typical for use in earth moving operations would provide a cost-effective interim solution until such time as capital for the screw conveyor can be amassed. Staff advertised bids for a 40-foot-long belt conveyor that has the capability to deliver materials in a radial arc (i.e., a “radial stacking conveyor”), thereby allowing more automated filling for the 40-foot haul out trailer. Bids for the belt conveyor equipment were received on April 20, 2023. Two bids were received, and the lowest responsive responsible bid was received from Rock Solutions, Inc., for $71,400. Purchase of the belt conveyor was approved by City Council on June 5, 2023, at which time staff indicated that installation of the belt conveyor equipment would be advertised for bidding.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The project to install the belt conveyor and make necessary power and control connections was advertised for bid on the City’s website. Additionally, staff contacted six contractors to invite their bid on the installation project. The engineer’s estimate construction cost is $65,000. On July 27, 2023, bids were opened. One bidder offered a bid of $65,980.
City staff have the experience and expertise required to perform the installation of the belt conveyor. These personnel include an industrial mechanic for the equipment set up, and an industrial electrician for conduit and wiring work. The engineer’s estimate construction cost using City employees is $55,000, with the difference in pricing between contractor’s bid and City installation primarily being contractor overhead and profit. Staff time and materials purchasing will be drawn against the capital improvements budget for this project, identified as Project SE001 in the approved budget. The savings will remain in the Wastewater Capital Improvements budget and remain available for other wastewater capital improvement needs.
Additionally, a contractor installed project could begin after the contract is in place. This process takes approximately one month to receive insurance certificates, bonds, and executed contract documents. City staff, on the other hand, could begin work on the project immediately following authorization from Council.
Staff recommends that City Council reject the bid and construct the project using City employees. Staff believes this approach will lower City cost and reduce the installation time. Per Public Contract Code, four-fifths vote of City Council is required to take this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:
Converting the current process from a manual process of telehandler-loaded bins that requires fossil-fuel (diesel) powered equipment to load the 40-ton trailer to a conveyor powered by electricity will lower GHG emissions associated with City operations.
ALTERNATIVES:
City Council can reject the staff recommendation for installation of the belt conveyor equipment with City employees and choose the to award the installation of the biosolids belt conveyor to the low bidder.
6.A
Packet Pg. 12
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Water Reclamation Facility Biosolids Modification project entered the design phase in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and accumulated $130,272 in design and material expenses. The project was further funded in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 as Project SE002 with an additional $194,964 in appropriations bringing the total project budget to $325,236. The purchase of the radial stacking belt conveyer was approved for the not-to-exceed amount of $71,400. After additional design costs incurred and purchase of the belt conveyor equipment, the project’s remaining budget is $118,274.
Staff estimates that the labor and equipment required for the installation by City forces are estimated at $55,000. The budget for CIP Project SE002 has sufficient funds to complete the work and no additional appropriations are required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15302(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the action recommended is categorically exempt from CEQA review under the Class 2c exemption - replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
6.A
Packet Pg. 13
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. -2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HEALDSBURG REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY BIOSOLIDS CONVEYOR
BELT INSTALLATION PROJECT AND DIRECT STAFF TO
CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT USING CITY FORCES
WHEREAS, the City’s wastewater is treated at the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) uses a biological process to remove pollutants from the wastewater; and WHEREAS, the biomass of the biological process grows and portions of the biomass must be removed and disposed of periodically; and
WHEREAS, the biomass is dewatered prior to disposal and approximately 40 to 50 tons of dewatered biomass (i.e., biosolids) is hauled off each week from the WRF; and WHEREAS, a changed in the City’s solid waste franchise agreement shifted costs of hauling and disposing of the biosolids to the wastewater fund; and WHEREAS, the City bid the biosolids hauling and disposing and the most cost effective approach to haul biosolids is to shift from 9-cubic yard bins to 40-foot end dump trailer; and WHEREAS, the existing equipment at the WRF is set up to fill the 9 cubic yard bins making modification necessary to convey biosolids to the 40-foot end dump trailers; and WHEREAS, previous purchasing of automated screw conveyor equipment was unsuccessful due to a dramatic increase in pricing at delivery versus initial quotation; and WHEREAS, staff solicited bids to purchase radial stacking belt conveyor equipment to provide motorized filling of the hauling trailer in a less automated manner to the originally envisioned screw conveyor; and
WHEREAS, City Council accepted the lowest responsive, responsible bid for the purchase of the biosolids belt conveyor equipment; and
WHEREAS, the belt conveyor requires installation and staff solicited bids for installation of the belt conveyor by contractor; and
WHEREAS, one bid was received for $65,980 and the engineer’s estimate for contractor construction was $65,000; and
WHEREAS, the engineer’s estimate for installation by City forces is $55,000; and
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Resolution (4142 : Reject Bids for Biosolids Belt Conveyor Installation) Resolution No. -2023
WHEREAS, City staff have the experience and expertise to successfully complete the installation of the belt conveyor; and
WHEREAS, installation of the belt conveyor by City forces would save cost and time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Contracts Code, the Council may, by a fourfifths vote, reject all bids and direct staff to install the belt conveyor using City forces; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act, Title 14, Article 19, Section 15302, Class 2c for reconstruction of an existing utility facility with no expansion of the existing capacity; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg does hereby:
1. Find that the project is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act, Title 14, Article 19, Section 15302, Class 2c for replacement or reconstruction of an existing utility system or facility with negligible or no expansion of capacity.
2. Reject all bids.
3. Find that the project can be completed satisfactorily and more economically by the use of City forces.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg, this 21st day of August 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
__________________________________ ___________________________________ Ariel Kelley, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Resolution (4142 : Reject Bids for Biosolids Belt Conveyor Installation)
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Sewer Utility Loan
PREPARED BY: Katie Edgar, Finance Director
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):
Provide Effective Governance
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve a Resolution authorizing a loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Utility Fund and amending the Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
On June 15, 2018, the City and TerraCon Constructors, Inc. (“TerraCon”) entered into a contract wherein TerraCon agreed to complete the Magnolia Force Main Relocation Project for the City.
Construction plans required TerraCon to microtunnel beneath Dry Creek. TerraCon subcontracted the microtunneling work to Vadnais Trenchless Services, Inc. A dispute arose between TerraCon and City regarding issuance of a change order for extra work and other losses resulting from an alleged encounter with an obstruction during the microtunneling.
On July 22, 2021, TerraCon filed a civil action against the City. Trial was held from April 26 to May 12, 2023. The jury returned a verdict in favor of TerraCon in the amount of $408,815.84, half of TerraCon’s requested amount, plus prejudgment interest. Following trial, TerraCon moved for an award of prejudgment interest; the City moved for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Prior to hearing on the pending motions, the City and TerraCon negotiated a settlement amount of $425,000. On June 20, 2023 the City Council approved the settlement agreement.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The settlement amount is an appropriate expenditure from the Sewer Utility Fund. However, Sewer Utility Fund would need to utilize its reserve fund balance to pay the settlement. The adopted Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget already projects a moderate use of reserve funds in order
6.B
Packet Pg. 16
to meet its annual operating costs. To preserve the remaining reserve fund balance in the Sewer Utility Fund, staff are proposing that the City loan $425,000 to the Sewer Utility Fund from the General Fund. The General Fund has a sufficient fund balance in excess of the required operating reserve to fund the proposed loan.
The loan is proposed to have a repayment term of 4 years, with annual principal payments of $106,250 commencing June 30, 2025. When issuing internal loans, it is best practice to charge an interest rate that is aligned with the fair market return that could be generated had the available funds been invested in the open market. The average annual yield of the Local Agency Investment Fund for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 was 2.17%. Staff recommend the interest rate on the loan be 2.17% per annum. Under the terms of the proposed loan, if the Sewer Utility Fund does not meet its reserve requirements in a given fiscal year, the principal and interest payment due that year will be deferred, and the repayment term will be extended by one year. If, at the end of an eight-year period the loan has not been repaid in full, the remaining annual payments and any accrued interest would be forgiven.
This loan structure ensures that the Sewer Utility fund is responsible for the settlement, but also forgives the if rate revenues continue to be insufficient to support operations. The proposed annual deferral protects the remaining Sewer Utility reserve funds to be used to continue operations in the short term. In the longer term, any remaining portion of the loan will be forgiven if the Sewer Utility does not meet its reserve requirement in four of the next eight years.
These repayment options are also in alignment with the adopted General Fund Surplus Policy that directs the use of surplus funds towards non-recurring expenditures that improve the longterm fiscal health of the City. The forgiveness option, if triggered by sustained financial hardship of the Sewer Utility, is an appropriate use of the available general fund balance in accordance with the existing Surplus Policy, which includes reducing City debt or liabilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVES:
City Council could choose not to approve the loan and direct staff to fund the settlement directly from the Sewer Utility Reserve Funds. This action is not recommended as it is likely to further strain the Sewer Utility Fund and could ultimately impact our ability to comply with existing bond covenants.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost of the settlement agreement and proposed principal loan amount is $425,000. The proposed loan term is for four years, with a 2.17% simple interest rate. The anticipated total cost to the Sewer Utility Fund to repay the loan in the initial four-year term is $448,056.25.
Additional appropriations are required in the Sewer Utility Fund to support payment of the settlement agreement. Staff are proposing to amend the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Adopted Budget to account for the payout of the settlement agreement and related loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Utility Fund. Loan repayments from the Sewer Utility Fund will be included in future adopted budgets.
6.B
Packet Pg. 17
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
Exhibit A - Loan Repayment Agreement
Exhibit B - Budget Amendment
6.B
Packet Pg. 18
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. -2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HEALDSBURG AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM THE
GENERAL FUND TO THE SEWER UTILITY FUND AND
AMENDING THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
BUDGET
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023 the City Council approved a settlement agreement with TerraCon Constructions, Inc. for four hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($425,000); and WHEREAS, the Sewer Utility Fund does not have sufficient fund balance in excess of the adopted Reserve Policy to fund the settlement; and
WHEREAS, the Adopted Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget in the Sewer Operating Fund does not have sufficient appropriations to facilitate the settlement payout; and WHEREAS, the General Fund has fund balance in excess of the adopted Reserve Policy; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a loan agreement from the General Fund to the Sewer Utility Fund; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Healdsburg does hereby:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Loan Repayment Agreement between the City of Healdsburg and Healdsburg Sewer Utility as depicted on the attached Exhibit A.
2. Approve amending the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget as depicted on the attached Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 21st day of August 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers:
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
_______________________________ ____________________________________ Ariel Kelley, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Resolution (4151 : Sewer Utility Loan)
INTERFUND LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT
This INTERFUND LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of August ____, 2023 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of Healdsburg, a California Municipal Corporation (“City”) and the City of Healdsburg Sewer Utility (the “Sewer Utility”), a municipal utility within the City of Healdsburg. The City and the Sewer Utility are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”. The purpose of this Agreement is to document the intention of the City of Healdsburg Sewer Utility Fund (“Sewer Fund”) to repay the loan of funds from the City’s General Fund, in the principal amount of Four Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($425,000), plus interest, on the terms and conditions described herein.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the City Council approved a settlement agreement between the City and TerraCon Constructors, Inc. (“TerraCon”) in TerraCon Constructors, Inc. v. City of Healdsburg, regarding the Magnolia Force Main Relocation Project; and WHEREAS, the settlement agreement required the City to pay to TerraCon a total lump sum payment of Four Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($425,000) (the “Settlement”); and WHEREAS, payment of the Settlement is a proper expenditure from the Sewer Utility Fund;
WHEREAS, the Sewer Utility Fund does not currently have sufficient fund balance to pay the Settlement; and
WHEREAS, the General Fund currently contains sufficient funds to meet the requirements in the reserve policy adopted by the City Council, as well as additional funds; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to document the transfer of funds, and the intent of the City to repay the General Fund, from the Sewer Fund, should the amount in the Sewer Fund exceed the adopted reserve policy within the loan repayment period.
AGREEMENT
1. Loan. The City hereby authorizes the transfer of Four Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($425,000) from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund for the purpose set forth above. This transfer shall constitute a loan of funds from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund to be repaid as provided herein.
2. Repayment Terms.
(a) The interest rate shall be 2.17% per year.
(b) Annual Payment. Commencing on June 30, 2024, the City, from the Sewer Utility, shall make four (4) annual payments to the General Fund in the amount of One Hundred Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($106,250), plus interest (“Annual Payment”).
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Exhibit A - Loan Repayment Agreement (4151 : Sewer Utility Loan) (c) Deferral. If, commencing on June 30, 2024, and in any year thereafter in which any Annual Payment is due, the funds in the Sewer Utility are insufficient to meet the reserve policy adopted by the City Council, the Annual Payment for that year shall be deferred and the repayment schedule will be extended by one year. (d) Forgiveness. If at the end of an eight-year period ending June 30, 2031 the loan has not been repaid in full, any remaining amount due, including interest, shall be forgiven. (e) Prepayment. The City, using funds from the Sewer Utility, may prepay any amount due, in whole or in part, at any time without penalty.
3. Limitation on Amendment / Public Notice: This Agreement, and the terms of the Loan documented herein, shall not be amended or modified except by the action of the City Council, taken during a noticed public meeting.
Approved and executed by signature of the following authorized representatives of the City on August _______, 2023.
City of Healdsburg
By:
___________________________________
Jeffrey Kay, City Manager
Attest:
_______________________________________
Raina Allan, City Clerk
Reviewed as to Form:
_______________________________________
Samantha W. Zutler, City Attorney
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Exhibit A - Loan Repayment Agreement (4151 : Sewer Utility Loan) Resolution No.
Exhibit B
Account Number Increase Amount Decrease Amount Description 530-6369-43207-00000 $ 425,000 Increase Sewer Utility Legal Budget for Settlement Agreement 101-8080-42501-00000 $ 425,000 Increase General Fund Budget for Loan Disbursment FY 23-24 Budget Amendment
6.B.c
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Exhibit B - Budget Amendment (4151 : Sewer Utility Loan)
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Final Master Plan for the New Public Park in the Saggio Hills Area and Addendum to the Saggio Hills Project Environmental Impact Report PREPARED BY: Tom Campbell, Project Manager
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
Provide Resident-Driven Community Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Adopt a Resolution approving an addendum to the Saggio Hills Project Environmental Impact Report and approving the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:
The final master plan for the new Saggio Hills Park (the “Saggio Hills Park Master Plan” or “Master Plan”) involved significant community outreach, engagement and input including:
• The Parks Design Team, a group of approximately 30 community members representing different demographics in the community, met 13 times throughout the planning process to guide the project.
• 11 focus group work sessions with park user groups, sports associations, partner organizations, outdoor recreation businesses, residents of the Parkland Farms neighborhood, and City officials and staff.
• Open house events (virtual and in-person) and an online survey.
BACKGROUND:
In 2011, City Council approved a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Saggio Hills Project EIR") and master entitlements for the Saggio Hills Project. The master entitlements included the Saggio Hills Area Plan, annexation and zoning of the 258.5-acre Saggio Hills Project site, a Tentative Subdivision Map and a Development Agreement for the Saggio Hills Project. The entitlements required the developer to provide numerous public benefits including approximately 36 acres of land for a public park, a multi-purpose trail component, mass grading of the park site, and $3 million to help fund the design and construction of the park.
6.C
Packet Pg. 23
The Saggio Hills Project developer, Sonoma Luxury Resorts LLC ("SLR"), completed development of the resort, public and private streets and utilities, water pump station, the Northwest Trail, the mass grading of Parcels 5, 6, 8 and 10, the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,580 linear feet of Foss Creek, transfer of property to the City for the pump station (Parcel 9), fire substation (Parcel 10), affordable housing (Parcels 5 and 6) and public park (Parcel 8), and payment of various fees to the City in relation to construction of the fire substation, affordable housing and public park.
In 2022, in connection with the transfer of the public park lands to the City, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a land exchange that transferred ownership of Parcel 7 (a 3.36-acre parcel adjacent to the public park parcel) to the City in exchange for the fee ownership by the Developer of a 2.25-acre portion of the public park parcel, which was subject to a Vineyard Access Easement. The City closed on the resultant 37.26-acre public park parcel in April 2023.
Saggio Hills Park Project
In July 2019, the City launched a public process to develop a master plan for the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan. Fletcher Studio Landscape Architects led the process with a group of community members called the Parks Design Team who served as the steering team for the Master Plan. The process focused on integrating the park components required by the Development Agreement into a master plan layout that incorporates efficiencies and projected demands for new facilities with major community engagement feedback themes.
In 2021, City Council reviewed a draft of the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan, expressed support, and directed staff to move forward with preparation of the appropriate environmental analysis for the City Council’s consideration of approval of the Master Plan. The City engaged Raney Planning & Management in March 2023 to complete the required analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”).
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Park Master Plan
In 2021, City Council reviewed the proposed Master Plan and directed that the proposed Master Plan undergo the required environmental review to ensure the Master Plan complies with the Saggio Hills Project EIR. As described below, the Master Plan complies with the previous environmental analysis conducted for the Saggio Hills Project; accordingly, following its consideration of the environmental analysis, the City Council is being asked to formally approve the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:
The Saggio Hills Master Plan contemplates an overall approach towards low impact design.
