Hollister City Council
August 7, 2023

this Agreement shall be prepared describing such changes. Execution of the amendment by City and Contractor shall constitute the Contractor's notice to proceed with the changed scope.

5. Compensation; Retention: Contractor shall be compensated for services rendered to City pursuant to this Agreement periodically in the amounts, manner and in accordance with the payment schedule as set forth in EXHIBIT "B" entitled "COMPENSATION." Amounts due to Contractor from City for services rendered shall be evidenced by the submission to City by Contractor of an invoice, prepared in a form satisfactory to City, setting forth the amount of compensation due for the period covered.

Each such invoice shall be forwarded to City so as to reach it on o r before the fifteenth (15th) day of the month next following the month, or other applicable period, for which the services invoiced were provided. All such invoices shall be in full accordance with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement. City will make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of its receipt, provided, however, that if Contractor submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, then City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Contractor until a correct and complying invoice has been submitted.

6. Responsibility of Contractor: By executing this Agreement, Contractor warrants to City that Contractor possesses, or will arrange to secure from others, all of the necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources and facilities necessary to provide to City the services contemplated under this Agreement. Contractor further warrants that it will follow the best current, generally accepted professional practices to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding the project for which services are rendered under this Agreement.

7. Responsibility of City: To the extent appropriate to this project, City agrees to:

7.1 Assist Contractor by placing at its disposal all available information pertinent to the project, including previous reports and any other relevant data.

7.2 Guarantee access to and make all provision for Contractor to enter upon public and private property as required for Contractor to perform its services.

7.3 Examine all studies, reports, specifications, proposals and other documents prepared and presented by Contractor, and render verbally or in writing as may be appropriate, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the progress of the work by Contractor.

7.4 Designate in writing a person to act as City's representative with respect to work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have complete authority to transmit DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 309

instructions, receive information, interpret and define City's policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements and systems pertinent to Contractor's services.

8. Indemnification: Contractor shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including without limitation, attorney fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Contractor hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement.

9. Insurance: During the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain in full force and effect at its own cost and expense the following insurance coverage:

9.1 Workers' Compensation Insurance to cover its employees, and Contractor shall require all contractors and subcontractors similarly to provide Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California for all of the subcontractors' employees.

9.2 Professional Liability Insurance Covering Errors and Omissions. The limits of coverage shall be no less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) with a provision for no more than $25,000 deductible. Contractor may not disclaim responsibility or avoid liability for the acts or omissions of its subcontractors or other professional contractors.

9.3 Public Liability Insurance including personal injury and property damage insurance for all activities of the Contractor and its subcontractors arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, written on a comprehensive general liability form including, but not limited to, Broad Form Property Damage, blanket contractual, products liability and completed operations, X, C, U hazards, vehicle coverage and non-owned auto liability coverage in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit personal injury and property damage for each occurrence.

9.4 Certificates of Insurance and properly executed endorsements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney evidencing the coverage required by the clauses set forth above shall be filed with the City at the time of execution of this Agreement. Each such policy shall be endorsed with the following language, except as otherwise provided:
(1) The City of Hollister is named as additional insured for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured, and this policy protects the additional insured, its officers, agents, and employees against liability for personal and bodily injuries, deaths or property damage or destruction arising in any respect, directly or indirectly, in the performance of the contract. (For Public Liability Only)
(2) The insurance provided is primary and no other insurance held or owned by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 310

(3) The inclusion of more than one insured shall not operate to impair the rights of one insured against another insured, and the coverage afforded shall apply as though separate policies had been issued to each insured.
(4) The coverage provided by this policy shall not be canceled, non-renewed, or substantially reduced in amount or scope, without thirty (30) days prior written notice given to City by certified mail.
(5) All rights of subrogation are hereby waived against the City, its officers, and employees when acting within the scope of their appointment or employment.

10. Confidentiality: All City information disclosed to Contractor during the course of performance of services under this Agreement shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed to any other persons or parties except as authorized by City, or required by law.

11. Conflict of Interest: Contractor warrants that neither Contractor, nor any of its employees, agents or subcontractors, has a conflict of interest with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement, nor shall such individuals, during this term of this Agreement, acquire any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performances of services hereunder.

12. Nondiscrimination: During the performance of this Agreement, Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or age. Contractor will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, religion, creed, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or age.

13. Independent Contractor: City and Contractor agree that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of an independent contractor. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the conduct and control of the work performed under this Agreement.

Contractor shall be free to render professional consulting services to others during the term of this Agreement, so long as such activities do not interfere with or diminish Contractor's ability to fulfill the obligations established herein to City.

14. Notice to Proceed; Progress; Completion: Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties, City shall give Contractor written notice to proceed with the work. Such notice may authorize Contractor to render all of the services contemplated herein, or such portions or phases as may be mutually agreed upon. In the latter event, City shall, in its sole discretion, issue subsequent notices from time to time regarding further portions or phases of the work. Upon DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 311

receipt of such notices, Contractor shall diligently proceed with the work authorized and complete it within the agreed time period.

15. Ownership of Documents. Title to all documents, drawings, specifications, and work product performed under this Agreement shall vest with City at such time as City has compensated Contractor, as provided herein, for those services rendered by Contractor.

16. Designation of Key Personnel: The individuals specified in the attached EXHIBIT "C" shall provide the services set forth herein, and shall be the persons primarily in charge of such work. No other individuals may provide services for Contractor on this project without first obtaining the written approval of the city manager.

17. Mistake of Fact. Each party understands that if any fact with respect to any matter covered b y this Agreement is found hereafter to be other or different from the facts now believed by that party to be true, such party expressly accepts and assumes the risk of such possible differences in fact and agrees that this Agreement shall be in all respects effective and not subject to termination or rescission by reason of any such difference in facts.

18. Term; Termination: The term of this Agreement shall commence upon City's issuance to Contractor of a notice to proceed for all or a portion of the work, as hereinabove provided, and shall terminate upon City's acceptance and payment for all or such portion of the work as was authorized by such notice, including any and all retention. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason whatsoever by giving at least ten (10) days prior written notice of such termination to Contractor.

In this latter event, Contractor shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered and work performed for City to the date of such termination.

19. Access to Records. Contractor shall maintain all books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials relating to work performed for City under this Agreement on file for at least five (5) years following the date of final payment to Contractor by City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit and copying at reasonable times, during Contractor's usual and cu stomary business hours. Contractor shall provide proper facilities to City's representative(s) for access and inspection.

20. Assignment. This Agreement is binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto and shall not be assigned by either City or Contractor without the prior written consent of the other. Any attempt by City or Contractor to so assign this Agreement o r any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.

21. Compliance with Laws, Rules, Regulations. All services performed by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and City laws, including any rules, standards or regulations promulgated thereunder.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 312

22. Exhibits Incorporated. All Exhibits referred to in this Agreement and attached to it are hereby incorporated in it by this reference.

23. Integration; Amendment. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of City and Contractor as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered in it. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by amendment in writing sign by both parties.

24. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null, and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.

25. Waiver/Validity. Contractor agrees that waiver by City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. The acceptance by the City of the performance of any work or services by Contractor shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement.

26. Jurisdiction: City and Contractor agree that the law governing this Agreement shall be that of the State of California. Any suit brought by either party against the other arising out of the performance of this Agreement shall be filed and maintained in the County of San Benito.

27. Notice: Any notices required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given by their deposit, postage prepaid, in the United States Postal Service, addressed to the parties as follows:
a. To City:

William Via, Community Services Director
City of Hollister
1321 South Street
Hollister, California 95023

b. To Contractor:

Frank Trovao, President
The Christmas Tree Light Guy Co.
7542 Santa Rita Circle
Stanton, CA 90680

Nothing hereinabove shall prevent either City or Contractor from personally delivering any such notices to the other.

DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 313

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year above written.

CONTRACTOR: CITY OF HOLLISTER:

Frank Trovao, President Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mary Lerner, City Attorney

DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 314

EXHIBIT "A"

SCOPE OF SERVICES - BASIC COMPLETION SCHEDULE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Contractor shall provide the following services:

1. Furnish lights for 100+/- trees in the downtown area

2. Install lights on 100+/- trees in the downtown area from 4th Street to South Street (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, South) between East Street and Monterey Street (two blocks)

DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 315

EXHIBIT "B"

COMPENSATION
City shall pay Contractor a total amount not to exceed $55,000.00 comprised of the following:

Task Description Unit Count Cost

1. Furnish and install tree lights $ 550 100 $55,000.00

Total $55,000.00

DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 316

EXHIBIT "C"

PROJECT STAFF

NAME TITLE
Frank Trovao Head Project Manager
Andrea Trovao General Manager
Anthony Vega Operations Manager

DocuSign Envelope ID: AFF8A5AE-55A1-45AA-A296-EC2A8BD94C3B A.11.b
Packet Pg. 317

DOCUSIGN CONTRACT COVER SHEET
Staff must complete sections 1-7 and upload as an attachment to your contract in DocuSign From (Staff name and Department):

William Via
Community Services
Document name and type:

Christmas Light Guy Contract Amendment

Council Meeting Date:

August 7, 2023
______________________
Staff Report ID # (MinuteTraq):
4130
______________________

Project Name:

Downtown Tree Lights Installation

Vendor Name:

The Christmas Light Guy Co.

Needs to be Recorded by County?
☒No
☐Yes (DocuSign contract must include cover
sheet for recorder’s office)
Date to be recorded
by:_______________

Notary required? (must indicate/flag ALL
sections that need notarization):
☒No
☐Yes
For Clerk Use Only
☐Routed back to staff person (incomplete):____________________________________ ☐Routed back to staff person (vendor signatures):_______________________________ ☐Approved by Council:________________________Resolution No:_________________ ☐Not Approved by Council (return to staff member):_____________________________

Clerk Use Only
Received Date:

Initials:
1 2
3 4
6 7
5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 142CF8D1-E101-4CD2-BD7E-1DBABBB5DA5B A.11.c
Packet Pg. 318

EXHIBIT "D"
AMENDMENT 1-ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES

ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES

Contractor shall provide the following services at the original contract price of $550 per tree, for a total of $10,450:

1. Furnish lights for 19 trees

2. Install lights on 19 trees located on the west side of East Street from 4th Street to South Street

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement on this ______ day of August, 2023.

CONTRACTOR: CITY OF HOLLISTER:

Name, Title Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

DocuSign Envelope ID: 142CF8D1-E101-4CD2-BD7E-1DBABBB5DA5B 7/24/2023
A.11.c
Packet Pg. 319

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023
SUBMITTED: August 2, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Public Works
William Via, Community Services
Director

TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-150, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER TO GRANT ACCESS TO 390 APOLLO WAY (APN 0511700080)

TO SAN BENITO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT TO DRILL AN EXPLORATORY WELL

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Approval of this resolution would authorize the Mayor to sign an access agreement allowing San Benito County Water District access to 390 Apollo Way (APN 0511700080) to allow for exploratory drilling for a new water well.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this resolution.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: More than ten years ago, Well #3, located at 180 Fallon Road, was taken offline due to poor water quality. In May of 2022, an exploratory test well was drilled at 330 Apollo Way (APN 0511700080) in search of a quality water source to replace the production of Well #3 in order to improve water quality and pressure in the north end of the City.

However, the specifications for the well driller did not require individual testing of the various strata/water aquifers below the surface as the bore was advanced into the ground. The driller was allowed to bore to the entire test depth and then utilize inflatable plugs to separate various water zones. The drillers were not able to adequately seal the areas between the aquifers and it is believed that there was ‘mixing’ between the zones. If this mixing occurred, the results from the water data would have been skewed and likely dramatically impacted the outcome. The topography and adjacent well data suggest that the results for this well are an ‘outlier’ to neighboring water quality.

In conjunction with another of their projects, San Benito County Water District (SBCWD) would like to drill another exploratory test well, at their expense, in the same area to determine if the prior test results were contaminated by the mixing of the samples from the different strata.

The new bore hole has been specified to ensure that the water samples are tested from unique aquifers. The bore would be advanced through individual strata and the water in each zone would be tested. After testing, the zone is sealed, and the bore would continue to the next zone. This would ensure that there is no ‘artificial’ mixing between zones and will yield a true picture of the below surface condition.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

CEQA: Categorical Exemption Sec 15306 Class 6 Information Collection

ATTACHMENTS:

1. SBCWD_Access Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A.12
Packet Pg. 320

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

A.12
Packet Pg. 321

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-150

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER TO GRANT ACCESS TO 390 APOLLO WAY (APN 0511700080) TO SAN BENITO COUNTY WATER

DISTRICT TO DRILL AN EXPLORATORY WELL

WHEREAS, the City owns property at 390 Apollo Way (APN 0511700080); and

WHEREAS, there is a need for a reliable water source on the north end of the City; and

WHEREAS, San Benito County Water District (SBCWD) desires to drill an exploratory test well at 390 Apollo Way, at their expense; and

WHEREAS, SBCWD is requesting an agreement for access to 390 Apollo Way.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister hereby approves the agreement and authorizes the Mayor to sign the agreement granting access to 390 Apollo Way to SBCWD for the purpose of drilling an exploratory test well.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 7th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

A.12
Packet Pg. 322

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-150, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of August, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister
A.12
Packet Pg. 323

A.12.a
Packet Pg. 324

A.12.a
Packet Pg. 325

A.12.a
Packet Pg. 326

A.12.a
Packet Pg. 327

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023
SUBMITTED: July 26, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

City Manager
David Mirrione, Acting City
Manager

TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-151, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZING THE

SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE OF AN ALLOCATION OF FUND, AND

EXECUTION OF A GRANT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, FOR AN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MATCHING GRANT

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This action authorizes staff to apply for, receive, and execute a matching grant of up to $150,000.00 for the Non-Standard Runway 6 Aligned Taxiway and construct a Standard Taxiway Connector Design.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application and execute a grant agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation for an Airport improvement matching program matching grant.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The California Utilities Code provides grants of up to 5% of Federal Aviation Administration grants to airports. Staff is seeking permission to apply for, receive, and execute a matching grant of up to $150,000.00 for the Non-Standard Runway 6 Aligned Taxiway and construct a Standard Taxiway Connector Design.

The FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP) airport grant program funds airport infrastructure projects such as runways, taxiways, airport signage, airport lighting, and airport markings. The grants strengthen our nation's aviation infrastructure. Airports are entitled to a certain amount of AIP funding each year, based on passenger volume. If their capital project needs exceed their available entitlement funds, then the FAA can supplement their entitlements with dis cretionary funding.

The City of Hollister Airport’s Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project aims to enhance airfield safety and to bring the airport compliant to FAA standards. the City of Hollister Airport’s Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project aims to enhance airfield safety and to bring the airport compliant to FAA standards and is included the five-year Airport Capital Improvement Plan which has been approved by the FAA
This Project includes the design phase services for the following main components:
(1) the removal of the Runway 6 aligned in -line taxiway, (2) the removal of a portion of the existing parallel and connector Taxiway 'C', and (3) the construction of a new connector taxiway at the Runway 6 threshold. The design phase services also include assisting the City in the bidding of the Project and the coordination with the FAA and permitting agencies for the City and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Region 3. The Project work scope is more particularly described as including the removal of the Runway 6 aligned taxiway pavement and the associated edge lighting system and runway end lights, and the regrading of the subject area per FAA standards; the modifications to the existing underground drainage system to accommodate the new configuration; the removal of a portion of the parallel and connector Taxiway 'C' and the associated electrical, drainage and utility A.13
Packet Pg. 328

modifications to the existing systems; and the installation of a new connector taxiway at Runway 6 threshold and the reconfiguration of the apron connection pavement as needed including new taxiway edge lighting and signage and new runway end lighting.

Ancillary work includes: the installation of new drainage facilities to meet the SWRCB's requirements for Storm Water Quality and the City 's MS4 permit, the relocation of a portion of the existing 14-inch recycled water to facilitate the proposed improvements, the relocation of a portion of the existing AWOS power service to facilitate the new improvements, new electrical cabling and transformers for the Runway 6 edge lighting system that is failing, modifications to the existing electrical vault including a new CCR to facilitate the proposed improvements, the removal and replacement of the existing Runway 13 REIL's, the relocation of the exi sting Runway 31 REIL's, the placement of the P -401 test section to repair a section of the VSR, and the modifications to the existing airfield pavement markings to facilitate the proposed improvements.

On June 26, 2023, the City Council accepted a grant award in the amount of $3,267,899 for the Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project from the FAA. This grant required a maximum cash match of up to of $326,790. This grant will offset the match requirement of the FAA grant by $150,000 with a remaining maximum possible match of $176,790.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increase in Fund 601 State Assistance of up to $150,000.00 if awarded.

CEQA: N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Project Map

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

A.13
Packet Pg. 329

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-151

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE

OF AN ALLOCATION OF FUND, AND EXECUTION OF A GRANT WITH THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR AN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

MATCHING GRANT

WHEREAS, the City of Hollister and the Federal Aviation Administration are parties to Federal Improvement Program (AIP) grant 3-06-0105-027-2023; for the Non-Standard Runway 6 Aligned Taxiway and construct a Standard Taxiway Connector Design Project at the Hollister Municipal Airport; and

WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation, pursuant to the Public Utilities Code section 21683.1, provides grants of 5% of Federal Aviation Administration grants to airports; and

WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation requires the City Council of the City of Hollister to adopt a resolution authorizing the submission of an application for an AIP matc hing Grant.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hollister, State of California:

1. Authorizes filing an application for state AIP Matching grant for this project.

2. Authorizes accepting the allocation of state AIP matching funds for the project.

3. Authorizes execution of an AIP Matching Grant Agreement for this project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Hollister does hereby authorize the City Manager to sign any documents required to apply for and accept these grant funds on behalf of the City of Hollister.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 7th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

A.13
Packet Pg. 330

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-151, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of August, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister
A.13
Packet Pg. 331

Hollister Municipal Airport
Hollister, CA
Environmental Information
Runway 6 Safety Improvements
Not to scale.

Relocate existing
Rwy 31 REILs
Repair existing VSR
Relocate existing
Rwy 13 REILs
New Runway End Lights and reconfirgure Runway and
Taxiway edge lighting system to accommodate new connector New CCR for Runway 6 circuit and reconfigure
existing electrical vault to accommodate new
facilities
1) Regrade the area per
FAA RPZ/RSA standards.
2) Remove existing
electrical edge and Rwy end
lighting systems.
3) Relocate existing utilities
outside of Rwy OFA (14"
reclaimed water, 5kv power
to AWOS)
4) Reconfigure existing
drainage to accommodate
new improvements
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Modify existing
drainage to
accommodate
improvements
Modify existing
apron access to
accommodate new
connector
configuration
A.13.a
Packet Pg. 332

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023
SUBMITTED: July 16, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Information Services
Paul DaSilva, Information
Systems Manager

TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-152, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ACCEPTING THE AWARD OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S LOCAL AGENCY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR $500,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE

ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The City Council of the City of Hollister to accept the California Public Utilities Commission’s Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant award of $500,000.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution accepting the award of the California Public Utilities Commission’s Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant application for $500,000; and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute necessary documents.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Local Agency Technical Assistance (LATA) grant program provides funding to assist California’s local agencies and tribes in their efforts to provide high - speed broadband to unserved Californians. On February 24, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved Decision (D.) 22-020261 which established the LATA grant program and implemented current requirements and guidelines for the program. LATA grants provide reimbursement for Tribes and local agencies for pre-construction expenses that facilitate development of broadband network deployment projects to areas in need. Grants may be used to reimburse eligible costs such as environmental, feasibility, and engineering design studies or reports; needs assessments, market studies, broadband strategic plans, and business plans; forming a joint powers authority; and consultant and community-based organization services. Grants applications are being accepting on a per month rolling basis until the grant funding is fully awarded. The program has a budget of $50 million, including a $5 million set aside for tribes. Maximum grant awards are $500,000 and funds must be fully expended by December 31, 2024.

On November 30, 2022, staff submitted a LATA grant application for $500,000 to conduct a needs assessment in pursuance of providing fiber optic and wireless connectivity to all major City park areas for Public WiFi Access and park areas for San Benito County unincorporated islands within or contiguous to the City of Hollister. This will allow access to all residents, including underserved areas and lower income areas, for internet access to provide a minimum up/down link speeds of 100 Mbps. These connected areas would allow residents of Hollister and surrounding San Benito County areas to internet access provided by internet service providers partnering with the City to provide, manage, and maintain service. The execution of the design and engineering layout allows resident that live in these areas access for web browsing, educational and recreational needs.

The City of Hollister’s grant application was revised to better align with the Grant’s requirements of providing broadband access directly to residential areas and business entities via fiber optic cabling. On July 7, 2023, the City of Hollister was awarded full amount of $500,000 by the A.14
Packet Pg. 333

CPUC to complete the design to provide the necessary broadband access to residential and business areas of the city and surrounding areas. The $500,000 award is to reimburse the city for the completed design of the fiber optic project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increase in the General Fund of $500,000.

CEQA: N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Hollister LATA award

2. LATAAppropriation2023

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

A.14
Packet Pg. 334

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-152

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ACCEPTING THE AWARD OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S LOCAL AGENCY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR $500,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS

WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission’s Local Agency Technical Assistance (LATA) grant program provides funding to assist California’s local agencies and tribes in their efforts to provide high-speed broadband to unserved Californians; and

WHEREAS, the LATA program has a budget of $50 million, including a $5 million set aside for tribes with maximum grant awards of $500,000; and

WHEREAS, On November 30, 2022, staff submitted a LATA grant application to conduct a needs assessment in pursuance of providing fiber optic and wireless connectivity to all major City park areas for Public WiFi Access and park areas for San Benito County unincorporated islands within or contiguous to the City of Hollister; and

WHEREAS, On July 7, 2023, the City of Hollister was awarded full amount of $500,000 by the CPUC to complete the design to provide the necessary broadband access to residential and business areas of the city and surrounding areas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister accepts the award of a California Public Utilities Commission’s Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant for $500,000;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager or his designee are authorized to execute necessary documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 7th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

A.14
Packet Pg. 335

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-152, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of August, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister
A.14
Packet Pg. 336

July 7, 2023

Paul Da Silva, Information Systems & Technology Director [email protected]
Re: City of Hollister's Broadband Fiber Network Design

Dear Paul Da Silva:

Congratulations! The California Public Utilities Commission is pleased to inform you that the City Hollister’s application for Local Agency Technical Assistance grant funding for City of Hollister's Broadband Fiber Network Design in the amount of up to $500,000 has been approved. Your application was received on November 30, 2022, and was posted on the CPUC’s Local Agency Technical Assistance webpage. Per Resolution T-17793, the Commission has approved your award.

The award is predicated on the City of Hollister's agreement to provide technical assistance as detailed in its application. In its application, the City of Hollister agreed to comply with the specified Ministerial Review criteria as well as to fulfill all requirements, guidelines, and conditions associated with a grant of Local Agency Technical Assistance funds as specified in D.22 -02-026 including but not limited to execution and performance, payment, reporting and award acceptance requirements listed in Attachments 1 and 2 of this letter. Please sign and submit the following: 1. A Consent Form binding your organization to the terms of the grant and 2. A State of California Government Agency Tax Payer ID Form for tax reporting purposes.

You must submit these documents within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you do not, this award is void.

Thank you for your application and please direct any questions to Angela Beane ([email protected]) and/or refer to the Grantee Administrative Manual, available at https://bit.ly/CPUCLATA .

We appreciate your efforts to provide service to our fellow Californians.

Sincerely,

Maria I. Ellis
Deputy Director of Broadband
Communications Division

A.14.a
Packet Pg. 337

2 ATTACHMENT 1
Requirements
The grant award is predicated on the City of Hollister’s agreement to provide technical assistance as detailed in its application. In its application, the City of Hollister agreed and attested to comply with the specified Ministerial Review criteria as well as fulfilling all requirements guidelines, and conditions associated with a grant of Local Agency Technical Assistance funds as specified in D.22 -02-026, including but not limited to execution and performance, payment, reporting and award acceptance requirements. Key requirements of Local Agency Technical grant include, among others:
• All costs are related to the development of broadband network deployment projects to benefit unserved or underserved Californians. These projects may include, but are not limited to, the costs of joint powers authority formation, environmental studies, network design, and engineering study expenses.
• Grant may not exceed $500,000 per local agency, per fiscal year. • A signed affidavit agreeing to comply with the terms, conditions and requirements of the grant and submits to the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to the disbursement and administration of the grant as well as applicable state and federal rules concerning broadband services. • Grantee must sign a Consent Form agreeing to the terms stated in the award letter as well as all Local Agency Technical Assistance Rules and Requirements, Guidelines and Application Materials in D.22-06-026.
• Grantee must complete the reimbursable work product within 24 months. • Grantee must provide Staff a copy of the final reimbursable work product.

Reporting
The grant award is contingent upon fulfilling the reporting requirements per D.22 -06-026, Attachment 1.

SB 156 requires grantees to fulfill the monthly reporting requirements set forth in Public Utilities Code section 281(l)(1) if they are using a licensed contractor or subcontractor* to undertake a contract or subcontract in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). The Commission is required to post that information on its website. Specifically, SB 156 requires the following to be reported to the Commission on a monthly basis:
• The name and contractor’s license number of each licensed contractor and subcontractor undertaking a contract or subcontract in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to perform work on a project funded or financed pursuant to this section. • The location where a contractor or subcontractor described in subparagraph (A) will be performing that work.
• The anticipated dates when that work will be performed.

*Licensed contractor or subcontractor means any contractor that holds a California state license through the contractor’s state license board ( https://www.cslb.ca.gov/) .

A.14.a
Packet Pg. 338

3 Post-completion
Upon completion of the reimbursable work product and before final payment, Grantees must:
• Provide a signed completion form stating the technical assistance work has been completed suitable to be posted on the Commission’s webpage. The signed completion form must be provided prior to final payment and must include a short summary of the reimbursable work product(s) performed under the contract, including demonstration that the reimbursable work product(s) identify broadband infrastructure deployment projects that will help achieve the CASF deployment goal, and identification of the area(s) where the applicant intends to deploy broadband based on the reimbursable work product(s).
• Provide a copy of each reimbursable work product’s final report(s), plans, studies, etc. produced under the contract.

Payment
Payment will be made directly to the local agency as the grant recipient. Local agency grantees may request partial reimbursement if they complete one or more of the approved reimbursable work products prior to completion of other reimbursable work products approved in the same grant authoriz ation. Payment will be based upon receipt and approval of an invoice(s) submitted by the local agency showing the expenditures incurred for the reimbursable work product, along with the reimbursable work product final report/study/joint powers agreement, etc., and the completion reporting required above. The invoice(s) must be supported by documentation including but not limited to the actual cost of labor and any other expense that will be recovered by the grant.

