Agenda packet, regular meeting — Healdsburg City Council, June 17, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

year period, for multi-family units available to households earning no more than 160% of the Sonoma County Area Median Income, to be either multi-family rental housing units or for sale, owner occupied housing units (the “Second GMO Amendment”); and WHEREAS, despite progress in the construction of affordable housing, Healdsburg continues to face a significant shortage in its housing stock. Since the introduction of the Growth Management Ordinance in 2000, there has not been a single market-rate, multi-family rental project of five or more units constructed. This shortfall in market-rate rentals is a critical missing component in our housing mix, and necessary to accommodate the needs of middle-income families and the Healdsburg workforce; and
WHEREAS, in the six years following the enactment of Measure P in 2018, no new middle-income, multifamily housing units have been constructed; and WHEREAS, throughout the 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update process, the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan’s Encuentros, development of the Climate Strategy, and other public engagement activities, the City has consistently heard the urgent call for more housing options; and
WHEREAS the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element includes Housing Program 7(3) which states: “Evaluate Potential Amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. Present amendments to the GMO to add further exemptions or increase the development cap above the existing 30 units per year for market-rate residential. The City will evaluate and consider specific amendments that further reduce constraints imposed by the GMO and thus promote housing availability and affordability.”; and
WHEREAS, at the May 6, 2024, and June 3, 2024 City Council meetings the Council provided direction to Staff to prepare a ballot measure that would exempt multi-family housing from within certain geographic areas along the Healdsburg Avenue corridor from the GMO; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance (the “Third GMO Amendment”) would not result in an increase in the number of building permits the City could issue for the construction of residential units outside of the geographic areas exempted from the GMO; instead, the Third GMO Amendment would allow for targeted multi-family residential development, consistent with the General Plan, within specific, defined geographic areas along the Healdsburg Avenue corridor, as described and shown in the text of the Ordinance, without the constraints of the GMO; and WHEREAS, a general municipal election consolidated with the statewide election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, has been called and, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council desires to submit the proposed Third GMO Amendment Ordinance to the qualified electors of the City of Healdsburg at the consolidated election.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Resolution (4519 : GMO Amendment) Resolution No. XX- 2024

Page 3 ends

as follows:

Section 1. Compliance with CEQA.

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res.

Code § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) together with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City of Healdsburg prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the City’s General Plan. On July 6, 2009, the City Council certified the Final EIR and adopted CEQA findings and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) in accordance with CEQA. After certification of the Final EIR, the City Council adopted three addenda to the Final EIR in connection with previous proposed amendments to the GMO in 2016, 2018, and 2020.

The proposed Ordinance would make certain modifications to the City’s growth management program. In order to ensure that all potential environmental impacts of the General Plan, as may be modified by the proposed Ordinance, were thoroughly analyzed, the City caused a fourth addendum to the Final EIR (the “Fourth Addendum”) to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164; that Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.

The City Council hereby finds that it has exercised its independent judgement and reviewed and considered the Final EIR as modified by the previous addenda, together with the proposed Fourth Addendum, and determined that the criteria of CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would have required additional environmental review under CEQA have not been met. Specifically, and without limitation, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of the proposed Ordinance because: (1) implementation of the Ordinance would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those studied in the Final EIR; (2) there exists no new information of substantial importance that would result in any new or more severe significant impacts as compared to those studied in the Final EIR; (3) there are no substantial changes in circumstances that would result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the Final EIR; and (4) there is no feasible mitigation measure or alternative that is considerably different from others previously analyzed that has not been adopted and included in the MMRP.

The City Council hereby adopts the Fourth Addendum.

Section 2. General Plan Consistency.

The recently adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element Update includes Policy 2.6: Pursue amendments to the City’s Growth Management Ordinance with the intent of increasing housing production.

The Housing Element Update also includes the following implementing program:

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Resolution (4519 : GMO Amendment) Resolution No. XX- 2024

Page 4 ends

Housing Program 7: Removing Housing Constraints

3. Evaluate Potential Amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. Present amendments to the GMO to add further exemptions or increase the development cap above the existing 30 units per year for market-rate residential. The City will evaluate and consider specific amendments that further reduce constraints imposed by the GMO and thus promote housing availability and affordability.

This Third GMO Amendment facilitates the development and construction of rental and for-sale residential housing available to all income levels and is thus consistent with the Healdsburg General Plan.

Section 3. Call for Election. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9222, the City Council hereby calls an election at which it shall submit to the qualified voters of the City of Healdsburg the Third GMO Amendment Ordinance, the full text of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This measure shall be designated by letter by the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters.

Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10400 et seq., the election for this measure shall be consolidated with the established election to be conducted on November 5, 2024.

Section 4. Ballot Language. The following question shall be submitted to the voters on the ballot at the statewide election to be held on November 5, 2024:

To encourage creation of workforce housing on underutilized parcels, should the City of Healdsburg exempt multi-family housing along portions of the Healdsburg Avenue corridor from the Growth Management Ordinance?
YES
NO
This question requires the approval of a majority vote of the City of Healdsburg voters voting on the measure at the election to become effective. If this ordinance is so approved by the City of Healdsburg voters, then this ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days following the date the vote is declared by the City Council in accordance with California Elections Code §9217.

Section 5. Text of Measure. The complete text of the measure to be submitted to the voters is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City Council hereby approves the proposed ordinance, the form thereof, and its submission to the voters of the City at the November 5, 2024 election.

The text of the measure shall be printed in the ballot materials and be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office and on the City’s website at www.healdsburg.gov.

Section 6. Publication of Measure. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a synopsis of the Measure in accordance with Section 12111 of the California Elections Code.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Resolution (4519 : GMO Amendment) Resolution No. XX- 2024

Page 5 ends

Section 7. Request to Consolidate and Conduct Election and Canvass Returns. (a) The City Council hereby requests that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors consolidate the election called by this Resolution with the statewide election to be conducted on November 5, 2024 and order the election to be conducted by the Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County and the Registrar of Voters of Sonoma County on or before August 9, 2024. (b) The election on the measure set forth in Section 3 shall be held and conducted, the voters canvassed, and the returns made, and the results ascertained and determined as provided herein. The election shall be held in accordance with the Elections Code of the State of California. (c) The election on the measure set forth in Section 3 shall be held in Sonoma County in the City of Healdsburg on November 5, 2024, as required by law, and the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County is authorized to canvass the returns of the election with respect to the votes cast in the City of Healdsburg and certify the results to the City Council of the City of Healdsburg. (d) At the first regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Healdsburg occurring after the returns of the election for the measure set forth in Section 3 have been canvassed and the results have been certified to the City Council, or at a special meeting called for such purpose if required by law, the City Council shall cause to be entered in its minutes a statement of the results of the election.
(e) The City Council acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by Elections Code section 10418.

Section 8. Submission of Ballot Arguments.
(a) In accordance with California Elections Code §9282, the City Council orders that the City Council is authorized to file a written argument in favor of the Ordinance, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, and to make any revisions to the argument up to the deadline by which it must be filed with the City Clerk. (b) Arguments in favor and against the measure shall be filed with the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2024, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting them, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. The argument shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to Be Filed by Author(s) of Argument, which can be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. (c) Arguments shall not exceed three hundred (300) words and shall be signed by not more than five (5) persons.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Resolution (4519 : GMO Amendment) Resolution No. XX- 2024

Page 6 ends

(d) The City Council hereby appoints a subcommittee of the City Council, comprised of Councilmembers XXXX and YYYY, and authorizes said subcommittee to prepare and file the written argument in favor of the proposed measure, on behalf of the City Council, no later than August 16, 2024. Once the argument is lodged with the City Clerk, the City Clerk shall notify other members of the City Council, who may then sign the argument on file, but may not make any revisions thereto.
(e) Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9285, the City Council is hereby adopting provisions for the filing of rebuttal arguments for this measure. Accordingly, when the City Clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure, which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against it, and copies of the argument against it to the authors of the argument in favor. Any rebuttal argument shall not exceed 250 words and shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 2024, accompanied by the printed names and signatures of the persons submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement to Be Filed by Author(s) of Argument, which can be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument that it seeks to rebut.

As authorized by California Elections Code §9285, the City Council wishes to authorize the release of the City Council’s rebuttal argument to individual voters and thus hereby authorizes each individual member of the City Council to release rebuttal argument in writing to any other person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument.

Section 9. Impartial Analysis. In accordance with California Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure and Ordinance to the City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis may not exceed 500 words and shall be filed with the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2024.

Section 10. Services of City Clerk. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the measure on the ballot and to cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. A copy of the ordinance or measure shall be made available to any voter upon request.

Section 11. Severance. If any provision of this resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the resolution and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this resolution are declared to be severable.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Resolution (4519 : GMO Amendment) Resolution No. XX- 2024

Page 7 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg this 17th day of June, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAINING: Councilmembers:

SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
________________________________ ____________________________________ David L. Hagele, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Resolution (4519 : GMO Amendment)

EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF
HEALDSBURG AMENDING SECTION 17.24.030 OF
CHAPTER 17.24 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ALONG PORTIONS OF THE

HEALDSBURG AVENUE CORRIDOR FROM THE GROWTH

MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, in the November 2000 election, the Healdsburg voters approved a residential growth management ordinance that limits the number of building permits the City of Healdsburg (“City”) may issue for the construction of new residential units in the City to an average of thirty (30) units per year, not to exceed ninety (90) units in a three-year period (the “Growth Management Ordinance” or “GMO”); and
WHEREAS, the GMO is codified in the City’s Municipal Code at Chapter 17.24; and WHEREAS, since the passage of the GMO, the cost of housing in the City has significantly increased, exacerbating a shortage of housing that is available and affordable to working families, and a lack of housing options for community members in different stages of their lives; and WHEREAS, in the November 2018 election, the Healdsburg voters approved Measure P, which amended the City’s GMO and authorized the City to issue, in addition to the 90 permits in a three-year period authorized by the GMO, an average of fifty (50) building permits per year, not to exceed 150 permits in a three year period, for multi-family rental units deed restricted to tenants earning no more than 160% of the Sonoma County Area Median Income, adjusted for household and unit size (the “First GMO Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, in the March 2020 election, the Healdsburg voters approved Measure H, which amended the First GMO Amendment to allow the City to issue fifty (50), on average, building permits per year, not to exceed one-hundred and fifty (150) building permits in a three year period, for multi-family units available to households earning no more than 160% of the Sonoma County Area Median Income, to be either multi-family rental housing units or for sale, owner occupied housing units (the “Second GMO Amendment”); and WHEREAS, despite progress in the construction of affordable housing, Healdsburg continues to face a significant shortage in its housing stock. Since the introduction of the Growth Management Ordinance in 2000, there has not been a single market-rate, multi-family rental project of five or more units constructed. This shortfall in market-rate rentals is a critical missing component in our housing mix, and necessary to accommodate the needs of middle-income families and the Healdsburg workforce; and

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Exhibit A: Ordinance (4519 : GMO Amendment) WHEREAS, in the six years following the enactment of Measure P in 2018, no new middleincome, multifamily housing units have been constructed; and WHEREAS, throughout the 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update process, the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan’s Encuentros, development of the Climate Strategy, and other public engagement activities, the City has consistently heard the urgent call for more housing options; and
WHEREAS the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element includes Housing Program 7(3) which states: “Evaluate Potential Amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. Present amendments to the GMO to add further exemptions or increase the development cap above the existing 30 units per year for market-rate residential. The City will evaluate and consider specific amendments that further reduce constraints imposed by the GMO and thus promote housing availability and affordability.”; and
WHEREAS, at the May 6, 2024, and June 3, 2024 City Council meetings the Council provided direction to Staff to prepare a ballot measure that would exempt multi-family housing within certain geographic areas along the Healdsburg Avenue corridor from the GMO; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance (the “Third GMO Amendment”) would not result in an increase in the number of building permits the City could issue for the construction of residential units outside of the geographic areas exempted from the GMO; instead, the Third GMO Amendment would allow for targeted multi-family residential development, consistent with the General Plan, within specific, defined geographic areas along the Healdsburg Avenue corridor, as described and shown in the text of the Ordinance, without the constraints of the GMO.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings.

The People of the City of Healdsburg find that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Compliance with CEQA.

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) together with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City of Healdsburg prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the City’s General Plan. On July 6, 2009, the City Council certified the Final EIR and adopted CEQA findings and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) in accordance with CEQA. After certification of the Final EIR, the City Council adopted three addenda to the Final EIR in connection with previous proposed amendments to the GMO in 2016, 2018, and 2020.

The proposed Ordinance would make certain modifications to the City’s growth management program. In order to ensure that all potential environmental impacts of the General Plan, as may

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Exhibit A: Ordinance (4519 : GMO Amendment) be modified by the proposed Ordinance, were thoroughly analyzed, the City caused a fourth addendum to the Final EIR (the “Fourth Addendum”) to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15164; that Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.

The City Council adopted the Fourth Addendum by resolution at the City Council meeting held on June 17, 2024.

Section 3. General Plan Consistency.

The recently adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element Update includes Policy 2.6: Pursue amendments to the City’s Growth Management Ordinance with the intent of increasing housing production.

The Housing Element Update also includes the following implementing program:

Housing Program 7: Removing Housing Constraints

Section 4. Amendment of Municipal Code.

Section 17.24.030 of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the City of Healdsburg Municipal Code titled “Exemptions” is hereby amended to read as follows, with added language shown underlined and deleted language with strikethrough:

17.24.030 Exemptions.

A. Low income and affordable residential units, as defined by the State Department of Housing and Urban Development, are exempted from the limitations established in HMC 17.24.020.

B. Multi-family dwellings, within the geographic areas described and shown below, are exempted from the limitations established in HMC 17.24.020.

1. Healdsburg Avenue North Corridor (North Street to Grove Street)

2. Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan (CHAP)

3. South Entry Area

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Exhibit A: Ordinance (4519 : GMO Amendment)

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Exhibit A: Ordinance (4519 : GMO Amendment) Section 5. Severance.

If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

Section 6. Codification.

This Ordinance shall be codified in the City of Healdsburg Municipal Code.

Section 7. Effective Date.

If this Ordinance is approved by a majority vote of the City of Healdsburg electorate voting on the measure at the November 5, 2024 election, then this Ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days following the date the vote is declared by the City Council in accordance with Elections Code §9217.

Section 8. Publication.

The City Clerk is directed to publish this Ordinance as required by State law.

Section 9. Amendment and Repeal.