Implementation of this would be addressed during the detailed design development stage.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council could choose not to approve the final Saggio Hills Park Master Plan or adopt an Addendum to the Saggio Hills Project EIR and provide direction to staff.
6.C
Packet Pg. 24
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Saggio Hills Park Master Plan is a conceptual document that will help guide future development of the park. Approval of the Master Plan will have no direct fiscal impact. Staff will return to City Council in the coming year for direction on financing and implementation of the Master Plan. Further, adopting an Addendum to the Saggio Hills Project EIR will not have a fiscal impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
The public park component of the Saggio Hills Park Project is addressed in the Saggio Hills Project EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003062025) which was certified by the Healdsburg City Council through the adoption of Resolution No. 15-2011. Certain components of development on the site, including the park, were addressed at a project-level in the Saggio Hills Project EIR.
Raney Planning and Management prepared an Initial Study/Environmental Checklist for the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan and, based on the analysis contained therein, determined that an Addendum to the Saggio Hills Project EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the City Council’s consideration of the Master Plan. Based upon substantial evidence demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred, specifically:
a) There have not been any substantial changes in the Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan that require major revisions of the Saggio Hills Project EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
b) There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan is undertaken that require major revisions of the Saggio Hills Project EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
c) There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Saggio Hills Project EIR was certified, that shows any of the following:
i. The Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Saggio Hills Project EIR; ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Saggio Hills Project EIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Saggio Hills Project EIR, would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Master Plan proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
6.C
Packet Pg. 25
Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the City Council determine that the previously-certified Saggio Hills Project EIR, together with the Addendum, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan in accordance with CEQA.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
CEQA Addendum
Saggio Hills Final Park Master Plan
6.C
Packet Pg. 26
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. -2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HEALDSBURG ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
ADDENDUM TO SAGGIO HILLS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING THE SAGGIO HILLS
PARK MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, in 2010 and 2011, the Healdsburg City Council approved entitlements for the Saggio Hills Development Project as follows:
1. On January 31, 2011, the Saggio Hills Area Plan was adopted by Resolution No. 17-2011;
2. On January 31, 2011, Ordinance No. 1071 establishing pre-zoning designations for the Saggio Hills planning area was confirmed and ratified by Resolution No. 19-2011;
3. On January 31, 2011, a Tentative Subdivision Map was approved for the Saggio Hills Development Project by Resolution 18-2011;
4. Effective April 11, 2011, the City of Healdsburg and Sonoma Luxury Resort, LLC entered into a Development Agreement for the Saggio Hills Project (Ordinance No. 1107); and WHEREAS, prior to the City Council’s approval of the Saggio Hills Project entitlements, an Environmental Impact Report ("Saggio Hills Project EIR") was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”), (State Clearinghouse No. 2003062025), which analyzed the environmental impacts of development of the Saggio Hills Project. The Saggio Hills Project EIR is comprised of the 2007 Draft EIR (August 2007), the 2007 Final EIR (October 2007), the Responses to Late Comments (April 2008), the Errata (April 2008), the Draft Partial Revision (August 2010, and the Final Partial Revision (December 2010). The Saggio Hills Project EIR was certified by the City Council on January 31, 2011 and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") was adopted by Resolution No. 15-2011; and
WHEREAS, in 2019 the City launched a public process to develop a master plan for the new Saggio Hills Park (the “Saggio Hills Park Master Plan” or “Master Plan”); and WHEREAS, in 2021 the City Council reviewed the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan, expressed support, and directed staff to move forward with preparation of the appropriate CEQA documentation for the City Council’s consideration of approval of the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan includes modifications to the park component of the Saggio Hills Development Project analyzed in the Saggio Hills Project EIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, the City caused the preparation of an Environmental Checklist & Addendum to the Saggio Hills Project EIR, dated August 2023 ("Addendum"), which can be found in the Community Services Department's files for the Project at Healdsburg Community Center, 1557 Healdsburg Avenue, Healdsburg, CA.
6.C.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Resolution (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Resolution No. -2023
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Healdsburg City Council hereby determines as follows:
1. The City Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the previously certified Saggio Hills Project EIR, the Addendum, the staff report and all attachments thereto, as well as all written documentation and public comments thereto; and
2. The Addendum was prepared and reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
3. The information and analysis contained in the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment as to the environmental consequences of the proposed Saggio Hills Park Master Plan; and
4. That, based upon substantial evidence demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred; specifically:
(a) There have not been any substantial changes in the Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan that require major revisions of the Saggio Hills Project EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(b) There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan is undertaken that require major revisions of the Saggio Hills Project EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (c) There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Saggio Hills Project EIR was certified, that shows any of the following: (a) the Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Saggio Hills Project EIR: (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Saggio Hills Project EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Saggio Hills Development Project as reflected in the Master Plan, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Saggio Hills Project EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Master Plan proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings and prior to making a decision on the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan, the City Council of the City of Healdsburg determines that the previously-certified Saggio Hills Project EIR, together with the Addendum, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA.
6.C.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Resolution (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Resolution No. -2023
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg does hereby approve the Saggio Hills Park Master Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg this 21st day of August, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
___________________________________ ____________________________________ Ariel Kelley, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk
6.C.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Resolution (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) City of Healdsburg
Community Development Department
Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
Page i
August 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 1 B. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 2 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4 D. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................13 E. SOURCES ....................................................................................................................13 F. DETERMINATION.........................................................................................................14 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................15 I. AESTHETICS. ...................................................................................................16 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. ............................................20 III. AIR QUALITY. ...................................................................................................22 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..............................................................................28 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ...............................................................................34 VI. ENERGY. ..........................................................................................................37 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.....................................................................................40 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ...................................................................45 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ....................................................47 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..............................................................53 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ............................................................................58 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. ..................................................................................60 XIII. NOISE. ..............................................................................................................61 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING..........................................................................66 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................67 XVI. RECREATION. ..................................................................................................70 XVII. TRANSPORTATION..........................................................................................71 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ..................................................................78 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ..............................................................81 XX. WILDFIRE..........................................................................................................87 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. .................................................89 APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Transportation Memorandum
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Saggio Hills Park Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Healdsburg Community Services/ Parks & Recreation Department
1557 Healdsburg Avenue
Healdsburg CA, 95448
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mark Themig
Community Services Director
(707) 431-3116
4. Project Location: South of the Passalacqua Road/
Healdsburg Drive Intersection
Healdsburg CA, 95448
APNs: 091-310-008 and 091-310-010
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Healdsburg Community Services/ Parks & Recreation Department
1557 Healdsburg Avenue
Healdsburg CA, 95448
6. Existing General Plan Designation: Public/Quasi Public (PQP)
7. Existing Zoning Designation: Public (P)
8. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: RWQCB – Section 401 Water Quality Certification
CDFW – Streambed Alteration Agreement
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The approximately 37.26-acre project site is located south of the intersection of Passalacqua Drive and Healdsburg Drive in the City of Healdsburg. The project site is vacant and generally consists of constructed wetlands, a stormwater detention area, and previously graded areas that have been revegetated. Foss Creek bisects the project site and runs along the northeastern boundary of the project site. Passalacqua Drive and Healdsburg Drive generally run along the northern and northwestern boundaries of the project site.
Surrounding existing land uses include the Montage Resort and residential property to the north, the majority of which consists of sloped/rolling topography comprised of undisturbed oak woodland; however, roads have been built and large-lot custom homes are currently under construction. The approved Saggio Hills Affordable Housing site, recent Passalacqua Drive extension, and Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Reserve are located to
INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM
AUGUST 2023
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
the east; Barbieri Brothers Park and the Parkland Farms residential community are located to the south, with the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Reserve located further south; and the Tympany Vineyards winery and Belle de Jour Inn are located to the southwest. The lands located immediately west of the project site, past Healdsburg Avenue, are currently undeveloped. The City of Healdsburg General Plan designates the project site as Public/Quasi Public (PQP) and the site is zoned Public (P).
10. Project Description Summary:
The Saggio Hills Park Project (proposed park project) would consist of the development of a community park within the approximately 37.26-acre project site. South of Foss Creek, the proposed park project would include development of sports courts, a BMX pump track, play areas, a parking lot, restrooms, concession stands, display gardens, a bandshell, a picnic pavilion, and promenades. North of Foss Creek, the project would include sports fields, a children’s play area, a dog park, picnic areas, restrooms, concession stands, and two parking lots. A new multi-use trail would run adjacent to Foss Creek and would connect to a proposed hiking trail network located in the eastern portion of the project site, as well as existing trail networks north of the project site. In addition, the proposed park project would include the restoration of the portion of Foss Creek located within the site.
B. INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study/Addendum identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed park project. The information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project Background
The project site was previously considered for development of a community park as a component of the Saggio Hills Project. The Saggio Hills Project was evaluated pursuant to CEQA through the preparation and circulation of a Draft and Final EIR. The City certified the Saggio Hills Project EIR (SCH #2003062025) in 2008;1 however, the City’s actions were subsequently challenged in Court.
The Sonoma County Superior Court issued an Order and Judgment requiring the City to set aside certification of the 2007 EIR and project approval, correct three specific issues found inadequate in the 2007 EIR, and prepare and circulate a revision to the 2007 EIR covering the specified issues in a manner that complies with CEQA and is consistent with the Court’s Order and Judgment. In 2010, a Draft Partial Revision (DPR) to the 2007 EIR was circulated for public review and comment.2 A Final Partial Revision (FPR) was prepared, which responded to comments on the environmental analysis presented in the DPR. The 2007 EIR and the 2010 FPR to the 2007 EIR were certified and the 2007 Saggio Hills Project was approved on January 31, 2011.
The Saggio Hills Project, as evaluated in the certified EIR and the 2010 DPR, consisted of 258.5 acres with a combination of land uses, including a 91.11-acre resort hotel, 70 resort residences and resort villas, up to 150 affordable housing units, a community park, open space, a system of public and private trails, a pump station, and a City fire substation, as well as on- and off-site infrastructure and roadway improvements. As noted above, the site of the community park evaluated within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR is the same location of the project site for the Saggio Hills Park Project evaluated within this Initial Study/Addendum. The community park was analyzed at a project-level analysis within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, and a conceptual site 1 City of Healdsburg. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Saggio Hills Project. August 2007. 2 City of Healdsburg. Draft Partial Revision to the 2007 Final Environmental Impact Report Saggio Hills Project.
August 20, 2010.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
plan for the community park was included within the previously prepared documents. Therefore, the analysis included within this Initial Study/Addendum is based on the project-level conclusions included in the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR.
It should be noted that portions of the project site were mass graded in 2021. Specifically, the active use portion of the proposed park, as well as the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, was graded. Additionally, as part of previous mass grading activities, the serpentine knoll which was identified on-site within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR was leveled and buried. It should also be noted that wetlands were present within the larger Saggio Hills project site prior to portions of the site being mass graded. However, due to prior grading activities, portions of the wetlands were filled, and additional wetland mitigation areas were created within the project site, and just southwest of the project site. The areas of the site that were previously graded have since been revegetated.
Rationale for the Preparation of an Addendum
In the case of a project proposal requiring discretionary approval by the City for which the City has adopted an EIR for the overall project, the City must determine whether a subsequent EIR is required. The CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in this process by requiring an examination of whether, since the certification of the EIR, changes in the approved project or circumstances under which the approved project would be undertaken have occurred to such an extent that the proposal may result in a new significant impact (not previously identified in the certified EIR) or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. If so, the City would be required to prepare a subsequent EIR. The examination of impacts is the first step taken by the City in reviewing the CEQA treatment of the project. The following review proceeds with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as discussed in detail below.
For the purposes of this Initial Study/Addendum, the checklist to document evaluation of the proposed park project will be based, generally, on the Appendix G format. Modifications will be made to the checklist sections, generally consisting of additional questions related to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an addendum to an adopted EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are required, and none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present. The following identifies the standards set forth in Section 15162(a):
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR [or negative declaration];
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The following discussion confirms that the project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The determination in this document is that the project’s impacts have been considered in a previous CEQA document (i.e., the 2007 EIR) that was certified by the City of Healdsburg and deemed a sufficient and adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of the Saggio Hills Park Project. The discussion concludes that the conditions set forth in Section 15162 are not triggered by the modified project. As such, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed park project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the project site’s current location and setting, as well as the proposed park project components.
Project Location and Setting
The approximately 37.26-acre project site (identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 091- 310-008 and 091-310-010) is located south of the intersection of Passalacqua Drive and Healdsburg Drive in the City of Healdsburg (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The project site is vacant and generally consists of constructed wetlands, a stormwater detention area, and previously graded areas that have been revegetated. As discussed above, the mass grading activities onsite were conducted in 2021, and consisted of grading the active use portions of the proposed park as well as the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail. Additionally, the serpentine knoll identified on-site was leveled and buried as part of grading activities. The wetland areas located within, and just southwest of the project site were also constructed to mitigate the loss of wetlands within the larger Saggio Hills site, as portions of the wetlands were filled during past grading activities. Foss Creek bisects the project site and runs along the northeastern boundary of the project site, flowing east to west before discharging into downstream stormwater detention ponds.
Passalacqua Drive and Healdsburg Drive generally run along the northern and northwestern boundaries of the project site.
Surrounding existing land uses include the Montage Resort and residential property to the north, the majority of which consists of sloped/rolling topography comprised of undisturbed oak woodland; however, roads have been built and large-lot custom homes are currently under construction. The approved Saggio Hills Affordable Housing site, recent Passalacqua Drive extension, and Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Reserve are located to the east; Barbieri Brothers Park and the Parkland Farms residential community are located to the south, with the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Reserve located further south; and the Tympany Vineyards winery and Belle de Jour Inn are located to the southwest. The lands located immediately west of the project site, past Healdsburg Avenue, are currently undeveloped. The City of Healdsburg General Plan designates the project site as PQP and the site is zoned P.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Location
Healdsburg
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Figure 2
Project Site Boundaries Map
*Project site boundaries are approximate.
Parkland Farms
Neighborhood
Montage Resort
and Residential
Property
Undisturbed
Oak Woodland
Vineyards
Undeveloped
Land
Approved Saggio
Hills Affordable
Housing Site
Tympany
Vineyards Winery
and Belle de Jour
Inn
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Project Components
The proposed park project would consist of the development of a 37.26-acre community park within the project site (see Figure 3). Of the 37.26 acres, 12 acres would be developed with community park uses, and 23.82 acres would be preserved as natural open space. In addition, approximately 1.44 acres of vehicular roads/parking would be developed throughout the site.
The park would be designed to prioritize the existing water systems within the project site, such as Foss Creek, the constructed wetlands located in the southwestern portion of the site, and existing stormwater detention basins, as well as the overall site topography. Restoration of the portion of Foss Creek located within the project site would be completed by the City as part of the project, as discussed in further detail below.
Foss Creek divides the park into northern and southern sections with a 35-foot buffer to protect the riparian habitat and stream corridor. The proposed park would include both active and passive recreational areas. Two paseos/walkways would bracket the developed park area, separating the developed lands from the adjacent wetlands, stormwater detention basins, and other natural areas. Secondary pathways would cross through the passive recreational area and connect to the paseos.
The active recreational area (shown as Area A on the project site plan [see Figure 3]) would include two lighted baseball fields with flexible outfields for soccer use, a playground, a concession building with restrooms and storage, two parking areas and a fenced-in off-leash dog area. The passive recreational area would include an open lawn, a performance area, display gardens with pollinator plants and animal habitat, a picnic pavilion, a restroom building, a playground, a vehicular connector road, and an overflow parking area. Active uses would also be included in the area south of Foss Creek (see Area B on Figure 3), such as a number of sport courts. An earthen BMX pump track is also proposed south of Foss Creek, immediately north of the eastern wetland area.
A multi-purpose trail for bikes and pedestrians would be developed throughout the project site, and would include four creek crossings consisting of four bike/pedestrian crossings located generally in the northern, eastern, and western portions of the site and one bike/pedestrian/vehicular crossing located south of the project site entrance along Passalacqua Road. Additionally, a trailhead and soft surface trails are proposed throughout the natural park area to the east of the developed park area. The trails within the undeveloped area would be available for off-leash dog walking and play.
The park would also provide locations for public artwork to be displayed along the boundary of the natural area and developed park area. Pathways would extend to the artwork which could include sculptures, functional art, interpretive/informational signage, and/or art experiences.
Project Operations
Park activity would vary by season. In the active recreational area, the sports fields are anticipated to be used nine months of the year for soccer, baseball, and softball. The fields would be lighted and typically would be used until 10:00 PM at the latest. Tournaments would also be held at the sports fields. The fields would be designed as a flexible use space that could be used for athletics, as well as concerts. Use of the concession stand, restrooms, playground, and adjacent parking lots would correspond to field use. The passive recreational area is intended for communityoriented uses.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Figure 3
Conceptual Site Plan
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
The picnic pavilion would be used for family picnics and birthday parties; the performance area would be used for acoustical music performances and community theater; and the pump track would be used by a variety of community members including families with kids using scooters, and teenagers on BMX bikes. All public and private events taking place at the site will be required to obtain a Special Event Permit from the City, which requires documentation of road closures, hours of operation, amplified music/sound, and the anticipated number of attendees.