To the extent that any portion of an award was used to reimburse a local agency for administrative costs associated with securing or completing a reimbursable work product, the local agency must submit an itemized accounting of such costs, demonstrating the total requested for reimbursement does no t exceed 15 percent of the total authorized award. If any portion of reimbursement is found to be out of compliance, grantees will be responsible for refunding any disallowed amount along with appropriate interest rates determined in accordance with applicable Commission decisions. Grantees are required to maintain records such as files, invoices, and other related documentation for five years after final payment. Grantees shall make these records and invoices available to the Commission upon request and ag ree that these records are subject to a financial audit by the Commission at any time within five years after the final payment made to a grantee.

Execution and Performance
The City of Hollister must complete the project within the 24 -month timeframe in accordance with the terms of approval granted by the Commission. If the Grantee is unable to complete project within the 24 - month timeframe, it must notify the Commission or Director of Communications Division as soon as it becomes aware of this prospect. Th e Commission may reduce or withhold payment for failure to satisfy this requirement. In the event that the Grantee or contractor fails to complete the work in accordance with the approval granted by the Commission, and as described in its application and contract, the Grantee must reimburse some or all of the funds it has received.

A.14.a
Packet Pg. 339

4 The City of Hollister must sign and submit the linked Consent Form agreeing to the terms of the award within 30 calendar days from the date of this letter. Failure to submit the Consent Form within the timeframe required, the CPUC will deem the grant or award null and void.

The City of Hollister must communicate in writing to the Communications Division’s Director regarding any changes to the substantive terms and conditions underlying the Commission’s approval of the grant (such as changes to a reimbursable work product contract, work plan or budget) at least 30 days before the anticipated. Substantive changes may require approval by either the Communications Division Director or by Commission Resolution before becoming effective.

The Commission has the right to conduct any necessary audit, verification, and discovery for work proposed or completed under the technical assistance to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with Commission rules and with the terms of approval by the Commission.

A.14.a
Packet Pg. 340

5 ATTACHMENT 2
Local Agency Broadband Technical Assistance Reporting Requirements and Guidelines
Version December 2022

The Local Agency Technical Assistance program provides grants for eligible pre -construction work which facilitates the construction of broadband network projects. When the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) established the technical assistance grant program, the program was funded with American Rescue Plan Act monies administered by the U.S. Treasury. The source of technical assistance funding has changed.

This guidance outlines grantee reporting.

The Commission issued Decision (D.) 22-02-026 establishing program requirements for the Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program.

Grantees must file quarterly progress reports to the Commission with the below information.

Narrative Project Information

1.1 The counties, cities and census designated places where households, businesses, and community anchor institutions are planned to be served by the broadband project.

1.2 Confirmation that the technical assistance is designed to support projects that, upon completion, reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps download and upload speeds.

1.3 Statement of intention about the pricing plans for projects that the technical assistance will support, such as offering of affordable plan or low-income plan subsidized with other funding (ACP).

1.4 Information on broadband need in the project area.

1.5 Statement describing the community benefits of broadband technical assistance.

Detailed Project Information

2.1 Individual work products granted by the program.
o Dollars/hours expended per task/work product.

2.2 Estimated construction start date (month/year).

2.3 Estimated construction completion date (month/year).

2.4 Estimated initiation of operations date (month/year).

2.5 Planned project technology type(s):
o Fiber
o Coaxial Cable
o Terrestrial Fixed Wireless
o Other (specify)

2.6 Estimated total miles of fiber to be deployed.

A.14.a
Packet Pg. 341

6 2.7 Planned number of locations to be served, broken out by type:
o Residential locations
o Business connections
o Community anchor institutions

2.8 Planned non-promotional prices including associated fees, speed tiers, and data allowance for each speed tier.

2.9 Other data on broadband need, by location.

Submission
To assist grantees with the filing of quarterly progress reports to the Commission, a sample of the reporting requirements is found in Attachment A of this document: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc- website/divisions/communications-division/documents/broadband-implementation-for-california/lata- reporting-requirements-dec-22.pdf
Planned project information listed in Attachment A should be submitted on a quarterly basis to the Commission’s email at [email protected]. Grantees need to include in the email subject line:

1. Application Name

2. Project Name

3. The Reporting Quarter/Month
Updated quarterly project submissions are required to be sent by the due dates shown below. Gran tees are responsible for contacting the Commission at [email protected], if the information cannot be submitted on time.

Reporting Period Project Information Due to CPUC
October 1 – December 31, 2022 January 31, 2023
January 1 – March 31, 2023 April 28, 2023
April 1 – June 30, 2023 July 31, 2023
July 1 – September 30, 2023 October 31, 2023
October 1 – December 31, 2023 January 31, 2024
January 1 – March 31, 2024 April 28, 2024
April 1 – June 30, 2024 July 31, 2024
July 1 – September 30, 2024 October 31, 2024
October 1 – December 31, 2024 January 31, 2025
January 1 – March 31, 2025 April 30, 2025
April 1 – June 30, 2025 July 31, 2025
July 1 – September 30, 2025 October 31, 2025
October 1 – December 31, 2025 January 30, 2026
January 1 – March 31, 2026 April 30, 2026
April 1 – June 30, 2026 July 31, 2026
July 1 – September 30, 2026 October 30, 2026
October 1 – December 31, 2026 January 31, 2027

A.14.a
Packet Pg. 342

7 Additional Information
Reporting requirements and guidelines are subject to change, and CPUC or the Commission may define additional requirements on CPUC’s website.

A.14.a
Packet Pg. 343

APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT

1. TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN CLASSIFICATIONS OF EXPENDITURES (i.e. BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND SUPPLIES EXPENSE) MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO FINANCE WITH DEPARTMENT HEAD’S SIGNATURE.

2. TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN CLASSIFICATIONS OF EXPENDITURES (i.e. BETWEEN SALARIES AND SERVICES AND SUPPLIES) MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

3. TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN FUNDS OR COST CENTERS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

4. INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS NEEDS TO BE OFFSET BY ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE OR AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE.

(ROUND UP TO WHOLE DOLLAR)

Account Project
Department/ Account Title Fund #Cost Center Number Task #Increase Decrease Services/Supplies:ProServices 101 1157 730000 (348,528.00)$ Salaries 101 1157 701001 (151,472.00)$
State Grants 101 1000 430016 500,000.00$
Total -$ -$

Explanation of Transaction:

Funds for LATA Grant Award for reimbursement funding of $500,000 for Broadband/Fiber Optic Design.

Prepared by Paul Da Silva Date 07/24/2023
Department Head

FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE OFFICE ONLY

Approved
for Entry Date
Finance Office

Approved Date Journal No.

City Manager

Date Resolution No.

City Clerk

A.14.b
Packet Pg. 344

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023
SUBMITTED: July 24, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Fire
Bob Martin Del Campo, Fire
Chief

SPONSOR(S): Perez

TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-153, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING THE ITEMIZED REPORT OF THE COSTS OF

ABATEMENT OF WEEDS AND DEBRIS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF

HOLLISTER AND APPROVAL TO FILE REPORT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY

AUDITOR, COUNTY OF SAN BENITO

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This item is to submit the itemized report of the cost of abatement of weeds and debris in front of or on each separated parcel of land where work was completed in the City of Hollister and requests approval to submit liens and reports to the Office of the County Auditor, County of San Benito for collection.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the itemized report of costs of abatement of weeds and debris on designated properties in the City of Hollister and approval to file report with the Office of the County Auditor, County of San Benito.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: Annually, the City has a weed abatement program to reduce the fire hazard and other noxious and dangerous aspects of weeds growing on public and private property. In addition, it identified the properties that needed weed abatement, at a public hearing on May 1, 2023 and adopted Resolution No. 2023-75 ordering the abatement of weeds on identified properties and an itemized accounting of the costs which shall constitut e a lien against the property owner. This proposed Resolution identifies the costs associated with the program that will be assessed as liens against the subject property and a personal obligation of the property owner on which abatement was performed.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of the City of Hollister is $1,260.00 for the abatement of the identified parcels. The amount to be reimbursed to the City of Hollister from Office of the County Auditor, County of San Benito in December 2023 is $2,010.00. The additional $750.00 generated is the administration fee. In addition, County of San Benito is charging the City of Hollister $0.30 per parcel to be collected in two equal installments as an offset to our agencies in December and April secured property tax disbursements. This cost will be $0.90.

CEQA: N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. GIS REPORTS - 2023

2. SBCo DOCUMENTS - 2023

3. Lien List Exhibit A - 2023

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

A.15
Packet Pg. 345

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

A.15
Packet Pg. 346

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-153

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING THE

ITEMIZED REPORT OF THE COSTS OF ABATEMENT OF WEEDS AND DEBRIS ON

DESIGNATED PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AND APPROVAL TO FILE

REPORT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, COUNTY OF SAN BENITO

WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023 the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-75, ordering the Fire Chief, or his authorized agent, to proceed to abate weeds and other flammable materials existing or maintained on identified properties; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2023-75 dated May 1, 2023, the Chief of the Hollister Fire Department is submitting to the City Council the itemized report of the cost of abatement of weeds and debris in front of or on each separated parcel of land where work was completed in the City of Hollister. A copy of the report is marked “Exhibit A”, and attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has received and considered said report and has provided to the property owners liable to be assessed for said abatement an opportunity to object to the proposed assessment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister as follows:

1. The cost report is hereby accepted confirmed and adopted as submitted.

2. From and after the date hereof, the cost of abatement in front of or upon each parcel of land as described in said report constitutes a special assessment against that parcel and a lien thereof.

3. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 39579, the City Clerk with the Office of the County Auditor, County of San Benito, in the State of California.

4. The amount of the assessment shall be entered on the County tax roll opposite the parcel of land and thereafter shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 7th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney
A.15
Packet Pg. 347

A.15
Packet Pg. 348

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-153, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of August, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister
A.15
Packet Pg. 349

HOLLISTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
2023 WEED ABATEMENT LIEN LIST

EXHIBIT A

# Parcel No. Owner/Caretaker Mailing Address City ST Zip Disc Cost
Admin
Fee
Total
Amt.
1 051-162-002-000 PACK DENNIS &
HEIDI
2956 SAN JUAN

CANYON ROAD

SAN JUAN

BAUTISTA
CA 95045 350 250 600
2 052-070-007-000 WORLD CLASS

PROPERTIES LLC
1522

CONSTITUTION
BLVD # 309
SALINAS CA 93905 350 250 600
3 052-070-012-000 DABO MITCHELL

JOHN III ET AL
893 RIDGEMARK
DRIVE
HOLLISTER CA 95023 560 250 810

Total $1,260 $750 $2,010

A.15.a
Packet Pg. 350

A.15.b
Packet Pg. 351

A.15.b
Packet Pg. 352

A.15.b
Packet Pg. 353

HOLLISTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
2023 WEED ABATEMENT LIEN LIST

EXHIBIT A

# Parcel No. Owner/Caretaker Mailing Address City ST Zip Disc Cost
Admin
Fee
Total
Amt.
1 051-162-002-000 PACK DENNIS &
HEIDI
2956 SAN JUAN

CANYON ROAD

SAN JUAN

BAUTISTA
CA 95045 350 250 600
2 052-070-007-000 WORLD CLASS

PROPERTIES LLC
1522

CONSTITUTION
BLVD # 309
SALINAS CA 93905 350 250 600
3 052-070-012-000 DABO MITCHELL

JOHN III ET AL
893 RIDGEMARK
DRIVE
HOLLISTER CA 95023 560 250 810

Total $1,260 $750 $2,010

A.15.c
Packet Pg. 354

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023
SUBMITTED: May 31, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Planning
Christine Hopper, Development
Services Director

TITLE OF ITEM: ORDINANCE NO. 1237 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF HOLLISTER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SECTION

17.24.240, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, AND REPLACE WITH A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 17.66, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

DESCRIPTION: The City Council will consider amendments to the City of Hollister Municipal Code to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments.

RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and introduce an ordinance of the City of Hollister amending Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, of the Hollister Municipal Code, and schedule a second reading and adopting of the ordinance for the August 21, 2023 City Council meeting.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has reviewed potential modifications to how the City regulates planned developments during two study sessions. On February 9, 2023, the Planning Commission discussed how the City currently reviews planned development requests and potential ways to approve planned developments (Attachment 1). A recording of the study session can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLExQY1wvbE (discussion starts at 1 hour and 19 minutes). During the meeting, the Planning Commission had several questions and comments regarding planned developments and provided staff with the following direction:

 A Conditional Use Permit is not the appropriate path to approval for a planned development request;

 A rezone is a better was to approve planned developments (asked for more information);

 The City should allow for flexibility in the allowed uses within a planned development; and

 A planned development should be allowed for residential and non-residential uses.

Staff brought the matter back to a study session on March 9, 2023 (Attachment 2) to provide additional information as requested and receive additional direction from the Planning Commission on how the City should regulate planned developments moving forward. The recording of this study session can be viewed at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVDdhsRAg0U (the item starts at minute 48).