Except as otherwise provided herein, no part of this Ordinance may be amended or repealed except by a vote of the voters of the City of Healdsburg at a regularly scheduled general election or at a special election called for that purpose.

8.A.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Exhibit A: Ordinance (4519 : GMO Amendment) Addendum #4 to the City of
Healdsburg 2009 General Plan
Update (2030 General Plan)
Environmental Impact Report for the
Proposed 2024 Growth Management
Ordinance Amendment Ballot
Measure
City of Healdsburg,
Sonoma County, California
JUNE 2024

PREPARED FOR
City of Healdsburg
Community Development Department

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) ADDENDUM #4 TO THE
CITY OF HEALDSBURG 2009 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
(2030 GENERAL PLAN)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED 2024 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

AMENDMENT BALLOT MEASURE

CITY OF HEALDSBURG, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of Healdsburg
Community Development Department
401 Grove Street
Healdsburg, California 95448
Contact: Scott Duiven, Community Development Director
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
95 3rd Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 00088347-000-BAY
June 2024

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
i

CONTENTS
1 Purpose of Addendum.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Identification of Addendum as Appropriate CEQA Document.................................................... 1

1.3 Summary of Addendum Conclusions........................................................................................... 5 2 Background........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Summary Descriptions of Approved Projects and Plans.............................................................. 6

2.1.1 Healdsburg 2000 Growth Management Ordinance ............................................................ 6

2.1.2 City of Healdsburg 2030 General Plan ............................................................................... 6

2.1.3 City of Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Update EIR (2009)................................................ 6

2.1.4 Healdsburg 2023–2031 Housing Element Update (2023 Housing Element) ..................... 7

2.1.5 Ballot Measures to Amend the City Growth Management Ordinance ............................... 8

2.1.6 2016 Growth Management Ordinance Amendment Ballot Measure – EIR Addendum #1...................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.7 2018 Growth Management Ordinance Amendment Ballot Measure – EIR Addendum #2...................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.8 2018 Growth Management Ordinance Amendment Ballot Measure – EIR Addendum #3.................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Environmental Review Process.................................................................................................. 10 3 Proposed Project Changes................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Proposed 2024 Ballot Measure Language “Proposed Project” .................................................. 10 4 Environmental Impact Analysis........................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories........................................................................ 15

4.1.1 Conclusion in Prior 2009 General Plan Update EIR......................................................... 15

4.1.2 Do the Proposed 2024 Changes Involve New Impacts? ................................................... 15

4.1.3 New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? .................................................................. 15

4.1.4 New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? ............................................ 15

4.1.5 2009 EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts................................... 16

4.2 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 18

4.2.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 18

4.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................... 18

4.3.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 19

4.3.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 19

4.4 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................. 20

4.4.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 20

4.4.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 21

4.4.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 21

4.5 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................. 21

4.5.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 22

4.5.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 24

4.5.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 24

4.6 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................... 25

4.6.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 25

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
ii

4.6.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 26

4.6.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 27

4.7 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................................... 27

4.7.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 28

4.7.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 29

4.7.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 29

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................. 30

4.8.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 31

4.8.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 33

4.8.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 33

4.9.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 35

4.9.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 38

4.9.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39

4.10 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................... 39

4.10.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 39

4.10.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 40

4.10.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 40

4.11 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................................... 40

4.11.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 41

4.11.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 42

4.11.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 42

4.12 Noise........................................................................................................................................... 42

4.12.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 43

4.12.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 44

4.12.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 45

4.13 Population and Housing.............................................................................................................. 45

4.13.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 45

4.13.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 46

4.13.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 46

4.14 Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 47

4.14.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 47

4.14.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 49

4.14.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 49

4.15 Transportation and Traffic.......................................................................................................... 50

4.15.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 50

4.15.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 52

4.15.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 52

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 53

4.16.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 54

4.16.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 60

4.16.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 60

4.17 Updated General Impact Categories........................................................................................... 60

4.17.1 Energy............................................................................................................................... 60

4.17.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................... 60

4.17.3 Transportation................................................................................................................... 61

4.17.4 Wildfire............................................................................................................................. 62 5 Environmental Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 62

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
iii
Figures
Figure 1. Project vicinity............................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. City of Healdsburg City Limits. .................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Areas in which multi-family would be exempted from the Growth Management Ordinance................................................................................................................................. 12 Tables
Table 1. Current Zoning Districts in 2024 Exempted Area, and Housing Allowance by Type.................. 11

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
iv

ABBREVIATIONS
2009 EIR 2009 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report 2030 General Plan Healdsburg 2030 General Plan
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
ADWF average dry-weather flow
AG agriculture
AMI area median income
BMP best management practice
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CHAP Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Healdsburg
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CWA Clean Water Act
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
GMO Growth Management Ordinance
gpd gallons per day
HUSD Healdsburg Unified School District
LOS Level of Service
mgd million gallons per day
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MWh megawatt hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSCAPCD Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District NWIC Northwest Information Center
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
v
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCPRMD Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
UGB urban growth boundary
VMT vehicle miles traveled

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
1 1 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM

1.1 Introduction
The City of Healdsburg (City), serving as the Lead Agency1 under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2030 General Plan Update (2030 General Plan, approved project; State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2007082030) in July 2009. The Final EIR is herein referred to as the 2009 EIR or approved project. Several Addendums to the 2009 EIR have been prepared, Addendum #1 in 2016, Addendum #2 in 2018, and Addendum #3 in 2020 have been prepared to evaluate various amendments to the 2000 Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) to streamline development of multi-family housing in the city.

This document represents Addendum #4 to the 2009 EIR. It analyzes the environmental impacts of exempting multi-family residential within specific geographic areas (identified in Figure 3) from the GMO.

Figure 1 shows the location of Healdsburg, in Sonoma County, California. Figure 2 shows the jurisdiction of the City of Healdsburg. Figure 3 shows the proposed exemption areas.

1.2 Identification of Addendum as Appropriate CEQA
Document
The purpose of this review is to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with proposed changes to the previously approved project, specifically, the exemption of multi-family residential within specific geographic areas from the GMO. Additional CEQA review beyond this addendum, in the form of a Supplemental EIR, would only be necessary if the proposed changes to the approved project created new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the certified 2009 EIR.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if the project sponsor needs to make some changes or additions to a project and if certain conditions are met. These conditions are based on State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which specifies the conditions that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR. If none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred, then an addendum to an EIR is the appropriate document to complete environmental review of changes to a project. 1 The State CEQA Guidelines define the “Lead Agency” as the public agency that has principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
2 Figure 1. Project vicinity.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
3 Figure 2. City of Healdsburg City Limits.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
4 According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(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;
(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.

Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides the following guidance for preparation of an EIR addendum:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
5 findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

This document is Addendum #4 to the 2009 EIR and has been prepared to evaluate the impacts of modifications to the approved project identified in the 2009 EIR; those modifications are referred to herein as the “proposed project.” Proposed project modifications would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact; therefore, preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR is not required.

1.3 Summary of Addendum Conclusions
This Addendum #4 to the 2009 EIR demonstrates that the environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified in the 2009 EIR remain substantively unchanged by the project modifications described herein and support the finding that the proposed project does not raise any new significant impacts and does not exceed the levels of impact significance identified in the 2009 EIR. Accordingly, preparation of a Subsequent EIR is not necessary pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. This decision is based on substantial evidence, as set forth in the following discussion of the proposed project modifications and the environmental impacts of those modifications.

Circulation of this Addendum #4 for public review is not required (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164©); however, Addendum #4 will be considered by the decision-making body, along with the previously certified 2009 EIR, prior to taking action to approve or deny the proposed project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d)).

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
6 2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Summary Descriptions of Approved Projects and Plans

2.1.1 Healdsburg 2000 Growth Management Ordinance
In November 2000, Healdsburg voters approved Measure M, an initiative to control residential growth known as the Growth Management Ordinance, which is currently contained within Chapter 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.2 As stated in the language of Measure M, the 2000 GMO was initially passed due to concerns that the recent rapid increase in residential growth may dramatically change the City’s small town character and negatively affect residents’ quality of life. The existing 2000 GMO limits the number of building permits for new residences to an average of 30 units per year, not to exceed a total of 90 units over any 3-year period.3 Low-income and affordable residential units, as defined by the State Department of Housing and Urban Development, are exempt from these limitations. Accessory Dwelling Units are also exempt from the GMO, in accordance with State law.

2.1.2 City of Healdsburg 2030 General Plan
In 2009, the City of Healdsburg adopted an updated general plan entitled the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan (2030 General Plan). As the City’s principal land use planning and growth policy document, the General Plan provides for buildout of the City of Healdsburg in accordance with the General Plan’s Land Use Map and the densities established for each of the land use designations.4 Buildout Citywide under the 2030 General Plan identified the potential for construction of up to 872 additional residential units.5 Based on the 2030 General Plan, population would increase from 12,200 (2005) to 14,468 at buildout, assuming all 872 residential units would be constructed and occupied. The General Plan buildout would also include commercial, retail, mixed use, and office space (507,508 square feet, 551,683 square feet, 15,000 square feet, and 20,000 square feet, respectively, or 1,014,111 square feet total).

2.1.3 City of Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Update EIR (2009) Following the preparation of the 2030 General Plan, the City of Healdsburg prepared and certified the General Plan Update EIR (SCH No. 2007082030) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts from allowable development under the plan. The 2009 EIR contains a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the development in the City. The analysis includes discussion of a full range of alternatives and growth inducing impacts associated with urban development in the City.

General Plan policies and implementation measures as well as the City’s zoning ordinance would apply to new development in order to reduce environmental impacts.

The 2009 EIR evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with the assumed buildout of the General Plan. The EIR considered the full range of impacts and identified applicable policies and 2 City of Healdsburg. Municipal Code, Chapter 17.24: Growth Control Measures. Available at:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Healdsburg/. Accessed May 2024. 3 City of Healdsburg. Municipal Code, Chapter 17.24.020 - Annual building permit allocations. Available at:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Healdsburg/. Accessed May 2024. 4 City of Healdsburg. 2030 General Plan, Policy Document, Chapter 2: Land Use. 5 City of Healdsburg. 2009. 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2007082030), Section IV.J: Land Use and Planning, Table IV.J.3.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
7 implementation measures described in the 2030 General Plan.6 For all potentially impacted areas, the EIR either found that all impacts would be less than significant with implementation of updated general plan policies and implementation measures, without the need for mitigation; or found that there were no feasible mitigation measures and that a significant and unavoidable impact would occur. Significant Unavoidable impacts were identified in the following sections:
• Aesthetics Impact IV.B-4: The proposed Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Project and Cumulative) • Air Quality Impact IV.D-6: It cannot be determined to a reasonable degree of certainty that buildout under the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change. (Project and Cumulative)
• Noise Impact IV.L-3: The proposed Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Project and Cumulative)
• Traffic and Circulation Impact IV.O-1: The proposed Project would result in unacceptable operating conditions in the short term at one of the study intersections, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact in the long term if planned improvements are not allowed by Caltrans. (Project and Cumulative)
As part of these impacts, all mitigation measures were considered infeasible.

The City’s planned growth currently may not occur any faster than allowed by the GMO. However, the General Plan, not the GMO, determines the type and overall extent of growth in the City, and ultimate buildout anticipated to occur. The GMO currently only regulates the rate of growth. The 2009 EIR evaluated the environmental effects of anticipated buildout as allowed by the 2030 General Plan, and assumed an assumed maximum allowed growth at full buildout of the City in accordance with the Land Use Map and the densities approved for each category of land use designations. The 2009 EIR did not limit evaluation of environmental impacts to those that would occur by a particular year but assessed all growth in the City and ultimate buildout as determined by the 2030 General Plan.

2.1.4 Healdsburg 2023–2031 Housing Element Update
(2023 Housing Element)
Pursuant to State law, the City adopts and updates the General Plan Housing Element every 8 years. As one of the seven required elements of a general plan, the purpose of a housing element is to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs in order to preserve, improve, and develop housing for all economic segments of the community.

The housing element is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The housing element identifies sites designated for residential development that is internally consistent with other General Plan policies and land use designations. The housing element does not, in itself, result in development. Rather, the housing element is a comprehensive statement by the City of its broad and specific commitments to facilitate the development of housing in the City. The housing element is an official response to the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the population, establishing goals, policies, and programs that will guide City decision-making and set forth an action plan to implement these housing programs through 2031.
6 City of Healdsburg. 2009. 2030 General Plan Update Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2007082030).

Table II-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, at page II-7. Available at:
www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/686/Summary-PDF. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
8 The City updated the Housing Element in 2023 for a state-mandated 8-year period from 2023 through 2031.7 The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) strategy lays out a plan for 981 units – more than double the City’s RHNA of 476.8 The City’s strategy to convert market rate housing to affordable housing, and hotel/motel conversions reflected a 131% buffer for lower-income units, a 155% buffer for Moderate-income units, and a 402% buffer for Above Moderate-income units. An overall buffer of 206% was demonstrated in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.9 The 2009 General Plan EIR has an estimated buildout of 872 units. The 2023-2031 Housing Element analyzed pending, approved and permitted residential projects as well as future projections and has an estimated build out of 981 units.
10 Since no proposed land use changes or general plan amendments are proposed that would increase density, these numbers fall within the allowed zoning throughout the city.

Addendum #4 is consistent with the estimated numbers in the 2009 General Plan EIR and 2023 Housing Element update.

2.1.5 Ballot Measures to Amend the City Growth Management Ordinance
Healdsburg voters have weighed in on four ballot measures related to growth management, including the original measure in 2000. A summary of those measures is below:

Measure M: In 2000, voters approved the GMO that established growth control measures limiting the number of market rate residential units to 30 per calendar year in the City of Healdsburg. The growth restrictions in the 2000 GMO to approve no more than an average of 30 dwelling units per year have made it difficult to develop market rate multi-family housing within the City. See Section 2.1.1 above.

Measure R: In November 2016, the City placed Measure R on the ballot. Measure R would have increased inclusionary requirements on new residential development, removed existing restrictions on new residential units, and adopted and periodically amended new growth management measures. The City would amend growth management measures in conjunction with updates to the General Plan Housing Element. As part of this ballot measure, an EIR addendum to the 2030 General Plan (Addendum #1) was prepared. However, Measure R failed, and the adopted GMO from 2000 remained in place. See Section 2.1.6 below for a discussion of the 2016 GMO amendment.

Measure P: In November 2018, the City placed Measure P on the ballot. Measure P amended the GMO to allow for the construction of an average of 50 additional multi-family income-restricted rental units per year. Measure P passed, and the GMO was amended. As part of this ballot measure, an EIR addendum to the 2030 General Plan (Addendum #2) was prepared. See Section 2.1.7 below for a discussion of the 2018 GMO amendment.

