Healdsburg City Council
Meeting
August 18, 2025
City Manager’s Report
City Council, August 18, 2025
Public Comment
on Non Agenda
Items
---
Comentarios del
público sobre
puntos no
incluidos en la
agenda de la
reunión
3 Local Amendments to the 2022 California
Building Standards Codes
City Council
August 18, 2025
Recommended
Action
5 • Pass an ordinance amending Chapter 15.04 of the
Healdsburg Municipal Code and Adopt by Reference
Part 11- California Green Building Standards Code
(CGBSC) of the 2022 California Building Standards
Code Title 24 and the 2021 International Property
Maintenance Code in its Entirety and Making Local
Amendments to the 2022 California Building Code, the
2022 California Residential Code, the 2022 Green
Building Code, and the 2021 International Property
Maintenance Code.
Assembly Bill 130
• Signed by the Governor and effective June 30, 2025.
• Mandates that the new 2025 California Building
Standards Code Title 24, adopted by the State and
effective January 1, 2026, will remain in effect for 6
years instead of 3.
• Limits local amendments affecting residential
projects to only those filed with the California
Building Standards Commission and in effect by
September 30, 2025.
6 Purpose for
Ordinance
• There are some needed corrections and updates to
Healdsburg’s local amendments. This Ordinance will
make these changes to the Healdsburg Municipal
Code which will be in effect for the next 6 years.
• Staff will return to City Council in November to adopt 2025 California Building Standards Code.
Proposed
Changes
Amend Chapter 15.04 (Construction Codes). Reinstates
California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part II 2022 edition and re-letters remaining provisions.
Amend Chapter 15.04.020 (California Building Code
Amendments). Includes a processing fee for appeals of $619.16 adjusted yearly with the City’s fee schedule.
Amend Chapter 15.04.030 (California Residential Care
Amendments). Includes processing fee for appeals of $619.16 adjusted annually and increases the number of required
drowning prevention safety measures from one to two.
Amend Chapter 15.04.080 (California Building Standards Code Amendments). Clarifies that a newly constructed building, or new construction is defined in Section 15.04.020 of the Healdsburg Municipal Code.
Amend Chapter 15.04.090 (International Property Maintenance Code Amendments). Additional language replaces appeal
language to be consistent throughout Title 15.
8 Recommended
Action
9 • Pass an ordinance amending Chapter 15.04 of the
Healdsburg Municipal Code and Adopt by Reference
Part 11- California Green Building Standards Code
(CGBSC) of the 2022 California Building Standards
Code Title 24 and the 2021 International Property
Maintenance Code in its Entirety and Making Local
Amendments to the 2022 California Building Code, the
2022 California Residential Code, the 2022 Green
Building Code, and the 2021 International Property
Maintenance Code.
Questions
Public
Comment
Comentarios
del público
Eel-Russian Project Authority
and New Eel Russian Facility
City Council, August 18, 2025
Recommended
Council Action
Adopt a Resolution in support of the EelRussian Project Authority and the New Eel Russian Facility.
Background
The City derives all
its water from
surface water rights
on the Russian River
(~80% ) and on Dry
Creek (~20% )
Additional water is
purchased from
Sonoma when City
rights are not
available
Background
Upstream of the City’s Russian River
Diversion of Lake Mendocino.
For decades, Lake Mendocino has received
flow from the Eel River system through the
Potter Valley Project, a PG&E hydropower
generation operation
PG&E has found the Potter Valley Project no
longer viable, and has ceased power
generation in 2021 and submitted a license
surrender application this year.
Background
With the changes with Potter Valley Project,
water will no longer be diverted from the Eel
River system to the Russian River system as
it once was.
This impacts thousands farmers, water
purveyors, and residents that depend on the
Russian River.
Background
Sonoma Water, Sonoma County, Mendocino
County and others have collaborated for
years to develop a solution to this issue.
David Manning, Division Manager of
Environmental Resources for Sonoma Water,
is here to tell us about the Eel-Russian
Project Authority and the proposed New EelRussian Facility New Eel Russian Facility Update
David Manning
Executive Director, Eel-Russian Project Authority
Healdsburg City Council Meeting
August 18, 2025
19 | eelrussianauthority.org
Introduction to the Potter Valley Project
Currently owned by PG&E, has diverted water
from the Eel River to the Russian River since 1908.
Historic diversions have been year-round for
hydropower.
The Project has adversely affected anadromous
fisheries, environmental quality, and related
beneficial uses of water in the Eel River Basin.
Water diverted from the Eel to Russian River has
supported agriculture, communities, and the
environment for more than 100 years.
