Healdsburg City Council
August 3, 2026

$1,477,457; and
WHEREAS, funds in the approved project budget are not sufficient to fund the project costs; and
WHEREAS, additional unrestricted fund balance in the Water Operating Fund is available to support the project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15301(b), 15301 9(d), and 15302(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the action recommended is categorically exempt from CEQA review under the Class 1 exemption – maintenance of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity, and replacement or reconstruction of an existing utility system and facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg does hereby;

1. Finds that the work of the Dry Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrades – Pump and Clear Well Improvements Project, Project WA008 is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b) and 15301(d) Class 1 exemption for maintenance of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity, and CEQA Guidelines Sectio 15302(c) Class 2 exemption for replacement or reconstruction of an existing utility system and facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity.

2. Conditionally awards implementation contract for the Dry Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrades – Pump and Clear Well Improvements Project, Project WA008 to the apparent lowest responsive bidder Corcus Construction, Inc., for a not to exceed amount of $1,524,000.

3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the contract.

4. Authorizes the City Manager to approve project change orders in execution of this work, up to $228,600

5. Approves amending the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Adopted Budget as depicted in the attached Exhibit A.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of August 2026 by the following vote:

SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
_______________________________ ________________________________ J. Chris Herrod, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk
Item 6.i
206 of 493
Resolution No.

Exhibit A
Account Number Increase Amount Decrease Amount Description 520-8080-42301-00000 $ 356,790 Increase Transfer Out from Water Operating Fund to Water Capital Fund for Project WA008 522-1000-39001-00000 $ 356,790 Increase Transfer In from Water Operating Fund to Water Capital Fund for Project WA008 522-6163-45000-WA008 $ 356,790 Increase Dry Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrades Project WA008 FY 26-27 Budget Amendment
Item 6.i
207 of 493
Item 6.i
208 of 493

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
June 15, 2026

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER
401 Grove Street, Healdsburg
.

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Mayor/Chairperson Herrod called to order the concurrent meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Healdsburg at 6:00 p.m. with the following Council Members present:

Present: Council Members/: Edwards, Hagele, Kelley, Mitchell and Mayor Herrod Board Members

Absent: Council Members/: None
Board Members

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
On a motion by Councilmember Mitchell, seconded by Councilmember Kelley, approved the June 15, 2026, City Council and Redevelopment Successor Agency meeting agenda as submitted. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS – PROCLAMATION DECLARING JULY 2026

AS PARKS MAKE LIFE BETTER MONTH
Mayor Herrod with Council concurrence issued a Proclamation declaring July 2026 as Parks Make Life Better Month.

Part-time Employee Don McKay thanked the Council for the proclamation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS – PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 22- 28, 2026 AS POLLINATOR WEEK
Mayor Herrod with Council concurrence issued a Proclamation declaring June 22-28, 2026 as Pollinator Week in the City of Healdsburg.

Shaun Shields thanked the Council for the Proclamation.

Item 6.j
209 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

Norm Fujita thanked the Council for the Proclamation and commented on the work of the Rotary Club.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Kay reported on items of interest to the City Council.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND NON

AGENDA ITEMS
Andy Elkind commented on the Sonoma County Library and announced the Library has found a location for the Library headquarters.

Ted Calvert commented on the March Avenue rehab and hiking Fitch Mountain with the Senior Center.

Bill Emmington commented on his utility bill costs in Healdsburg.

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Attorney Zutler announced a typo correction to the resolution for Consent Item 6C, correcting the organization.

On a motion by Councilmember Kelley, seconded by Vice Mayor Edwards, approved the Consent Calendar as follows:

A. RESOLUTION CONSOLIDATING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION

WITH THE STATEWIDE ELECTION
Adopted Resolution No. 61-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA (1) CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026 FOR THE ELECTION OF TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS; (2) REQUESTING THE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026 WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE

ELECTIONS CODE AND TO PERMIT THE SONOMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS TO CONDUCT SAID ELECTION; (3) AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY OF SONOMA FOR THE COSTS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION; AND (4) APPROVING GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING SAID ELECTION.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
Item 6.j
210 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

B. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF

SONOMA COUNTY FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES
Adopted Resolution No. 62-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF SONOMA COUNTY FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $266,609

ANNUALLY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND EXECUTE AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND AN
ADDITIONAL YEAR FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $533,218.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
C. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHILD PARENT INSTITUTE

FOR JUVENILE DIVERSION SERVICES
Adopted Resolution No. 63-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHILD PARENT INSTITUTE TO

PROVIDE FOR YOUTH DIVERSION SERVICES THROUGH ITS SCHOOL-BASED

SERVICES JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $120,000 FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) D. AXON CONTRACT CONSOLIDATION AND RENEWAL
Adopted Resolution No. 64-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WITH AXON

ENTERPRISES FOR BODY WORN CAMERAS, TASER ELECTRONIC CONTROL DEVICES, FLEET 3 IN-CAR CAMERAS, AERIAL AND GROUND ROBOTICS

SYSTEMS, AXON INTERVIEW ROOM SERVICES, AND AI-ASSISTED SOFTWARE SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $573,808.05.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
E. AMENDMENT TO VILLA CHANTICLEER MODERNIZATION PROJECT

AGREEMENT WITH AXIA ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN, BIDDING, AND

CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
Item 6.j
211 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

Adopted Resolution No. 65-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AXIA ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN,

BIDDING SUPPORT, AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR THE VILLA CHANTICLEER MODERNIZATION PROJECT INCREASING THE NOTTO-EXCEED AMOUNT BY $102,737 FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $136,442 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT AND CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS UP TO 10% OF THE AMENDED AGREEMENT AMOUNT.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
F. EXTENSION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH MAGICAL

BRIDGE FOUNDATION
Adopted Resolution No. 66-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH MAGICAL BRIDGE FOUNDATION,

EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) G. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. 3 – TRANSMISSION

AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Adopted Resolution No. 67-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. 3 BETWEEN AND AMONG THE TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ITS MEMBERS.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) H. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH NV5
Adopted Resolution No. 68-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES WITH NV5, INCREASING THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT BY $51,000 TO $100,000.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
I. PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN FOR CITY ELECTRIC FACILITIES AS REQUIRED BY CPUC DECISION 19-01-018
Adopted Resolution No. 69-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING THE PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN UPDATE PREPARED BY NV5 AS COMPLIANT WITH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION D.19-01-018.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) Item 6.j
212 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

J. 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Adopted Resolution No. 70-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG ADOPTING THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG’S 2025

URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
K. WATER WASTE PROHIBITIONS AND WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
Adopted Ordinance No. 1257, titled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG ADDING SECTION 13.12.210, WATER WASTE PROHIBITIONS, TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 13.12.220, WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) L. HEALDSBURG SWIM CENTER JOINT USE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT Adopted Resolution No. 71-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT USE

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG AND THE HEALDSBURG

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE HEALDSBURG SWIM CENTER

SPECIFYING REIMBURSEMENT TO THE DISTRICT FOR OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE COSTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
M. CONDITIONAL AWARD OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT TO DC ELECTRIC GROUP, INC.

Adopted Resolution No. 72-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG CONDITIONALLY AWARDING A CONTRACT TO DC ELECTRIC GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PATHWAY

LIGHTING MAINTENANCE FOR AN INITIAL ONE-YEAR TERM WITH AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT AND UP TO FOUR (4) ONE-YEAR

AMENDMENTS EXTENDING THE CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, THEREBY APPROVING A TOTAL FIVE (5) YEAR CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $375,000.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) N. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN SONOMA

COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Item 6.j
213 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

Adopted Resolution No. 73-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

NORTHERN SONOMA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG RELATING TO FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
O. ACCEPTANCE OF THE VICTORY APARTMENTS REHABILITATION PROJET

AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZATION TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION Adopted Resolution No. 74-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG ACCEPTING THE VICTORY APARTMENTS

REHABILITATION PROJECT AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE SONOMA COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
P. L&M VILLAGE QUARTERLY REPORT
Received the L&M Village Quarterly Report. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) Q. AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE, FUNDING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH

REACH FOR HOME FOR THE L&M VILLAGE AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 TERMS OF SERVICE
Adopted Resolution No. 75-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE

LEASE, FUNDING, AND SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH REACH FOR HOME FOR THE L&M VILLAGE, APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 TERMS OF

SERVICE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE TRANSACTION.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
R. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REACH FOR HOME FOR

STREET OUTREACH AND PREVENTION SERVICES
Adopted Resolution No. 76-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH REACH FOR HOME FOR SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS

EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND THOSE AT RISK OF BECOMING

HOMELESS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.” (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
Item 6.j
214 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved the June 1, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) The motion to approve the Consent Calendar as above carried on a unanimous roll call vote. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
PUBLIC HEARINGS – LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Councilmember Hagele recused from this item as he lives within the district boundaries.

Parks Superintendent Jaime Licea presented the staff report.

Mayor Herrod opened the public comment period.

There were no public comments on this item.

On a motion by Councilmember Kelley, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell, adopted Resolution No. 77-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG APPROVING THE ANNUAL ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE

ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS AND

AUTHORIZING THE LEVYING AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 FOR THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.” The motion carried on a roll call vote, with Councilmember Hagele noted as abstaining. (Ayes 4, Noes 0, Absent – None, Abstaining – Hagele) BUSINESS ITEMS – RAILROAD QUIET ZONE ANALYSIS
Public Works Director Larry Zimmer presented the report.

The Council asked various questions of Mr. Zimmer.

Mayor Herrod opened the public comment period.

There were no public comments on this item.

On a motion by Councilmember Hagele, seconded by Councilmember Kelley, adopted Resolution No. 78-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RAILPROS IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT-TO-EXCEED $148,909, AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET.” The motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
Item 6.j
215 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

BUSINESS ITEMS – ABEL DE LUNA COMMUNITY CENTER MULTICULTURAL CENTER AND RESILIENCE HUB TIER 1 PAINTING CONTRACT AWARD Community Services Director Themig, along with Corazon Representative Cristal Pardo presented the report.

Mayor Herrod opened the public comment period.

There were no public comments on this item.

The Council asked questions of Community Services Director Themig and Corazon Representative Lopez Pardo.

On a motion by Councilmember Kelley, seconded by Councilmember Hagele, adopted Resolution No. 79-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG CONDITIONALLY AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE ABEL DE

LUNA COMMUNITY CENTER MULTICULTURAL CENTER AND RESILIENCE HUB TIER 1 PAINTING PROJECT TO AFFORDABLE QUALITY PAINTING, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $156,200; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS UP TO 12% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT.” The motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)
BUSINESS ITEMS – BREATHLESS WINES REQUEST TO OPERATE PEDICAB Chief of Police Jenkins presented the report.

The Council asked various questions of Chief Jenkins and the pedicab operator.

Mayor Herrod opened the public comment period.

There were no public comments on this item.

On a motion by Vice Mayor Edwards, seconded by Councilmember Hagele, adopted Resolution No. 80-2026, titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG AUTHORIZING BREATHLESS SPARKLING WINES, LLC TO OPERATE A PEDICAB BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG.” The motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None) BUSINESS ITEMS – SONOMA COUNTY LIBRARY COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Mayor Herrod recused from this item as his spouse works for the Sonoma County Library.

Item 6.j
216 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

Vice Mayor Edwards introduced this item for discussion and Councilmember Kelley and Councilmember Mitchell provided information on the applicants interviewed.

Vice Mayor Edwards opened the public comment period.

There were no public comments on this item.

Following a brief discussion by Council on a motion by Councilmember Kelley, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell, appointed Carolyn Gonzalez to the Sonoma County Library Commission for a term of four years due to expire August 1, 2030. The motion carried on a roll call vote, with Mayor Herrod abstaining. (Ayes 4, Noes 0, Absent – None, Abstaining – Herrod) BUSINESS ITEMS – PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
Mayor Herrod introduced this item for discussion.

Mayor Herrod opened the public comment period.

There were no public comments on this item.

On a motion by Councilmember Kelley, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell, appointed Conor McKay, Jonathan Pearlman and James Gentry to the Planning Commission for a term of four years due to expire June 30, 2026. The motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. (Ayes 5, Noes 0, Absent – None)

COUNCIL REPORTS ON MATTERS OF INTEREST OCCURRING SINCE PREVIOUS

REGULAR MEETING/EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT REPORTS
Councilmembers reported on recent and upcoming activities, including reports from meetings attended.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The City Council received the report on the Parks and Recreation Commission actions taken at its May 13, 2026 meeting, the report on the Arts and Culture Commission actions taken at its May 27, 2026 meeting, the report on the Station Area Specific Plan Community Advisory Committee actions taken at its June 3, 2026 and the report on the Planning Commission actions taken at its June 9, 2026 meeting.

Item 6.j
217 of 493
City Council/RSA Regular Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2026

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further City Council/Redevelopment Successor Agency business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:14 p.m.

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ __________________________________ J. Chris Herrod, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk
Item 6.j
218 of 493

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 3, 2026
SUBJECT: Percent for Arts Ordinance Development Update
PREPARED BY: Taryn Nicoll, Arts and Culture Program Administrator STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Provide Effective Governance
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
Provide Resident-Driven Community Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Receive information on the prospective administration and structure of a Percent for Arts Program in Healdsburg, review case studies and outcomes from peer cities, and provide direction to staff.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

In 2019, the City launched an arts and culture master planning process led by a community-based Creative Leadership Team and a consultant, the Cultural Planning Group. Over the course of three years, the City held numerous community meetings, stakeholder discussions, and other community engagement and outreach activities. Following City Council’s adoption of the Arts and Culture Master Plan in August 2021, staff continued to work with the Creative Leadership Team to develop an implementation plan that included the development of a proposed percent for the arts ordinance for City Council consideration. City Council approved this implementation plan in September 2022, and it remains in place today.

BACKGROUND:

Healdsburg has a long history of celebrating art in public places and promoting cultural engagement. In 2007, the City adopted its first Public Art Policy to guide long-term installations in public spaces. Following an extensive community-led process, City Council adopted Healdsburg's first Arts and Culture Master Plan in August 2021. Two of the Plan's five goals address public art directly: enriching cultural experiences for the community and visitors and advancing art in the public realm.

The Plan's goals additionally call for expanding the City's Public Art Program to align with national best practices, including adopting a percent for arts ordinance, establishing an art requirement for Item 8.a
219 of 493
both City capital projects and private development.

In September 2022, the Creative Leadership Team and staff presented an implementation strategy to City Council, including two actions on public art funding and maintenance: developing a proposed percent for arts ordinance, and finalizing a maintenance program for the City's public art inventory. City Council approved these actions and allocated $50,000 per year to the FY 2022-24 Arts and Culture budget.

The City's current public art initiatives include the Foley Family Community Pavilion Public Art Project and the "Arts for All" Public Art Grant Program, both expected to conclude by December 2026, along with the ongoing Temporary Art Installation Program and the Foss Creek Pathway Art Trail.

After researching percent for arts models across California, staff presented an introductory framework to City Council on December 1, 2025, covering the general concept and California landscape of these programs.

This follow-up report builds on that foundation, focusing on how the City could structure and administer a percent for arts program specifically for Healdsburg and what outcomes comparable programs have produced. Attachment A provides a high-level summary term sheet for City Council review.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

This program structure is based on City Council's feedback from the December 2025 introductory report and on a review of comparable California cities with proven track records and established best practices.

In response to City Council's prior direction, staff lowered the proposed contribution rate from

1.5% to 1% and raised the construction-cost threshold from $300,000 to $500,000. The framework also lets developers choose how to fulfill the requirement, including selecting artwork themselves, without affecting their building timelines.

Staff based these figures on cities closest to Healdsburg in size and economic profile, including Sebastopol, Capitola, Emeryville, El Segundo, and Albany. Among these cities, 1% was one of the lower rates still tied to strong outcomes - enough to fund real results, while staying approachable for developers. The $500,000 threshold is similar to most nearby Bay Area cities, which typically set their project thresholds between $250,000 and $500,000. The current threshold is high enough to capture larger projects while exempting smaller ones.

This approach reflects three goals: start modest with the ability to grow over time, keep City projects infrequent but well executed, and apply the fee mainly to large private development. The threshold and the exemptions in Section 1.6 keep the program focused on major capital projects and larger private developments, while exempting smaller residential and remodel projects outright.

1. Scope, Applicability, and Exemptions
Item 8.a
220 of 493
This section outlines the proposed program's key criteria in detail; for a condensed, high-level overview, see the Summary Term Sheet (included as Attachment A).

1.1 The ‘Percent for Arts’ Requirement
The proposed program requires a 1% public art fee on eligible private and public projects. This is consistent with several California peer cities that have achieved consistently positive outcomes at this level.

1.2 What Prompts the Requirement
The proposed program applies to public and private building development projects with construction costs of $500,000 or greater. The same threshold of $500,000 and exemptions apply to renovations and reconstructions.

1.3 Applicability
The $500,000 threshold, combined with a broad set of exemptions for routine infrastructure, maintenance, and repair work (Section 1.6), limits the proposed program to major City capital projects rather than day-to-day municipal work. City projects will therefore infrequently prompt the requirement, but staff will execute public art for major capital projects thoughtfully when it does occur.

The proposed program applies primarily to large private development. Because it exempts smaller residential and routine remodel projects outright, the fee applies only where a private project is large enough that a conservative percentage contribution is a reasonable, proportionate condition of development.

1.4 Fulfilling the Requirement
A developer or the City may satisfy the requirement one of two ways: (1) installing public art on the development site with a value equal to the required contribution of 1%, or (2) paying an in-lieu fee, of not less than 1% of construction costs, into the Public Art Fund. Where a developer installs on-site art valued lower than the full contribution, the developer may pay the balance as an in-lieu contribution.

The City may aggregate permits on the same property within a three-year period to determine whether a project meets the threshold, preventing a developer from circumventing the requirement by dividing one project into a series of smaller permits.

1.5 Installation Timeline
The proposed program structure recommends installing public art during the course of the qualifying public or private construction project. Where circumstances warrant, the City or a developer may request up to six months following project completion to install the art.

1.6 Projects That Are Exempt
Consistent with comparable California programs, the proposed program exempts the following project types from the requirement:

Public Projects: Proposed Exemptions
Item 8.a
221 of 493
 Construction, remodel, repair, or reconstruction of non-municipal governmental buildings, and public-serving social service and non-profit agencies
 Construction, repair and maintenance of public infrastructure projects such as streets, roads, sidewalks, and parking lots
 Construction, reconstruction, repair or maintenance of public projects funded by enterprise funds such as sewer, water, storm drain, and underground and overhead utility projects  Tree planting (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project)  Repair, or reconstruction of structures damaged by fire, flood, wind, earthquake, or other calamity
 Affordable housing construction, remodel, repair, or reconstruction projects  Seismic retrofit projects, as defined by the Healdsburg Municipal Code (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project)
 Fire sprinkler installation projects (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project)
 ADA compliance projects (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project) Note: these exemptions do not exempt a component of a larger improvement project from counting toward that project's overall cost for threshold purposes.

Private Projects: Proposed Exemptions
 Single-family homes, and projects of four units or fewer  Remodeling, repair, or reconstruction of structures damaged by fire, flood, wind, earthquake, or other calamity
 Affordable housing construction, remodel, repair, or reconstruction projects  Seismic retrofit projects, as defined by the Healdsburg Municipal Code (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project)
 Construction, remodel, repair, or reconstruction of structures owned and occupied by visual and performing arts entities
 Fire sprinkler installation projects (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project)
 ADA compliance projects (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project) Funding-source exemption: the proposed program also exempts public and private projects whenever an applicable public funding source (such as an external grant) or other regulation prohibits using funds for public art. Where only part of a project is funded this way, the City deducts that portion's value from total construction costs when calculating the contribution; only that portion of the total project costs funded from eligible funding sources would be applicable.

The proposed program also grants an exemption where a grant or similar applicable funding source does not, by its terms, expressly prohibit expenditure on public art, but where the amount of funding provided is insufficient to cover the cost of the percent for art contribution required by this program without reducing the funds available for the project's scope of work. In such circumstances, the project, or the applicable portion thereof, shall be exempt from the percent for arts requirement.

Item 8.a
222 of 493
As best practice, eligible projects should include public art as part of grant applications for consideration by the granting agency.

1.7 Alternate Site Provision
The City or a developer may request to satisfy the requirement, in whole or in part, at an alternate site unconnected to the development site, provided the installation meets all program requirements and the applicant completes the qualifying project first. This gives added flexibility for sites where on-site art is impractical, such as a small or heavily constrained lot, without defaulting straight to a cash payment.

For private development, the City may treat the public art that a developer installs at an alternate City-owned location as a donation to the City. For City development, the City may prioritize alternate sites that offer significant community benefit, such as an affordable housing development. Staff will maintain a list of eligible alternate sites as part of the Public Art Policy and review it every three years.

1.8 Ownership, Title, and Maintenance
The City holds the title to the public art that it commissions or purchases, and is responsible for custody, protection, maintenance, and preservation consistent with the California Preservation of Works of Art Act.

For private developments, the developer and successive property owners, retain ownership and are responsible for maintenance. The art must remain on-site for twenty years from installation, and a maintenance covenant recorded against the property secures this requirement.

1.9 Public Art Policy Update
In addition to the ordinance itself, staff would develop an update to the City’s Public Art Policy to govern the program's day-to-day administration. At minimum, the Policy would address:
 Definitions of key terms: Artist, visual arts professional, curator/arts consultant, permanent artwork, and more
 Definition of publicly accessible art
 Prohibited artwork themes and subject matter
 Artist eligibility: Who may be considered for commissions  Artist/artwork selection methods: Open call, limited solicitation, or direct solicitation  Eligible and ineligible artwork types: Categories of objects that do or do not qualify as public art
 Eligible and ineligible budget costs: What may and may not count toward the required art contribution budget
 Maintenance responsibility and planning
 Removal or replacement process for public art in private developments  Acquisition, donation, replacement, and deaccession process: How the City acquires commissioned or donated works, and removes or replaces existing ones  Updating and clarifying proposed art installation review and approval processes Item 8.a
223 of 493

2. Proposed Program Administration

2.1 Roles and Responsibilities
 Building Official: Confirms a private development's applicability to the program and verifies construction costs with City staff. Confirms compliance with the requirement before issuing a Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for private projects, and at project completion for public projects.
 Arts and Culture Program Administrator: Conducts the initial review of proposed public art and project budgets before permit issuance, and guides developers through the full process.

Collaborates with Building Official to confirm program compliance at Building Permit issuance and Certificate of Occupancy issuance.
 Arts and Culture Commission: Reviews and recommends to the City Council proposed public art for consistency with the updated Public Art Policy across both public and private development projects and subsequent plans and renderings before production and installation.  City Council: Reviews and approves public art for both private development projects and the City's major Capital Improvement Projects and other eligible City-funded developments.  Public Art Fund: A dedicated fund, which the City will establish with the Finance Department, that holds all in-lieu contributions and restricts their use to the Fund's criteria.

2.2 Making the Process Approachable for Developers
Staff designed the proposed process to minimize burden on developers and City projects:
 A construction cost calculation worksheet and public art proposal template standardize submissions and keep the process transparent. See attached samples from Santa Rosa (Attachment B) and Emeryville (Attachment C) for similar template models.  Consistent support: the Arts and Culture Program Administrator checks in early and often, so the art requirement does not delay a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy.  Developers select their own artist and concept for on-site art. In other cities, this control has increased developer buy-in, with some developers treating the artwork as an investment in their property’s value.
 The in-lieu fee option lets a developer satisfy the requirement with less work if they prefer not to manage an installation.
 Staff can provide a roster of approved arts consultants for developers who want support selecting fine art.
 Developers may request Arts and Culture Commission design feedback at any point; the Commission supports the developer's own vision rather than directing it.  The Commission responds to a proposal within 60 days of submission, so review does not delay construction.
 A developer whose site is not a good fit for on-site art may instead install the work at a different site.
 The process includes only two compliance checkpoints: once before building permit issuance, and once before Certificate of Occupancy.

Item 8.a
224 of 493

3. Outcomes of ‘Percent for Arts’ Programs: Comparative Case Studies Staff summarized documented outcomes that comparable California programs have achieved over time – evidence of what a sustained, modestly scaled program can realistically produce. The three case studies below serve as positive examples with demonstrated, documented outcomes. The fourth illustrates a structural design choice that limited outcomes for several years.

3.1 Emeryville
Population of approximately 12,670 - comparable in scale to Healdsburg. Emeryville adopted its ordinance on December 18, 1990, and applies a 1% requirement to private nonresidential development, 0.5% to private residential development of 20 or more units, and 1.5% to public projects, with a $300,000 threshold.
 The Art in Public Places Program has generated nearly 70 publicly owned artworks and 230 total art installations available to the public over more than three decades.  Emeryville's Bus Shelter Art Installations program rotates new work into four bus shelters every four months; each four-month cycle supports six artists with $30,000 in combined stipends.
 Since 2006, the City's Purchase Award has built its permanent art collection through a yearly acquisition, with City Hall serving as an ongoing showcase for local artists' work.  Emeryville's Visual Arts Grants program awards $3,000 to $17,500 to individual artists or arts organizations; in Fiscal Year 2025-26 alone, the City awarded $103,000 in grant funding.  The City's Murals Program, established in 2016, has produced more than 40 murals; the full collection can be explored through an interactive online map, a digital Pocket Map, or a printed Pocket Walking Guide.

3.2 Watsonville
Population of approximately 50,328. Watsonville's City Council adopted a 0.75% fee in 2022 following a public push from the local arts community, and the program produced a measurable, recognized civic outcome relatively quickly. The City deposits contributions into a dedicated Cultural Fund.
 The Cultural Fund financed a Public Art Master Plan that directly supports the Downtown Watsonville Specific Plan and capital improvement efforts such as the City Plaza Revitalization Project.
 The City's Historic Label Art Mural Project has produced thirteen completed murals by five artists, each an exact replica of an early-1900s apple-box or produce-crate label that once identified a local grower or shipper, directly connecting the public art collection to Watsonville's agricultural heritage.
 The City partners with local organizations to produce the Movable Murals series at 250 Main Street, the annual Sculpture IS exhibition, the Teen Artes youth mural program, and monthly Second Saturdays events that activate historic Downtown Watsonville with performances and art demonstrations.

Item 8.a
225 of 493
 In the December 2025/January 2026 cycle, the State of California named Downtown Watsonville one of only ten new state-designated Cultural Districts statewide, bringing a $10,000 state grant and marketing support. This outcome was achieved within roughly three years of the fee's adoption.

3.3 Brea
With a population of approximately 42,777, Brea occupies roughly 12 square miles and is a builtout city with considerable land constraints. Brea's Art in Public Places Program has operated continuously since 1975, making it one of the oldest in California, and the City marked its 50th anniversary in 2025.
 The program has commissioned over 195 sculptures since inception, making it one of the largest civic art collections in the state.
 The collection includes work by internationally recognized artists such as Magdalena Abakanowicz, J. Seward Johnson, and Niki de Saint Phalle.  The public art collection is enhanced by an interactive online map and educational study guides for students and teachers.
 The Brea Art Gallery and the Curtis Theatre give the program an ongoing public platform; the Gallery has mounted dedicated exhibitions on the Art in Public Places collection, and the two venues together have helped Brea earn recognition as one of North Orange County's premier cultural destinations.

3.4 El Segundo
Population of approximately 16,188, occupying roughly 5.46 square miles. El Segundo's own ordinance findings state the City is “almost entirely built out,” with “scarce” opportunities to expand public art. The ordinance applies only to private commercial and industrial development with construction costs of $2,000,000 or more; it does not apply to public projects or to residential development of any kind. Under this structure, the Percent for Arts ordinance specifically has produced limited results:
 For its first five years of operation, the program initiated 8 public artworks, of which the City completed only 1 - a pace staff research characterized as “exceedingly slow growth.”  The City's own materials describe the $2,000,000 threshold as maintaining “a business friendly model.” However, combined with El Segundo's limited available real estate, this greatly limits how many projects the requirement captures.
 The Public Art Fund's permitted uses are broadly defined and are not limited strictly to standalone artwork; in practice, Fund dollars have supported The Plunge Renovation Project, a historic municipal pool renovation, showing how broadly-worded fund-use provisions can let contributions drift toward general capital-improvement projects rather than public art specifically.

This initial design featured a threshold set high relative to the City's real estate profile combined with a scope that excludes public and residential projects entirely; this appears to have produced years of minimal visible output under the ordinance. More recent City materials (as of late 2024) indicate participation and output have increased slightly since the program's early implementation Item 8.a
226 of 493
period, and the City amended the ordinance in 2025 to add fee flexibility.

With contributions from the Percent for Arts program, El Segundo's Cultural Development fund supports several cultural programs including library exhibitions of student photography, a Poet Laureate initiative, and a Community Engagement Fund Grant program of up to $6,000 for arts and cultural community-led events, including the El Segundo Juneteenth Festival and Gundo Pride.

Next Steps
Staff requests City Council feedback on the structure and administration model of the proposed percent for arts program, and direction to proceed on the drafting of a proposed percent for arts ordinance and a companion Public Art Policy for future City Council review.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

Not applicable. This agenda item is for discussion and direction only ALTERNATIVES:

Do not proceed with the development of a proposed percent for arts program or provide alternative direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A percent for arts program has the potential to both increase City revenues (through an in-lieu fee on development) and increase City expenses (when applied to public infrastructure projects). This agenda item is presented for feedback and direction by City Council. If City Council recommends moving forward with program structuring and ordinance language development, staff would generate a fiscal impact analysis associated with implementation of this program.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

City Council’s discussion about creating a percent for arts program is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because discussing the creation of a percent for arts program is not a project, since it will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the Environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A: Percent for Arts Program Term Sheet
Attachment B: Developers Instructions for Public Art in Private Development – City of Santa Rosa Attachment C: Developers Worksheet for Public Art in Private Development – City of Emeryville Item 8.a
227 of 493
Attachment A: City of Healdsburg Percent for Arts Program Term Sheet This table summarizes the proposed program structure at a high level; full detail is available in the accompanying staff report.

Component Public Projects Private Projects Notes
Contribution Rate 1% of construction
cost
Nonresidential: 1%
Residential (5-10
units): 0.5%
Rate proposed to start
moderate; consistent with
several CA peer cities
Threshold $500,000 or greater $500,000 or greater Same threshold and exemptions apply to
renovations/reconstruction
Fulfillment
Method
On-site art, in-lieu fee,
or an alternate site
On-site art, in-lieu fee,
or an alternate site
Private developer’s art on
alternate City site may be
treated as donation to City
In-Lieu Fee Not less than 1% of
construction cost
Not less than 1% of
construction cost
Deposited into dedicated
Public Art Fund
Exemptions Construction and
maintenance of public
infrastructure,
enterprise fund
projects, calamity
repair, affordable
housing, seismic
retrofit, ADA, fire
sprinklers
Single-family/4 units
or fewer, calamity
repair, affordable
housing, seismic
retrofit, arts-entity
buildings, ADA, fire
sprinklers
Also exempt:
-Projects where a funding
source prohibits use for
public art
-Public projects where
grant funding cannot
cover inclusion of public
art without reducing funds
for the project
Ownership & Title City holds title; City
maintains under CA
Preservation of Works
of Art Act
Developer/owner
holds title; must
remain on-site 20
years via recorded
covenant
—
Installation
Timeline
During construction;
up to 6 months postcompletion by
agreement
During construction;
up to 6 months postcompletion with
security
—
Alternate Site Permitted with
conditions; City may
prioritize high-benefit
sites
Permitted with
conditions
List reviewed every 3
years
Administering
Entities
Building Official, Arts
& Culture Program
Administrator, Arts &
Culture Commission,
City Council
Building Official, Arts
& Culture Program
Administrator, Arts &
Culture Commission,
City Council
—
Item 8.a
228 of 493
1/8/2019
Public Art in Private Development
Guidelines for Developers
Commercial, non-industrial development with a construction cost of $500,000 and greater is required to include public art in the project under the “Development Requirements for Public Art” provisions of the City Code (21-08). This requirement does not apply to residential development.

A Developer’s responsibilities are to:
➢ Inform their development and design teams about the City’s requirements and expectations for public art at the earliest possible stage of their project. ➢ Meet with the Arts Coordinator to discuss requirements, expectations, options and resources at the earliest possible stage of their project.
➢ Submit a Preliminary Application for Public Art in a timely manner, prior to applying for a Building Permit.
➢ Present artist selection and concept to the Art in Public Places Committee for review and feedback, if recommended by the Director of Planning and Economic Development. ➢ Submit a Final Application for Public Art before the Building Permit is issued. ➢ Contract with artist.
➢ Obtain all necessary permits for the artwork, which may be separate from the permits for the project that triggered the public art requirement.
➢ Oversee fabrication and installation of artwork.
➢ Provide a maintenance covenant for the artwork.
➢ If fulfilling the requirement by paying an in-lieu fee, submit the payment before the Final Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
➢ Please note the project valuation reported for compliance with public art requirements must reflect the valuations provided on all applicable building permit applications.

Expectations for Public Art Installed On-Site:
➢ The selected artist shall meet the definition of Artist, as defined in City Code 21-08.020, and demonstrate artistic excellence, originality, and experience with projects of similar scope. ➢ The artwork shall be easily visible to the public, located in a prominent location that allows the art to be visible from a public right of way at least during business hours. ➢ The artwork shall meet the definition of Public Art, as defined in City Code 21-08.040, and be appropriate for the selected site, in regard to scale, siting, media and appearance. ➢ The art proposal should demonstrate feasibility in terms of budget, safety, durability, operation, maintenance, security and siting.
➢ The artwork should be a fixed asset of the property.
➢ The artwork should not create a safety hazard or public nuisance. ➢ The artwork value shall be at least 1% of the construction costs for the development as shown on the building permit valuation.
➢ Eligible public art expenditures conform to those allowed in City Code 21-08.050.

Item 8.a
229 of 493

Public Art in Private Development
Process Flow Chart for Developers
Please contact Meredith Knudsen with any questions:
(707) 543-4674 | [email protected]
Submit a Preliminary Application for Public Art, indicating how the requirement will be fulfilled (opt to place art on site or pay the in-lieu fee) Place Artwork On-site Pay In-Lieu Fee
Select an artist early in the
discretionary review process and
prepare artwork concept
Building Permit will be issued when
the Preliminary Application has been
signed and accepted by the Arts
Coordinator
The installation of art on-site OR payment
of the in-lieu fee may be deferred for up
to six months by entering into a deferral
agreement. A Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy will be issued.

Arts Coordinator checks application
for completeness and either approves
or advises developer on modifications
Building Permit will be issued only
when the Final Application has been
approved by Arts Coordinator
Pick up guidelines and application from Planning & Economic Development Department, or online at srcity.org/arts.

Complete Final Application for Public
Art and submit to Arts Coordinator in
Planning & Economic Development
Final Certificate of Occupancy will be
issued when artwork is satisfactorily
installed on-site, as determined by
Arts Coordinator, AND the Covenant
to Maintain Public Art has been
recorded.

Final Certificate of Occupancy will be
issued when the in-lieu fee has been
paid at Planning & Economic
Development Department
NOTE: The project valuation reported for
compliance with public art requirements must
reflect the valuations provided on all
applicable building permit applications.

Item 8.a
230 of 493
Emeryville Art in Public Places (AiPP)
Public Art Requirements in Development Projects
AiPP requires the following:
 Works must be maintained in perpetuity or replaced
 Requirements transfer at time of sale.
 Public access must be maintained and clearly visible at least 40 hrs. a week  A plaque with Title, Artist and Year should be included with the work.

You can seek a waiver of the Building Permit Fee for AiPP with the information and attachments as described within or you can pay the fee at the time of the Building permit and seek rebate with the installation of work(s) demonstrated as described below and attached as proscribed at any time prior to issuance of Final Certificate of occupancy or final inspection. You may alternately email the Art Coordinator that the fee may be recorded as revenue to the City indicating compliance with the AiPP with no further action needed. The following information must be provided in order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection and record your compliance with the AiPP requirements if you are not providing fee as revenue. Use a separate form for each art work. This form must be submitted to [email protected].

Development Project Name:

Building Permit #:

Location/Address:

APNs (if have):

Developer:

Contact:

Project Valuation per Building Department:

AiPP Fee Required in lieu of work:

Title of Artwork:

Artist Name:

Year of Creation: Year of Installation:

Media/Materials:

Size/Dimensions:

Contact information for Artist:

Artist website:

Commission Amount:

Item 8.a
231 of 493
Remainder (if any) to be Paid to City:

Payment to the artist in excess of requirements:

Description of Artwork:

Location of installation on site:

Additional Comments:

Artist Statement:

Please submit with this form, ASAP, the following:

1. A photo or rendering

2. Site plan with art location depicted and property lines

3. Signed contract with artist for qualifying activities of sufficient value to cover obligations or invoice and proof of payment

4. Artist scope or work description

5. Evidence of artist’s qualification (such as resume/CV, prior sales, degree, tax status, news articles, and/or website) – a single qualification can be used Prior to installation of Public Art, applicants must consult with the Building Division to determine if any Building Permits must be issued to a California State Licensed Contractor per California Business and Professions Code Section 7000 for the art works installation.

Upon completion of the work please submit:

1. A photo of the completed work in context in high enough resolution for inclusion in City catalogue of Public Art and on the City’s website

2. Artist statement 200 words or less regarding the commissioned piece and the piece’s relationship the artist’s greater body of work
Should a rebate of fees be required, in addition to the above, please provide:

1. A W-9 for the entity seeking rebate

2. An invoice for the rebate eligible amount or less, to the City. If artist’s contract exceeds rebate, than billing for the entire amount will create delays.

Item 8.a
232 of 493

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 3, 2026
SUBJECT: Fire Department Community Risk Analysis and Standards of Cover PREPARED BY: Jason Boaz, Fire Chief
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Provide Effective Governance
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
Maintain and Enhance Public Safety
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Receive a presentation on the Fire Department Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover (SOC) and provide direction to the Fire Chief regarding items the City Council would like staff to pursue.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

AP Triton consultants conducted on-site interviews with all Fire Department staff, as well as key community stakeholders, including elected officials, members of the business community, and selected community members. In addition, the consultants conducted an online survey distributed to the general public through all available City media outlets. Printed copies of the survey were also available at key City facilities. A total of 75 community responses were received.

BACKGROUND:

AP Triton’s scope of work was to provide a comprehensive, data-driven Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis for the City of Healdsburg Fire Department. A primary purpose of the study was to gather information and data to inform the Fire Department’s use of revenue from the countywide Measure H sales tax. Formally titled “The Improved and Enhanced Local Fire Protection, Paramedic Services and Disaster Response Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance,” this 0.5% sales tax is expected to generate approximately $1.6 million annually for enhanced fire services in the City. The amount will fluctuate based on countywide sales tax revenue, but the City’s allocation is fixed at 2.51% of total Measure H revenue.

The Community Risk Assessment identifies hazards, threats, vulnerabilities, and risks within the department’s service area. It compares those risks and the department’s capabilities with Item 8.b
233 of 493
recognized standards and best practices and establishes benchmarks for evaluating future improvements.