Based on feedback and direction received from the Planning Commission during the two study sessions, staff prepared a draft ordinance for planned developments. The Planning Commission reviewed this draft ordinance during a study session on May 11, 2023 Attachment 3). The Planning Commission did not direct staff to make any modifications to the ordinance, but did ask E.1
Packet Pg. 355

for clarification regarding the difference between administrative and minor modifications to a planned development. Based on direction received from the Planning Commission, staff made minor adjustments to Section 17.66.130 – Modifications to an Approved Planned Development and provided additional information regarding the difference between these two permit types and well as revised language included in the Draft Chapter for clarity. The recording of the study session can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSwhkGcdJzc .

On May 25, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance (Attachment 4) and the modified section (discussed above) and adopted a resolution recommending City Council approval of the proposed new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, and an application fee related to minor modifications to a planned development (Attachment 5). The recording of this meeting can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz5w_B17EBs (starts at minute 53). One member of the public spoke regarding the item with a comment and a question. The item passed with a vote of 5-0-0.

All study session staff reports and attachments can also be viewed or downloaded from the Hollister Planning Commission webpage at https://hollister.ca.gov/government/city- departments/development-services/planning/planning-commission/. The existing zoning ordinance can also be viewed at
https://library.municode.com/ca/hollister/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO or accessed directly from the Planning Division webpage should anyone wish to.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

The purpose of a planned development is to allow greater flexibility than would otherwise be allowed by the zoning ordinance in exchange for innovative or interesting designs or layout, the preservation of open space, or other amenity.

The City’s regulations for planned developments can be found in Section 17.24.240 of the zoning ordinance (Attachment 6). The existing regulations are confusing, vague, are technically only allowed for very specific projects (Section 17.24.240 (B)), and contains errors (for example it requires conformance with the zoning ordinance and the purpose of a Planned Development is to allow something that would otherwise not be allowed due to the inherit rigidity of a zoning ordinance). Additionally, this section conflicts with the provisions of Section 17.14.010, Residential Performance Overlay Zoning District. As written the planned development section of the zoning ordinance is difficult for staff to understand and enforce in a consistent manner.

What is a Planned Development?
A planned development is a flexible zoning device that redefines the land uses or development standards that would otherwise apply to the property if the standards of the Zoning District in which the property is located were applied. Cities typically allow a developer to request a planned development in order to foster innovative designs and creativity, affordable housing, or other amenity that benefits the residents of the City.

Cities typically allow planned developments to apply for relief of:

 Change in the otherwise requires setbacks;

 Change in the required Minimum Lot Size;

 Increase in Lot Coverage;

 Reduction in Open Space requirements;
E.1
Packet Pg. 356

 Allowance for Dwelling Unit Types that would otherwise not be permitted in the Zoning District (i.e. a triplex in the R1 District);

 Establish the uses for the site (uses that are not identified in the zoning ordinance or additional uses that may be complimentary such as a neighborhood market in a R1 district);

 Spread the required density throughout the project site (rather than on a parcel by parcel basis) for large developments where the developer would like to include a mixture of housing types; or

 Plan for a large development.

For example, under the application of the development standards in the R1, Low Density Residential Zoning District, each parcel must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The only type of housing allowed is single family detached dwellings and SB9 Two-Unit Residential Developments Under the strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the following is a typical example of the layout/design of a development.

Figure 1: Standard Lot Grid Pattern with a 5,000 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size

By requesting a planned development, an applicant can design a residential project which meets the established density but is laid out in a unique way, allows a variety of dwelling types, or allows for smaller dwellings to be constructed on a site. For example, approval of a planned development could allow for a development in which the front yard setbacks are reduced in order to allow porches and rear or alley facing garages to activate the street as shown on the example below.

Figure 2: Small Front Yard Setback with Detached/Rear Garages E.1
Packet Pg. 357

By requiring a rezone process for planned development, a city can also allow for greater flexibility in uses. For example, if a large development in the R1, Low Density Residential, Zoning District wanted to allow for small neighborhood serving commercial uses, or a private neighborhood park with cafes or food stands, a planned development would be a way to achieve that. With a rezone, an applicant who wishes to establish a use that isn’t currently listed on the list of approved uses for the site, but which may be appropriate, can request approval of the use through a planned development. An example of this could be an auction yard in the M1 District, an auction yard is not on the list of allowed uses, but could be appropriate in the M1. As uses change and new uses move into the City, the zoning ordinance may not be consistent with changing trends and a planned development may be a way to allow a unique use on an appropriate property.

CURRENT PROCESS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN HOLLISTER

In 2008, the zoning ordinance was completely overhauled. Prior to 2008, the City required a rezone for planned developments. Several planned unit developments were approved with a rezone and they are noted on the City’s Zoning Map.

In 2008, the City modified how the City allowed Planned Unit Developments. In an effort to encourage residential development in the City, the City modified the zoning ordinance to allow a Performance Overlay Zoning District. Most residential properties that are annexed into the City have a Performance Overlay. An applicant may only request a planned development for properties designated for residential uses.

The purpose of the Performance Overlay was to allow lot sizes that are smaller than what is typically allowed. For example, a parcel that is zoned Low Density Residential/Performance Overlay can have a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet. Properties zoned Low Density Residential (only) have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The intention of the Overlay Zoning District was to encourage higher density in the City (by reducing the minimum lot size, more dwelling units can be constructed) and to allow these properties to bypass a rezone to allow smaller lots.

E.1
Packet Pg. 358

As amended in 2008, requests for a Planned Unit Development were processed as a Conditional Use Permit and are typically approved for properties that have been zoned Performance Overlay. The Conditional Use Permit is reviewed and approved or denied by the Planning Commission. Please refer to Attachment 7 for a list of recently approved planned developments in the City.

Approval of the Performance Overlay requires an applicant to rezone the property (application materials and a filing fee on the Fee Schedule based on prezoning or rezone) and then later apply for a Conditional Use Permit (application and filing fee of $9,021.40) to allow for any modifications to setbacks or other development standards. The zoning ordinance then requires the approval of a Performance Agreement for each parcel located within a development prior to construction of the development (application and a filing fee of $16,265.83). This Agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City Council (see Section 17.14.010.B.2) and recorded on each lot as a deed restriction. This means that a developer who wishes to annex their property with the Performance Overlay must zone the property Performance Overlay, then receive approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development (due to the smaller lot sizes allowed under this Overlay, the standard development regulations are unlikely to be met) and then go to City Council for a Performance Agreement and subsequent deed restriction prior to construction.

ANALYSIS

The existing Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits will be repealed and replaced with Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments. The draft Chapter was reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. The new Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, is described in detail below.

Section 17.66.010 - Purpose

This section provides the purpose of the planned developments in the City.

Section 17.66.020 - Applicability

As proposed, planned developments will be allowed for any project on land that is over one acre in size, including residential and non-residential projects, which will expand the availability of this flexible zoning tool to more projects/sites within the City (current regulations only allow a planned development for residential developments).

As proposed, an applicant requesting annexation into the City can also use the planned development designation for their project. This would allow a person requesting annexation to propose the development regulations for their project site at the time of the prezoning and would eliminate the need for a future planned development request and a Performance Agreement with the City Council. This would lead to thoughtful, well planned annexations and would also eliminate the need for multiple permitting requirements for applicants. The process currently required by the zoning ordinance also requires a significant amount of time and application types and the proposed modifications are aimed at saving the applicant money and time.

Section 17.66.030 – Planned Development Established

This section regulates how planned developments will be created in the City. A planned development will be established in the City through the following:

 A rezone of the project area to “Planned Development.”

E.1
Packet Pg. 359

 The establishment of an underlying zoning district for the site This allows the planned development to “fall back” on the regulations of the zoning district where the planned development is silent.

 The Zoning Map will be amended to show the property as zoned Planned Development and will note the application number of the planned development to allow staff and the public to easily find the regulations for the property.

The rezoning of a property to “Planned Development” rather than allowing a Conditional Use Permit is a more appropriate way to regulate planned developments. As previously discussed, the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to review a proposed use and place conditions on said use to ensure that the use does not negatively impact the surrounding area. If a use failed to comply with the provisions of a Conditional Use Permit, the City can revoke the permit and require the use to cease operations.

During prior study sessions, the Planning Commission determined that a Conditional Use Permit was not an appropriate path to approval of a planned development. By allowing a rezone of a property to planned development, the City can expand the planned development zoning tool to allow for modifications to land uses, mixture of uses, layout, and development standards (discussed in greater detail below). As mentioned above, in addition to providing greater flexibility to applicants in the City, staff believes the proposed rezone will also save project applicants time and money by removing the need for a rezoning, planned development approval, subsequent performance agreement, and deed restrictions.

Section 17.66.040 – Land Use

A planned development can include the following uses:

 Uses that are established for the underlying zoning district;

 Any use which is not listed in the zoning ordinance, but which the Planning Commission and City Council determines is compatible with the General Plan land use designation for the site;

 Accessory uses; and

 Multi-family structures in a single family residential development (the project area must meet the density required in the General Plan).

The current planned development section of the zoning ordinance does not allow an applicant to establish the uses for the site. They are required to follow the density of the general plan and uses within the residential land use category.

Section 17.66.050 – Density

This section details how the density of a planned development is calculated. Density will be calculated for all properties and the corresponding density of the General Plan. The planned development is not required to ensure that development on each parcel meets the permitted density range, rather the planned development can distribute the total number of allowed dwelling units or non-residential space throughout the project area if the required density range is met project-wide.

Section 17.66.060 – Deviations Allowed for Planned Developments E.1
Packet Pg. 360

This section details the deviations from the required development standards of the underlying zoning district of the planned development. The following devia tions are the same as the existing Section 17.24.240:

 Height;

 Minimum lot size and lot area per dwelling unit;

 Lot width, depth, and frontage;

 Setbacks;

 Open space requirements;

 Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio;

 Dwelling unit type.

Staff has also included a provision to allow other deviations as proposed by the applicant and deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council as well as shared parking within the planned development (requires a parking study).

Section 17.66.070 – Substantial Public Benefit in Exchange for a Planned Development

Each planned development must contain one or more substantial public benefit(s) in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requirements. A "Substantial Public Benefit" means a project feature not otherwise required by the Municipal Code or General Plan that provides a unique feature or benefit to the City or the neighborhood in which it is located. Examples of Substantial Public Benefits include but are not limited to: enhanced architec tural designs; public plazas, courtyards, open space, and other public gathering places that provide opportunities for people to informally meet and gather; commercial uses in a residential development that serve the neighborhood (excluding properties that are designated as Mixed-Use in the General Plan); recreational facilities; public art; community space(s); parks; contribution to or construction of significant off-site public improvements or community space; the preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation of a historic resource; and/or the protection of natural resources.

Section 17.66.080 – Prohibited within a Planned Development

A planned development may not be used to request deviations from any of the following regulations:

 The lowering or increasing of the residential density required by the General Plan land use designation(s) for the property.

 The elimination of a commercial component for projects designated as Mixed-use in the General Plan.

 Downtown Mixed-Use zoning requirements.

 For properties with a General Plan land use designation of Medium or High Density Residential or Mixed-Use, the Planned Development may not be used to modify the allowed dwelling unit types to allow single family residences, unless the Planning E.1
Packet Pg. 361

Commission and City Council determine that single family residences may be allowed as an Accessory Use and where the density of the project meets the required density of the General Plan.

 For the reduction of any design standards or guidelines adopted by the City.

 For the reduction of design or preservation requirements for any structure that is designated as historical.

Section 17.66.090 – Planned Development Application

This section establishes the application and submittal requirements for a planned development request. Staff is not recommending any changes to the current application fee ($8,392 + the citywide planning fee).

Section 17.66.100 – Review of a Rezoning to Planned Development

The Planning Commission will review a proposed planned development rezone during a noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed rezone. The City Council will then make the final decision on the planned development during a public hearing.

Section 17.66.110 – Ordinance Format

This section of the zoning ordinance establishes the format staff will use when writing the ordinance establishing a planned development for a project.

Section 17.66.120 – Required Findings

This section establishes new findings for planned developments. The findings staff and the Planning Commission must make to recommend approval of a planned development are as follows:

A. The Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan, applicable specific plan, and other plans and policies adopted by the City Council.

B. The planned development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the planned development or to the general welfare of the city.

C. The proposed development is superior to the development that could occur under the requirements of the zoning ordinance for the underlying zoning designation.

D. That the location, design, size, and uses will result in an attractive, well designed, and beneficial environment for living, shopping, or working.

E. The proposed planned development will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area.

F. The planned development would result in a thoughtful, well-planned development which has been designed to meet current and future needs of residents and workers within the City.

E.1
Packet Pg. 362

G. The planned development will provide one or more Substantial Public Benefits, as defined by Section 17.66.070, in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requested by the planned development.

Section 17.66.130 – Modifications to an Approved Planned Development

This Section has been written to address how the City will review any requested changes to planned developments. Where necessary, the Development Services Director by administrative action may clarify the provisions or make minor adjustments to a planned development. An example of this type of modification could include a revision to a parking requirement if the zoning ordinance is modified to reduce the parking requirements for a specific use and the older, stricter parking requirement is in the planned development. Another potential modification could be the replacement of all windows within a development with a new design if the planned development required a specific type of window and if those windows were no longer available.