In 2019, PG&E announced intent to stop operating
the project as no longer economically feasible.
By July 29, 2025 PG&E will file License Surrender
Application.
Russian River & Eel River interests implementing a
plan of action.
20 | eelrussianauthority.org
Scott Dam & Lake Pillsbury Cape Horn Dam & Van Arsdale
Reservoir
Coyote Valley Dam &
Lake Mendocino
21 | eelrussianauthority.org
22 | eelrussianauthority.org
Two-Basin Partnership
Improve fish migration and habitat on the Eel River with the objective of achieving naturally reproducing, self-sustaining, and harvestable native anadromous fish populations; and
Maintain continued water diversion from the Eel River through the existing tunnel to the Russian River to support water supply reliability, fisheries, and water quality in the Russian River Basin.
23 | eelrussianauthority.org
Eel-Russian Project Authority
In December 2023, Sonoma Water, Sonoma County, and Mendocino County IWPC formed ERPA as a joint powers authority. RVIT has a seat on ERPA’s Board of Directors.
ERPA proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a New Eel-Russian Facility to divert water from the Eel River, at the site of and following the decommissioning and removal of Cape Horn Dam, on terms consistent with restoration of the anadromous fisheries of the Eel.
24 | eelrussianauthority.org
Cape Horn Dam Background
25 | eelrussianauthority.org
New Eel Russian Facility (NERF)
26 | eelrussianauthority.org
New Eel Russian Facility (NERF)
27 | eelrussianauthority.org
New Eel Russian Facility Diversion Rules
Developed by RVIT (Applied River Sciences)
Fall Flows* Winter Flows Spring Flows Summer Flows
Date Range: Oct 1 – Dec 31 Jan 1 – Feb 29 Mar 1 – May 31 Jun 1 – Sep 30 Floor: 300 cfs 250 cfs 125 cfs 35 cfs
Maximum
Diversion
Rate:
20% 30% 20% 20%
Ramping
Rates
To protect floor,
NERF hits
Maximum
Diversion Rate
(20%) When Eel
River flow is 375
cfs
To protect floor,
NERF hits Maximum
Diversion Rate
(30%) When Eel
River flow
is 357 cfs
To protect floor,
NERF hits Maximum
Diversion Rate
(20%) when Eel
River flow is 156 cfs
To protect floor,
NERF hits Maximum
Diversion Rate (20%)
when Eel River flow is
43.75 cfs
Maximum Diversion
Capacity 300 cfs 300 cfs 300 cfs 300 cfs
28 | eelrussianauthority.org
Approx. NERF estimate
constrained by available
Lake Mendocino storage
29 | eelrussianauthority.org
30 | eelrussianauthority.org
Water Diversion Agreement
Support PG&E’s application to FERC to construct NERF concurrent with removal of Cape Horn Dam PG&E’s water rights
• Proposed to be owned by RVIT, dedicated to instream flow and NERF diversion • Leased to ERPA when operations begin, lease payment of $1,000,000/year • Additional payment of $750,000/year to Eel River Restoration Fund Operations
• Not under FERC’s jurisdiction
• Diversion rules, performance metrics & adaptive management including monitoring Initial term of 30 years, renewal term of 20 years if:
• $25 million raised for Eel River Restoration Fund
• Russian River users increase resiliency
• Compliance with diversion rules, no negative effect to salmon and steelhead recovery Shared fundraising goal (not required for renewal)
• $100 million for NERF and Eel (before construction), $100 million (renewal term), split between NERF and Eel
Dispute Resolution and enforcement
31 | eelrussianauthority.org
NERF Preliminary Cost Estimates (2025 dollars)
Design and Permitting: $5 million
Construction: $50 million
Operations and Maintenance: $7-12 million annually
• Operations (staffing, equipment, supplies, power)
• Administration and Insurance
• Construction Bonds
• Annual Contingency
• Annual Water Rights Lease
• Annual Restoration Payment
Revenue: Grants, Bonds, Water User Payments
32 | eelrussianauthority.org
Next Steps and Potential Schedule
PG&E License Surrender Application filed with FERC on July 25, 2025 All Parties Signed Water Diversion Agreement on July 28, 2025 2025-2028
• ERPA Business Plan
• NERF 60%-90% design
• ERPA CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for NERF
• PG&E resource management and engineering plans
• FERC prepares NEPA document for PG&E License Surrender • State Water Board CEQA for PG&E Clean Water Act Compliance • U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers NEPA for PG&E and ERPA Clean Water Act Compliance • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinions for PG&E dam removal and NERF construction
2028-2030
• FERC Surrender Order
• ERPA and PG&E Final Engineering, Permits, Bidding, Contracting 2030-2035
• PG&E Dam Removal and Restoration
• NERF Construction
33 | eelrussianauthority.org
New Eel-Russian Facility CEQA Process
33 • Close coordination with ERPA
member agencies, State Water
Board and other agencies to
complete studies on schedule,
keeping pace with PG&E
license surrender
environmental review
• Timeline approximately 24
months once initiated
34 | eelrussianauthority.org
eelrussianauthority.org
Website provides in-depth information
35 | eelrussianauthority.org
ERPA Fact-Sheets
36 | eelrussianauthority.org
Thank You
David Manning
Executive Director, Eel-Russian Project Authority
[email protected]
eelrussianauthority.org
Recommended
Council Action
Adopt a Resolution in support of the EelRussian Project Authority and the New Eel Russian Facility.