The Standards of Cover Deployment Analysis evaluates the Fire Department’s resource distribution, concentration, reliability, and historical performance to support safe and effective emergency response. It also examines historical trends and forecasted demand to project future service needs. The analysis included a thorough review of available computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data from the past five years.

The report presents a focused analysis of the Healdsburg Fire Department’s service delivery system. It provides a foundational overview of the department’s demographics, governance, finances, facilities, and apparatus, followed by a deeper, data-driven evaluation of HFD’s operational performance and community risk.

The analysis includes a review of response-time reliability, unit availability, interagency support, and overall service capacity. AP Triton’s approach ensures that the recommendations are grounded in both quantitative data and operational realities. The findings and recommendations are intended to support HFD’s strategic planning, enhance performance tracking, and identify opportunities to maintain and improve fire and EMS services to the community.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The SOC identifies 17 recommendations for consideration, which are outlined below. Additional detail on each recommendation is provided in the attached Standards of Cover document. These are recommendations only; inclusion in the report does not guarantee funding or implementation.

The report highlights the Department’s many current successes. HFD continues to provide exceptional service to the community, supported by a strong fire prevention program, the effective use of state funding and outside resources to advance wildfire mitigation, and EMS and fireresponse data that reflect a highly capable department. With the opening of a new fire station, the integration of new technology, and a longstanding record of strong employee retention, HFD is well positioned to build on this momentum and address several important opportunities for improvement. Key findings include the determination that approximately 70% of calls occur between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., concurrent or “stacked” calls are increasing, and the Department’s reliance on mutual aid received compared with mutual aid provided has become increasingly imbalanced. By strategically leveraging Measure H funding and adopting key recommendations from the report, HFD is poised to significantly enhance the services provided to our community.

Recommendation A-1: Expansion of Administrative Capacity Description: Hire additional administrative support, potentially on a part-time or project basis, to assist with growing documentation, compliance tracking, and grant administration.

Desired Outcome: Command staff are freed from clerical burdens to focus on high-level strategic initiatives and prevention priorities.

Item 8.b
234 of 493
Recommendation A-2: Modernization of Administrative Management Systems Description: Transition from transactional, manual record-keeping to digital process management systems for fleet maintenance, facility tracking, and standardized contractor submittals.

Desired Outcome: Enhanced accountability, streamlined workflows, and data-driven decisionmaking for City leadership.

Recommendation A-3: Clarification of Roles and Leadership Description: Clarify the Division Chief/Fire Marshal's existing dual role, which already spans fire prevention, operations, HR, and acting Fire Chief duties. This defines the current position rather than creating a new one.

Desired Outcome: Better define the Division Chief/Fire Marshal role to match practice, clarifying its executive responsibilities. This establishes a clear line of authority in line with comparable departments. This recommendation may include a reclassification to a revised rank and title.

Recommendation A-4: Improvement of Internal Communication and Transparency Description: Implement regular Department-wide meetings and formalized feedback mechanisms to address perceived gaps in leadership transparency and information flow.

Desired Outcome: Pairing formal feedback with succession planning and career pathways at the line and prevention levels would give personnel a visible growth trajectory. The result: stronger morale, transparency, retention, and organizational cohesion Recommendation B-1: Adopt Response Time Performance Objectives Description: City Council-adopt response time performance objectives. adopting objectives, even at current performance levels, establishes a baseline. Furthermore, HFD should consider separate standards for the City and contract service areas.

Desired Outcome: Commit to an annual performance report and five-year SOC updates consistent with the compliance model provided.

Recommendation B-2: Enhancement of Minimum Daily Staffing (Measure H Implementation)
Description: Use Measure H revenue to maintain three-person staffing at Station 1 and add routine daily coverage at Station 2. Start with a 40-hour daytime patrol, a supervising officer, and firefighter, to cover the 70% of incidents occurring during the day.

Desired Outcome: Adding daily coverage at Station 2 speeds response to northern WUI zones and new developments like Montage and Enso Village. A second staffed station helps cover the

19.8% concurrency rate, keeping a unit available when Station 1 is committed. It also could help Item 8.b
235 of 493
to improve even further the City’s ISO rating and help cut reliance on a declining reserve force.

Recommendation B-3: Critical Apparatus Fleet Modernization Description: Plan to replace the second 2008 Type 1 engine and add Type 3 or 6 engine for Station

2. Fire departments across the country, including Healdsburg, are experiencing delays in fire apparatus delivery.

Desired Outcome: Ensured reliability of primary suppression resources and reduced maintenance strain.

Recommendation B-4: Station 1 Safety and Infrastructure Upgrades Description: Address necessary safety and ADA compliance upgrades at Station 1.

Desired Outcome: A healthy and safe working environment for personnel and improved public accessibility. Because the needed work spans both immediate safety items and larger capital improvements, a phased approach could spread the cost over time while addressing the most pressing daily living and working conditions first followed by improvement requiring larger capital investment.

Recommendation B-5: Development of a Reserve (Volunteer) Sustainability Strategy Description: Conduct a targeted study to redefine the role of reserves, focusing on modernized recruitment and retention incentives tailored to the community's aging demographic and high costof-living.

Desired Outcome: Stabilization of the reserve force to ensure reliable surge capacity during major incidents or simultaneous calls.

Recommendation B-6: Improving ISO Rating
Description: Establish a recurring schedule and digital records for hydrant inspection and flow testing with the City Water Department. Though the water supply earns 35.02 of 40 ISO points, the evaluation flagged testing frequency for improvement. The program would inspect and flowtest all hydrants on ISO cycles to confirm they meet fire-flow standards.

Desired Outcome: Capture the remaining ISO "Water Supply" credits with goal of an ISO Class 1 rating. It also gives responders current data on available water volume for high-risk sites and historic downtown structures, improving fireground efficiency and safety.

Recommendation C-1: Formal Adoption of a Community Risk Reduction Plan Description: The HFD already operates an integrated community risk reduction program in practice. Formalize existing informal practices into a unified Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) consistent with NFPA 1300 and Vision 20/20 standards.

Item 8.b
236 of 493
Desired Outcome: Formalization is a meaningful undertaking that requires dedicated staff capacity to draft, maintain, and report against the plan. Ability to quantify prevention outcomes and align long-term performance metrics with community loss reduction.

Recommendation C-2: Vegetation Management Funding Commitment Description: Measure H signals a strong community commitment to fire prevention. HFD's vegetation management is already well-established utilizing statewide programs.

Desired Outcome: To meet the community's expectations of visible wildfire-safety gains from Measure H, the City should set a stable annual budget to sustain and expand vegetation management. Funds could cover mitigation assessments, part-time assessor positions, contract crews, home-hardening and defensible-space education, and grant matches.

Recommendation C-3: Strategic Records Management Integration and Analysis Description: Integrate transactional records (permits/inspections) into a strategic tool that leverages data for trend analysis and risk prioritization.

Desired Outcome: Proactive, data-driven intelligence to identify high-risk areas before incidents occur.

Recommendation C-4: Formalization of Target Hazard Pre-Incident Planning Description: Develop and digitize pre-incident plans for high-risk occupancies, including wineries, historic downtown structures, and senior care facilities, ensuring they are accessible to responders via mobile terminals.

Desired Outcome: Reduced risk to responders and more effective suppression and rescue operations at complex sites.

Recommendation D-1: Bilingual Outreach and Community Preparedness Outreach Description: Expand Spanish-language programming and outreach programs specifically for senior communities.

Desired Outcome: Extend equitable service to the 24% who speak a language other than English and to aging residents. Adopt real-time translation technology, mirroring the Police Department's system, for effective point-of-contact communication. Deliver outreach through partners like Corazón Healdsburg, COPE, local Firewise groups, and school programs.

Recommendation D-2: Implementation of a Quality Management (QM) Program Description: Establish a formal EMS QM program including regular audits of electronic incident reports (ePCRs) to ensure data integrity and clinical excellence.

Item 8.b
237 of 493
Desired Outcome: Improved data accuracy for performance reporting and enhanced clinical care quality.

Recommendation D-3: Consider moving from EMT to Paramedic Description: To match community expectations, best practices, and growing prehospital complexity, HFD should consider upgrading to paramedic-level service. On-scene advanced interventions would improve outcomes in time-critical emergencies like cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, and severe trauma.

Desired Outcome: Build a reliable paramedic program giving ALS coverage on all primary units, with at least one paramedic per frontline apparatus to cut treatment times and improve coordination with hospitals and EMS partners. Treat the shift from Basic to Advanced Life Support as a longterm goal.

PATH FORWARD
SHORT-TERM (1–5 YEARS)
• B-3 Critical Apparatus Fleet Modernization: Replacement of one Type 1 engine in 2027 and planning for replacement of the second engine.
• B-3 Critical Apparatus Fleet Modernization: Addition of a second Type 3 or Type 6 engine as part of increased staffing at Station 2.
• B-2 Enhancement of Minimum Daily Staffing: Use authorized Measure H revenue to increase daily staffing at Station 2.
• B-2 Enhancement of Minimum Daily Staffing: Implementation of a 40-hour daytime patrol, staffed by a supervisor and firefighter, during the period when most calls occur. • C-1 Formal Adoption of a Community Risk Reduction Plan: Adoption of a formal Community Risk Reduction Plan consistent with NFPA 1300.
• C-2 Vegetation Management Funding Commitment: Establishment of a stable, recurring annual budget to sustain and expand vegetation management.
• B-4 Station 1 Safety and Infrastructure Upgrades: Prioritization of Station 1 living and working areas that most directly affect daily health and safety, including dormitories, the kitchen, restrooms and showers, HVAC, the decontamination area, and priority ADA improvements.

While all recommendations should be considered, and several are already being implemented, staff is seeking City Council direction on the following three items:

1. B-1 Response-Time Performance Objectives. Does the City Council support Recommendation B-1? If so, the Fire Chief will return later this year with response-time performance objectives for formal adoption.

2. B-2 Station 2 Staffing Plan. Does the City Council generally support the recommended staffing approach? If so, staff can begin the implementation process and return with a budget amendment and other associated City Council actions reflecting the proposed changes.

Item 8.b
238 of 493

3. C-2 Ongoing Vegetation Management Funding. Staff recommends dedicating at least 10% of Measure H revenue to fuels-reduction projects and ongoing maintenance, consistent with the goals presented to voters. Does the City Council support this allocation, or would it prefer a different amount?
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

No environmental stewardship impacts were identified from the recommendations in the Standards of Cover and Community Risk Assessment.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to accept the report or provide direction on the recommended items. In that case, current operations would continue without change.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City engaged AP Triton, LLC to complete the attached Standards of Cover Assessment and Organizational Strategic Plan for a total contract amount of $86,818. The study was initiated in Fiscal Year (FY) 24-25 and was funded by the Enhanced Fire Protection Fund (Measure H).

The study proposes 17 recommendations and summarizes the anticipated financial impact into three categories, low, moderate, and high. There are seven recommendations that are classified as low or low/moderate that could likely be implemented by redirecting existing staff time towards these initiatives. There are six recommendations that are classified as moderate impact due to the expectation of additional software or salary costs needed for implementation. The final four recommendations are classified as high or moderate/high as they encompass significant full-time staffing commitments and capital expenditures. There is insufficient funding available in Measure H to support all the recommendations made. Staff anticipate additional time will be necessary to fully evaluate the recommendations before bringing back proposals to council for implementation.

The adopted budget for the Measure H Fund in Fiscal Year 26-27 includes $810,000 to complete Phase 1 upgrades to Fire Station 1 aligning with recommendation B-4: Station 1 Safety and Infrastructure Upgrades. The adopted budget also funds one full-time Fire Inspector position and operating costs for Fire Station 2. Excluding the one-time capital cost for Station 1, the total ongoing, annual costs for one FTE (the inspector) and operating costs of Station 2 are approximately $370,000 in FY 26-27 and $387,000 in FY 27-28. The budget reflects the increasing upward pressure of salaries and benefits as well as service fees and insurance. Another pending cost consideration is AB 1383 which has passed the Assembly and is now in the Senate. The bill proposes several changes to retirement benefits for Fire employees covered under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) that if passed will result in significant cost increases to the City that require complex actuarial analysis to quantify.

Staff are requesting City Council feedback on three specific recommendations that may be brought back to City Council later. Staff anticipate that recommendation B-1: Adopt Response Time Performance Objectives can be completed with existing staff time and budget resources.

Recommendation B-2: Enhancement of Minimum Daily Staffing proposes two additional fulltime staff on a standard 40-hour schedule. The direct salary and benefit costs associated with a Item 8.b
239 of 493
Fire Captain and Firefighter position are approximately $408,000 in FY 26-27 and $430,000 in FY 27-28. However, additional staffing results in additional overhead costs and internal service fees associated with the expanded services totaling approximately $88,000 in FY 26-27 and $93,000 in FY 27-28. Additional operating costs, including personal protective equipment and training, are also anticipated to support the additional staff and are currently estimated at $20,000 per year. The total all-in cost for the two additional staff is estimated at $516,000 in FY 26-27 and $543,000 in FY 27-28.

Staff are not seeking direct feedback on recommendation B-3: Critical Apparatus Fleet Modernization at this time. However, is it anticipated that a new Fire Apparatus will likely be a consideration if the proposed full-time staffing is implemented. For context when considering the future investment into apparatus, a vehicle with a one-time purchase cost of $500,000 and a 15- year service life, will result in an annual vehicle replacement fee of approximately $33,000.

The final area that staff are seeking City Council feedback on is Recommendation C-2: Vegetation Management Funding Commitment. Staff are proposing to dedicate a minimum of 10% of the Measure H revenue each year to vegetation management. The current adopted budget for Measure M revenue is approximately $1.6 million per year, which corresponds to approximately $160,000 a year dedicated for vegetation management.

Implementing two additional full-time staff, a new apparatus, and the proposed minimum vegetation management would result in approximately $1.1 million in annual costs. When balancing against the $1.6 million in revenues, there would initially be approximately $500,000 remaining in available annual funding. As illustrated during the budget development process, in recent years the costs of providing services have continued to increase faster than the supporting revenue sources. There has been no indication that this trend is shifting, and the anticipation is that the available annual funding will reduce over the years as the cost of maintaining staffing and service levels increases. To the extent that Measure H funds in excess of the personnel, overhead, vehicle replacement costs, and fuels mitigation remain available over time, those funds would be available for facility and apparatus enhancements as well as continued implementation of the recommendations outlined above.

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):

Item 8.b
240 of 493
2026

HEALDSBURG

FIRE DEPARTMENT

COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT &

STANDARDS OF COVER
June 2026
Item 8.b
241 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ v EVALUATION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................1 Community & Organization Overview .................................................................................................... 2 Organizational Overview............................................................................................................................. 2 Governance and Oversight ......................................................................................................................... 5 Financial Analysis................................................................................................................................... 6 Budget and Organizational Finance............................................................................................................ 6 Fiscal Year 2025–26 General Fund Budget ................................................................................................. 6 Financial Overview of the Fire Department................................................................................................ 9 Capital Replacement Plan ......................................................................................................................... 10 Observations............................................................................................................................................. 11 Service Provided .................................................................................................................................. 12 Staffing & Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 12 Fire Prevention..................................................................................................................................... 17 Organization.............................................................................................................................................. 17 Fire Prevention Bureau Performance ....................................................................................................... 18 CRR Plan.................................................................................................................................................... 18 Strategies & Tactics................................................................................................................................... 19 Wildfire Risk Reduction............................................................................................................................. 27 Emergency Medical Services................................................................................................................. 30 Special Operations ............................................................................................................................... 34 Training................................................................................................................................................ 36 Capital Facilities & Equipment.............................................................................................................. 38 Facilities .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Fleet: Apparatus & Vehicles...................................................................................................................... 43 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................. 46 Community Overview........................................................................................................................... 47 Community Risk Overview ................................................................................................................... 48 Population & Demographics................................................................................................................. 49 Population................................................................................................................................................. 49 Housing Characteristics............................................................................................................................. 56 Risk Classification................................................................................................................................. 59 Risk Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................................. 59 Environmental & Physical Hazards ....................................................................................................... 68 Weather.................................................................................................................................................... 70 Item 8.b
242 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT ii
Environmental Hazards............................................................................................................................. 75 Technological Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 79 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................................. 80 Land Use & Occupancies....................................................................................................................... 82 Physical Assets Protected ......................................................................................................................... 84 Critical Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 96 Transportation Network ........................................................................................................................... 99 Energy ..................................................................................................................................................... 103 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................... 106 Governmental Facilities.......................................................................................................................... 108 Comparison of Fire Risk in Other Communities................................................................................... 110 Insurance Services Office........................................................................................................................ 110 Fire Loss .................................................................................................................................................. 111 STANDARDS OF COVER.............................................................................................................. 113 Statistics & Data Review..................................................................................................................... 114 Statistics Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 114 Data Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 115 Historical Service Demand & Delivery................................................................................................. 117 Service Demand ...................................................................................................................................... 117 Resource Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 128 Historical Performance Review........................................................................................................... 143 Call Processing Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 145 Population Growth & Service Demand Projections............................................................................. 160 Population Growth.................................................................................................................................. 160 Service Demand Projections................................................................................................................... 163 Effectiveness of Inter-Jurisdictional Response .................................................................................... 166 Mutual Aid in Sonoma County................................................................................................................ 166 Inter-Jurisdictional Response Components............................................................................................ 169 Other Emergency Services Resources in the Region .............................................................................. 171 Performance Objectives & Measures.................................................................................................. 173 Adoption of Performance Objectives ..................................................................................................... 173 Integrity of Records Management ..................................................................................................... 179 Identification of Data Integrity Issues..................................................................................................... 179 Technology and Process Improvements................................................................................................. 179 Continuous Performance Measurement Methodology Report ............................................................. 180 Overview of Compliance Methodology............................................................................................... 181 Compliance Model.................................................................................................................................. 181 FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PATH FORWARD............................................................. 185 Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 186 Item 8.b
243 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT iii
Governance, Finance, and Administration ............................................................................................. 186 Operations and Deployment .................................................................................................................. 187 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction .................................................................................... 187 EMS and Special Operations................................................................................................................... 188 Training and Regional Partnerships........................................................................................................ 188 Strategic Recommendations............................................................................................................... 189 Governance, Finance, and Administration ............................................................................................. 189 Operations and Deployment .................................................................................................................. 190 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction .................................................................................... 193 EMS, Training, and Special Operations................................................................................................... 195 Path Forward ..................................................................................................................................... 197 Short-Term (1–5 years)........................................................................................................................... 197 Mid-Term (5–10 years) ........................................................................................................................... 198 Long-Term (10+ years)............................................................................................................................ 198 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 200 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary .................................................................................... 201 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 201 Key Themes Identified Through Stakeholder Interviews........................................................................ 202 Appendix B: Critical Tasking & Alarms................................................................................................ 208 Fire Incidents........................................................................................................................................... 210 EMS Incidents ......................................................................................................................................... 214 Wildland Incidents.................................................................................................................................. 218 Technical Rescue Incidents..................................................................................................................... 221 HazMat Incidents.................................................................................................................................... 225 Appendix C: Table of Figures .............................................................................................................. 229 Item 8.b
244 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AP Triton wishes to extend its sincere appreciation to each of those individuals and organizations whose contributions and assistance made this project possible.

Our sincere appreciation is extended to each of you!
Healdsburg City Council
Chris Herrod
Mayor
Ron Edwards
Vice-Mayor
Evelyn Mitchell
Council Member
David Hagele
Council Member
Ariel Kelley
Council Member
Healdsburg City Staff
Jeff Kay
City Manager
Greg McHugh
GIS Coordinator
April Mitts
Assistant City Manager
Tyler Kettman
Central Services
Healdsburg Fire Department
Jason Boaz
Fire Chief
Lance Macdonald
Division Chief
Berenice Garcia
Administrative Assistant
Ken Reese
REDCOM Communications Manager
And to each of the firefighters, officers, support staff, elected and appointed officials that daily serve the citizens and visitors of the City of Healdsburg.

Item 8.b
245 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a focused analysis of the Healdsburg Fire Department (HFD) service delivery system through a Standards of Cover (SOC) analysis and Community Risk Assessment (CRA). It provides a foundational overview of the department’s demographics, governance, finances, facilities, and apparatus, followed by a deeper, data-driven evaluation of HFD’s operational performance and community risk.

The analysis includes a review of response time reliability, unit availability, interagency support, and overall service capacity. AP Triton’s approach ensures that recommendations are grounded in both quantitative data and operational realities. The resulting findings and recommendations are intended to support HFD’s strategic planning, enhance performance tracking, and identify opportunities to maintain and improve fire and EMS services to the community.

HFD is a long-standing community institution with more than 165 years of service and currently operates a combination staffing model consisting of career and reserve personnel serving the City and its surrounding contract areas. Serving a total area of 72 square miles, the department manages a diverse risk profile that includes dense urban areas and complex wildland-urban interface (WUI) zones. While the City’s resident population has shown slight recent declines, service demand remains high among an aging population, particularly for emergency medical services (EMS), which now account for 52% of all emergency calls.

The department is fully integrated into Healdsburg’s governance structure, helping ensure that critical priorities such as wildfire resilience and climate adaptation are addressed in coordination with other City policy initiatives. From a financial perspective, the City maintains conservative budgeting practices and healthy reserves; however, the voter-approved Measure H sales tax presents an important opportunity to address staffing and service delivery gaps within the fire department. Currently, the department relies heavily on the General Fund, with salaries and benefits accounting for 61% of the fire department budget.

The City collected $1,605,210 in FY 25/26 from Measure H or approximately 2.5% percent of the countywide Measure H.

Operational assessments indicate that, while the department demonstrates significant strengths in fire prevention workflows and regional partnerships, it faces immediate challenges related to infrastructure and workforce sustainability. Most notably, the department operates from two fire facilities, but only the main station is routinely staffed, leaving the newly completed substation (Station 2) used primarily for training or high-hazard upstaffing. In addition, while the fleet is generally in good condition, two Type 1 engines need replacement to maintain reliability; one is already on order, though procurement is complicated by long lead times and rising costs.

Item 8.b
246 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT vi
To support the highest level of community safety, this report recommends a strategic transition toward enhanced service levels, including the formal adoption of a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) aligned with NFPA 1300 standards. Key priorities include using Measure H revenue to sustain the existing threeperson staffing at Station 1 and transition Station 2 to a regularly staffed facility to reduce response times to northern developments. Additionally, the City should consider the long-term benefit of upgrading the department’s clinical capabilities from Basic Life Support (BLS) to an Advanced Life Support (ALS) paramedic model to better serve Healdsburg’s aging population.

The recommendations and proposed path forward are structured into immediate, mid-term, and long-term phases to support fiscal responsibility and organizational stability. In the next one to three years, the City should prioritize engine replacement and increase daily staffing. Looking toward a ten-year horizon, the goal is to achieve a fully staffed, technologically advanced department that provides consistent staffing citywide and uses advanced wildfire detection technology to better protect the community.

The findings, strategic recommendations, and path forward are based on AP Triton’s evaluation of HFD, including data analysis, stakeholder input, and community expectations. These observations highlight operational strengths, current challenges, and areas of opportunity across key service areas. While not all findings require immediate action, they collectively inform the recommendations that follow and provide a strategic foundation for enhancing HFD’s service delivery, resource allocation, and long-term planning. The strategic recommendations align with the analyses in the Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover and reflect community expectations. Recommendations are organized by service area, with some appropriate for near-term implementation and others more suitable for future consideration as resources and economic conditions allow.

Item 8.b
247 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 1 Evaluation of
Current Conditions
Item 8.b
248 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 2 COMMUNITY & ORGANIZATION

OVERVIEW

ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW
The Healdsburg Fire Department (HFD) serves the City of Healdsburg, a municipality in Sonoma County, California. The U.S. Census Bureau listed the population at 11,481 in 2022. In addition to protecting the incorporated city area of approximately 4.42 square miles, HFD provides services under contract to adjacent areas, including the communities of Fitch Mountain and Sotoyome. The total service area encompasses approximately 72 square miles. These extended service areas include residential populations and rural landscapes that introduce complex firefighting and emergency management challenges. The City of Healdsburg is known for its blend of urban amenities and rural agricultural surroundings, contributing to a diverse set of risks and service demands.

The extended service areas of Fitch Mountain and Sotoyome include both densely vegetated, semi-rural residential areas and expansive vineyard regions. The department responds to calls within city limits as well as in these contracted areas, expanding its operational footprint and exposure to wildland-urban interface hazards. The inclusion of these areas within HFD’s service responsibility reflects the department’s integrated relationship with Sonoma County’s emergency services network and supports coordinated hazard mitigation across adjacent jurisdictions.

Item 8.b
249 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 3 Figure 1: Service Area Map
HFD traces its official founding to 1858, when it was formed in response to the threat of devastating fires in the rapidly growing settlement. Its origins parallel the broader trend of volunteer fire companies that emerged throughout California during that time. These early fire protection entities often developed as grassroots organizations through civic associations or fraternal groups.

Item 8.b
250 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 4 In Healdsburg, the department initially operated as a volunteer company focused on protecting commercial and residential districts constructed largely of wood. The 19th-century downtown included a greater number of hotels, stores, and saloons, which were particularly susceptible to urban conflagrations. Departmental records and local histories recount the acquisition of the first hand-drawn apparatus, the use of bucket brigades, and the gradual organization of night watches, all supported by the townspeople. As local government matured, the fire company became more formalized, with oversight shifting from citizen committees to city council administration.

Today, HFD is a combination department, maintaining both paid staff and a reserve (volunteer) force.

This structure reflects its history as a community-rooted institution, blending professional leadership with ongoing community participation. The department’s long-standing commitment to integrating volunteerism with professional operations reflects its rural-urban service context and supports a resilient local fire protection model. However, recent years have seen a decline in the number of reserves.

In recent decades, the department has faced the challenges of climate change and increasingly severe wildfire seasons, including the 2019 Kincade Fire, the 2020 Walbridge Fire (LNU Lightning Complex), and the 2024 Point Fire. These evolving risks remain underpinned by a strong historical tradition and civic identity that link the department to its origins.

HFD operates from a primary fire station and a part-time substation at the northern end of the city, using a combination staffing model of career and reserve personnel. The department’s structure is lean and adaptive and is designed to maximize operational readiness and coverage within available fiscal and staffing constraints.

The department has 14 paid personnel, while the reserve roster generally fluctuates between 9 and 12 active members. Personnel are assigned to rotating shifts, supported by reserves who augment staffing during large-scale events, simultaneous incidents, high-volume periods, or when career personnel are deployed for state mutual aid. Reserve firefighters are a valued part of HFD and participate in regular mandatory training each month.

Item 8.b
251 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 5 GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT
HFD is an official department of the City of Healdsburg, situated within the City’s administrative framework and subject to oversight by the City Council and City Manager. Funding is derived from the City’s General Fund, primarily through property tax and sales tax revenue, supplemented by contract payments for out-of-city service, state and federal grants, and cost recovery for certain special deployments such as Cal OES mutual aid participation. On March 5, 2024, Sonoma County voters approved Measure H, “The Improved and Enhanced Local Fire Protection, Paramedic Services, Vegetation Management, and Disaster Response Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance,” a one-half cent sales tax intended to provide funding to Sonoma County fire agencies.

The City Council serves as Healdsburg’s primary governing body. Its five members are elected at large by voters to serve four-year terms, ensuring citywide representation.1 Meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 401 Grove Street. The Council sets city policy, adopts the annual budget, and provides strategic direction for all municipal activities.

The Council appoints two executive positions to manage daily operations and legal affairs: the City Manager and the City Attorney. The Fire Chief reports to the City Manager and serves as department head for HFD.

The fire department operates in compliance with City ordinances and municipal codes, the California Health and Safety Code as it relates to hazardous materials and fire prevention, and Sonoma County and State mutual aid and resource-sharing agreements.

Having HFD within the City’s governance structure helps ensure that major strategic priorities, including wildfire resilience, housing risk mitigation, and climate adaptation, are addressed in coordination with other city departments and policy initiatives. As a city department, HFD actively supports the City’s 2020–2025 Strategic Plan initiatives, including Initiative 06: Public Health and Safety.

1 The City of Healdsburg is moving to district elections in November 2026.

Item 8.b
252 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

BUDGET AND ORGANIZATIONAL FINANCE
The City of Healdsburg prepares a biennial operating budget and capital improvement plan based on a fiscal year that runs from July through June. The Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2024–25 and 2025–26 is intended to align budget resources with City Council goals and public input. City staff provides the City Council with a financial update each quarter after budget adoption, reviewing revenues, expenditures, and any adjustments needed to realign with current trends.

As with most municipalities, the City operates through numerous funds. Governmental funds include the General Fund, which records revenues and expenditures for most governmental activities, and special revenue funds, which account for revenue sources restricted to specific purposes, including development impact fee funds. Proprietary funds include enterprise funds, which account for businesstype operations such as utility and airport services, and internal service funds, which are used for building and vehicle maintenance, vehicle replacement, and information services.

The City’s Capital Improvement Program is funded through a variety of sources, including federal and state grants, development impact fees, and enterprise funds. This financial analysis primarily focuses on General Fund activities and other funds specific to fire department operations.

FISCAL YEAR 2025–26 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
The City’s Fiscal Year 2025–26 budget projects a slight surplus, despite some key revenue sources having remained sluggish in recent years and not yet showing clear signs of recovery. Projected General Fund revenue for FY 2025–26 is approximately $19.2 million. Sales tax, which comprises about one-third of General Fund revenue, is projected at $6.0 million for FY 2025–26. This revenue source has remained relatively flat in recent years, and the current projection is close to the amount received in FY 2021–22.

Property tax, which accounts for approximately 29% of General Fund revenue, is more stable and is projected to continue increasing with anticipated development, consistent with recent Sonoma County assessment roll growth.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue from hotel stays is estimated at $1.5 million for the General Fund in FY 2025–26. Occupancy rates have remained low compared with prior years; however, the City is forecasting a double-digit increase in FY 2025–26 due to economic cycles and the anticipated addition of new hotels.

Item 8.b
253 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 7 The City’s operating expenditures continue to increase. The biennial budget maintains service levels for City operations while also providing funding for significant investment in maintaining and enhancing the City’s public infrastructure. Total estimated General Fund expenditures are approximately $19.1 million, of which about 75% is allocated to Police and Fire services.

Figure 2: City of Healdsburg 2025-26 General Fund Revenue ($19.2 Million) Item 8.b
254 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 8 Figure 3: City of Healdsburg 2025-26 General Fund Expenditures ($19.1 Million) Figure 4: City of Healdsburg General Fund Summary (*)
Revenue Source FY 22–23
Actual
FY 23–24
Actual
FY 24–25
Actual
FY 25–26
Amended
Budget
Property Tax $2,950,805 $3,132,728 $2,778,447 $3,370,784 Vehicle License Fee Swap SB1096 1,868,973 2,011,172 2,115,417 2,118,836 Property Transfer Tax 143,964 131,598 185,421 135,000
Sales Tax 5,850,544 5,823,558 4,590,030 6,000,333
TOT 1,400,652 1,338,201 1,202,752 1,537,959
Other Taxes 1,091,725 1,161,061 1,344,201 1,415,497
Development Fees & Permits 1,385,205 1,676,168 1,599,089 1,157,272 Intergovernmental Revenue 1,029,790 1,365,429 541,729 347,500 Charges for Services 612,063 603,595 974,368 1,025,971
Interest Earned & Rents Received 360,052 729,273 1,126,704 547,314 Misc. Fees and Charges 374,069 422,895 157,161 241,961
Fines and Collections 33,477 43,008 63,010 47,000
Other Financing Sources 1,056,487 1,335,257 527,013 1,293,933 TOTAL REVENUES $18,157,806 $19,773,943 $17,205,341 $19,239,360 Expenditures by Department FY 22–23
Actual
FY 23–24
Actual
FY 24–25
Actual
FY 25–26
Amended
Budget
City Council $158,619 $212,660 $243,874 $280,954
Item 8.b
255 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 9 Legal Services 448,382 593,472 565,358 450,000
City Manager's Office 2,267,908 2,325,149 2,200,844 2,393,843 Finance 2,288,402 2,330,712 2,146,792 2,511,236
Planning 2,218,570 2,158,646 2,185,596 2,299,741
Police 7,670,579 7,878,611 8,181,160 8,977,307
Fire 4,801,050 4,763,706 5,935,175 5,211,672
Public Works 61 50,965 47,550
Non-Departmental (**) (1,172,599) (1,110,789) (2,654,787) (3,073,939) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $18,680,912 $19,152,229 $18,854,977 $19,098,364 * Financial summaries are based on data provided by City Staff in July 2025. ** Non–Departmental expenditures include Overhead Allocations received from City Operating Departments.

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department’s primary functions include fire suppression, fire prevention, emergency medical services, hazardous materials/CUPA responsibilities, and disaster planning. The department operates from one fire station and a new substation completed in 2024 to help meet fire service demand associated with new developments such as North Village and Montage. The department is staffed with 14 full-time employees, including 13 uniformed personnel and one civilian employee, as well as 9 to 12 reserves. The budget also includes a second Fire Inspector position, which is currently filled and fully funded through the countywide Measure H sales tax to enhance the City’s fire prevention activities.

Total Fire Department expenditures for FY 2025–26 are approximately $5.56 million across all funds. The General Fund remains the department’s primary funding source at approximately 94%, while the department also generates roughly $500,000 in revenue. In addition, the Enhanced Fire Protection Fund (Measure H) provides support for a fire inspector, while apparatus and vehicle replacement costs are supported through the Vehicle Replacement Fund.

Figure 5: Fire Department Historical Funding Sources
Funding Source FY 22–23
Actual
FY 23–24
Actual
FY 24–25
Actual
FY 25–26
Amended
Budget
General Fund $4,801,050 $4,763,706 $5,935,175 $5,211,672 Enhanced Fire Protection (Measure H) 241,683 179,536
Item 8.b
256 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 10 Transaction & Use Tax (Measure T) 65,000
Public Safety Fund 2,411 3,556 5,287 7,500
Vehicle Service Fund 153,794 74,942 57,401 109,882
Information Service Fund 10,912 30,483 170,147 49,987
Vehicle Replacement Fund 68,988 109,813 1,319,944
TOTAL $5,102,156 $4,982,500 $7,729,638 $5,558,577
The following figure summarizes Fire Department expenditures by category. Salaries and benefits account for 61% of the budget. The increase is due to the addition of one inspector, COLA adjustments, and increased PERS retirement costs.

Figure 6: Fire Department Costs by Category
Expenditures by Category FY 22–23
Actual
FY 23–24
Actual
FY 24–25
Actual
FY 25–26
Amended
Budget
Salary & Wages $1,810,136 $1,832,778 $1,796,465 $2,134,189 Benefits 1,827,890 1,939,555 2,252,402 2,162,347
Administrative Expenses 638,230 669,100 1,609,452 925,988 Operational Expenses 746,436 431,255 653,804 336,053
Capital Outlay 79,464 109,813 1,417,515
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,102,156 $4,982,500 $7,729,638 $5,558,577

CAPITAL REPLACEMENT PLAN
The Fire Department has five front-line apparatus and five staff vehicles. Most of the fleet is considered to be in excellent or good condition; however, one staff vehicle and two Type 1 engines purchased in 2008 are rated in fair condition and require replacement. One engine has already been ordered, and the second is planned for replacement in FY 2028–29.

The City has established replacement life cycles for fire apparatus and staff vehicles. Fire trucks have a life expectancy of 25 years, fire engines 15 years, and staff vehicles 10 years. The City has established a vehicle replacement fund to support future apparatus and vehicle replacement. The FY 2025–26 vehicle replacement charge is approximately $330,000.

Item 8.b
257 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 11 A new fire substation was completed in 2024. Funding for the facility came from new development projects and the local Measure T tax. In addition, Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees are collected from new development projects to support the expansion and improved delivery of fire services needed to mitigate growth-related impacts.

OBSERVATIONS
The City of Healdsburg maintains a variety of financial policies that support a strategic, long-term approach to financial management. The City institutionalizes sound financial management practices through policies that establish clear boundaries, reflect recognized public management best practices, and support the long-term sustainability of essential services.

The Reserve Policy establishes a minimum fund balance equal to 30% of annual operating expenditures.

It also provides that identified surplus funds will be allocated only to non-recurring expenditures, helping maintain a structurally balanced budget and supporting the City’s long-term fiscal health.

Increasing pension costs are a major concern for municipal entities. Over time, the City has taken several steps to manage pension costs, including issuing pension obligation bonds to reduce a portion of its liability at a fixed and favorable interest rate and establishing a Pension Liability Funding Policy through the creation of the Pension Stabilization Fund. This fund is intended to reduce the impact of future CalPERS decisions on City finances and help protect the continued delivery of public services. The fund has a balance of approximately $5.3 million, of which $2.0 million is designated for public safety. The City annually reviews the feasibility of making additional contributions to the Pension Stabilization Fund to maximize interest earnings and maintain flexibility for future UAL funding.

Apparatus, staff vehicles, and firefighting and emergency medical equipment are essential capital resources for the Fire Department. The City’s Vehicle Replacement Fund supports advanced planning for large capital expenses, helping avoid budget overruns and reducing potential financial strain.

Item 8.b
258 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 12 SERVICE PROVIDED
The Healdsburg Fire Department is a deeply rooted and community-integrated public safety agency. Its responsibilities extend beyond firefighting to include medical response, hazardous materials regulation, fire prevention, disaster preparedness, and community education. As a combination department with both career and reserve staffing, HFD is built on more than 165 years of community service and innovation.

Healdsburg’s demographic and geographic characteristics, including an affluent but aging population, weekend influxes of wine country visitors, wildland-urban interface challenges, and a significant agricultural and hospitality presence, demand a well-trained and community-engaged fire department.

HFD’s prevention activities, public education, CUPA hazardous materials oversight, and reserve program further reinforce its role as both a first responder and a community asset.

HFD operates from a centrally located primary fire station at 601 Healdsburg Avenue and a part-time substation at 1804 Healdsburg Avenue. Together, these facilities support response throughout the City as well as to Fitch Mountain and lower Dry Creek Valley under service contracts. Station 1 is strategically located to provide timely access to both urban and semi-rural service areas.

STAFFING & PERSONNEL
The Healdsburg Fire Department is staffed by 13 uniformed personnel, one civilian Office Assistant II, and 9 to 12 reserve firefighters. Paid positions include one Fire Chief, one Division Chief/Fire Marshal, three Captains, three Fire Engineers, three Firefighters, and two Fire Engineer/Inspectors. Reserves augment suppression staffing during periods of peak demand and during mutual aid responses.

Item 8.b
259 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 13 Figure 7: Staffing
Position FTE
Fire Chief 1
Division Chief/Fire Marshal 1
Captains 3
Fire Engineers 3
Firefighters 3
Fire Engineer/Fire Inspector 2
Office Assistant II 1
Reserve Firefighters 9–12
Total Paid Personnel 14
The department maintains a minimum on-duty staffing level of three personnel. At times, this staffing level is achieved through a combination of career and reserve firefighters. Fire suppression staff work a 48/96 shift schedule, meaning they are on duty for 48-hour shifts followed by 96 scheduled hours off.