Measure H: In November 2020, the City placed Measure H on the ballot. Measure H allowed for further flexibility to construct affordable and market rate housing. Measure H passed, allowing the GMO to be amended to permit the currently allowed average of 50 units per year of multi-family, income-restricted rental housing, as authorized by the voters in 2018, to be offered either for rental or for sale. As part of this ballot measure, an EIR addendum to the 2030 General Plan (Addendum #3) was prepared. See Section 2.1.8 below for a discussion of the 2020 GMO amendment. 7 City of Healdsburg. 2023a. Adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element. Available at:
gttps://healdsburg.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16801/Healdsburg-Housing-Element_Adopted-and-Certifiedpdf. Accessed May 2024.
8 City of Healdsburg. 2023a. Table 7. Page 75.
9 City of Healdsburg. 2023a. Page 99.
10 City of Healdsburg. 2023a. Page 76.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
9 2.1.6 2016 Growth Management Ordinance Amendment Ballot Measure – EIR Addendum #1
City Council directed the following language be analyzed for potential environmental effects and placement on the November 2016 ballot as Measure R (see Section 2.1.6 above). The City of Healdsburg proposed to place two alternative questions on the ballot, and both were analyzed in Addendum #1:

Shall Healdsburg voters amend the existing Growth Management Ordinance to provide housing working families can afford by increasing inclusionary housing requirements on new development to 30%, removing existing restrictions on the number of new residential units allowed per year, adopting and periodically amending new growth management measures in conjunction with updating the Housing Element, and adopting and periodically updating a Housing Action Plan to provide a greater variety of housing?11
Measure R failed, and the 2000 GMO remained in place. Addendum #1 did not affect the type of growth or the total amount of growth under the 2030 General Plan or change the environmental impacts identified by the 2009 EIR. The addendum evaluated the potential environmental impacts of Addendum #1 to the GMO considered by the City Council in 2016 and concluded that there would be no potential impacts beyond those already identified and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

2.1.7 2018 Growth Management Ordinance Amendment Ballot Measure – EIR Addendum #2
On June 18, 2018, the City Council directed the following language be analyzed for potential environmental effects and placement on the November 2018 ballot as Measure P (see Section 2.1.6 above). Measure P text read as follows:

Shall the City of Healdsburg amend its current Growth Management Ordinance to allow for the construction of an average of 50 additional multi-family income restricted rental units per year?12
Measure P passed with 56% voter support. Addendum #2 focused on the potential physical impacts to the environment associated with the City’s 2018 proposal to amend the 2000 GMO to allow for an additional average of 50 new multi-family rental units per year. The 2018 GMO amendment allowed for an average of 50 multi-family income-restricted rental units per year, in addition to the average of 30 new residential units per year currently allowed. The City continues to review proposed multi-family development 11 City of Healdsburg. 2018. City Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency, Regular Meeting (June 18, 2018) item 8a) Growth Management Ordinance Amendment Discussion, at pg. 5. Available at: http://healdsburgca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx.

Accessed May 2024.
12 City of Healdsburg. 2016. Addendum to the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Update EIR GMO Ballot Measure Addendum Project Initial Study Checklist/Addendum. Received via email May 21, 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
10 projects in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, ultimate buildout of the City does not change, regardless of the Measure P passing and implementation of Addendum #2, which affected only the timing of growth. Addendum #2 did not affect the type of growth or the total amount of growth under the 2030 General Plan or change the environmental impacts identified by the 2009 EIR. The addendum evaluated the potential environmental impacts of Addendum #2 to the GMO considered by the City Council in June 2018, and concluded that there would be no potential impacts beyond those already identified and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

2.1.8 2018 Growth Management Ordinance Amendment Ballot Measure – EIR Addendum #3
On March 3, 2020, the City Council directed the following language be analyzed for potential environmental effects and placement on the March 3, 2020 ballot as Measure H (see Section 2.1.6 above).

Measure H text read as follows:

Shall the City of Healdsburg’s Growth Management Ordinance be amended to permit the currently allowed average of 50 units per year of multi-family, income-restricted rental housing, as authorized by the voters in 2018, also be offered for sale?13 Measure H passed, allowing the GMO to be amended to permit the currently allowed average of 50 units per year of multi-family, income-restricted rental housing, as authorized by the voters in 2020, to be offered either for rental or for sale. The City continues to review proposed multi-family development projects in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, ultimate buildout of the City does not change, regardless of the Measure P passing and implementation of Addendum #3, which affected only the timing of growth. Addendum #3 did not affect the type of growth or the total amount of growth under the 2030 General Plan or change the environmental impacts identified by the 2009 EIR. The addendum evaluated the potential environmental impacts of Addendum #3 to the GMO considered by the City Council in June 2020, and concluded that there would be no potential impacts beyond those already identified and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

2.2 Environmental Review Process
The City of Healdsburg, serving as the Lead Agency under CEQA, prepared the Final EIR for the approved project, as well as the Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 (Findings) and 15097 (Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting), respectively. The Findings document identified impacts resulting from the approved project, and the MMRP outlined mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. 3 PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGES

3.1 Proposed 2024 Ballot Measure Language
“Proposed Project”
The City aims to expedite permitting multi-family housing, increase the percentage of workforce housing, and accommodate a diverse range of income levels in the City. Over the past 5 years, the City has developed 100 units, acquired and rehabilitated 39 units, extended the affordability of 133 units, and has 13 City Of Healdsburg. 2020. Growth Management Ordinance Clarification Amendment Project Description Initial Study/Addendum to the Healdsburg 2030 General Plan EIR. Received via email May 21, 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
11 307 units in the housing pipeline. However, since the GMO passed in 2000, no market rate multi-family rental projects of over five units have been constructed in the City. Measure P passed in 2018 but has not resulted in any multi-family middle income units (120%-160% AMI).

The proposed 2024 GMO amendment would protect established residential neighborhoods and allow the City to target specific areas for growth, including the north Healdsburg Avenue corridor, the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan (CHAP), and future South Entry Area as shown in Figure 3. The total area to be exempted from the 2000 GMO includes the zoning districts listed in Table 1. While single-family housing is not currently permitted in these zoning districts, adoption of the 2024 Amendment would exempt only multi-family housing within the identified areas from the GMO.

Table 1. Current Zoning Districts in 2024 Exempted Area, and Housing Allowance by Type Current City Zoning District
Single-Family Allowed in
2024 Amendment?
Multi-Family Allowed in
2024 Amendment?
Multi-Family Residential – Permitted
Office & Multi-Family Residential (OFM) – Permitted
Service Commercial (CS) – Permitted
Downtown Commercial (CD) – Permitted
Mixed Use (MU) – Permitted
Industrial (I) – Conditionally Permitted
Public (P) – –
Source: City of Healdsburg. 2024a. Received via email on May 15, 2024.

With approval of the amendment, multi-family housing projects would be allowed to be built without the constraint of the GMO. Underutilized parcels that would be investigated for multi-family housing parcels would be defined as any parcel that contains a passive or underutilized use, including vacant sites, abandoned uses, and strip commercial areas. Sites that have higher development potential or have a higher and better use would be permitted for multi-family housing. The City’s planned growth currently may not occur any faster than allowed by the current GMO. However, the General Plan, not the GMO, determines the type and overall extent of growth in the City and the ultimate buildout anticipated to occur.

The Healdsburg 2009 EIR evaluated the environmental effects of anticipated buildout as allowed by the 2030 General Plan. The 2009 EIR evaluated an assumed maximum allowed growth at full buildout of the City in accordance with the Land Use Map and the densities approved for each category of land use designations. The General Plan EIR did not limit evaluation of environmental impacts to those that would occur by a particular year but assessed all growth in the City and ultimate buildout. The GMO currently restricts the rate of growth and restricts the number of allowed residential units in three-year cycles. The proposed 2024 amendment would not change the development potential; as stated above, it would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption areas. The City would continue to review proposed multi-family development projects in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, ultimate buildout of the City would be the same, whether or not the measure passes and the City implements the proposed 2024 amendment to the GMO.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
12 Figure 3. Areas in which multi-family would be exempted from the Growth Management Ordinance.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
13 At the May 6, 2024, Council Meeting, staff provided a report and presentation to Council laying out three options for consideration. That presentation and report included substantial background on the history of the GMO and City efforts to support housing affordability and workforce housing initiatives. Staff presented the following three options for amending the GMO: 14

1. Exempt Certain Geographic Areas from the GMO.

2. Remove the income restriction on multi-family rental units allowed under Measure P.

3. Permit construction of housing units that were allowed but not constructed in previous years.

After deliberation, Council directed staff to pursue Option 1 as it offered opportunities for both for sale and rental housing. Council requested that staff return with additional details and options for both the geographies to be included as well as potential guardrails to safeguard against future luxury development.

At the June 3, 2024, City Council Meeting, the Council reviewed the proposed geographies and guardrails and provided direction to staff. The City Council provided direction to remove the majority of the Downtown Commercial zoning district, in addition to the Plaza Retail district, from the Downtown geographic exemption area. Council opted to keep the portion of the Downtown Commercial district north of North Street in the proposed exemption area. With that modification the geographic area labeled Healdsburg Avenue North Corridor would begin at North Street and extend north to the intersection of Grove Street at Healdsburg Avenue. In addition, the Council provided direction to include both the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan Area and the South Entry Area as part of the proposed areas to be exempted from the GMO.

While the zoning districts within the proposed geographic carve out areas are limited to multi-family housing only, the Council directed staff to ensure that the proposed GMO amendment be expressly limited to multi-family housing to protect from any future changes in zoning that might allow singlefamily housing within those areas.

Based on the direction provided by the City Council at the June 6th meeting staff prepared the following ballot language:
“To encourage creation of workforce housing on underutilized parcels, should the City of Healdsburg exempt multi-family housing along portions of the Healdsburg Avenue corridor from the Growth Management Ordinance?”
The Healdsburg City Council will consider adoption of a resolution including this language, to be finalized at the June 17, 2024, meeting. The resolution would establish November 5, 2024, as the date for a municipal election on a proposed ballot measure, and the election would seek voter approval to amend the 2000 GMO.

Per the Regional Housing Needs Calculator, the City needs to construct approximately 560 low-income units (below 80% of Area Median Income [AMI]) and approximately 333 moderate to market rate units (above 121% AMI) over the next Housing Element Cycle through 2031 at the 30% Policy Target level to ensure compliance with California Housing and Community Development.15 The 2009 General Plan EIR has an estimated buildout of 872 units. The 2023-2031 Housing Element analyzed pending, approved and 14City of Healdsburg. 2024. City Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency, Regular Meeting (May 6, 2024) item 8) Growth Management Ordinance Ballot Measure Discussion Staff Report. Available at:
https://healdsburgca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2270&MediaPosition=&ID=4437&CssCl ass=. Accessed May 2024.
15 City of Healdsburg. 2023b. Housing Needs Calculator. Excel spreadsheet sent via email on May 16, 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
14 permitted residential projects as well as future projections and has an estimated build out of 981 units. 16 Since no proposed land use changes or general plan amendments are proposed that would increase density, Addendum #4 is consistent with the estimated numbers in the 2009 EIR and 2023-2031 Housing Element update.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would affect only the pace of multi-family housing development within specific geographic locations: north Healdsburg Avenue corridor, CHAP, and South Entry Area as shown on Figure 3. The ordinance would not affect the type of growth or the total amount of growth under the General Plan or change the environmental impacts identified by the 2009 EIR. This Addendum #4 evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to the GMO considered by the City Council in June 2024 and concludes that there would be no potential impacts beyond those already identified and analyzed in the 2009 EIR. The 2030 General Plan17 and the 2009 EIR18 are incorporated herein by reference, available for review on the City’s website19 and at City Hall during normal business hours.
16 City of Healdsburg. 2023a. Page 76.
17 City of Healdsburg. 2009a. 2030 General Plan. Available at: https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/354/General-Plan. Accessed May 2024.
18 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/355/General-Plan-Environmental-Impact-Report. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
15 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The 2009 EIR for the approved project evaluated environmental issues under the following CEQA topics:

Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, 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, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. For all potentially impacted areas, the 2009 EIR either found that all impacts would be less than significant with implementation of updated general plan policies and implementation measures, without the need for mitigation; or found that there were no feasible mitigation measures, and that a significant and unavoidable impact would occur under the topics of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic and Circulation.

All CEQA topics are required to be evaluated under the 2009 EIR have been evaluated or reevaluated in this Addendum #4 for the proposed project. This evaluation determines whether the proposed project would result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the 2009 EIR.

4.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories
This section explains the criteria for the checklist evaluation of each environmental issue/CEQA topic listed above and analyzed in the 2009 EIR. The checklist evaluation is presented as a table at the beginning of each environmental issue/CEQA topic area. Section 4.17

4.1.1 Conclusion in Prior 2009 General Plan Update EIR
This column presents the conclusion from the 2009 EIR for the environmental issue listed under each topic.

4.1.2 Do the Proposed 2024 Changes Involve New Impacts? Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether the changes represented by the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the 2009 EIR, or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

4.1.3 New Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the 2009 EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

4.1.4 New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D), if additional analysis completed as part of this Addendum #4 were to find that the conclusions of the 2009 EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no”, and no additional environmental document would be required. Also see Section 1.2, Identification of Addendum as Appropriate CEQA Document.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
16 4.1.5 2009 EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether the 2009 EIR provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. If these mitigation measures will be implemented with the construction of the project; a “yes” response will be provided in either instance. “None” indicates that the EIR and this checklist have concluded that the impact does not occur with this project or is not significant; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are needed.

4.2 Aesthetics
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
No impact No No No None
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Significant and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None

4.2.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that through the implementation of applicable General Plan policies related to aesthetic resources, impacts would be less than significant. The analysis considered policies intended to conserve existing ridgelines, hillsides, and open space and natural settings; to ensure land use developments respect natural constraints and conditions and are aesthetically pleasing; and to protect scenic resources from obtrusion from development. In addition, the 2009 EIR noted that the City would require future proposed projects to adhere to Article 26 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which maintains the City’s natural resources through Design Review for proposed development. The City may also require, visual simulations along certain roadways specified in General Plan policies NR-C-7 and where necessary pursuant to General Plan Policy NR-10. The City also requires that proposed development comply with all applicable policies and regulations found in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Policies LU-A-6, LU-C-1, TA-14, PS-H7, NR-B-2, and NR-C-1 through NR-C-8 would ensure land use development respects natural constraints and conditions as well as protect the City’s aesthetic resources. The 2009 EIR concluded that impacts related to impact on a scenic vista would be less than significant.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
17 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development in areas identified in Figure 3 from the GMO. Similar to the 2009 EIR, the proposed amendment would comply with General Plan policies and Article 26 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The 2024 amendment to the GMO does not anticipate significant visual changes beyond those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) As discussed in the 2009 General Plan Update EIR, according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) there are no State designated scenic highways within the City of Healdsburg,
20 and concluded that no impact would occur related to damage to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. New development would not be located within or adjacent to a State-designated scenic highway.