Access and Parking
The main vehicular access point is located off Passalacqua Road, where vehicles would enter and exit the site from a 40-space parking area adjacent to Foss Creek. From that parking lot, drivers could connect to an 80-space overflow parking area in alignment with the eastern paseo through an 87-foot-long creek crossing and a 677-foot-long connector road. Restricted access to the connector road is proposed from Saddle Draw, where removable bollards would be installed.
Access to a 37-space parking area is co-located with the planned fire station site on Healdsburg Avenue. Overall, a total of 157 parking spaces would be available to visitors of the park. However, the co-located parking access with the planned fire station would be controlled by the Fire Department in the event of an emergency.
It should be noted that the primary source of parking demands for the proposed park project would be the multi-use sports field and the pavilion. Community and youth sports programming can cause parking demands to double as activities transition from one to the next. To address such demands, the City of Healdsburg has worked with local sports permit groups to develop a plan for staggering start times to allow a break for vehicles to exit before new vehicles arrive. Permit groups would be required to implement the plan for both games and practices.
Landscaping and Lighting
As discussed above, portions of the project site, including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have been previously graded. During previous grading activities, existing oak trees and established native vegetation were preserved to the greatest extent possible. All new landscaping improvements would consist of a regionally appropriate California Native plant palette.
The park area, trail, and roadway lighting would be dark sky compliant, and would use centralized control, sensors, and dimming to minimize light pollution and energy usage. The multi-use trail would be lit during a designated timeframe, and motion sensors would activate blocks of light as users pass through during unprogrammed hours.
Foss Creek Restoration
The ephemeral tributary to Foss Creek flowing through the site was previously re-routed and resized to accommodate additional runoff into the constructed detention ponds. The re-routed channel disconnected the historical channel alignment with a new 170-foot-long bank armored with large rock, as a part of an oversized trapezoidal channel configuration put in place to convey flows to the downstream detention ponds. As part of the proposed park project, the City is proposing to reconnect Foss Creek to the historical channel. Reconnection to the historical channel would allow hydrologic connectivity during winter flows, which would provide seasonal habitat for native species in the area. Reconnection to the historic channel would require the removal of the earthen dam that currently separates the main stem and former channel. The earthen dam would then be replaced with a bypass weir to allow storm events exceeding bankfull to flow into the former channel. Earthwork related to restoration activities would be minimal, as the barrier between the new and old channel is a rock riprap earthen berm or dam. The rock would be reused to revet new channel opening weir and soil would be recontoured on site.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
The proposed park project would also result in the restoration of the portion of Foss Creek located within the site as well as portions of the floodplain in the project area to improve the creek channel and riparian corridor, in addition to restoring natural processes driven by winter flood flows.
Overall, restoration activities would involve restoring channel banks and reshaping the channel.
The proposed park project would improve in-stream and riparian habitat through the use of natural materials including large wood, vegetation, gravel, and cobble.
Restoration planting along the creek bank would include the use of native grasses (Festuca, Koeleria, Deschampsia), rushes and reeds (Carex, Juncus, Sisyrinchium, Iris), shrubs (Ceanothus, Rosa, Heteromeles, Mahonia, Archtostaphylos, Rubus, Ribes, Rhamnus, Mimulus, Epilobium, Cornus), and trees (Quercus, Arbutus, Cercis, Acer, Aesculus) to enhance the habitat value of the waterway. Bank stabilization would require minor regrading to accommodate site development and help with the long-term durability of creek hydraulics, as well as to replace and improve portions of the bank to better accommodate riparian wildlife corridors.
It should be noted that during one-to-two-year storm events, flows to the main stem or current channel would be unchanged. However, a rain or flow event exceeding the one-to-two-year stream flow would flow into the bypass weir and the formal channel would act as an overflow/detention basin for relief during larger storm events.
Comparison to Original Park Project
As discussed above, the certified 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR evaluated the development of a community park at the same location of the current project site; however, due to a slight revision in the project site boundaries on account of a land exchange which occurred on April 18, 2022, the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR. However, the additional land included in the park consists of a portion of Foss Creek and associated habitat, and would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. As such, the increased park area would not result in an overall increase in disturbance as compared to the previously evaluated community park.
Table 1 provides a comparison between the community park evaluated in the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR, and the currently proposed park project.
Requested Entitlements
The proposed park project would require the City’s approval of the final project Site Plan.
D. BASELINE FOR THE ANALYSIS
In cases where an approved project has already undergone environmental review, and the environmental document has been certified by the lead agency, the lead agency can restrict its review to the incremental effects of the modified project, rather than having to reconsider the overall impacts of the project as if it were proposed for the first time. In other words, if the project under review constitutes a modification of a previously approved project previously subjected to environmental review, then the “baseline” for purposes of CEQA is adjusted such that the originally approved project is assumed to exist.3 Thus, the environmental baseline for this analysis consists of the conceptual community park component of the Saggio Hills Project. 3 See Michael H. Remy et al. Guide to CEQA, 11th Edition. Point Arena: Solano Press Books (2007), p. 207; Stephen L. Kostka and Michael H. Zischke. Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act, Second Edition (Vol. 1). Oakland:
Continuing Education of the Bar (2018), p. 12-32; Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1st Dist. 1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Table 1
Comparison of Approved Saggio Hills Project Community Park Features vs. Proposed Park Features
Feature Previously Approved Community Park Currently Proposed Park Project Sports Fields Two soccer fields: one with synthetic turf, and one with natural turf.
Two baseball fields with flexible outfields for soccer use. Both fields would be synthetic turf.
Sport Courts Four basketball courts with lighting. Anticipated development of one basketball court, one tennis court, and two pickleball courts. All courts would be unlighted.
Playgrounds One play area for ages six to 12 (with lighting) and two tot lots (one with lighting and one without).
Two playgrounds: one play area with shade and lighting
adjacent to the soccer fields; and one unlit play area south of Foss Creek and adjacent to the bandshell.
Picnic
Shelters/Bandshells Four picnic shelters with capacity for up to 75-persons. One open-air performance area (approximately 1,000 square feet [sf]) adjacent to the unlit play area.
Covered Pavilion
Areas Two covered pavilion areas Intended for special event use. One open-air picnic pavilion (approximately 3,000 sf) that would seat 150 people.
Public Restrooms
Two restroom buildings. One between the playground with lighting and parking area north of Foss Creek. Another
between the parking area south of Foss Creek and the
covered pavilion area.
One restroom building (approximately 2,500 sf) with public restrooms, concessions, and storage, located between the soccer fields and the Passalacqua Drive parking area.
Dog Play Areas N/A
One off-leash dog play area adjacent to the soccer fields and the Fire Substation parking area. A four-foot-high fence would be installed around the perimeter of the area.
Display Gardens N/A Display gardens with pollinator plants and animal habitat Pump Track N/A
A 25,000-sf earthen BMX pump track located south of Foss Creek and adjacent to the natural open space area. The
pump track would be integrated into the natural landscape.
Parking
Two areas for parking including a 100-space parking area north of Foss Creek between Passalaqua Drive and the
stormwater detention facility, and a 150-space parking area south of Foss Creek just north of the existing wetland and proposed wetland mitigation area. Lots would be connected through a concrete bridge.
Three areas for parking including a 40-space parking area between Passalacqua Road and Foss Creek; a 37-space
parking area between the Fire Substation and the soccer fields accessible from Healdsburg Avenue; and an 80-space parking area adjacent to the wetlands and accessible from Saddle Draw.
Connector Road
N/A
The Saddle Draw parking area and Passalacqua Road
parking areas would be connected through an approximately 677-foot-long connector road and an approximately 86-footlong concrete bridge. Removable bollards at Saddle Draw would be installed at the Saddle Draw connection.
(Continued on next page)
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Table 1
Comparison of Approved Saggio Hills Project Community Park Features vs. Proposed Park Features
Feature Previously Approved Community Park Currently Proposed Park Project Natural Area and
Trail Network
Off-site scenic overlooks and linkages to Fox Pond and
County Open Space.
The eastern half of site with steeper terrain would remain in a mostly natural state with sustainable trails. The area is proposed to function as an off-leash dog area.
Foss Creek Improvements based on an approved Streambed and Creek Restoration Plans developed by Carlile Macy.
The Streambed and Creek Restoration Plan would be
updated to include restoration of an additional drainage channel north of the creek, which would connect to a
stormwater basin and create an "island" picnic area with two creek crossings and elevated overlooks.
Multi-Purpose Trail
A public bicycle and pedestrian trail would extend around the perimeter of the park and cross Foss Creek. The asphalt trail would be a maximum of 10-feet-wide with 1.5-foot-wide
shoulders.
A 3,225-foot-long, 10-foot-wide public bicycle and pedestrian trail with centerline striping to divide traffic and 1.5-foot-wide decomposed granite shoulders. Four pedestrian/bike creek crossings and one vehicular/bike/pedestrian creek crossing would be provided. The trail would include seating, wayfinding and interpretive signage, and drinking fountains.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
On the basis of the following Initial Study/Addendum, the City has determined that the proposed park project is consistent with the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR. All project impacts have been determined to be less than significant, or can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level given required compliance with mitigation measures specified by the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR.
Therefore, none of the environmental factors below are affected. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
F. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purpose of this Initial Study/Addendum:
1. CAL FIRE. FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed June 2022.
2. CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed April 2023.
3. California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed June 2022.
4. California Water Library Groundwater Exchange. Santa Rosa Valley – Healdsburg Area Subbasin. Available at: https://groundwaterexchange.org/basin/santa-rosa-valleyhealdsburg-area/. Accessed May 2023.
5. City of Healdsburg. City of Healdsburg Membrane Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Available at: https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1039. Accessed June 2022.
6. City of Healdsburg. Draft Partial Revision to the 2007 Final Environmental Impact Report Saggio Hills Project. August 20, 2010.
7. City of Healdsburg. Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Background Report. July 6, 2009 (amended January 4, 2010).
8. City of Healdsburg. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Saggio Hills Project.
August 2007.
9. Extant Acoustical Consulting, LLC. Environmental Noise Assessment – Morris Dill Courts Pickleball Noise. August 7, 2019.
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06097C0363E.
Effective December 2, 2008.
11. Fehr & Peers. Memorandum – CEQA Transportation Assessment for the Montage Development Park in Northern Healdsburg, California. June 8, 2023.
12. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section III: Chapter 5. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-3-healthhazards/chapter-5#measurements. Accessed May 2022.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval)
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
H. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changes” or “new information” that may result in a changed environmental impact evaluation. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that potential impacts do not exist relative to the environmental category, but that a relevant change would not occur in the condition or status of the impact due to its insignificance or its treatment in a previous environmental document. The following impact evaluation categories will be used to evaluate the proposed park project as compared to the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR:
Where Impact Was Analyzed in the Previous CEQA Documents: This column provides a reference to the page(s) of the 2007 EIR and/or the 2010 DPR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.
Do Proposed Changes Involve New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by a previous EIR or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact. If a “yes” answer is given and more severe significant impacts are specified, additional mitigations will be specified in the discussion section including a statement of impact status after mitigation.
Any New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (environmental setting) that have occurred subsequent to the certification of an EIR, which would result in the current project having significant impacts that were not considered or mitigated by that EIR or which substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.
Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(AD) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified as complete is available, requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. If the new information shows that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; or (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; or (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects or the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, the question would be answered ‘Yes’ requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR. However, if the additional analysis completed as part of this Environmental Checklist Review finds that the conclusions of the prior environmental documents remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified significant environmental impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, the question would be answered ‘No’ and no additional EIR documentation (supplement to the EIR or subsequent EIR) would be required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Pgs. 3.1-33
to 3.1-40 of
2007 EIR and
pgs. 3.1-20 to
3.1-31 of
2010 DPR
No No No
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic
highway?
Pg. 3.1-40 of
2007 EIR No No No
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Pgs. 3.1-41
to 3.1-42 of
2007 EIR and
pg. 3.1-32 of
2010 DPR
No No No
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Pgs. 3.1-42
to 3.1-47 of
2007 EIR and
pgs. 3.1-33 to
3.1-34 of
2010 DPR
No No No
Discussion
a. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential impacts to scenic vistas and concluded that one proposed resort residence (lot A-6) within view from Barbieri Brothers Park and some private residences would project above the dense tree canopy of a protected hillside ridgeline, which the City’s General Plan specifically prohibits. The impact was identified as significant. Therefore, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measure 3.1-1, which would require the relocation or redesign of resort residence “A-6” to avoid projecting above the ridgeline. Given that the currently proposed park project would not include development of resort residence “A-6,” Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 included in the 2007 EIR is not applicable to the proposed park project.
The 2010 DPR also included an analysis of the Saggio Hills Project’s potential impacts to scenic vistas. While program-level impacts associated with the affordable housing component of the Saggio Hills Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable, according to the 2010 DPR, the project-level components would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. The 2010 DPR noted that construction of the community park was anticipated to be completed within two years. Construction activities were determined to introduce heavy equipment and associated vehicles, including dozers, graders, and trucks, into the viewshed from the Fox Pond area. However, because of the temporary nature of construction activities in the community park, construction impacts on scenic vistas were considered less than significant. Additionally, during project operations, the 2010 DPR determined that with
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
respect to the community park, the sports lighting poles that would be constructed would be visible from two views (i.e., Fox Pond Overlook, and West View and Northwest View); however, the limited number of poles were determined not to disrupt the scenic vistas available from the Fox Pond area of the Healdsburg Ridge Preserve.
The currently proposed park project would be built within the area of impact previously analyzed by the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR. In addition, while the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. Overall, the proposed park project would result in approximately 10 percent more open space, as compared to the previously anticipated park; thus, the currently proposed park project would soften the aesthetic effect as compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR.
Furthermore, while the proposed park project would result in modifications to the previously anticipated park uses, as shown in Table 1, the proposed park uses would not result in substantial modifications such that the proposed park project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to scenic vistas than were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR.
b. The 2007 EIR concluded that the Saggio Hills Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. As noted within the 2007 EIR, the closest state scenic highway to the project site is State Route (SR) 116, which is 12 miles to the southwest.
Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that implementation of the Saggio Hills Project would not damage any scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway and no impact would occur.
According to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Scenic Highway System Lists,4 additional State scenic highways have not been designated in the project area since the 2007 EIR was drafted. As such, the currently proposed park project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. Thus, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR, and the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c. The 2007 EIR assessed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. According to the 2007 EIR, the Saggio Hills Project would extend the City’s urban character farther north onto the site by replacing undeveloped land with park amenities. While development on the rolling hillsides would be screened by foliage, low-lying, undeveloped open pastureland would be replaced with a community park and fire substation. However, the community park would immediately border existing urban uses and would offer new recreational 4 California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
Accessed June 2022.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
amenities such as trails around wetlands and vineyards; furthermore, utility poles and lines located from a point approximately 600 feet north of Passalacqua Drive to a point approximately 2,400 feet due north would be relocated and undergrounded, thus improving the existing moderately high visual character west of the project site. Thus, the 2007 EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The 2010 DPR also included an analysis of the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. While program-level impacts associated with the affordable housing component of the Saggio Hills Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable, as noted within the 2010 DPR, the proposed resort hotel, residences/villas, community park and fire substation would not result in the substantial degradation of visual character, as viewed from the Fox Pond area of the Healdsburg Ridge Preserve, due to siting of proposed structures in relation to existing vegetation and ridgelines and as a result of the incorporation of design features included in the project. As such, the 2010 DPR concluded that project-level impacts would be less than significant.
The currently proposed park project would be built within the area of impact previously analyzed by the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR. In addition, while the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. Overall, the proposed park project would result in approximately 10 percent more open space, as compared to the previously anticipated park. Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR. d. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The EIR concluded that, while light and glare impacts of the project from the majority of viewpoints in the project area would be less-than-significant, light and glare impacts of the proposed park project from three viewpoints (Highway 101 to the increased traffic headlights; Healdsburg Avenue to the community park; and Parkland Farms residences to the community park) would be significant. As such, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measures 3.1-4a and 3.1-4b to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible; however, the 2007 EIR determined that light and glare impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
In addition, the 2010 DPR included an additional analysis of light and glare impacts that would result from buildout of the Saggio Hills Project. According to the 2010 DPR, the Saggio Hills Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the Fox Pond area of the Healdsburg Ridge Preserve and impacts would be less than significant. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measures
3.1-4a and 3.1-4b would still be required to reduce the impacts identified in the 2007 EIR.
The currently proposed park project would involve the introduction of new sources of light and glare, such as increased headlight lighting, lighting associated with landscape improvements, and field lighting at the various proposed sport fields.