Chief officers are salaried and typically work a standard 40-hour week but remain on call 24/7 for critical incidents. HFD also participates in a shared reserve Battalion Chief position with Northern Sonoma County Fire Protection District (NSFPD). Battalion coverage is rotated (Geyserville, Cloverdale, and Healdsburg) among two NSFPD reserve Battalion Chiefs and either the Healdsburg Fire Chief or Division Chief.

The chain of command flows from the Fire Chief to field officers and support staff, maintaining clear supervisory spans and unity of command. This structure supports both accountability and operational flexibility, which is especially important in a smaller organization where managerial roles often carry broader responsibilities than in larger urban departments.

Item 8.b
260 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 14 Figure 8: Organizational Chart
The Fire Chief provides strategic leadership and oversees department administration. The Division Chief/Fire Marshal directs fire prevention, hazardous materials programs, and CUPA compliance, including plan review, inspections, and enforcement activities. The three Captains manage daily suppression operations, training rotations, and station readiness. Fire Engineers operate apparatus, perform fireground duties, and assist firefighters on emergency medical calls. Reserve firefighters help fill staffing gaps, participate in training, and support mutual aid deployments. The Office Assistant II provides customer service and supports scheduling, budget-related functions, and recordkeeping.

Operating from one primary fire station, HFD fields two Type 1 engines, one ladder truck, one Type 3 engine, one Type I water tender owned by NSCFPD, one Type 6 engine, and three utility pickups. Line crews work a 48/96 shift schedule to maintain readiness while managing fatigue. Minimum daily staffing is three personnel and is sometimes achieved through the use of reserve firefighters. Chief officers respond directly to major incidents as needed to maintain command continuity.

City Manager
Office Assistant II
Division Chief / Fire Marshal
Fire Inspector / Engineer
Fire Chief
Engineer
Firefighter
Engineer
Firefighter
Reserve Staff (9)
City Council
Captain Captain
A Shift B Shift
Captain
C Shift
Fire Inspector / Engineer
Engineer
Firefighter
Item 8.b
261 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 15 The Healdsburg Fire Department employs the Incident Command System for all emergency operations, reinforcing unity of command and standardized communication. Policies and procedures are maintained through Lexipol updates, helping ensure legal compliance and alignment with best practices. The Fire Prevention Bureau follows structured plan review and inspection workflows and incorporates local amendments to the California Fire Code. Mutual aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions enhance surge capacity. In the last reporting period, HFD provided 142 mutual aid assists and received 35.

Continuous improvement is also supported through FEMA grant funding for equipment, such as thermal imaging cameras, and through policy updates documented in the department’s annual update.

The department’s supervisory spans generally align with recommended ratios of one manager for every five to seven subordinates. However, the department’s organizational model is shaped by its size, with responsibilities distributed based on operational necessity rather than strict hierarchical boundaries. The Division Chief’s dual role in both prevention and suppression is not clearly defined in policy. To improve operational clarity, strengthen oversight, reduce executive span-of-control pressures, and establish a more defined succession pathway, this role would benefit from greater clarity. Better definition of the position would help support leadership continuity for both the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal functions and strengthen long-term organizational stability and growth. Functional specialization is reflected in the separation of fire prevention, suppression, and support functions, which helps build expertise and improve efficiency. Use of the Incident Command System also ensures that responders report to a single supervisor during emergencies, reducing confusion and improving safety.

Reserve staffing and mutual aid agreements enhance flexibility and scalability by providing surge capacity during periods of increased demand. However, the department’s reliance on reserve availability may limit rapid scalability if recruitment or retention declines. Process improvement is also supported through Lexipol policy standardization and the use of grant funding for data-informed equipment purchases, although formal process improvement initiatives have not yet been documented.

The department functions with a high degree of role overlap and shared responsibility, particularly among command staff. In practice, roles are blended out of necessity. For example, while the Division Chief/Fire Marshal position is formally associated with fire prevention, hazardous materials, and CUPA oversight, the role also includes substantial day-to-day operational and administrative responsibilities, including:
• Operational response and incident support
• Human resources, evaluations, and conflict resolution • Personnel supervision and coaching
Item 8.b
262 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 16 • Department-wide operational leadership
• Serving as acting Fire Chief during absences
This level of involvement extends well beyond a traditional prevention-focused assignment and reflects the operational realities of a small organization. Similarly, the Fire Chief remains closely involved in both administrative coordination and operational response due to limited staffing capacity.

The captains’ roles also extend beyond shift supervision and training rotations. Each Captain carries additional program responsibilities, such as communications, equipment oversight, training coordination, or specialty program management, all of which are essential to sustaining departmental functions with a small workforce. These added duties further illustrate the integrated and interdependent nature of the department’s structure.

Finally, investment in additional administrative support, even on a part-time or project-based basis, could improve overall efficiency. Expanded administrative capacity could support strategic initiatives, documentation, compliance tracking, data analysis, grant administration, and special projects, allowing other personnel to focus more fully on operations and prevention priorities.

Item 8.b
263 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 17 FIRE PREVENTION
Healdsburg Fire Department’s Prevention Bureau, under the direction of the Fire Marshal, functions as an integrated fire and life-safety risk reduction program. Prevention activities are embedded across planning, permitting, inspections, investigations, and public engagement, reflecting a strong emphasis on professionalism, consistency, and accountability.

The Bureau’s efforts align with the department’s Mission:
“The Mission of the Healdsburg Fire Department is to provide the highest level of service to our community by protecting and preserving life, environment, and property in a safe and efficient manner.”

ORGANIZATION
The Fire Prevention Bureau (FPB) is led by the Fire Marshal/Division Chief, who oversees Fire Prevention, fire investigation, and elements of training and compliance, as well as Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) responsibilities for both the City of Healdsburg and City of Sebastopol. This structure provides Healdsburg with centralized authority and continuity across regulatory, investigative, and educational functions.

The prevention program is lean and operationally efficient. Core responsibilities are supported by:
• A Fire Marshal with broad operational, engineering, and code expertise. • Two Engineers/Inspectors administering all FPB functions. • Administrative support responsible for CUPA permitting intake, scheduling, and coordination. • Close coordination with Operations, Building, Planning, and Public Works.

Rather than rigid functional silos, staff operate through a shared-ownership model, where prevention, inspections, and plan review are coordinated through weekly interdepartmental Permit Review Committee (PRC) meetings. This structure ensures early identification of fire and life-safety issues and minimizes rework for applicants.

The Fire Marshal emphasizes professional standards, consistency, and accountability. Retention is supported through role breadth, deep institutional knowledge, and strong integration with City departments rather than formal promotional ladders.

Item 8.b
264 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 18 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PERFORMANCE
Healdsburg’s Prevention Bureau operates with high effectiveness relative to its size. Key strengths identified through interviews include:
• Fast plan review turnaround, typically 5–10 business days. • Fully digital workflows utilizing Tyler EnerGov for permitting and Bluebeam for plan review. • Strong cross-department coordination through PRC meetings. • Early prevention involvement in development and redevelopment projects.

While Healdsburg does not yet operate under a formally
adopted Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP), many
CRR elements are already embedded in daily practice
particularly wildfire risk mitigation, hazardous materials oversight, and code-driven life-safety enforcement.

Formalizing these efforts into a CRRP would allow the
department to better quantify outcomes, align
performance metrics, and support long-term planning.

CRR PLAN
Development of a formal Community Risk Reduction Plan would provide Healdsburg with a unifying framework to:
• Prioritize risks based on incident data and land-use patterns. • Align prevention, inspection, and outreach resources. • Establish performance indicators tied to loss reduction and compliance outcomes.

Many foundational components already exist, including wildfire hazard mapping, defensible space enforcement, weed abatement, and fire investigation capacity. Adoption of a CRRP consistent with NFPA 1300 and Vision 20/20 guidance would formalize these efforts and support transparency with elected officials and the community.

Figure 9: CRR Planning Process
Item 8.b
265 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 19 STRATEGIES & TACTICS
Healdsburg’s approach to community risk reduction reflects a balanced application of prevention and mitigation strategies. Mitigation dominates plan review, construction inspections, and enforcement, focusing on code-compliant building systems, access, water supply, and defensible space. Prevention is addressed through early engagement, investigation of causal factors, and targeted education intended to stop incidents before they occur.

These strategies are implemented through the Six Es of Community Risk Reduction:
• Evaluation
• Engineering
• Enforcement
• Education
• Emergency Response
• Empowerment
Used together, these tactics reinforce one another and support sustainable, community-wide risk reduction.

Tactic 1: Evaluation & Empowerment
The process begins with a thorough understanding of community risk. In addition to the risk assessment completed for this report, incident data should be analyzed and mapped over city demographics.

Empowerment can describe the importance of incident data in addressing community risks, as data empowers CRR. Accurate and complete incident data are key to identifying and understanding city-wide risks.

Once it is definitively determined where, when, why, how, and by whom fires start and to whom injuries occur, resources can be deployed to target the problem, typically through public awareness and community engagement. These data are essential to fully inform and develop the Community Risk Reduction Plan.

Fire Investigation
All fires should be investigated to determine if they were accidental or intentionally set. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, NFPA 921, is the national standard for scientific-based fire investigation. The Guide outlines the systematic process for determining the cause and responsibility for fires, including the collection of evidence, witness statements, and analyses for arson fires.

Item 8.b
266 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 20 It is equally important to conduct a thorough analysis of accidental fires to determine how and why the fire started. This information is critical to the development of effective fire prevention programs.

Healdsburg maintains a robust fire investigation capability. Investigations are conducted in accordance with NFPA 921, using a scientific, systematic approach to determine origin and cause for both accidental and intentional fires. This includes:
• Scene examination
• Evidence collection
• Witness interviews
• Documentation supporting accurate NFIRS/NERIS reporting Investigators are responsible for origin and cause determination on accidental, as well as criminal fires.

This is necessary to ensure that all causal factors are captured in fire reports and the “undetermined” category is checked as infrequently as possible. There has been extensive discussion regarding the impact of NFPA 921 on the use of the “undetermined” or “unknown” as the fire cause. A 2014 report by the National Association of State Fire Marshals Fire Research Education Foundation revealed that fire cause data is underreported in the National Fire Incident Report System (NFIRS) in large part due to a “litigation cloud” attributed to NFPA 921. As a result, the 2017 edition of the standard added a revision to the scope stating, “The completion of reports for NFIRS are outside the scope of this guide.” Further explanation states NFIRS reports are incident reports and distinguishable from fire investigation report.

This was done to provide fire investigators with the confidence necessary to classify fires and document causes without meeting the high benchmark or burden of proof necessary for prosecuting criminal fires.

It is critical that fire investigators have expertise in scientific-based investigation and the analysis of fire and explosion incidents to accurately determine their origin and cause. NFPA 1033 establishes qualifications for the fire investigation; NFPA 921, which sets the standard for processes and procedures, is used in the field, in court, and in training. It can take years to acquire the expertise and experience necessary to conduct investigations accurately and efficiently.

At a minimum, fire investigators should have Fire Investigation IA, IB, IC, and PC832 (40 hours), as well as complete the free CFI online courses in basic electricity, ethics, evidence, interview/interrogation, and motive, means, and opportunity.

Investigative findings are used not only for enforcement, but also to inform prevention messaging and risk-reduction strategies—particularly in wildfire-exposed and interface areas.

Item 8.b
267 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 21 Incident Data & Risk Understanding
High-quality incident documentation is critical. Fire reports must consistently include strong narratives and causal detail, supporting meaningful analysis of trends and contributing factors. The Fire Marshal should emphasize capturing the how and why of incidents—not just the location and outcome—to inform prevention strategies. Accurate loss data is important for prioritization and performance measurement, and continued emphasis on complete reporting supports both local planning and statewide datasets.

Records Management System
Effective fire prevention records management systems are essential to the Healdsburg Fire Department’s ability to reduce wildfire risk, ensure code compliance, and support informed decisionmaking. A centralized, well-maintained system allows fire prevention staff to track inspections, permits, violations, defensible space compliance, and hazardous materials data over time, creating continuity despite staff turnover and increasing workload. Reliable records improve coordination with Building, Planning, CUPA partners, and regional fire agencies, support defensible enforcement actions, and provide critical documentation during post-fire recovery, litigation, or public records requests. Most importantly, strong records management enables data-driven prevention strategies—helping the department identify trends, prioritize high-risk areas, and demonstrate the measurable value of prevention activities to City leadership and the community.

Healdsburg Fire Department’s fire prevention records management systems are generally well-aligned, particularly in their use of Tyler EnerGov for permitting and inspections and Bluebeam for digital plan review. These tools support efficient workflows, reasonable turnaround times, and good coordination with Building and Planning. The department benefits from experienced staff and consistent use of digital platforms rather than paper-based records. However, the system is not yet fully optimized as a strategic prevention tool: data are largely transactional rather than analytically leveraged, integration across prevention, vegetation management, CUPA, financial tracking, and wildfire mitigation records is limited, and reporting capabilities for trend analysis and risk prioritization could be strengthened. As wildfire risk, development pressure, and public accountability increase, Healdsburg would benefit from more deliberate system integration, standardized data fields, and routine reporting to transform existing records from compliance documentation into proactive, data-driven fire prevention intelligence.

Item 8.b
268 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 22 Tactic 2: Engineering
Engineering is a critical component of risk mitigation involving exploration of any available engineering or technological solutions that could address the identified risks. This tactic encompasses utilizing innovative products and technologies to alter the environment in ways that either prevent or significantly mitigate injuries and fatalities. Examples include the installation of fire sprinkler systems and smoke alarms, the utilization of ground fault circuit interrupters for electrical safety, and the promotion of child safety seats and bicycle helmets to safeguard against individual accidents. Many engineered solutions are incorporated into the national and state codes and standards adopted by the City with amendments based on local conditions.

Plan Review & Construction Inspection Services
Healdsburg employs a fully electronic permitting and plan review system using Tyler EnerGov and Bluebeam, enabling transparency, consistency, and efficient collaboration across departments.

Prevention staff are actively engaged throughout the development lifecycle:
• Early plan review coordination
• Construction inspections focused on fire and life-safety systems • Final occupancy verification
Weekly PRC meetings are a defining strength, allowing Fire, Building, Planning, Public Works, Utility, and Police to resolve issues collaboratively rather than sequentially. While this approach requires staff time, it significantly improves outcomes and applicant experience.

The Fire Marshal currently absorbs a substantial share of plan review responsibility. While manageable at present volumes, continued development pressure may warrant future consideration of dedicated plan review capacity. Currently, larger more complex projects may be contracted out to third party review.

Tactic 3: Enforcement
Enforcement serves as a critical pillar in the Community Risk Reduction Plan by pinpointing potential hazards and non-compliance issues within the community's properties. It helps educate the public on how adherence to fire safety codes safeguards lives and assets. Enforcement operates on dual fronts:
implementing locally adopted consensus codes and standards—both International and State—and employing inspections accompanied by fines for non-compliance, thereby utilizing economic disincentives to encourage adherence.

Item 8.b
269 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 23 Evaluating the efficacy of this enforcement tactic requires a comprehensive review, including determining whether increased frequency or rigor in enforcement activities is warranted. It also involves considering the adoption of updated codes and standards to reflect current best practices in fire safety and risk management.

Authority & Responsibilities
Healdsburg has adopted the California Fire Code and California Building Code with local amendments addressing wildfire risk, access, water supply, and hazardous conditions. Enforcement authority includes:
• State-mandated inspections
• Local fire and life-safety inspections
• Defensible space compliance
The City adopted the 2025 California Fire & WUI Codes, based on the 2024 International Codes, before January 1, 2026, as required by state law. The Fire Code contains amendments based on local findings, including expansion of fire sprinkler protection requirements, restrictions on hazardous materials storage, prohibition of fireworks, and provisions for fuel reduction in wildfire hazard zones. Notably, the City also adopts portions of the International Fire Code necessary to effectively administer the California Fire Code, a process often overlooked by local jurisdictions.

California Health and Safety Code, Section 13146 outlines the local fire agency's authority and responsibility to inspect certain occupancies. Namely:
• Multifamily dwellings, Group R-1 and R-2 must be inspected annually. (13146.2) • Residential Care Facilities, Group R2.1, and R-4 must be inspected upon request of a licensee for a re-inspection and upon receipt of a licensing request. (H&S 13146.2 and 17921(b)) • High-Rise structures more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level with building access must be inspected annually, and the result must be sent to the State Fire Marshal (SFM) within 30 days.

If the fire authority does not inspect, the SFM will conduct the inspections and assess a fee to the city. (H&S 13217(a))
• Public and Private Schools, K–12, Group E-1, must be inspected annually. (H&S 13146.3) • Detention facilities, Group I-3 must be inspected every two years by the SFM unless the Fire Chief indicates in writing to the SFM that the department will handle the inspections. The Fire Chief must submit inspection reports to the SFM and Board of Corrections within 30 days of inspection. If the SFM conducts the inspection, they may assess a fee to the city. (H&S 13146.1) Item 8.b
270 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 24 In September 2018, SB 1205 added Section 13146.4 to the California Health & Safety Code. This new section requires all fire authorities to annually report to their governing authority on compliance with H&S Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3, annual inspection of multifamily residential properties, and public and private schools. The governing authority must acknowledge receipt with a resolution.

Fire & Life Safety Inspections
The Fire Prevention Bureau is responsible for code enforcement and compliance in existing structures, making regular visits to ensure fire code requirements are observed, and changes in use and occupancy are appropriately regulated.

Inspections help identify hazards, potential risks, and non-compliance with applicable fire and life safety codes in local buildings and businesses. Inspections also provide an opportunity to provide business owners and operators with information on reducing risks and vulnerabilities.

Inspections coupled with correction notices and, if necessary, fines for non-compliance also provide an economic disincentive for ignoring safety requirements. Evaluating program results can identify where more frequent enforcement and education are needed.

State and City-adopted building and fire codes define building use, with corresponding requirements, via an occupancy group classification system. California State agencies regulate select occupancies by statute and delegate responsibility for enforcement to local fire departments. The following figure indicates which occupancies are state-regulated, whether the city can develop more restrictive requirements for these occupancies, if an inspection is required, and if fees can be applied to recover inspection costs.

The engine company and prevention staff conduct inspections of regulated occupancies and higher-risk uses, with frequency aligned to code requirements and local risk. Enforcement actions are paired with education and corrective guidance whenever possible, with escalation used when necessary to achieve compliance.

Item 8.b
271 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 25 Figure 10: Fire & Life Safety Inspections
State Regulated Occupancy Local Code
Amends
Inspection
Frequency Fee Charged # in HFD Annual
A: Assembly N/A 2 Years N/A 50 2 Years
C: Camps N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
E: K-12 N/A Annual N/A 14 Yes
E: Day Care N/A Annual N/A 10 Yes
I-1: Custodial Care N/A Annual N/A 3 Yes
I-2: Hospitals/Medical Care N/A Annual N/A 2 Annual
I-2.1: Outpatient Med Care N/A 2 Yrs N/A 13 2 Years
I-3: Jail N/A Annual N/A 1 Yes
I-3: Restricted Movement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
I-4: Custodial Day Care, > 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
L: Labs N/A 2 Yrs N/A 3 2 Years
R-3: Family Day-Care < 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R-3: Adult care, < 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R-3: Child-care, < 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R-3.1: Medical Care, < 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R-1: Transient Residential N/A Annual $1,031.00 25 Yes
R-2: Non-Transient N/A Annual $190.00 135 Yes
R-2.1: Assisted Living, > 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
R-4: Assisted Living, 6–16 N/A Annual 5 Yes
High-rise N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Defensible Space/Weed
Abatement N/A Annual N/A 4,500 Yes
Non-Mandated Inspections
B: Business N/A Annual / 2 Yrs N/A 1020 Annual / 2 Years F: Factory N/A 2 Yrs N/A 4 2 Years
M: Mercantile N/A 2 Yrs N/A 2 Years
S: Storage N/A 2 Yrs N/A 5 2 years
Operational Permits* Tent/Fireworks As Needed $300.53 30 / 1 As Needed/Annual Other
CUPA Inspections
HazMat Business Plans N/A Annual $272,961.16 232 Yes
Underground Tanks N/A Annual $47,904.99 13 Yes
Aboveground Tanks N/A Annual $5,525.85 2 Yes
Risk Management Plans N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Types of Permits Issued: APSA, HMBP, Hazardous Waste, UST Item 8.b
272 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 26 Permits
The fire code lists several occupancies and processes for which operational permits may be issued. Such permits constitute permission to maintain, store, or handle materials or conduct processes that produce conditions hazardous to life or property. Permit issuance is a sound practice as it provides the owner/operator with requirements for safe operation. If safe operating conditions are not continuously maintained, the permit can be revoked. Permit fees can be assessed to offset the cost of the inspection and permit issuance. To date, Healdsburg has an operational permit program in conjunction with inspections for tents and CUPA.

Hazardous Materials
In 1993, California State Law required the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to certify local agencies to serve as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to implement and enforce six state hazardous waste and hazardous materials environmental regulatory management programs. The City of Healdsburg is part of the City of Sebastopol JPA, which is the designated CUPA for the two cities, responsible for all six programs:
• Above Ground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program
• Accidental Release Program (not applicable in Healdsburg) • California Fire Code (CFC)
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program
• Hazardous Waste Program
• Underground Storage Tank Program
The Fire Marshal and Engineer/Inspector are responsible for all CUPA program compliance in both cities.

Tactic 4: Education, Outreach, & Awareness
Education involves determining the appropriate type and mix of messages necessary to inform the public and effect behavioral change. It informs and influences audiences to refrain from risky or unhealthy behavior, and/or take positive action to reduce risk. Effective education and outreach campaigns increase knowledge regarding community risks, change attitudes, encourage behavioral changes, and, unlike many efforts in the prevention realm, are easily measured in evaluations.

Effective education is about behavior change, which is difficult in the best environment. Asking people to do too many things at once most often results in them doing nothing. The better approach is to focus on a small number of desired changes at a time, recognizing the Behavior Change Continuum:

Awareness  Understanding  Relevance  Differentiation  Satisfaction  Loyalty. The behavior change process starts with clear, consistent messaging.

Item 8.b
273 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 27 Community education is coordinated across Fire Prevention, Operations, and City partners. Messaging emphasizes clarity, consistency, and relevance, particularly for wildfire preparedness and defensible space compliance.

Education efforts focus on:
• Targeted wildfire preparedness information
• Property-specific risk reduction actions
• Integration with broader emergency preparedness messaging The department works closely with City departments and regional partners to ensure messaging is timely, accessible, and aligned with local risk conditions.

Tactic 5: Emergency Response
Optimization of emergency responses to mitigate the impact of unintentional injuries and fires is covered elsewhere in this report. However, there may be an opportunity for changes in response protocols to better meet specific risks.

Prepared and empowered fire station staff can have a significant impact on community risk. FPB staff participate in training of Operations staff on building systems and occupancy hazards.

While suppression and EMS operations are addressed elsewhere, Prevention staff actively support response readiness by:
• Providing hazard and system information to Operations • Participating in training related to building systems and occupancies • Supporting pre-incident awareness through plan review and inspections This integration ensures that prevention knowledge directly informs emergency response effectiveness.

WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION
Wildfire represents a defining risk for Healdsburg due to its geography, surrounding wildlands, and interface development patterns.

Item 8.b
274 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 28 The HFD plays a central role in wildfire prevention by combining regulatory enforcement, risk reduction, planning review, and community preparedness into a coordinated local approach. Core wildfire prevention functions include:
• Defensible Space & Vegetation Management: Enforces state and local defensible space requirements, conducts inspections in wildfire-prone areas, and works with property owners to reduce fuels around homes and along access routes. Use of shared crew work, prescribed burning, and grazing programs put Healdsburg on the leading edge of community fuel mitigation efforts.
• Home Hardening: Using Fire Aside to conduct defensible space and home assessments for existing homes to inform homeowners of risk and prioritize properties for compliance and mitigation efforts.
• Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) Code Enforcement: Implements California WUI building standards and local amendments during plan review and construction to reduce structure ignitability in interface and intermix areas.
• Development & Plan Review: Reviews new development, subdivisions, and remodels for wildfire safety elements such as road widths, access, water supply, hydrant spacing, and emergency response considerations—helping ensure long-term risk reduction is built in from the start.
• Community Education & Preparedness: Supports public education on wildfire readiness, evacuation planning, and home hardening, often in coordination with regional partners and community organizations.
• Interagency Coordination: Works closely with Sonoma County fire agencies, CAL FIRE, and regional fire prevention officers to align standards, share information, and support consistent wildfire mitigation practices across jurisdictional boundaries.

Together, these activities position HFD not just as a response agency, but as a front-end wildfire risk reduction authority, using prevention, planning, and partnerships to lower the likelihood and impact of wildfire on the community.

Wildfire Mitigation, Vegetation Management, and the CAL VTP Program Two aspects of the City of Healdsburg’s Community Risk Reduction (CRR) work deserve recognition. The City’s long-standing fire sprinkler ordinance and the use of the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CAL VTP) to complete significant wildfire-mitigation projects under the program over the past five years.

Item 8.b
275 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 29 Healdsburg adopted its own residential fire sprinkler ordinance in 1987, well ahead of the 2011 statewide mandate, making the City an early adopter among California jurisdictions. As a result, an estimated 40% of the City’s housing stock was built during or after the ordinance took effect, giving Healdsburg a higher percentage of sprinkler-protected properties than communities that relied solely on the later state requirement. This established base of built-in fire protection is a meaningful community risk-reduction asset that continues to lower life-safety and property-loss risk across the housing stock.

Through the CAL VTP programmatic CEQA framework, the City has carried out major vegetation management efforts across the Healdsburg Ridge Open Space Preserve, the Fitch Mountain Open Space Preserve, and the eastern foothills surrounding the community. These projects have followed a clear operational strategy: creating fire breaks, calming zones, and shaded fuel breaks designed to slow or stop wildfire spread. To achieve this, the City has used a full range of treatment methods, including mechanical thinning, hand-crew work, targeted grazing, and both pile and broadcast prescribed burning.

Until 2025, much of this work was funded through a State Coastal Conservancy grant.

With the passage of Measure H, the community has made a strong and explicit commitment to fire and life safety. The City should establish a stable, recurring annual budget to continue, expand, and maintain this vegetation management work.

A dedicated funding stream would support:
• Ongoing and expanded vegetation-management treatments including mechanical work, hand crews, grazing, and prescribed burning—across open-space preserves and surrounding foothills. • Home- and parcel-level wildfire-mitigation assessments, building on existing defensible-space inspections and the Fire Aside platform.
• Part-time Wildfire Mitigation Assessor position(s), allowing the City to scale assessment capacity without committing to full-time staffing.
• Community education and outreach on vegetation management, defensible space, and home-hardening best practices, including bilingual materials. • Contracted vegetation-management services to supplement City capacity for specialized or large-acreage projects.
• Matching funds and staff support to pursue additional grants and regional partnerships, leveraging Measure H dollars to multiply the City’s investment in wildfire-risk reduction.

Item 8.b
276 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 30 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is an integrated emergency care system that has evolved steadily over the past several decades. When an individual needs medical assistance, the process typically begins with the dispatch center. The dispatch center coordinates with first responders, who use prehospital medical interventions to stabilize the patient and begin treatment. The patient is then transported to emergency department physicians and hospital staff, who continue treatment and provide definitive care.

Immediate prehospital care during a medical emergency can significantly affect a patient’s outcome and long-term quality of life. Lifesaving interventions such as resuscitation, defibrillation, and medication administration must be provided rapidly to be effective. In addition, understanding the most common incident types can help an agency determine how best to deploy limited resources.

The following figure identifies the ten leading causes of death in Sonoma County for 2022 through 2024.

Figure 11: Leading Causes of Death in Sonoma County (2022–2024)2 Condition 2024 2023 2022

1. Cancer 1,018 852 925

2. Heart Disease 828 852 925

3. Stroke 313 307 272

4. Unintentional Injury 214 238 225

5. Alzheimer's Disease 203 182 175

6. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 200 183 214

7. Diabetes 122 113 122

8. Chronic Liver Disease 87 82 101

9. Suicide 74 74 78

10. Influenza & Pneumonia 49 NA NA

2 CA Department of Public Health. California Community Burden of Disease Engine. Accessed February 2026.

Item 8.b
277 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 31 The Healdsburg Fire Department provides emergency medical services as part of its mission to protect the community. The department delivers Basic Life Support (BLS) level care. All HFD firefighters are required to maintain, at a minimum, an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certification. With a focus on rapid response and quality patient care, HFD’s EMS program is a critical component of its public safety mission. Department personnel are trained to deliver basic life support in emergency situations, helping ensure that residents and visitors receive prompt and effective medical attention.

Through its community outreach efforts, HFD offers monthly CPR and AED classes, as well as first aid classes on an as-needed basis, helping equip community members with the skills to assist during a medical emergency before professional responders arrive. This commitment to community education and preparedness reflects the department’s broader dedication to community well-being.

Since 1980, the number of residential and commercial structure fires in the United States has decreased by 52%. Conversely, demand for EMS has increased steadily nationwide. Consistent with that trend, data indicate that 52% of HFD’s emergency response calls are EMS-related. HFD responded to more than 5,399 EMS calls during the study period.

Emergency medical services in Sonoma County are a critical component of the local healthcare infrastructure, providing rapid, lifesaving care to residents and visitors alike. The county’s emergency services system is designed to respond quickly to medical emergencies and connect patients with appropriate levels of care. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital is designated as a Level II trauma center with onsite specialists. Pediatric trauma patients are transported by air to UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland. Sutter Santa Rosa Regional Hospital and Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital serve as the region’s cardiac specialty care centers. Providence Healdsburg Hospital is committed to providing emergency care, stroke care, and behavioral health services through onsite specialist intervention.

Medical Control & Oversight
HFD provides EMS within its service area, while system-level medical oversight is provided through the broader county and regional framework. The Sonoma County Department of Health Services has designated Coastal Valleys EMS Agency (CVEMSA), based in Santa Rosa, to provide regional EMS management and regulation. The California Emergency Medical Services Authority provides state-level oversight and regulation. CVEMSA has served as the Local Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA) since 1993 and is also the designated EMS agency for Mendocino County. The EMS Authority has determined that CVEMSA’s EMS Plan meets all system components identified in Health and Safety Code Section 1797.103 and approved it for implementation pursuant to Section 1797.105(b).

Item 8.b
278 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 32 HFD has provided emergency medical services for decades, excluding ambulance transport. Bell’s Ambulance Service has operated since the 1950s and has provided emergency BLS and ALS service since before January 1, 1981. Sonoma County entered into a Health and Safety Code Section 1797.224 agreement with Bell’s Ambulance Service on August 15, 2022. The Exclusive Operating Area (EOA) agreement, authorized by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, recognizes Bell’s Ambulance Service as a grandfathered Section 1797.224 ambulance provider. Bell’s Ambulance is staffed with one paramedic and one EMT. EOA #2 is substantially larger than the HFD service area and covers approximately 500 square miles.

HFD does not employ or contract with a Medical Director. Most BLS fire agencies do not employ a Medical Director. By contrast, Advanced Life Support (ALS) fire and rescue agencies must utilize a Medical Director to function as a prescribing physician, and that physician often assists with localized medical direction. HFD relies on the CVEMSA Medical Director for medical direction and oversight.

Quality Management Mechanisms
A quality improvement and quality assurance (QI/QA) plan is a structured approach to maintaining and improving the quality of an organization’s services and processes. The plan outlines methods and procedures for measuring, evaluating, and improving quality while supporting consistent performance and compliance with established standards. A QI/QA plan is intended to improve efficiency, service quality, and overall performance while reducing errors and unnecessary costs. It may include performance metrics, data collection and analysis, process improvement initiatives, employee training, and regular management review. A QI/QA plan is an essential component of a quality management system and helps organizations meet regulatory requirements and industry standards.

A strong QI/QA plan should include the following elements:
• Clearly defined goals and objectives.
• A clear definition of the areas and processes to be covered. • Performance measures.
• Data collection.
• Continuous improvement process.
• Communication plan.
• Training plan to support QI/QA.
• Management review of the QI/QA plan to ensure it remains relevant.

Item 8.b
279 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 33 System Integrity Regarding Required Credentialing
As a minimum job requirement, HFD requires candidates to possess a valid California driver’s license, a high school diploma or equivalent, EMT certification, and CPR certification. Regardless of rank, every firefighter must maintain, at a minimum, an EMT certification. The department employs EMTs and does not currently employ paramedics.

At a minimum, EMTs must complete 24 hours of continuing education every two years specific to their skill set and scope of practice, including any expanded scope of practice allowed within the county. HFD meets this requirement by offering in-house training that is scheduled, facilitated, or taught by subject matter experts within the organization and through CVEMSA. HFD manages and tracks required training hours using Vector Solutions® (formerly TargetSolutions®). This platform allows the department to maintain a credentialing system that tracks and manages required training hours.

Adequacy of Records Management System and Data Collection HFD utilizes ImageTrend, a NEMSIS-, NFIRS-, and HIPAA-compliant system that integrates with the department’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. While data collection is necessary for compliance and reporting, accurate and comprehensive data also enable fire departments to make informed decisions about resource allocation, training needs, and operational improvement. This supports improved preparedness, stronger response strategies, and better service to the community.

Fire departments and public health agencies can also use detailed medical data to support community health initiatives, such as vaccination campaigns or health screenings, by identifying areas with greater medical need. Overall, robust data collection contributes to improved safety and service delivery.

In 2026, the National Emergency Response Information System (NERIS) will replace the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) to fulfill the U.S. Fire Administration’s obligation under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to collect and analyze fire data, reduce loss of life and property, and support public fire safety education. HFD is preparing to transition from the long-standing NFIRS platform to NERIS. This shift represents a significant modernization effort that offers improved data accuracy, more efficient reporting workflows, and stronger insight into community risk. While the transition will require updated processes and staff training, NERIS should ultimately position the department to capture more useful data that supports informed decision-making and public safety improvement.

Accurate documentation of fire department activity is essential, particularly for regulatory compliance, records requests, performance analysis, and operational planning. Reliable analysis cannot occur without strong quality control. HFD should monitor incident types, especially EMS incidents, with greater detail in order to better identify trends and support future service improvements.

Item 8.b
280 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 34 SPECIAL OPERATIONS
In the City of Healdsburg, hazardous materials response is managed directly by the Healdsburg Fire Department, which serves as the administering agency under California’s Health and Safety Code. The department is responsible for responding to hazardous materials releases, enforcing reporting requirements for businesses that handle hazardous substances, and implementing penalties and cost recovery when violations occur. Businesses that store or use hazardous materials must file Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) with the fire department. These plans include inventories, emergency contacts, and facility maps to assist responders. Firefighters receive regular training and maintain specialized equipment to contain and mitigate hazardous materials incidents. City ordinances also allow fines of up to $25,000 per day for violations, along with civil liability for cleanup and emergency response costs.

At the county level, Sonoma County operates a hazardous materials unit through Permit Sonoma. This unit provides emergency response throughout the county, including support to HFD. The county’s hazardous materials team conducts monthly training drills and responds to incidents ranging from industrial accidents to chemical spills and illegal operations. The county program also coordinates with the Department of Emergency Management and partners with state and federal agencies, including CalEPA, DTSC, and FEMA, during large-scale incidents such as wildfire debris cleanup involving hazardous waste.

Together, the Healdsburg Fire Department and Sonoma County’s hazardous materials unit provide a layered hazardous materials response system. HFD manages incidents within city limits, ensuring compliance and enforcement, while Sonoma County provides regional support, training, and multiagency coordination. This structure emphasizes preparedness, prevention, and enforcement and helps ensure that responders have the information, resources, and authority needed to act quickly and safely.

In addition, the Healdsburg Fire Department maintains both technical rescue and water rescue capabilities to protect the community, particularly given the city’s proximity to the Russian River and surrounding rugged terrain.

Item 8.b
281 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 35 HFD personnel are trained to perform a range of technical rescue operations, including rope rescue and vehicle extrication. Their responsibilities extend beyond fire suppression and medical emergencies to include specialized rescue scenarios requiring advanced skills and equipment. The department operates with a combination of career and reserve firefighters, all of whom participate in ongoing training to maintain proficiency in technical rescue techniques. Apparatus and vehicles, including engines, ladder trucks, water tenders, and utility vehicles, are complemented by specialized rope rescue and extrication equipment, helping ensure readiness for complex incidents.

The department also provides water rescue services, which are particularly important given the recreational use of the Russian River and regional flood risk. Firefighters are trained in water rescue methods, including swiftwater operations, and are equipped to respond to emergencies involving swimmers, stranded individuals, or flood victims. Their training aligns with national standards such as NFPA 1670, which categorizes water rescue capabilities into the awareness, operations, and technician levels, helping ensure that personnel can respond safely and effectively. These capabilities allow the department to address incidents ranging from routine rescues to larger-scale emergencies.

Item 8.b
282 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 36 TRAINING
Training within HFD is coordinated by a Captain assigned to a shift. HFD requires a systematic and thorough training program for both career and reserve personnel that aligns with California State Fire Training (SFT) standards and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) benchmarks. All personnel complete annual skills sign-offs, EMT and EMS recertification, hazardous materials awareness and operations training, wildland firefighting modules, and specialized rescue skills training.

In addition to in-house and countywide training exercises, many HFD personnel expressed positive views regarding the department’s support for ongoing professional development. However, participation in outside training opportunities may be constrained by staffing availability.

The following figure reflects general training competencies for HFD.

Figure 12: General Training Competencies
Program Description HFD Source
Incident Command System (ICS) Cal OES/CSTI/FEMA 100, 200, 300, 700, 800 Personnel Accountability NFPA 101(various), Lexipol Policies Basic and Advanced Firefighting SFT Firefighter 1A and 2A Structural Wildland Firefighting NWCG RT-130 (annually), CICCS ENGB, STL, SO, Single Resource, Driver-Operator
Rescue (Basic) SFT, Local/County SOGs
Safety Procedures HFD Policies/SOGs, IIPP
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Local and State Protocols, HFD Policies/SOGs Hazardous Materials HazMat FRO (CSFM/CSTI)
Vehicle Extrication SFT
Driver-Operator SFT Driver-Operator-1A, 1B, & 1C
Radio Use, Dispatch Procedures HFD & CAL FIRE LNU ECC
Comprehensive and accurate training records are essential to the effectiveness, safety, and credibility of a fire department. These records demonstrate compliance with state and national standards, document firefighter proficiency, and provide critical evidence of competency in the event of litigation or regulatory review.

Item 8.b
283 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 37 The following figure is based on data provided by HFD.

Figure 13: Training Record Entries
Training Record Review for 2025
Number of personnel trained 25 individuals
Total training hours delivered 760
Records in the data 4,015
Unique Categories 24 (several blank categories and values) Largest Category Apparatus (916)
Training Category Entries 1,008
“Monthly Shift Training” Entries 242
“Target Solutions” Entries 643
When data is missing or time-on-task documentation is incomplete, the department’s ability to verify qualifications, assess operational readiness, and ensure safe task assignments is significantly compromised. Inadequate documentation may also negatively affect ISO ratings, hinder grant eligibility, and obscure skill gaps that should inform future training priorities. Ultimately, incomplete training records create organizational risk, weaken accountability, and diminish the department’s ability to justify resource needs or defend operational decisions. Strengthening documentation practices is therefore not merely an administrative preference, but a foundational requirement for maintaining public trust, firefighter safety, and regulatory compliance.