Similar to the 2009 EIR, the 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not cause damage to scenic resources, as there are no State scenic highways in the City, nor proposed exemption area.

Amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR considered the potential for buildout to result in degradation of the City’s visual character. To preserve the City’s visual character, the City would implement General Plan policies through development and building standards as well as ensure future projects adhere to local regulations. In addition, the City will require future proposed projects to demonstrate consistency with applicable area plans. City planning documents and regulations further recognize natural constraints and site conditions within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB),
21 promoting the maintenance of downtown Healdsburg’s character and aesthetics and preserving and enhancing the most desirable qualities of the City’s built environment. The areas proposed for exemption from the 2000 GMO occur within the City of Healdsburg UGB. In addition, the 2009 EIR noted that future proposed projects would be required to adhere to Article 26 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as described in impact a). The 2009 EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies, local regulations and area plans, as well as Article 26 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, buildout would not significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the City, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR noted that future proposed projects would be required to adhere to Article 21 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Article 26 (discussed above). The City developed the zoning ordinance to include environmental performance standards, which prohibit lighting from spilling onto adjacent properties. Future proposed projects would have to comply with applicable General Plan policies related to encouraging designing buildings that are in scale and harmony with surrounding development as well as requiring landscaping to minimize glare. The 2009 EIR concluded that despite these measures to reduce lighting impacts associated with development, the overall added glare and sky-glow would result in significant and unavoidable impacts under the 20 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.B-45.
21 County of Sonoma. 2024. City of Healdsburg Urban Growth Boundary. Available at:
https://permitsonoma.org/Microsites/Permit%20Sonoma/Documents/Pre-2022/GIS/Downloadable%20Map/City-HealdsburgUrban-Boundaries.pdf. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
18 2030 General Plan. Mitigation identified for significant impacts was determined not to be feasible.

A discussion of those impacts is located in Section 2.1.3 of this addendum.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development on parcels deemed underutilized within the exemption area identified in Figure 3, above. Consistent with the 2009 EIR, development in the exempted area would adhere to Article 26 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies, local regulations, Citywide Design Guidelines and area plans. The exemption would streamline multi-family housing in the exempted area, and lighting and glare would increase along the Healdsburg Avenue corridor. Overall, however, the number of housing units would remain the same as previously analyzed, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.2.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.2.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non- agricultural use?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
19 Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
c) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland, to non- agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.3.1 Discussion
a-c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that the conversion of farmland or forestland to nonagricultural or non-forestry use at the assumed buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant.22 The City contains a limited amount of farmland and forestland and is primarily classified as Urban or Built-Up Land. No parcels within the City are subject to a Williamson Act contract, and the 16.33-acre parcel located between Magnolia and Kinley Drive was the only parcel identified as being zoned Agriculture (AG) within the City. The proposed 2024 GMO amendment proposes to exempt areas identified in Figure 3 from the GMO and would not impact the 16.33-acre agricultural parcel located between Magnolia and Kinley Drive or alter land use designations in the 2030 General Plan, or directly result in revisions to supporting land use policy documents. The EIR concluded that impacts related to the conversion of farmland or forestland to non-agricultural or non-forestry use would be less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR or convert farmland or forestland to housing. In the area proposed for exemption, there is no farmland, land subject to a Williamson Act contract, forestry land, or lands designated as a timberland production zone. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 General Plan Update EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.3.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. In the area proposed for exemption, there is no farmland, land subject to a Williamson Act contract, forestry land, or lands designated as a timberland production zone. Therefore, impacts to agricultural resources associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur. 22 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.C-17.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
20 4.4 Air Quality
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Air Quality
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
No impact No No No None
b) Violate any air quality
standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) 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 (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
No impact No No No None
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Significant and
Unavoidable
impact
No No No None
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number
of people?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.4.1 Discussion
a-e) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that because the North Coast Air Basin is in attainment for all federal ambient air quality standards, the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD) was not required to prepare or implement an air quality plan, and therefore buildout of the 2030 General Plan would not conflict with any applicable air quality plan.23 The 2009 EIR also concluded that buildout would not result in violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation due to construction emissions, with implementation of standard dust control measures and General Plan Implementation Measure NR-24.24 The 2009 EIR determined that compliance with NSCAPCD rules and regulations and transportation control measures intended to reduce ozone precursor emissions, operational emissions from the 2030 General Plan would be less than significant. 25 The
2009 EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would not result in any carbon monoxide (CO) “hotspots” or result in CO concentrations that would exceed State or federal ambient air quality standards.
26 Objectionable odors associated with future development under the General Plan would be addressed by NSCAPCD Rule 400, which prohibits air contaminants from being 23 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.D-26; IV.D-30.
24 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.D-27.
25 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.D-28.
26 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.D-32.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
21 discharged in quantities sufficient to constitute a public nuisance among any considerable number of persons or the public that would endanger comfort or repose. General Plan Policy LU-C-4 requires that development at the interface of different land use designations be designed to ensure compatibility between uses, which could include a buffer zone and the regulation of operations that may create objectionable odors. In addition, an ongoing odor control program has been instituted at the Healdsburg Transfer Station and Healdsburg Landfill. Therefore, impacts related to odors were determined to be less than significant.

4.4.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.4.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.5 Biological Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Biological Resources
Would the project:
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?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
22 Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect 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?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
f) Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.5.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, future development within the City has the potential to affect special-status plants and animals.27 To address potential impacts, the City would identify the presence of suitable habitat within areas proposed for future development and require surveys for special-status plants and animals pursuant to applicable federal, State, and local regulations.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not permit more multi-family rental units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Future projects would need to demonstrate compliance with applicable General Plan policies as well as federal and State regulations that reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special-status species impacts associated with the 2024 amendment to the 27 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.E-29.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
23 2000 GMO would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that implementation of federal, State, and local regulations and the General Plan policies designed to protect riparian and other sensitive habitats would reduce associated impacts to less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not permit more multi-family rental units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Buildout of multi-family units would occur within the exemption area identified in Figure 3 from the GMO and would not disturb sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat outside of areas already considered for potential development, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to federally protected wetlands would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, implementation of the federal and State regulations under the Clean Water Act would require permits that would identify impact to wetlands and mitigation measures.28
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not permit more multi-family rental units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Buildout of multi-family units would occur at compatible locations identified in Figure 3 from the GMO and would not disturb land other than areas analyzed in the 2009 EIR. As a result, wetlands impacts would be less than significant, and no new impacts to listed wetlands would occur. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to migratory fish and wildlife species would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, implementation of federal and State regulations related to the protection of migratory fish and wildlife species along with the General Plan policies that protect biological resources (General Plan policy PS-D-2—channel improvements, NR-2—requiring storm water pollution plans, and S-C-3—flood protection measures) would reduce migratory species impacts to less than significant levels. 29 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family rental units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Buildout of multi-family units would occur at compatible locations identified in Figure 3 from the GMO and would not disturb land other than areas previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. As a result, no new impacts to migratory fish and wildlife species would occur and impacts to migratory species would be less than significant.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
24 18, Section 18105 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and implementation of this ordinance and general plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.30 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not permit more multi-family rental units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Buildout of multi-family units would occur at compatible locations within the exemption area identified in Figure 3 from the GMO and would not disturb land other than that which was previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. As a result, no new impacts to heritage trees would occur. Consistent with the 2009 EIR, heritage tree impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Plans, or other approved conservation plans would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, compliance with General Plan policies would ensure buildout of the general plan would not conflict with habitat conservation plans and other approved plans.31 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not permit more multi-family rental units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Buildout of multi-family units would occur at compatible locations within the exemption area identified in Figure 3 from the GMO and would not disturb land other than that which was previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Consistent with the 2009 EIR, future proposed projects would be required to adhere to General Plan policies that reduce impacts to habitat conservation plans or natural community plans and impacts to habitat conservation or natural community plans would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.5.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.5.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts to biological resources associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur. 30 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.E-32.
31 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.E-33.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
25 4.6 Cultural Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.6.1 Discussion
a-d) The City includes two areas governed by the Historic District Overlay, along with 10 buildings and one site (Healdsburg Plaza) that are currently locally listed as historic. Policy CD-B-1 supports the preservation of the Plaza as the historic and cultural center of the City, and Policy LU-D-3 prohibits formula businesses around the Plaza to protect its character. Both Policies HCR-A-1 and HCR-A-2 promote historic preservation through the protection and enhancement of the City’s historically significant districts, buildings, and landscape features and the support of efforts of owners of qualified properties in seeking local historic designation listing on the California Register and/or the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the 2030 General Plan contains implementation measures HCR-1 and HCR-3 that direct the City to inventory and protect historic resources.

The City Zoning Ordinance directs the City Historic Committee to review any alteration of a building within a Historic District.32 This includes accessory buildings over 400 square feet in floor area (except for accessory dwelling units) as well as demolition of any designated historic building or structure that contributes to the area’s historic character. The City also requires Design Review for any significant alterations to designated individual historic buildings and sites and significant alterations to buildings within a designated historic district.33 Design Review is also required prior to any alteration to an existing building within a historic overlay. A project that may increase the floor area of more than 25%, adds a second story, or significantly changes front elevations is subject to prior City approval. The City further reviews and requires approval for any new construction less than 25% as well as exterior alterations, repair, and rehabilitation of a primary structure in an historic overlay.34 The City’s review would determine 32 City of Healdsburg. Municipal Code, Title 20: Land Use, Article III Historic District Overlay, Section 20.12.065. 33 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.F-8 and 9.
34 City of Healdsburg. Municipal Code, Title 20: Land Use. Article III Historic District Overlay. Section 20.12.066.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
26 consistency with applicable design guidelines for historic properties intended to protect historical resources. With implementation of applicable General Plan policies and land use regulations, the 2009 EIR concluded that impacts related to significant historical resources would be less than significant.

General Plan Policies HCR-B-1 through HCR-B-4 would protect archaeological resources by requiring consultation with culturally affiliated Native American tribes prior to the adoption of any plans or actions to place sacred sites permanently in open space areas. The policies require that the City work with tribal governments to identify, address, and mitigate impacts to cultural resource sites and to encourage voluntary landowner efforts to do the same, consistent with State law.

Specifically, Policy HCR-B-3 requires that the City avoid or mitigate to the maximum extent feasible impacts of development on Native American archaeological and cultural resources. In addition, General Plan implementation measures HCR-8 through HCR-10 require the City to coordinate with tribal governments to avoid impacts to cultural resources. The City would continue to refer future project applications that require discretionary permits to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in order to determine if the site might contain archaeological resources. If a site is likely to contain these resources, the City would require further study of the site if recommended by the NWIC and require protective mitigation measures if necessary. Therefore, the 2009 EIR concluded that potential disturbance of archaeological resources would be less than significant.35 No unique geologic features were found to exist in areas that could be impacted by General Plan buildout. Therefore, the 2009 EIR determined that impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.36
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that if human remains are unearthed during construction, no further disturbance shall occur until the Sonoma County Coroner Unit has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition. If the remains are determined to be those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of identifying the remains as being those of a Native American. In addition, General Plan implementation measures HCR-8 and HCR-9 call for the City to identify, protect, and preserve cultural resources during the City’s development and environmental review process. These implementation measures also require monitoring of earth-disturbing activities in archaeologically and culturally sensitive areas, as well as evaluation by a qualified archaeologist of cultural resources found prior to or during construction and application of appropriate mitigation measures.

Therefore, the 2009 EIR concluded that impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.37
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Thus, the effect of the amended ordinance would not result in disturbance of more structures or ground area than previously analyzed. Amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.6.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
35 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.F-9.
36 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.F-9.
37 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.F-10.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
27 4.6.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan, all potential impacts to historic resources would be mitigated on a projectby-project basis. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.7 Geology and Soils
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures
to potential substantial adverse
effects, including 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 or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
iv) Landslides? Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1- B of
the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
28 Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
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?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.7.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to seismic hazards would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, the City is in a seismically active region and may experience strong ground shaking, but implementation of federal, State, and General Plan policies would minimize seismic hazard risks.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development in areas within the exemption area identified in Figure 3 from the GMO, on parcels deemed underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Consistent with the General Plan, multifamily units built would not be located within a designated Alquist-Priolo fault zone. Adherence to federal and State regulations and General Plan policies would reduce the risks associated with exposure of people and property to seismically related hazards. Furthermore, implementation of these regulations and policies would ensure 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO impacts related to ground failure and landslides from seismic activity would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, implementation of California Building Code guidelines and General Plan policies would prevent or limit soil erosion due to development. Implementation of General Plan policies would limit grading activity and ensure that a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is prepared prior to construction activities, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development in areas identified in Figure 3 from the GMO The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Any future proposed projects in the exemption area would adhere to applicable California Building Code guidelines and General Plan policies, reducing soil erosion impacts to less than significant.

Therefore, amending the GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to exposure of people and property to geologic hazards such as landslides, land subsidence, or unstable or expansive soils were determined to be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, adherence with federal

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
29 and State regulations and General Plan policies would ensure risks associated with exposure of people and property to geologic hazards are limited.