However, since the 2007 EIR was developed, lighting technology has improved considerably including LED components, lower spillover, and programmable levels. As
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
such, the proposed lighting is anticipated to have a lesser impact than what was previously anticipated in the 2007 EIR. In addition, the proposed park project would be subject to the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6 California Code of Regulations [CCR]), which regulates outdoor lighting characteristics of new development such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and controls to turn lighting on and off.
In addition, Mitigation Measures 3.1-4a and 3.1-4b would still be applicable to the proposed park project. Mitigation Measure 3.1-4a would require the preparation of a lighting plan, which would ensure that lighting needed for all construction activities and nighttime sporting activities would be fully shielded from adjacent residential areas and passing motorists, that all field lights would have a manual timer that allows continuous use up to 10:00 PM, and that a dimmed feature is implemented in the field lighting design which would allow the lights to be turned on to full brightness during activities such as a soccer game, while after the game the lights would be switched to a dimmed setting to allow other activities not requiring full brightness (e.g., practices, clean-up). Mitigation Measure 3.1-4b would also require that a landscaping plan is prepared to provide a visual buffer between the lighted sports fields and surrounding views, and to improve the aesthetic character of the field portion of the community park in relation to the adjacent neighborhood. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3, the only area within the proposed park that would include lighted fields would be Area A (the active recreational area located north of Foss Creek) which is located in the northeastern portion of the project site, furthest away from the existing Parkland Farms neighborhood to the south.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impact than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR or the 2010 DPR. Therefore, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.1-4a: Establish and Require Conformance to Lighting Standards and Prepare and Implement a Lighting Plan.
• Mitigation Measure 3.1-4b: Implement Landscaping Plan to Provide a Visual Buffer and to Improve Aesthetics Around Lighted Sports Fields.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
II. AGRICULTURE AND
FORESTRY
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Pg. 3.8-20 No No No
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Pg. 3.8-17 No No No
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
N/A No No No
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
N/A No No No
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in loss of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Pg. 4-23 No No No
Discussion
a,e. The 2007 EIR determined that while 10.2 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and
4.1 acres of Unique Farmland are located within the Saggio Hills project site, the portion of the site designated as such is currently planted with vineyards, and would not be removed with implementation of the Saggio Hills Project. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that a less-than-significant impact would occur.
With respect to the currently proposed park project, according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder tool, the project site is solely comprised of Grazing Land. Therefore, the proposed park project would have no impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, to a non-agricultural use and further review is not required for this topic.
Based on the above, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR.
b. According to the 2007 EIR, none of the land within the project site is held under Williamson Act contracts. Additionally, the project site is currently zoned P. Therefore, buildout of the proposed park project would not conflict with agricultural zoning. As such, the currently
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
proposed park project would have no impacts related to conflicts with a Williamson Act contract or agricultural zoning.
Based on the above, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR.
c,d. Impacts to forest land, timberland, or land zoned Timberland Production were not addressed in the 2007 EIR or 2010 DPR. Nonetheless, the project site is vacant and generally consists of constructed wetlands, a stormwater detention area, and previously graded areas that have been revegetated. Foss Creek bisects the project site and runs along the northeastern boundary of the project site. The project site’s land use designation is PQP and the site is zoned P. As such, the project site is not considered forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]).
Therefore, the proposed park project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
Pgs. 3.2-17
to 3.2-20 No No No
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Pgs. 3.2-17
to 3.2-20 No No No
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
Pgs. 3.2-21
to 3.2-25 No No No
d. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Pgs.3.2-25
to 3.2-26 No No No
Discussion
a,b. The project site is within the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD). The NCAB is in attainment or unclassified (meaning there is insufficient data to determine attainment) for all California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). As a result, numerical thresholds of significance for air pollutants have not been established by the NSCAPCD for CEQA analysis purposes, as such thresholds of significance are typically developed based on attainment goals set forth within an air quality plan.
Nonetheless, the 2007 EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to result in impacts related to the generation of temporary, short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants, and the generation of long-term operational emissions of criteria pollutants. The analysis within the 2007 EIR included quantification of the project-generated construction and operational emissions that would result from buildout of the Saggio Hills Project. It should be noted that because the NSCAPCD did not have numerical thresholds of significance for air pollutants at the time the 2007 EIR was drafted, the 2007 EIR relied on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds, as recommended by the NSCAPCD. As shown in Table 3.2-4 of the 2007 EIR, construction of the Saggio Hills Project was determined to result in emissions below the NSCAPCD recommended thresholds for reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10). Similarly, as shown in Table 3.2-5 of the 2007 EIR, operational emissions for the Saggio Hills Project were determined to be below the NSCAPCD recommended thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10.
Based on the above, and because the Saggio Hills Project would be subject to NSCAPCD Regulation IV, which bans open fireplaces and allows only certified wood stoves or other clean alternatives; the 2007 EIR concluded that a less-than-significant impact would occur with respect to project-related operational emissions. However, the 2007 EIR noted that NSCAPCD also suggests that best management practices (BMPs) and other management methods be used to reduce construction-related project emissions.
According to the 2007 EIR, NSCAPCD-recommended control measures were not incorporated into the design of the Saggio Hills Project. Thus, the 2007 EIR concluded that because NSCAPCD-recommended BMPs were not included in the project design,
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
project-generated, construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and/or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b, were included in the 2007 EIR to reduce construction emissions generated by the Saggio Hills Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b, the 2007 EIR concluded that impacts related to construction emissions would be less than significant. Furthermore, it should be noted that portions of the project site including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have previously been mass graded. Given that the grading phase of construction is the most intensive construction phase with regard to the generation of emissions, the proposed park project would result in less emissions than what was considered in the 2007 EIR. However, grading of the proposed pump track would be required as part of project construction.
The analysis included in the 2007 EIR assumed buildout of a community park. The currently proposed park project would be built within the area of impact previously analyzed by the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR. In addition, while the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. Overall, the proposed park project would result in approximately 10 percent more open space, as compared to the previously anticipated park. Thus, the intensity and duration of project construction would remain similar, or result in a slight decrease in emissions, as compared to what was previously analyzed for the site. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to air quality emissions, including, but not limited to, Building Energy Efficiency Standards and State and federal vehicle standards, are much more stringent than the regulations at the time the 2007 EIR was drafted. Therefore, the operational emissions from buildout of the proposed park project (especially related to energy) would be less than what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a and Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b from the 2007 EIR related to criteria pollutant emissions would still apply to the proposed park project.
Based on the above, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to contributing to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone or PM or contributing substantially to the violation of an air quality standard, or contributing to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change, and the proposed park project remains consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c. The major pollutant concentrations of concern are toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions and localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.
TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines,
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure. Health-related risks associated with DPM in particular are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer.
The potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to result in the release of substantial construction-related TACs, as well as existing and project-generated operational TACs, was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As noted in the 2007 EIR, although NSCAPCD has not developed any procedures or guidelines for identifying impacts from temporary construction activities where emissions are transient, diesel exhaust from construction equipment poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors, and, therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded a potentially significant impact would occur related to TAC emissions generated by project construction. However, the 2007 EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b, impacts related to construction emissions would be less than significant.
In addition, the 2007 EIR noted that construction of the Saggio Hills Project would include the removal of a serpentine knoll, which is located within the park site. Serpentine rock contains thin veins of asbestos that can become airborne when disturbed by grading or mining. Exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease which causes scarring of the lungs). Because asbestos is a known carcinogen, naturally occurring asbestos is considered a TAC. As such, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2- 4b, which would require the implementation of recommendations contained in the Asbestos Report prepared for the Saggio Hills Project, and the preparation and implementation of an Asbestos Dust Control Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2-4b, the 2007 EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
Project-specific construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions.
However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed development. All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the State’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation includes emissions reducing requirements such as limitations on vehicle idling, disclosure, reporting, and labeling requirements for existing vehicles, as well as standards relating to fleet average emissions and the use of Best Available Control Technologies. Thus, offroad diesel vehicles used during construction of the proposed park project would be required to comply with statewide emissions reductions targets. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable NSCAPCD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. Because health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to would correlate to a higher health risk, considering the short-term nature of construction activities, as well as the regulated and intermittent nature of the operation of construction equipment, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time would be low. In addition, considering that the proposed park project would
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
result in a slight decrease in park acreage as compared to what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR, the construction emissions associated with implementation of the proposed park project would not result in substantially greater emissions of DPM compared to the levels that were previously anticipated in the 2007 EIR for the Saggio Hills Project.
Furthermore, portions of the project site including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have previously been mass graded, which is the most intensive phase of construction in terms of the generation of emissions. As part of previous mass grading activities, the serpentine knoll located within the project site was leveled and buried, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2-4b. Removal of the serpentine knoll included excavating and burying the serpentine soils on-site, just east of the knoll. The buried serpentine soils were capped with two feet of clean fill soils. Based on the planned uses within the area of the site where the serpentine soils are buried, and the past grading activities that have created a relatively level surface for such uses to be developed, substantial ground disturbance would not be required within the capped area. As such, disturbance of the serpentine soils within the capped area located at a level of more than two feet below the ground surface would not occur, with the exception of minor disturbance associated with the placement of light pole footings or other similar landscaping objects. However, the minimal disturbance could be managed through implementation of recommendations contained in the Asbestos Report prepared for the Saggio Hills Project, and the preparation and implementation of an Asbestos Dust Control Plan, which is required by Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2-4b of the 2007 EIR.
Therefore, project construction would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations beyond that anticipated in the 2007 EIR.
As discussed above, the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to project-generated operational emissions of TACs was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. The 2007 EIR concluded that operational activities would not represent a source of substantial TAC emissions. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Community park uses are not typically considered to represent substantial sources of TACs. As such, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to operational emissions beyond what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project remains consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Localized CO Emissions
Emissions of CO result from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood and are particularly related to traffic levels. Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections.
As older, more polluting vehicles are retired and replaced with newer, cleaner vehicles, the overall rate of emission of CO for vehicle fleets throughout the State has been and is expected to continue to decrease. As described below, the 2007 EIR determined that implementation of the Saggio Hills Project would increase traffic volumes on streets near the project from current levels, which would likely result in a slight increase in localized CO concentrations; however, project-generated traffic would result in CO levels below CAAQS. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that impacts related to CO emissions would be less than significant.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
According to the 2007 EIR, contribution of project-generated traffic to CO levels in the project area was predicted using a screening procedure recommended by the BAAQMD, based on the Caline4 Line-Source Dispersion Model. The intersection of Dry Creek Road and Highway 101 on- and off-ramps was considered the worst intersection (in terms of elevated CO levels from traffic) that would be affected by project-generated traffic. Future CO levels were predicted near the intersection using traffic projections provided by WTrans for the Saggio Hills Project. Emission factors used were calculated using the EMFAC 2007 model, developed by CARB, with default assumptions for Sonoma County.
Emission factors for slow speeds (5 miles per hour [mph] for surface streets and 25 mph for the freeway) were conservatively used.
The highest 8-hour concentration with the Saggio Hills Project in place was predicted to be 8.3 ppm over an 8-hour averaging period using the screening procedure and including Highway 101 traffic. The results of modeling indicated that levels would be less than the California 8-hour AAQS of 9 ppm.
As discussed above, the analysis included in the 2007 EIR assumed buildout of a community park. The currently proposed park project would be built within the area of impact previously analyzed by the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR, and would result in approximately 10 percent more open space, as compared to the previously anticipated park. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this Initial Study/Addendum, a Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project by Fehr & Peers5 included a comparison of the trip generation for the currently proposed park project as compared to what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Using the current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rate for public park uses (ITE Code 411), the currently proposed park project could be expected to generate approximately 627 fewer trips over the course of a typical weekday, approximately 29 fewer trips during the weekday AM peak hour, and approximately 54 fewer trips during the weekday PM peak hour, than estimated for the community park in the 2007 EIR using the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation data for community parks, which was the most relevant trip generation data available for community parks at the time the 2007 EIR was drafted, as the ITE had not yet developed trip generation data for parks. Because the proposed park project would result in fewer trips than what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR, the proposed project would also result in the generation of less CO. Accordingly, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to localized CO concentrations or other emissions from vehicles on roadways or intersections in the vicinity of the project site.
Conclusion
Based on the above information, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations than what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project remains consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR. As such, Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b, and Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2-4b would still be required for the proposed park project.
d. The 2007 EIR analyzed the potential for the Saggio Hills Project to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and concluded a less-than-significant 5 Fehr & Peers. Memorandum – CEQA Transportation Assessment for the Montage Development Park in Northern Healdsburg, California. June 8, 2023.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
impact would occur. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist.
However, as noted in the 2007 EIR, the proposed land uses are not expected to generate bothersome odorous emissions.
Construction of the currently proposed park project would not be expected to result in the generation of permanent long-term objectionable odors affecting any existing sensitive receptors or a substantial number of people, as odors associated with construction would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time.
While not specifically analyzed within the 2007 EIR’s analysis on odors, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b would ensure that construction of the proposed park project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, the project site would not include any exposed topsoil. Thus, project operations would not include any substantial sources of dust.
The proposed park project would be recreational in nature and does not include the introduction of any new land uses beyond what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Given that the 2007 EIR concluded that the proposed land uses of the Saggio Hills Project are not expected to generate bothersome odorous emissions, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations than what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project remains consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a: Implement Feasible Control Measures Recommended by BAAQMD to Limit PM10 Emissions during Construction.
• Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b: Implement Further Measures to Reduce Pollutant Emissions. • Mitigation Measure 3.2-4a: Implement Recommendations Contained in the Asbestos Report Related to Construction in Serpentinite Soils.
• Mitigation Measure 3.2-4b: Prepare and Implement an Asbestos Dust Control Plan.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
IV. BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Pgs. 3.3-24
to 3.3-29 No No No
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Pgs. 3.3-29
to 3.3-40 No No No
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
Pgs. 3.3-40
to 3.3-44 No No No
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with
established resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife
nursery sites?
Pgs. 3.3-29
to 3.3-36 No No No
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Pgs. 4.3-35
to 4.3-36 No No No
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Pgs. 3.3-23 No No No
Discussion
a. The 2007 EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to substantially impact a candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or wildlife species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to the 2007 EIR, 48 special-status plant species were identified as having the potential to occur within the project vicinity; however, none were observed during plant surveys conducted for the Saggio Hills Project.
One special-status plant, the Mt. Saint Helena morning-glory was found on 1.14 acres of serpentine grassland within the community park area of the site. The species is a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 4 species, which, according to the 2007 EIR, does not require formal analysis under CEQA. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that impacts to special-status plants would be less than significant.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
With respect to special-status wildlife species, the 2007 EIR noted that a total of 25 special-status wildlife species were identified as having the potential to occur on-site.
However, according to the 2007 EIR, the project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat or important foraging habitat for American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, merlin, osprey, prairie falcon, or purple martin. The project site supports only lowquality nesting habitat for purple martin, sharp-shinned hawk, tricolored blackbird, and western burrowing owl. Habitat on the project is also unsuitable or marginally suitable for ringtail, foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, and special-status fish. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed park project would have a less-than-significant impact on the aforementioned species. Nonetheless, the 2007 EIR determined that implementation of the Saggio Hills Project could permanently affect special-status birds such as Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle, white-tailed kite, yellow warbler, loggerhead shrike and yellow-breasted chat, by removing approximately 83 acres of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Furthermore, the 2007 EIR determined that the proposed park project could result in the removal of maternal nesting colony habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat and pallid bat. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 3.3-2 and 3.3-3 were included in the 2007 EIR to ensure impacts to special-status bird and bat species would be less than significant.
The proposed park project would be constructed within the area of impact previously analyzed by the 2007 EIR and would be subject to all applicable mitigation measures therein, which would include, but would not be limited to, Mitigation Measure 3.3-2.
Portions of the project site, including the serpentine knoll, the active use portion of the proposed park, and the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, have been mass graded and, therefore, the site has been heavily disturbed in certain areas. Through preconstruction and protocol-level surveys and any additional protective measures specified by Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, all potential significant impacts to special-status wildlife species would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. It should be noted that Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 would not be required for the proposed park project, as the mitigation directly relates to preconstruction surveys of existing buildings proposed to be demolished, and the project site does not currently contain any existing structures.
Based on the above information, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
b,c Following analysis of potentially substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS, the 2007 EIR concluded a less-than-significant impact would occur with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-5d and 3.3-5e. In addition, after assessing potential adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, the 2007 EIR concluded buildout of the Saggio Hills Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-6a and 3.3-6b, which require the project applicant obtain Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 Permits, a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, and implement all permit conditions.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Riparian habitats are distinct and sensitive communities located at the interface of aquatic and upland habitats. According to the 2007 EIR, the Saggio Hills Project has the potential to affect riparian habitat at the proposed clear-span culvert crossings of Foss Creek, three of which were identified within the proposed community park site. The proposed park project would add an additional crossing of Foss Creek, for a total of four creek crossings within the project site, including three bike/pedestrian crossings located generally in the northern and western portions of the site and one bike/pedestrian/vehicular crossing located south of the project site entrance along Passalacqua Road.