Item 8.b
284 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 38 CAPITAL FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT
Effective fire and emergency medical services depend on three core capital resources: well-equipped facilities, reliable apparatus and vehicles, and appropriately trained personnel operating with the right tools. Regardless of the skill or size of its workforce, Healdsburg Fire Department cannot fulfill its mission without the necessary infrastructure and equipment to support emergency operations.

This section of the report addresses the department’s essential capital assets including facilities, apparatus, and emergency response vehicles and offers an assessment of each within the following subsections. Furthermore, there is also the need for an organized and dependable methodology to ensure timely replacement of key operational equipment, such as turnout gear, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs), radios, hose, EMS monitor/defibrillators, thermal imaging cameras (TICs), and rescue tools. Given the rigorous demands placed on firefighting equipment and the necessity to comply with stringent safety standards, establishing a dedicated replacement fund enables the department to proactively update or replace worn or obsolete items before they compromise safety or performance.

This strategy not only sustains operational readiness and safeguards firefighter welfare but also mitigates the financial impact of urgent purchases, fostering long-term fiscal responsibility and organizational stability.

FACILITIES
Fire Station Features
Fire stations are a foundational component in the delivery of emergency services. Their location directly influences response times—often determining whether a fire is contained to a single room or spreads throughout a structure, or whether a patient survives a sudden cardiac arrest.

Beyond location, fire stations must be designed and equipped to support the operational and human needs of the organization. A well-functioning station must not only house apparatus and equipment but also serve the personnel who live and work there.

Item 8.b
285 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 39 To ensure facilities are adequate in both size and function, station activities and features should be closely evaluated. Essential components often include:
• Residential living space and sleeping quarters for on-duty personnel (all genders) • Bathrooms and showers (all genders)
• Training, classroom, and library areas
• Kitchen facilities, appliances, and storage
• The housing and cleaning of apparatus and equipment, including decontamination and disposal of biohazards
• Administrative and management offices, computer stations, and office facilities • Firefighter fitness area
• Public meeting space
Figure 14: Summary of HFD Stations
Station Square
Footage
Apparatus
Bays Staffing Capacity General Condition Station Age
Station 1 13,280 3 8 Fair to Good 34
Station 2 4,162 2 No sleep rooms Excellent 2
HFD operates from two primary facilities: the main station (Station 1) and the recently completed substation (Station 2). Station 1, located at 601 Healdsburg Avenue, was constructed in 1992 and is currently rated in fair to good condition. While the facility features critical infrastructure such as seismic protection, auxiliary power, and an apparatus exhaust system, it is not ADA compliant. Consequently, the City is currently conducting a comprehensive study of facilities to determine necessary modifications and repairs to ensure the building meets current and future operational needs. Station 2, located at 1804 Healdsburg Avenue, was completed in 2024 and is in excellent condition. Although it is currently unstaffed full-time, the 4,200-square-foot substation serves as a hub for training, upstaffing during highhazard events, and is intended to support fire service demands from new northern developments however there is no routine staffing in place.

As part of this evaluation, AP Triton asked HFD to assess the condition of its fire stations using standardized criteria (described in the following figure). The results of these self-assessments are presented in the subsequent figures.

Item 8.b
286 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 40 Figure 15: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition Excellent
Like-new condition. No visible structural defects. The facility is clean and wellmaintained. The interior layout is conducive to function with no unnecessary impediments to the apparatus bays or offices. No significant defect history. Building design and construction match the building’s purposes. Age is typically less than ten years.

Good
The exterior has a good appearance with minor or no defects. Clean lines, good workflow design, and only minor wear on the building interior. The roof and apparatus apron are in good working order, absent any significant full-thickness cracks, crumbling of the apron surface, or visible roof patches or leaks. Building design and construction match the building’s purposes. Age is typically less than 20 years.

Fair
The building appears structurally sound with a weathered appearance and minor to moderate non-structural defects. The interior condition shows normal wear and tear but flows effectively to the apparatus bay or offices. Mechanical systems are in working order. Building design and construction may not match the building’s purposes well. Shows increasing age-related maintenance but with no critical defects. Age is typically 30 years or more.

Poor
The building appears cosmetically weathered and worn with potential structural defects, although not imminently dangerous or unsafe. Large, multiple fullthickness cracks and crumbling concrete on the apron may exist. The roof has evidence of leaking and has been repaired multiple times. The interior is poorly maintained or showing signs of advanced deterioration with moderate to significant non-structural defects. Problematic age-related maintenance and major defects are evident. It may not be well-suited to its intended purpose. Age is typically greater than 40 years.

Item 8.b
287 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 41 Fire Stations
The following section lists the current HFD facility and fire station inventory.

Station Name/Number: Station #1
Address/Physical Location: 601 Healdsburg Avenue
General Description:

Houses one engine company, Fire Prevention Division (3), and administrative offices.

Structure
Date of Original Construction 1992
General Condition Fair to Good
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
ADA Compliant No
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Through: 0 Back-In: 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 13,280
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms: 2 Beds: 8 Dorm Beds: 8
Maximum Staffing Capability 8 (Total no. staff that can be housed at the station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities No. of Bathrooms: 3 No. of Showers: 3 Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms: Y Showers: Y Bedrooms: N Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms Yes
Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke & CO Detection Yes
Decon & Biological Disposal Yes
Security System Exterior cameras only
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
Item 8.b
288 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 42 Station Name/Number: Station #2
Address/Physical Location: 1804 Healdsburg Avenue
General Description:

Fire substation, currently not staffed full-time.

Available for upstaffing and training.

Potentially to be staffed using Measure H revenue in the future.

Structure
Date of Original Construction 2024
General Condition Excellent
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
ADA Compliant Yes
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Through: 2 Back-In: 0 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 4,162
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms: 0 Beds: 0 Dorm Beds: 0
Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total no. staff that can be housed at the station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities No. of Bathrooms: 2 No. of Showers: 2 Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms: Y Showers: Y Bedrooms: N Exercise/Workout Facilities No
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned N/A
Training/Meeting Rooms Yes
Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke & CO Detection Yes
Decon & Biological Disposal Yes
Security System Exterior cameras only
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
Item 8.b
289 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 43 FLEET: APPARATUS & VEHICLES
The HFD apparatus fleet is appropriately tailored for both structural and wildland-urban interface (WUI) response, though a significant portion of the engine fleet is at the end of its reliable service life. The inventory includes two 2008 Smeal Spartan Type 1 engines (Units 6381 and 6382) that are rated in fair condition and require replacement. One new Pierce Enforcer Type 1 engine is currently on order to address this deficiency. In contrast, the department’s newer assets are in excellent condition, including a 2022 Pierce Enforcer 107-foot Aerial Quint, a 2015 International Type 3 engine, and a 2018 Type 6 engine. The staff vehicle fleet is also being modernized, featuring a 2023 Ford F-150 Hybrid and a 2021 Ford Escape.

As part of this study, AP Triton requested a comprehensive fleet inventory encompassing apparatus, command, support vehicles, and specialty units. The HFD was asked to evaluate the condition of their apparatus based on the following criteria:

Figure 16: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition Evaluation Components Points Assignment Criteria
Age: One point for every year of age, based on the in-service date.

Miles/Hours: One point for every 10,000 miles or 1,000 hours Service:
1, 3, or 5 points are assigned based on the service type received (e.g., a pumper would be given a 5 since it is classified as severe duty service).

Condition:
1, 3, or 5 points are assigned to this category that considers body condition, rust interior condition, accident history, anticipated repairs, etc. The better the condition, the lower the assignment of points.

Reliability:

Points are assigned as 1, 3, or 5, depending on the frequency a vehicle is in for repair (e.g., a 5 would be assigned to a vehicle in the shop two or more times per month on average, while a 1 would be assigned if in the shop on average of once every three months or less.

Point Ranges Condition Rating Condition Description
Under 18 points Condition I Excellent
18–22 points Condition II Good
23–27 points Condition III Fair (consider replacement)
28 points or higher Condition IV Poor (immediate replacement) Item 8.b
290 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 44 HFD Fleet
The following figure lists the current frontline apparatus and other HFD vehicles.

Figure 17: HFD Emergency Response Inventory (2025)
Type Manufacturer Year Condition
Aerial Ladder Pierce Enforcer 107' Aerial 2022 Excellent Engine (Type 6) KME/Ford F-550 2018 Excellent
Engine (Type 3) International SR525 2015 Excellent
Engine (Type 1) Smeal Spartan Metro Star 2008* Fair
Engine (Type1) Smeal Spartan Metro Star Type I 2008* Fair Engine (Type 1) Pierce Enforcer ~2027 On Order
Pickup Truck Ford F250 2022 Excellent
Pickup Truck Ford F-150 Hybrid 2023 Excellent
Pickup Truck GMC Sierra 2015 Good
Pickup Truck Ford Maverick 2025 Excellent
SUV Ford Escape 2021 Excellent
Utility Vehicle Kawasaki Mule 2024 Excellent
*Placed in service in 2010
This apparatus assortment enables HFD to respond simultaneously to structural fire, wildland interface, hazardous materials, and medical emergencies, reflecting Healdsburg’s complex risk profile and the evolving reality of disaster response in the wine country/wildland-urban interface of Northern California.

Resource distribution is centralized at Station 1, which houses the department’s administrative offices and the primary engine and ladder companies responsible for meeting the standard response goal of under five minutes within city limits. Station 2 provides strategic redundancy for the northern WUI zones and houses specialized wildland apparatus, such as the Type 6 engine, to ensure rapid deployment to high-risk areas like the Montage Resort and Enso Village Assisted Living & Memory Care.

The department also utilizes a District-owned water tender through an agreement with the Northern Sonoma County Fire Protection District to support rural firefighting operations in contracted areas.

Item 8.b
291 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 45 Fleet Maintenance
Ongoing fleet maintenance is provided through the Healdsburg City Garage. To ensure long-term serviceability and financial stability, the City utilizes a Vehicle Replacement Fund, which collects setaside funds—totaling approximately $330,000 for fiscal year 2025–26—to plan for large capital expenses in advance. This system allows the City to adhere to established replacement lifecycles: 25 years for ladder trucks, 15 years for engines, and 10 years for staff vehicles. This proactive fiscal planning is intended to avoid budget overruns while ensuring that aging, unreliable equipment is retired before it compromises emergency response capabilities.

Fire Apparatus Procurement Process and Current Industry Delays The acquisition of new fire apparatus is a multi‑year process designed to ensure that each vehicle meets the operational, safety, and regulatory needs of the community it serves. The process typically begins with a comprehensive assessment of departmental needs, followed by the development of detailed specifications that reflect mission requirements, NFPA standards, and local operational considerations.

Once specifications are finalized, the agency issues a competitive solicitation, selects a vendor through an approved cooperative purchasing program, or approves a sole source procurement.

After a contract is awarded, the manufacturer enters an engineering and design phase, during which the apparatus is customized to the agency’s specifications. This is followed by the production phase, which includes chassis construction, body fabrication, installation of firefighting systems, and final quality assurance testing. Upon completion, the apparatus undergoes acceptance inspections and training before being placed into service. Under normal conditions, this end‑to‑end process can take 12–18 months depending on the type of apparatus.

Across the fire apparatus industry, however, manufacturers are experiencing unprecedented delays that have extended typical delivery timelines to 36 months or longer. These delays stem from several converging factors: global supply chain disruptions affecting critical components such as microchips, pumps, and aerial device materials; labor shortages in specialized manufacturing trades; increased demand as agencies nationwide replace aging fleets; and ongoing backlogs at chassis suppliers. Many manufacturers have also implemented order caps or paused new orders to manage production queues.

As a result, agencies planning apparatus replacements must anticipate significantly longer lead times, earlier budget planning, and potential cost escalations tied to material price volatility. These industry conditions are expected to persist in the near term, making proactive procurement strategies essential to maintaining fleet reliability and ensuring uninterrupted emergency response capability.

Item 8.b
292 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 46 Community Risk Assessment
Item 8.b
293 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 47 COMMUNITY OVERVIEW
The City of Healdsburg is located in northern Sonoma County along the Russian River and is surrounded by some of California’s most recognized wine regions, including the Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, and Russian River Valley. The area was originally inhabited by the Southern Pomo and Wappo people prior to European settlement in the 19th century.

Healdsburg’s development accelerated during the mid-1800s following the arrival of pioneer Harmon Heald, who laid out the town site in 1857. The city was formally incorporated in 1867. Its early economy was shaped by agriculture, timber, and rail transportation, while the wine industry steadily emerged as a major force in the local economy throughout the 20th century.

Today, Healdsburg is a small city with a population of approximately 11,800 residents. It is recognized for its downtown plaza, historic architecture, and active food and wine economy. The city includes restaurants, boutique hotels, art galleries, and tasting rooms that attract visitors from across the region and beyond.

Despite its modest size, Healdsburg maintains a strong sense of community and civic pride. Residents benefit from access to schools, public parks, and cultural events such as the Healdsburg Jazz Festival and Tuesday night concerts in the plaza. The city also emphasizes sustainability, open space preservation, and inclusive community planning.

Healdsburg reflects a blend of small-town character and regional amenities and offers a high quality of life for residents and visitors. It continues to evolve as an important cultural, environmental, and economic community within Sonoma County.

Item 8.b
294 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 48 COMMUNITY RISK OVERVIEW
Risk factors influence the types and levels of service a community must provide. Hazard identification is the process of recognizing natural and human-caused conditions that may threaten the community.

Every community must be prepared to respond to a range of events, including natural disasters such as earthquakes, pandemics, and wildfires. In addition, social conditions such as poverty, vehicle access, and household composition may affect a community’s ability to prevent suffering and financial loss during and after a disaster. Together, these conditions help define community risk.

A community risk assessment is informed by numerous factors, including socioeconomic conditions, household composition, minority status and language, population density, housing types, local land use and development patterns, and the geography and natural hazards present throughout the area. These factors influence the number and type of resources, including personnel and apparatus, needed to control or mitigate emergencies. A community risk assessment provides information that helps public officials and agencies better prepare for emergency events and support recovery.

A summary of the ratings indicates that the City of Healdsburg has a moderate overall risk index and a moderate expected annual loss. Healdsburg includes pockets of higher community vulnerability but also demonstrates moderate community resilience. This finding is based on FEMA’s community resilience indicator, which evaluates 20 census and community data layers, including social, economic, and infrastructure-related factors.

Population density is one risk factor, and local demographics present additional considerations. For example, 16% of Healdsburg’s population is age 65 or older, compared with the state average of 9.9%. In addition, approximately 8.7% of residents are uninsured, which is lower than the California average of

7.4%.

The physical characteristics of the area and associated natural hazards also influence community risk.

The City of Healdsburg is located near multiple wildfire-prone areas and within the Russian River floodplain, creating exposure to both wildland fire and flood hazards. Earthquake risk is also present due to the city’s proximity to the Rodgers Creek Fault.

Land use and zoning risk can generally be characterized as low, moderate, or high depending on the setting. Lower-risk areas may include vineyards, open space, and rural housing. Moderate-risk areas may include small-scale commercial uses and historic downtown structures. Higher-risk areas may include wildland-urban interface residential development, critical infrastructure, and concentrated visitorserving uses during peak tourism periods.

Item 8.b
295 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 49 POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS
Population and demographic characteristics can influence the type and level of services provided within a community. Social conditions such as poverty, location of higher-risk areas, and housing types can all affect the HFD service area and the demand for emergency services.

POPULATION
Healdsburg’s population directly affects the services delivered by HFD. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau show a population of 11,308 in 2020, followed by a decline in 2022 and a continued gradual decline to 10,972 in 2025. The following figure illustrates population change since 2020.

Figure 18: Population Estimates (2020–2025)
The following figure shows the population density for the HFD service area. 11,308 11,274 11,038 10,988 11,010 10,972
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Item 8.b
296 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 50 Figure 19: Population Density (2025)
Item 8.b
297 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 51 At-Risk Populations
Certain populations face a heightened risk of fire, injury, and other emergencies, which directly affects service delivery. In both urban and suburban settings, several factors place groups at greater risk.

According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), populations at elevated risk of injury or death from fire include:
• Children under 5 years of age
• Older adults age 65 and older
• Individuals with disabilities
• Individuals facing language barriers
• Residents of low-income communities
U.S. Census data further identifies several demographic groups within these higher-risk categories.

These populations are more likely to require additional emergency services, particularly EMS, than other segments of the population.

Age
The risk of unintentional injury or death from fire and other hazards is closely linked to age. The presence of older adults and very young children can increase demand for fire department services, particularly EMS.

Children under age 5 face an elevated risk because they are less able to protect themselves and often require additional assistance during emergencies. U.S. Fire Administration trend data from 2018 indicates that the relative risk of death from fire in this age group declined by 30% over the prior decade, largely due to increased fire prevention and education efforts. In addition, unintentional injuries such as falls, burns, and poisonings remain among the leading causes of injury and death for young children. Within the response area, 5.3% of the population is under age 5, which is generally consistent with the California average.

Older adults face a significantly higher risk and are 2.6 times more likely to die in a fire than the overall U.S. population. They are also more likely to experience falls and other medical emergencies, increasing demand for HFD assistance. In the HFD response area, 23.7% of the population is age 65 or older, which is above the state average of 16.2%.

Item 8.b
298 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 52 Figure 20: Percentage of Population by Age Risk
Disabilities
Residents with disabilities make up 9.8% of the population in the HFD response area, slightly below California’s average of 11%. Individuals within this group may face additional challenges evacuating independently during emergencies. As this population ages, it may also generate increased demand for EMS and other emergency response services. The following figure illustrates the percentage of residents with a disability.

Figure 21: Population with a Disability

5.3%

23.7%

1.6% 5.4%

16.2%

1.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
< 5 years > 65 years > 85 Years
Healdsburg California

9.8%

11.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%
Healdsburg California
Item 8.b
299 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 53 Language Barriers
Populations with limited English proficiency may face challenges related to communication, cultural differences, or unfamiliarity with fire safety messaging and technology, which can increase the risk of fire or injury in the home. Approximately 24% of people over age 5 in the HFD response area speak a language other than English, which is higher than the state figure of 19%. Some members of this population may not fully understand smoke alarm technology or emergency messaging, which can increase the risk of injury or death during a fire. The following figure shows the number of people over age 5 who speak English less than very well.

Figure 22: Population Over 5 Years Speaking English less than Very Well Poverty Levels
Low income levels can increase the risk of both fires and medical emergencies within a community.

Lower-income households may face greater difficulty living in well-maintained housing or obtaining adequate healthcare. Those living below the poverty line are often at greatest risk, particularly when other factors such as education level, disability, or unemployment are also present. In the HFD response area, 11.3% of the population lives in poverty, which is slightly lower than the state average of 12.1%.

Figure 23: Percentage of Population in Poverty

23.4%

18.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%
Healdsburg California

11.3% 12.1%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
Healdsburg California
Item 8.b
300 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 54 Median Income
As of 2023, the median household income in Healdsburg was $100,082. This is slightly higher than California’s median household income of $96,344.

Figure 24: Median Income
Additional Demographics
Persons Without Health Insurance
This population may be more likely to require additional EMS due to untreated chronic illness or delayed access to care. Lack of health insurance can disproportionately affect lower-income communities, as residents may be unable to afford or may delay routine medical visits. In the HFD response area, 8.7% of people under age 65 do not have health insurance, which is slightly higher than the state average of

7.4%, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 25: Population Without Health Insurance Under 65 Years of Age $100,082 $96,334
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Healdsburg California

8.7%

7.4%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%
Healdsburg California
Item 8.b
301 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 55 Education Levels
Educational attainment is not typically categorized as an at-risk population, but it is an important consideration when developing fire and life-safety education programs. In HFD, 91% of the population has a high school diploma, compared with 85% statewide. Approximately 47% of the population has a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 37% statewide. Residents with lower educational attainment may also fall into other higher-risk categories, such as lower income or lack of health insurance. The following figure provides information on educational attainment in HFD.

Figure 26: Highest Level of Educational Attainment
Race & Ethnicity
Race generally refers to a person’s identification with a social group, while ethnicity may reflect shared nationality, culture, language, or heritage. The following figure shows the population by race and ethnicity in HFD compared with the State of California. 91%
47%
85%
37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
High School Graduate or Higher Bachelor's Degree or Higher Healdsburg California
Item 8.b
302 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 56 Figure 27: Population by Race
Population By Race HFD California
White alone 62.1% 34.3%
Black or African American alone 0% 5.4%
American Indian & Alaskan alone 0.9% 1.7%
Asian alone 1.4% 16.5%
Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander alone 0.2% 0.5% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 32.9% 40.4%
Two or more races 2.5% 4.3%

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Housing characteristics provide insight into ownership patterns, housing age, and building type. In HFD, there are approximately 4,138 housing units, including 170 vacant units. Vacant structures can create risk for both the fire department and the community if they are not secured against entry. If not properly maintained, these buildings may deteriorate structurally and present hazards during a fire.

Vandalism may create additional issues for both the fire department and law enforcement.

Housing Ownership
Homeownership in HFD is 59%, compared with 55.8% statewide. The following figure shows the percentage of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing in HFD and statewide.

Figure 28: Home Ownership

59.0% 55.8%

41.0% 44.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
Healdsburg California
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Item 8.b
303 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 57 Age of Housing
Understanding the age of housing stock is important when evaluating fire risk and code compliance, particularly in relation to smoke alarms and residential fire sprinkler systems. These life-safety features are required under California’s evolving building and fire codes. Homes built before the 1980s may lack modern protections, including interconnected smoke alarms in each bedroom, hallway, and on each floor, as well as residential fire sprinklers, which have been required in new one- and two-family dwellings since 2011 under the California Residential Code.

In the HFD response area, approximately 50% of homes were built after 1980, which is generally consistent with the statewide average of 47%. The largest share of homes in Healdsburg, 30%, was built during the 1980s and 1990s. This period predates current fire sprinkler requirements but reflects broader adoption of early smoke alarm standards that began in the 1970s and expanded during the 1980s and 1990s.

Only about 1% of homes in Healdsburg were built in 2020 or later, the group most likely to include both modern, code‑compliant smoke alarms and residential fire sprinklers under California’s 2011 statewide sprinkler mandate. However, Healdsburg stands out as an early adopter. The City implemented its own Fire Sprinkler Ordinance in 1987, well ahead of state requirements. As a result, an estimated 40% of the city’s current housing stock was built during or after this local ordinance took effect, making these homes the most likely to include both smoke alarms and residential fire sprinklers.

Older homes, particularly those built before 1960, which account for nearly 30% of Healdsburg’s housing stock, may present elevated fire risk due to aging electrical systems and limited fire protection features.

Figure 29: Age of Housing by Decade

0.0%
8%
12%
30%
25%
14%
12%

1.3%
6%
15%
25%
27%
20%
8%
2020 OR LATER 2010 – 2019 2000 – 2009 1980 - 1999 1960 - 1979 1940 - 1959 1939 OR

EARLIER
Healdsburg California
Item 8.b
304 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 58 Housing Units
The proportion of people living in one- or two-family dwellings is 80%, compared with 67% statewide.

This relatively high percentage is consistent with local homeownership patterns. The following figure identifies the distribution of housing unit types.

Figure 30: Housing Units per Building
80%
9%
7%
4%

0.7%
67%
6%6%

3.6%
1 - 2 3 – 4 5 – 9 10+ MOBILE/OTHER
Healdsburg California
Item 8.b
305 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 59 RISK CLASSIFICATION

RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Developing a risk score to determine risks in a community is necessary to provide an organization with a method for creating response protocols for an incident. The Three-Axis Heron model establishes a score by reviewing probability, consequence, and impact factors and assigning a score between 2 and 10 in each category.3
Use of the Three-Axis Heron Formula includes the following equation:

The risk is graphically illustrated through a three-axis model as follows:
• P = Probability (Y-Axis)
• C = Consequences (X-Axis)
• I = Impact (Z-Axis)
The following figure summarizes the three-axis risk classification process and how a score is developed.

3 Iowa Environmental Menoset website.

Item 8.b
306 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 60 Figure 31: Three-Axis Risk Classification Process
When developing the score, each of the three scoring components is based on HFD incident data. For example, a low-risk fire response may have a high probability of occurrence because that type of incident happens frequently, but low consequence to the community and low operational impact on the jurisdiction. In that example, probability is scored at 10, while consequence and impact are each scored at 2, resulting in a score of 20.2. The score increases significantly for a maximum-risk incident. In that example, probability is scored at 2, consequence at 8, and impact at 10, resulting in a score of 59.4.

These scores are intended to help HFD evaluate community risk and determine the level of service needed to address those risks. The probability of an incident may affect response times if multiple events occur simultaneously. Even lower-risk incidents can place an apparatus out of service during the response. In general, the higher the score, the greater the risk to the community and the organization.

Although the highest possible risk score is 122.5, incidents with scores at that level are expected to occur infrequently. The following sections provide additional detail regarding probability, consequence, and impact.

Item 8.b
307 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 61 Probability
Probability is the likelihood of an incident occurring in the community over time. It can range from a rare event to one that occurs frequently. This axis reflects the likelihood that a particular type of incident will occur and contribute to overall risk. Many factors are considered, including time of day, location, hazard type, season, building construction and maintenance, demographic characteristics, and other local conditions. The following figure defines the probability categories.

Figure 32: Probability or Likelihood of Occurrence
Score Category Probability or Likelihood
2 Minor Unlikely: < 0.02% of total call volume. Expected to occur very rarely. 4 Low Possible: 0.02%–0.07% of total call volume. Expected to occur rarely. 6 Moderate Probable: 0.07%–0.3% of total call volume. Expected to occur monthly. 8 High Likely: 0.3%–2% of total call volume. Expected to occur multiple times per week.
10 Extreme Frequent: > 2% of total call volume. Expected to occur one or more times per day.

Consequence
The consequences of an incident can vary from minor casualties to severe impacts that may destroy historical or major facilities in the community and create a large loss of employment or life. The following figure defines consequence categories.

Figure 33: Consequence to the Community
Score Category Consequence to the Community
2 Minor 1–2 people affected (injuries/deaths). < $10,000 loss. 4 Low < 5 people affected (injuries/deaths). < $500,000 loss. 6 Moderate 5–50 people affected (injuries/deaths). $500,000–$1,000,000 loss 8 High 51–100 people (injuries/deaths). $1,000,000–$5,000,000 loss. 10 Extreme >100 people affected (injuries/deaths). > $5,000,000 loss.

Item 8.b
308 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 62 Impact
The third factor in determining the risk is the fire department’s impact and the critical tasking needed to control or mitigate an incident. This includes the number of emergency responders and apparatus available, whether available internally or from external agencies. It measures the department’s ability to respond to a given risk or incident while still providing service to the remaining parts of the city. The following figure defines impact categories.

Figure 34: Impact on Operational Forces
Score Category Impact on Operational Forces
2 Minor ≥ 90% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
4 Low ≥ 75% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
6 Moderate ≥ 50% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
8 High ≥ 25% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
10 Extreme < 25% Remaining Apparatus/Crews
Item 8.b
309 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 63 Fire Response Risk Assessment
HFD is the primary provider for mitigating fire-related incidents—These range from low-risk incidents, such as a vehicle fire, to a maximum-risk incident involving a school fire. Fire risks for a vehicle fire are considered low compared to a maximum risk for a school that houses students. This scoring is applied to four different categories of fire incidents in HFD’s response area to provide staffing needs to meet critical tasks on the fire ground. The following figures provide the fire response risk assessment scoring and the three-axis risk classifications.

Figure 35: Fire Response Risk Assessment
Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
4 2 2 4 6 8 2 10 10 2 8 10
Score Assigned 13.9 44.2 59.4 59.4
Figure 36: Fire Three-Axis Risk Classifications
Item 8.b
310 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 64 Emergency Medical Services Response Risk Assessment
HFD provides basic and advanced life support emergency medical care transport services in the city.

Low-risk incidents range from a medical assist to a maximum-risk incident for a multi-victim event. The following figures provide the risk score and classifications assigned to each type of EMS risk in HFD. The following figures provide the EMS response risk assessment scoring and the three-axis risk classifications.

Figure 37: EMS Response Risk Assessment
Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
10 2 2 8 2 2 2 6 8 4 8 8
Score Assigned 20.2 16.2 28.1 48
Figure 38: EMS Three-Axis Risk Classifications
Item 8.b
311 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 65 Technical Rescue Response Risk Assessment
Rescue services can vary from a low-risk incident, such as accessing a locked vehicle with a child inside, to a confined space incident (maximum risk) that potentially requires many personnel to mitigate the incident. The following figures provide the risk score and classifications assigned to each type of technical rescue risk in HFD’s response area. The following figures provide the technical rescue response risk assessment scoring and the three-axis risk classifications.

Figure 39: Technical Rescue Response Risk Assessment
Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
4 2 2 4 4 4 2 8 8 2 8 10
Score Assigned 13.9 19.6 36.8 59.4
Figure 40: Technical Rescue Three-Axis Risk Classifications Item 8.b
312 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 66 Hazardous Materials Response Risk Assessment
Hazardous materials responses can vary from low-risk odor investigations to the maximum risk for a fuel tanker fire in higher-populated areas. Most of these incidents can be managed by HFD, but higher risks may need assistance from outside resources. The following figures provide the risk score and classifications assigned to each type of hazardous materials risk in HFD. The following figures provide the scoring of the hazardous materials response risk assessment and the three-axis risk classifications.

Figure 41: Hazardous Materials Response Risk Assessment Description Low Moderate High Maximum
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I P C I
4 2 2 4 4 4 2 8 8 2 8 10
Score Assigned 13.9 19.6 36.8 59.4
Figure 42: Hazardous Materials Three-Axis Risk Classifications Item 8.b
313 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 67 Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) Risk Assessment
Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) responses can vary from low-risk wildfires to the maximum risk for fastmoving wildfires threatening homes in higher populated areas. Most of these incidents can be managed by HFD, but higher risks may need assistance from outside resources. The following figures provide the risk score and classifications assigned to each type of wildfire urban interface risk in HFD. The following figures provide the scoring of the wildfire urban interface response risk assessment and the three-axis risk classifications.

Figure 43: Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) Response Risk Assessment Description Low Moderate High
Risk Score

P C I P C I P C I
2 2 2 2 6 6 2 8 8
Score Assigned 16.2 44.2 44.2
Figure 44: WUI Three-Axis Risk Classifications
Item 8.b
314 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 68 ENVIRONMENTAL & PHYSICAL

HAZARDS
A physical hazard is a natural or human-caused event that poses risk to people, buildings, infrastructure, agriculture, environmental assets, and communities. Every community is susceptible to a range of physical hazards, including natural disasters such as floods, high-wind events, ice storms, wildfires, and earthquakes, as well as technological incidents such as chemical spills or explosions. When disaster strikes, it can severely affect a community, destroy homes and businesses, and leave residents displaced or unemployed. Across the nation, disaster-related property damage has increased, due in part to the growing scale of hazard events and continued development in hazard-prone areas. For example, highwind events alone have caused billions of dollars in damage nationwide.

To prepare for future hazards, it is important to study past events. Historical catalogs help identify the frequency of hazard events and support the development of synthetic event sets that may represent as many as 10,000 years of potential occurrences. This predictive approach is especially important for lower-frequency hazards such as earthquakes, where seismological investigations help characterize prehistoric events and better define the active tectonic record.

Risk reduction can be achieved by mitigating one or more of the following components:
• Hazard: Constructing a flood levee to redirect water during flood events • Exposure: Making land use decisions that prevent new development from being placed in hazardous areas or that influence the nature of such development • Vulnerability: Retrofitting older buildings constructed to lower standards or before adoption of current building codes
Healdsburg’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) serves as the City’s primary framework for identifying, assessing, and reducing risks associated with natural hazards, including wildfire, flooding, earthquakes, drought, extreme heat, and severe weather. The LHMP is integrated with the City’s General Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) efforts to help ensure consistency across land use planning, capital investment, and emergency management activities.

Item 8.b
315 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 69 The City emphasizes mitigation strategies that reduce long-term hazard exposure, including land use controls, infrastructure hardening, vegetation management, public education, and coordination with regional, state, and federal agencies. Hazard mitigation is viewed as a cost-effective investment that supports community resilience, public safety, and long-term sustainability.

The City of Healdsburg is exposed to a range of natural and climate-related hazards due to its geographic location, topography, climate, and surrounding wildland and riverine environments. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the primary hazards affecting Healdsburg include wildfire, flooding, earthquake, landslide, drought, severe weather, wind events, storms, excessive heat, and Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS). Among these, wildfire and flooding present the greatest overall risk based on historical occurrence, potential damage to people and property, and projected future conditions.

Secondary hazards such as extreme heat, drought, wind-driven storms, and landslides contribute to cumulative and compounding risk, particularly during prolonged dry periods or intense precipitation events. Although individual hazard events vary in frequency and severity, the range of hazard types underscores the importance of integrated mitigation, preparedness, and land use planning to reduce long-term vulnerability and strengthen community resilience.

POLICY DIRECTION AND PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
Consistent with state planning law and best practices, Healdsburg’s approach to hazard mitigation emphasizes avoiding new development in high-risk areas where feasible, minimizing fuel continuity near structures, protecting evacuation routes, and integrating hazard considerations into discretionary land use decisions. Scenic ridgelines, open-space preserves, and community separators serve dual purposes by maintaining community character while also limiting exposure to wildfire and other hazards.

Future planning and development decisions are evaluated not only for consistency with land use designations, but also for their effect on hazard exposure, emergency response capability, and longterm community resilience.

Item 8.b
316 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 70 WEATHER
Temperature
Weather conditions in Healdsburg significantly influence emergency response operations and overall community risk. Seasonal temperature fluctuations can affect firefighter endurance and operational effectiveness during extended incidents, particularly during wildfire, flooding, or storm-related responses, and may require rehabilitation measures to prevent heat stress or fatigue. Healdsburg experiences a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters, with average annual temperatures generally ranging from approximately 47°F during cooler periods to 75°F during warmer periods. Summer heat, combined with dry fuels and wind events, can elevate wildfire risk, while cooler winter temperatures, particularly during December and January, often coincide with increased precipitation and contribute to flooding, landslides, and other weather-related hazards.

Figure 45: Average Daily High Temperatures
Figure 46: Average Daily Low Temperatures
69 70 73
78 80
89 94 95 92
84 76
67 0.0

10.0 20.0

30.0 40.0

50.0 60.0

70.0 80.0

90.0 100.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
39 40 43 48 50
59 64 65 62
54 46
39 0.0

10.0 20.0

30.0 40.0

50.0 60.0

70.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Item 8.b
317 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 71 Drought
Drought conditions can have significant implications for the City of Healdsburg and the surrounding region, including reduced surface water availability, increased stress on groundwater resources, and heightened competition among municipal, agricultural, and environmental water uses. Extended drought periods may persist for multiple years, compounding their effect on vegetation health and soil moisture. These conditions increase wildfire risk because prolonged dry periods produce vegetation that is more combustible, particularly in wildland-urban interface areas.

The City of Healdsburg’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies drought as a recurring hazard that can intensify other risks, including wildfire, extreme heat, and power disruptions. Drought conditions affecting Sonoma County and Northern California in recent years underscore the need for continued water resource management, vegetation management, and integrated hazard mitigation planning to reduce long-term vulnerability and secondary effects associated with prolonged dry conditions.

The following figure illustrates average monthly precipitation patterns relevant to seasonal hazard conditions in Healdsburg.

Figure 47: Average Monthly Precipitation

8.7 8.1

6.5 2.2

1.1 0.16 0.1 0.12

0.6 2.1

6.0 6.5

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Item 8.b
318 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 72 Wildfire
Healdsburg includes areas identified as wildland-urban interface (WUI), particularly along the city’s perimeter where residential development interfaces with grasslands, oak woodlands, chaparral, and mixed wildland vegetation. These areas are subject to elevated wildfire risk due to fuel continuity, slope, wind exposure, and limited access in certain locations.

Surrounding ridgelines, hillsides, and open-space preserves provide important scenic and ecological value, but they also contribute to wildfire exposure when unmanaged fuels are located adjacent to residential development. Fire hazard severity varies across the planning area, with higher-risk zones generally located along the urban edge and in hillside areas with limited defensible space and constrained evacuation routes.

Although Healdsburg has not experienced catastrophic urban wildfire loss comparable to some neighboring jurisdictions, regional wildfire events, smoke impacts, power shutoffs, and evacuation warnings have increasingly affected the community. These events underscore the City’s exposure not only to direct wildfire hazards, but also to secondary effects such as power outages, transportation disruptions, and public health concerns.

The City recognizes that wildfire risk is dynamic and influenced by climate change, vegetation conditions, regional fire activity, and land use decisions beyond municipal boundaries. Accordingly, wildfire preparedness and mitigation are treated as ongoing planning priorities rather than isolated emergency concerns.

Item 8.b
319 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 73 Figure 48: Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Item 8.b
320 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 74 Winds
The City of Healdsburg and surrounding areas of Sonoma County are subject to offshore wind events commonly referred to as Diablo winds. These events typically occur during the late summer and fall, although they may develop at other times of year. These winds generally originate in the interior of Northern California and flow toward the coast, often accelerating through mountain gaps, ridgelines, and valleys.

As these winds descend in elevation, they are characterized by higher wind speeds, warmer temperatures, and significantly lower relative humidity. This combination of wind direction, wind speed, and low moisture content can rapidly intensify wildfire behavior, increase ember transport, and challenge suppression efforts. Healdsburg’s wildland-urban interface areas, surrounding open-space preserves, and hillside topography further contribute to wildfire risk during offshore wind events, making wind-driven fire one of the most significant hazards facing the community.

Figure 49: Average Wind Speeds
7 7 7 7 8 8
7 7 6 6 7 7

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Item 8.b
321 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 75 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Earthquakes
The City of Healdsburg is located in a seismically active region of Northern California, as identified by the United States Geological Survey and the California Geological Survey. Several active and potentially active fault systems are located in the broader region, including the Rodgers Creek-Healdsburg fault system and other faults associated with the northern San Andreas fault zone. These regional fault systems have the potential to generate moderate to large earthquakes that could affect the city.

Seismic hazard assessments indicate that Healdsburg faces a significant probability of experiencing damaging ground shaking over the coming decades, consistent with regional seismic risk throughout Sonoma County. Although fewer earthquakes have been recorded directly beneath the city than in some parts of Southern California, the potential for strong shaking remains high due to the city’s proximity to active faults capable of producing major seismic events.

In addition to ground shaking, soil-related hazards create additional risk, particularly in areas underlain by alluvial soils near the Russian River and other low-lying areas. Elevated groundwater levels in these areas increase the potential for soil liquefaction, which could amplify damage to buildings, infrastructure, and utilities during a major earthquake. These combined seismic and geologic conditions underscore the importance of continued seismic hazard planning, resilient infrastructure design, and emergency preparedness in Healdsburg.