Should a person request a minor modification to a planned development (i.e. a parking requirement is requested for a use and is not established by the planned development), the Planning Commission, by means of a planned development minor modification may approve minor amendments to a planned development with a finding that the amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions, intent, or development capacity o f the applicable planned development. This would allow an applicant to request a minor change prior to construction. For example, an applicant may request a rezone to planned development and may establish a front yard setback in the planned development. Once plans are drawn up, the applicant may realize that the established setback needed to be modified. In that case, the applicant may request approval of the minor change from the Planning Commission rather than having to amend the entire ordinance and receive approval from the City Council. The minor modification could be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the same time as a Site and Architectural Review and no additional time or hearings would be required.

Additionally, at any time the Development Services Director or Planning Commission may refer a modification request to a different decision-making body if desired.

All amendments that change the provisions or intent of the planned development, increases the development potential of the site, changes the required Substantial Public Benefit, or substantially change the proposed land use map may be requested by submitting an application in the same manner and process as the initial request.

APPLICATION FEES

Staff is not proposing a change to the Planned Development Fee at this time (currently $9,021 total). With the implementation of the new chapter and clear requirements, staff believes staff time related to the review and path to approval will remain the same as the existing process.

The proposed ordinance also includes two pathways for modifications to an approved planned development. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve two new fees related to the modifications. Without these new fees, an applicant requesting a modification would not be required to pay a fee and the City would therefore be required to subsidize the cost of processing the application. Council review and consideration of proposed application fees will occur at a subsequent Council meeting.

CONCLUSION

The Planning Commission has reviewed the permit review process in the City and planned developments during several study sessions. The Planning Commission has provided staff with E.1
Packet Pg. 363

direction on how planned developments should be reviewed in the future and other potential modifications to the zoning ordinance related to these changes.

The proposed new Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, has been prepared with direction from the Planning Commission. By requiring a rezone for planned developments, the new regulations will expand the use of planned developments within the city and will be allowed for prezoning, residential, and commercial properties. The new regulations clearly outline the review process and submittal requirements to assist applicants and staff with the processing of these requests. By utilizing a rezoning method, staff will also be able to clearly track and obtain these requirements when necessary to assist property owners and residents, thereby ensuring a quick and complete response to questions. Staff believes that the new process will result in more attractive, well planned projects and will provide a unique opportunity to all developers in the City, provide a clear path to approval, and could result in time and money savings for applicants.

Staff removed planned development from Phase II of the zoning ordinance overhaul because staff has identified several projects that could benefit from the new regulations. Phase II comprises an overhaul of the existing permits and permit processing in the City and is not related to any modifications required by the draft General Plan. The existing process for approval of a planned development and a performance overlay is difficult to follow and the existing planned development regulations lack clarity and are difficult to understand. Completion of Phase II of the overhaul is not anticipated until February/March 2024 and staff believes that a new process is necessary prior to completion of Phase II. Any modifications to the zoning ordinance, which are likely to affect the remaining sections of the zoning ordinance, required by the General Plan will be incorporated into Phase III of the Overhaul.

CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options at tonight’s meeting:

1. Introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Hollister amending the zoning ordinance to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments and schedule a second reading and adoption of the ordinance.

2. Deny the ordinance amending the zoning ordinance to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments.

3. Continue the hearing and direct staff to provide additional information or clarification.

Staff is recommending Option 1.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: $0.

CEQA: The proposed zoning ordinance amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines because the proposed amendments will not result in any direct physical change to the City and therefore the proposed amendments are not a project under CEQA and are exempt from further review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). Future development of a site will be subject to the requirements of CEQA. Any future projects for development of a site within the City are required to be reviewed under CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS:

E.1
Packet Pg. 364

1. 1. February 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without Attachments)

2. 2. March 9, 2023 Planning Commision Study Session Staff Report (without Attachments)

3. 3. May 11, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without Attachments)

4. 4. May 25, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report (without Attachments)

5. 5. Resolution 2023-16 Reccomending Approval of Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments

6. 6. Existing Chapter 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits

7. 7. Recently Approved Planned Developments in Hollister

8. 8. 17.14.010 Residential Performance Overlay Zoning District

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

E.1
Packet Pg. 365

ORDINANCE NO. 1237

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SECTION 17.24.240, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, AND REPLACE WITH A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 17.66, PLANNED

DEVELOPMENTS

WHEREAS, the City occasionally initiates an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for clarity, to improve permit processes, and to meet the needs of the community; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held two noticed Study Sessions on February 9 and March 9, 2023 to discuss planned developments in the City and potential changes to existing planned development regulations; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed Study Session on May 11, 2023 to review the draft Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments; and

WHEREAS, on May 25, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance during which all interested persons were heard and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-17 recommending the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments; and

WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council of the City of Hollister recommending approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment on June 20, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and

WHEREAS, proper noticed of said hearing was given as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony herein and used its independent judgement to evaluate the proposed amendments; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister hereby makes the following findings related to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as required by Section 17.02.120.D of the Municipal Code:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan because: the proposed planned development regulations have been prepared to allow for thoughtful, well planned developments that provide new and different housing types and non-residential developments and meet the intent of Land Use Element (LU) Goal LU1; the proposed regulations will allow planned developments for non-residential uses and therefore may attract new uses and commercial developments to the City in accordance with Goal LU 5 and Policy LU5.4; the new planned development regulations will help facilitate orderly and balanced growth within the City as required by Goal LU6; will allow for phasing within a project area and orderly growth as required by Policy LU6.2 and 6.3; will allow for diverse development including housing types in accordance with Goal LU7; all planned developments will be required to conform to the General Plan Land Use E.1
Packet Pg. 366

Designation density established for each project site; and does not conflict with the draft policies of the 2040 Hollister General Plan which is currently under review.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare because: the proposed planned development regulations will provide clear language on the review process, submittal requirements, and findings related to planned development approvals; planned developments will require a substantial public benefit in order to allow deviations from the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance; the proposed planned development process will allow for thoughtful well planned developments in the City; by allowing a planned development for residential and non-residential projects within the City, the City will expand the use of this flexible zoning tool which could result in more diverse developments within the City; a rezone for a planned development is a more appropriate way to approve a development in which the otherwise applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance are waived.

3. The public necessity, general community welfare, and good zoning practice shall be served and furthered; and that the proposed amendments are in general conformance with the principles, policies, and land use designations in the General Plan because: by repealing Section 17.24.240 and replacing with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, the City will provide a clear, easy to use method for determining the requirements to gain approvals of planned developments; requiring a rezone for a planned development is a more appropriate path for approval because the planned development allows for deviations from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and the requirement for a substantial public benefit for a planned development will ensure that planned developments enhance the City and provide a benefit in exchange for a deviation from the development standards in the Zoning Ordinance.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister hereby makes the following finding regarding the California Environmental Quality Act: the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines because the proposed amendments will not result in any direct physical change to the City and therefore the proposed amendments are not a project under CEQA and are exempt from further review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). Future development of a site will be subject to the requirements of CEQA. Any future projects for development of a site within the City are required to be reviewed under CEQA.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1: The Hollister Municipal Code is hereby amended to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits and replace with Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments to read as follows:

Chapter 17.66 Planned Developments

17.66.010 - Purpose

The purpose of this Chapter is to:

A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties are planned as a unit with the layout, design, uses, and development standards specifically tailored to the project.

E.1
Packet Pg. 367

B. Allow for high quality development with maximum flexibility where strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would result in a less desirable project.

C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of , the General Plan and applicable specific plans.

D. Ensure orderly and thoughtful planning of development projects to create a more desirable use of the land, ensure coordinated development of the project area, and result in a better physical environment.

E. Allow freedom of design, layout, and uses to obtain developments which enhance the community by surpassing the type of development required by strict application of the Zoning Ordinance.

F. Ensure that all Planned Developments provide a Substantial Public Benefit in exchange for relief from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance.

17.66.020 - Applicability

An applicant may apply for a Planned Development Permit for any of the following:

A. Any project where the total project area is over one acre in size within the city limits.

B. As a prezone for any project that is requesting annexation into the City of Hollister.

17.66.030 – Planned Development Established

A. Rezone. Each Planned Development shall be established through a rezone (or prezone where applicable) to “Planned Development.”

B. Underlying Zoning Designation. Each Planned Development shall also have an underlying zoning district established within the Planned Development. The proposed underlying zoning district shall be compatible with the General Plan land use designation for the property. If more than one land use designation exists for the project area, each land use designation shall have an accompanying underlying zoning district.

C. Zoning Map. Following approval of a Planned Development rezone, the boundary of the Planned Development shall be indicated on the Zoning map. Each Planned Development shall be noted on the map as being zoned Planned Development (“PD”) and the Planned Development application number shall be noted on the map (for example PD 2023-1).

17.66.066 – Land Use

The following uses are permitted in a Planned Development:

A. Established in the Underlying Zoning District. Any use permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zoning district or in any applicable specific plan.

B. Uses Not Listed. Any use or uses that are not included in the Zoning Ordinance but are compatible with the intent and design of the Planned Development and are compatible with the General Plan use designation of the site, as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council.

E.1
Packet Pg. 368

C. Accessory Uses. Any Accessory Uses, as defined in 17.02.020, that meet the needs of the residents or employees within a Planned Development and would otherwise not be permitted by the underlying zoning district.

D. Multi-Family within a Single-Family Development. Multi-family dwelling units are allowed within any property designated as single family if the total number of dwelling units project-wide falls within the density range allowed by the General Plan.

17.66.050 – Density

A. General Plan Density. The total number of dwelling units to be constructed within the project area shall be within the density range allowed by the General Plan land use designation(s) for the project area. The Planned Development may not increase or decrease the total number of dwelling units required to be constructed by the General Plan.

B. Density Calculation. Project density shall be calculated by using the total size (acreage) of each General Plan land use designation within the Planned Development and calculating the maximum density allowed for each land use. The Planned Development is not required to ensure that development on each parcel meets the permitted density range, the Planned Development can distribute the total number of allowed dwelling units or non-residential space throughout the project area if the required density range is met project wide.

C. More Than One Land Use Designation. For projects in which there are more than one General Plan land use designation, the total maximum density shall be the maximum density allowed for each land use designation.

17.66.060 – Deviations Allowed for Planned Developments

A. Development Standards. A Planned Development may establish development standards that are different from the standards established for the underlying zoning designation(s) for the project area. Each land use designation within the project area may establish its own development standards. The following deviations from the underlying zoning designation development standards are allowed within a Planned Development:

1. Height;

2. Minimum lot size and lot area per dwelling unit;

3. Lot width, depth, and frontage;

4. Setbacks;

5. Open space requirements; and

6. Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio.

B. Dwelling Types. The Planned Development may allow dwelling types that are not otherwise permitted under the site’s land use designation except for single family in a multi-family designation.

E.1
Packet Pg. 369

C. Other. The relief of any provision of the Zoning Ordinance that would preclude the construction of a desirable development, as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council.

D. Shared Parking. A Planned Development, if supported by a parking study, may establish shared parking within the Planned Development at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council.

17.66.070 – Substantial Public Benefit in Exchange for a Planned Development

Substantial Public Benefit. Each Planned Development must contain one or more Substantial Public Benefit(s) in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requirements. A "Substantial Public Benefit" means a project feature not otherwise required by the Municipal Code or General Plan that provides a unique feature or benefit to the City or the neighborhood in which it is located. Examples of Substantial Public Benefits include but are not limited to:
enhanced architectural designs; public plazas, courtyards, open space, and other public gathering places that provide opportunities for people to informally meet and gather; commercial uses in a residential development that serve the neighborhood (excluding properties that are designated as Mixed-Use in the General Plan); recreational facilities; public art; community space(s); parks; contribution to or construction of significant off -site public improvements or community space; the preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation of a historic resource; and/or the protection of natural resources.

17.66.080 – Prohibited within a Planned Development

Prohibitions. A Planned Development may not be used to request deviations from any of the following regulations:

A. The lowering or increasing of the residential density required by the General Plan land use designation(s) for the property.

B. The elimination of a commercial component for projects designated as Mixed-use in the General Plan.

C. Downtown Commercial Mixed-Use zoning requirements.

D. For properties with a General Plan land use designation of Medium or High Density Residential or Mixed-Use, the Planned Development may not be used to modify the allowed dwelling unit types to allow single family residences, unless the Planning Commission and City Council determine that single family residences may be allowed as an Accessory Use and where the density of the project meets the required density of the General Plan.

E. For the reduction of any design standards or guidelines adopted by the City.

F. For the reduction of design or preservation requirements for any structure that is designated as historical.

17.66.090 - Planned Development Application

Applications for a Planned Development shall include:

A. Application Form. The project applicant shall submit an application on a form prescribed by the City, with all the information listed on the form as part of the request for a Planned E.1
Packet Pg. 370

Development. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners must sign the application, and a map showing the extent of ownership shall be submitted with the application.

B. Site Plan. Plans or maps depicting the existing topography, on-site structures, natural features, mature trees, and other significant vegetation and drainage patterns. The map shall also show the project boundaries and all properties within one hundred feet of the site boundary.

C. Conceptual Land Use Plan. A map showing the location of each land use proposed within the site (including housing types where applicable), open space and common areas, community facilities, and the location of any use or structure that is proposed as a Substantial Public Benefit.

D. Density. A plan showing the total site area, total density range for each General Plan land use designation for residential and non-residential designations, maximum numbers of residential units by type, and maximum non-residential square footage for each use.

E. Project Narrative. A written project narrative which includes the following information:

1. A description of the proposed project, existing and proposed General Plan land use designation(s), and the proposed underlying zoning district(s).