Questions
Public
Comment
Comentarios
del público
Selection of an Official City
Flower/Plant and/or Tree
City Council, August 18, 2025
Requested
Action
Review feedback obtained from a
community survey on options for an
official City flower, plant, or tree and
direct staff to develop a resolution
naming the official City flower, plant,
or tree for adoption at a subsequent
City Council meeting.
Background
At the suggestion of members of the Healdsburg Garden
Club, City Council included “Select a City Flower/Plant and/or Tree” in its Fiscal Year 2024-25 Goals
Staff asked the Garden Club if the Club would provide
recommendation(s) for an official flower/plan and/or
tree for City Council’s consideration
Theresa Wistrom from the Garden Club offered to work
on the initiative with Wendy Smit, a past president of the Milo Baker Chapter of the Native Plant Society (NPS)
May 19, 2025: City Council considered six candidates for official flower, plant, or tree and requested community feedback on the nominations.
Examples
Organization Flower/Plant Tree
State of California Golden Poppy California Redwood, both the coast redwood the giant sequoia
San Francisco Dahlia Monterey Cypress
Los Angeles Bird of Paradise* Coral Tree*
San Diego Blue-eyed Grass Jacaranda*
Sacramento Camellia Blue Oak
Rancho Cordova Baby Blue Eyes
Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Plum Tree
Davis Golden Lupine
*Not native to area.
Selection
Considerations
The flower/plant and/or tree should be native
to Healdsburg and should still be present and
relatively common in Healdsburg today.
Some worthwhile native species that were prevalent in the past are not as common today within Healdsburg’s developed footprint
Expanded the eligibility area to include Fitch Mountain Park and Open Space Preserve and Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve
The flower/plant and/or tree should have
value. This value could be expressed in several
ways such as:
Natural beauty
Pollinator and/or protector for other animal and/or plant species
Enhances the environment
Used by indigenous people and/or recent generations
Historically, economically or socially important
Potentially threatened or endangered
Candidates
Candidate #1
Native Iris
Iris douglasiana (Douglas Iris) and Iris macrosiphon (Bowltubed Iris) Candidate #2
Yellow Mariposa Lily
Calochortus luteus
Candidate #3
Scarlet Fritillary
Fritillaria recurva
Candidate #4
Blue-eyed Grass
Sisyrinchium angustifolium
Candidate #5
California Native Grape
Vitus californica
Candidate #6
Oak Tree
Quercus family (Valley Oaks, Coast Live Oaks, and Blue
Oaks)
Survey Results
Examples of
Additional
Comments
The flower is open sunny and bright. I think it is a good reflection of the town of Healdsburg.
I grew up here in Healdsburg, surrounded by oak trees. I always associate our area with oak. I think it is a very welcoming looking tree, perfect to climb or sit underneath.
I loved the Native American connections on many. The Oak and many others are found throughout CA; the grape just seemed obvious! :)
Thank you for the research and details provided. It was hard to choose.
This is a great idea and I appreciate being able to participate! And, I vote for a flowering plant and a tree!
Summary
Candidate #1: Native Iris
Candidate #2: Yellow Mariposa Lily
Candidate #3: Scarlet Fritillary
Candidate #4: Blue-eyed Grass
Candidate #5: California Native Grape
Candidate #6: Oak Tree
Requested
Action
Review feedback obtained from a
community survey on options for an
official City flower, plant, or tree and
direct staff to develop a resolution
naming the official City flower, plant,
or tree for adoption at a subsequent
City Council meeting.
Public
Comment
Comentarios
del público
Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance Update -In Lieu
Fees for Small Projects
City Council, August 18, 2025
Item 8c
Recommended
Action
City Council Recommended Action:
Receive a report on the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance (IHO) and provide direction on
eliminating the in-lieu fee for small projects to
encourage new housing production.
What is the
IHO?