Item 8.b
322 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 76 Figure 50: Earthquake Risks
Item 8.b
323 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 77 Landslides
The City of Healdsburg faces risk from landslides and related slope failures, particularly in hillside areas, along steep terrain, and in locations underlain by unstable soils. Landslides in the Healdsburg area are typically triggered by intense or prolonged rainfall, erosion from surface water runoff, saturated ground conditions, or debris flows on steep slopes. The potential for slope instability may also increase after wildland fire events, when vegetation loss reduces slope stability and soils become more susceptible to erosion during subsequent storm events.

Historical and regional records referenced in the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan indicate that landslide and debris-flow hazards are present within the planning area, particularly near hillside development and along drainage corridors. Although such events are generally localized, they can pose significant risks to public safety, transportation infrastructure, utilities, and residential property. This underscores the importance of ongoing slope management, drainage control, and land use planning to reduce landslide-related impacts.

Floods
The City of Healdsburg is susceptible to flooding hazards, particularly along the Russian River and associated creeks and drainage channels within and adjacent to the city. Flooding most commonly occurs during periods of intense or prolonged rainfall, with seasonal storm patterns contributing to localized flooding along creek corridors and low-lying areas. Although shallow flooding from heavy rain events occurs more frequently, larger riverine flood events, while less common, have the potential to cause substantially greater damage to structures, transportation networks, and critical infrastructure.

Changing climatic conditions are expected to influence flood risk in Healdsburg through altered precipitation patterns, more intense storm events, and increased runoff volumes. Warmer atmospheric conditions contribute to greater moisture retention, which can result in heavier rainfall over shorter durations. As a result, localized and flash flooding in urban areas has become an increasing concern, particularly in areas with constrained drainage capacity or high levels of impervious surface coverage.

Although these events are often brief, they can pose significant risks to public safety, emergency response access, and property.

Flood hazard areas within Healdsburg have been identified and evaluated through the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and related floodplain mapping, which guide mitigation planning, development review, and emergency preparedness efforts.

Item 8.b
324 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 78 Figure 51: FEMA Flood Hazard
Item 8.b
325 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 79 TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS
Technological hazards are human-caused events that typically occur with little or no warning. These incidents may include industrial accidents, transportation-related spills, or releases of hazardous chemicals. Communities should develop contingency plans customized to the specific risks present within their jurisdictions. These preparations may include periodic permitting, fire and life-safety inspections, and pre-incident planning. Together, these activities help reduce risk and provide opportunities for fire department personnel to conduct on-site visits and become familiar with higherrisk facilities.

In California, when a building or facility is identified as storing or producing hazardous materials, specialized personal protective clothing and equipment may be required to safely manage or mitigate an incident. Facilities that store hazardous materials in quantities exceeding thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must submit Tier II chemical inventory reports.

These reports are required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (SARA Title III) and must be submitted to the California State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).

In California, CUPAs serve as the local administering agencies for hazardous materials oversight.

The federal reporting thresholds are as follows:
• 10,000 pounds for most hazardous chemicals
• 500 pounds or the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) for extremely hazardous substances In addition to federal requirements, California’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) program requires facilities to submit detailed inventories, site maps, and emergency response plans when hazardous materials are handled in reportable quantities. California also uses a five-tier permitting structure under its hazardous waste regulations to govern the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste at varying operational scales.

Item 8.b
326 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 80 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Several facilities within the City of Healdsburg use or store regulated quantities of hazardous materials associated with fuel storage, public utilities, agricultural processing, and commercial activity. These materials are generally limited in scale and include fuels, lubricants, cleaning agents, treatment chemicals, and agricultural inputs used at facilities such as the wastewater treatment plant, corporation yard, municipal airport, wineries, light industrial occupancies, and service stations. The City does not contain large-scale hazardous materials manufacturing or refining operations.

Healdsburg is traversed by and located adjacent to U.S. Highway 101, which serves as a major regional transportation corridor for passenger vehicles and commercial freight, including trucks transporting fuel, agricultural products, and consumer goods. Additional arterial routes, including Healdsburg Avenue and Dry Creek Road, further increase the potential for transportation-related hazardous materials incidents resulting from vehicle collisions, spills, or overturned trucks.

The Healdsburg Fire Department is trained and equipped to provide initial hazardous materials response at the operations level, including scene control, isolation, evacuation coordination, and defensive spill containment. The City maintains mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with Sonoma County fire agencies and has access to regional hazardous materials response teams coordinated through the County Office of Emergency Management and the County Fire Marshal’s Office. These regional resources provide technician-level response, specialized equipment, and incident command support when needed. This multi-tiered response structure helps ensure that hazardous materials incidents can be managed effectively while minimizing risk to responders, the public, and the environment.

Item 8.b
327 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 81 Figure 52: Hazardous Materials Facilities
Item 8.b
328 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 82 LAND USE & OCCUPANCIES
Land use within a community helps categorize properties within a defined geographic area, typically under governmental regulation. The purpose of land use regulation is to promote socially and environmentally desirable outcomes while guiding development efficiently. Zoning within the service area may include a mix of low-, moderate-, and high-risk properties. • Low Risk: Areas designated as open space, low-density residential, and other low-intensity uses • Moderate Risk: Areas designated for medium-density residential, small commercial and office uses, low-intensity retail, and similar activities
• High Risk: Areas designated for higher-intensity commercial districts, mixed-use development, high-density residential, industrial sites, storage occupancies, and large mercantile centers The Healdsburg Planning Area includes the incorporated city limits, the City’s Sphere of Influence, and noncontiguous City-owned properties that support critical public infrastructure. Urban development is largely contained within an Urban Growth Boundary that is coterminous with the Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area. This boundary represents the ultimate extent of urban development and reflects long-standing voter and policy direction to limit outward expansion and protect surrounding agricultural and open-space lands.

Land uses within the planning area are predominantly residential, with commercial, mixed-use, industrial, public facility, and open-space areas distributed throughout the city. Approximately twothirds of the planning area is developed, while remaining vacant or underutilized land is constrained by conservation easements, infrastructure limitations, environmental sensitivity, or policy restrictions.

Hillside and ridgeline areas surrounding the city are largely preserved as open space or very low-density development, serving both scenic and hazard-mitigation functions.

The following figure displays the general land use pattern within the Healdsburg Planning Area.

Item 8.b
329 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 83 Figure 53: Healdsburg Land Use Map
Item 8.b
330 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 84 PHYSICAL ASSETS PROTECTED
Commercial properties and occupancies within the City of Healdsburg should be considered target hazards due to the specialized risks they may pose to both emergency responders and occupants. These include downtown mixed-use buildings with residential units above ground-floor commercial uses, wineries and wine production facilities, hospitality and lodging occupancies, restaurants with commercial kitchens, light industrial and warehouse occupancies, fuel-dispensing stations, and public assembly spaces. Many of these occupancies involve higher occupant loads, complex building layouts, combustible materials, commercial cooking operations, or the storage and use of regulated materials.

To support safe and effective emergency response, these occupancies should be subject to regular preincident surveys so that Healdsburg Fire Department personnel remain familiar with building configuration, access limitations, fire protection systems, and site-specific hazards. Facilities should also maintain pre-incident plans that are readily available to operations personnel and include information such as building layout, fire sprinkler and alarm systems, water supply, utility shutoffs, hazardous materials locations, and access or egress constraints. These plans are especially important for wineries, hospitality occupancies, and historic downtown structures, where unique construction features or operational characteristics may influence emergency response strategies and tactics.

The following figure identifies occupancies and facilities that warrant special operational consideration.

Item 8.b
331 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 85 Figure 54: Special Considerations
Item 8.b
332 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 86 Educational Facilities
Educational facilities within the City of Healdsburg serve a significant student population across multiple campuses and should be considered target hazards due to the concentration of students, faculty, and staff present during school hours. Emergency incidents at school sites may require coordinated evacuation, sheltering, or reunification and often involve unique access, security, and communication considerations.

Schools located within the City of Healdsburg include Healdsburg Elementary School, Healdsburg Junior High School, Healdsburg High School, The Healdsburg School, and St. John Catholic School, which together serve students from kindergarten through high school. These campuses accommodate large daily populations and include classrooms, athletic facilities, auditoriums, and other assembly areas that present specialized challenges for emergency response.

In addition to K–12 facilities, the community includes early childhood education centers and child care facilities that serve infants, preschool-age children, and students requiring before- or after-school care.

These occupancies present heightened concerns due to the age and mobility of occupants, as young children may require additional assistance during evacuation, including staff physically carrying infants or toddlers during an emergency.

Educational facilities in and around Healdsburg also include postsecondary and vocational training programs located within the region, as well as joint-use or community-serving facilities that host large public events. Planned improvements, renovations, or expansions at school campuses may introduce temporary construction-related hazards and changing site conditions, reinforcing the importance of ongoing coordination between educational institutions and emergency response agencies.

Given these factors, schools and child care facilities should maintain current pre-incident plans and participate in regular coordination with the Healdsburg Fire Department to ensure familiarity with site layouts, access points, fire protection systems, and evacuation procedures. Proactive planning and information sharing improve responder safety and support effective emergency operations involving student populations.

The following figure identifies educational occupancies within the service area.

Item 8.b
333 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 87 Figure 55: Educational Occupancies
Item 8.b
334 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 88 Assembly
Assembly occupancies pose unique risks due to the concentration of large numbers of people in a single location. These occupancies include restaurants, theaters, nightclubs, sporting venues, and large outdoor festivals. Such locations may require a significant number of emergency response personnel during incidents such as fires or active shooter events. It is therefore important that these sites maintain current pre-incident plans.

The following figure identifies assembly occupancies within the service area.

Figure 56: Assembly Occupancies
Item 8.b
335 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 89 Large Fire-Flow Occupancies
Occupancies within the City of Healdsburg can be categorized based on their relative level of risk.

Factors used to classify occupancies as low, moderate, or high risk include building size and height, construction type, age of construction, presence or absence of fire protection systems such as automatic sprinklers and standpipes, required fire flow, potential risk to human life, presence of hazardous materials or specialized processes, and the availability and reliability of water supply relative to operational needs.

Examples of occupancies in Healdsburg that may present elevated risk characteristics include wineries and wine production facilities, downtown mixed-use and historic commercial buildings, lodging and hospitality occupancies, light industrial and warehouse occupancies, fuel-dispensing stations, public assembly spaces, schools, and critical municipal facilities such as the wastewater treatment plant, corporation yard, and municipal airport. Many of these occupancies involve large floor areas, unique construction features, higher occupant loads, combustible materials, or specialized operational hazards that require enhanced pre-incident planning and response considerations.

Hospital, Medical & Congregate Care Occupancies
Medical and congregate care facilities within the City of Healdsburg provide essential healthcare and supportive services and should be considered high-priority occupancies due to the vulnerability of the populations they serve. Facilities such as Healdsburg District Hospital, outpatient medical clinics, skilled nursing facilities, assisted living communities, and senior care centers serve individuals who may require immediate medical attention or ongoing care. Hospitals and inpatient care facilities present elevated risk because some patients may be non-ambulatory or otherwise unable to self-evacuate, requiring enhanced fire and life-safety protections compared with outpatient medical offices.

These facilities are required to incorporate additional fire protection and life-safety features, including fire alarm systems for early warning, automatic fire sprinkler systems to control or suppress fire, emergency power systems, and protected means of egress to support phased or assisted evacuation.

These measures are critical to occupant safety during emergencies and to effective response by emergency personnel.

Congregate care facilities serving older adults or individuals with physical, cognitive, or memory impairments, including dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, present additional evacuation challenges.

Depending on resident mobility and cognitive condition, staff assistance may be required during evacuations. In certain care areas, special locking or controlled egress systems may be permitted to prevent residents from leaving unsupervised, provided those systems comply with applicable fire and life-safety codes.

Item 8.b
336 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 90 Facility operators should maintain well-developed emergency and evacuation plans, including procedures for assisted evacuation, staff assignments, and coordination with emergency responders.

These plans should be reviewed regularly and verified during annual fire and life-safety inspections to support readiness, regulatory compliance, and protection of vulnerable populations.

The following figure identifies healthcare and congregate care occupancies within the service area.

Figure 57: Health Care Occupancies
Item 8.b
337 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 91 Buildings Three or More Stories in Height
Structures that are three or more stories in height typically require access to aerial apparatus capable of elevated rescue operations and master stream deployment. Ladder trucks are often needed to access upper floors, roofs, or balconies of taller buildings, as ground ladders generally cannot reach these elevations. Fire protection planning standards, including those reviewed by the Insurance Services Office (ISO), evaluate ladder truck coverage areas for buildings within an approximate 2.5-mile service radius to assess response capability.

At present, the City of Healdsburg contains very few buildings exceeding three stories in height, and there are no high-rise structures as defined by the California Fire Code. Existing taller structures are generally limited to downtown mixed-use or lodging buildings with modest height and relatively small floor plates. However, future development, particularly within downtown and designated mixed-use areas, could introduce taller or more complex structures over time.

If buildings exceeding five stories or meeting high-rise criteria are proposed in the future, additional fire and life-safety considerations may be warranted. These may include enhanced fire protection systems, improved radio and in-building communication coverage, increased water supply and fire flow capacity, smoke control systems, and specialized operational planning to support emergency response. Ongoing coordination among land use planning, building review, and fire services is important to ensure that future development remains aligned with available response capabilities and community safety objectives.

The following figure identifies buildings that are three or more stories in height within the service area.

Item 8.b
338 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 92 Figure 58: Buildings with Three or More Stories
Item 8.b
339 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 93 Residential Multifamily Occupancies
Residential occupancies within the City of Healdsburg generally present higher life-safety risk to occupants than many commercial buildings. A significant proportion of fire-related injuries and fatalities occur in residential settings, where hazards may include sleeping occupants, limited mobility or accessibility needs, older construction, and buildings lacking modern fire protection features. To support compliance with applicable fire codes, common areas within multifamily residential buildings are subject to annual fire and life-safety inspections.

Although multifamily residential buildings may experience fewer fires related to electrical or heating system failures, they are more frequently associated with cooking-related fires, which remain a leading cause of residential fire incidents. Current building and fire codes require newly constructed multifamily buildings to include automatic residential fire sprinkler systems and interconnected smoke alarms located in bedrooms, hallways, and on all levels of the dwelling. These systems are intended to provide early warning and sufficient time for occupants to evacuate safely.

Many residential fire sprinkler systems do not extend into attic spaces, which can create challenges when fires spread beyond living areas. In addition, in wildland-urban interface and interface-adjacent areas, fires may originate from exterior sources, including ignited vegetation or other combustible materials, and extend to roofs or attic spaces, increasing structural vulnerability.

Healdsburg is experiencing ongoing and proposed multifamily residential development, particularly within designated infill and mixed-use areas. This growth is expected to contribute to increased residential density over time. As population density increases, emergency call volume typically rises as well. Monitoring emergency response demand relative to population growth, such as calls for service per 1,000 residents, is an important tool to help ensure that fire and emergency response resources remain appropriately scaled to meet community needs.

The following figure identifies lodging occupancies within the service area.

Item 8.b
340 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 94 Figure 59: Lodging Occupancies
Item 8.b
341 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 95 The following figure identifies multifamily residential occupancies within the service area.

Figure 60: Multifamily Residential Occupancies
Item 8.b
342 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 96 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) are essential components required for a community to function effectively in a modern economy. Critical infrastructure includes assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, that are so vital that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, economic security, public health, or public safety. Sixteen Critical Infrastructure Sectors are recognized nationally:
• Chemical Sector
• Commercial Facilities Sector
• Communications Sector
• Critical Manufacturing Sector
• Dams Sector
• Defense Industrial Base Sector
• Emergency Services Sector
• Energy Sector
• Financial Services Sector
• Food and Agriculture Sector
• Government Facilities Sector
• Healthcare and Public Health Sector
• Information Technology Sector
• Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste Sector
• Transportation Systems Sector
• Water and Wastewater Systems Sector
Not all of these sectors are necessarily present within the HFD service area. However, each community should identify local critical infrastructure and develop pre-incident plans to support safe and effective emergency response.

Additional facilities that should be considered target hazards include occupancies with the potential for significant loss of life, such as public assembly venues, schools, child care centers, medical and residential care facilities, and multifamily dwellings. Buildings with substantial community value, whether economic, historic, or replacement value, should also be considered. Incidents involving these target hazards may require significant HFD resources and mutual aid.

The following figure identifies target hazards within the service area.

Item 8.b
343 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 97 Figure 61: Target Hazards
The following figure identifies key commercial occupancies within the service area.

Item 8.b
344 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 98 Figure 62: Key Commercial Occupancies
Item 8.b
345 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 99 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
The transportation network within the City of Healdsburg consists primarily of collector streets and local residential roadways that connect neighborhoods to arterial routes such as U.S. Highway 101. While this network generally supports day-to-day mobility and emergency response access, certain roadway characteristics, including cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets, narrow road segments, and limited secondary access in hillside and river-adjacent areas, may constrain emergency response and evacuation if routes become congested or impassable.

Evacuation effectiveness in Healdsburg depends heavily on the amount of warning time available before an emergency. When advance notice is available, roadway capacity issues are generally limited to localized congestion points, such as downtown corridors or highway access points. However, during short-notice evacuation scenarios, including fast-moving wildfires or flood events, roadway capacity and network redundancy may become significant challenges, particularly in areas with limited ingress and egress.

Certain roadways within the city have narrow widths, limited shoulders, or adjacent development patterns that may affect the ability of large emergency vehicles to maneuver efficiently during periods of peak demand or evacuation. In addition, although detailed data on hazardous materials transport volumes through Healdsburg are limited, U.S. Highway 101 functions as a major regional freight corridor, increasing the potential for traffic incidents that could restrict evacuation routes or emergency access.

Understanding roadway capacity, network constraints, and evacuation timing is an important component of emergency planning and land use decision-making in Healdsburg. Ongoing coordination among transportation planning, emergency management, and fire services supports efforts to identify bottlenecks, improve evacuation readiness, and strengthen overall community resilience during emergency events.

The following figure summarizes average daily traffic volumes relevant to emergency access and evacuation planning.

Figure 63: Average Daily Traffic Counts
Location Average Annual Daily
Traffic—Vehicles
Average Annual Daily
Traffic—Trucks
US-101 @ Dry Creek Rd 42,000 4,000
US-101 @ Mark west Springs Rd 109,000 8,000
Item 8.b
346 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 100
US-101 @ Sebastopol Rd 38,000 3,000
The following figure identifies major highways and streets within the service area.

Figure 64: Major Highways and Streets
Item 8.b
347 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 101
Rail
Passenger rail service in the North Bay region is provided by the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) system, which operates commuter rail service along the U.S. Highway 101 corridor. SMART stations located within the City of Healdsburg support regional connectivity and serve as multimodal hubs linking rail, local transit, bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles. The presence of passenger rail infrastructure introduces unique operational and safety considerations for both the city and emergency response agencies.

SMART rail service operates on a dedicated rail corridor with diesel multiple-unit trains and includes associated facilities such as stations, parking areas, pedestrian crossings, and signalized at-grade intersections. Continued system enhancements, service expansions, and increased ridership are anticipated as the region grows and travel demand shifts toward multimodal transportation options.

These changes may increase pedestrian activity, vehicle traffic, and transit-related incidents in station areas.

Understanding and planning for passenger rail operations is important for local emergency response agencies, as rail-related incidents require specialized training, coordination, and response protocols, including track access procedures, train shutdown coordination, passenger evacuation, and coordination with rail operators. Increased rail activity may also influence emergency call volume and response patterns in station-adjacent areas.

Ongoing coordination among the City of Healdsburg, SMART, and regional emergency response partners supports preparedness for rail-related incidents and helps ensure that future rail operations and associated development remain aligned with public safety and emergency management capabilities.

The following figure identifies rail facilities and corridors within the service area.

Item 8.b
348 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 102
Figure 65: Railways
Item 8.b
349 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 103
ENERGY
Electrical power is essential to daily activity and critical services within the City of Healdsburg, requiring an extensive transmission and distribution network throughout the community. Electrical service in Healdsburg is primarily provided by the City’s Electric Utility Department, which owns, operates, and maintains overhead and underground distribution lines serving residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal uses. Interconnection with Pacific Gas & Electric(PG&E) higher-voltage transmission facilities (e.g. Badger Electric Substation) are located within and adjacent to the city and play an important role in regional power delivery.

Under California law, utilities may de-energize electrical infrastructure to protect public safety during extreme wildfire conditions. In Northern California, this authority is exercised through Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events implemented when weather, fuel, and fire conditions create elevated risk.

Portions of Healdsburg are located within areas subject to potential PSPS events, and these shutoffs may affect residential neighborhoods, businesses, critical facilities, and emergency response operations.

The City and local fire services receive advance notice regarding potential PSPS events, allowing coordination and preparedness activities. Fire stations, water and wastewater facilities, communications infrastructure, and other critical City facilities intersect with PSPS-affected areas, which informs planning for backup generation, fuel supply, and operational continuity during extended outages.

Natural gas services within Healdsburg are provided by PG&E, with transmission and distribution pipelines extending through the city to serve residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Damage to natural gas infrastructure, whether caused by earthquakes, landslides, flooding, or third-party excavation, may create significant public safety and emergency response challenges. As such, emergency planning and response strategies should incorporate the potential hazards associated with natural gas transmission and distribution systems, including coordination with utility providers to support rapid shutoff, damage assessment, and restoration.

The presence of electrical and natural gas infrastructure underscores the importance of coordinated utility planning, emergency preparedness, and infrastructure hardening to reduce risk, maintain essential services, and support effective response during natural disasters and other emergencies.

The following figure identifies higher-voltage electrical infrastructure relevant to the service area.

Item 8.b
350 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 104
Figure 66: High Power Grid
The following figure identifies natural gas pipelines within or adjacent to the service area.

Item 8.b
351 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 105
Figure 67: Natural Gas Pipelines
Item 8.b
352 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 106

WATER SUPPLY
An adequate water supply and distribution system, including water storage facilities, transmission and distribution mains, and a reliable fire hydrant network, is essential for effective fire suppression and emergency response in the City of Healdsburg. A properly designed and distributed hydrant system, supported by appropriately sized water mains, is necessary to ensure sufficient fire flow throughout the community.

Water service for both fire protection and domestic use within the City of Healdsburg is provided by the City of Healdsburg Water Department, which owns, operates, and maintains the municipal water system. The system serves residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses within the city limits and is intended to meet both daily demand and peak fire flow requirements.

Healdsburg’s water supply is derived from a combination of surface water and groundwater sources, including diversions from the Russian River and production from local groundwater wells. Water is treated, stored, and distributed through a network of reservoirs, pumping stations, and transmission mains designed to support system reliability and redundancy. Storage facilities are strategically located to provide adequate pressure and volume for fire protection, including in areas with variable topography.

The water distribution system includes fire hydrants located throughout the city to support firefighting operations. Hydrant spacing, water main sizing, and system pressure are evaluated through development review and ongoing system planning to support compliance with applicable fire codes and service standards.

The following figure identifies the general distribution of fire hydrants within the City of Healdsburg’s service area.

Item 8.b
353 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 107
Figure 68: Fire Hydrants
Item 8.b
354 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 108

GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES
Governmental buildings within the City of Healdsburg are strategically located to support efficient delivery of public services and rapid emergency response. These facilities constitute critical infrastructure necessary for local government operations and public safety. Key governmental facilities include Healdsburg City Hall, the Healdsburg Police Department, Healdsburg fire stations, the corporation yard, the Healdsburg Regional Library, senior center, the community center, wastewater treatment facility, and the airport, as well as associated administrative and support buildings.

These facilities support essential services such as emergency response, law enforcement, public works operations, utilities management, emergency coordination, and community services. Many also serve as coordination hubs during emergency events, including wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, and extended power outages. Disruption or loss of functionality at these locations could significantly impair emergency response capability, continuity of operations, and public access to essential services.

Because of their public function, occupancy levels, and visibility, governmental facilities may also present elevated security and resilience concerns, including intentional acts, infrastructure failure, or cascading effects during major disasters. These facilities should therefore be incorporated into emergency preparedness, continuity-of-operations planning, and infrastructure hardening efforts, including backup power, communications redundancy, and access protection measures.

The following figure identifies governmental occupancies within the City of Healdsburg.

Item 8.b
355 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 109
Figure 69: Government Occupancies
Item 8.b
356 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 110

COMPARISON OF FIRE RISK IN

OTHER COMMUNITIES

INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE
One of the most widely recognized benchmarks for comparing community fire protection capability is the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification (PPC). In April 2021, the City of Healdsburg received an ISO PPC rating of Class 2/2Y, placing it among the better-rated fire protection communities in California and nationally. This classification reflects strong performance across emergency communications, fire department capabilities, water supply, and community risk-reduction activities.

The ISO evaluation identified several areas in which Healdsburg performs particularly well, while also highlighting opportunities for incremental improvement under the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS).

Key ISO Findings
• Emergency Communications: Earned 9.34 out of 10 points, reflecting strong 9-1-1 capabilities, telecommunicator staffing, and dispatch infrastructure. • Fire Department: Earned 38.01 out of 50 points, with solid scores for engine and ladder companies, pump capacity, training, and operational considerations. • Water Supply: Earned 35.02 out of 40 points, supported by a robust hydrant system and adequate fire flow availability.
• Community Risk Reduction: Earned 4.88 out of 5.50 points, reflecting strong fire prevention, public education, and fire investigation programs.
• Divergence Factor: A modest negative divergence (-2.31) reflects the relative balance between fire department and water supply effectiveness.

Continued attention to company staffing levels, deployment analysis, reserve apparatus, and hydrant inspection and flow-testing frequency represents the most direct path to improving Healdsburg’s total ISO score and maintaining its strong PPC standing.

Item 8.b
357 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 111
The following figure summarizes ISO earned and available credit by major evaluation category.

Figure 70: ISO Earned & Available Credits
ISO Feature Earned
Credit
Available
Credit
Community Risk Reduction 4.88 5.5
Emergency Communications 9.34 10
Fire Department 38.01 50
Water Supply 35.02 40
Divergence -2.31 —
Totals: 84.94 105.5
The following figure displays California ISO classification information for comparative reference.

Figure 71: California ISO Classification

FIRE LOSS
National fire-loss data provide additional context for understanding Healdsburg’s relative fire experience. In 2022, fire departments in the United States responded to approximately 1,504,500 fire incidents, according to the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) Fire Loss in the United States report and NFPA/NFIRS estimates. These incidents resulted in an estimated 3,620 civilian fire fatalities and more than 14,990 civilian fire injuries. Property damage from fires in 2022 was estimated at $17.7 billion nationally, reflecting both structure and contents loss as well as wildfire-related losses in urban and wildland-urban interface areas.
38 158
220
173
147
58 14
1 43
30 8
0 50
100
150
200
250
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 8B Class 9 Class 10 Item 8.b
358 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 112
Structural fires in one- and two-family homes continued to represent a disproportionate share of fire outcomes, accounting for roughly 20% of reported fires while contributing to approximately 60% to 65% of civilian fire deaths and more than 50% of civilian fire injuries. These figures reinforce the importance of ongoing fire prevention, public education, and community risk-reduction efforts at the local level.

While comprehensive year-end data for 2023 and 2024 are still being finalized by USFA and NFPA, preliminary national estimates indicate that total U.S. fire incidents in 2023 were approximately 1.39 million, with fire deaths and injuries remaining near historic averages. This continued national burden underscores the value of sustained local investment in risk reduction, prevention, and response capability.

The following figure compares HFD fires per 1,000 population with national rates.

Figure 72: HFD Fires Per 1,000 Population
Year HFD Fires per 1,000
Population
U.S. Fires per 1,000
Population4
2021 4.1 4.1
2022 3.3 4.5
2023 3.8 4.2
2024 3.1 4.1
Healdsburg compares favorably to broader national fire protection and fire-loss benchmarks, particularly through its strong ISO classification and relatively low fire incidence rate per 1,000 population in recent years. At the same time, national fire-loss trends reinforce that risk remains persistent, especially in residential occupancies where life loss continues to be concentrated. Taken together, these comparisons suggest that Healdsburg benefits from a strong fire protection foundation, while also underscoring the importance of continued investment in staffing, deployment, water supply reliability, and community risk-reduction efforts to maintain performance and address evolving local risks.

4 Fire loss in the United States during 2021.

Item 8.b
359 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 113
Standards of Cover
Item 8.b
360 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 114

STATISTICS & DATA REVIEW
The heart of any data-driven discussion is the veracity of the data and analytic tools used. To help the reader judge the validity of the information presented, this report will identify the data sources, the analytic tools, the statistical evaluation, and the limitations of the information.

The information within this section was developed from various sources provided by HFD. Initially, detailed information was provided between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024. On review, the agency data was less than effective from January through May of 2020, due to the implementation of a new records management system. As the research progressed past 2025, the agency and dispatch center provided additional information for 2025. This allowed a complete 5-year data evaluation from January 2021 through December 2025, and a rough count of incidents in 2020 based on dispatch data.

STATISTICS DISCUSSION
Using mathematical and technological methodologies to evaluate something as complex as an emergency incident response must be used judiciously. There are historical instances of incorrect evaluations leading to severe consequences in deployment and operational decisions. This analysis is intended to quantify and analyze available information and serve as a starting point for the agency as it seeks to improve performance. However, leaders need to understand the limitations of basing decisions solely on statistical studies and to use sound judgment alongside proven analytics.

Statistical Tools
Various statistical analytical tools were employed to create this section. The fundamental tools were categorization, percentile, and regression analysis. This helps paint a picture of historical performance, with some inferences that may help leaders identify positive and negative performance trends. 90th Percentile
The time performance measures in this report are based on the 90th percentile. While discussing the mathematics behind this measure is outside this report's scope, it is helpful to understand why it is utilized.

The most common reason to use this measure is that the industry has adopted it. If a fire agency wishes to judge its performance against standards or other agencies, it must use the 90th percentile. For example, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) utilizes the 90th percentile measure in most of its standards. In addition, the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) requires reporting performance measures at the 90th percentile.

Item 8.b
361 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 115
The statistical reason for using the measure is that it better captures performance and identifies trends more quickly. Like most time-based datasets, the time performance data used in this study exhibits skew, making middle-type statistical measures less sensitive and representative. The following figure is a general overview of data skew.

Figure 73: Data Skew5
In a symmetric distribution, the mean (average), median (middle of the data), and mode (the most frequent) are all equal. When the distribution is skewed, these three measures of the middle shift are used. Using the average, or mean, in data that was skewed left would underrepresent the bulk of the performance. While the opposite is true when skewed right. In HFD's case, the time-based performance data is skewed right, and using the average would over-represent the performance. This is a very common issue when evaluating fire department response data.

DATA DISCUSSION
Detailed data was provided from HFD's primary incident reporting software (RMS) and the computeraided dispatch (CAD) system. These different database tables were combined using proven data engineering techniques into a single analytical dataset.

5 This figure by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC, creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/.

Item 8.b
362 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 116
Data Engineering Findings
The total number of incident records in the RMS and CAD systems was similar. RMS contained 11,241 incident records for the period from January 2020 through December 2025, while CAD contained 11,898. RMS did not include data for the first 27 days of January 2020. After the 2025 dataset was received, the incident count changed from 9,737 in RMS to 10,140 in CAD for the January 2021 through December 2025 study period. Seven incidents could not be linked to CAD data, and 393 CAD incidents without RMS records were retained and updated to meet NFIRS reporting requirements. In total, 10,123 incidents were joined and evaluated. Approximately 96% of evaluated incidents had RMS records, and the resulting drop in CAD incidents was about 1%.

There was a much greater difference between CAD and RMS unit record sets. This is expected because CAD includes all responding units, while RMS captures only HFD units. All unique CAD unit records were retained in the analytic dataset, resulting in 34,180 unit records available for the period from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2025. Patient records were not available for this analysis.

Data Error Handling
Combining data from multiple datasets can introduce significant errors. Although inaccurate information may result from many causes, such issues are typically related to a combination of human input errors and system collection issues. Several methods can be used to manage these errors, including statistical exclusion, real-time exclusion, formula-based filtering, and logic testing.

For HFD, the data fields contained relatively little error-prone information, so most of the dataset did not require significant statistical intervention. However, some records were excluded through formulabased or logic-based testing. Time-segment calculations used a logic tree to eliminate negative and null values. In addition, after evaluation of the response data, limits were applied to each time segment.

Turnout time and call-processing time were capped at 20 minutes, as this represented a natural break between meaningful data and extreme outliers. Travel time and total response time were capped at one hour for city and contract areas, as this appeared to be a natural break point and was approximately twice the time needed to travel from Healdsburg Airport to the Healdsburg Waste Water Treatment Plant under normal conditions.

The time analysis relied exclusively on CAD timestamps, which have historically proven to be the most reliable. Use of this dataset eliminated most date and timestamp inconsistencies. Negative response time components were minimal, as were unusually large outlier values.

Item 8.b
363 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 117

HISTORICAL SERVICE DEMAND &

DELIVERY

SERVICE DEMAND
The first dimension of this analysis is the overall system call load. Because this portion of the review is based on a simple count of incidents by type and location, no data were excluded after engineering. As a result, the detailed data from the previously discussed systems were used for most aspects of this analysis, except volume projections.

Volume Analysis
A basic volume analysis helps show how often the department is called upon to respond. The first step is to review total incident counts grouped by the primary categories used in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Jurisdictional assignment was established by matching geocoded incident locations with the provided geographic boundaries. The following figure summarizes the total number of responses recorded by the agency across the study period, along with the percentage represented by each NFIRS category.

Figure 74: Total Incident Count (2021–2025)
Incident (NIFRS Group) Responses Percentage of Total
Responses
Fire Department Responses
Fire (100) 403 3.98%
Overpressure (200) 4 0.04%
Rescue-Medical (300) 5,399 53.33%
Hazardous condition (400) 469 4.63%
Service (500) 1,065 10.52%
Good Intent (600) 1,972 19.48%
False Alarm (700) 795 7.85%
Disaster (800) 8 0.08%
Special (900) 8 0.08%
Use a long-term goal of ISO Class 1 as an aspirational benchmark, and tie the recommended staffing, apparatus, and facility investments to the specific ISO scoring categories they would improve.

Item 8.b
364 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 118
Mutual Aid
Auto and Mutual Aid Received1 5,724 56.54%
Auto and Mutual Aid Given 1,221 12.06%
1 Includes 101 incidents where the aid unit was an outside ambulance only.

One notable finding in the preceding figure is the substantial amount of aid HFD received from other agencies. Bell’s Ambulance was treated as an HFD resource rather than an outside aid company. Even so, more than half of all incidents involved some form of outside assistance. In addition, HFD was more than four times more likely to receive aid than to provide it.

Item 8.b
365 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 119
Geographic Analysis
A call-density analysis helps evaluate apparatus placement and identify areas where prevention efforts may have the greatest effect. The following figure displays the geographic distribution of all incidents during the study period.

Figure 75: Incident Density—All Incidents (2021–2025)
As indicated in the preceding figure, incident density is highest within the city limits east of Highway 101. Although the contract area and airport are less dense in incident concentration, they still account for a portion of the overall call load. It is important to note that the density scale, ranging from 1 to 55 incidents per hex, does not represent a broad distribution, and small clusters of duplicate incidents may inflate the pattern in some areas.

Item 8.b
366 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 120
Because EMS incidents represent the largest single component of overall call volume, the following figure illustrates the geographic concentration of EMS incidents during the same study period.

Figure 76: Incident Density—EMS Incidents (2021–2025)
There does not appear to be a strong correlation between one specific occupancy type and EMS incidents, with the exception of senior living facilities. Older neighborhoods and some higher-density areas appear to show a somewhat stronger relationship with EMS call volume, although that pattern is not definitive.

Item 8.b
367 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 121
Although fire incidents occur less frequently, they represent some of the most hazardous events faced by both responders and the public. The following figure displays fire incident density during the study period.

Figure 77: Incident Density—Fire Incidents (2021–2025)
The fire problem appears to be distributed throughout the city, with some extension into the contract area. While the density range of 1 to 3 may appear modest, the distribution remains important when evaluating severity of risk. There also appears to be a somewhat greater likelihood of fire incidents in commercial and industrial portions of the city.

Item 8.b
368 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 122
Another useful geographic measure is identification of repeat-response locations. Locations with recurring incidents may indicate chronic service demand, vulnerability concentrations, or occupancies that warrant additional prevention, inspection, or pre-incident planning. The following figure identifies repeat-response locations and associated occupancy types during the study period.

Figure 78: Recurring Location Responses (2021–2025)
Location Location Type Incidents
725 Grove St. Senior Care 482
710 S. Fitch Mountain Rd. Senior Care 152
1801 Boxheart Dr.* Senior Living 91
238 Center St. Police Department 91
1115 Vine St. Shopping Center 88
1024 Prince St. High School 63
110 Dry Creek Rd. Hotel 55
97 Kennedy Ln. Manufactured Home Park 51
750 Heron Dr. City Park (Power Station) 42
198 Dry Creak Road Hotel 40
* Responses to this location started in 2024.

Two location types were excluded from the preceding figure despite frequent responses. The first was highway incidents, which were among the most common locations but were excluded because there is limited opportunity for the department to reduce roadway-related responses through prevention, and the exact location cannot always be reliably identified. The second was a single-family residence, which was excluded because identifying that location in a public document would be inappropriate.

Temporal Analysis
While response volume and incident location help the agency understand workload and where resources are needed, the temporal dimension helps identify when those resources are needed most.

This analysis is intended to help the agency understand when additional resources may be beneficial and when limited resources may be more available for training, public education, or other planned activities.

It is also useful to isolate medical responses, as they account for a substantial portion of incidents, typically require fewer resources, and generally present lower risk to responders than structure fire or special operations incidents.

The following figure shows annual incident volume for the city and contract area, with the medical component identified.

Item 8.b
369 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 123
Figure 79: Annual Incident Volume—City & Contract Area (2021–2025) Historically, HFD has experienced some variability in annual incident volume. While this does not necessarily indicate a trend, it does show general consistency from year to year.

Reviewing incident volume by month, weekday, and hour of day is also useful when evaluating scheduling, staffing, and seasonality. Monthly trends may indicate seasonal demand, while weekday and hourly trends may reflect population movement and activity patterns. Evaluating the percentage of incidents by month helps identify whether service demand is evenly distributed or concentrated in specific periods. The following figure illustrates incident percentages by month for the 2021 through 2025 study period.
1,614
1,840
1,939
1,815
1,694
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Medical Other Incidents
Item 8.b
370 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 124
Figure 80: Monthly Incident Volume Percentage (2021–2025) There appears to be minimal month-to-month variation and no strong evidence of seasonality in the incident pattern. February, March, and April show the lowest proportion of incidents, while September and October show a slight increase. However, the total variance is small, amounting to fewer than plus or minus 20 incidents per month, or roughly one-half incident per day.

The following figure displays the percentage of incidents by day of the week.

Figure 81: Incidents by Day of the Week (2021–2025)

8.6%

7.4% 7.5% 7.4%

8.2% 8.1%

8.6% 8.6%

9.5% 9.1%

8.1%

8.9%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

13.5%

14.5%

13.9%

14.9% 14.8% 14.6%

13.8%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Item 8.b
371 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 125
As with the monthly analysis, there does not appear to be substantial variation by day of the week.