2. Existing use of the project area and site conditions.

3. A statement of the project objectives, how the proposed project will comply with General Plan goals and policies for the applicable land use designation, and how the project complies with the purpose of this Chapter.

4. An overview of the proposed development plan including land use, densities, residential dwelling types, open space, and parking.

5. A description of the project access and circulation.

6. A description of how the proposed development is superior to development that could occur with the strict application of the standards requir ed by the underlying zoning designation, and how it will provide a Substantial Public Benefit.

7. The amount (in square feet or acres) and percentage of site area that will be dedicated for all land uses including residential, commercial, office, industrial, open space, recreational facilities and amenities, public facilities, and public buildings. The maximum number of dwelling units, by type, and the maximum square footage of all non-residential uses must be provided.

8. A written statement of proposed uses including permitted, conditionally permitted, prohibited, and Accessory Uses for each land use type.

9. All development regulations that apply within the project, including:

a. Density;

b. Minimum lot size and dimensions;

c. Maximum building coverage including lot coverage and Floor Area Ratio; E.1
Packet Pg. 371

d. Minimum setbacks;

e. Maximum building heights;

f. Landscaping;

g. On-site parking; and

h. Other items as recommended by Staff and deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council.

F. Design Guidelines. Design standards and guidelines for the construction of future structures within the project area including landscaping, screening, and architectural design.

G. Phasing. For Planned Developments that are to be constructed in phases, a phasing plan must be provided.

H. Parking. Where a Planned Development includes shared parking or a use which is not listed in the Zoning Ordinance, a parking study prepared by a qualified preparer shall be submitted which establishes the parking requirement for the new use or reviews the proposed shared parking plan.

17.66.100 - Review of a Rezoning to Planned Development

A. Approval Process. An application for a rezone to Planned Development shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission during a public hearing. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then act upon the request for a rezone to a Planned Development.

B. Planning Commission Review.

1. Hearing. Following the receipt of a complete application for a Planned Development, the Planning Commission shall conduct a noticed public hearing for consideration of the application.

2. Decision. The Planning Commission shall take one of the following actions during the public hearing:

a. The Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or modification, or deny the application as submitted and shall make written findings supporting the reason for this recommendation in accordance with Section

17.66.120.

b. If the Planning Commission is unable to make a recommendation to the City Council because the application fails to receive a majority vote resulting in no action being taken by the Planning Commission, the application shall be forwarded directly to the City Council.

C. City Council Review.

E.1
Packet Pg. 372

1. Public Hearing Required. After the Planning Commission provides a recommendation on the application for a Planned Development, the City Council shall hold a noticed public hearing on the application, shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and shall hear evidence presented for and against the proposed Planned Development rezone.

2. Decision. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council shall approve, modify, or reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If the City Council requires the applicant to make a substantial modification not previously considered by the Planning Commission, the revised Planned Development shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for a written recommendation prior to consideration of the amendment. Prior to the approval of a Planned Development rezone, the City Council shall make written findings in accordance with Section 17.66.120 supporting the reason for approving the Planned Development rezone.

3. Second Reading. If the Planned Development is approved by the City Council, a second reading of the Ordinance will take place at the following City Council meeting. The Ordinance establishing the Planned Development rezone will not take effect until 30 days following the second reading.

17.66.110 – Ordinance Format

Each Ordinance for a Planned Development shall establish the following:

A. Purpose and intent of the Planned Development;

B. Underlying zoning district(s);

C. A list of all permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses within the Planned Development;

D. All applicable design themes, guidelines, or standards; and

E. All site development regulations including:

1. Density;

2. Setbacks;

3. Maximum height;

4. Maximum Lot Coverage or Floor Area Ratio;

5. Open Space requirements;

6. Accessory Uses or structures;

7. Landscaping and screening;

8. Parking and loading; and

E.1
Packet Pg. 373

9. Other items recommended by Staff and deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council

17.66.120 - Required Findings

An application for a Planned Development rezone shall be approved if the following findings can be made, in addition to the required findings of other permits required for the project.

A. The Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan, applicable specific plan, and other plans and policies adopted by the City Council.

B. The Planned Development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the Planned Development or to the general welfare of the city.

C. The proposed development is superior to the development that could occur under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the underlying zoning designation.

D. That the location, design, size, and uses will result in an attractive, well designed, and beneficial environment for living, shopping, or working.

E. The proposed Planned Development will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area.

F. The Planned Development would result in a thoughtful, well-planned development which has been designed to meet current and future needs of residents and workers within the City.

G. The Planned Development will provide one or more Substantial Public Benefits, as defined by Section 17.66.070, in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requested by the Planned Development.

17.66.130 – Modifications to an Approved Planned Development

A. Clarification. Where necessary, the Development Services Director by administrative action may clarify the provisions or make minor adjustments to conform to current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, to refer to relevant sections of the Zoning Ordinance (where necessary) and to approve minor modifications to a Planned Development that do not conflict with the development standards, density, or intent of the Planned Development.

B. Minor Amendments. The Planning Commission, by means of a Planned Development minor modification may approve minor amendments to a Planned Development with a finding that the amendment substantially complies with and does not materiall y change the provisions, intent, land use, or development capacity of the applicable Planned Development.

C. Major Amendment. All amendments that change the provisions or intent of the Planned Development, increase the development potential of the site, change the required Substantial Public Benefit, or substantially change the proposed land use map may be requested by submitting an application in the same manner and process as the initial request.

17.66.166 – Further Development Review
E.1
Packet Pg. 374

Prior to the construction of any structure or the establishment of any use within the Planned Development, all necessary permits as required by the Zoning Ordinance and the Planned Development shall be obtained.

Section 2: Severability. Should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or word of this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 3: Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage.

Section 4: Publication. Within fifteen (15) days after passage the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published on time in the Free Lance, a newspaper of general circulation.

INTRODUCED at a regular City Council meeting on the 7th day of August, 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 7th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

E.1
Packet Pg. 375

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 1237 is an original Ordinance, or true and correct copy of a City Ordinance, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of August, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister
E.1
Packet Pg. 376

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 377

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 378

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 379

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 380

E.1.a
Packet Pg. 381

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 382

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 383

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 384

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 385

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 386

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 387

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 388

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 389

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 390

E.1.b
Packet Pg. 391

SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Overhaul (ZOA 2023-3) – City of Hollister – An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance repealing Section 17.24.240 of the Zoning Ordinance and replacing with a new chapter, Chapter 17.40, Planned Developments.

STAFF PLANNER: Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager (831) 636-4360 Erica Fraser, AICP, Consulting Planner

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Chapter 17.40, Planned Developments

2. February 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without attachments)

3. Link to the YouTube Recording of the February 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLExQY1wvbE)

4. March 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without attachments)

5. Link to the YouTube Recording of the March 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVDdhsRAg0U)

6. Existing Planned Development Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.24.240)

RECOMMENDATION: Provide Staff with Direction

BACKGROUND

The Planning Commission has reviewed potential modifications to how the City regulates planned developments during two Study Sessions. On February 9, 2023, the Planning Commission discussed how the City currently reviews planned development requests and potential ways to approve planned developments (Attachment 2). A recording of the Study Session can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLExQY1wvbE (discussion starts at 1 hour and 19 minutes). During the meeting, the Planning Commission had several questions and comments regarding planned developments.

Staff brought the matter back to a Study Session on March 9, 2023 (Attachment 4) to provide additional information and receive additional direction from the Planning Commission on how the City should

Planning Commission
Study Session Staff Report
May 11, 2023
Item 1
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 392

Staff Report
Planned Developments

regulate planned developments moving forward. The recording of this Study Session can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVDdhsRAg0U (the item starts at minute 48).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY SESSION

Based on direction received from the Planning Commission during the two Study Sessions, Staff has prepared a draft Planned Development Ordinance. Tonight the Planning Commission will review the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to repeal the existing Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.40, Planned Developments.

ANALYSIS

The existing Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits will be repealed and replaced with Chapter

17.40, Planned Developments. The draft Chapter was reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. The new Chapter 17.40, Planned Developments, is described in detail below.

Section 17.40.010 - Purpose

This Section provides the purpose of the planned developments in the City.

Section 17.40.020 - Applicability

Planned Developments will be allowed for any project on land that is over one acre in size, including residential and non-residential projects. The current regulations only allow a Planned Development for residential projects. An applicant requesting annexation into the City can also use the planned development designation for their project.

Section 17.40.030 – Planned Development Established

This Section regulates how planned developments will be created in the City. A planned development will be established in the City through the following:

 A rezone of the project area to “Planned Development.”

 The establishment of an underlying zoning district for the site This allows the planned development to “fall back” on the regulations of the zoning district where the planned development is silent.

 The Zoning Map will be amended to show the property as zoned Planned Development and will note the application number of the planned development to allow Staff to easily find the regulations for the property.

Section 17.40.040 – Land Use

A planned development can include the following uses:

E.1.c
Packet Pg. 393

Staff Report
Planned Developments

 Uses that are established for the underlying zoning district;

 Any use which is not listed in the zoning ordinance, but which the Planning Commission and City Council determines is compatible with the General Plan land use designation for the site;

 Accessory uses; and

 Multi-family structures in a single family residential development (the project area must meet the density required in the General Plan).

The current planned development section of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow an applicant to establish the uses for the site. They are required to follow the density of the general plan and uses within the residential land use category.

Section 17.40.050 – Density

This Section details how the density of a planned development is calculated. Density will be calculated for all properties and the corresponding density of the General Plan. The Planned Development is not required to ensure that development on each parcel meets the permitted density range, rather the Planned Development can distribute the total number of allowed dwelling units or non-residential space throughout the project area if the required density range is met project wide.

Section 17.40.060 – Deviations Allowed for Planned Developments

This Sections details the deviations from the required development standards of the underlying zoning district of the planned development. The following deviations are the same as the existing Section

17.24.240:

 Height;

 Minimum lot size and lot area per dwelling unit;

 Lot width, depth, and frontage;

 Setbacks;

 Open space requirements;

 Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio;

 Dwelling unit type.

Staff has also included a provision to allow other deviations as proposed by the applicant and deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council as well as shared parking within the planned development (requires a parking study).

E.1.c
Packet Pg. 394

Staff Report
Planned Developments

Section 17.40.070 – Substantial Public Benefit in Exchange for a Planned Development

Each Planned Development must contain one or more substantial public benefit(s) in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requirements. A "Substantial Public Benefit" means a project feature not otherwise required by the Municipal Code or General Plan that provides a unique feature or benefit to the City or the neighborhood in which it is located. Examples of Substantial Public Benefits include but are not limited to: enhanced architectural designs; public plazas, courtyards, open space, and other public gathering places that provide opportunities for people to informally meet and gather; commercial uses in a residential development that serve the neighborhood (excluding properties that are designated as Mixed-Use in the General Plan); recreational facilities; public art; community space(s); parks; contribution to or construction of significant off-site public improvements or community space; the preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation of a historic resource; and/or the protection of natural resources.

Section 17.40.080 – Prohibited within a Planned Development

A Planned Development may not be used to request deviations from any of the following regulations:

 The lowering or increasing of the residential density required by the General Plan land use designation(s) for the property.

 The elimination of a commercial component for projects designated as Mixed-use in the General Plan.

 Downtown Mixed-Use zoning requirements.

 For properties with a General Plan land use designation of Medium or High Density Residential or Mixed-Use, the Planned Development may not be used to modify the allowed dwelling unit types to allow single family residences, unless the Planning Commission and City Council determine that single family residences may be allowed as an Accessory Use and where the density of the project meets the required density of the General Plan.

 For the reduction of any design standards or guidelines adopted by the City.

 For the reduction of design or preservation requirements for any structure that is designated as historical.

Section 17.40.090 – Planned Development Application

This Section establishes the application and submittal requirements for a planned development request.

Staff is not recommending any changes to the current application fee ($8,392 + the citywide planning fee).

Section 17.40.100 – Review of a Rezoning to Planned Development

The Planning Commission will review a proposed planned development rezone during a noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed E.1.c
Packet Pg. 395

Staff Report
Planned Developments

rezone. The City Council will then make the final decision on the planned development during a public hearing.

Section 17.40.110 – Ordinance Format

This Section of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the format Staff will use when writing the Ordinance establishing a planned development for a project.

Section 17.40.120 – Required Findings

This Section establishes new findings for planned developments. The findings Staff and the Planning Commission must make to recommend approval of a planned development are as follows:

A. The Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan, applicable specific plan, and other plans and policies adopted by the City Council.

B. The Planned Development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the Planned Development or to the general welfare of the city.

C. The proposed development is superior to the development that could occur under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the underlying zoning designation.

D. That the location, design, size, and uses will result in an attractive, well designed, and beneficial environment for living, shopping, or working.

E. The proposed Planned Development will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area.

F. The Planned Development would result in a thoughtful, well-planned development which has been designed to meet current and future needs of residents and workers within the City.

G. The Planned Development will provide one or more Substantial Public Benefits, as defined by Section 17.40.070, in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requested by the Planned Development.

Section 17.40.130 – Modifications to an Approved Planned Development

This Section has been written to address how the City will review any requested changes to Planned Developments. Where necessary, the Development Services Director by administrative action may clarify the provisions or make minor adjustments to a Planned Development.

Should a person request a minor modification to a Planned Development (i.e. a parking requirement is requested for a use not established by the Planned Development), the Planning Commission, by means of a Planned Development minor modification may approve minor amendments to a Planned Development E.1.c
Packet Pg. 396

Staff Report
Planned Developments

with a finding that the amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions, intent, or development capacity of the applicable Planned Development.