As shown in Exhibit 2-10 of the 2007 EIR, the bike/pedestrian/vehicular crossing and the bike/pedestrian crossing located generally in the northern portion of the site are proposed in the same location as was evaluated in the 2007 EIR. In addition, the bike/pedestrian crossing located generally in the eastern portion of the site was generally anticipated, albeit at a location slightly west of the currently proposed creek crossing. The new crossing would be located in the western portion of the site, south of Active Use Recreation Area A. Nonetheless, the new creek crossing would clear-span the creek, and all abutments would be located outside of the creek buffers. In addition, Mitigation Measures 3.3-5d and
3.3-5e from the 2007 EIR would require that bridge construction is performed during the dry season, and measures are taken to prevent water pollution from concrete, as well as the development of a Streambank Monitoring Program, which would ensure that the construction of the additional bridges within the project site compared to what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR.
As part of the Saggio Hills Project, the 2007 EIR also noted that restorative measures would be taken to improve the stability and integrity of eroded creek banks, such as grading and stabilizing failed banks, installing rock riprap (in the more severely eroded areas), and constructing rock check dams to stabilize specific areas, such as eroded gullies, which would be a beneficial impact of the project. As discussed previously, the ephemeral tributary to Foss Creek flowing through the site was previously re-routed and re-sized to accommodate additional runoff into the constructed detention ponds. The proposed park project would result in the restoration of the portion of Foss Creek located within the site as well as portions of the floodplain in the project area to improve the creek channel and riparian corridor, in addition to restoring natural processes driven by winter flood flows. Overall, restoration activities would involve restoring channel banks, reshaping the channel, and reconnecting the creek to the historical channel that was abandoned.
However, it should be noted that the restoration of Foss Creek was anticipated in the 2007 EIR and restoration activities have been completed within the Saggio Hills project site, up to the eastern boundary of the proposed park site. Specifically, 80 percent of all planned Foss Creek restoration activities have occurred to date, and only 900 linear feet of Foss Creek located within the proposed park site remains to be restored. All creek restoration activities to date have been completed in compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.3-6a and
3.3-6b, which ensure the proper permits requirements are implemented with oversight from the CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The restoration of the portion of Foss Creek within the project site would be the responsibility of the City and would similarly be done in compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.3-5d, 3.3-5e, 3.3-6a, and 3.3-6b under the oversight of the aforementioned regulatory agencies. As such, the only newly proposed restoration activity that was not anticipated within the 2007 EIR is the reconnection of Foss Creek to the creek’s historic channel.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Reconnection to the historic channel would require the removal of the earthen dam that currently separates the main stem and former channel. The earthen dam would then be replaced with a bypass weir to allow storm events exceeding bankfull to flow into the former channel. Earthwork related to restoration activities would be minimal, as the barrier between the new and old channel is a rock riprap earthen berm or dam. The rock would be reused to revet new channel opening weir and soil would be recontoured on site. In addition, restoration planting along the creek bank would include the use of native grasses (Festuca, Koeleria, Deschampsia), rushes and reeds (Carex, Juncus, Sisyrinchium, Iris), shrubs (Ceanothus, Rosa, Heteromeles, Mahonia, Archtostaphylos, Rubus, Ribes, Rhamnus, Mimulus, Epilobium, Cornus), and trees (Quercus, Arbutus, Cercis, Acer, Aesculus) to enhance the habitat value of the waterway. Therefore, while reconnection to the historic creek channel was not considered in the analysis included within the 2007 EIR, the additional restorative measures would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR.
The 2007 EIR noted that wetlands and “other waters” were present within the project site prior to portions of the site being mass graded. However, due to prior grading activities, portions of the wetlands were filled, and additional wetland mitigation areas were created on-site, and just southwest of the project site, consistent with Mitigation Measures 3.3-6a and 3.3-6b of the 2007 EIR. As shown on Figure 3, the project site currently includes 1.69 acres of preserved wetlands, as well as the 4.6-acre wetland mitigation area E1, which includes 1.7 acres of wetland basins. The approximately two-acre wetland mitigation area E2, which includes 0.92-acre of wetland basins is located just southwest of the site. All preserved and constructed wetlands would be retained as part of the proposed park project, and the constructed wetlands are monitored on an ongoing basin in accordance with the USACE permit conditions for the Saggio Hills Project wetland impacts.
Based on the above, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As such, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
d. According to the 2007 EIR, Foss Creek is the primary potential wildlife corridor on the project site. As discussed above, the Saggio Hills Project was anticipated to result in the construction of multiple bridge crossings over Foss Creek; however, the 2007 EIR concluded that with the exception of the proposed bridge crossings, Foss Creek would remain intact. Therefore, the 2007 EIR determined that the Saggio Hills Project would not interfere with the Foss Creek wildlife movement corridor. Furthermore, the 2007 EIR concluded that due to the project site being surrounded by developed area and obstacles to movement including existing residences, fencing, and roadways, implementation of the Saggio Hills Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to wildlife movement within the project area.
As discussed above, the currently proposed park project would include the construction of an additional creek crossing within the project site, as well as additional creek restoration measures, including reconnection of Foss Creek to the historical creek channel. However, the new creek crossing would clear-span the creek, and all abutments would be located outside of the creek buffers. In addition, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-5d and 3.3-5e from the 2007 EIR, which would require that bridge construction is performed during the dry season, and measures are taken to prevent water
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
pollution from concrete, as well as the development of a Streambank Monitoring Program, construction of the additional bridge within the project site would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Reconnection to the historical channel would also allow hydrologic connectivity during winter flows, which would provide seasonal habitat for native species in the area, and as part of bank stabilization measures portions of the bank would be replaced and improved to better accommodate riparian wildlife corridors.
Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As such, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
e. Following analysis of potentially substantial adverse effects on any sensitive natural communities, such as oak woodland communities, identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS, the 2007 EIR concluded a less-thansignificant impact would occur with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-5a through
3.3-5e, which would reduce significant impacts, including impacts related to the removal of sensitive vegetation communities, by mitigating the removal of oak woodland habitat.
The majority of the trees identified in the 2007 EIR are located outside of the currently proposed park project site, as the site does not contain oak woodland habitat.
Nonetheless, removal of one or more trees may ultimately be required during construction though this was generally anticipated in the 2007 EIR, as shown in Exhibit 3.3-4 of the EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.3-5a, which requires compliance with Healdsburg Zoning Ordinance Heritage Tree Protection Requirements. In addition, if a Heritage Tree is to be removed during construction, the proposed park project would be subject to all other applicable Mitigation Measures included in the 2007 EIR, including Mitigation Measure 3.3-5c, which requires the project applicant obtain a Heritage Tree Removal Permit. However, given that oak woodland is not located on-site, Mitigation Measure 3.3-5b would not be required as part of the proposed park project.
Based on the above information, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As a result, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
f. According to the 2007 EIR, the project site is not located in an area with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local or State HCP. Therefore, impacts related to conflicting with such plans were not discussed further within the 2007 EIR. An HCP/NCCP has not been adopted for the project area in the time since the 2007 EIR was certified. Therefore, the proposed park project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As a result, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Implement Minimization Measures to Avoid Potential Impacts on Nesting Special-Status Bird Species and Other Nesting Birds. • Mitigation Measure 3.3-5a: Mitigate for the Loss of Heritage Trees in Accordance with the Healdsburg Zoning Ordinance Heritage Tree Protection Requirements. • Mitigation Measure 3.3-5c: Obtain Heritage Tree Removal Permit. • Mitigation Measure 3.3-5d: Perform Bridge Construction during the Dry Season and Take Measures to Prevent Water Pollution from Concrete. • Mitigation Measure 3.3-5e: Develop Streambank Monitoring Program, Monitor Stream Erosion along the Primary Drainages, and Implement Additional Restoration Measures if Erosion Continues or Worsens.
Previously Completed Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR have previously been completed and, therefore, are not required to be implemented further as part of the proposed park project. It is noted, however, that the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement and associated permit conditions obtained from the CDFW through implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-6b is implemented on an ongoing basis during Foss Creek restoration. The City will comply with all permit conditions during restoration of Foss Creek through the proposed park site. • Mitigation Measure 3.3-6a: Secure Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 Permits and Implement All Permit Conditions, and Ensure No Net Loss of Wetlands, Other Waters of the United States, and Associated Functions and Values. • Mitigation Measure 3.3-6b: Secure Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement and Implement All Permit Conditions.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
V. CULTURAL
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Pgs.3.4-10
to 3.4-13 No No No
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a unique
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Pgs.3.4-10
to 3.4-13 No No No
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries.
Pgs. 3.4-13
to 3.4-14 No No No
Discussion
a. The 2007 EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and determined that previously identified structures on the project site either have been razed or are not eligible for listing in the CRHR.
Furthermore, the 2007 EIR determined that recorded sections of Alexander Valley Road and a railroad grade are located immediately west of the project site, and neither includes sufficient historic integrity to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Therefore, the 2007 EIR determined that impacts to known historical resources would be less than significant.
The currently proposed park project would generally be implemented within the previously analyzed footprint of the 2007 EIR. While the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. In addition, portions of the project site including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have been mass graded and the project site does not include any existing structures. As such, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As a result, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
b. The 2007 EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, all impacts would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. The 2007 EIR did not identify any surface-level archeological resources on or within the immediate vicinity of the Saggio Hills Project’s area of impact. However, the 2007 EIR concluded that construction activities could potentially disturb or destroy significant buried archaeological resources. Therefore, the 2007 EIR determined Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 would be required to mitigate all impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.
As discussed above, the currently proposed park project’s area of impact is entirely within the previously analyzed footprint of the 2007 EIR. While the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR,
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. In addition, portions of the project site including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have been mass graded and, therefore, substantial disturbance has occurred within the project site. While the proposed park project would include additional grading activities associated with the proposed pump track, the proposed park project would be subject to Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, which would ensure any potential impacts to unknown subsurface archaeological resources would be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As a result, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and concluded a less-thansignificant impact would occur, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3. Similar to the analysis of impacts to archaeological resources, the 2007 EIR determined that while the Saggio Hills project site did not include any indication of the presence of human remains, burials, or cemeteries, human remains could potentially be discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Saggio Hills Project.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 requires that all construction personnel be alerted to the possibility of buried human remains to be located on site, and in the event that human remains are discovered, further excavation or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) and that the specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by State statutes are followed.
As discussed above, the currently proposed park project’s area of impact is entirely within the previously analyzed footprint of the 2007 EIR. While the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. In addition, portions of the project site including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have been mass graded, and therefore, have been subject to substantial disturbance. While the proposed park project would include additional grading activities associated with the proposed pump track, the proposed park project would be subject to Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, which would ensure any potential impacts to human remains would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As a result, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Provide Preconstruction Worker Education and Stop Potentially Damaging Work If Cultural Resources are Uncovered.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
• Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Provide Preconstruction Worker Education and Stop Potentially Damaging Work If Human Remains are Uncovered.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
VI. ENERGY.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A No No Yes
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
N/A No No Yes
Discussion
a,b. Because Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines did not previously include a specific section on energy, the 2007 EIR did not include a specific analysis of the Saggio Hills Project’s potential energy-related impacts; however, as efficient use of energy was included in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the issue was still considered in the evaluation of the Saggio Hills Project. Specifically, increased energy demand associated with the proposed park project was evaluated within Chapter 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2007 EIR.
Through existing infrastructure, electrical services are provided by the City’s Electric Utility Department. During construction, the proposed park project would be subject to regulations required by the CARB. During operations, the proposed park project would be subject to the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the 2022 CALGreen standards, and the Healdsburg Reach Code, as applicable.
Construction Energy Use
Construction of the proposed park project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary on-site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. However, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b which requires implementation of measures to reduce pollutant emissions, including installing temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment. As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this Initial Study/Addendum, the proposed park project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.
All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. In addition, as a means of reducing emissions, construction vehicles are required to become cleaner through the use of renewable energy resources. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would therefore help to improve fuel efficiency for equipment used in
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
construction of the proposed park project. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to further reduce demand on oil and limit emissions associated with construction.
Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed park project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. In addition, the proposed park project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to energy use, including, but not limited to, State and federal vehicle standards, are much more stringent than the regulations in place at the time the 2007 EIR was prepared. Therefore, construction energy usage related to the proposed park project would be less than what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR.
Operational Energy Use
The proposed park project would consume a relatively small amount of electricity during operations associated with the concession building, restrooms, and storage areas; events associated with the performance area; and outdoor lighting. Maintenance activities such as landscape and field maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed park project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by park users.
The limited number of proposed structures on-site (i.e., restrooms, concessions, and storage buildings) would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structures would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as door and window interlocks and high efficiency outdoor lighting. In addition, since the 2007 EIR was developed, lighting technology including LED components and programmable lighting, has improved considerably. As such, the proposed lighting is anticipated to consume less energy than what was previously anticipated in the 2007 EIR. In addition, electricity supplied to the project by PG&E would comply with the State’s RPS, which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources.
With regard to transportation energy use, the proposed park project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this Initial Study/Addendum, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure would be provided within the project site and vicinity. The availability of such transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure in the site vicinity would help to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) associated with the project and reduce fuel consumption. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to energy usage, such as State and federal vehicle standards, are much more stringent than the regulations that were in place at the time the 2007 EIR was prepared. Therefore, operational energy usage from buildout of the proposed park project would be less than what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Conclusion
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would involve energy use associated with construction activities and operations; however, the proposed park project would comply with all applicable State energy standards, which would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed park project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Furthermore, as discussed above, regulations pertaining to energy usage are much more stringent than the regulations that were in place at the time the 2007 EIR was prepared. Therefore, energy usage from buildout of the proposed park project would be less than what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR, and impacts related to energy use would be less than significant.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Pgs. 3.5-15
to3.5-19 No No No
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Pgs. 3.5-19
to3.5-20 No No No
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Pgs. 3.5-20
to 3.5-21 No No No
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
Pgs. 3.5-21
to 3.5-22 No No No
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Pg. 3.5-15 No No No
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
N/A No No No
Discussion
ai.-aiv. The 2007 EIR collectively analyzed the potential of buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides under Impact
3.5-1. The 2007 EIR concluded that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and
3.5-1b, and applicable regulatory requirements, all impacts would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level.
According to the 2007 EIR, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone as currently designated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. However, the
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
2007 EIR concluded that three fault traces were mapped within the western portion of the Saggio Hills project site, two of which appear to be active. In addition, the 2007 EIR noted that an additional possible active fault trace was identified on the Quaker Hill property immediately west of the site, which appears to cross into the project site under the location of the proposed park. As such, the 2007 EIR determined that the potential for surface fault rupture is considered high along the active fault traces, moderate within a 50-foot zone on either side of the fault traces, and low elsewhere on the Saggio Hills project site. According to a Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the 2007 EIR, surface displacement could range from a few inches to two feet or more during a major earthquake. Therefore, the 2007 EIR noted that if buildings intended for human occupancy were placed on top of the active fault traces and surface fault rupture were to occur, substantial damage to human life and property could occur. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.5-1 of the 2007 EIR, several active faults are located within the project vicinity, such as the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault, Maacama-Garberville Fault, and the San Andreas Fault. As such, a number of major earthquakes have occurred within the region over the last 150 years that have subjected the region to strong seismic ground shaking.
If an earthquake were to occur on any of the regionally active faults, or the active fault traces identified within the project vicinity, without proper engineering and design of proposed structures at the project site, substantial damage to human life and property could occur.
Liquefaction, which occurs when saturated, loose materials (e.g., sand or silty sand) are weakened and transformed from a solid to a near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure, more often occurs in areas underlain by young alluvium where the groundwater table is higher than 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). According to the 2007 EIR, because the project site consists of relatively stable, cohesive soils underlain by bedrock, and because a high groundwater table is not present at the project site, the potential for liquefaction and associated lateral spreading is considered low.
The 2007 EIR concluded that because the Saggio Hills project site contains a few areas of mapped, active landslides, and the site could be subject to strong seismic ground shaking, a moderate potential exists for seismically induced landslides to occur in the existing active landslide areas. However, the community park project site is relatively flat.
In addition, portions of the project site, including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, were previously leveled during mass grading activities.
In response to potentially significant impacts related to surface fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismically induced landslides, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a, which requires that the recommendations from the report used in the 2007 EIR be updated, a Final Geotechnical Report be prepared, and that all applicable geotechnical recommendations from the reports be implemented. As such, the proposed park project would be required to prepare a Final Geotechnical Report and implement all applicable recommendations. In addition, the proposed park project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b, which requires all earthwork be monitored by a geotechnical engineer to provide oversight during all excavation, placement of fill, and disposal of materials removed from and deposited on the project site and other sites. Such measures would ensure the proposed park project is designed in accordance with the necessary specifications, and would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
b. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and concluded that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures
3.5-2a and 3.5-2b impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The 2007 EIR acknowledged that the soils located on-site have a moderate to high erosion potential, and construction of the Saggio Hills Project would result in construction-related ground disturbance that could loosen soil and remove vegetation, which could in turn, lead to exposed or stockpiled soil being made susceptible to peak stormwater runoff flows and wind forces. As such, Mitigation Measures 3.5-2a and 3.5-2b require the preparation and implementation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan, as well as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and any other necessary engineering plans and specifications for pollution prevention and control. The aforementioned plans would be consistent with the City’s stormwater management plan and would contain specific BMPs to reduce erosion.