Sunday, Tuesday, and Saturday were slightly lower, while Wednesday and Thursday showed the highest levels. Even so, the difference remained less than one incident per day on average.

Item 8.b
372 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 126
It is also useful to combine month and weekday to identify potentially significant demand patterns. The following figure displays call-volume density by month and weekday.

Figure 82: Incident Volume by Month & Weekday (2021–2025) Month Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents
Jan 129–139
Feb 116–128
Mar 112–115
Apr 107–111
May 100–106
Jun 86–99
Jul 75–85
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
There appears to be a slight pattern, although daily volume variation remains limited. Weekdays during the winter months appear somewhat busier, while weekends show a slight increase during the summer months. Again, the total degree of variation is small.

Another important temporal dimension is hourly call volume. In most systems, fire and EMS incidents are distributed unevenly throughout the day, with daytime generally more active than evening, nighttime, and early morning hours. This pattern is commonly associated with normal human activity.

The following figure shows that HFD generally follows this same daytime pattern, with approximately 70% of incidents occurring between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Item 8.b
373 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 127
Figure 83: Percent Variation by Hour (2021–2025)
Understanding the combination of hour of day and day of week can further identify peak demand periods. The following figure displays incident density by hour of day and weekday.

Figure 84: Incident Volume by Hour & Weekday (2021–2025) Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents
0–1 86–93
1–2 74–85
2–3 67–73
3–4 58–66
4–5 45–57
5–6 31–44
6–7 23–30
7–8
8–9
9–10
10–11
11–12
12–13
13–14
14–15
15–16
16–17
17–18
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Percent of Incidents
Hour of the Day
Item 8.b
374 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 128
18–19
19–20
20–21
21–22
22–23
23–24
The evaluation shows a consistent and statistically significant daytime call pattern across all days of the week.

RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION
Several performance measures help identify the effectiveness of resource distribution. A broad distribution of resources increases the likelihood of rapid initial response in any given area. However, arrival of the first unit is only one part of the deployment question. It is also important to have enough units available to manage the volume, type, and severity of incidents, while distributing workload as evenly as practical across available resources.

Geographic Distribution Analysis
Units and stations should be distributed in a manner that increases the likelihood of reaching an incident during its early stages. Two widely recognized performance references address this concept. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) uses travel distance, while the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) uses response-time performance.

ISO uses a distance of five miles to a fire station as a general benchmark indicating that a building has fire protection. The following figure illustrates the five-mile travel distance from HFD stations.

Item 8.b
375 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 129
Figure 85: ISO 5-Mile Distance from HFD Stations
For full credit under the ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS), buildings within the jurisdiction should generally be within 1.5 miles of an engine company and 2.5 miles of a truck company. Although both HFD stations are not equally staffed, the City of Healdsburg has an engine assigned to both facilities. This provides generally good coverage for most population centers within the city. However, the airport, portions of the Fitch Mountain area, and much of the contract area fall outside the 1.5-mile engine coverage area. The following figure illustrates the 1.5-mile travel distance from each station housing an engine company.

Item 8.b
376 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 130
Figure 86: ISO 1.5-Mile Engine Distance
ISO evaluates specialized equipment, such as a truck company, separately from an engine company.

While engine companies are commonly found at most stations, truck companies are more limited in number and location. ISO generally expects truck companies to be within 2.5 miles of any building. HFD operates one truck-capable unit from Station 1, which leaves the west and north-central portions of the city with longer truck travel distances.

Item 8.b
377 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 131
It should be noted that HFD purchased a quint rather than a truck-only apparatus. A quint can function as either an engine or a truck and is an appropriate operational tool in either role. ISO typically assigns only partial truck credit for a quint unless it is specifically staffed and used solely as a truck company.

Although it may not qualify for full truck credit, it remains a valuable operational resource. For purposes of this study, it is identified as a quint and functionally considered a truck resource. The following figure illustrates the 2.5-mile road-travel distance from Station 1 and Sonoma County Fire Station 1, the nearest outside truck resource.

Figure 87: 2.5-Mile ISO Truck Distance
Item 8.b
378 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 132
Unit Workload Analysis
Unit workload should be balanced to maintain readiness, resiliency, and service availability. While it is common for one unit to be busier than others, no single crew should carry a workload so heavy that it reduces effectiveness.

Incidents by Unit
HFD had 13 unique units responding to incidents during the study period. Of these, Units 6350 and 6351 correspond to the old and new quints, respectively. Because Unit 6350 was taken out of service after Unit 6351 was placed into service, the responses for those units were combined as 6350/51. Unit 6399 appeared in the CAD and RMS data, and “Station” appeared in the RMS data. After review, these were determined to reflect the same standby information and were not included as response units except to show reserve standby activity. In addition, several CAD unit numbers appeared only once and appeared to be placeholder names, so they were not included in the analysis.

The primary response unit was Engine 6381, along with other units cross-staffed with that engine. Most units maintained generally similar response patterns by year, except for Engine 6382, which showed a decline from 141 responses in 2021 to no responses in 2025. Command Units 6300 and 6301 were the most active HFD command vehicles. For the following figure, Unit 6321 was excluded because it responded fewer than six times per year. The following figure displays annual response volume by unit for the study period.

Figure 88: Annual Responses by Unit (2021–2025)
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2021 2022 2023 2025 2024
Item 8.b
379 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 133
Because HFD operates primarily from one staffed station, responses are, as expected, largely handled by Engine 6381. To evaluate responses by unit type, the three command elements, Chiefs 6300 and 6301 and the Fire Inspector/Marshal in Unit 6321, were grouped together, with Unit 6300 accounting for the majority of command responses. Similarly, Engines 6381 and 6382 were grouped as Type 1 engines, although Engine 6381 accounted for most of those responses. The remaining categories included the Type 6 engine, the tender, and the quint. The following figure shows the number of incidents each HFD apparatus type responded to by NFIRS category over the full study period.

Figure 89: Incident Responses by NFIRS Category & Apparatus Type (2021–2025) 3 6
1 2
7 2
118
765
4 1
18 419
1,791
74 27
62 98
1,011
17 20
14 158
446
10 17
18 434
5,115
42 55
121
4 4
1 1
358
285
81 17
61 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 Command
Engine (T1)
Engine (T3)
Engine (T6)
Quint
(100) Fire (200) Overpressure (300) Rescue-Medical
(400) Hazardous Condition (500) Service (600) Good Intent Call (700) False Alarm (800) Disaster (900) Special
Item 8.b
380 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 134
Each incident also requires a unit to remain committed for a period of time. Understanding how long a specific apparatus type is typically committed can help support operational planning. HFD has six primary unit types that respond to emergencies, including command officers, the quint, Type 3 and Type 6 engines, the tender, and the primary engine company. The following figure displays the average number of minutes each apparatus type was committed to each incident category during the study period.

Figure 90: Average Apparatus Type Commit Time by Incident Type (2021–2025) Apparatus Staffing
Each unit had a variety of staffing combinations throughout the study period. At times, the crew assigned to Engine 6381 responded on cross-staffed units including 6350/51, 6358, 6361, 6395, and the utility vehicle. In other instances, reserves or chief officers responded on those units. In still other cases, the duty crew responded on multiple units, with chiefs, fire inspectors, and reserves also participating.

Evaluation of the type and number of responders by apparatus required use of staffing information recorded in the RMS. This information is entered by the officer in charge of the apparatus and may therefore be subject to reporting error. However, the data appeared generally intact and reasonable.

Because different data fields were used, the totals shown here may differ from those presented elsewhere in the analysis. 0:19:24 0:15:12
0:19:39
0:24:07
0:12:18
0:19:46
0:18:06
0:15:48
0:46:29
0:27:28
0:50:47
0:29:02
ENGINE (T1) QUINT ENGINE (T3) ENGINE (T6) TENDER COMMAND EMS Others
Item 8.b
381 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 135
The following figure summarizes average staffing and total responses for command units, utility responses, and station standby activity.

Figure 91: Command, Utility, & Station Standby Staffing (2021–2025) Average Staffing 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Chief 6300
Average Paid Staff 1.54 1.64 1.43 1.43 1.33
Average Reserves 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08
Total Responses 72 88 87 70 40
Chief 6301
Average Paid Staff 1.13 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02
Average Reserves 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02
Total Responses 48 108 113 101 63
Utility 6342
Average Paid Staff 0.65 0.78 0.71 0.81 1.00
Average Reserves 0.60 0.52 0.35 0.21 0.13
Total Responses 20 27 17 48 8
Station Standby
Average Paid Staff 0.74 0.90 0.71 0.64 0.53
Average Reserves 1.40 1.21 1.57 1.16 0.66
Total Responses 298 208 178 166 38
Item 8.b
382 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 136
The following figure summarizes average staffing and total responses for HFD apparatus by year.

Figure 92: Apparatus Annual Staffing (2021–2025)
Average Staffing 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Engine 6381
Average Paid Staff 2.82 2.82 2.77 2.61 2.90
Average Reserves 0.50 0.28 0.42 0.49 0.22
Total Responses 1,621 1,896 1,937 1,830 1,650
Engine 6361
Average Paid Staff 2.48 2.16 2.46 2.35 2.11
Average Reserves 0.86 0.80 0.77 0.62 0.44
Total Responses 65 25 13 37 9
Engine 6358
Average Paid Staff 1.09 1.42 1.21 1.33 0.00
Average Reserves 1.20 0.88 1.42 1.90 0.00
Total Responses 46 26 19 21 0
Quint 6350/51
Average Paid Staff 2.03 2.56 2.43 1.38 2.67
Average Reserves 1.28 0.50 0.50 0.88 0.33
Total Responses 40 18 44 8 3
Tender 6395
Average Paid Staff 0.60 0.72 1.11 0.92 0.67
Average Reserves 0.84 0.84 0.56 0.92 0.67
Total Responses 25 25 9 13 3
Engine 6382
Average Paid Staff 0.55 1.31 1.20 1.40 0.00
Average Reserves 1.75 1.00 1.40 0.80 0.00
Total Responses 20 13 10 5 0
Reserves (Volunteer) Participation
Because HFD relies on reserves to support apparatus staffing, it is important to understand the degree of reserve participation. To avoid drawing attention to any individual member, all responders were assigned random identifiers for this study. In this way, the information presented cannot be linked back to any specific person.

Item 8.b
383 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 137
Overall, paid staff averaged 2.87 personnel per apparatus response, while reserves averaged 0.45 personnel per apparatus response. This resulted in an annual paid response volume of approximately 5,000 personnel responses per year, totaling 27,429 over the study period. Reserves averaged approximately 1,000 personnel responses per year, totaling 5,111. Reserve participation was not evenly distributed across individuals or years. The following figure displays volunteer responses by year using random identifiers.

Figure 93: Reserve Responses by Year (2021–2025)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
832
53 448
562
233
442
10 893
404
472
156
701
451
81 535
613
813
990
247
870
32 198
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021
Item 8.b
384 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 138
Variation also existed in the number of years individual reserves appeared in the dataset. There were 21 individuals identified as reserves in the RMS. Of those, only 7 had response activity in 2025. Five of those seven appeared in all five years of the dataset, while the other two began responding in 2023. Of the 14 who did not respond in 2025, 10 had responses in 2021, which does not permit a clear inference regarding actual length of service. Of the remaining four, one had responses in two years of data, while three had responses in only one year. The seven responders still active in 2025 occupied five of the top six positions in the preceding figure.

How reserves participate is also important. Approximately 77% of reserve responses occurred on apparatus or command units, while 23% occurred as station standby activity. The following figure illustrates how each randomly identified reserve participated.

Item 8.b
385 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 139
Figure 94: Reserve Response by Apparatus or Standby (2021–2025) Although this is not a full staffing study, it is apparent that HFD relies on reserves (volunteers) to support emergency response. Excluding command, utility, and station standby records, 96% of all apparatus responses had three or four responders listed on the unit. The maximum was 10 and the minimum was 1, with single-person responses accounting for less than 1% of all responses. Only 3.2% of all responses involved either one or two responders on the apparatus. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
832
53 448
562
233
442
10 893
404
472
156
701
451
81 535
613
813
990
247
870
32 198
Station Standby Command/Utility Apparatus
Item 8.b
386 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 140
Unit Hour Utilization
Another important dimension of workload is the amount of time each unit remains committed to incidents throughout the year. Unit hour utilization (UHU) measures the amount of time a crew is committed to incidents relative to the total time the unit is staffed and in service during a given period.

The formula is:

𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = ∑ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 𝑎𝑎 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆
∑ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑈𝑈 𝑖𝑖 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑎𝑎 𝐼𝐼 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆
The general objective is for the primary unit at a station, usually an engine or quint company, to remain below 10% UHU. A unit at or below that threshold is generally considered to have adequate unscheduled availability. Stations with multiple engines or quints are often evaluated on an aggregated basis, with a target of remaining below 10% for all similar units combined.

With one staffed station and multiple units supported by career staff and reserves, HFD’s workload is unevenly distributed. Even so, no single unit is approaching the 10% cautionary threshold. While it is common to aggregate all cross-staffed units to the main engine, in this case Engine 6381, that does not appear to be appropriate given HFD’s staffing model. The following figure shows UHU for each apparatus independently.

Figure 95: Unit Hour Utilization (2021–2025)
Unit Average 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021
E6381 6.7% 6.0% 6.9% 6.9% 7.2% 6.2%
Q6350/51 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
E6361 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7%
E6382 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%
E6358 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
T6395 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.6%
6300 1.2% 0.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2%
6301 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.3%
6321 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Utility 6342 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Station Standby 1.1% 0.4% 0.9% 0.9% 1.3% 1.9%
Item 8.b
387 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 141
Not all committed time is visible in the available data. Crews may also be out of service for maintenance, training, or other activities not captured in this analysis. In general, a significant portion of a crew’s day is spent in administrative, training, maintenance, fitness, and recovery activities. However, many of those functions can be scheduled when time allows, which is why UHU remains a useful measure of reliability.

Concurrency Analysis
Simultaneous incidents can affect an agency’s ability to respond effectively. While HFD maintains multiple units and can supplement staffing with reserves, there are times when several incidents occur at once, leaving the jurisdiction more dependent on outside assistance.

The first dimension of concurrency is how often more than one incident occurs at the same time within HFD’s primary jurisdiction, including the contract area. The following figure shows the frequency of simultaneous incidents within that jurisdiction.

Figure 96: Jurisdictional Concurrency
Incidents
Operating
Occurrence
Percentage Count
1 80.7% 7,189
2 17.5% 1,558
3 1.5% 134
Four or more 0.3% 25
The maximum number of concurrent events in the dataset was seven, which occurred twice during the five-year study period. As the figure shows, simultaneous incidents are not uncommon within the HFD jurisdiction.

However, jurisdiction-only concurrency does not provide a complete picture. HFD also responds outside its primary area, as noted in the jurisdictional incident count analysis. The following figure shows how often the full HFD response system was operating at multiple incidents at the same time, including both incidents within the HFD area and incidents outside the jurisdiction in which HFD participated.

Item 8.b
388 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 142
Figure 97: All Concurrency
Incidents
Operating
Occurrence
Percentage Count
1 80.2% 8,103
2 16.9% 1,704
3 2.4% 240
4 or more 0.5% 50
Again, the maximum number of simultaneous responses was seven. This finding supports the need for multiple response units to remain available, whether through automatic aid, mutual aid, or additional staffing, in order to maintain reliability across the HFD system.

Item 8.b
389 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 143

HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
When evaluating system performance, it is helpful to apply a set of objectives or standards against which results can be measured. Although national and state standards may be recommended, in California the authority having jurisdiction determines whether specific performance standards will be formally adopted. In this case, HFD has not adopted formal performance requirements. Therefore, where appropriate, this analysis uses National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards as reference points. These include NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, as well as relevant portions of NFPA 1225, Standard for Emergency Services Communications.

Evaluating overall performance requires an understanding of the lifecycle of an incident. An incident begins in a normal state and should end in a new normal state, but several measurable time intervals exist between those points. Some elements, such as call processing time and turnout time, may be improved through tactical changes including training, policy, and supervision. Other time-based performance measures, such as travel time, are more often influenced by strategic factors such as station location, staffing distribution, and system design. The following figure identifies the major time segments within the incident lifecycle.

Figure 98: Incident Lifecycle
State of Normalcy
Discovery of Event
Call Initiation (9-1-1 e.g.)
Alarm Transfer Time*
Alarm Answering Time
Alarm Processing Time
Turnout Time
Travel Time
Arrival Time– Initiating Actions
Control and Mitigate Event
Recovery
State of Normalcy
Soft
Data
Hard Data
Total Response Time
Alarm
Handling NFPA
1225
Response Times
NFPA 1710
Fire
Department
Impact Zone
*Needed for organizations that are not the primary PSAP.

Item 8.b
390 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 144
The incident data provided did not allow evaluation of every time segment shown in the preceding figure. However, sufficient information was available to evaluate call processing, turnout, travel, and total response time. Because HFD does not have adopted time standards, aside from REDCOM performance expectations, NFPA reference standards are used here as performance benchmarks. The following figure summarizes each time segment, the primary organizational influence, the reference standard, and the benchmark used in this analysis.

Figure 99: Incident Segment Key Performance Indicators
Incident Segment Primary Agency
Influence Standard Benchmark
Normalcy Prevention Local Codes &
Ordinances Community Risk Assessment
Discovery Public Education TBD
Notification Public Education TBD
Call Answer1
Dispatch Staffing,
Systems, Policy, &
Training
NFPA 1225
15 Sec 90th Percentile
20 Sec 95th Percentile
Call Transfer 30 Sec 90th Percentile
Call Processing 60 Sec 90th Percentile (priority)2
Turnout Time Station Design, Policy
& Training
NFPA 1710
60 Sec 90th Percentile (EMS)
80 Sec 90th Percentile (Other)
Travel Time (1st Due)
Station Location,
Systems, & Training
4 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time (2nd Due) 6 Min 90th Percentile
Travel Time (ERF)
8 Min 90th Percentile
(Low or Moderate Risk)
10 Min 10 Sec 90th Percentile
(High Risk)
Action Initiation or
Patient Contact
Station Location,
Systems, Staffing, &
Training
TBD
Control/Mitigation TBD
Recovery Prevention & Public
Education
Updated
Codes &
Ordinances
Community Risk Assessment
Item 8.b
391 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 145
New Normal Prevention Local Codes &
Ordinances Community Risk Assessment
1 Applies to both PSAP and Secondary Answering (Agency) Dispatch Centers 2 Non-Priority Incidents are exempt from NFPA 1225. Agencies are expected to set standards.

Time-segment performance is evaluated using percentile measures. This allows HFD to compare its performance with both industry standards and other agencies using a consistent statistical method.

CALL PROCESSING ANALYSIS
Dispatch center performance includes several measurable time components. The metrics identified in NFPA 1225 and NFPA 1710 include ring time and call processing time. Ring time measures the interval between when a call begins ringing at the dispatch center and when it is answered. NFPA 1225 sets ringtime benchmarks of less than 15 seconds 90% of the time and less than 20 seconds 95% of the time.

Ring-time data were not available for this report because those data are typically captured in a separate system. However, sufficient information was available to evaluate call processing time.

Call processing time begins when a call for help is answered and ends when the first unit is notified of the incident. In practice, there is usually a brief interval between call answer and incident creation in the computer-aided dispatch system. For purposes of this analysis, that interval is assumed to be minimal and not outcome-determinative. NFPA 1710 indicates that high-priority incidents should be processed within 60 seconds 90% of the time. Certain incident types, such as those requiring emergency medical questioning, hazardous materials interrogation, technical rescue information gathering, translation, text-based communications, or location determination, may reasonably require more time.

The available data were evaluated for integrity and reliability. Approximately 0.3% of the data were determined to be statistically unreliable, leaving 10,089 incidents available for evaluation. Overall, the Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications Authority (REDCOM) processed calls at approximately 41 seconds or less 90% of the time. If accurate, this reflects a very strong level of dispatch performance.

The following figure shows call processing performance at the 90th percentile across NFIRS incident groupings for the 2021 through 2025 study period.

Item 8.b
392 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 146
Figure 100: Call Processing by NFIRS Group (2021–2025)
Another useful perspective is the effect of workload on dispatch performance. REDCOM appears to manage workload effectively, although call processing times do increase as workload rises. The following figure shows call processing times for medical incidents and all other incidents by hour of day, with call load shown for reference.
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 (900) Special
(800) Disaster
(700) False Alarm
(600) Good Intent Call
(500) Service
(400) Hazardous
Condition
(300) Rescue-Medical
(200) Overpressure
(100) Fire
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Item 8.b
393 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 147
Figure 101: Call Processing by Hour
Turnout Time Analysis
Turnout time is the interval between unit notification and the beginning of unit response. NFPA 1710 identifies turnout benchmarks of 60 seconds for EMS incidents and 80 seconds for fire incidents. For purposes of this analysis, incidents are grouped into EMS incidents and all other incidents.

The available data were reviewed for statistical reliability, and more than 23,000 unit records were measured. This represents more than 68% of all recorded unit information, although HFD units account for only 51% of the total system data. All responding units were included in the turnout analysis. Overall, HFD staffed apparatus had a turnout time of 2 minutes 18 seconds or less 90% of the time. Units that were cross-staffed or reserve-supported had a turnout time of 5 minutes 38 seconds or less 90% of the time. The following figure shows turnout times by unit and general incident type.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%
00:00
01:00
02:00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Percent of All Calls
Call Processing 90th Percentile
Hour
EMS - 90th Percentile Performance Others - 90th Percentile Performance EMS - Percent of Incidents Others - Percent of Incidents Item 8.b
394 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 148
Figure 102: Turnout Time by Apparatus & Incident Type (2021–2025) Each staffed apparatus operates across three shifts, and each shift may demonstrate different turnout characteristics. The following figure shows 90th percentile turnout time for each staffed unit, grouped by shift and general incident type.
00:00:00
00:01:00
00:02:00
00:03:00
00:04:00
00:05:00
00:06:00
00:07:00
00:08:00
6381 6350/51 6361 6382 6358
EMS Others
Item 8.b
395 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 149
Figure 103: Turnout Time by Apparatus & Shift (2021–2025) Turnout time may also vary by hour of day. Because HFD staffs units 24 hours per day, some nighttime delay is expected as personnel rest and then move to apparatus. The following figure shows turnout time by hour of day, with workload by general incident type included for reference. 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 All
EMS
Others
EMS
Others
EMS
Others
Total
Turnout 6350/51 6381 6361
A-Shift B-Shift C-Shift
Item 8.b
396 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 150
Figure 104: Turnout Time by Hour (2021–2025)
It is noteworthy that turnout time and workload follow an inverse pattern. This is a common phenomenon in agencies with lower nighttime call volume. It is often explained by crews resting during lower-demand periods and by the fact that smaller datasets are more susceptible to larger visible swings.

Travel Time Analysis
NFPA 1710 identifies several travel-time reference points. The first-due unit, whether an engine or quint, should arrive within 4 minutes of travel time. The second-due engine should arrive within 6 minutes, and the full effective response force for a moderate-risk structure fire should arrive within 8 minutes of travel time.6
Travel time is measured as the interval between a unit going en route and arriving on scene. The following figure illustrates the theoretical travel-time coverage from HFD’s two stations and displays the 4-, 6-, and 8-minute travel areas.

6 National Fire Protection Association. Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departmentss.2020) [Appendix D]. 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
00:00
00:30
01:00
01:30
02:00
02:30
03:00
03:30
04:00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Percent of Incidents
Tournout 90th Percentile
90th Percentile Turnout - EMS 90th Percentile Turnout - Others Incident Load - EMS Incident Load - Others
Item 8.b
397 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 151
Figure 105: Stations 1 & 2 Travel Time Estimates
In theory, distribution and concentration appear appropriate for the city and most of the more populated portions of the contract area. Station 1 appears to be centrally located enough to provide 4- minute travel coverage to most of the city and a substantial portion of the contract area. The following figure isolates the theoretical coverage provided by Station 1 alone.

Item 8.b
398 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 152
Figure 106: Station 1 Alone Estimated Travel Time
Theoretical models are useful for evaluating potential outcomes and station placement, but actual performance provides a better picture of what the agency delivers in practice.

Item 8.b
399 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 153
First-Due Apparatus Performance
First-due travel performance within the city was consistently 5 minutes, 52 seconds or less, 90% of the time. In the contract area, performance was much broader because of longer travel distances and lower call density, with first-due travel time at 13 minutes, 22 seconds or less, 90% of the time. It may be beneficial for HFD to establish specific evaluation areas based on population density and proximity to the city core. The following figure shows first-due travel performance by general incident type across the full study period.

Figure 107: First Due Travel by Incident Type (2021–2025) Variation in the contract area is more pronounced, especially when viewed alongside annual call volume. The city shows more consistent travel performance and much higher incident volume, whereas the lower volume and greater distances in the contract area produce more obvious year-to-year fluctuation. The following figure shows annual first-due travel performance by service area with corresponding call volume.
05:11
06:46
05:52
12:00
14:35
13:22
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
EMS Others Overall
HFD-Municipal HFD-Contract
Item 8.b
400 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 154
Figure 108: Annual First-Due Travel by Area with Volume (2021–2025) Time of day can also affect travel time. Factors such as crew readiness, traffic conditions, and workload may all influence travel performance. Even so, HFD’s travel times remain relatively consistent throughout the day. The following figure shows first-due travel time by hour for both the city and contract area, with total workload shown for reference. 12:42
15:25
10:55
17:06
12:27
05:48 05:50 05:40 06:07 05:46
223
271 281 252
134
1,287
1,471
1,525
1,459 1,439
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
Total incidents
90th Percentile Travel Time
HFD-Contract - Travel (90th Percentile) HFD-Municipal - Travel (90th Percentile) HFD-Contract - Incidents HFD-Municipal - Incidents
Item 8.b
401 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 155
Figure 109: First-Due Travel Time by Hour (2021–2025)
Effective Response Force
The second dimension of travel-time performance is the ability to assemble the effective response force (ERF) needed for a given incident type. ERFs vary according to incident complexity and resource demand, ranging from a single unit to multiple units with specialized staffing and equipment. For example, HFD has identified a staffing need of 16 personnel for a moderate-risk structure fire such as a single-family detached dwelling, while a moderate-risk hazardous materials incident requires 8 personnel. Because HFD relies on a combination of career staffing, reserves (volunteers), and neighboring resources, especially with the variable availability of CAL FIRE Station 48, ERF travel time is more difficult to predict precisely.

NFPA recommends that the first unit responding to a moderate-risk structure fire arrive within 4 minutes of travel time, the second unit within 6 minutes, and the full effective response force within 8 minutes. In practical terms, that would mean 16 personnel on scene within 8 minutes.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%
00:00
03:00
06:00
09:00
12:00
15:00
18:00
21:00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Percent of Workload
Travel Time
Hour
In City Travel (90th Percentile) Contract Area (90th Percentile) Total Workload Item 8.b
402 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 156
Reliance on other departments to assemble the full ERF can slow overall force development. The six closest fire stations from the Northern Sonoma County Fire Protection District (NSCFPD), Sonoma County Fire District (SCFD), and Santa Rosa Fire Department (SRFD) can provide up to 18 additional responders. However, only two of those stations can provide assistance within approximately 8 minutes of travel time. CAL FIRE Station 48 appears to have a similar travel profile to HFD’s Station 2, but because it is not staffed year-round, it was not included in this evaluation. The following figure identifies travel times from the six closest neighboring stations and the staffing they may provide.

Figure 110: Neighboring Agency Estimated Travel Time to HFD Station 1 Agency Station Staffing Travel Time
NSCFPD Dry Creek Rd. (3) 3 8
SCFD* Windsor (1) 3 8
NSCFPD Jimtown (2) 3 10
NSCFPD Geyserville (1) 3 10
NSCFPD Cloverdale 3 Over 12
SRFD Santa Rosa (3) 3 Over 12
* Closest aid truck company also.

Assuming each station is available, approximately 6 aid personnel may arrive within about 8 minutes of travel time, and 12 may arrive within roughly 10 minutes. Additional aid personnel generally require more than 12 minutes of travel time. These additional resources may be unnecessary if enough HFD personnel, including reserves, are available to support the incident.

Historical performance generally aligns with the predicted model. Although there were not enough data to support a full statistical study of ERF assembly, there were sufficient data to illustrate approximate performance. The following figure shows travel times for the first three arriving units on emergent incidents across the study period.

Item 8.b
403 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 157
Figure 111: First Three Arriving Units Travel Time (2021–2025) Only 8% of incidents included three or more units on scene. These travel times generally align with expected arrival patterns from neighboring agencies.

Total Response Time Analysis
Each individual time segment is analyzed to help identify where performance can be measured and improved. However, the most meaningful overall performance measure from the public’s perspective is total response time. This is the interval most likely to be perceived as the fire department’s total service performance.

HFD’s first-due total response time within the city was 9 minutes, 3 seconds or less, 90% of the time. In the contract area, first-due total response time was 18 minutes, 8 seconds or less, 90% of the time.

Because incident volume in the contract area was limited, the remaining analysis focuses on the city response area. Although time of day had a significant effect on travel time, it had an inverse effect on turnout time, resulting in a relatively stable total response time throughout the day. The following figure shows city total response time by hour across all years of the study period.

5.87 9.58

11.45 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3
Travel Time Minutes
Percent of All Incidents
Order Of Unit Arrival
Percent of Incidents 90th Percentile Travel
Item 8.b
404 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 158
Figure 112: City Total Response Time by Hour (2021–2025) It may appear that the 90th percentile call processing time, turnout time, and travel time should add directly to the 90th percentile total response time. In practice, that is not how percentile analysis works.

Each time segment is analyzed independently, including total response time. Because the time segments vary from incident to incident, the total response time percentile does not equal the sum of the individual percentile values.

Annual total response time appears to have increased over the study period. In 2021, EMS total response time was 7 minutes, 43 seconds or less, 90% of the time, increasing to 8 minutes, 48 seconds by 2025. During the same period, the non-EMS category increased from 9 minutes, 56 seconds to 11 minutes, 11 seconds or less, 90% of the time. The following figure shows annual total response time for EMS and all other incidents within the city.
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Total Time
Hour
Percent of Evaluated Incidents
In City Total Time (90th Percentile) Sum of Incidents
Item 8.b
405 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 159
Figure 113: Annual City Total Response Time (2021–2025) 07:43
09:56
08:09
09:52
07:48
09:21
08:24
10:21
08:48
11:11
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
EMS Others
2021 2022 2023 2025 2024
Item 8.b
406 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 160

POPULATION GROWTH & SERVICE

DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Service demand is influenced in part by population size, density, growth patterns, and demographic composition. Without population and activity centers, there is generally less need for emergency services. However, the relationship between total population, population density, demographic characteristics, and emergency service demand is not always linear or predictable. This analysis is intended to provide leadership with information to help evaluate future resource needs and distribution.

POPULATION GROWTH
The population in the HFD response area includes both the City of Healdsburg and the surrounding unincorporated contract area. The California Department of Finance (CDoF) maintains annual population estimates for incorporated cities, including the City of Healdsburg, and also provides population forecasts. The following analysis draws from CDoF population data.

Population forecasting is inherently uncertain. Even so, local, state, and national governments rely on these forecasts to plan infrastructure, public services, and long-term investments. In 2010, both national and state population forecasts anticipated continued growth across most demographic categories.

However, the growth projected between the 2010 and 2020 censuses did not fully materialize.

California’s population increased from 37,253,695 in 2010 to 39,648,938 in 2020, but current CDoF projections indicate that statewide population will remain relatively stable through 2070, with a forecast of 39,537,579 in that year. 7 National projections reflect a similarly moderated trend. According to the Congressional Budget Office, deaths are expected to outnumber births beginning in 2033, with longterm population stability increasingly dependent on net immigration. Overall national population growth is projected to remain limited and may approach zero by 2055.8

7 dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/
8 www.cbo.gov/publication/61164
Item 8.b
407 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 161
Based on CDoF data, Sonoma County has shown limited overall growth in recent years, while the City of Healdsburg has remained relatively stable or experienced slight decline. The City’s population changed from 11,254 in 2010 to 10,972 in 2025, indicating little overall growth during that period. A simple projection can be developed using regression analysis applied to historical CDoF city and county data.

The following figure illustrates a 20-year population forecast for both the City and County, including 95% confidence bands.9
Figure 114: 20-Year Population Forecast with 95% Confidence Bands

9 dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/.
2030, 10,233
2035, 10,044
2040, 9,854
2045, 9,664
2010, 11,254
2015, 11,648
2020, 11,3062025, 10,972
2030, 10,919
2035, 10,759
2040, 10,598
2045, 10,437
2030, 11,606 2035, 11,473 20402045 , 11,341 , 1,210
483,878
2010
500,603
2015 491,354
2020 477,852
2025
476,402
2030
474,439
2035
474,013
2040
475,909
2045
0 60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
600
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
201020122014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044 Sonoma County Population Thousands
Healdsburg Population
Lower (95% Confidence) City Population City Forecast
Upper (95% Confidence) County w/ CDoF Forecast
Item 8.b
408 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 162
Although the City may ultimately experience more growth than the projection indicates, particularly given recent and planned housing construction, new housing does not necessarily translate directly into permanent population growth. In a community such as Healdsburg, some portion of new housing may be used as seasonal, part-time, or rental housing rather than as full-time primary residences.

Population Distribution
The City of Healdsburg remains the primary population center in the immediate area. Although the fire department contracts to serve a broader area surrounding the city, much of that area consists of open space, rural land, and low-density development. Population in the contract area is concentrated primarily near the city, particularly to the south and around Fitch Mountain, with additional development extending toward the northern portion of the response area.

The following figure illustrates current population distribution by census block.

Item 8.b
409 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 163
Figure 115: 2020 Population Distribution

SERVICE DEMAND PROJECTIONS
With only five years of incident-volume data available for evaluation, projecting future service demand remains difficult. Several regression models were tested, but none provided a high level of confidence.

The most statistically consistent model was a polynomial regression, which produced an R² value of

0.70. However, that model also generated impossible negative incident volumes by 2030 and beyond, making it unsuitable for planning purposes despite its stronger fit to historical data.

Item 8.b
410 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 164
The remaining models produced lower R² values, ranging from 0.18 to 0.25, but generated more plausible service-demand projections. Although these models should be interpreted cautiously, they suggest that annual incident volume may grow to approximately 3,000 incidents by 2035 and to roughly 3,500 to 4,000 incidents by 2045. That would represent an increase in average daily incident volume from approximately 5 incidents per day to approximately 10 incidents per day over the long term.

The following figure illustrates historical incident volume and projected future service demand.

Figure 116: Service Demand Projection to 2032
2021, 1,830
2025, 1,871
2035, 2,994
2045, 3,853
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Incidents Incident Forcast Lower (95% Confidence) Upper (95% Confidence) Item 8.b
411 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 165
Taken together, these findings suggest that while population growth alone may remain modest, service demand may still increase over time due to changing demographics, housing patterns, tourism activity, and broader community risk factors. For that reason, future planning should not rely solely on total population forecasts, but should also consider where growth occurs, who is being served, and how those conditions may affect emergency response demand, staffing needs, and resource distribution.

Item 8.b
412 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 166
EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERJURISDICTIONAL RESPONSE
To best serve the community, HFD works with state, regional, and local partners to achieve shared response goals. An integrated fire protection system that combines federal, state, and local resources is often the most effective way to protect lives, property, and natural resources at risk. Automatic and mutual aid arrangements should be evaluated regularly to ensure that inter-jurisdictional response remains effective and aligned with the needs of HFD and its partner agencies.

MUTUAL AID IN SONOMA COUNTY
Sonoma County maintains a mutual aid system that unites local, state, and federal fire agencies through pre-established agreements. In addition, HFD participates in local automatic and mutual aid agreements intended to support rapid and coordinated response when an incident exceeds the capacity of any one department. This system relies on standardized protocols, shared resources, and joint coordination to protect communities, infrastructure, and natural resources across the county’s varied terrain.

Under the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, fire agencies throughout the state commit to assisting one another when local resources are exhausted. Supplementing that framework, the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA) allows the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to mobilize additional state, federal, and National Guard resources during large-scale emergencies.

Sonoma County is located within Cal OES Mutual Aid Region II, which also includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, Marin, Solano, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties. The Sonoma County Fire Chiefs’ Association supports local implementation of these agreements, refines operating procedures, and facilitates policy coordination through regular meetings and joint exercises.

Item 8.b
413 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 167
Local Automatic and Mutual Aid Resources
The following figure identifies local resources available for automatic aid (AA) and mutual aid (MA) response within the operational area.

Figure 117: Automatic and Mutual Aid Resources (Table)
Agency
Station
Location
Engines
Aerials
Staff1
Type2
Sonoma County Fire District 1 8200 Old Redwood
Highway, Windsor CA 1 1 3 AA/MA
Northern Sonoma County Fire 1 20975 Geyserville Ave.,
Geyserville CA 1 0 3 AA/MA
Cal Fire 48 17475 Fredson Road,
Geyserville CA 1 0 3 AA/MA
Dry Creek Rancheria Fire 1 3250 Highway 128,
Geyserville CA 1 0 3 AA/MA
Santa Rosa Fire 3 3311 Coffee Ln., Santa Rosa 1 0 3 AA/MA Cloverdale Fire (NSCFPD) 1 451 S. Cloverdale Blvd.,
Cloverdale CA 1 0 3 AA/MA
Total Available 6 1 18
HFD and the greater Sonoma County area may face challenges in obtaining resources quickly due to county terrain, narrow roadways, and seasonal access constraints, particularly during periods of elevated fire activity.

The following figure displays the geographic distribution of local automatic aid and mutual aid resources.

Item 8.b
414 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 168
Figure 118: Automatic and Mutual Aid Resources (Map)
Item 8.b
415 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 169

INTER-JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSE COMPONENTS
Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of inter-jurisdictional emergency services is inherently complex. It requires examining how well HFD and adjacent agencies collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries to provide timely and effective emergency response.

Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid Agreements
Mutual aid and automatic aid agreements allow departments to receive help from neighboring jurisdictions when needed. These agreements should clearly define when and how partner agencies assist one another to support effective response to both routine and large-scale incidents. Automatic aid is typically more efficient than mutual aid because it dispatches the nearest available unit without waiting for a formal request. Effective mutual aid agreements should also include clear reimbursement or resource-replacement provisions.

HFD has an automatic aid agreement signed in 2011 with CAL FIRE that identifies response areas, responsibilities, and coverage expectations for both CAL FIRE and HFD. Other responses from outside agencies within the HFD service area generally occur through mutual aid. HFD also participates in broader state and regional mutual aid programs.

Response Times
A primary indicator of the effectiveness of inter-jurisdictional response is the time required to reach incidents within shared service areas. By pooling resources and sharing responsibility, fire departments can improve coverage across larger geographic areas and respond more effectively where distance or limited staffing might otherwise delay service.

Sonoma County has a strong but finite pool of mutual aid resources, and that limitation becomes more evident during major wildfires or other extended incidents. The county fire service network includes municipal departments, reserve companies, CAL FIRE, and multiple district agencies, giving the region a solid baseline of engines, tenders, and personnel for everyday operations and moderate emergencies.