All amendments that change the provisions or intent of the Planned Development, increase the development potential of the site, change the required Substantial Public Benefit, or substantially change the proposed land use map may be requested by submitting an application in the same manner and process as the initial request.

NEXT STEPS

Following tonight’s meeting, Staff will incorporate any recommended changes to the Draft Ordinance.

Although Planned Developments are included within Phase II of the Zoning Ordinance Overhaul, Staff will be bringing the Ordinance for review and recommendation prior to the rest of Phase II. Staff has several projects that are currently under review that could benefit from the revised Ordinance. Additionally, Staff has also identified several projects where the final project outcome could have resulted in a better project with the revised planned development regulations.

E.1.c
Packet Pg. 397

SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Overhaul (ZOA 2023-3) – City of Hollister – An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance repealing Section 17.24.240 of the Zoning Ordinance and replacing with a new chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments and the establishment of an Application Fee related to modifications of a Planned Development.

STAFF PLANNER: Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager (831) 636-4360 Erica Fraser, AICP, Consulting Planner

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution recommending the City Council repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Development, and establish an application fee related to planned development modifications, with the new chapter attached as Exhibit A.

2. May 11, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without attachments).

3. Link to the YouTube Recording of the May 11, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSwhkGcdJzc)
. 4. February 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without attachments)

5. Link to the YouTube Recording of the February 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLExQY1wvbE)

6. March 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report (without attachments)

7. Link to the YouTube Recording of the March 9, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVDdhsRAg0U)

8. Existing Planned Development Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.24.240)

RECOMMENDATION: Recommend City Council Approval

BACKGROUND

Planning Commission
Staff Report
May 25, 2023
Item 3
E.1.d
Packet Pg. 398

Staff Report
Planned Developments

The Planning Commission has reviewed potential modifications to how the City regulates planned developments during two Study Sessions. On February 9, 2023, the Planning Commission discussed how the City currently reviews planned development requests and potential ways to approve planned developments (Attachment 4). A recording of the Study Session can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLExQY1wvbE (discussion starts at 1 hour and 19 minutes). During the meeting, the Planning Commission had several questions and comments regarding planned developments and also provided direction for staff on the preparation of regulations.

Staff brought the matter back to a Study Session on March 9, 2023 (Attachment 6) to provide additional information and receive additional direction from the Planning Commission on how the City should regulate planned developments moving forward. The recording of this Study Session can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVDdhsRAg0U (the item starts at minute 48). The Planning Commission provided direction to Staff related to the preparation of regulations for planned developments during this meeting.

The Planning Commission Reviewed a Draft Ordinance during a Study Session on May 11, 2023. The Planning Commission did not direct Staff to make any modifications to the Ordinance, but did ask for clarification regarding the difference between administrative and minor modifications. Please refer to staff’s discussion under “Section 17.66.130 – Modifications to an Approved Planned Development” for additional information regarding the difference between these two permit types and well as revised language included in the Draft Chapter for clarity. The recording of the Study Session can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSwhkGcdJzc .

All Study Session Staff Reports and attachments can also be viewed or downloaded from the Hollister Planning Commission webpage at https://hollister.ca.gov/government/city-departments/development- services/planning/planning-commission/. The existing zoning ordinance can also be viewed at https://library.municode.com/ca/hollister/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO or accessed directly from the Planning Division webpage should anyone wish to.

As mentioned during the May 11, 2023 Study Session, Staff is bringing the new Planned Development Chapter for review and recommendation prior to the rest of Phase II. Staff has several projects that are currently under review that could benefit from the revised Ordinance. Additionally, Staff has also identified several projects where the final project outcome could have resulted in a better project with the revised planned development regulations.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to allow greater flexibility than would otherwise be allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, in exchange for innovative or interesting designs or layout, the preservation of open space, or other amenity/public benefit.

The City’s regulations for Planned Developments can be found in Section 17.24.240 of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing regulations are confusing, vague, are technically only allowed for very specific projects (Section 17.24.240 (B)) and contains errors (for example it requires conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of a Planned Development is to allow something that would otherwise not be E.1.d
Packet Pg. 399

Staff Report
Planned Developments

allowed due to the inherit rigidity of a Zoning Ordinance). Additionally, this Section conflicts with the provisions of Section 17.14.010, Residential Performance Overlay Zoning District. As written the Planned Development section of the Zoning Ordinance is difficult for Staff to understand and enforce in a consistent manner.

What is a Planned Unit Development

A Planned Unit Development is a flexible zoning device that redefines the land uses or development standards that would otherwise apply to the property if the standards of the Zoning District in which the property is located were applied. Cities typically allow a developer to request a Planned Development in order to foster innovative designs and creativity, affordable housing, or other amenity that benefits the residents of the City.

Cities typically allow Planned Unit Developments to apply for relief of:

• Change in the otherwise requires setbacks;

• Change in the required Minimum Lot Size;

• Increase in Lot Coverage;

• Reduction in Open Space requirements;

• Allowance for Dwelling Unit Types that would otherwise not be permitted in the Zoning District (i.e. a triplex in the R1 District);

• Establish the uses for the site (uses that are not identified in the Zoning Ordinance or additional uses that may be complimentary such as a neighborhood market in a R1 district);

• Spread the required density throughout the project site (rather than on a parcel by parcel basis) for large developments where the developer would like to include a mixture of housing types; or

• Plan for a large development.

For example, under the application of the development standards in the R1, Low Density Residential Zoning District, each parcel must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The only type of housing allowed is single family detached dwellings and duplexes (recent change in the Zoning Ordinance). Under the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the following is a typical example of the layout/design of a development.

By requesting a Planned Development, an Applicant can design a residential project which meets the established density but is laid out in a unique way, allows a variety of dwelling types, or allows for smaller dwellings to be constructed on a site. For example, approval of a Planned Development could allow for a cluster development in which the houses are located on smaller lots (for example 2,500 square feet) and surrounded by landscaping. In the following example, the lot size would be smaller than what would be E.1.d
Packet Pg. 400

Staff Report
Planned Developments

required in the Low Density Residential Zoning District.

By requiring a rezone process for planned development, a City can also allow for greater flexibility in uses.

For example, if a large development in the R1, Low Density Residential, Zoning District wanted to allow for small neighborhood serving commercial uses, or a private neighborhood park with cafes or food stands, a Planned Development would be a way to achieve that. With a rezone an Applicant who wishes to establish a use that isn’t currently listed on the list of approved uses for the site, but which may be appropriate, can request approval of the use through a Planned Development. An example of this could be an auction yard in the M1 District, an auction yard is not on the list of allowed uses, but could be appropriate in the M1. As uses change and new uses move into the City, the Zoning Ordinance may not be consistent with changing trends and a Planned Development may be a way to allow a unique use on an appropriate property.

CURRENT PROCESS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN HOLLISTER

In 2008, the Zoning Ordinance was completely overhauled. Prior to 2008, the City required a rezone for Planned Developments. Several Planned Unit Developments were approved with a rezone and they are noted on the City’s Zoning Map.

In 2008, the City modified how the City allowed Planned Unit Developments. In an effort to encourage residential development in the City, the City modified the Zoning Ordinance to allow a Performance Overlay Zoning District. Most residential properties that are annexed into the City have a Performance Overlay. An applicant may only request a Planned Development for properties designated for residential uses.

The purpose of the Performance Overlay was to allow lot sizes that are smaller than what is typically allowed. For example, a parcel that is zoned Low Density Residential/Performance Overlay can have a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet. Properties zoned Low Density Residential (only) have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The intention of the Overlay Zoning District was to encourage higher density in the City (by reducing the minimum lot size, more dwelling units can be constructed) and to allow these properties to bypass a rezone to allow smaller lots.

As amended in 2008, requests for a Planned Unit Development were processed as a Conditional Use Permit and are typically approved for properties that have been zoned Performance Overlay. The Conditional Use Permit is reviewed and approved or denied by the Planning Commission.

Approval of the Performance Overlay requires an applicant to rezone the property (application materials and a filing fee on the Fee Schedule based on prezoning or rezone) and then later apply for a Conditional Use Permit (application and filing fee of $9,021.40) to allow for any modifications to setbacks or other development standards. The Zoning Ordinance then requires the approval of a Performance Agreement for each parcel located within a development prior to construction of the development (application and a filing fee of $16,265.83). This Agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City Council (see Section 17.14.010.B.2) and recorded on each lot as a deed restriction. This means that a developer who wishes to annex their property with the Performance Overlay must zone the property Performance Overlay, then received approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (due to the smaller lot sizes allowed under this Overlay, the standard development regulations are unlikely to be met) E.1.d
Packet Pg. 401

Staff Report
Planned Developments

and then go to City Council for a Performance Agreement and subsequent deed restriction prior to construction.

ANALYSIS

Only one change was made following the previous Study Session to review the draft Planned Development Ordinance. The number of the Chapter has been changed from 17.40 to 17.66 to better fit in with the layout of Phase II of the overhaul.

The existing Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits will be repealed and replaced with Chapter

17.66, Planned Developments. The draft Chapter was reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. The new Chapter 17.66 Planned Developments, is described in detail below.

Section 17.66.010 - Purpose

This Section provides the purpose of the planned developments in the City.

Section 17.66.020 - Applicability

As proposed, planned developments will be allowed for any project on land that is over one acre in size, including residential and non-residential projects, which will expand the availability of this flexible zoning tool to more projects/sites within the City (current regulations only allow a Planned Development for residential developments).

As proposed, an applicant requesting annexation into the City can also use the planned development designation for their project. This would allow a person requesting annexation to propose the development regulations for their project site at the time of the prezoning and would eliminate the need for a future planned development request and a Performance Agreement with the City Council. This would lead to thoughtful, well planned annexations and would also eliminate the need for multiple permitting requirements for applicants. The process currently required by the Zoning Ordinance also requires a significant amount of time and application types and the proposed modifications are also aimed at saving the applicant money and time.

Section 17.66.030 – Planned Development Established

This Section regulates how planned developments will be created in the City. A planned development will be established in the City through the following:

• A rezone of the project area to “Planned Development.”

• The establishment of an underlying zoning district for the site This allows the planned development to “fall back” on the regulations of the zoning district where the planned development is silent.

• The Zoning Map will be amended to show the property as zoned Planned Development and will note the application number of the planned development to allow Staff to easily find the regulations for the property.

E.1.d
Packet Pg. 402

Staff Report
Planned Developments

The rezoning of a property to “Planned Development” rather than allowing a Conditional Use Permit is a more appropriate way to regulate Planned Developments. As previously discussed, the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to review a proposed use and place conditions on said use to ensure that the use does not negatively impact the surrounding area. If a use failed to comply with the provisions of a Conditional Use Permit, the City can revoke the permit and require the use to cease operations.

During prior Study Sessions, the Planning Commission determined that a Conditional Use Permit was not an appropriate path to approval of a planned development. By allowing a rezone of a property to planned development, the City can expand the planned development zoning tool to allow for modifications to land uses, mixture of uses, layout, and development standards (discussed in greater detail below). As mentioned above, in addition to providing greater flexibility to applicants in the City, Staff believes the proposed rezone will also save project applicants time and money by removing the need for a rezoning to performance overlay, planned development approval, subsequent performance agreement, and deed restrictions.

Section 17.66.040 – Land Use

A planned development can include the following uses:

• Uses that are established for the underlying zoning district;

• Any use which is not listed in the zoning ordinance, but which the Planning Commission and City Council determines is compatible with the General Plan land use designation for the site;

• Accessory uses.; and

• Multi-family structures in a single family residential development (the project area must meet the density required in the General Plan).

The current planned development section of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow an applicant to establish the uses for the site. They are required to follow the density of the general plan and uses within the residential land use category.

Section 17.66.050 – Density

This Section details how the density of a planned development is calculated. Density will be calculated for all properties and the corresponding density of the General Plan. The Planned Development is not required to ensure that development on each parcel meets the permitted density range, rather the Planned Development can distribute the total number of allowed dwelling units or non-residential space throughout the project area if the required density range is met project wide.

Section 17.66.060 – Deviations Allowed for Planned Developments

This Sections details the deviations from the required development standards of the underlying zoning E.1.d
Packet Pg. 403

Staff Report
Planned Developments

district of the planned development. The following deviations are the same as the existing Section

17.24.240:

• Height;

• Minimum lot size and lot area per dwelling unit;

• Lot width, depth, and frontage;

• Setbacks;

• Open space requirements;

• Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio;

• Dwelling unit type.

Staff has also included a provision to allow other deviations as proposed by the applicant and deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council as well as shared parking within the planned development (requires a parking study).

Section 17.66.070 – Substantial Public Benefit in Exchange for a Planned Development

Each Planned Development must contain one or more substantial public benefit(s) in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requirements. A "Substantial Public Benefit" means a project feature not otherwise required by the Municipal Code or General Plan that provides a unique feature or benefit to the City or the neighborhood in which it is located. Examples of Substantial Public Benefits include but are not limited to: enhanced architectural designs; public plazas, courtyards, open space, and other public gathering places that provide opportunities for people to informally meet and gather; commercial uses in a residential development that serve the neighborhood (excluding properties that are designated as Mixed-Use in the General Plan); recreational facilities; public art; community space(s); parks; contribution to or construction of significant off-site public improvements or community space; the preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation of a historic resource; and/or the protection of natural resources.