Implementation of the 2024 GMO amendment would not change the development potential, but rather allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The implementation of federal and State regulations and General Plan policies would minimize risks associated with geologic hazards (landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction), and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, adherence with federal and State regulations and General Plan policies would ensure that future developments would be sited in accordance with geological limitations and employ structurally sound building practices.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the development potential, but rather allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area, within the General Plan area previously analyzed. Since implementation of federal and State regulations and General Plan policies would minimize risks associated with expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to soils and the use of septic tanks where sewer service is not available would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 General Plan Update EIR, future development in the City that cannot be served by City sewer service would be required to adhere to the guidelines of the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (SCPRMD) septic system permitting process.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the number or type of multifamily units that would occur within the General Plan area previously analyzed. Since the 2024 GMO amendment would not change the area of development and implementation of the guidelines of the SCPRMD septic system permitting process would apply. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.7.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.7.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts to geology and soils associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
30 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
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?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) Be located within 2 miles of a
public airport or private use
airport and result in a safety
hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in
the project area?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
h) Be located in an area
designated as having a high,
extreme, or severe fire hazard,
or otherwise expose people or
structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
31 4.8.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to residential hazardous materials would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, buildout of the General Plan could result in the additional transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials but residential land uses do not use significant amounts of hazardous materials.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would permit the same number and type of multi-family units as analyzed in the 2009 EIR. The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. Similar to the 2009 EIR, under the amended ordinance the same types and amounts of hazardous materials would be used because the same types and amounts of residential land uses would be built. As described in the 2009 EIR, the transport and storage of household hazardous materials would not be a significant impact because they can be disposed of at two sites. Furthermore, implementation of federal, State, and local programs, plans, policies and permits would ensure impacts are less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to the risk of accidental upset would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 General Plan Update EIR, General Plan policies are in place to ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from accidental upset of hazardous materials.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed underutilized. As the ordinance does not change the number and type of units analyzed in the 2009 EIR, the same impacts would occur.

Additionally, all previously analyzed federal, State, and General Plan policies would minimize potential impacts from hazardous materials and emissions within one quarter mile of a school, and impacts would be less than significant. Amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
32 d) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts to the public or the environment resulting from a State response site located within the City would be less than significant. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, federal, State, and General Plan policies are in place to minimize impacts related to response sites.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. While the proposed 2024 amendment could allow for multi-family housing to be conditionally permitted on industrial sites, any proposed project would undergo a project-specific analysis prior to construction, and all federal, State, and General Plan policies regulations previously analyzed under the 2009 EIR would minimize potential impacts from State response sites. Similar to the 2009 EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e-f) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts of a public airport or private use airport would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, buildout would not expose people residing and working in the Planning Area to a safety hazard due to operation of a public airport.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The exemption could increase traffic along the Healdsburg Avenue corridor. In 2023, the City adopted an evacuation map covering all areas of the City, including the area proposed to be exempted from the GMO. 39 The
areas proposed to be exempted would fall within the following evacuation zones: HE-2, HE-5, HE11, and HE-13. Similar to the 2009 EIR, implementation of General Plan policies would minimize potential impacts on emergency operations and ensure emergency vehicle access, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot 38 Permit Sonoma. 2006. Healdsburg Airport Safety Zones. Available at:
https://permitsonoma.org/Microsites/Permit%20Sonoma/Documents/Long%20Range%20Plans/healdsburg-Airport-SafetyZones.pdf. Accessed May 2024. 39 City of Healdsburg. 2023c. Evacuation Zones. Available at: https://healdsburg.gov/1051/Evacuation. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
33 measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. h) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts to the exposure of people or structures to wildland fire would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, implementation of General Plan policies would minimize associated potential wildfire risks.

4.8.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.8.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
40 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas GIS Viewer. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severityzones. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
34 Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
b) 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
(e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or offsite?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) 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?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
f) Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
g) Place housing within a 100-
year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
h) Place within a 100- year flood
hazard structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
i) Expose people or structures to
significant risk or loss, injury or
death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
j) Inundation of by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
35 4.9.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to potential violation of water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Future development would be consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) measures that would ensure water quality standards are not violated. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, General Plan policies and policy implementation measures would carry out federal and State regulations. These policies, including those implemented as part of the approval process for future projects, and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would ensure water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are met.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area from the GMO, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. Because the same total of number of units would be allowed as analyzed in the 2009 EIR, the same impacts to water quality would occur as analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Consistent with the 2009 EIR, projects built in the exempted GMO area would be required to comply with all existing federal, State, and local water quality regulations that prevent water quality impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that the change of some parcels previously proposed for development to Open Space would result in less-than-significant impacts to groundwater and groundwater supplies. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, buildout of the General Plan is expected to result in an increased demand for water and the City would be adequately served by water from the Russian River and Dry Creek.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The area proposed for exemption would not increase impervious surfaces, nor would allow development on watershed areas compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Additionally, in accordance with policy PS-A-9, the City has been awarded grant funding to construct half of the planned recycled water facilities needed. This reuse of water would lessen the need for water supply from the Russian River and Dry Creek via Lake Sonoma.41
Groundwater supplies and recharge impacts would not change compared to what was analyzed in the 2009 EIR under the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that no alteration is proposed to streams or rivers that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, proposed projects would have to adhere to General Plan policies, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) permitting requirements, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations, grading regulations of the City’s Municipal Code, and best management practices (BMPs) that would reduce impacts to less than significant. 41 City of Healdsburg. 2024b. Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline. Available at: https://cityofhealdsburg.org/1114/MunicipalRecycled-Water-Pipeline. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
36 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. As a result, consistent with the 2009 EIR, projects built under the 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local policies to reduce erosion or siltation on and off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that no alteration to streams or rivers is proposed that would result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of stormwater and flooding.

Implementation of General Plan policies PS-D-1 and PS-D-3 would increase the capacity of the City’s drainage systems and ensure the project is served by adequate stormwater drainage. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, projects would have to adhere to General Plan policies PS-D-1 and PSD-3, the City’s municipal code and applicable BMPs that would prevent substantial polluted runoff.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The area proposed to be exempted would not create more impervious surfaces. As a result, impacts to stormwater drainage system capacity would not change because the GMO revisions would not change the amount of stormwater that would be captured. Additionally, the City has been awarded funds to construct part of a recycled water pipeline, anticipated to offset demand of potable water by approximately 27 million gallons per year, or about 4% of current demand.42 Compliance with General Plan policies would ensure stormwater drainage capacity is adequate, and impacts would remain less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that compliance with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SWRCB, employment of BMPs, General 42 City of Healdsburg. 2024b. Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline. Available at: https://cityofhealdsburg.org/1114/MunicipalRecycled-Water-Pipeline. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
37 Plan policies, and grading regulations of the City’s Municipal Code would reduce the impacts related to risk of water quality degradation to less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Therefore, the same impacts to water quality would occur as analyzed in the 2009 EIR, and projects built under the 2024 amendment would be required to comply with federal, State, and local water quality regulations. Implementation of these measures, and all BMPs, would prevent eroded materials and other pollutants from entering the City’s drainage system and degrading water quality, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
g) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts due to flooding and 100-year flood zones would be less than significant. General Plan policies S-C-1 and S-C-2 would ensure development is in compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)–adopted standards. These policies set requirements for development in 100-year flood zones or flood plains and ensure conformance with federal regulations.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. In the exempted area, there are FEMA-mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas around Foss Creek.
43 Any projects constructed in the exempted area would be required to adhere to General Plan policies regarding flood zone hazards, specifically policy S-C-2, which requires that new residential development in flood prone areas shall be constructed so that the lowest floor is at least one foot above the 100-year flood level. Existing development shall comply with these requirements when improvements are made costing at least 50% of the current market value of the structure before the improvements.44 Any residential development would be required to also comply with the City’s floodplain management ordinance and federal regulations. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
h) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts due to flooding and 100-year flood zones would be less than significant. As discussed under threshold discussion 4.10.g), above, local policies would ensure development is in compliance with FEMA adopted standards.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
38 conformance with federal regulations, and impacts would be less than significant. Amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
i) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts due to flooding from dam or levee failure would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, the Warm Springs Dam and Coyote Dam have the potential to inundate the City in the event of failure. The City’s implementation measures would ensure General Plan policies intended to reduce impacts would be carried out.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The exempted area is mapped in a dam inundation area, and there is the possibility that the 2024 exemption could expose more people or structures to flooding related to dam or levee failure along Healdsburg Ave. However, as noted in the 2009 EIR, Implementation Measures proposed for the revised Safety Element of the proposed General Plan include S-4 which states that the city will “Maintain and periodically update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, Recovery Manual and Hazard Mitigation Plan. As part of the periodic updates, the City shall review county and state emergency response procedures to ensure that they are coordinated with city procedures” and S-5, which states that the City will “Conduct periodic emergency response exercises to test the effectiveness of City emergency response procedures.” These measures would minimize risks associated with flooding due to dam failure for projects built after the proposed 2018 amendment to the 2000 GMO. Similar to the 2009 EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2018 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
j) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts due to inundation of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, projects would have to adhere to General Plan policies aimed at reducing impacts from mudflows.

4.9.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
39 4.9.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.10 Land Use and Planning
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Conflict with any applicable
land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
No impact No No No None

4.10.1 Discussion
a-c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that much of the buildout under the General Plan would occur as infill development and not divide an established community. Furthermore, the General Plan does not include any extension of roadways or other development features through currently developed areas that could divide existing communities. Roadway extensions in areas with new residential development would be part of a comprehensive development plan that would establish linkages among new land uses and to existing land uses.45 The 2009 EIR found that buildout of the General Plan was consistent with the Sonoma County General Plan, the Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the City of Healdsburg Zoning Ordinance, and all City of Healdsburg Specific and Neighborhood Plans, in addition to conservation plans. 46 Policy
LU-C-4 would ensure development between uses is compatible, and Policy S-G-1 would help 45 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.J-21.
46 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.J-22 to IV.J-24.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
40 ensure compatibility between land uses by requiring consistency with the Community Noise Environments guidelines.

The proposed amendment to the GMO would not change the type or extent of growth analyzed under the 2009 EIR, however, the 2024 amendment to the GMO could alter the annual growth rate within the City.

While the General Plan determines the type and extent of growth, the proposed exemption would allow for multi-family housing to be a permitted use in several different Zoning Districts, listed in Chapter 3. Proposed Project Changes, Table 1. Multi-Family housing could be conditionally approved in industrial districts. All proposed projects within the exemption area would be subject to the City’s environmental review process, which includes project-specific environmental review under CEQA, including mitigation of significant impacts to the extent feasible. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan was found to not result in incompatibilities between land uses.

The proposed 2024 exemption would not physically divide an existing community, nor conflict with any applicable land use plan. The environmental impacts identified in the 2009 EIR, would not change due to the proposed amendment to the GMO, and the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not change or introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.10.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.10.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, land use impacts associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.11 Mineral Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Mineral Resources
Would the project:

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
41 Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
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?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
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?
No impact No No No None

4.11.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is of value to the region and the residents of the State would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, State policies would preserve existing known mineral resources zones and manage mineral resource extraction. For example, the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) identifies and protects areas containing significant mineral resources.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The amended ordinance would apply to previously developed parcels and would not introduce new loss of mineral resources. Similar to the 2009 EIR, implementation of SMARA would preserve existing known mineral resources zones and manage mineral resource extraction. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to the availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site would be less than significant. As discussed in the 2009 EIR, policies contained in the Sonoma County Aggregate Resources Management Plan, City of Healdsburg General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance Article 22 would preserve locally important mineral resource recovery sites and ensure SMARA regulations are implemented.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
42 4.11.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.11.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.12 Noise
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Noise
Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
Significant and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None
d) A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) For a project located within
an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 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?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No impact No No No None

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
43 4.12.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that the proposed Implementation Measure S-25 (requiring noise-reducing measures for construction activities) would reduce construction noise impacts resulting from buildout of the 2030 General Plan. The analysis also concluded that there would be no changes in noise and land use compatibility impacts compared to existing conditions with implementation of the General Plan Update. Furthermore, implementation of Policies LU-C-4, S-G-1, and S-G-2, and Implementation Measure S-16, would ensure that new noise-generating development that could occur under the General Plan would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of acceptable standards. The conclusion in the 2009 EIR was that the impact from the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in an applicable plan or noise ordinance was found to be less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. With the 2024 exemption, there is a possibility that sensitive land uses could be introduced to industrial or commercial areas.

However, any projects built in the exempted area to the 2000 GMO would be required to adhere to City’s Noise Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies, local regulations, and area plans.

Similar to the 2009 EIR, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that new permanent sources of ground-borne vibration would not be introduced under General Plan buildout. Perceptible ground-borne vibration may result on an infrequent basis during construction activities but were determined to be well below thresholds for potential cosmetic or structural damage to buildings. General Plan implementation measure S-24 requires the use of the FTA vibration impact criteria to evaluate the land use compatibility of sensitive uses proposed along the railroad corridor using the best available information (without active railroad operations) or site-specific analyses (with active railroad operations). Developers of sensitive uses would also be required to demonstrate that potential impacts of existing or potential vibration have been minimized to the maximum feasible extent.

Therefore, the 2009 General Plan Update EIR determined that exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels would be less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more residential development than what was analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Consistent with the General Plan EIR, any projects built in the exempted area from the GMO would be required to adhere to City’s Noise Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies, local regulations, and area plans, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that approximately 56,459 daily vehicular trips could be added to roadways in the City as development occurs under the General Plan. The traffic increases would increase noise levels throughout the community over time. The 2009 EIR determined this to be a significant and unavoidable impact, as the efficacy of mitigation measures could not be determined with certainty.

The proposed GMO amendment would not allow for more residential development than what was analyzed in the 2009 EIR and, thus, would not result in additional on- or off roadway noise than

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
44 anticipated under the 2009 General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that General Plan implementation measure S-25, which requires noise-reducing measures for construction activities, and compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance limiting permissible hours for construction activities would reduce construction noise impacts associated with General Plan buildout. Therefore, due to construction hour limitations and implementation of BMPs, the 2009 EIR determined that impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more residential development than what was analyzed in the 2009 EIR. Any projects built in the exempted area of the GMO would be required to adhere to City’s Noise Ordinance and applicable General Plan policies, local regulations, and area plans, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Aircraft operations associated with Healdsburg Municipal Airport and Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport are sources of intermittent noise in the City. New noise-sensitive uses are not planned in areas within the 60 or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for either airport. Thus, the 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that impacts related to aviation-related noise in proximity to a public airport would be less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more residential development than what was analyzed in the 2009 EIR. The impacts described above were based on buildout of the General Plan and account for the development that would occur if the proposed amendment was approved. Similar to the 2009 EIR, impacts would be less than significant associated with people residing or working within the vicinity of a public airport being exposed to excessive noise levels. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2018 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) There are no private airstrips located within the City, and new noise-sensitive uses are not planned in areas within the 60 or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for a private airstrip. The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded no impact related to aviation-related noise in proximity to a private airstrip.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not impact noise-sensitive uses near private airstrips. Per the findings in the 2009 EIR, no impacts would occur associated with people residing or working within the vicinity of a private airstrip being exposed to excessive noise levels.