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) requires new market- rate residential development to contribute to the City’s affordable housing supply.
Developers may comply by:
Building affordable units on-site
Building off-site units
Dedicating land for affordable housing
Paying an in-lieu fee
The intent is to ensure that new development includes housing for a range of income levels, not just market-rate units. Healdsburg first adopted its IHO in 1998 and has periodically updated it to respond to local needs, market conditions, and State law.
70 Current IHO
Requirements
71 The in-lieu fee is calculated per square foot, indexed annually, and adopted by Council resolution.
• Projects with 5 or more units must provide 20% of the homes on-site as affordable housing.
The required affordability mix is:
• For-sale projects: 15% moderate‐income + 5% middle‐income • Rental projects: 5% low‐income + 15% moderate‐income
• Projects with 4 or fewer units may choose to pay an in-lieu fee instead of building affordable units.
• Affordable units must be built concurrently with market-rate homes and be distributed throughout the development.
How the InLieu Fee Works
72 • The in-lieu fee is an optional compliance path available only to projects with 4 or fewer units.
• Instead of constructing an on-site affordable unit, eligible projects may pay a fee that the City uses to fund affordable housing development elsewhere.
Fee Structure
• Calculated per square foot of residential floor area
• Different rates for for-sale and rental units
• Indexed annually to construction cost inflation
Fee Payment
• Generally due at building-permit issuance
• May be deferred in limited circumstances (e.g., SB 937) Impact on
Small Projects
73 • The in-lieu fee represents one of the largest single Citycollected costs for residential development. • For large, high-value homes, the fee can account for
~40% of total City development charges (≈5% of total
project value).
• For smaller infill “missing-middle” homes, the fee
typically represents 20–30% of total City charges, and 3– 4% of total valuation.
• Because smaller projects lack economies of scale, the proportional cost burden is higher, which can discourage small-scale housing proposals.
Development
Cost Examples
74 Scenario Fee Impact
Large Custom Home
In-lieu fee can represent ~40% of
all City development fees, equal to
roughly 5% of total project
valuation.
Smaller “Missing-Middle” Infill
Home
In-lieu fee typically represents 20–
30% of total City development fees,
or 3–4% of total project valuation.
7-Unit Subdivision
One affordable unit must be built
on-site, with 0.4 fractional units
paid as an in-lieu fee (approx.
28.6% of total inclusionary
obligation). Developer also absorbs
reduced revenue from the on-site
affordable unit (often 40–50%
below market price).
Rationale for
Eliminating
the Fee
75 Recent State legislation is focused on small-scale infill housing, reducing financial and procedural barriers:
• SB 9 – allows two-unit development and lot splits in singlefamily zones • SB 10 – facilitates upzoning near transit
• SB 684 / SB 1123 – streamline ministerial approval for projects up to 10 units
• SB 937 – allows deferral of local fees until final inspection In this context, eliminating the in-lieu fee for ≤4-unit projects could:
• Remove a cost barrier to small infill proposals
• Support mixed-income integration across neighborhoods • Encourage higher-density infill consistent with State and local housing goals
Alignment
with Policy
76 • FY 25–26 Affordable Housing Goal: “Update the in-lieu fee for smaller projects to decrease cost barriers for small infill housing.”
• Housing Element – Goal 2 (Remove Constraints):
Prioritizes eliminating or reducing barriers to housing production.
• Policy 2.2 (Small Projects): Calls for streamlined review and reduced requirements for subdivisions of 10 or fewer units to support infill.
• Prohousing Designation: Emphasizes reducing
development costs and regulatory barriers and
accelerating production of housing at all income levels.
Fiscal Impact
77 • Since 2019, the City has collected approximately $890,120 in in-lieu fees deposited into a restricted affordable
housing account.
• Approximately 30% of this amount (~$267,000) came
from:
• Remodel/addition permits (with increased square
footage), and
• Fractional unit fees on projects that met the full-unit requirement on-site.
• Eliminating the in-lieu fee for small projects would reduce future revenue but would also reduce development costs
for homeowners and small-scale infill builders.
Council
Direction/
Decision
Framework
78 Action Requested Today
• Consider eliminating the in-lieu fee for projects with four or fewer units.
Additional Policy Considerations
• Whether to continue collecting fractional unit fees or to round to the nearest whole unit to simplify
administration.
Items for Future Consideration:
• Whether to revise the current 5-unit threshold for onsite inclusionary requirements and consider increasing it to 10 units to align more closely with
recent state legislation.