The currently proposed park project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project. Therefore, the proposed park project would be subject to Mitigation Measures 3.5-2a and 3.5-2b and all applicable regulations, such as the California Building Code (CBC). Such measures would ensure the proposed park project is designed in accordance with the necessary specifications to reduce impacts associated with substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil. It should also be noted that while the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c. According to the 2007 EIR, portions of the Saggio Hills development would be located on areas of unstable soils. Specifically, a number of the proposed building sites are located in areas underlain by colluvium, which consists of rock and soil that have accumulated at the foot of a slope from gravitational forces. Colluvium is highly expansive and is prone to creep. Soil creep is the slow downhill movement, usually over relatively short distances, of near-surface masses of soil and loose rock material on hillslopes under the influence of gravity, soil dynamics (shrink-swell action), and soil-water movements. Therefore, according to the 2007 EIR, soil creep has the potential to impact the proposed park project.
As such, Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 was included in the 2007 EIR to reduce impacts related to unstable soils to a less-than-significant level.
As discussed above, the proposed park project would not result in impacts related to lateral spreading, landslides, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. In addition, portions of the project site, including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, were previously leveled during mass grading activities. Furthermore, the proposed park project would be subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures included in the 2007 EIR, such as Mitigation Measure 3.5- 3, which would require the implementation of recommendations contained in the final
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
geotechnical report required to be prepared by Mitigation Measure 3-5.1a. The 2007 EIR also noted that implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b would further help to reduce impacts related to unstable soils by requiring on-site monitoring by a geotechnical engineer during construction activities. Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR. d. Expansive soils are soils which undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted, potentially resulting in damage to building foundations. Placement of buildings on unstable soils can result in structural failure. According to the 2007 EIR, soil survey data for Sonoma County indicates that the Saggio Hills project site soils are moderately to highly expansive, and, therefore, without proper engineering of building and road foundations, structural damage could occur. As such, Mitigation Measure 3.5-4 was included in the 2007 EIR to reduce impacts related to expansive soils to a less-thansignificant level.
The currently proposed park project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project. The proposed park project would be subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures included in the 2007 EIR, such as Mitigation Measure
3.5-4 which would require the implementation of recommendations contained in the final geotechnical report required to be prepared by Mitigation Measure 3-5.1a. Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR.
Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
e. Because the Saggio Hills Project would obtain wastewater treatment and sewer services from the City of Healdsburg, and septic systems would not be developed as part of the project, impacts related to septic systems were not evaluated in the 2007 EIR.
The currently proposed park project would not include installation of septic tanks or construction of alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As such, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR. f. While the 2007 EIR did not explicitly assess the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, the 2007 EIR did include the impact under the thresholds of significance section included in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of the 2007 EIR. As noted therein, Mitigation Measure
3.4-2 was included to ensure that impacts to unknown cultural resources, including stone, artifacts, bone, or shell discovered during construction activities, are reduced to a lessthan-significant level. The currently proposed park project’s area of impact is within the previously analyzed footprint of the 2007 EIR. While the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. In addition, portions of the project site including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have been previously mass graded, and, therefore, the site has been subject to past disturbance. While the proposed park project would include additional
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
grading activities associated with the proposed pump track, the proposed park project would be subject to Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, as included in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study/Addendum, which would ensure that if unknown subsurface paleontological resources are discovered during construction activities, impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As such, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a: Update Recommendations from Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Prepare a Final Geotechnical Report and Implement All Applicable Geotechnical Recommendations from Both Reports.
• Mitigation Measure 3.5-1b: Provide On-Site Monitoring by a Geotechnical Engineer. • Mitigation Measure 3.5-2a: Prepare and Implement a Grading and Erosion Control Plan. • Mitigation Measure 3.5-2b: Prepare and Implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and any Other Necessary Engineering Plans and Specifications for Pollution Prevention and Control.
• Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Implement Recommendations Contained in the Geotechnical Report (Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a) Related to Construction on Unstable Soils. • Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: Implement Recommendations Contained in the Final Geotechnical Report (Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a) Related to Construction on Expansive Soils.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
Pgs. 4-12
to 4-15 No No No
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gasses?
Pgs. 4-12
to 4-15 No No No
Discussion
a,b. According to the 2007 EIR, implementation of the Saggio Hills Project would contribute to an increase in emissions of GHGs that are associated with global climate change.
Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage. While the 2007 EIR did not include an analysis of construction-related GHG emissions generated by the Saggio Hills Project, as shown in Table 3.2-5 of 2007 EIR, the project would result in GHG emissions during project operations below the applicable NSCAPCD recommended standards. However, due to the uncertainty of future legislative actions regarding GHG emissions in the State, the 2007 EIR concluded that a determination of whether the Saggio Hills Project would result in substantial GHG emissions could not be made.
The primary GHG emission sources that would be expected to result from the proposed park project would be mobile sources from vehicle emissions, followed by energy consumption, solid waste disposal, water conveyance and treatment, and area sources, such as landscape maintenance equipment exhaust. New land use or zoning designations are not proposed as part of the project, and the overall area of disturbance anticipated for buildout of the project site would not be modified.
The currently proposed park project would be built within the area of impact previously analyzed by the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR. In addition, while the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. Overall, the proposed park project would result in approximately 10 percent more open space, as compared to the previously anticipated park. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed park project are expected to be similar, or decrease, as compared to what could have resulted from the development that was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Furthermore, a number of regulations have been enacted since the 2007 EIR was approved for the purpose of, or with an underlying goal for, reducing GHG emissions, such as the CALGreen Code and the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code. As such, the operational GHG emissions from buildout of the proposed park project (especially related to energy) would be less than what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR.
Lastly, the project would be implemented in accordance with all applicable standards and regulations, such as the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures related to the reduction of GHG emissions, and Titles 20 and 24 of the CCR, which reduce demand for electrical energy by implementing energy-efficient standards. The proposed park project’s
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
energy efficiency would reduce fossil fuel consumption and decrease GHG emissions, consistent with applicable policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Based on the above, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
IX. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Pgs. 3.6-15
to 3.6-17 No No No
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Pgs. 3.6-17
to 3.6-18 No No No
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Pg. 3.6-15 No No No
d. Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Pg. 3.6-4 No No No
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Pgs. 3.6-20
to 3.6-21 No No No
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Pgs. 3.12-
32 to 3.12-
33 No No No
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Pg. 3.6-20 No No No
Discussion
a. The 2007 EIR analyzed the potential for the Saggio Hills Project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and concluded that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1, all impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. As detailed by the 2007 EIR, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared to document recognized environmental concerns (RECs) on the Saggio Hills project site related to current and historical uses of the area and to evaluate the potential for a release of hazardous materials from on- or off-site sources that could significantly affect environmental conditions at the site. The site reconnaissance and records search conducted for the Phase I ESA did not find documentation or physical evidence of RECs in soil or groundwater associated with the use of the project site.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
However, according to the 2007 EIR, development of the Saggio Hills Project would involve site grading, excavation for utilities, trenching, dewatering of open trenches, backfilling, and construction of proposed facilities, which could result in the exposure of construction workers and the general public to hazardous materials, including petroleum hydrocarbons; contaminated debris; elevated levels of chemicals that could be hazardous; or hazardous substances that could be inadvertently spilled or otherwise spread.
Excavation and construction activities at or near areas of currently unrecorded soil and/or groundwater contamination could also expose construction workers and the general public to hazardous materials. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that if contaminated sites in the area are not remediated before use of the site, then residents and others could be exposed to hazardous materials. As such, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 was included in the 2007 EIR to ensure that the appropriate measures are implemented to ensure construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any on-site hazardous materials. The currently proposed park project, which would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills project site, would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.6-1.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
b. The 2007 EIR analyzed the potential for the Saggio Hills Project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, and concluded that while the proposed park project would involve the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials at the project site during construction activities and operation, compliance with federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations, which would be monitored by the State and/or local jurisdictions, would reduce potential impacts associated with the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed park project would include construction of the same land use types within the footprint of the Saggio Hills project site that was already analyzed in the 2007 EIR.
While the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park.
Construction activities associated with the proposed park project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction.
However, as noted above, the project contractor would be required to comply with all CHSC and local City and County ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that the proposed park project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction activities, particularly associated with construction equipment.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
It should also be noted that, as discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this Initial Study/Addendum, a serpentine knoll was identified in the 2007 EIR as being located within the community park site. According to the 2007 EIR, laboratory analysis determined that the serpentinite contains the chrysotile form of asbestos in concentrations ranging from trace amounts (less than 0.25 percent) to 1.40 percent.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is regulated by the CARB, and concentrations of NOA above 0.25 percent are considered by CARB as hazardous levels for residential development. Therefore, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2-4b, which would require the implementation of recommendations contained in the Asbestos Report prepared for the Saggio Hills Project, and the preparation and implementation of an Asbestos Dust Control Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and
3.2-4b, the 2007 EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. However, as noted previously, the serpentine knoll located within the project site was leveled and buried as part of previous grading activities, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2-4b. While minor disturbance associated with the placement of light pole footings or other similar landscaping objects may occur within the area of the project site underlain with capped serpentine soils, the minimal disturbance could be managed through implementation of recommendations contained in the Asbestos Report prepared for the Saggio Hills Project, and the preparation and implementation of an Asbestos Dust Control Plan, which is required by Mitigation Measures 3.2-4a and 3.2-4b of the 2007 EIR.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c. The 2007 EIR noted that schools are not located within 0.25-mile of the Saggio Hills project site. Therefore, the 2007 EIR determined that safety hazards related to school uses are not anticipated, and further evaluation was not included in the 2007 EIR. The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills site. In addition, since the 2007 EIR has been drafted, additional schools have not been constructed within 0.25-mile of the project site. Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR. d. The Phase I ESA prepared for the 2007 EIR reviewed the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Cortese list, which includes a database of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. According to the 2007 EIR, the Saggio Hills project site was not included on the DTSC Cortese list. Other components of the Cortese List include the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the California State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database, the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the SWRCB. The project site is not located on the Cortese List.6 The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project.
Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts 6 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed April 2023.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR, and the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR. e. The 2007 EIR determined that the Saggio Hills project site is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the Healdsburg Municipal Airport. The Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (SCCALUP) describes safety compatibility standards for public use airports in Sonoma County, which include the Runway Protection Zone, the Inner Safety Zone, the Inner Turning Zone, the Outer Safety Zone, the Sideline Safety Zone, and the Traffic Pattern Zone. New land uses proposed in any of the aforementioned zones must comply with the standards identified by the SCCALUP. According to the 2007 EIR, the Saggio Hills project site is not located within any airport safety zones. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded a less-than-significant impact would occur.
The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project, and, thus, would not be located within any airport safety zones identified by the SCCALUP.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
f. The 2007 EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan within Chapter 3.12, Transportation and Circulation, of the EIR. As noted therein, public roadways and intersections serving the project site would operate acceptably, and, therefore, would not present obstacles to emergency access. In addition, the fire substation proposed as part of the Saggio Hills Project would improve response times to the area. Furthermore, the Parkland Farms Boulevard extension would provide a secondary access route for the existing Parkland Farms neighborhood from Healdsburg Avenue. However, several of the proposed residences in the Saggio Hills Project include long driveways that serve one or more homes, and fire apparatus would not be able to serve the private driveways without adequate turnaround facilities.
Therefore, the 2007 EIR provided Mitigation Measure 3.12-12, which would require a hammerhead turnaround be provided at the terminus of any driveway longer than 150 feet. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-12, the EIR concluded a less-thansignificant impact would occur. Given that the proposed park project does not include the construction of any residential driveways, Mitigation Measure 3.12-12 is not applicable to the proposed park project.
Implementation of the proposed park project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system. The proposed park project would include construction of a new internal roadway which would connect Passalacqua Road to Saddle Draw. Restricted access to the internal road is proposed from Saddle Draw, where removable bollards would be installed and could be remotely lowered in evacuation scenarios. Limited access to Saddle Draw may also be provided during special events at the park with implementation of a traffic management plan. Please refer to Section XVII(c) of this Initial Study/Addendum for further information. Additionally, the project would include lanes and drive aisles sized to accommodate emergency vehicle access to the site. Because the project would not involve physical changes that would significantly alter the existing roadway network in a manner that would interfere with circulation, the
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
proposed park project would not be anticipated to interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Furthermore, the currently proposed park project, which would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project, would be designed and implemented in accordance with all federal, State, or local plans adopted for emergency response and evacuation. Therefore, the proposed park project would not interfere with the emergency operations plan (EOP) or other federal, State, or local plans adopted for emergency response and evacuation.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are further discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this Initial Study/Addendum.
The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. As noted therein, the project site is in an area designated as a High Fire Hazard Zone by the City, and designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). However, since the 2007 EIR was drafted, CAL FIRE has released updated FHSZ maps. According to the most recent CAL FIRE data, the project site is located within a local responsibility area, and is not within a Very High FHSZ.7 Nonetheless, the 2007 EIR determined that implementation of the proposed park project would potentially expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss or injury involving wildland fires. However, according to the 2007 EIR, the project applicant would be required by law to incorporate California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements into all development phases. The California Fire Code, which has been adopted by the City as Chapter 15.08 of the Healdsburg Municipal Code, and is enforced by the City Fire Department, requires fire reduction measures for specific plan areas, including the project site. Fire reduction measures include fire sprinklers, fire resistant coatings, construction and maintenance of fuel breaks, management of fire-prone vegetation along streets, maintenance of clearances around structures, providing minimum street widths and turning radii, limiting the lengths of cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets, limiting excessive street grades, and requiring at least two access roads in and out of developed areas. As such, the 2007 EIR concluded that compliance with California Building Code regulations, California Fire Code requirements, and other state and local fire safety requirements would minimize wildland fire risks at the project site, and a lessthan-significant impact would occur.
The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project. As discussed above, according to the most recent CAL FIRE data, the project site is located within a local responsibility area, and is not within a Very High FHSZ. In addition, the proposed park project would still be required to adhere to all standards included in the California Building Code and the California Fire Code, as noted above. Therefore, visitors of the proposed park project would not be significantly exposed to risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 7 CAL FIRE. FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed June 2022.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.2-4a: Implement Recommendations Contained in the Asbestos Report Related to Construction in Serpentinite Soils.
• Mitigation Measure 3.2-4b: Prepare and Implement an Asbestos Dust Control Plan. • Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Implement Appropriate Measures to Prevent the Exposure of Construction Workers and the General Public to Potential On-Site Hazardous Materials.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
X. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Pgs. 3.7-12
to 3.7-19 No No No
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Pgs. 3.7-20
to 3.7-21 No No No
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
Pgs. 3.7-19
to 3.7-20 No No No
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
Pg. 3.7-12 No No No
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a. The 2007 EIR analyzed whether the Saggio Hills Project would result in a temporary, short-term degradation of water quality from project-related construction activities, or a long-term degradation of surface water quality from urban runoff, and concluded that both construction and operation of the Saggio Hills Project would result in potentially significant impacts. Specifically, the 2007 EIR concluded that project construction has the potential to result in soil erosion and sedimentation of areas within and downstream of the project site, and proposed construction activities also could potentially release other pollutants to surface waters and/or the future storm drainage system. In addition, the Saggio Hills Project would entail construction of roadway crossings and potentially utility crossings of the on-site waterways, which could temporarily disturb the affected creek channels and drainages. With respect to operational impacts, project development would result in changes to the land use, natural vegetation, and infiltration characteristics of the project site and would introduce new sources of water pollutants associated with urban runoff.
Pollutants contained within urban runoff have the potential to degrade receiving waters.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Thus, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, which require the project applicant to prepare and implement a SWPPP and any other necessary engineering plans and specifications for pollution prevention and control, as determined by the City, the SWRCB, and the RWQCB, as well as to prepare and implement a drainage plan, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
As discussed previously, as compared to what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR, the currently proposed park project would include the construction of an additional bridge within the project site, as well as additional creek restoration measures, including reconnection of Foss Creek to the historical creek channel. The proposed park uses would also differ slightly as compared to what was included in the 2007 EIR (see Table 1). Nonetheless, the currently proposed park project, which would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project, would be subject to the federal, State, and local regulations regarding water quality specified in the 2007 EIR, as well as all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding water quality that have been adopted since. For example, the proposed park project’s construction activities would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit that regulates stormwater leaving construction sites. As part of compliance, a SWPPP that includes BMPs would be prepared, implemented, and monitored. BMPs implemented as part of the SWPPP would be designed to prevent or reduce potential erosion and include erosion control measures.