4.12.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
45 4.12.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.13 Population and Housing
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Displace substantial numbers
of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.13.1 Discussion
a-c) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that buildout of residentially designated land in the City’s UGB could result in the construction of up to 872 additional residential units. The City of Healdsburg is expected to experience the smallest percent change in population (approximately

6.5%) from 2010 to 2030 compared to the rest of Sonoma County.

The 2009 EIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts from an assumed full buildout of the General Plan, a total of 872 units at full occupancy, and a maximum of approximately 14,468 new residents within the UGB, while the 2023-2031 Housing Element analyzed pending, approved and permitted residential projects as well as future projections and has an estimated build out of 981 units. The 2009 EIR considered how the City would accommodate population growth and evaluated the potential for development consistent with General Plan land use designations, and impacts related to population growth upon full residential buildout were considered be less than significant.47 However, since no proposed land use changes or general plan amendments are proposed that would increase density, Addendum #4 is consistent with the estimated numbers in the 47 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.M-9.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
46 2009 EIR and 2023 Housing Element update. The 2009 EIR also assumed residential development would occur primarily on vacant and underutilized parcels within the City. Individual projects could result in the demolition of existing housing units to develop other permitted uses on-site, but the 2009 EIR determined that impacts related to the displacement of existing housing or people were determined to be less than significant.48
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development in areas identified in Figure 3 from the GMO from the GMO. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Any projects proposed within the exemption area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and area plans. Residential development resulting in increased demand for public services, infrastructure, and utilities would be accounted for in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Furthermore, the City would review proposed residential development for consistency with the General Plan and applicable regulatory standards.

The impacts described above were based on buildout of the General Plan and, therefore, account for the development that would occur as part of the 2024 exemption to the 2000 GMO. The 2024 exemption would meet General Plan Policy H-B-2, which recommends amending the 2000 GMO to allow for increased multi-family residential development. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.13.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.13.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to population and housing associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.
48 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.M-9.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
47 4.14 Public Services
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
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:
a) Fire protection? Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Police protection? Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Schools? Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Parks? Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) Other public facilities? Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.14.1 Discussion
a) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that any development resulting from General Plan buildout would be required to comply with all applicable fire code requirements associated with adequate fire truck access, fire flows, and number of hydrants. General Plan Policy T-A-4 would ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles, including adequate street widths and vertical clearance on new streets. Pursuant to Policy T-A-4, the City shall strive to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D operation during periods of peak flow at critical intersections, and LOS C operation during all other times. Policy PS-E-2 requires all new commercial, industrial, institutional, multiple-unit residential, and mixed-use developments to have built-in fire protection equipment, thus offsetting the need for new Fire Department staff and equipment. General Plan implementation measure PS-12 seeks to develop funding sources sufficient to attain and maintain adequate fire service levels, thereby mitigating potential impacts related to provision of fire facilities. The 2009 EIR determined that impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant.49
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development in within the exemption area from the GMO, on parcels deemed underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Any projects proposed within the exemption area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and area plans, and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not 49 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.N-9.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
48 introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) With regard to police protection, the 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that General Plan policies will maintain adequate staffing levels, equipment, and facilities in order to maintain a minimum feasible response time to emergency calls. Therefore, the policies and implementation measures of the 2030 General Plan would ensure that acceptable levels of service are maintained, and impacts associated with police protection were determined to be less than significant.50 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area from the GMO, on parcels deemed underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Any projects proposed within the exemption area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and area plans, and impacts would be less than significant.

0.6 per unit. HUSD and private schools have the capacity to accommodate 4,774 students. At the time the 2009 General Plan Update EIR was prepared, these schools had 2,831 students enrolled, with space for an additional 1,943 students. Schools in Healdsburg have adequate capacity to serve the additional 524 students generated under General Plan buildout conditions with existing facilities. General Plan policies, combined with the available capacity at HUSD schools, would ensure that the approximately 524 additional students would be provided with sufficient educational facilities, and impacts related to school services would be less than significant.51 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The expected total enrollment increase of 524 students would not change. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Buildout of the General Plan could result in an increase of approximately 2,268 residents, resulting in a total population of approximately 14,468 persons within the City’s UGB. Based on the existing

43.32 acres of parkland within the City plus the addition of the 36-acre community park to be constructed as part of the Montage (formerly Saggio Hills) project, the ratio of acres of parkland per one thousand residents in the City would increase to 5.48:1, which exceeds the City’s goal of 5:1.

General Plan policies address the need for additional development of neighborhood and community parkland, and future development of parks and/or recreational facilities would be subject to projectspecific CEQA analysis, if such development is not exempt from CEQA. The 2009 EIR determined that impacts related to parks would be less than significant.52 50 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.N-13.
51 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.N-18.
52 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.N-25.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
49 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The expected total increase of residents would not change. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would result in an increase demand for other public facilities. Development facilitated by the General Plan may require investment in new or upgraded infrastructure. However, the City anticipated certain areas to absorb future growth within a designated the UGB. Consistent with the General Plan and area plans, the demands for public services, infrastructure, and utilities from future land use development projects would be accounted for in the City’s process to review and update the CIP.

The City prioritizes maintenance and capacity upgrades to ensure that adequate public facilities would meet future growth demands. Furthermore, the City would review proposed land use developments for consistency with the General Plan and applicable building standards. The 2009 EIR determined that impacts related to parks would be less than significant.

4.14.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.14.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to public services associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
50 4.15 Transportation and Traffic
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Transportation and Traffic
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable
plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation
including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
Significant and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None
b) Conflict with an applicable
congestion management
program, including but not
limited to, level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management
agency for the designated roads
or highways?
Significant and
unavoidable
impact
No No No None
c) Result in a change in air
traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities.

Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

4.15.1 Discussion
a-b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR contains a number of policies related to addressing the need to reduce reliance on passenger vehicles. The General Plan also contains associated implementation programs that focus on constructing improvements that will increase roadway capacities and promote development patterns that support increased use of alternative modes, provide improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure. The 2009 EIR concluded that implementation of the

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
51 applicable programs and policies would ensure that impacts associated with buildout traffic would be less than significant, with the exception of the Dry Creek Road/U.S. 101 interchange, which would be significant and unavoidable. The 2009 EIR determined buildout would result in a significant and unavoidable impact at the Dry Creek Road/U.S. 101 interchange due to the allowed increment of population growth within the City’s UGB.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The 2009 EIR projected a daily trip budget of 56,549 trips, and the amended ordinance would not allow for more multi-family rental units than what the 2009 EIR evaluated. However, multifamily development would occur in a focused area, which has the potential to increase vehicle trips within the exemption area identified in Figure 3 from the GMO, and the Dry Creek Road/U.S. 101 interchange. While the exemption would focus development, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as concluded in the 2009 EIR. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) The General Plan includes policies and implementation measures that provide for the continued operation of the Healdsburg Municipal Airport to serve the needs of City residents, resulting in no change in air traffic patterns. Thus, the 2009 EIR concluded that impacts related to air traffic patterns would be less than significant.

Implementation of General Plan policies and programs relative to safety would result in the development and maintenance of a street system that meets minimum adopted standards and avoids introducing any new hazards. Therefore, the 2009 EIR determined that impacts related to hazards associated with new streets, street connections, and traffic added to existing streets would be less than significant.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
52 Fire Code requirements. Projects built in the exempted area would be required to adhere to the programs and policies set forth in the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) As stated in the 2009 General Plan Update EIR, the General Plan includes policies and programs that address pedestrian safety such as providing appropriate pedestrian facilities, filling in gaps in the network, improving pedestrian safety and access, and developing pedestrian infrastructure needed to accommodate proposed developments. The General Plan also incorporates policies and programs related to bicycle circulation and infrastructure including providing appropriate trails, bike lane, and transit service. The 2009 EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan programs, policies, and projects related to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would result in beneficial impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access.

Since projects built under the amended ordinance would be required to adhere to the programs and policies set forth in the General Plan to address pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, similar to the 2009 EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.15.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.15.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, transportation impacts associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
53 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
c) Require or result in the
construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) Result in inadequate
wastewater treatment capacity
to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
e) Result in inadequate
wastewater treatment capacity
to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
g) Comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
No impact No No No None
h) Encourage activities that
result in the use of large
amounts of energy, or use of
energy in a wasteful manner?*
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
54 Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion in
2009 EIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
2009 EIR
Mitigation
Measures
i) Require or result in the
construction or expansion of
electrical and natural gas
facilities, which could cause
significant effects?*
Less-thansignificant
impact
No No No None
* This environmental issue question is included for purposes of addressing State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.

4.16.1 Discussion
a) Buildout of the General Plan would comply with all provisions of waste discharge permits, which regulate discharges throughout the City. Through compliance with the City’s waste discharge permit program, which is administered subject to the requirements and limitations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, as enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), General Plan buildout would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements, as analyzed in the 2009 EIR. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH)’s Title 22 reclamation requirements are implemented by inclusion in waste discharge requirements adopted by the RWQCB. The NPDES permit system also regulates both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the State (e.g., stormwater systems). The NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements regulate discharge from construction sites. Future projects under the General Plan are required to comply with applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCB, and buildout was found to not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City. Therefore, the 2009 EIR determined that impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB for development under buildout conditions would be less than significant.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Projects built under the amended ordinance would be required to adhere to RWQCB discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that growth under buildout conditions would generate wastewater, requiring treatment. At the time the 2009 EIR was prepared, the City’s treatment plant had a permitted dry-weather capacity of 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd), with a minimum of 0.42 mgd remaining unused capacity available to accommodate development and growth in the near term. Based on wastewater flow generation factors provided by the City, buildout under the General Plan was anticipated to generate an estimated wastewater flow of 428,015 gpd (0.428 mgd) within the City. When added to the highest historic average dry-weather flow (ADWF) (0.98 mgd) of the base year, the total average sewage flow would increase to approximately 1.41 mgd, which is less than 1% above the treatment plant’s permitted capacity.

However, the City’s ADWF is defined in its NPDES permit as the minimum running 30-day

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
55 average. The treatment plant has a sustained capacity of 4.0 mgd, 53 because it must be able to
accommodate peaking events, including higher wet-weather flows in the winter, and higher solids loadings that can occur at any time. Peak uses for individual users throughout the system never occur simultaneously and flows during the period when ADWF is determined are typically far lower, typically at least 15% below the summer peaking period. The expected ADWF generation would reasonably be expected to be at least 15% lower (i.e., 363,813 gpd/0.364 mgd). The total resulting flow of 1.34 mgd at buildout would leave an unused capacity of 0.06 mgd.54 In addition to wastewater capacity, the City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) operates under a NPDES permit administered by the North Coast RWQCB. The NPDES permit prohibits discharge to the Russian River from May 15 to September 30. Currently, the City can only store approximately 25 million gallons, or 17% of the approximately 138 million gallons of water reclaimed during the prohibition period. The City is now expanding its recycled water system facilities and activities to meet the North Coast RWQCB discharge prohibition, 55 and has been
awarded funds to construct part of a recycled water pipeline, anticipated to offset demand of potable water by approximately 27 million gallons per year, or about 4% of current demand.56 The grant award is in accordance with General Plan policy PS-A-9, which states “The City will pursue agricultural and urban reuse of recycled water in accordance with state law to minimize the use of potable water in serving existing and planned development.” This reuse of water would lessen the need for water supply from the Russian River and Dry Creek via Lake Sonoma.57 Per the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, approximately 50 million gallons of recycled water was used across the City.
58 Additional grant applications have been submitted for the remaining recycled water infrastructure, pending award.

In addition to recycled water planning efforts adopted General Plan policies to mitigate the construction and/or upgrades of wastewater infrastructure include the following: Policy PS-B-3 promotes water conservation to minimize sewer flows and Policy PS-B-5 requires the assessment of sewer development fees to obtain sufficient funding for system-wide capacity improvements.

Pursuant to Policy PS-B-3, new, expansion, repair of private septic systems shall be allowed where the City determines that it cannot feasibly provide public sewer service, and such systems shall be used until such time as city sewer service becomes available. Pursuant to Policy PS-B-6, project applicants would need to pay a sewer development fee as assessed by the City. Additional wastewater generated by development could be accommodated by existing treatment facilities and will not require any plant expansion. Furthermore, future upgrades to the City’s sewer distribution system that are not a part of the General Plan would be subject to a separate environmental review per CEQA. Thus, the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; and the potential for insufficient wastewater capacity to serve buildout was determined to be less than significant.59
53 City of Healdsburg. 2008. City of Healdsburg Membrane Wastewater Treatment Facility. Available at:
https://healdsburg.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1039/New-State-of-the-Art-Facility-PDF?bidId=. Accessed May 2024. 54 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.P-8, IV.p-9
55 City of Healdsburg. 2019. WWTP Upgrade Project Final SEIR. Available at:
https://cityofhealdsburg.org/DocumentCenter/View/10715/2019-Final-SEIR-. Accessed May 2024. 56 City of Healdsburg. 2024b. Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline. Available at: https://cityofhealdsburg.org/1114/MunicipalRecycled-Water-Pipeline. Accessed May 2024. 57 City of Healdsburg. 2024b. Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline. Available at: https://cityofhealdsburg.org/1114/MunicipalRecycled-Water-Pipeline. Accessed May 2024. 58 City of Healdsburg. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://healdsburg.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15962/2020-UWMP-Report-w-Errata-and-Council-Resolution. Accessed May 2024.
59 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.P-10

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
56 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area, and demand for wastewater treatment would remain the same as analyzed in the 2009 EIR.

Projects built under the amended ordinance would have to adhere to the General Plan policies, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Development that is greater than 1 acre in size will be required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the SWRCB. Under this permit, project applicants are required to prepare, retain, and implement a SWPPP at the construction site.

In addition, the permit will require the implementation of BMPs to limit the extent of eroded materials from discharging into the City’s drainage system and affecting water quality. BMPs will consist of any activity, prohibition, practice, procedure, program, or other measure designed to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly into the City’s drainage system.

Development that is between one and five acres will be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of pollutants from construction sites.