However, smaller departments, particularly in rural areas, often operate with lean staffing models, limiting how many resources they can send without reducing their own local coverage.

When Sonoma County must draw additional resources from the greater Bay Area, geography and access become major constraints. U.S. Highway 101 is the primary north-south transportation corridor into the county and is vulnerable to congestion, closures, and bottlenecks. Strike teams responding from Marin, the East Bay, or the Peninsula must travel through some of the most congested corridors in Northern California before reaching Santa Rosa, let alone Healdsburg or the northern valleys.

Item 8.b
416 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 170
During wildfire events, evacuation traffic, smoke conditions, and traffic pacing by the California Highway Patrol may further slow travel. Terrain adds another layer of difficulty, as narrow rural roads, limited turnouts, and steep canyons can delay final access to an incident. Bay Area agencies may also be managing concurrent heat-driven fire activity and red flag conditions in their own jurisdictions. As a result, while the mutual aid framework is strong in concept, the actual movement of resources into northern Sonoma County may be slower and less predictable during the very events when assistance is most urgently needed.

Resource Sharing and Cost Efficiency
Sharing apparatus, specialized equipment, and personnel across jurisdictions improves the ability to manage large or complex emergencies that may overwhelm a single department. Resource sharing is particularly valuable when agencies specialize in different disciplines, such as hazardous materials response or technical rescue, because it allows broader and more efficient incident coverage.

From a cost perspective, inter-jurisdictional cooperation can reduce duplication of services, support shared equipment purchasing, and improve training efficiency. Within the automatic aid area, no cost recovery is generally authorized, except in limited cases. HFD participates in the regional hazardous materials team, which may help offset some costs when that team is activated. Other cost recovery mechanisms are identified in state aid and county response plans.

Training and Joint Exercises
Regular joint training exercises improve inter-jurisdictional operations by ensuring that participating agencies are familiar with one another’s equipment, procedures, and personnel. This is especially important during large or multi-agency incidents, when common understanding improves coordination and reduces confusion. Joint training can also improve efficiency by allowing departments to share training resources rather than duplicating them independently.

Except for personnel participating in special teams, there is limited evidence of a comprehensive regional training program in place. Greater emphasis on coordinated regional training could strengthen inter-jurisdictional response effectiveness.

Communication and Coordination
The effectiveness of inter-jurisdictional emergency response depends heavily on strong communication and coordination. Efficient coordination allows multiple departments to function as a unified system, especially during large-scale or multi-agency incidents. Reliable communication systems and clearly understood procedures help reduce duplication of effort, delay, and miscommunication.

Item 8.b
417 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 171
Communication between Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications Authority (REDCOM) agencies and HFD is generally straightforward because they operate on the same radio system. Other county resources may require radio patching to support interoperable communications.

REDCOM serves as the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for fire and EMS dispatch within the City of Healdsburg. As the operator of the consolidated fire and EMS 911 dispatch system for Sonoma County, excluding law enforcement dispatch, REDCOM provides centralized emergency communications for 21 fire and EMS agencies serving an estimated population of 485,375 throughout Sonoma County.

REDCOM dispatches fire and EMS incidents through a unified countywide system. It functions as a secondary PSAP within a broader multi-agency environment in which law enforcement agencies, including the Healdsburg Police Department, maintain primary PSAP responsibility.

The communications center is staffed by an Executive Director, a Communications Center Manager, supervisors, and 27 dispatchers, supported by a Systems Administrator responsible for network and CAD management. Dispatch personnel work a combination of administrative 5/40 schedules and operational 12-hour shifts, with minimum staffing of four dispatchers overnight and five during daytime hours, including a supervisor. Dispatchers meet applicable state and national training requirements, including ICS/NIMS, Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD), and Emergency Fire Dispatch (EFD) certification standards.

For HFD, REDCOM provides a centralized, coordinated, and technologically capable dispatch platform that supports rapid call processing, efficient resource deployment, and integration with countywide mutual aid systems. Its consolidated model improves interoperability, reduces duplication of effort, and supports consistent emergency response practices across Sonoma County. REDCOM’s staffing, capabilities, and technology infrastructure are a critical part of Healdsburg’s overall emergency response system.

OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES RESOURCES IN THE REGION
In addition to neighboring fire departments, several other agencies and organizations support emergency response in the region. Local law enforcement agencies are not listed individually here, but their role in emergency response remains significant and should not be overlooked.

Item 8.b
418 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 172
Emergency Medical Transportation & Response
Ambulance transport is provided by Bell’s Ambulance Service, a privately operated ambulance company working under contract and license through Sonoma County and the Coastal Valleys Emergency Medical Services Agency. The company operates multiple ambulances from a station in the City of Healdsburg.

Sonoma County Fire District also provides aid within the exclusive operating area.

Aerial transport is provided by REACH Air Medical Services, a Global Medical Response company. In addition, the California Highway Patrol operates Helicopter H-70, which is equipped and capable of medical transport.

County Department of Emergency Management
The Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management is responsible for coordinating emergency planning, response, and recovery in collaboration with local, state, and federal partners. It serves as the primary local coordination agency for emergencies and disasters affecting residents, infrastructure, and government operations in Sonoma County.

Fire Safe Council
Fire Safe Sonoma is a countywide Fire Safe Council and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has served Sonoma County since 1988. It is committed to promoting fire-safe environments throughout the county. Its mission is to serve as a collaborative forum for community fire-safe planning, public education, and coordination, while linking fire prevention programs and supporting local fire service efforts.

Item 8.b
419 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 173

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES &

MEASURES

ADOPTION OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Establishing clear performance objectives or standards is essential for effective system evaluation.

Although national and state guidance exists, the authority having jurisdiction determines which standards to adopt. For the City of Healdsburg Fire Department, it is important to distinguish between performance expectations applicable to career-staffed response and those more appropriate to reserveor volunteer-supported operations. NFPA 1710 establishes stricter performance criteria for career fire departments, while NFPA 1720 provides more flexible benchmarks for volunteer and combination organizations.

For the City of Healdsburg, NFPA 1710 appears to be the most appropriate reference for the city response area because it more closely aligns with the department’s staffing model, population concentration, and urban risk profile. In the more rural contract areas, NFPA 1720 benchmarks may be more appropriate depending on area type, travel distance, and staffing realities. HFD should use these standards as reference points for evaluating readiness, resource allocation, and operational safety. At a minimum, the City should aspire to evaluate turnout time, travel time, total response time, and effective response force against recognized industry benchmarks.

Emergency incidents include several measurable time segments. By evaluating these segments, an agency can better understand the factors affecting total response time. Although not all performance is time based, quality of service, community risk reduction, and prevention outcomes remain equally important. Still, time-based measures provide a practical foundation for performance evaluation and system improvement.

HFD’s first step is identifying the key performance measures it wishes to monitor. AP Triton can provide the supporting data and analysis, but the City must determine which measures are most important to adopt and use for ongoing evaluation. Those measures should align with the service goals of the community. For example, in urban areas, emergency medical incidents may justify a shorter benchmark for first-due response than would be appropriate in more rural environments.

Item 8.b
420 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 174
Evaluating performance also requires understanding the lifecycle of an incident. Measurable segments such as call processing and turnout time may often be improved through training, policy, and supervision, while travel time is more strongly influenced by strategic system design, including station location and deployment configuration. Defining total response-time expectations therefore helps establish realistic benchmarks for each incident segment.

The following figure compares key incident segments, reference benchmarks, and observed HFD performance.

Item 8.b
421 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 175
Figure 119: Incident Segments and Metrics Comparison
Incident Segment Benchmark REDCOM
State of Normalcy > Discovery of Incident > 9-1-1 Notification Primary PSAP
Call Answer
15 Sec 90th Percentile
20 Sec 95th Percentile N/A
Transfer Time 30 Sec 90th Percentile
(for organizations that are not primary PSAP) N/A
Call
Processing Time 60 Sec 90th Percentile (priority) 41 seconds NFPA 1710 NFPA 1720 HFD
Turnout Time 60 Sec (EMS)
80 Sec (Other)
Within 6 minutes, 90% of
the time
Overall:
2 Min 18 Sec
Cross-Staffed:
5 Min 38 Sec
Travel Time
(1st Due) 4 Min
Urban:
≤ 9 minutes, 90%
Suburban:
≤ 10 minutes, 80%
Rural:
≤ 14 minutes, 80%
City:
5 Min 52 Sec
Contract:
13 Min 22 Sec
Travel Time
(2nd Due) 6 Min - N/A
Travel Time
Effective Response Force
8 Min
(Low or Moderate Risk)
10 Min 10 Sec
(High Risk)
Urban: 15 FF within 9
minutes,
90% of the time
Suburban: 10 FF within
10 minutes, 80% of the
time
Rural: 6 FF within 14
minutes,
80% of the time
N/A
Overall
Response Time 6 Min 20 Sec - City: 9 Min 3 SecContract: 18 Min 8 Sec Action Initiation/Patient Contact > Mitigation/Treatment EMS travel to
Destination
30–80 minutes per
National Institutes of Health (NIH) N/A
Ambulance patient
offload time (APOT) < 30 Minutes coastalvalleysems.org
Recovery > State of Normalcy
Unit Hour Utilization
(UHU)
No standard exists, however 25–30% is generally accepted threshold for firefighters on 24-hour shift
Item 8.b
422 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 176
The time-segment performance measures shown in the preceding figure are evaluated using percentile methodology. This allows HFD to compare its performance against both industry benchmarks and peer agencies using a consistent statistical approach.

With a first-due total response time of 9 minutes, 3 seconds within the city, HFD does not meet the NFPA 1710 reference benchmark of 6 minutes, 20 seconds or less, 90% of the time. Performance in the contract area is broader still, with first-due total response time at 18 minutes, 8 seconds or less, 90% of the time. It may therefore be beneficial for HFD to designate specific evaluation areas based on population density, risk concentration, and proximity to the city center so that performance expectations are better aligned with operating conditions.

Establishing response standards and performance goals should be viewed as a strategic planning tool for community loss control. HFD is encouraged to begin the formal process of developing response objectives that reflect both current capability and desired future performance improvement.

Operational Measures and Critical Tasking
Performance objectives should also reflect firefighter safety requirements and the ability to assemble enough personnel to complete critical tasks effectively. OSHA states that once firefighters begin an interior attack on a structural fire, the atmosphere is assumed to be immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), and the two-in/two-out requirement under 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(4) applies. OSHA defines interior structural firefighting as the physical activity of fire suppression, rescue, or both inside buildings or enclosed structures involved in a fire beyond the incipient stage. Under that definition, any structural fire beyond the incipient stage is considered an IDLH environment.

NFPA 1710 provides a useful benchmark for effective fire response force and deployment. The standard outlines minimum initial response requirements for fire suppression based on occupancy type. Examples include the following:
• Single-Family Dwelling: The initial full alarm assignment to a structure fire in a typical 2,000 ft2 (186 m2
), two-story, single-family dwelling without a basement and with no exposures must provide for a minimum of 16 members (17 if an aerial device is used). • Garden-Style Apartment: The initial full alarm assignment to a structure fire in a typical 1,200 ft2 (111 m²) apartment within a three-story, garden-style apartment building must provide for a minimum of 27 members (28 if an aerial device is used). • Open-Air Strip Mall: The initial full alarm assignment to a structure fire in a typical open-air strip shopping center ranging from 13,000 ft2 to 196,000 ft2 (1,203 m2 to 18,209 m2 ) in size must
provide for a minimum of 27 members (28 if an aerial device is used).

Item 8.b
423 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 177
• High-Rise: The initial full alarm assignment to a fire in a building with the highest floor greater than 75 ft (23 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access must provide for a minimum of 42 members (43 if the building is equipped with a fire pump).

During a structure fire, critical tasks generally fall into two major categories: life safety and fire flow.

Life-safety tasks depend on the number of occupants, their location, their condition, and their ability to self-evacuate. These tasks include search, rescue, and evacuation. Fire-flow tasks involve delivering sufficient water to control the fire and create conditions that allow safe interior operations.

The number of critical tasks requiring simultaneous action determines the minimum number of firefighters needed to manage an incident effectively. When sufficient personnel are not available, the incident commander must prioritize tasks and complete some sequentially rather than concurrently.

Typical critical tasks include:
• Incident command
• Scene safety
• Search and rescue
• Fire attack
• Water supply
• Pump operation
• Ventilation
• Backup or rapid intervention
Critical task analysis also applies to non-fire emergencies, including EMS, technical rescue, hazardous materials response, wildland-urban interface incidents, and aircraft rescue. In all of these situations, multiple tasks must often be completed at the same time to produce effective outcomes. The department’s ability to assemble enough trained personnel quickly remains essential to successful operations.

Throughout this document, risk levels have been identified for each major response category. In general, these are organized as low, moderate, high, and maximum risk across HFD’s major service areas: fire response, EMS, wildland-urban interface fire, technical rescue, hazardous materials response, and aircraft rescue.

Item 8.b
424 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 178
HFD completed a detailed critical task worksheet (Appendix B) for each identified hazard type as part of this study, using those task requirements—along with current operational procedures—to estimate the number of personnel needed for an effective response. The analysis shows that, without automatic aid or mutual aid, HFD would face staffing shortfalls across nearly all incident categories, with the sole exception of low‑risk events. Because response times for both automatic and mutual aid can vary and are often delayed, these deficiencies represent a significant operational vulnerability that could impact the department’s ability to meet established performance standards.

Item 8.b
425 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 179

INTEGRITY OF

RECORDS MANAGEMENT
A long-term plan to sustain and enhance service delivery by addressing data integrity, utilizing technology, and applying a methodology for ongoing performance measurement needs a strategic, phased approach that aligns with organizational goals and adapts to changing customer expectations.

IDENTIFICATION OF DATA INTEGRITY ISSUES
Ensuring data integrity is fundamental to creating a reliable performance measurement system. For HFD, this means performing a thorough audit of the current data in the Records Management System (RMS) to spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and missing details. Common problems include duplicate records, wrong timestamps, incomplete incident reports, or wrongly classified data entries. These issues often come from inconsistent data entry practices, lack of standard procedures, or outdated system settings. Finding these problems is essential because bad data can cause misleading performance metrics, poor decisions, and reduced public trust.

Beyond technical errors, data integrity issues can also arise from human factors such as inadequate training, unclear data entry protocols, or lack of accountability. Tackling these root causes involves a mix of policy enforcement, staff education, and system improvements. By systematically identifying and documenting data integrity problems, HFD can prioritize corrective actions and create a foundation for more accurate and reliable data. This approach not only enhances the quality of performance evaluations but also supports compliance with regulations and boosts the overall credibility of the organization.

TECHNOLOGY AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
To ensure long-term service excellence, HFD should leverage modern technology and streamline operational processes. The RMS should have the capabilities to integrate with Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). These integrations enable seamless data flow, minimize manual entry errors, and offer a more comprehensive view of incidents and resource deployment. Additionally, field reporting tools can enable responders to input data in real-time, thereby improving both accuracy and speed.

Item 8.b
426 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 180
Process improvements should also focus on automation and analytics. Implementing automated alerts for data anomalies, scheduled performance reports, and predictive analytics can help HFD anticipate service demands and allocate resources more efficiently. Adopting cloud-based platforms can improve data accessibility, scalability, and disaster recovery capabilities. These technological upgrades, combined with streamlined workflows and ongoing staff training, will not only enhance operational efficiency but also enable the organization to adapt to future challenges with agility and confidence.

CONTINUOUS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY
REPORT
RMS Usage Policies
Establishing clear and consistent RMS usage policies is essential for the success of any performance measurement strategy. These policies specify how data should be entered, accessed, and reported throughout the organization. By standardizing terminology, coding practices, and data entry procedures, HFD ensures that all personnel use the same procedures. This consistency is vital for producing reliable data that can be used to evaluate performance, spot trends, and support operational decisions.

RMS usage policies help minimize errors and data discrepancies that can weaken the accuracy of performance metrics. When personnel at HFD understand the expectations for data handling, it reduces the chances of incomplete or inaccurate records. These policies also aid training and onboarding by providing a clear framework for new staff to follow. In the end, well-defined RMS policies foster a culture of accountability and precision, which is vital for effective performance measurement.

Item 8.b
427 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 181

OVERVIEW OF COMPLIANCE

METHODOLOGY
The preceding sections of this report include various comprehensive analyses of the historical performance of HFD. Consistent and ongoing analyses of HFD’s operational performance will prove beneficial to the department and City’s leadership and policymakers.

It was clear that the HFD Fire Chief and staff are committed to a continual and routine process of evaluating the actual operational performance of the department and comparing the results against national standards and best practices. A periodic review of HFD’s records management system reports should be done to ensure compliance and data reliability.

Part of this process should include enhancing operational personnel's data collection procedures and a quality management (QM) program that incorporates regular reviews of electronic incident reports. The overall results of a QM program should be documented and reported to all personnel and policymakers.

COMPLIANCE MODEL
Following a systematic process can assist HFD in achieving its compliance standards. The following sixstep compliance model is presented here for HFD’s consideration.

Figure 120: Six-Step Compliance Model
Item 8.b
428 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 182
Phase 1—Establish or Review Performance Measures
Complete the initial Standards of Cover process. Conduct a full review of the performance measures every five years:
• Identify services provided.
• Define levels of service.
• Categorize levels of risk.
• Develop performance objectives and measures:
 By incident type.
 By geographic demand zone.
 Distribution (first on scene).
 Concentration (arrival of full first alarm).

Phase 2—Evaluate Performance
Performance measures are applied to the actual service provided:
• System-level.
• First-due area level.
• Unit level.
• Full effective response force (ERF).

Phase 3—Develop Compliance Strategies
Determine issues and opportunities:
• Determine what needs to be done to close the gaps.
• Determine if resources can/should be reallocated.
• Seek alternative methods to provide service at the desired level. • Develop budget estimates as necessary.
• Seek additional funding commitment as necessary.

Item 8.b
429 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 183
Phase 4—Communicate Expectations to Agency
Communicate expectations throughout the HFD:
• Explain the method of measuring compliance to personnel who are expected to perform services. • Provide feedback mechanisms.
• Define the consequences of non-compliance.

Train personnel:
• Provide appropriate levels of training/direction for all affected personnel. • Communicate consequences of noncompliance.
• Modify (remediate) business processes, business application systems, and technical infrastructure as necessary to comply.

Phase 5—Validate Compliance
Develop and deploy verification tools and/or techniques that HFD can use on an ongoing basis to verify that they are meeting the requirements:
• Monthly evaluation:
 Performance by unit.
 Overall performance.
 Review of performance by division/section management. • Quarterly evaluation:
 Performance by unit.
 Performance by first-due.
 Overall performance.
 Review of performance by executive management.

Phase 6—Make Adjustments & Repeat the Process
Review changes to ensure that service levels have been maintained or improved. Develop and implement a review program to ensure ongoing compliance:
• Annual review and evaluation:
 Performance by unit.
 Performance by first-due.

Item 8.b
430 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 184
 Overall performance.
 Review of performance with the City Manager and City Council.  Adjustment of performance standards by the Council as necessary. • A five-year update of Standards of Cover:
 Performance by unit.
 Performance by first-due.
 Full effective response force.
 Overall performance.
 Adoption of performance measures by the City Council.  Establish management processes for future changes in the HFD service area.

Ultimately, the relationship between resource deployment, response time, and incident outcomes is closely connected. When fire department response times are low and sufficient resources are deployed quickly, outcomes are generally more favorable. Conversely, when response times are longer and effective response force assembly is delayed, it is more likely that insufficient resources are available to influence the event positively. For that reason, adoption of clear performance objectives should not be viewed simply as a compliance exercise, but as a practical framework for improving deployment, enhancing firefighter safety, and strengthening service outcomes for the community.

Item 8.b
431 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 185
Finding, Recommendations,
and Path Forward
Item 8.b
432 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 186

FINDINGS
The following findings are based on AP Triton’s comprehensive evaluation of Healdsburg Fire Department (HFD), incorporating data analysis, stakeholder input, and community expectations. These observations highlight critical operational strengths, current challenges, and areas of opportunity across key service areas. While not all findings necessitate immediate action, they collectively inform the recommendations that follow and offer a strategic foundation for enhancing HFD’s service delivery, resource allocation, and long-term planning efforts.

These findings suggest that HFD is a deeply rooted community institution that operates a cost-effective hybrid staffing model across a diverse 72-square-mile service area. While the department demonstrates significant operational strengths—including highly efficient, digital fire prevention workflows and strong regional mutual aid partnerships. It faces critical challenges related to infrastructure and workforce sustainability. Specifically, the department relies on a single routinely staffed station and like many agencies is awaiting apparatus from the manufacturer and like many fire department is navigating a decline in volunteer participation. However, the recent approval of Measure H sales tax revenue presents a pivotal opportunity to enhance minimum daily staffing and formalize a data-driven Community Risk Reduction Plan to mitigate the city’s significant wildfire and medical risks. Here’s a structured set of findings based on this study organized into strengths, challenges, and opportunities across the major service areas to provide a strategic foundation for HFD.

GOVERNANCE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION
• Strengths: The Healdsburg Fire Department (HFD) is a deeply rooted city department with over 165 years of service, fully integrated into the city’s governance and strategic planning. The city maintains conservative budgeting practices and healthy reserves, including a Pension Stabilization Fund to manage long-term liabilities.
• Challenges: The department operates with a lean administrative structure, leading to significant role overlap; for instance, the Division Chief/Fire Marshal handles substantial daily operational and human resources tasks beyond traditional prevention duties. Furthermore, the flat organizational structure limits formal promotional pathways and concentrates leadership communication responsibilities at the Chief and Division Chief level.

Item 8.b
433 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 187
• Opportunities: There is an opportunity to modernize administrative systems, such as implementing digital permit tracking and standardized contractor submittals. Expanding administrative capacity, even on a part-time basis, would allow command staff to focus more on strategic initiatives and grant administration. Formalizing internal communication and creating defined succession pathways would strengthen organizational resilience.

OPERATIONS AND DEPLOYMENT
• Strengths: HFD maintains a hybrid workforce model that successfully blends career staff with a community-rooted reserve (volunteer) force. The department also benefits from a modernized fleet, including a 2022 Aerial Quint and new utility vehicles. • Challenges: A area for opportunity exists in station staffing: while the city has two stations, only Station 1 is routinely staffed, leaving Station 2 primarily for training or high-hazard upstaffing.

Additionally, two Type 1 engines are in fair condition and require replacement but there are manufacturer delays being experienced nationwide. One replacement Type 1 engine has been ordered with delivery expected sometime in calendar year 2027. Reliance on volunteers is also becoming a sustainability concern as recruitment and retention face pressure from the community's rising median age.
• Opportunities: The approval of Measure H sales tax revenue provides a significant opportunity to increase minimum daily staffing and potentially staff the North Station (Station 2). The Department currently maintains a three-person minimum daily staffing model on its frontline engine at Station 1; building on that foundation by adding daytime coverage at Station 2 would further improve effective response force assembly, ISO scoring, and operational safety.

FIRE PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION
• Strengths: The Prevention Bureau is highly effective, boasting fast plan review turnaround times (5–10 days) and fully digital workflows using Tyler EnerGov and Bluebeam. Early prevention involvement in development projects through weekly Permit Review Committee (PRC) meetings is a defining organizational strength.
• Challenges: Despite many embedded practices, Healdsburg lacks a formally adopted Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP), which limits the ability to quantify outcomes and align long-term performance metrics. Data in the current records system is often transactional rather than being leveraged for strategic risk prioritization.

Item 8.b
434 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 188
• Opportunities: Adopting a formal CRRP consistent with NFPA 1300 standards would enhance transparency and support data-driven decision-making. Utilizing platforms like "Fire Aside" for digital defensible space and home assessments can further engage the community in wildfire mitigation.

EMS AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS
• Strengths: All HFD firefighters are EMT-certified, providing a consistent Basic Life Support (BLS) level of care. The department also maintains specialized capabilities for technical rope, vehicle extrication, and water rescue, which are critical given the proximity to the Russian River. • Challenges: Demand for EMS is high, accounting for 52% of all emergency calls, yet the department remains reliant on a private provider (Bell’s Ambulance) for all advanced life support response and transport services.
• Opportunities: HFD can pursue recruitment and retention incentives specifically for paramedics and EMTs to stabilize the workforce against growing service demands. There is also potential to expand bilingual outreach and community paramedicine programs to better serve the city’s aging and diverse populations.

TRAINING AND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
• Strengths: HFD participates in a shared Battalion Chief program with the Northern Sonoma County Fire Protection District, enhancing regional command integrity. It also maintains strong mutual aid relationships, providing and receiving assistance across Sonoma County. • Challenges: Staffing availability often constrains the ability of personnel to participate in outside training or advanced development. Currently, a shift Captain is assigned to oversee training, mentorship, and succession planning.
• Opportunities: Strengthening support and program oversight among Captain and project managers would enhance professional growth. Expanding collaboration with regional training centers and local nonprofits can further improve emergency preparedness for the community.

Item 8.b
435 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 189

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
These strategic recommendations for the Healdsburg Fire Department (HFD), aligned with the analyses in the Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover and are mindful of community expectations.

These recommendations are organized by service area, and they are presented with some that can be pursued in the short term while others may be deferred until resources and economic conditions allow.

GOVERNANCE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION
Recommendation A-1: Expansion of Administrative Capacity Description: Hire additional administrative support, potentially on a part-time or project basis, to assist with growing documentation, compliance tracking, and grant administration.

Desired Outcome: Command staff are freed from clerical burdens to focus on high-level strategic initiatives and prevention priorities.

Financial Implications: Moderate; increase in salaries and benefits budget.

Recommendation A-2: Modernization of Administrative Management Systems Description: Transition from transactional, manual record-keeping to digital process management systems for fleet maintenance, facility tracking, and standardized contractor submittals.

Desired Outcome: Enhanced accountability, streamlined workflows, and data-driven decision-making for city leadership.

Financial Implications: Moderate; requires software procurement and staff training.

Recommendation A-3: Clarification of Roles and Leadership Succession Description: Formally define the dual responsibilities of the Division Chief/Fire Marshal, who currently manages fire prevention, daily operations, human resources, and acts as Fire Chief during absences. The position currently is not limited to the Fire Marshal function. It handles chief officer level administrative and operational duties typical of Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief position. This is a role clarification, not the creation of a new function or position.

Desired Outcome: Align policy with operational practice by better defining the role of the Division Chief/Fire Marshal while clarifying its executive level responsibilities and a clear, stable pathway for leadership succession. This would confirm a clear line of authority consistent with roles found in comparably sized departments.

Item 8.b
436 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 190
Financial Implications: Minimal; primarily administrative and policy driven with possibility of compensation and reclassification necessary. This report did not include a compensation and classification study.

Recommendation A-4: Improvement of Internal Communication and Transparency:

Description: Implement regular department-wide meetings and formalized feedback mechanisms to address perceived gaps in leadership transparency and information flow.

Desired Outcome: Improved internal morale reduced interpersonal divisions, and a more cohesive organizational culture. The HFD would benefit from pairing formalized feedback mechanisms with defined succession planning and career-growth pathways at both the line and prevention levels. Giving personnel a visible trajectory and a clear connection between day-to-day work and longer-term advancement opportunities. Together these would reinforce transparency while strengthening retention and organizational cohesion.

Financial Impact: Low; primarily involves staff time and potentially minor costs for meeting logistics.

OPERATIONS AND DEPLOYMENT
Recommendation B-1: Adopt Response Time Performance Objectives Description: HFD currently has no Council adopted response time performance objectives. Adopting objectives even initially set at current performance levels establishes a foundation. Furthermore, HFD should consider separate standards for the City and contract service areas.

Desired Outcome: The Council accept this report and commit by resolution to an annual performance report and five-year SOC updates consistent with the Compliance Model provided. To ensure effective emergency service delivery, the following time targets are recommended for adoption:

Turnout Time: measure the interval from when the station/crew is notified of the call to when the fire engine (or other unit) is rolling out of the station.

Travel Time: the time it takes to drive from the station to the incident.

Total Response Time: the total amount of time from when a 9‑1‑1 call is received to when the first fire department unit arrives on scene.

Item 8.b
437 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 191
Effective Response Force: measure how long it takes for all of the units and personnel needed for a full, effective response to arrive on scene, not just the first engine. For example, a structure fire requires 15–17 firefighters to perform the critical tasks necessary to mitigate the emergency.

Financial Implications: Staff time to develop response time objectives for each time segment in the response time continuum.

Recommendation B-2: Enhancement of Minimum Daily Staffing (Measure H Implementation) Description: Utilize the countywide Measure H sales tax revenue to sustain existing three-person staffing at Station 1 and to extend consistent daily coverage to additional apparatus at Station 2.

Transition Station 2 from a training and high-hazard upstaffing hub to a facility with routine daily staffing. While the department currently maintains a three-person minimum daily staffing model at Station 1, this plan would expand that capacity to provide consistent daily coverage at the northern end of the city. Initially, this could be implemented as a 40-hour daytime patrol (consisting of a supervising officer and a firefighter) to capture the 70% of incident volume that occurs during the day.

Desired Outcome: Sustaining the three-person career staffing at Station 1 and extending consistent daily coverage to the north-end of the City at Station 2. Reduced response times to the northern Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) zones and major new developments like Montage and Enso Village.

Furthermore, a second staffed station addresses the 17.5% concurrency rate where two or more incidents occur simultaneously, ensuring a staffed unit remains available for the community when Station 1 is already committed. This investment is a cornerstone for achieving an ISO Class 1 rating and reduces the department's vulnerable reliance on a declining reserve (volunteer) force.

Financial Implications: Significant but specifically aligned with the intended use of Measure H funding, which was designed to enhance local fire protection without supplanting existing General Fund obligations. While adding personnel increases long-term salary and benefit expenditures, these costs are offset by the new dedicated revenue stream and the potential for improved ISO ratings, which can lower insurance premiums for community stakeholders. Future phases would require capital investment to add sleeping quarters to Station 2 to support a full 24/7 (48/96) staffing model.

Recommendation B-3: Critical Apparatus Fleet Modernization Description: Plan to replace the second 2008 Type 1 engine and add Type 3 or 6 to Station 2. Fire departments across the country, including Healdsburg, are experiencing delays in fire apparatus delivery.

Desired Outcome: Ensured reliability of primary suppression resources and reduced maintenance strain.

Item 8.b
438 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 192
Financial Implications: High capital outlay; the cost of fire apparatus has surged dramatically in the last decade, often doubling, driven by inflation, supply-chain disruptions, material tariffs, labor shortages, and customization; > $ 1 million for fire engines and $2 million for aerial ladder truck.

Recommendation B-4: Station 1 Safety and Infrastructure Updates Description: Address necessary safety and ADA compliance upgrades at Station 1.

Desired Outcome: A healthy and safe working environment for personnel and improved public accessibility. Because the needed work spans both immediate safety items and larger capital improvements, a phased approach could spread the cost over time while addressing the most pressing daily living and working conditions first followed by improvement requiring larger capital investment.

Financial Implications: Moderate to High; requires capital improvement funding for mid-range and longrange projects. Routine or deferred maintenance items should remain within the City’s facilities budget.

Recommendation B-5: Development of a Reserve (Volunteer) Sustainability Strategy Description: Conduct a targeted study to redefine the role of reserves, focusing on modernized recruitment and retention incentives tailored to the community's aging demographic and high cost of living.

Desired Outcome: Stabilization of the reserve force to ensure reliable surge capacity during major incidents or simultaneous calls.

Financial Impact: Moderate; may involve stipends, training incentives, or recruitment marketing.

Recommendation B-6: Improving ISO Rating
Description: This recommendation involves the formalization of a recurring schedule and digital documentation system for fire hydrant inspections and flow testing in coordination with the City Water Department. While Healdsburg’s water supply currently earns 35.02 out of 40 available ISO points, the evaluation specifically highlighted hydrant inspection and flow-testing frequency as a primary area for incremental improvement. This program would ensure that all hydrants within the service area are inspected and flow-tested according to ISO-recognized cycles to verify they meet required fire-flow standards for the community's diverse risk profile.

Item 8.b
439 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 193
Desired Outcome: The primary goal is to secure the remaining available credits in the ISO "Water Supply" category to support the department's aspirational benchmark of achieving an ISO Class 1 rating.

Beyond the rating improvement, this program provides responders with precise, updated data on available water volume for high-risk occupancies, such as wineries and downtown historic structures, thereby enhancing fireground efficiency and safety.

Financial Implications: Low to Moderate. The primary cost is associated with staff time for field testing and the administrative hours required to digitize and maintain these records. These efforts can be integrated into the recommended modernization of administrative management systems (Recommendation A-2) to streamline data entry and reporting for future ISO audits. Any minor equipment needed for flow testing could likely be absorbed within existing operational budgets

FIRE PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION
Recommendation C-1: Formal Adoption of a Community Risk Reduction Plan Description: The Healdsburg Fire Department already operates an integrated community risk reduction program in practice. Formalize existing informal practices into a unified Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) consistent with NFPA 1300 and Vision 20/20 standards.

Desired Outcome: Formalization is a meaningful undertaking that requires dedicated staff capacity to draft, maintain, and report against the plan. Ability to quantify prevention outcomes and align long-term performance metrics with community loss reduction.

Financial Implications: Moderate; primarily involves staff time for development. HFD currently lacks that capacity without compromising existing prevention work.

Recommendation C-2: Vegetation Management Funding Commitment Description: With the passage of Measure H, the community has made a strong commitment to fire prevention activities. The HFD’s vegetation management work is already established under the statewide CAL VTP program, which provides programmatic CEQA coverage, and reflects several years of activity in the Healdsburg Ridge and Fitch Mountain Open Space Preserves and the eastern foothills.

Item 8.b
440 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 194
Desired Outcome: Demonstrating commitment to the community’s expectation that Measure H will deliver visible, ongoing improvements in wildfire safety. The City should establish a stable, recurring annual budget to continue, expand, and maintain its vegetation‑management work. Measure H funds could support wildfire mitigation assessments, vegetation management, part-time Wildfire Mitigation Assessor positions, contract crews, community education on home hardening and defensible space, and matching funds for grants and regional partnerships. Operationally, the work could continue to combine fire breaks, calming zones, and shaded fuel breaks created through mechanical mastication, hand crews, targeted grazing, and prescribed pile and broadcast burns.

Financial Implications: Moderate; primarily involves building upon existing grants (e.g. CAL VTP) and allocating a portion of Measure H.

Recommendation C-3: Strategic Records Management Integration Description: Integrate transactional records (permits/inspections) into a strategic tool that leverages data for trend analysis and risk prioritization.

Desired Outcome: Proactive, data-driven intelligence to identify high-risk areas before incidents occur.

Financial Implications: Moderate; may require software upgrades.

Recommendation C-4: Formalization of Target Hazard Pre-Incident Planning Description: Develop and digitize pre-incident plans for high-risk occupancies, including wineries, historic downtown structures, and senior care facilities, ensuring they are accessible to responders via mobile terminals.

Desired Outcome: Reduced risk to responders and more effective suppression and rescue operations at complex sites.

Financial Impact: Low to Moderate; primarily requires staff time for surveys and data entry into the RMS.

Item 8.b
441 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 195

EMS, TRAINING, AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS
Recommendation D-1: Bilingual Outreach and Community Preparedness Outreach Description: Expand Spanish-language programming and the Citizens Organized to Prepare for Emergencies (COPE) program specifically for senior communities.

Desired Outcome: Improved equity and service reach to the 24% of the population speaking a language other than English and the city's aging demographic. Use of real-time translation technology paralleling the system already used by the Healdsburg Police Department, so that personnel can communicate effectively at the point of contact. Delivery of outreach should be accomplished in partnership with established community organizations, including Corazón Healdsburg, Communities Organized to Prepare for Emergencies (COPE), and local Firewise groups, and school programming.

Financial Implications: Low to Moderate; potentially grant-supported.

Recommendation D-2: Implementation of a Quality Management (QM) Program Description: Establish a formal QM program including regular audits of electronic incident reports (ePCRs) to ensure data integrity and clinical excellence.

Desired Outcome: Improved data accuracy for performance reporting and enhanced clinical care quality.

Financial Implications: Low; primarily administrative.

Recommendation D-3: Consider moving from EMT to Paramedic Description: HFD must ensure that its capabilities align with community expectations, best medical practices, and the increasing complexity of prehospital care. Upgrading to paramedic-level service will allow the department to provide advanced life-saving interventions on scene, significantly improving patient outcomes in time‑critical emergencies such as cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, severe trauma, and complex medical conditions.

Desired Outcome: Establish a reliable paramedic program that ensures ALS coverage across all primary response units. This includes placing at least one paramedic on each frontline apparatus, reducing delays in advanced treatment, and strengthening coordination with local hospitals and EMS partners. A transition from Basic Life Support to an Advanced Life Support should be treated as a long-term goal Item 8.b
442 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 196
Financial Impact: Moderate to High; transitioning to paramedic‑level service will require both initial and ongoing financial investment. Startup costs could include paramedic training, overtime/backfill for personnel in school, and the purchase of ALS equipment such as cardiac monitors, airway tools, and medication supplies. Ongoing expenses will include paramedic incentive pay, continuing education, medical oversight, and equipment maintenance.

Item 8.b
443 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 197

PATH FORWARD
SHORT-TERM (1–5 YEARS)
Over the next one to three years, the department should focus on several critical initiatives to strengthen operational readiness and enhance firefighter and community safety. This includes continuing the replacement of aging Type 1 engines, with one unit already ordered and a second needing to be secured soon to maintain fleet reliability. The department should also use authorized Measure H revenue to sustain the existing three-person staffing at Station 1 and to add daytime coverage at the North Station (Station 2), improving consistent coverage and response capability. In addition, the organization should formally adopt and implement the Community Risk Reduction Plan in alignment with NFPA 1300, providing a structured approach to identifying and mitigating community hazards. Finally, necessary safety and ADA compliance upgrades at Station 1 should be prioritized to maintain a healthy working environment and improve public accessibility. • Replacement of Type 1 engine in 2027 and planning for replacement of second engine. • Addition of either a second Type 3 or 6 engine as part of added staffing at Station 2. • Bolster daily staffing levels using authorized Measure H revenue to add staffing to Station 2.  40-hour Patrol (Captain/Lieutenant + Firefighter) Shift: A two-person 8-hour patrol staffed Monday through Friday, with a supervising officer and a Firefighter assigned to an apparatus operating from Station 2. Coverage would capture the bulk of the daytime call volume. • Adopt a formal Community Risk Reduction Plan (NFPA 1300).  Establish a stable, recurring annual budget to continue, expand, and maintain vegetation management work.
• Prioritize the living and working quarters that most directly affect daily health and safety such as dormitory, kitchen, restrooms and showers, HVAC, a decontamination zone, and priority ADA items.

Item 8.b
444 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 198
MID-TERM (5–10 YEARS)
Over the next five to ten years, the department should prioritize expanding operational capacity and strengthening organizational resilience. A key objective will be implementing routine staffing at Station 2 to ensure consistent coverage in the northern service area and improve overall response performance.