In general, approximately 63.9 percent of the project site would remain as natural open space, and additional portions of the site would be developed with pervious surfaces (i.e., grass sports fields, landscaping, etc.). It should also be noted that while the proposed park project would include two synthetic turf fields, as compared to the one synthetic turf field analyzed in the 2007 EIR, synthetic turf has a permeable backing that allows liquids to permeate the material and drain to the base underneath, thus, providing drainage equivalent to natural grass. Nonetheless, the proposed park project would result in the development of new impervious surfaces on-site. As such, the proposed park project would include on-site stormwater facilities to provide storm water quality treatment and volume capture in accordance with the current Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual per the City's MS4 permit requirements, and peak management at pre-project levels for on-site runoff. As discussed above, the proposed park project would include the reconnection of Foss Creek to the historical creek channel located within the project site.
During one-to-two-year storm events, flows to the main stem or current channel would be unchanged. However, a rain or flow event exceeding the one-to-two-year stream flow would flow into the bypass weir constructed as part of stream restoration, and the formal channel would act as an overflow/detention basin for relief during larger storm events. An existing stormwater detention facility is also currently located to the southwest of the project site, which would capture on-site runoff generated from new impervious surfaces on-site. Consistent with State requirements, the on-site stormwater system would be sufficient to adequately handle the project’s stormwater runoff, which would ensure that the proposed park project would not have the potential to violate any storm water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality in excess of what was previously anticipated for the site by the 2007 EIR. Furthermore, compliance with Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, would still be required as part of the proposed park project.
Based on the above information, through required compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
b. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and concluded buildout of the Saggio Hills Project would result in a less-than-significant impact. In determining the conclusion, the 2007 EIR noted that groundwater use would not be included as part of the proposed park project, and the project site is not a groundwater recharge area for the City’s domestic water supply.
The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project. While the proposed park project would include the development of new impervious surfaces within the project site, as discussed above, the project site is not a groundwater recharge area for the City’s domestic water supply. Water service would be provided to the proposed park project by the City, which does not use groundwater as part of the water supply. In addition, approximately 63.9 percent of the project site would remain as natural open space, and additional portions of the site would be developed with pervious surfaces (i.e., grass sports fields, landscaping, etc.), which would ensure that any groundwater recharge that currently occurs at the project site continues during post-development conditions.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c.i-iii. According to the 2007 EIR, the Saggio Hills Project would increase the amount of surface stormwater runoff affecting downstream areas because additional nonpermeable surfaces (e.g., roads, buildings) would be developed on-site. Most of the drainage from the project site flows into upper tributaries of Foss Creek, from which high flows are diverted into the North Area Detention Basin, which the City had already completed prior to the 2007 EIR being drafted. The basin was planned and sized to accommodate and offset increased surface stormwater runoff resulting from cumulative development within the drainage of upper Foss Creek, which includes most of the Saggio Hills project site.
Preliminary drainage report calculations provided in Appendix D of the 2007 EIR show that prior to development of the Saggio Hills Project, 16.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff leaves the project site at the 30-year design storm. Development of the Saggio Hills Project without the proposed BMPs was determined to result in 24.5 cfs of runoff. With the BMPs described in the Preliminary Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, Saggio Hills Project and Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control Measures, Saggio Hills Project (Appendix D of the 2007 EIR), post development and predevelopment runoff amounts were calculated to remain the same based on one hundred percent treatment of post development runoff. Nonetheless, the 2007 EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 would be required to ensure a less-thansignificant impact.
As discussed above, approximately 63.9 percent of the project site would remain as natural open space, and additional portions of the site would be developed with pervious surfaces (i.e., grass sports fields, landscaping, etc.). Nonetheless, the proposed park project would result in the development of new impervious surfaces on-site. As such, the proposed park project would include on-site stormwater facilities to provide storm water
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
quality treatment and volume capture in accordance with the current Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual per the City's MS4 permit requirements, and peak management at pre-project levels for on-site runoff. As discussed above, the proposed park project would include the reconnection of Foss Creek to the historical creek channel located within the project site. During one-to-two-year storm events, flows to the main stem or current channel would be unchanged. However, a rain or flow event exceeding the oneto-two-year stream flow would flow into the bypass weir constructed as part of stream restoration, and the formal channel would act as an overflow/detention basin for relief during larger storm events. An existing stormwater detention facility is also currently located to the southwest of the project site, which would capture on-site runoff generated from new impervious surfaces on-site.
While the proposed park project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces and urban runoff as compared to the current project site conditions, the currently proposed park project would generally be implemented within the footprint of the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project. While the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. Overall, the proposed park project would result in approximately 10 percent more open space, as compared to the previously anticipated park. As such, the proposed park project would result in similar, or less, impervious surface area than what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. In addition, the proposed park project would implement all requirements of the NPDES permitting process, as well as all other applicable State and local requirements.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c.iv,d. According to the 2007 EIR, because the Saggio Hills project site is identified by FEMA as being located in Zone X (outside of the 500-year floodplain), further discussion was not provided in the EIR regarding risk of flooding, including flooding risk from rising sea levels associated with climate change, or of risk of inundation by mudflow, seiche, or tsunami.
The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project. Based on current FEMA mapping, the project site is still located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.8 Therefore, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As such, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR. e. The 2007 EIR did not expressly address the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. However, as discussed above, the 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level and concluded buildout of the 2007 would result in a less-than-significant impact. In addition, the Santa Rosa Valley – Healdsburg Area Subbasin, which underlies the project site and surrounding area, has not been 8 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06097C0363E. Effective December 2, 2008.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
identified as a high priority basin.9 The City of Healdsburg uses surface water for water supplies. As such, groundwater would not be used as a source of water supply for the proposed park project.
Therefore, the proposed park project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and the impact would be less than significant.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prepare and Implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and any Other Necessary Engineering Plans and Specifications for Pollution Prevention and Control.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prepare and Implement a Drainage Plan.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
9 California Water Library Groundwater Exchange. Santa Rosa Valley – Healdsburg Area Subbasin. Available at:
https://groundwaterexchange.org/basin/santa-rosa-valley-healdsburg-area/. Accessed May 2023.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
XI. LAND USE AND
PLANNING.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Physically divide an established
community? Pg. 3.8-17 No No No
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Pgs. 3.8-19
to 3.8-20 No No No
Discussion
a. According to the 2007 EIR, the Passalacqua Ranch was previously located at the southwestern portion of the project site. The ranch consisted of a rural residence, a barn, and associated outbuildings. However, the residence and associated structures were removed in October 2006. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that the project would not physically divide an established community, and further discussion was not included in the EIR. The currently proposed park project would be built within the footprint of the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project.
Based on the above, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2007 EIR and would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR. b. The 2007 EIR assessed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect specifically related to the project’s consistency with Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Guidelines for Annexation, and the project’s compatibility with the SCCALUP.
According to the 2007 EIR, the project site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary/sphere of influence of the City of Healdsburg, and the northern boundary of the site is contiguous to the existing city limit boundary. Approval of a General Plan Amendment and prezoning by the City would ensure development of the proposed land uses on the project site would be consistent with the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the areas adjacent to the project site within the Healdsburg city limits have been previously designated for urban development under various adopted plans and zoning ordinances. Therefore, development of the Saggio Hills Project would be a logical extension of existing and planned urban areas of the City. In addition, according to the SCCALUP map for the Healdsburg Municipal Airport, the Saggio Hills Project would not be located within any airport safety zones, and the project would not locate any structures within the airport’s 65 dB CNEL noise contour or between the 55 dB CNEL and 65 dB CNEL noise contour. Therefore, the Saggio Hills Project would not conflict with the SCCALUP. As such, the 2007 EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
The Saggio Hills Project has been approved, and the site annexed into the City. In addition, the Saggio Hills Project approval included a General Plan Amendment and zoning amendment. The currently proposed park project would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site. Furthermore, as the currently proposed park project would be built within the footprint of the previously
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
analyzed Saggio Hills Project community park site, and the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park, the proposed park project would not conflict with the SCCALUP. Therefore, the proposed park project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Based on the above, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
XII. MINERAL
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
N/A No No No
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a,b. The 2007 EIR did not include a specific analysis of the Saggio Hills Project’s potential impacts to mineral resources. According to the Healdsburg General Plan Background Report, one state-designated Mineral Resource Zone-2 (MRZ-2) is located in the southeastern area of the City.10 Therefore, the project site does not include land designated as an MRZ, and records or other evidence of historical mining of minerals or gravel do not exist within the project footprint.
Based on the above, the project site would not include mineral resources of value to the region or of local importance. Therefore, while the 2007 EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to mineral resources, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than the Saggio Hills Project.
Therefore, the proposed park project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
10 City of Healdsburg. Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Background Report [pg. 132]. July 6, 2009 (amended January 4, 2010).
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
XIII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Pgs. 3.9-15
to 3.9-22 No No No
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Pgs. 3.9-24
to 3.9-25 No No No
c. For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Pgs. 3.9-23 No No No
Discussion
a. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established by the City of Healdsburg, and concluded that while longterm increases in traffic, area, and stationary source noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would be required to ensure impacts related to temporary short-term exposure to construction generated noise would be less-than-significant. The following provides a discussion of noise associated with construction and operation of the proposed park project.
Construction Noise
The 2007 EIR’s analysis of potential noise impacts associated with buildout of the Saggio Hills Project accounted for noise generated during construction activities. Implementation of the proposed park project would generate noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. Table 3.9-6 in the 2007 EIR provides the typical construction equipment that would be required to implement the Saggio Hills Project, and the estimated sound generated by such equipment from a distance of 50 feet with and without the use of feasible noise control, which includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers, and engine shrouds in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
According to the 2007 EIR, individual equipment noise levels for the equipment shown in Table 3.9-6 would range from 78 to 91 decibels (dBA) at 50 feet without feasible noise control, and the simultaneous operation of heavy-duty construction equipment could result in combined intermittent noise levels of approximately 94 dBA at 50 feet. Based on the noise levels presented in the 2007 EIR and a typical noise-attenuation rate of 6 decibels (dB) per doubling distance, the 2007 EIR concluded that exterior noise levels at noisesensitive receptors located in the Parkland Farms residential neighborhood could exceed 60 dBA without noise control.
As noted in the 2007 EIR, noise sources associated with construction are exempt within the City of Healdsburg, provided that such activities do not take place before 7:30 AM or
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
after 6:00 PM on any day except Sundays and legal holidays. However, if construction activities were to occur during the more noise-sensitive hours (e.g., evening, nighttime, and early morning), or if construction equipment were not properly equipped with noise control devices, project-generated noise levels from construction sources could exceed the applicable standards at nearby existing and proposed noise-sensitive receptors.
Furthermore, while construction traffic was not anticipated to result in a significant noise impact during daytime hours, the 2007 EIR concluded that the addition of off-site construction traffic during the more noise-sensitive night and evening hours could cause a noticeable increase in noise levels along the locally affected area roadway segments.
Thus, if off-site construction traffic were to occur during the more noise-sensitive hours, project-generated noise could create a substantial temporary, short-term increase in ambient noise levels in the project area and surrounding vicinity. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 was included within the 2007 EIR to ensure that measures to reduce impacts associated with noise generated during construction are implemented.
The proposed park project would not cause any additional construction noise that would exceed what was already evaluated in the 2007 EIR. In addition, portions of the project site including the active use portion of the proposed park, the proposed alignment of the multi-use trail, and the serpentine knoll, have been mass graded. Therefore, additional noise control mitigation measures would not be required for construction noise, beyond those already outlined in the 2007 EIR, and proposed park project would not result in any changes, new circumstances, or new information that would involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts from what has been anticipated for the Saggio Hills Project. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would still be applicable to the proposed park project.
Project Operational Noise
According to the 2007 EIR, noise associated with operations of the Saggio Hills Project would include traffic noise on local roadways as well as noise associated with landscape maintenance activities (e.g., lawn and garden equipment), voices, amplified music, heating and cooling systems, garbage collection, and others. The 2007 EIR concluded that based on modeling conducted for the project, implementation of the Saggio Hills Project under existing conditions would result in traffic noise increases ranging from 0.1 to 1.6 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) (see Table 3.9-7 of the 2007 EIR).
As shown in Table 3.9-8 of the 2007 EIR, implementation of the Saggio Hills Project under cumulative (2025 General Plan plus project) conditions would result in traffic noise increases ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 dBA CNEL relative to no-project noise levels. Thus, the 2007 EIR determined that long-term noise from project-generated traffic sources would not create a substantial (3 dBA or greater) permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and impacts related to increased traffic noise would be less than significant.
With regard to long-term increases in area and stationary source noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors, the 2007 EIR noted that children playing at neighborhood parks or playgrounds are often considered potentially significant noise sources that could adversely affect adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. Based on noise level measurements conducted as part of the 2007 EIR, baseball and soccer activities would produce noise levels of 54.5 dBA L10 (i.e., the sound level exceeded for 10 percent of the time of the measurement period) at a distance of 150 feet. According to the 2007 EIR, the nearest planned or existing receptor to the community park was determined to be 300 feet from the proposed sports field and 600 feet from the proposed baseball field. Therefore, accounting for ground surface absorption and distance, the noise level with both fields
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
being used simultaneously was calculated to be 49.7 dBA L10 at the nearest sensitive receptor. In addition, the 2007 EIR noted that the special events pavilion would be located north of the day-use recreation area, approximately 700 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor in the Parkland Farms neighborhood, and noise from the pavilion would be exempt under Healdsburg Ordinance 1011.6.A. As such, the 2007 EIR determined that the proposed playing fields and special events pavilion would comply with the applicable 55 dBA L10 standard set by the City of Healdsburg noise ordinance, and the 2007 EIR concluded that operational noise impacts associated with the community park would be less than significant.
The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project. In addition, while the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. Further, while the proposed park uses would differ slightly as compared to what was included in the 2007 EIR (see Table 1), such differences are not anticipated to result in substantial noise level increases, as the proposed active use recreation areas would be located in generally the same areas of the park as what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Furthermore, while the currently proposed pavilion would differ slightly as compared to the special events pavilion analyzed within the 2007 EIR, noise from the currently proposed pavilion would still be exempt under Healdsburg Ordinance 1011.6.A.
With regard to the proposed pickle ball courts, which were not anticipated in the 2007 EIR, according to a previously conducted Environment Noise Assessment, pickleball courts are anticipated to result in noise levels ranging from 58.2 to 60.2 dBA Leq (i.e., the equivalent continuous sound pressure level) during pickleball play. 11 The proposed pickleball court
would be located within Active Recreation Area B, approximately 275 feet from the nearest existing receptor located south of the site, within the Parkland Farms neighborhood. The noise levels from a source decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dB per every doubling of distance from the noise source.12 Accordingly, at a distance of 275 feet, the proposed pickleball court would result in noise levels ranging from 9.4 to 11.41 dBA Leq. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Leq can be converted to L10 by adding 3 dBA.
Therefore, the proposed pickleball court is anticipated to result in noise levels ranging from
12.4 to 14.41 dBA L10 at the nearest sensitive receptor, which is well within the applicable 55 dBA L10 standard set by the City of Healdsburg noise ordinance.
As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this Initial Study/Addendum, a Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project by Fehr & Peers13 included a comparison of the trip generation for the currently proposed park project as compared to what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. As discussed therein, at the time the 2007 EIR was drafted, the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition) did not include available data for public park land uses, and therefore, trip generation data produced by the SANDAG was used instead. Given that the current version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) contains data for the public park land use, the Transportation 11 Extant Acoustical Consulting, LLC. Environmental Noise Assessment – Morris Dill Courts Pickleball Noise. August 7, 2019. 12 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section III: Chapter 5.
Available at: https://www.osha.gov/otm/section-3-health-hazards/chapter-5#measurements. Accessed May 2022. 13 Fehr & Peers. Memorandum – CEQA Transportation Assessment for the Montage Development Park in Northern Healdsburg, California. June 8, 2023.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project used the current ITE data for the trip generation comparison because the ITE data represents the most current set of nationally published trip generation data reflecting the uses of the project. Using the current ITE rate for public park uses (ITE Code 411), the proposed park project could be expected to generate approximately 627 fewer trips over the course of a typical weekday, approximately 29 fewer trips during the weekday AM peak hour, and approximately 54 fewer trips during the weekday PM peak hour, than estimated for the community park in the 2007 EIR using the SANDAG trip generation data for community parks. Therefore, the proposed park project would result in a reduction in vehicular traffic noise as compared to what was assumed in the 2007 EIR. It should also be noted that even if the SANDAG community park trip generation rates were used to assess the currently proposed park project, the trip generation under the currently proposed park project would not be substantively different compared to the project trip generation included in the 2007 EIR, as the dependent variable in the trip generation calculation is number of acres, which is relatively similar under both current project and 2007 EIR conditions.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
b. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s potential to result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and concluded buildout of the project would result in a potentially significant impact. Specifically, the 2007 EIR determined that predicted worst-case vibration levels would not exceed 0.2 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) (Caltrans’s recommended standard with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings), but would exceed 80 vibration velocity (VdB) (Federal Transit Administration’s [FTA’s] maximum-acceptable vibration standard with respect to human annoyance for residential uses) within 60 feet of vibration-sensitive receptors. Given that existing vibration-sensitive receptors could be located within 60 feet of vibration generating activities, the 2007 EIR concluded that temporary, short-term vibration impacts from project construction sources could occur at vibration-sensitive land uses. Therefore, as determined by the 2007 EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.9-1 would be required to reduce vibration impacts to less than significant.