Policies NR-A-2 and NR-1 call for the City to minimize siltation, sedimentation, and pollution discharge into receiving waters and to develop and apply standard mitigation measures and conditions of approval on development permits. Pursuant to NR-A-2, the City prohibits the establishment of new individual septic systems within City limits. Pursuant to NR-1, the City would require project applicants to develop and apply standard mitigation measures and conditions of approval on development permits to reduce siltation, sedimentation, and pollution discharge into receiving waterways, both pre- and postconstruction. Per the 2009 EIR, these policies, in addition to compliance with SWRCB’s General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, NPDES Phase II regulations, and the grading regulations of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that the risk of water degradation within the City would be less than significant.60 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Projects built under the amended ordinance would be required to adhere to provisions set by the SWRCB, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) General Plan future water supply projections assume that the City will continue to obtain groundwater from its three well fields and possibly from expanding the City’s two Russian River water rights permits to full beneficial use. Per the 2009 EIR, buildout could increase the population within the City’s UGB to 14,468, which is less than the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan’s projected of 14,771 in 2025.
61 Assuming that the same proportion of water demand among residential, commercial, industrial lands, the 2025 projected water demand would leave a surplus of supply. Even if no additional water rights were approved, the City’s existing water rights totaling 60 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.I-18
61 City of Healdsburg. 2024c. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://healdsburg.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15962/2020-UWMP-Report-w-Errata-and-Council-Resolution. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
57 3,665 acre-feet/year were determined more than adequate to provide the projected water demands under buildout of the General Plan. Implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that water conservation measures are implemented, and potential impacts to groundwater supply would be less than significant. Because implementation of these policies will reduce future water demand and the City has identified sufficient water supplies are available to serve buildout of the General Plan, buildout will not require new or expanded water entitlements, and water supply impacts were determined to be less than significant.62
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The increase in demand for water supply would remain the same as analyzed in the 2009 EIR.

Since projects built under the amended ordinance would have to adhere to the General Plan policies, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) The second phase of the Gauntlett/Fitch Water Treatment Facility was previously addressed in a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact for both phases of the facility, adopted by the Healdsburg City Council on April 21, 2003. No additional water treatment facilities are required to serve development that could occur under buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the 2009 General Plan Update EIR determined that impacts related to water treatment facilities would be less than significant.63
As discussed in threshold discussion 4.17.b), above, the City has secured partial funding and is applying for additional funding for development of a recycled water facility. This would lessen reliance on groundwater and surface water, while supplying recycled water in place of potable water. Consistent with the General Plan and area plans, the demands from new development for public services, infrastructure, and utilities would be accounted for in the City’s process of continually reviewing and updating the CIP. Furthermore, the City would review proposed development for consistency with the General Plan and applicable regulatory standards. The City would require projects to either construct necessary future facilities or contribute to the cost of replacing inadequate infrastructure to increase capacity.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
58 transfer station, solid waste is transported to any of four landfills available to Sonoma County. As of May 2024, these landfills (Redwood Sanitary Landfill, Potrero Hills Landfill, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, and Keller Canyon Landfill) have a remaining permitted capacity of 31,006,910.7 tons,64 an increase from the 22,018,525.5 tons analyzed in the 2009 EIR and could accommodate the solid waste disposal needs under 2030 General Plan. General Plan Policy PS-J-1 seeks to minimize the amount of solid waste deposited in landfills and maximize the amount of waste that is recycled. Therefore, the 2009 EIR determined that buildout would not result in insufficient landfill disposal capacity, and the associated impact would be less than significant.65 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption rea, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. The estimated increase in solid waste generation due to an increase in residential, commercial and industrial, and hotel land use would remain 15.8 TPD. Projects built under the amended ordinance would have to adhere to General Plan policies and federal, State and local regulations related to solid waste, including the Sonoma County Integrated Waste Management Plan, similar to the 2009 EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
g) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that future development in the City must comply with federal, State and local regulations related to solid waste, including the Sonoma County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The 2009 EIR determined that these policies, including those implemented as part of the approval process for future projects, and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would result in less-than-significant impacts.

The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Projects built under the amended ordinance would be required to comply with federal, State, and local water quality regulation, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.
h) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that buildout would increase energy consumption via electricity and natural gas within the City. The General Plan includes policies and implementation measures to promote energy conservation. The City would comply with State climate protection goals and programs to the maximum extent feasible within the City’s jurisdictional authority.

Because the City has available capacity, facilities and power sources to provide electrical service, impacts related to electrical service were determined to be less than significant.66 Development within the City will be required to conform to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the California Green Building Code. The 2009 EIR 64 CalRecycle. 2024. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility/Site Search. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed May 2024. 65 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.P-25
66 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.P-32

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
59 determined that these General Plan policies would avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity and natural gas, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.67 The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multi-family units than previously analyzed in the 2009 EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development within the exemption area, on parcels deemed to be underutilized. The proposed 2024 amendment would allow for increased pace of multi-family housing development, focused on the exemption area. Projects built under the amended ordinance would adhere to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and General Plan policies, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. i) The 2009 General Plan Update EIR concluded that buildout would increase electrical and natural gas demand within the City. The City would provide electric services by connecting to existing facilities, and future development would connect to existing gas lines maintained and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). With planned improvements, existing City electrical and natural gas facilities are expected to meet future demand.68 Because the City and PG&E have available capacity, facilities and power sources to provide electrical and natural gas service, impacts related to electrical and natural gas service were determined to be less than significant.69 New land use development projects would increase energy demands. However, the increase in demand is not considered substantial in relation to the total amount of energy supplied by City and PG&E facilities that service the area. In addition, the City would implement applicable General Plan policies and implementation measures that promote energy conservation to reduce demand for those services. Development would connect to extensions of existing service lines, with the ultimate configuration subject to City and PG&E’s review.

Consistent with the General Plan and area plans, the demands from development for public services including electrical and natural gas services would be accounted for in the City’s process of continually reviewing and updating the CIP. The City would review proposed residential development for consistency with the General Plan and applicable regulatory standards and would require projects to either construct necessary future facilities or contribute to the cost of replacing inadequate infrastructure to increase capacity.

All projects built under the amended ordinance would be required to adhere to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, California Green Building Code, and General Plan policies. There is sufficient capacity to provide electrical and natural gas services for increase in demand, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required. 67 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Pages IV.P-32
68 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.P-32.
69 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.P-32.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
60 4.16.2 New EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.16.3 Conclusion
The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not change the type or extent of growth allowed under the 2030 General Plan but could alter the locations of development by allowing for a geographic exemption to the GMO. Development must still be in accordance with the densities otherwise permitted under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems associated with the residential development that could occur upon voter approval of the proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO have already been accounted for and analyzed within the 2009 EIR, and no new impacts would occur.

4.17 Updated General Impact Categories
Since certification of the 2009 EIR, legislative changes at the state level have occurred, which resulted in comprehensive amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, including new and/or modified topics of energy, greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled and wildfire. For informational purposes, below is a qualitative discussion of how these new environmental topics would be impacted by this GMO Amendment.

4.17.1 Energy
Energy resources were not discussed in the 2009 General Plan EIR. On December 28, 2018, California adopted the revised guidelines, which incorporate a new subdivision on energy impacts (Section 15126.2(b)), which clarifies that CEQA requires consideration of whether a project will result in significant environmental effects due to “wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy” and states that agencies “shall mitigate” any wasteful energy use giving rise to significant impacts.

The proposed 2024 GMO amendment would result in an increase in direct and indirect energy consumption as a result of buildout of the general plan and increased traffic in the proposed exemption area. Although the 2024 GMO amendment would result in increased indirect energy consumption, the amount of transportation fuel and potential electricity use required for construction and operation of multi-family housing is not considered an inefficient or wasteful use of energy. While the 2024 GMO amendment would allow for land uses resulting in increased energy use, any projects proposed in the exempted area would have more efficient energy systems and would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. Therefore, the proposed 2024 GMO amendment would not represent a substantial increase in energy consumption or a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.17.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions were discussed under Section IV.D, Air Quality, in the 2009 General Plan EIR. Potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to buildout under the 2030 General Plan were calculated in the 2009 EIR using the Clean Air and Climate Protection Software (released May 2003).

The software converts fuel types (gas, electricity, etc.) and fuel units (therms, megawatt hours [MWh], etc.) into carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) for carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) emissions. Standard emissions factors related to the production of electricity were changed to

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
61 reflect the Northern California Power Agency’s energy mix. In all cases, estimates were based on 2007 per capita emissions data applied to the General Plan buildout population estimate (14,468); therefore, presenting a “business-as-usual” scenario is not reflective of changing habitats, new State regulations, General Plan policies, etc.70 Greenhouse gas emissions for year 2007 were estimated at 58,504 tons.

Nearly half of all emissions were attributed to the transportation sector, 45% to the use of electricity and natural gas (from buildings and municipal operations), and 6% to the disposal of solid waste. Emissions under General Plan buildout were projected from 2007 per capita use and the estimated 2030 General Plan buildout population of 14,468; they were estimated to be 73,926 tons (or an increase of 15,422 tons).

The 2009 EIR estimated that with implementation of Air Resources Board Scoping Plan measures and General Plan policies, the City would achieve a reduction of 11,129 tons of CO2e. The City identified and estimated the probable GHG emissions reductions from State measures and General Plan policies and implementation measures. The City determined the effectiveness of applicable measures, and the 2009 EIR concluded that GHG emissions could not be determined to a reasonable degree of certainty under future buildout conditions. However, the City concluded that the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change.

Therefore, the 2009 EIR concluded that cumulative global climate change impacts would be significant and unavoidable upon General Plan buildout.71 A discussion of those impacts is located in Section 2.1.3 of this addendum.

The City supports the implementation of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) through numerous policies and implementation measures throughout the 2030 General Plan, particularly Policy NR-E-6, which requires compliance with State climate protection goals and programs. In addition, the City of Healdsburg continues to develop programs and measures in support of GHG emission reductions, including an energy efficiency program and a green building program. In addition, the City is part of the County-wide Climate Action 2020 and beyond program, which is the Sonoma County Regional Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the 2009 EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would not conflict with AB 32 or its governing regulations and impacts are less than significant.72
The GHG emissions described above were based on buildout of the General Plan and, therefore, account for the development that would occur under the 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO. In addition, regulatory requirements related to vehicle and building efficiency since the 2009 EIR was prepared will result in further reductions in GHG emissions. However, with the 2024 exemption, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, amending the 2000 GMO via the proposed 2024 ballot measure language would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the 2009 EIR. No additional analysis is required.

4.17.3 Transportation
Transportation resources were discussed under Section IV.O, Traffic and Circulation, in the 2009 EIR.

Since certification of the 2009 EIR, the 2019 update to the CEQA checklist has added one question and altered language in the remaining CEQA Transportation section questions. The change in the State CEQA Guidelines resulting from implementation of SB 743, adding Section 15064.3, became effective in 2019.

It requires the analysis of VMT instead of a vehicle level of service (LOS) analysis. VMT per capita is calculated as the total annual miles of vehicle travel divided by the total population in an urbanized area.

LOS measures vehicular delay, or the additional driving time encountered by drivers during the most congested times of travel (the a.m. and p.m. peak periods). SB 743 prohibits the use of LOS to measure impacts under CEQA and requires agencies to adopt alternative measures of such impacts. Prior to 70 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.D-32.
71 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.D-35.
72 City of Healdsburg. 2009b. Page IV.D-38.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
62 implementation of SB 743, the City used LOS analysis to determine transportation-related environmental impacts under CEQA. The method now being used by the City to measure development-related environmental impacts under CEQA is to assess VMT, using modified California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommendations.73
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts.

Projects that may have a significant impact include land use projects that result in an increase in VMT that exceed an applicable threshold of significance and transportation projects that increase VMT. The 2024 GMO amendment falls within the exempted area from VMT impacts per the City’s the Residential VMT Per Capita Screening Map.74 All impacts and mitigations identified in the 2009 EIR remain applicable to the 2024 GMO amendment. No new impacts would occur.

4.17.4 Wildfire
Wildfire was discussed under Section IV.H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, in the 2009 General Plan EIR. Since certification of the Final EIR in February 2016, legislative changes at the state level have altered the CEQA checklist for evaluating wildfire. Changes to the State CEQA Guidelines approved as part of the 2018 State CEQA Guidelines Update identifies wildfire as a separate environmental resource area, breaking it out so it is no longer a subset of hazards and hazardous materials.

Per the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas GIS Viewer,75 the area proposed to be exempted under the does not fall within an area designated as having a high, extreme, or severe fire hazard. Additionally, the area proposed for exemption to the 2000 GMO is considered an infill area and has been previously developed. The exemption area is not in a wildland-urban interface zone. See section 4.8g-h and 4.15.d for a discussion of wildfire impacts. The proposed 2024 amendment to the 2000 GMO would not allow for more multifamily units than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR but would rather exempt multi-family housing development in areas identified in Figure 3 from the GMO. Any project proposed in the exempted area would be reviewed at a project level for compliance with General Plan Policies and California Fire Code compliance. All impacts and mitigations identified in the 2009 EIR remain applicable to the 2024 GMO amendment. No new impacts would occur. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSION
The proposed project revisions do not involve any conditions that require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This Addendum #4 demonstrates that the proposed amendment will not require major revisions to the 2009 EIR because the changes do not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental effects pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) and 15162(a)(2). The proposed project revisions will not result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact identified in the 2009 EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(3)(A) and 15162(a)(3)(B). Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance exists indicating that there are mitigation measures or alternatives that differ considerably from those analyzed in the 2009 EIR that will substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the 73 City of Healdsburg. 2023c. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Implementation Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Senate Bill 743). Available at:
https://healdsburg.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3297?fileID=32158. Accessed May 2024. 74 City of Healdsburg. 2023c. Figures 1 and 2.
75 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas GIS Viewer. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severityzones. Accessed May 2024.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment) City of Healdsburg General Plan Update Growth Management Ordinance EIR Addendum #4
63 environment, and that the project proponents have declined to adopt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(D). Therefore, based on the criteria established in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, an addendum is the proper CEQA documentation for proposed project revisions.

8.A.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Exhibit B GMO EIR Addendum 4 (4519 : GMO Amendment)

8.A.d
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Exemption Areas with GP Land Use (4519 : GMO Amendment)

8.A.e
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Exemption Areas with Zoning (4519 : GMO Amendment)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Appointment of Planning Commissioner
PREPARED BY: Raina Allan, City Clerk
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Provide Resident-Driven Community Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

By motion, appoint two applicants to the Planning Commission for a term of four years due to expire June 30, 2028 and appoint one applicant to the Planning Commission for a term of two years due to expire June 30, 2026.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

The Planning Commission vacancy was published in the Press Democrat and the Healdsburg Tribune on April 4, 2024 and April 25, 2024. Information on the vacancy was also posted on the City Social Media Platforms and the City Website.

BACKGROUND:

At its May 20, 2024, meeting, the City Council formed one subcommittee comprised of Vice Mayor Mitchell and Council Member Kelley to interview applicants interested in serving on the Planning Commission.