Modernizing administrative and prevention records by transitioning to fully digital platforms will streamline workflows, improve data accuracy, and increase accessibility. The department should digitize target‑hazard pre‑incident plans for winery facilities and downtown structures, ensuring that critical information is readily available to responders during complex incidents. Additionally, the department should continue progressing toward an Advanced Life Support (ALS) model by implementing targeted paramedic recruitment, strengthening its ability to deliver high‑level prehospital care across the community.
• Expansion of routine staffing at Station 2.
 Two Daytime 40-hour Patrol (Captain/Lieutenant + Firefighter) Shifts: A two person 12-hour patrol staggered to provide seven-day coverage. Coverage would capture the bulk of the daytime call volume every day of the week.
• Transition toward an Advanced Life Support (ALS) model through paramedic recruitment incentives.
• Address safety and infrastructure needs that address building systems and the envelope, as funding allows.
• Modernize administrative and prevention records systems to digital platforms. • Digitize target hazard pre-incident plans for winery and downtown structures.

LONG-TERM (10+ YEARS)
Looking beyond the ten‑year horizon, the department should focus on major initiatives that build long‑term stability, resilience, and advanced operational capability. A central objective will be transitioning to a fully stable staffing model citywide, ensuring consistent crew configurations and improved service reliability. The department should also deploy advanced wildfire detection technologies including drones and AI‑supported monitoring systems to enhance early identification and response to emerging fire threats. Significant ADA and infrastructure upgrades at Station 1 and Station 2 dormitories should be completed to allow for 24/7 staffing, improve accessibility, and extend its service life.
• Transition to a fully stable staffing model at both Station 1 & Station 2.

Item 8.b
445 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 199
 Traditional 48/96 shift assignment: A three-person engine company at Station 2, matching the staffing model at Station 1. Coverage would be available for all incidents and improve effective response force throughout the City 24/7.
• Deploy advanced wildfire detection technology (e.g. drones and/or AI). • Complete major ADA improvements at Station1 and dormitory infrastructure upgrades to Station 2, while also addressing the need for training rooms, offices, and administrative space.

Item 8.b
446 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 200

APPENDICES
Item 8.b
447 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 201
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER

INTERVIEW SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
This section presents a comprehensive summary of perspectives gathered through interviews with firefighters and staff, management, city officials, and community stakeholders. The assessment aims to identify organizational strengths, challenges, emerging opportunities, and long-term priorities that should guide the development of the Healdsburg Fire Department’s Master Plan. All personal identifying information has been removed to ensure confidentiality.

Stakeholder Interview Questions
During the on-site interviews, participants were asked a series of questions designed to elicit insights into the department’s operations, relationships, and future outlook. Not every participant received every question; most firefighters answered all questions, while some community members responded only to those deemed relevant. Participants were permitted to pass on any question where they felt they lacked sufficient insight. The key questions included:
• What strengths contribute most to the success of the fire department/district? • Which specific programs, practices, or partnerships should be preserved or expanded? • In what areas could the department improve its service or operations? • Are there proven approaches or resources from elsewhere that might be beneficial? • What emerging opportunities—technology, partnerships, grants, or community initiatives—could enhance the department’s capabilities in the next 3–5 years? • What are the top three critical issues facing the department today, and which require the most immediate action?
• If you could change or add one thing to strengthen the department, what would it be? • Relationship and Service Ratings (rated on a 1–10 scale with brief explanations) regarding citizens and the department, management and labor, city government and the department, neighboring agencies and partners, and the overall level of emergency services provided.

Item 8.b
448 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 202
• Where is there potential for stronger collaboration with other city departments, regional agencies, nonprofits, or private partners?
• From your perspective, what are the most significant community risks (such as wildfire, flood, hazardous materials) the department should prepare for over the next decade, and are there mitigation or community-education opportunities to expand? • What types of outreach or education programs would help residents and businesses better understand fire prevention, emergency preparedness, or community risk reduction? • Looking ahead ten years, what achievements or capabilities would make you proud to have contributed to shaping the department’s future?

KEY THEMES IDENTIFIED THROUGH STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Strengths Contributing to Success
The Healdsburg Fire Department is built on a foundation of strong community trust, internal dedication, and operational capability. These strengths are central to the department’s identity and success.

Community Trust and Identity
Interviewees consistently described the department as deeply connected to the community. Residents see it as “their” fire department—approachable, responsive, and rooted in local values. This trust facilitates cooperation during emergencies and supports ongoing risk reduction efforts.

Team Camaraderie and Culture
The internal culture of the department is marked by close-knit relationships and mutual support. Staff regularly go above and beyond to cover shifts and sustain service levels even when faced with staffing shortages, demonstrating strong cohesion and teamwork.

Operational Competency
The department enjoys respect for its performance during major wildfires and its ability to handle high call volumes with limited resources. Staff consistently display professionalism, adaptability, and strong incident command skills.

Fiscal Management
Management identified conservative budgeting and healthy reserves as important strengths. This fiscal discipline enables the department to remain resilient amid fluctuating revenue sources.

Item 8.b
449 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 203
Partnerships and Training
Robust relationships with neighboring agencies and mutual-aid partners enhance regional response capabilities. The department also benefits from a solid training budget and staff willingness to undertake specialized or administrative projects.

Areas for Improvement
Despite its strengths, the department faces several operational and organizational challenges.

Internal Morale and Leadership
Strained relations between management and labor, internal cliques, and a perceived lack of transparency were identified. Staff expressed frustration over limited promotional opportunities and inconsistent communication.

Staffing Gaps and Coverage Limitations
Insufficient staffing leads to call stacking, inconsistent coverage at the North Station, and increased overtime. These gaps impact response times, firefighter safety, and overall service reliability.

Administrative Modernization
• Lack of digital permit tracking
• No standardized submittal guidelines for contractors
• Absence of a dedicated Training Chief
• Outdated task books and limited succession planning
Infrastructure and Equipment Needs
• Aging SCBAs (Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus) approaching 18 years of service • Inconsistent equipment replacement planning
Communication and Organizational Alignment
Limited department-wide meetings and inconsistent information flow contribute to misunderstandings and diminished cohesion.

Emerging Opportunities (Next 3–5 Years)
Stakeholders highlighted several opportunities to enhance the department’s capabilities in the coming years.

Technology Integration
• Drones for situational awareness
Item 8.b
450 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 204
• AI-integrated heat-sensing systems for early fire detection • Digital defensible-space platforms (e.g., “Fire Aside”) to improve prevention and operational efficiency
Staffing and Facilities Expansion
• Measure H funding offers a pathway to staff the North Station and move toward a 3–0 staffing model, which would improve response reliability and reduce task saturation during complex incidents.

Alternative Revenue Strategies
• Rebalancing Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) allocations • Adjusting TOT rates to better reflect tourism-driven service demand These approaches could support the department’s long-term financial sustainability.

Strengthened Partnerships
• Expanding collaboration with regional training centers • Engaging the building community through “Builder Days” • Partnering with local nonprofits for bilingual outreach and preparedness education Community Education Expansion
Interviewees advocated for increased public education, including preparedness training for residents and city staff, as well as expanded Spanish-language programming.

Critical Issues Facing the Department
Three major issues emerged as the most pressing challenges for the department:
• Staffing and Coverage: Difficulty maintaining consistent staffing at both stations, especially during increasing call volumes and overlapping incidents, is the most immediate concern. • Internal Morale and Organizational Culture: Interpersonal divisions, limited communication, and inconsistent leadership have eroded trust and require focused attention for long-term organizational health.
• Financial Sustainability: While Measure H provides short-term relief, the department’s reliance on tourism-related revenue leaves it vulnerable during economic downturns, making long-term funding models a priority.

Item 8.b
451 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 205
Priorities for Strengthening the Department
• Increase Full-Time Staffing: The highest priority is expanding staffing levels, including staffing the North Station and moving toward 3–0 or 4–0 staffing models, to reduce overtime and improve coverage reliability.
• Restore Mid-Level Leadership: Re-establishing positions such as Battalion Chiefs or a Training Chief would strengthen mentorship, supervision, shift coordination, program oversight, and succession planning.
• Modernize Systems and Processes: Implementing digital process management for fleet, facilities, and prevention would enhance accountability, transparency, and data-driven decision-making.

Significant Community Risks
Stakeholders identified several major risks for the department to address over the next decade:
• Wildfire and WUI Exposure: The most significant threat due to geography, fuel continuity, and climate conditions.
• Aging Population: A growing senior population is increasing medical call volumes and complicating evacuations.
• Infrastructure and Natural Hazards: Flooding, aging infrastructure, and hazardous materials incidents present additional challenges.
• Workforce Sustainability: Succession planning and recruitment difficulties threaten long-term operational stability.

Relationship and Service Ratings
Interviewees provided ratings (1–10 scale) across several relationship and service categories:

Figure 121: Interview Relationship & Service Rating Summary Category Average/Range Key Observations
Item 8.b
452 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 206
Citizens & Department 7–10 Strong public trust and
engagement.

Management & Labor 2–10 Highly variable; internal
morale concerns.

City Government 5–9 Generally supportive, but fire
feels under-prioritized.

Neighboring Agencies 8–10
Strong mutual-aid
cooperation and regional
respect.

Overall Service 5–10
High operational
competency, limited by
staffing.

Outreach and Education Needs
Effective, targeted, and bilingual outreach was emphasized by interviewees:
• Vulnerable Populations: Expanding COPE programs for senior communities was widely supported. • Bilingual Services: Increasing Spanish-language programming and hiring bilingual staff would improve equity and service reach.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Workshops for builders and business owners could enhance compliance with fire codes and home hardening requirements. • Public Visibility: Improving social media presence and event scheduling would bolster community engagement.

Future Vision (10-Year Outlook)
Participants envisioned a department that is fully staffed, technologically advanced, and a leader in firefighter wellness. The aspirational future includes:
• Both stations fully operational.
• 3–0 or 4–0 staffing on all apparatus.
• Modernized fleet and facilities.
• A model program for firefighter wellness, with resilience training and advanced health facilities.

Item 8.b
453 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 207
• A “fire-adapted” community supported by transparent, data-driven prevention systems and strong public partnerships.
• Clear succession planning, leadership pathways, and a modern administrative structure.

Item 8.b
454 of 493
C OMMUNITY R ISK A SSESSMENT - S TANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 208
APPENDIX B: CRITICAL TASKING &
ALARMS
Critical task analysis involves breaking down a complex job into its components and identifying the skills and competencies required for each. This analysis is performed for each risk classification and category level, enabling the department to determine the necessary capabilities for incident mitigation. Factors such as staffing levels, collaboration, organization, coordination, training, and equipment define capability. The effective response force is the minimum number of personnel required to perform all essential tasks for incident mitigation. Emergency incidents are dynamic and often unpredictable. Various factors dictate the actions needed to protect lives, minimize property damage, and safeguard the environment.

The HFD provides fire protection, first responder EMS, and other emergency services to the city. It also responds to surrounding areas through intergovernmental agreement, mutual and automatic aid agreements. The HFD operates with one engine and a shared battalion chief. Ambulance services are provided by a private third-party company. The critical task and deployment analysis is designed to align expected tasks with apparatus dispatch practices associated with each incident type and corresponding risk.

During a fire event, critical tasks can be divided into two key components: life safety and fire flow. Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants and their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. These tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims. The fire-flow component entails delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and creating an environment within the building that allows firefighters to enter.

The number and types of tasks requiring simultaneous execution will dictate the minimum number of firefighters needed to combat various fires. Without adequate personnel, the commanding officer must prioritize tasks and complete them sequentially rather than concurrently. Typical fire responses include the following tasks:
• Command
• Safety
• Search & Rescue
• Fire Attack
• Backup
• Rapid Intervention
• Water Supply
• Pump Operations
• Standpipe/Sprinkler Control
• Ventilation/Utility
• Structure Protection
• Emergency Medical Services
Item 8.b
455 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 209
Critical task analyses are also applicable to other categories. To effectively manage an emergency, numerous simultaneous tasks must be completed. The VFD’s ability to quickly assemble the required numbers of trained personnel is crucial to successful incident outcomes.

Risk levels for each response type have been identified throughout this document and are generally classified as low, moderate, high, and maximum risks. These classifications apply across five department response types:
fire, EMS, wildland urban interface, technical rescue, and hazardous materials. Risk levels and classifications are detailed in the community risk section of this report.

The HFD completed this critical task analysis during this study. Each hazard type was identified, and the expected number of personnel was determined based on critical tasking and operational procedures. The following summarizes the total personnel required by incident type and risk category.

Establishing resource levels needed for various emergencies is a uniquely local decision. Factors influencing incident staffing include the type of equipment operated, training levels of responders, operating procedures, geography, traffic, the nature of buildings, and other protected risks. Availability of resources can be impacted by concurrent incidents and the ability to obtain mutual or automatic aid. If available, aid generally has inherent delays related to gaining approvals and travel distances.

The following section identifies the critical task required to mitigate an incident, the Effective Response Force (ERF), and the resources assigned for this incident type. In several scenarios, HFD requires automatic aid to meet the ERF. In scenarios such a emergency medical services, HFD resources will be tied up awaiting transport ambulances. For hazardous materials, HFD units may be depleted to get qualified personnel together while response times for fully equipped hazardous materials teams are extended up to an hour.

Item 8.b
456 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 210

FIRE INCIDENTS
Low-Risk Fire Incidents
These incidents are considered lower risk and minor in scope and intensity. It requires a single fire apparatus and crew to manage fires involving passenger vehicles, fences, trash or dumpsters, downed power lines, residential or commercial alarm investigations, or an odor investigation. The following figure identifies the critical task required to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the resources assigned for this type of incident.

Figure 122: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Fire
Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 0
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Fire Attack 2
Effective Response Force: 3
Figure 123: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Fire
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief
Ambulance
Total 1 3 0 0 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 3 0 3
Staff Needed 3
Deficiency 0
Item 8.b
457 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 211
Moderate Risk Fire Incidents
These incidents are a first alarm-response needed to manage a moderate fire risk incident. These incidents include smoke in a building, small outside building fires, commercial vehicle fires, single-family residence, a lightning strike to a building, an automatic fire alarm at a high-risk occupancy, or a hazardous materials pipeline fire. The following figure identifies the critical task required to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the resources assigned for this type of incident.

Figure 124: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Fire Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Fire Attack 5
Ventilation/Utilities 3
Back-up Line 3
Rapid Intervention Team 3
EMS Unit - ALS 0
Effective Response Force: 16
Figure 125: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Fire
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Units
Engine 1 3 3 9
Truck 1 3
Battalion Chief 1 1
Ambulance
Total 2 4 4 12 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 12 16
Staff Needed 16
Deficiency 0
Item 8.b
458 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 212
High Risk Fire Incidents
These incidents are a second alarm-response-needed to manage a high fire risk incident. These incidents include smoke in a high-life hazard property (school, skilled nursing, etc.), a single-family residence with injured or trapped victims, a multi-family residential building, or a moderate-sized commercial/industrial occupancy. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 126: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Fire
Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Water Supply 2
Standpipe/Sprinkler Control 1
Fire Attack 6
Search & Rescue 3
Ventilation/Utilities 3
Back-up Line 3
Rapid Intervention Team 3
EMS Unit - ALS 2
Effective Response Force: 27
Figure 127: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Fire
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 6 18
Truck 1 3
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Ambulance 1 2
Total 2 4 9 24 Totals
Staff Available 4 24 28
Staff Needed 27
Deficiency +1
Item 8.b
459 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 213
Maximum Risk Fire Incidents
A third-alarm response is needed to manage a maximum fire risk incident. These incidents include a hospital, assisted living facility, fire in an apartment building, high-rise building fire, a large commercial or industrial occupancy, hazardous materials railcar, or storage occupancy. Incident assignments will include additional command staff, recalling off-duty personnel, and automatic and mutual aid.

Figure 128: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Fire
Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 2
Water Supply 2
Standpipe/Sprinkler Control 2
Fire Attack 6
Search & Rescue 3
Ventilation/Utilities 3
Back-up Line 3
Rapid Intervention Team 6
EMS Unit- ALS squad 2
Effective Response Force: 32
Figure 129: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Fire
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine/Pumper 1 3 8 24
Truck 1 4
Batt Chief 1 1 2 2
Ambulance 1 2
Total 3 4 12 32 Totals
Staff Available 4 32 36
Staff Needed 32
Deficiency +4
Item 8.b
460 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 214

EMS INCIDENTS
Low-Risk EMS Incident
A single EMS unit can manage a low-risk EMS incident involving an assessment of a single patient with a critical injury or illness, non-life-threatening medical call, lift assist, or standby.

Figure 130: Critical Task Analysis – Low-Risk EMS
Task Description Personnel Needed
Command
Family/Bystander Liaison 1
Treatment 2
Transport Ambulance (1) 2
Effective Response Force: 5
Figure 131: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk EMS
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief
Ambulance 1 2
Total 1 3 1 2 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 3 2 5
Staff Needed 5
Deficiency 0
Item 8.b
461 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 215
Moderate Risk EMS Incident
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate-risk EMS incident. It involves assessing and treating one or two patients with critical injuries or illnesses or a motor vehicle crash with 1–2 patients. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 132: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk EMS
Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Family/Bystander Liaison
Treatment 3
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 2
Transport Ambulance (1) 2
Effective Response Force: 8
Figure 133: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk EMS
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief
Ambulance 1 2
Total 1 3 2 5 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 3 5 8
Staff Needed 8
Deficiency 0
Item 8.b
462 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 216
High-Risk EMS Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk EMS incident. It involves 3–8 patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will involve triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and coordinated transport of patients. The following figure identifies the critical task required to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the resources assigned for this incident type.

Figure 134: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk EMS
Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Safety 1
Basic Life Support Treatment 6
Transport Ambulance (2) 4
Effective Response Force: 12
Figure 135: Alarm Assignment – High Risk EMS
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 2 6
Truck 1 3
Battalion Chief 1 1
Ambulance 2 4
Total 2 4 5 13 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 13 17
Staff Needed 12
Deficiency +5
Item 8.b
463 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 217
Maximum Risk EMS Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk EMS incident. It involves more than nine patients with injuries ranging from minor to critical. Patient care will involve triage, BLS, ALS treatment, and coordinated transport of patients. If this is an active shooter incident, the response may require units for a casualty collection area to treat patients not in the hot zone. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 136: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk EMS
Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Safety 1
Triage Group 1
Basic Life Support Treatment 10
Transport Group 1
Staging 1
Transport Ambulance (4) 8
Effective Response Force: 23
Figure 137: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk EMS
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 2 6
Truck 1 3
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Ambulance 4 8
Total 2 4 8 18 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 18 22
Staff Needed 23
Deficiency -1
Item 8.b
464 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 218

WILDLAND INCIDENTS
Low-Risk Wildland Incident
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk wildland firefighting incident involving a fire minor in scope, structures not threatened, and when Red Flag conditions do not exist. These include low-risk wildland or grass fires, an outside smoke investigation, illegal or controlled burns, or small vegetation fires. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 138: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Wildland/WUI Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 1
Fire Attack 5
Effective Response Force: 7
Figure 139: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Wildland/WUI
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 1 3
Truck
Squad
Battalion Chief 1 1
Total 1 4 1 3 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 3 7
Staff Needed 7
Deficiency 0
Item 8.b
465 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 219
Moderate-Risk Wildland Incident
Multiple units are needed to manage a moderate-risk wildland firefighting incident involving a significant fire in brush, a brush pile at a chipping site, grass, or cultivated vegetation. Red Flag conditions do not exist, and structures may or may not be threatened. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 140: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Safety 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 2
Fire Attack Divisions 2
Water Supply 2
Structure Protection 2
Staging 1
Effective Response Force: 11
Figure 141: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 3 9
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
Total 2 4 3 9 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 9 13
Staff Needed 11
Deficiency +2
High-Risk Wildland Incident
Item 8.b
466 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 220
Multiple units or alarms are needed to manage a high-risk wildland firefighting incident. The level is associated with Red Flag warnings with structures that may or may not be threatened. This fire involves a significant wildfire in the brush, grasses, cultivated vegetation, or woodland areas. Additional alarm assignment, command staff, recall of off-duty personnel, and mutual aid assistance may require the operations to extend beyond the identified critical tasks. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 142: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Wildland/WUI Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Safety 1
Lookout 1
Driver/Engine or Pump Operator 3
Fire Attack Divisions 3
Water Supply 1
Structure Protection 4
Staging 1
Effective Response Force: 15
Figure 143: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Wildland/WUI
Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 5 15
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
Total 2 4 5 15 Totals
Staff Available 4 15 19
Staff Needed 15
Deficiency +4
Item 8.b
467 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 221

TECHNICAL RESCUE INCIDENTS
Low-Risk Technical Rescue Incident
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk technical rescue incident involving any minor rescues, such as a child locked in a vehicle, elevator entrapment, or minor mechanical entrapment. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 144: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Technical Rescue Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Basic Life Support 2
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 2
Effective Response Force: 5
Figure 145: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief
Ambulance 1 2
Total 1 3 0 2 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 3 2 5
Staff Needed 5
Deficiency 0
Item 8.b
468 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 222
Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Incident
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate technical rescue risk incident. Support is not usually required from a technical rescue team. This type of incident involves a motor vehicle crash that requires patient extrication, removal of a patient entangled in machinery or other equipment, or a person trapped by downed power lines. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 146: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Basic Life Support Treatment 0
Advanced Life Support Treatment 2
Extrication/Hazard Mitigation 5
Effective Response Force: 8
Figure 147: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type Victorville FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
Ambulance 1 2
Total 2 4 2 5 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 5 9
Staff Needed 8
Deficiency +1
Item 8.b
469 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 223
High-Risk Technical Rescue Incident
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a high-risk technical rescue incident. This type of incident may involve full-scale technical rescue operations ranging from structural collapse to swift water rescues. It may involve multiple motor vehicles that require extrication, commercial passenger carriers, or a vehicle impacting a building. Support is needed, usually required from a technical rescue team. This incident may require multiple alarms. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 148: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Technical Rescue Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations 1
Rescue Teams 2
Rescue Support Group 3
Basic Life Support Treatment 4
Advanced Life Support Treatment 4
Effective Response Force: 17
Figure 149: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 2 6
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
Rescue 1 3
Ambulance 2 4
Total 2 4 5 13 1 1 Totals
Staff Available 4 13 17
Staff Needed 17
Deficiency 0
Maximum-Risk Technical Rescue Incident
Item 8.b
470 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 224
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk technical rescue incident. Support is required from a specialized technical rescue team and may have multiple operations locations. This type of incident will involve full-scale technical rescue operations such as victims endangered or trapped by structural collapse, swift water, or earth cave-ins. This incident will require multiple alarms and may expand beyond the identified critical tasking. Recall of off-duty personnel or assistance from auto or mutual aid may occur during a disaster or when additional alarms and command staff are needed. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 150: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations 1
Rescue Teams 2
Rescue Support Group 3
Basic Life Support Treatment 4
Advanced Life Support Treatment 4
Staging 1
Effective Response Force: 18
Figure 151: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 2 6
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Rescue 1 3
Ambulance 2 4
Total 2 4 5 13 1 1 Totals
Staff Available 4 13 17
Staff Needed 20
Deficiency -3
Item 8.b
471 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 225

HAZMAT INCIDENTS
Low-Risk Hazardous Materials Incident
A single fire unit can manage a low-risk hazardous materials (HazMat) incident involving carbon monoxide alarms and other unknown HazMat investigations without symptomatic victims, less than 20 gallons of fuel, natural gas meter incidents, downed power lines, equipment/electrical problems, attempted burning, or automatic alarms that may originate from a hazardous material. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 152: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Hazard Mitigation 3
Effective Response Force: 4
Figure 153: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
HM Specialist*
Total 2 4 0 0 0 0 Totals
Staff Available 4 0 4
Staff Needed 4
Deficiency 0
*-limited existing HM program/equipment
Item 8.b
472 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 226
Moderate-Risk Hazardous Material Incident
A two-unit response is required to control or mitigate a moderate-risk hazardous materials incident. Direct support is not usually required from a hazardous materials team. This type of incident involves a carbon monoxide alarm with symptomatic patients, a fuel spill of 20–55 gallons, or a gas or petroleum products pipeline break not threatening any exposures. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 154: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 1
Safety 1
Decontamination 1
Hazmat Group Supervisor 1
Hazard Mitigation 5
Advance Life Support Treatment 2
Effective Response Force: 11
Figure 155: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3 2 6
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
HM Specialist 1 3
Ambulance 1 2
Total 2 4 3 8 1 3 Totals
Staff Available 4 8 12
Staff Needed 11
Deficiency +1
*-limited existing HM program/equipment
High-Risk Hazardous Materials Incident
Item 8.b
473 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 227
A multiple-unit response with a HazMat team is required to control or mitigate a high-risk hazardous materials incident. Support is needed for a Level 2 HazMat incident that involves establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. This response includes a release with 3–8 victims, gas leaks in a structure, HazMat alarm releases with victims, flammable gas or liquid pipeline breaks with exposures, fuel spills greater than 55 gallons, fuel spills in underground drainage or sewer systems, transportation or industrial chemical releases, or radiological incidents. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident and the assigned resources for this type.

Figure 156: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations / HM Group Supervisor 1
Entry Team Officer and Team 4
Back-up Entry Team 4
Hazmat Support Group 4
Decontamination 4
Medical Group 1
Transport Ambulance (2) 4
Effective Response Force: 25
Figure 157: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
Ambulance 2 4
HM Specialist 1 4 3 9
Total 2 4 3 8 3 9 Totals
Staff Available 4 8 12
Staff Needed 25
Deficiency -13
*-limited existing HM program/equipment
Maximum Hazardous Material Rescue Incident
Item 8.b
474 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 228
A multiple-unit response is required to control or mitigate a maximum-risk hazardous materials incident. This type of incident will involve establishing operational zones (hot/warm/cold) and assigning multiple support divisions and groups. Examples include nine or more contaminated or exposed victims, a large storage tank failure, HazMat railcar failure, or a weapon of mass destruction incident. The following figure identifies the required critical tasking to mitigate the incident, the Effective Response Force, and the assigned resources for this incident type.

Figure 158: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Hazardous Materials Task Description Personnel Needed
Command 2
Safety 1
Operations / HM Group Supervisor 1
Entry Team Officer and Team 4
Back-up Entry Team 4
Hazmat Support Group 4
Decontamination 4
Medical Group 1
Transport Ambulance (2) 4
Effective Response Force: 25
Figure 159: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Hazardous Materials Unit Type Healdsburg FD Auto Aid Mutual Aid
Units Staff Units Staff Units Staff
Engine 1 3
Truck
Battalion Chief 1 1
Ambulance 2 4
HM Specialist 1 4 3 9
Total 2 4 3 8 3 9 Totals
Staff Available 4 8 12
Staff Needed 25
Deficiency -13
*-limited existing HM program/equipment
Item 8.b
475 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 229
APPENDIX C: TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Service Area Map ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: City of Healdsburg 2025-26 General Fund Revenue ($19.2 Million) ................................................... 7 Figure 3: City of Healdsburg 2025-26 General Fund Expenditures ($19.1 Million) ............................................ 8 Figure 4: City of Healdsburg General Fund Summary (*) ................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Fire Department Historical Funding Sources....................................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Fire Department Costs by Category................................................................................................... 10 Figure 7: Staffing ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8: Organizational Chart.......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9: CRR Planning Process......................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 10: Fire & Life Safety Inspections.......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 11: Leading Causes of Death in Sonoma County (2022–2024).............................................................. 30 Figure 12: General Training Competencies....................................................................................................... 36 Figure 13: Training Record Entries.................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 14: Summary of HFD Stations................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 15: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition...................................................................... 40 Figure 16: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition ........................................................... 43 Figure 17: HFD Emergency Response Inventory (2025) ................................................................................... 44 Figure 18: Population Estimates (2020–2025).................................................................................................. 49 Figure 19: Population Density (2025) ............................................................................................................... 50 Figure 20: Percentage of Population by Age Risk ............................................................................................. 52 Figure 21: Population with a Disability ............................................................................................................. 52 Figure 22: Population Over 5 Years Speaking English less than Very Well....................................................... 53 Figure 23: Percentage of Population in Poverty ............................................................................................... 53 Figure 24: Median Income ................................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 25: Population Without Health Insurance Under 65 Years of Age ........................................................ 54 Figure 26: Highest Level of Educational Attainment ........................................................................................ 55 Figure 27: Population by Race .......................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 28: Home Ownership ............................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 29: Age of Housing by Decade ............................................................................................................... 57 Figure 30: Housing Units per Building............................................................................................................... 58 Figure 31: Three-Axis Risk Classification Process.............................................................................................. 60 Figure 32: Probability or Likelihood of Occurrence .......................................................................................... 61 Item 8.b
476 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 230
Figure 33: Consequence to the Community ..................................................................................................... 61 Figure 34: Impact on Operational Forces ......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 35: Fire Response Risk Assessment........................................................................................................ 63 Figure 36: Fire Three-Axis Risk Classifications .................................................................................................. 63 Figure 37: EMS Response Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................... 64 Figure 38: EMS Three-Axis Risk Classifications ................................................................................................. 64 Figure 39: Technical Rescue Response Risk Assessment.................................................................................. 65 Figure 40: Technical Rescue Three-Axis Risk Classifications............................................................................. 65 Figure 41: Hazardous Materials Response Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 66 Figure 42: Hazardous Materials Three-Axis Risk Classifications....................................................................... 66 Figure 43: Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) Response Risk Assessment............................................................ 67 Figure 44: WUI Three-Axis Risk Classifications ................................................................................................. 67 Figure 45: Average Daily High Temperatures................................................................................................... 70 Figure 46: Average Daily Low Temperatures.................................................................................................... 70 Figure 47: Average Monthly Precipitation........................................................................................................ 71 Figure 48: Fire Hazard Severity Zones............................................................................................................... 73 Figure 49: Average Wind Speeds...................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 50: Earthquake Risks.............................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 51: FEMA Flood Hazard.......................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 52: Hazardous Materials Facilities......................................................................................................... 81 Figure 53: Healdsburg Land Use Map ............................................................................................................... 83 Figure 54: Special Considerations..................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 55: Educational Occupancies................................................................................................................. 87 Figure 56: Assembly Occupancies..................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 57: Health Care Occupancies................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 58: Buildings with Three or More Stories.............................................................................................. 92 Figure 59: Lodging Occupancies........................................................................................................................ 94 Figure 60: Multifamily Residential Occupancies............................................................................................... 95 Figure 61: Target Hazards................................................................................................................................. 97 Figure 62: Key Commercial Occupancies.......................................................................................................... 98 Figure 63: Average Daily Traffic Counts............................................................................................................ 99 Figure 64: Major Highways and Streets.......................................................................................................... 100 Figure 65: Railways ......................................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 66: High Power Grid............................................................................................................................. 104 Item 8.b
477 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 231
Figure 67: Natural Gas Pipelines..................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 68: Fire Hydrants.................................................................................................................................. 107 Figure 69: Government Occupancies.............................................................................................................. 109 Figure 70: ISO Earned & Available Credits...................................................................................................... 111 Figure 71: California ISO Classification............................................................................................................ 111 Figure 72: HFD Fires Per 1,000 Population ..................................................................................................... 112 Figure 73: Data Skew ...................................................................................................................................... 115 Figure 74: Total Incident Count (2021–2025)................................................................................................. 117 Figure 75: Incident Density—All Incidents (2021–2025) ................................................................................ 119 Figure 76: Incident Density—EMS Incidents (2021–2025) ............................................................................. 120 Figure 77: Incident Density—Fire Incidents (2021–2025) .............................................................................. 121 Figure 78: Recurring Location Responses (2021–2025).................................................................................. 122 Figure 79: Annual Incident Volume—City & Contract Area (2021–2025) ...................................................... 123 Figure 80: Monthly Incident Volume Percentage (2021–2025) ..................................................................... 124 Figure 81: Incidents by Day of the Week (2021–2025)................................................................................... 124 Figure 82: Incident Volume by Month & Weekday (2021–2025)................................................................... 126 Figure 83: Percent Variation by Hour (2021–2025)........................................................................................ 127 Figure 84: Incident Volume by Hour & Weekday (2021–2025)...................................................................... 127 Figure 85: ISO 5-Mile Distance from HFD Stations ......................................................................................... 129 Figure 86: ISO 1.5-Mile Engine Distance......................................................................................................... 130 Figure 87: 2.5-Mile ISO Truck Distance........................................................................................................... 131 Figure 88: Annual Responses by Unit (2021–2025)........................................................................................ 132 Figure 89: Incident Responses by NFIRS Category & Apparatus Type (2021–2025) ...................................... 133 Figure 90: Average Apparatus Type Commit Time by Incident Type (2021–2025) ........................................ 134 Figure 91: Command, Utility, & Station Standby Staffing (2021–2025) ......................................................... 135 Figure 92: Apparatus Annual Staffing (2021–2025)........................................................................................ 136 Figure 93: Reserve Responses by Year (2021–2025) ...................................................................................... 137 Figure 94: Reserve Response by Apparatus or Standby (2021–2025)............................................................ 139 Figure 95: Unit Hour Utilization (2021–2025)................................................................................................. 140 Figure 96: Jurisdictional Concurrency............................................................................................................. 141 Figure 97: All Concurrency .............................................................................................................................. 142 Figure 98: Incident Lifecycle ........................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 99: Incident Segment Key Performance Indicators ............................................................................. 144 Figure 100: Call Processing by NFIRS Group (2021–2025).............................................................................. 146 Item 8.b
478 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 232
Figure 101: Call Processing by Hour................................................................................................................ 147 Figure 102: Turnout Time by Apparatus & Incident Type (2021–2025) ......................................................... 148 Figure 103: Turnout Time by Apparatus & Shift (2021–2025)........................................................................ 149 Figure 104: Turnout Time by Hour (2021–2025) ............................................................................................ 150 Figure 105: Stations 1 & 2 Travel Time Estimates .......................................................................................... 151 Figure 106: Station 1 Alone Estimated Travel Time........................................................................................ 152 Figure 107: First Due Travel by Incident Type (2021–2025)........................................................................... 153 Figure 108: Annual First-Due Travel by Area with Volume (2021–2025) ....................................................... 154 Figure 109: First-Due Travel Time by Hour (2021–2025)................................................................................ 155 Figure 110: Neighboring Agency Estimated Travel Time to HFD Station 1..................................................... 156 Figure 111: First Three Arriving Units Travel Time (2021–2025).................................................................... 157 Figure 112: City Total Response Time by Hour (2021–2025).......................................................................... 158 Figure 113: Annual City Total Response Time (2021–2025)........................................................................... 159 Figure 114: 20-Year Population Forecast with 95% Confidence Bands.......................................................... 161 Figure 115: 2020 Population Distribution....................................................................................................... 163 Figure 116: Service Demand Projection to 2032 ............................................................................................ 164 Figure 117: Automatic and Mutual Aid Resources (Table) ............................................................................. 167 Figure 118: Automatic and Mutual Aid Resources (Map)............................................................................... 168 Figure 119: Incident Segments and Metrics Comparison............................................................................... 175 Figure 120: Six-Step Compliance Model ......................................................................................................... 181 Figure 121: Interview Relationship & Service Rating Summary ..................................................................... 205 Figure 13: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Fire ............................................................................................. 210 Figure 123: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Fire ............................................................................................... 210 Figure 124: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Fire.................................................................................. 211 Figure 125: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Fire...................................................................................... 211 Figure 126: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Fire........................................................................................... 212 Figure 127: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Fire .............................................................................................. 212 Figure 128: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Fire.................................................................................. 213 Figure 129: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Fire ..................................................................................... 213 Figure 130: Critical Task Analysis – Low-Risk EMS .......................................................................................... 214 Figure 131: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk EMS .............................................................................................. 214 Figure 132: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk EMS................................................................................. 215 Figure 133: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk EMS .................................................................................... 215 Figure 134: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk EMS.......................................................................................... 216 Item 8.b
479 of 493
COMMUNITY RISK ASSES SMENT - STANDARDS OF C OVER | HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPA RTMENT 233
Figure 135: Alarm Assignment – High Risk EMS ............................................................................................. 216 Figure 136: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk EMS................................................................................. 217 Figure 137: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk EMS .................................................................................... 217 Figure 138: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Wildland/WUI .......................................................................... 218 Figure 139: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Wildland/WUI .............................................................................. 218 Figure 140: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI................................................................. 219 Figure 141: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Wildland/WUI..................................................................... 219 Figure 142: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Wildland/WUI.......................................................................... 220 Figure 143: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Wildland/WUI ............................................................................. 220 Figure 144: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Technical Rescue...................................................................... 221 Figure 145: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Technical Rescue.......................................................................... 221 Figure 146: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue ............................................................ 222 Figure 147: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Technical Rescue ................................................................ 222 Figure 148: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Technical Rescue ..................................................................... 223 Figure 149: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Technical Rescue......................................................................... 223 Figure 150: Critical Task Analysis – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue ............................................................ 224 Figure 151: Alarm Assignment – Maximum Risk Technical Rescue................................................................ 224 Figure 152: Critical Task Analysis – Low Risk Hazardous Materials................................................................ 225 Figure 153: Alarm Assignment – Low Risk Hazardous Materials.................................................................... 225 Figure 154: Critical Task Analysis – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials....................................................... 226 Figure 155: Alarm Assignment – Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials .......................................................... 226 Figure 156: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 227 Figure 157: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Hazardous Materials................................................................... 227 Figure 158: Critical Task Analysis – High Risk Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 228 Figure 159: Alarm Assignment – High Risk Hazardous Materials................................................................... 228 Item 8.b
480 of 493

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 3, 2026
SUBJECT: Sonoma County Library Commission Appointment
PREPARED BY: Raina Allan, City Clerk
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Effective and Efficient Government
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Appoint a Healdsburg Representative to the Sonoma County Library Commission for a term of four years due to expire August 1, 2030.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

The Sonoma County Library Commission vacancy was published in the Press Democrat and the Healdsburg Tribune on April 2, 2026, April 9, 2026, April 16, 2026, and April 30, 2026.

Information on the vacancy was also posted on the City Website and the City Social Media Platforms.

BACKGROUND:

As part of the amended Library Joint Powers Agreement, the City of Healdsburg is entitled to appoint a representative on the Sonoma County Library Commission. The terms on the Commission are for four years.

The City of Healdsburg’s current representative is Andy Elkind and his term expired August 1, 2026. Mr. Elkind is not seeking re-appointment.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

On May 18, 2026, the City Council formed a subcommittee comprised of Councilmember’s Kelley and Mitchell to conduct interviews. The subcommittee interviewed three applicants; Heather O’Neill, Ann Condon, and Caroline Gonzalez.

At the June 15, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council appointed Caroline Gonzalez to the Library Commission. Since that appointment, Ms. Gonzalez is no longer available to serve on the Commission.

Item 8.c
481 of 493
The subcommittee will make a recommendation on who should fill the vacancy from the other two applicants.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council could move forward without appointing one of the applicants. If the alternative is selected, staff requests further direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a direct result from 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):

Library Commission Applications
Item 8.c
482 of 493
Item 8.c
483 of 493
Item 8.c
484 of 493
Commission Application