The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project. While the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. As such, the proposed park project would not cause any additional vibration impacts beyond what was already evaluated in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, additional vibration control mitigation measures would not be required beyond those already outlined in the 2007 EIR, and the proposed park project would not result in any changes, new circumstances, or new information that would involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts from what has been anticipated for the Saggio Hills Project. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would still be applicable to the proposed park project.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
previously analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the proposed park project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c. As previously established, the 2007 EIR determined that the Saggio Hills project site is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the Healdsburg Municipal Airport. According to the 2007 EIR, the airport averages 86 flights per day and houses 61 single-engine aircrafts and two multi-engine aircrafts. According to the SCCALUP, the Saggio Hills project site would not be within the airport’s 55-dB noise contour. Therefore, the 2007 EIR determined impacts would be less than significant.
The currently proposed park project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project, and new airport land uses have not been built in the project vicinity since the adoption of the 2007 EIR. Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR, and the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Temporary, Short-Term Project-Generated Noise Levels from Construction.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
XIV. POPULATION AND
HOUSING.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
Pgs. 3.10-8
to 3.10-9 No No No
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Pg. 3.10-7 No No No
Discussion
a. Following an analysis on the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, the 2007 EIR concluded the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
The proposed park project would include the construction of an approximately 37.26-acre community park, and would not include any residential, commercial, or industrial development. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. In addition, the project would not include extension of any major infrastructure.
Based on the above, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
b. According to the 2007 EIR, the Passalacqua Ranch, which consisted of a rural residence, a barn, and associated outbuildings was previously located at the southwestern portion of the project site. However, the ranch was demolished in October 2006. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and further discussion was not included in the EIR. The currently proposed park project would be built within the footprint of the previously analyzed Saggio Hills Project. The project site is currently vacant, and, as a result, the proposed park project would not include the demolition of existing buildings. Therefore, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Fire protection? Pgs. No No No
b. Police protection? 3.11-12 No No No
c. Schools? to No No No
d. Parks? 3.11-16 No No No
e. Other Public Facilities? No No No
Discussion
a-e. The 2007 EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the Saggio Hills Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities and concluded that a less-than-significant impact would occur for all except parks, which would result in a beneficial impact. However, the 2007 EIR concluded that implementation of the Saggio Hills Project would require a specially designed on-site fire suppression system due to the elevation of portions of the project site hindering the ability to provide adequate water pressure for fire flow. Therefore, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measure 3.11-3, which requires the project incorporate fire suppression system requirements into project design, subject to review and approval by the City of Healdsburg Fire Department. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11- 3, the 2007 EIR concluded that the impact would be less than significant.
According to the 2007 EIR, the City of Healdsburg Fire Department’s response time goal to all incidents is five minutes. The nearest fire station to the project site is located at 601 Healdsburg Avenue, approximately 2.4 miles south of the currently proposed park project site. Near-term and long-term projects would also be required to install appropriate fire suppression systems in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and the California Fire Code requirements, and would be required to pay development fees. In addition, the Saggio Hills Project includes the construction of a fire substation which would house fire suppression and emergency response equipment. Based on the above, the 2007 EIR concluded buildout of the Saggio Hills Project would not require the construction or expansion of any additional fire department facilities beyond what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR.
With respect to police protection, the 2007 EIR noted that the project site is served by the City of Healdsburg Police Department, located at 238 Center Street, approximately 2.3 miles south of the project site. The department maintains an emergency response time of two to three minutes throughout the Urban Service Area for emergency calls, with the use of mobile units. The 2007 EIR acknowledged that development of the Saggio Hills Project could increase demand for police services. However, the project would include on-site roadway improvements that would provide adequate access to all areas of the project site and pay development fees in accordance with the project’s Public Facilities Financing
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Plan. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that adequate police protection services would be provided to serve the demands of the Saggio Hills Project.
With respect to schools, the 2007 EIR noted that the Healdsburg Unified School District (HUSD) would provide school facilities for the future students of the Saggio Hills Project.
According to the 2007 EIR, the HUSD has experienced a trend of declining enrollment due to the high cost of housing in the area, which prices many younger families with children out of the local housing market. Based on the HUSD facilities study, the HUSD would be capable of serving new students generated by future development. Therefore, the 2007 EIR concluded that the Saggio Hills Project would not result in the need to construct new school facilities. Furthermore, the City collects development impact fees to help pay for public services that include public schools. Proposition 1A/Senate Bill (SB) 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “legislative or adjudicative act involving the planning, use, or development of real property.” (Government Code 65996(b).) Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” Therefore, according to SB 50, the payment of the necessary school impact fees for the project would be full and satisfactory CEQA mitigation.
With respect to parks, the 2007 EIR determined that because implementation of the Saggio Hills Project would include the development of a community park, providing additional recreational opportunities to serve the City, the project would result in a beneficial impact.
The currently proposed park project would be built within the area of impact previously analyzed by the 2007 EIR and the 2010 DPR. In addition, while the currently proposed park would be slightly larger as compared to the park analyzed within the 2007 EIR and 2010 DPR, the additional land included in the park parcel would remain as open space following development of the proposed park. Generally, the proposed park project would not result in increased demand for fire or police protection services relative to what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR. In addition, the project would not include construction of any housing or development of new businesses. Thus, the project would not result in population growth such that demand for schools, parks, or other public facilities would increase. Furthermore, the fire station site included within the 2007 EIR is located adjacent to the project site. Therefore, fire protection services to the proposed park project could be provided immediately once the proposed fire station is constructed.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR related to the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, police protection facilities, schools, parks, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the 2007 EIR would apply to the proposed park project:
• Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: Incorporate Fire Suppression System Requirements into Project Design and Submit Project Design to the City of Healdsburg Fire Department for Review and Approval.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
XVI. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Pgs. 3.11-15
to 3.11-16 No No No
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Pgs. 3.11-15
to 3.11-16 No No No
Discussion
a,b. The 2007 EIR analyzed the Saggio Hills Project’s impacts related to increased demand on parks and recreation facilities and concluded that development of the trails system and community park included as part of the project would contribute to reducing the current parkland deficit in the City and meeting the City’s community park and recreational needs, and the impact would be beneficial.
The currently proposed park project would include the development of a 37.26-acre community park within the previously analyzed park site included within the 2007 EIR. The proposed park project would not result in population growth that could result in increased demand on existing recreational facilities or cause the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
Pgs. 3.12-
21 to 3.12-
28 No No No
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
N/A No No Yes
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Pg. 3.12-30
to 3.12-32 No No No
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Pg. 3.12-32
to 3.12-33 No No No
Discussion
a,b. The 2007 EIR performed a level of service (LOS) analysis for several roadway segments and intersections within the project vicinity. The analysis determined that, while the approved project would increase vehicle traffic on local roadways, all study roadways and intersections, with the exception of the Dry Creek Road/Highway 101 South Ramp intersection, which was already operating unacceptably at LOS F, would operate at an acceptable LOS under all of the analyzed scenarios. Thus, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measure 3.12-1, which would require the project applicant to pay impact fees for signalization of the Dry Creek Road/Highway 101 interchange, to reduce the aforementioned impacts to the maximum extent feasible. That fee was previously paid in conjunction with the Third Amendment to the Saggio Hills Development Agreement.
The law has changed with regard to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used LOS to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. In 2013, however, the Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”14 14 Subdivision (b)(2) of section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.”
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Subdivision (c) of Section 15064.3 (Applicability) states that “[t]he provisions of this section shall apply prospectively as described in Section 15007. A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” (Italics added) CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, subdivision (b), provides that “[a]mendments to the Guidelines apply prospectively only. New requirements in amendments will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments.” Subdivision (c) adds that “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” (Italics added.) These provisions, read together with Section 15064.3, subdivision (c), make it clear that the VMT requirement did not apply to Draft EIRs issued before July 1, 2020. And where a Draft EIR has been issued prior to July 1st, the Final EIR need not address the issue either. This position was articulated by Jeannie Lee, legal counsel in the Governor’s OPR, in publicly broadcast webcasts in 2020.
Thus, the former obligation under CEQA to address LOS in transportation analyses has ceased to exist, except (at agencies’ discretion) with respect to transportation projects.
EIRs for land use projects such as the Saggio Hills Park Project are therefore not required to address LOS issues, and “automobile delay,” as described in terms of LOS, “shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” This Initial Study/Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), represents a very late stage in the CEQA process that follows long after the issuance of a draft program EIR. The new VMT requirement, then, does not apply to this Initial Study/Addendum. Here, the EIR at issue was drafted in 2007, more than a decade before the VMT requirement took effect statewide.
In light of the foregoing, the City is not required to consider, and indeed may not consider under CEQA, the extent to which the changes in traffic circumstances have affected the LOS analysis performed in the 2007 EIR. Because LOS shall no longer be considered a significant impact on the environment, and since VMT analysis is not required for an addendum to an EIR that was issued in draft form prior to July 1, 2020, additional traffic analysis is not required for this Initial Study/Addendum. Nonetheless, a Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project by Fehr & Peers15 included a comparison of the trip generation for the currently proposed park project as compared to what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. The results are shown in Table 2.
It should be noted that at the time the 2007 EIR was drafted, the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition) did not include available data for public park land uses, and therefore, trip generation data produced by the SANDAG data was used instead. Given that the current version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) contains data for the public park land use, the Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project used the current ITE data for the trip generation comparison because the ITE data represents the most current set of nationally published trip generation data reflecting the uses of the project.
15 Fehr & Peers. Memorandum – CEQA Transportation Assessment for the Montage Development Park in Northern Healdsburg, California. June 8, 2023.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Table 2
Project Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Quantity
Vehicle Trips
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Park Project Trip Generation
Public Park1 37.26
Acres 113 1 0 1 3 2 5
2007 EIR Trip Generation
Community Park2 37 Acres 740 24 6 30 24 35 59
Difference
Totals: -627 -23 -6 -29 -21 -33 -54
Notes:
1 ITE land use category 411 – Public Park - (PH Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P):
Weekday Daily: T = 0.64(X)+88.46
Weekday AM Peak Hour: T = 0.02(X); Enter = 59%; Exit = 41% Weekday PM Peak Hour: T = 0.11(X); Enter = 55%; Exit = 45% 2 SANDAG literature trip generation data – Community Park:
Weekday Daily: T = 20(X)
Weekday AM Peak Hour: T = 0.8X); Enter = 80%; Exit = 20% Weekday PM Peak Hour: T = 1.6(X); Enter = 41%; Exit = 59% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
As shown in the table, using the current ITE rate for public park uses (ITE Code 411), the proposed park project could be expected to generate approximately 627 fewer trips over the course of a typical weekday, approximately 29 fewer trips during the weekday AM peak hour, and approximately 54 fewer trips during the weekday PM peak hour, than estimated for the community park in the 2007 EIR using the SANDAG trip generation data for community parks. It should also be noted that even if the SANDAG community park trip generation rates were used to assess the currently proposed park project, the trip generation under the currently proposed park project would not be substantively different compared to the project trip generation included in the 2007 EIR, as the dependent variable in the trip generation calculation is number of acres, which is relatively similar under both current project and 2007 EIR conditions. In addition, as noted in the Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project, VMT for public facilities is typically completed on the basis of total VMT generated. Because the proposed park project would generate fewer trips than what was anticipated in the 2007 EIR, the project as currently proposed would likely generate less VMT than the previously analyzed community park component of the Saggio Hills Project.
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The 2007 EIR analyzed the potential for the Saggio Hills Project to result in impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and found that while the Saggio Hills Project would not increase demand for pedestrian facilities, the project would have a potential to result in insufficient bicycle and transit facilities. Therefore, the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measures 3.12-6 and 3.12-7 to reduce impacts to bicycle and transit facilities to a less-than-significant level.
The project site is served by the Sonoma County Transit (SCT), which provides fixed-route transit service within the City of Healdsburg. Additionally, paratransit service is also available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
medical and other condition. The nearest existing public transit stop is located about 0.25 miles away from the project site at Bridle Path and Equestrian Way, which is served by the SCT Route 67 Healdsburg Shuttle. According to the Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project by Fehr & Peers, the existing transit system is expected to accommodate project-generated demand for transit services, and the proposed park project is not expected to conflict with existing or planned transit facilities.
Furthermore, the proposed park project is expected to include the following on- and offsite pedestrian and bicycle improvements:
• A 10-foot-wide public bicycle and pedestrian asphalt trail with centerline striping totaling 3,225 linear feet in length. The proposed trail would connect to the existing Class II bike lanes on Healdsburg Avenue west of the project site and on Parkland Farms Boulevard southeast of the project site. The trail would also provide access to the existing Parkland Farms neighborhood to the south and links to off-site recreation areas, including Fox Pond Healdsburg Ridge and County Open Spaces. • Wayfinding and interpretive signage to guide pedestrians and bicyclists along the multi-use trail.
• Four pedestrian/bike creek crossings and one vehicular/bike/pedestrian creek crossing.
According to the Transportation Memorandum, the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements would support connectivity and align with the City of Healdsburg Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed park project would not conflict with bicycle or pedestrian facilities, nor preclude any future facilities.
Conclusion
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
c. The 2007 EIR analyzed the potential of the Saggio Hills Project to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and concluded that because the Saggio Hills Project could result in inadequate sight distance at the proposed Healdsburg Drive/Passalacqua Road intersection, and along the project’s internal roadway network, Mitigation Measures 3.12-10 and 3.12-11 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition, it should be noted that the 2007 EIR included Mitigation Measure
3.12-9, which requires time constraints for large special events at the resort. However, Mitigation Measure 3.12-9 is not applicable to the currently proposed park project, as the mitigation measure is specific to parking demands associated with the resort component of the Saggio Hills Project, and the 2007 EIR concluded that the parking supply at the community park would be adequate, and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to parking demand at the park site.
The Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed park project by Fehr & Peers included an analysis of project-specific vehicle system hazard impacts.16 As noted therein, vehicular site access for the project is proposed at the north side of the project site along 16 Fehr & Peers. Memorandum – CEQA Transportation Assessment for the Montage Development Park in Northern Healdsburg, California. June 8, 2023.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum
August 2023
Passalacqua Road, a local road with an assumed posted speed limit of 25 mph.
Secondary access would be provided east of the proposed fire station site driveway, along Healdsburg Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Restricted access (through the installation of bollards) to the project internal circulator road would be provided to the south at Saddle Draw, a local road with an assumed posted speed limit of 25 mph.
According to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the stopping sight distance at 25 mph is 150 feet and at 40 mph, stopping sight distance increases to 300 feet. The sight distance at driveways along the 25 mph roadways and 40 mph roadway would be more than 150 feet and 300 feet, respectively, indicating that the stopping sight distance would be adequate. Nonetheless, the Transportation Memorandum includes several on-site site plan recommendations, including, but not limited to, the addition of a turnaround area for vehicles at the south end of the internal circulator roadway to turn around and exit through the main project driveway. All recommendations included in the Transportation Memorandum will be considered by the City during the approval process for the proposed park project.
With regard to vehicle circulation within the site, primary vehicle access to the site would be provided at the main project driveway on Passalacqua Road. The driveway would provide entrance and exit access to the main 40-space parking lot. From the parking lot, drivers would connect to an 80-space overflow parking area along the project internal circulator road. Restricted access to the circulator road from the Parkland Farms neighborhood to the south would be provided at Saddle Draw. Use of the circulator road would be controlled by removable remote-control bollards intended to reduce neighborhood cut-through traffic. Access to an additional 37-space parking lot would be located off Healdsburg Avenue next to the new proposed fire station. As discussed above, the Transportation Memorandum noted that a turnaround area for vehicles should be added at the south end of the 80-space overflow parking lot to provide vehicles with space to turnaround and not get stuck at the end of the project circulator road at the restricted access Saddle Draw driveway.
The Transportation Memorandum also noted that allowing vehicular access at the Saddle Draw driveway during special events could be useful. The special events would be coordinated with the City through a permit process, including developing a traffic management plan if the planners of the special event desire the full use of the Saddle Draw driveway. A traffic management plan would help to maintain a manageable traffic flow through the Parkland Farms neighborhood during special events. The traffic management plan may include, but would not necessarily be limited to: temporary stop signs at the Saddle Draw driveway, stationing of City staff to facilitate event traffic in/out of the Saddle Draw driveway, advanced resident notification of the special event, opening and closing times of full Saddle Draw driveway access.
Overall, the Transportation Memorandum concluded that the proposed park project does not introduce incompatible uses to the roadway system, nor would the project introduce geometric features that would result in hazardous conditions.
Based on the above information, the currently proposed park project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Thus, the proposed park project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 EIR.
6.C.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: CEQA Addendum (4059 : Saggio Hills Park CEQA Addendum and Final Master Plan Approval) Saggio Hills Park Project
Initial Study/Addendum