Next Steps
79 • Incorporate Council direction into draft ordinance language
• Present draft amendments to the Planning Commission
for review and recommendation
• Return to City Council for introduction and first reading of the ordinance
• Schedule second reading/adoption at a subsequent
Council meeting
• Begin implementation and outreach following potential adoption
Recommended
Action
City Council Recommended Action:
Receive a report on the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance (IHO) and provide direction on
eliminating the in-lieu fee for small projects to
encourage new housing production.
Questions
81 Public
Comment
Comentarios
del público
Dry Creek Commons
Measure S Loan
City Council, August 18, 2025
Item 9a
Recommended
Actions
City Council Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution approving the
Affordable Housing Loan Agreement in an
amount of $1,000,000 of Measure S Funds
for the Dry Creek Commons Project and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Loan Agreement and all necessary
documents to facilitate disbursement of
the Loan.
Background
• Site acquired by former Redevelopment Agency for
affordable housing (3.53 acres at 155 Dry Creek Road)
• RFQ issued January 15, 2021; Burbank selected March
12, 2021, and ENA approved April 19, 2021
• Disposition and Development Agreement approved
September 5, 2023 (DDA dated September 21, 2023)
• $1,000,000 Measure S funding commitment issued
February 5, 2024
• TEFRA public hearing held March 17, 2025 to facilitate tax-exempt bond financing
Project
Description
• 58 deed-restricted affordable rental units serving
households at 30–60% AMI, including
– 6 Permanent Supportive Housing units
– 27 Farmworker units (Joe Serna Jr. Program)
– 24 Units restricted units at 60% AMI and below.
• Mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units in two four-story
buildings (61,470 sq. ft.)
• Includes common spaces, laundry, bicycle storage,
management and resident service offices
• Preserves Foss Creek riparian corridor and provides 2:1 on- site wetland mitigation • 104 surface parking spaces and 60 bicycle spaces (50
secure indoor + 10 outdoor)
86 87
view of corridor building from east
Funding and
Leverage
• Total development cost: $62,161,247
Leveraged funding sources include:
– CMFA tax-exempt bonds (up to $35M) – Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant ($9.7M) – CDBG and HOME funds (over $1.6M)
– CDBG-Disaster Recovery MHP ($8.7M) – Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers • City contribution (land + Measure S loan) totals
$3.61M (~$62,241 per unit)
• Every $1 of City investment leverages approximately
$17.22 from external sources
88 Loan Terms
• $1,000,000 residual receipts loan from Measure S
Affordable Housing Fund.
• 3% simple interest; 55-year term aligned with
affordability period.
• Annual payments based on 50% of surplus cash.
• Principal and accrued interest due in full at end of
term.
• Structure consistent with standard municipal lending
practices for affordable housing
89 Alignment
with City Policy
• Implements the City’s Strategic Initiative to Expand
Affordable Housing Opportunities
• Advances implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing
Element
• Supports progress toward the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets
• Consistent with Measure S intent to fund affordable
housing programs and projects
90 Next Steps /
Timeline
• Close escrow and transfer the Site to Developer
(anticipated no later than September 15, 2025)
• Execute and record Loan Agreement,
Promissory Note, and Deed of Trust
• Developer to commence construction
following escrow closing / bond closing
• Ongoing monitoring through construction and
occupancy in accordance with DDA and Loan
terms
91 Recommended
Actions
City Council Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution approving the
Affordable Housing Loan Agreement in an
amount of $1,000,000 of Measure S Funds
for the Dry Creek Commons Project and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Loan Agreement and all necessary
documents to facilitate disbursement of
the Loan.
Questions
93 Building Elevations
94 Proposed Massing
95 Public
Comment
Comentarios
del público
Arts and Culture
Commission
Appointment Options
City Council
August 18, 2025
Recommended
Action
Provide direction to staff on the options to fill
the vacancy on the Arts and Culture
Commission.
Background
Information
In November 2024, the City Council appointed
seven community members to the Arts and
Culture Commission.
17 applications were received at that time.
In late July, a Commissioner resigned their seat
on the Commission.
At this time, the City Council needs to fill the
open seat on the Commission.
There are two options to fill the vacancy.
Option One -
Conduct a standard recruitment
Open the recruitment for one month, post on social
channels, the website, the Press Democrat, and the
Healdsburg Tribune, collect applications and select
a subcommittee at a later date to interview the
applicants, and make a recommendation to the full
City Council
Option Two -
Select a Commissioner from the prior
recruitment process
The City Council could select an applicant from the
recruitment that was conducted at the end of 2024
and fill the vacancy from one of those candidates.
Recommended
Action
Provide direction to staff on the options to fill
the vacancy on the Arts and Culture
Commission.
Questions
Public
Comment
Comentarios
del público