The City Clerk received eleven applications for three open positions on the Planning Commission. The Council Subcommittee interviewed eleven applicants over a two-day period on May 28, 2024 and May 29, 2024. The eleven applicants interviewed are listed below.

Stephen Barber
Catherine Dolph
Tom Gerlach
Barry Harris
Mark Inman
Noah Jeppson
Janice Kay-Dix
Megan Mokri

8.B
Packet Pg. 383
Jonathan Pearlman
Scott Pratt
Daniel Reid
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The Council subcommittee will make their recommendation at the City Council meeting.

Council will have the opportunity to discuss the recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Council could opt to not take the Subcommittee’s recommendation. In that case Council could appoint other applicants to the vacancy or direct staff to restart the recruitment process for the vacancy.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the proposed action.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the proposed action is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Planning Commission Applications

8.B
Packet Pg. 384

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 393
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 394
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 396
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 397
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 398
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 401
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 402
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 403
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 405
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

8.B.a
Packet Pg. 406
Attachment: Planning Commission Applications (4513 : Planning Commission Appointment)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Updated Public Electric Vehicle Charging User Fees for City-Owned Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
PREPARED BY: Terra Sampson, Utility Conservation Analyst STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Pursue Initiatives that Promote Environmental Stewardship Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Provide staff with direction for developing updated public electric vehicle (EV) charging user fees for city-owned EV chargers.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

In October 2023, City Council adopted the Healdsburg Climate Mobilization Strategy (CMS), which included extensive community engagement and outreach activities. This item addresses multiple actions included in the CMS Implementation Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Healdsburg has adopted a CMS in support of State and Regional greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The CMS identifies key measures and actions that will be most impactful in reducing GHG emissions, are equitable, feasible, and community driven. The CMS includes an Implementation Plan, which presents the measures and actions to be implemented in the next 1-3 years. This item addresses the following actions from the CMS Implementation Plan:
• BE-1.4 Work with community groups, local organizations, and NCPA to … include information on time of energy use as it factors into carbon intensity and how community members can capitalize on using electricity when it has the lowest carbon intensity (e.g., when to charge electric vehicles and when to run space heating and cooling). Work with industry experts to help with demand response planning, developing strategies to increase flexibility of the grid, and for informing consumers of carbon intensity of the electricity they are using to promote behavior change.
• T-4.3 … Continue to promote affordable EV charging rates at city-owned EV charging

9.A
Packet Pg. 407
stations and adjust rates as necessary to cover program costs. Explore methods for charging different rates for different user groups or other programs to offset charging costs at public stations for low-income residents.
• T-4.6 … Develop programs that incentivize residents and businesses to charge during times of abundant solar resources and avoid charging during peak hours and grid emergencies.

There are currently 12 public EV charging connectors available at Healdsburg City Hall and staff are actively working to install more public EV chargers at other City-owned parking lots, including the Maher parking lot at 228 Healdsburg Ave and the Senior Center parking lot at 311 East St. Discounted charging rates are currently available at the City Hall chargers for $0.55 per hour during the day on weekdays and are free at all other times (overnight and on weekends).

While this has provided a great incentive and benefit for EV drivers, it also presents a few substantial challenges. One of which is that Cap and Trade proceeds are currently covering over 80% of the electricity costs to support public EV charging and as City-owned charging stations expand this level of subsidy may not be sustainable. Additionally, there is very little motivation for EV drivers to avoid charging during periods of peak energy demand or to move their vehicle to allow other EVs to charge. These challenges are described in more detail later in this staff report.

To address these challenges, staff seek to propose a new user fee structure. The new user fee structure would seek to better cover operational costs while remaining affordable for users, incentivize charging during periods of abundant clean energy, prompt EV drivers to move their vehicles when finished charging and provide discounts for low-income CARE customers. Staff seek direction from Council on a proposed fee structure to develop an ordinance to implement updated public EV charging user fees.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The public EV chargers at City Hall have grown in their utilization in recent years, with 236,603 kWh (roughly equivalent to 40 homes) consumed in 2023 to offset 267 MT CO2e greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Cap and Trade proceeds, which are allocated to Healdsburg and must be used for the primary benefit of electric rate payers while reducing ghg emissions, provide funding for the public EV charging program. In 2023, electricity costs for the EV chargers were approximately $43,000 and approximately $1,000 was needed for replacement parts and materials. However, user fees collected only covered approximately $7,000 of these operational expenses. Updating user fees that more closely cover operational costs would free up Cap and Trade funds to further expand public EV charging locations, or for other projects in the CMS Implementation Plan that meet the requirement of Cap and Trade regulations.

Staff and local EV drivers have noted challenges when EV drivers do not move their vehicle when charging is complete. Staff analyzed individual charging session data for 2022-2023 and found these key insights:
• Over all 19,354 successful charging sessions, the average charging session was 4 hours 43 minutes and 33% of the charging sessions were by a vehicle with a Healdsburg zip code.

9.A
Packet Pg. 408
• However, 47 charging sessions were longer than 24 hours and 25 of these charging sessions did not have any user fees (weekend parking). In other words, on average, once per month a vehicle parks for longer than 24 hours and does not pay anything. • Additionally, 21% of all successful charging sessions start between 5:00-8:00pm during hours of high grid impact.
• Weekday sessions during daytime only (7am-5pm) on average used 13 kWh and paid $1.50, an average of $0.11 per kWh. Of these sessions, 20% parked for longer than 4 hours, but only 3% parked for longer than 6 hours.
• Weekday sessions during overnight had an average length of 9 hours and 57 minutes and on average used 46 kWh, with no associated user fees. Vehicles with the Healdsburg zip code made up 49% of these charging sessions.
• Weekend sessions during overnight had an average length of 12 hours and 47 minutes with 58% of parking sessions over 12 hours and on average vehicles staying plugged in 5 hours and 20 minutes after their vehicle was done charging.

To address the challenges while still providing affordable and convenient public EV charging, staff have developed various options, which they are seeking Council’s feedback to further define and bring forward for formal adoption.

Table 1. Public EV Charging User Fees for City-Owned EV Chargers Option Examples*** Option 1* – Electric
Costs** Recovered
with Hourly Fees
During the Day and
Overnight
Option 2 – Increasingly Recover Electric Costs** with Hourly Fees During the Day and Overnight Over the Next 3 Years with No Incentive During Peak Hours
7:00am-5:00pm
$1.70 per hour
5:00pm-8:00pm
$1.70 per hour
8:00pm-7:00am
$0.90 per hour
FY24/25
~60% incentive
FY25/26
~40% incentive
FY26/27
~20% incentive
7:00am-5:00pm
$0.70 per hour
5:00pm-8:00pm
$1.70 per hour
8:00pm-7:00am
$0.40 per hour
7:00am-5:00pm
$1.00 per hour
5:00pm-8:00pm
$1.70 per hour
8:00pm-7:00am
$0.60 per hour
7:00am-5:00pm
$1.50 per hour
5:00pm-8:00pm
$1.80 per hour
8:00pm-7:00am
$0.80 per hour
*Option 1 fees would need to increase each year in alignment with the Healdsburg electric rates. Fees shown here are based on electric rates for FY24/25.
**Electric costs include: the applicable electric rate, surcharges, and green rate additional charge.

ChargePoint also has a standard 10% fee on user payments. ***All fees are rounded to the nearest $0.10.

Staff are recommending Option 2 because it continues to provide an incentive for EV use and adoption, while slowly beginning to recover the electric costs and help the program be more sustainable in the long-term. It also conveys a disincentive for charging during high peak hours.

It is important to still provide charging during this time for those that need their vehicle charged

9.A
Packet Pg. 409
but provide the price signal to avoid these times when possible.

In comparison, it would cost a resident $0.29 per kWh, or $1.95 per hour, on the Tier 2 residential rate to charge at home. For PG&E customers, this would be up to an average of $0.45 per kWh, or $3.03 per hour. As Healdsburg’s GHG Inventory includes a percentage of commuting vehicle miles traveled to the city, it is important to consider promoting commuting with electric vehicles by Healdsburg’s out-of-town workforce.

Under the State’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, as a public utility, Healdsburg earns credits for both an assumed amount of residential EV charging and charging completed at the City’s public EV charging stations. The City may sell the earned Low Carbon Fuel Standards credits to be used to benefit transportation electrification for low-income residents. These funds could be used to provide an additional discount for Healdsburg CARE electric customers wishing to charge at City-owned public charging stations. At this time, staff recommend a 50% discount on City-owned public EV charging user fees.

To implement this discount, Healdsburg Electric CARE customers will be notified of this option and receive a code to join a ChargePoint subgroup upon verification of their EV or Plug In Hybrid vehicle registration. Although creating the ChargePoint subgroup and administering discounted fees for a CARE subgroup will create additional administrative work, it is recommended to provide a discount to ensure public EV charging remain affordable and desirable for low-income residents, especially multi-family residents that largely depend on public charging options. Staff recommend selecting a specific percentage discount that applies to the whole rate structure to keep annual regulatory reporting straightforward between the two different funding sources.

In considering fee updates, staff also researched other public EV charging fees. There are a number of locations that provide free EV charging, usually to encourage EV drivers to go to their business or as a benefit for customers at hotels, wineries, and restaurants. In looking at places that do charge fees, below are a couple examples of the many different approaches. • $1 per hour, plus a $2 session fee at Santa Rosa parking garage ($24 max) and Sebastopol Civic Center
• $1 per hour with a $2 minimum at Windsor Huerta Gym
• $2 session fee with $1 per hour for first 4 hours and $10 per hour afterwards at Santa Rosa courthouse
• $0.37 per hour at Yountville Administration Center
• $2.50 per hour at the Two Thirty-Five Luxury Suites
• $0.40 per kWh plus $10 per hour station parking fee when not charging at Santa Rosa plaza
• Fast chargers tend to be more expensive with examples at $0.35, $0.57, $0.62, and $0.65 per kWh
It is also important to consider a few limitations when determining an updated rate structure, which includes software capabilities for setting rate structures and Cap and Trade ‘nonvolumetric’ requirements.

9.A
Packet Pg. 410
For example, ‘bump fees’ are a popular strategy for encouraging EV drivers to move their vehicles, where the fees increase substantially after a certain amount of time. However, at this time, the ChargePoint software does not allow for specifying only certain timeframes to implement the bump fee. Therefore, overnight users would also be subject to the higher bump fees which can add up quickly while residents are sleeping. One option that could achieve a similar outcome would be a low session fee per every 4 hours of parking, such as $0.25 per every 4 hour session, which would only amount to $0.75 if left overnight for 12 hours, but still provide a price signal for EV drivers to move their vehicle.

Additionally, using Cap and Trade freely allocated proceeds as the main funding source for the public EV chargers have a very strict ‘non-volumetric’ requirement, meaning that proceeds cannot be used on a per kWh basis that would provide a larger cumulative incentive to higher users. Therefore, if Council desires to provide a discounted rate overnight, the fees must have a per hour structure, instead of a per kWh structure. The Low Carbon Fuel Standards program does not have this requirement, and this limitation is not a concern for providing a CARE discount for public EV charging.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

In 2023, the public EV charging program offset 267 MT CO2e GHG emissions. The CMS sets a goal of 30% EV adoption for passenger vehicles and 40% EV adoption for commercial vehicles by 2030, which would reduce GHG emissions by 7,636 and 2,000 MT CO2e respectively.

ALTERNATIVES:

Staff requests direction on desired rate structures to address the current challenges at the public EV charging stations. Primarily the alternatives for Council’s consideration are to either provide a discount or not and to what level (e.g. up to 80% cost recovery). Other potential aspects could include charging per kWh overnight without an incentive instead of an hourly fee, recovering the full operational costs (including the monthly customer charge for each electric account, ChargePoint user portal for managing the chargers, maintenance and parts, and staff time), and/or implementing session fees.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact at this time as staff is seeking direction on desired rate structures for City-Owned public EV charging stations.

The proposed public EV charging user fee options are intended to increase recovery of ongoing operational costs of the City-owned public EV chargers, which are currently funded in large part by Cap and Trade proceeds. The biennial budget approved by City Council on June 3, 2024, was based on the current proposed user fees and historical operating costs. Staff will subsequently propose amendments to the budget as necessary to align with Council direction.

Additionally, available Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits, which must be used for equity transportation electrification, can be sold to provide for a separate low-income CARE discount on EV charging user fees.

9.A
Packet Pg. 411
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

The Discounted Public EV Charging Program is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the program is not a project, since it will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the environment.

9.A
Packet Pg. 412
6/12/2024 – Page 1

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
(NOTE: The schedule is tentative and subject to change pending final publication and posting of the City Council meeting agenda) August 5, 2024 Employee Anniversaries – David Hambly and Valerie Macor (20 years), Teresa Gruner (10 years) Olympic Athlete Recognition
Investment Report – May 2024
Disbursement Report – May 2024
Housing Element Strategic Implementation Plan – Professional Services Agreement Revisions to the Memorandum of Understanding with 421 Foss Street LLC (Duchamp Hotel) for the Foley Family Community Pavilion Project
Notice of Completion for Fitch Mountain Public Access Improvement Project Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Executed Cooperative Agreements with Sonoma County Transportation Authority for Go Sonoma Funding
Saggio Hills and Badger Park Design – Contract Approval Chamber of Commerce Contract Approval
Appeal of the Montage Parking Lot Extension
Grove Street Neighborhood Implementation Plan Update
Public Safety Camera System Contract
Saggio Hills Development Park Naming Proposals
August 19, 2024 Women’s Equality Day Proclamation
Formula Retail Discussion
Arts and Culture Commission Discussion
Resolution authorizing CM to execute a cooperative agreement with SCTA to complete an Engineering and Traffic Study and a Safe Routes to School Plan Update through a Safe Streets for All Grant.

September 3, 2024 Employee Anniversaries – Brian Crabb, Nicholas Doherty & Kris Kuntz (10 years) (Tuesday) Latin American Heritage Month Proclamation

13.1.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Future Agenda Items List (4515 : Future Agenda Items - June 17, 2024) 6/12/2024 – Page 2
September 16, 2024 Pollution Prevention and Creek Week Proclamation California Native American Day Proclamation
Parking Ordinance Update
Memorandum of Understanding to be a member agency in the Russian River Reuse Collective (R3C) (NOTE: The schedule is tentative and subject to change pending final publication and posting of the City Council meeting agenda)

13.1.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Future Agenda Items List (4515 : Future Agenda Items - June 17, 2024)

Healdsburg City CouncilJune 17, 2024

Healdsburg City Council
June 17, 2024