Section 17.66.080 – Prohibited within a Planned Development

A Planned Development may not be used to request deviations from any of the following regulations:

• The lowering or increasing of the residential density required by the General Plan land use designation(s) for the property.

• The elimination of a commercial component for projects designated as Mixed-use in the General Plan.

• Downtown Mixed-Use zoning requirements.

E.1.d
Packet Pg. 404

Staff Report
Planned Developments

• For properties with a General Plan land use designation of Medium or High Density Residential or Mixed-Use, the Planned Development may not be used to modify the allowed dwelling unit types to allow single family residences, unless the Planning Commission and City Council determine that single family residences may be allowed as an Accessory Use and where the density of the project meets the required density of the General Plan.

• For the reduction of any design standards or guidelines adopted by the City.

• For the reduction of design or preservation requirements for any structure that is designated as historical.

Section 17.66.090 – Planned Development Application

This Section establishes the application and submittal requirements for a planned development request.

Staff is not recommending any changes to the current application fee ($8,392 + the citywide planning fee).

Section 17.66.100 – Review of a Rezoning to Planned Development

The Planning Commission will review a proposed planned development rezone during a noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed rezone. The City Council will then make the final decision on the planned development during a public hearing.

Section 17.66.110 – Ordinance Format

This Section of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the format Staff will use when writing the Ordinance establishing a planned development for a project.

Section 17.66.120 – Required Findings

This Section establishes new findings for planned developments. The findings Staff and the Planning Commission must make to recommend approval of a planned development are as follows:

A. The Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan, applicable specific plan, and other plans and policies adopted by the City Council.

B. The Planned Development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the Planned Development or to the general welfare of the city.

C. The proposed development is superior to the development that could occur under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the underlying zoning designation.

D. That the location, design, size, and uses will result in an attractive, well designed, and beneficial environment for living, shopping, or working.

E.1.d
Packet Pg. 405

Staff Report
Planned Developments

E. The proposed Planned Development will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area.

F. The Planned Development would result in a thoughtful, well-planned development which has been designed to meet current and future needs of residents and workers within the City.

G. The Planned Development will provide one or more Substantial Public Benefits, as defined by Section 17.66.070, in exchange for any modifications from standard zoning requested by the Planned Development.

Section 17.66.130 – Modifications to an Approved Planned Development

This Section has been written to address how the City will review any requested changes to Planned Developments. Where necessary, the Development Services Director by administrative action may clarify the provisions or make minor adjustments to a Planned Development. An example of this type of modification could include a revision to a parking requirement if the Zoning Ordinance is modified to reduce the parking requirements for a specific use and the older, more strict parking requirement is in the Planned Development. Another potential modification could be the replacement of all windows within a development with a new design if the planned development required a specific type of window and if those windows were no longer available. This section was modified based on questions by the Planning Commission and now reads:

A. “Clarification. Where necessary, the Development Services Director by administrative action may clarify the provisions or make minor adjustments to conform to current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, to refer to relevant sections of the Zoning Ordinance (where necessary) and to approve minor modifications to a Planned Development that do not conflict with the development standards, density, or intent of the Planned Development.”

Should a person request a minor modification to a Planned Development (i.e. a parking requirement is requested for a use not established by the Planned Development), the Planning Commission, by means of a Planned Development minor modification may approve minor amendments to a Planned Development with a finding that the amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions, intent, or development capacity of the applicable Planned Development. This would allow an applicant to request a minor change prior to construction. For example, an applicant may request a rezone to planned development and may establish a front yard setback in the planned development. Once plans are drawn up, the applicant may realize that the established setback needed to be modified. In that case, the applicant may request approval of the minor change from the Planning Commission rather than having to amend the entire ordinance and receive approval from the City Council. The minor modification could be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the same time as a Site and Architectural Review and no additional time or hearings would be required. This section was also slightly modified as follows:

B. “Minor Amendments. The Planning Commission, by means of a Planned Development minor modification may approve minor amendments to a Planned Development with a finding that E.1.d
Packet Pg. 406

Staff Report
Planned Developments

the amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions, intent, land use, or development capacity of the applicable Planned Development.”

Additionally, at any time the Development Services Director or Planning Commission may refer a modification request to a different decision making body if desired.

All amendments that change the provisions or intent of the Planned Development, increase the development potential of the site, change the required Substantial Public Benefit, or substantially change the proposed land use map may be requested by submitting an application in the same manner and process as the initial request.

APPLICATION FEES

Staff is not proposing a change to the Planned Development Fee at this time (currently $9,021 total). With the implementation of the new chapter and clear requirements, Staff believes that Staff time related to the review and path to approval will remain the same as the existing process.

The proposed Ordinance also includes two pathways for modifications. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve two new fees related to the modifications.

For clarification or minor modifications approved by the Development Services Director, Staff is recommending an application fee of $1,603.90 (base fee of $1,492.00 + planning wide fee of $111.90).

This is the same fee that is currently charged for Administrative Permit Reviews which are reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director and Staff believes the Staff time associated with the processing of these permits would be the same as a minor modification to a Planned Development.

For minor modifications approved by the Planning Commission, Staff is recommending a new fee of $4,510.50, or half the current planned development application fee (total fee). These modifications will require a public hearing, preparation of a staff report and resolution, as well as staff time spent reviewing these modifications. Therefore, while the full planned development fee does not seem appropriate, Staff anticipates that the proposed fee will cover staff time on the request.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines because the proposed amendments will not result in any direct physical change to the City and therefore the proposed amendments are not a project under CEQA and are exempt from further review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378). Future development of a site will be subject to the requirements of CEQA. Any future projects for development of a site within the City are required to be reviewed under CEQA.

CONCLUSION

The Planning Commission has reviewed the permit review process in the City and planned developments during several study sessions. The Planning Commission has provided staff with direction on how planned developments should be reviewed in the future and other potential modifications to the Zoning Ordinance E.1.d
Packet Pg. 407

Staff Report
Planned Developments

related to these changes.

The proposed new Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, has been prepared with direction from the Planning Commission. By requiring a rezone for planned developments, the new regulations will expand the use of planned developments within the city and will be allowed for prezoning, residential, and commercial properties. The new regulations clearly outline the review process and submittal requirements to assist applicants and staff with the processing of these requests. By utilizing a rezoning method, Staff will also be able to clearly track and obtain these requirements when necessary to assist property owners and residents, thereby ensuring a quick and complete response to questions. Staff believes that the new process will result in more attractive, well planned projects and will provide a unique opportunity to all developers in the City, provide a clear path to approval, and could result in time and money savings for applicants.

PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS:

The Planning Commission can choose one of the following options:

1. Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, and a recommendation to the City Council to adopt Application Fees related to modifications to approved planned developments.

2. Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with a new Chapter, Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, and a recommendation to the City Council to adopt Application Fees related to modifications to approved planned developments. with modifications to the proposed amendments as proposed by the Planning Commission;

3. Continue the hearing and direct Staff to provide additional information or clarification.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission select Option 1 for this Item.

E.1.d
Packet Pg. 408

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2023-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER RECOMMENDING

CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REPEAL SECTION

17.24.240, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, AND REPLACE WITH CHAPTER 17.66, PLANNED

DEVELOPMENTS AND THE ADOPTION OF APPLICATION FEES RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (ZOA 2023-3)

WHERAS, the Planning Division has begun an overhaul of the existing Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with state law, updated to meet current planning practices, for clarity, for consistency, and to the ensure the Zoning Ordinance meets the needs of the residents of Hollister; and

WHEREAS, revisions to the regulations related to Planned Developments was identified as a part of Phase II of the Overhaul; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held two study sessions to review the existing Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, of the Zoning Ordinance and discussed potential changes to the regulations and provided direction to staff; and

WHEREAS, direction received from the Planning Commission was incorporated into a Draft Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance related to Planned Developments’

WHEREAS, Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, during a Study Session on May 11, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to repeal the existing 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits and replace with Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments; and

WHEREAS, currently there is no Application Fee associated with an application request for modifications to a Planned Development and the City desires to establish a Fee for these types of requests; and

WHEREAS, a base Application Fee of $1,492.00 (plus the citywide planning fee) is comparable to the amount of time Staff anticipates to spend on modifications to a planned development that are reviewed by the Director of Development Services; and

WHEREAS, a base Application Fee of $4,196.00 (plus the citywide planning fee), or half of the existing fee for planned developments, is comparable to the amount of time Staff anticipates to spend on modifications to a planned development that are reviewed by the Planning Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 25, 2023 to review the new Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments and the proposed Application Fees for E.1.e
Packet Pg. 409

PC Resolution 2023-
ZOA 2023-3 / Planned Developments

modifications to an approved planned development during which all interested parties were heard; and

WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Hollister recommending approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to repeal Section

17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and replace with Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments and the adoption of two new Application Fees; and

WHEREAS, the draft Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, is included as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines because the proposed amendments will not result in any direct physical change to the City and any future development projects will be subject to the requirements of CEQA and therefore the proposed amendments are not a project under CEQA and are exempt from further review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378); and

NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Hollister does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to repeal Section 17.24.240, Planned Development Permits, and add Chapter 17.66, Planned Developments, included as Exhibit A, and recommends that the City Council adopt a base Application Fee of $1,492.00 for Modifications to a Planned Development Reviewed by the Development Services Director and a base Application Fee of $4,196.00 for Modifications that require review by the Planning Commission.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City of Hollister Planning Commission held on this 25th day of May 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Chairperson of the Planning Commission
of the City of Hollister
ATTEST:

Christine Hopper, Secretary
E.1.e
Packet Pg. 410

Created: 2022‐06‐14 12:38:08 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5)

17.24.240 Planned Development Permits.

A. Purpose. The following provisions are intended to: afford maximum flexibility in site planning/property development, design, and density/intensity, while protecting the integrity and character of the residential areas of the City; encourage innovation and the development of affordable housing; and ensure consistency with the General Plan. At the time of application submittal a review of the configuration, design, location and impact of the proposed land use shall be conducted by comparing the use to established development/site standards. This review shall determine whether the permit should be approved by weighing the public need for and the benefit(s) to be derived from the proposed use, against the potential negative impacts it may cause.

B. Applicability. A Planned Development Permit shall be required for all applicable structures and uses permitted by this Zoning Ordinance; however, none shall be required for alterations to an existing single- family dwelling. Specifically, a permit shall be required under the following circumstances:

1. For a new structure or use listed as subject to a "Planned Development Permit" (PD) in the applicable zoning district;

2. For the change, enlargement, expansion or exterior alteration of an existing structure or use for which a Planned Development Permit has not been issued, excluding an existing single-family dwelling used as a residence; and

3. For the movement or relocation of any structure, including factory-built and manufactured housing, to any parcel within the City.

C. Application Requirements. An application for a Planned Development Permit shall be filed in compliance with Section 17.24.070 (Application Filing).

D. Project Review. Each Planned Development Permit application shall be analyzed to ensure that the application is consistent with the purpose/intent of this Zoning Ordinance and the City's CEQA Guidelines. To ensure effective implementation of General Plan policies relating to design, each application for a Planned Development Permit shall be reviewed in compliance with subsection E of this section prior to determination by the review authority. Additionally, any application which may result in grading shall require the submittal of preliminary grading plans for review and recommendation by the City Engineer and approval by the review authority.

E. Design Review Procedures. The review of projects for architectural and site plan design is an integral part of the development approval process. Each Planned Development Permit application (including all associated plans and elevations) shall be reviewed to ensure that the application is consistent with: the purpose/intent of this section; all applicable development standards/regulations of this Zoning Ordinance; and any adopted design guidelines/policies that may apply. In addition, applications for Conditional Use Permits and variances are also subject to design review whenever any physical alteration/construction is proposed.

1. Department Action. Site plan/design review is initiated when the Department receives a complete application package including all required attachments, plans, specifications, elevations, sample materials, etc. as specified in the application form and any additional information required by the Director in order to conduct a thorough review of the proposed project.

Upon receipt of a complete application, Department staff shall conduct a review of the location, design, site plan configuration and impact of the proposed development by comparing the project plans to established development standards/regulations and any adopted design guidelines/policies. In general, development proposals will be reviewed considering criteria including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Compliance with this Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable city ordinances; E.1.f
Packet Pg. 411

Created: 2022‐06‐14 12:38:08 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5)

b. Desirable site layout and design;
c. Compatibility with neighboring property/development; d. Efficiency and safety of public access and parking;
e. Appropriate open space and use of water efficient landscaping; f. Consistency with the General Plan; and
g. Consistency with any adopted design guidelines and design review policies.

2. Reference to Design Guidelines/Policies. In reviewing development/ improvements subject to design review, the Director shall refer to any design guidelines/policies that have been adopted by the Council/Commission in order to provide guidance to applicants seeking to comply with the requirements of this Zoning Ordinance. The Council/Commission may amend the design guidelines/policies whenever it deems it appropriate in order to carry out the purpose/intent of this Zoning Ordinance. Copies of the design guidelines/policies shall be available to the public at the Department.

The adopted design guidelines are to be used by property owners, developers, architects, landscape architects, and designers in the planning and design of projects in the City. The design guidelines communicate the desired qualities and characteristics of development, and are intended to promote quality design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and implement the General Plan.

The design guidelines/policies are used by city staff, the Commission, and the Council as adopted criteria for the review of development proposals subject to design review.

3. Department Recommendation. Following completion of its review of a proposed project, Department staff shall provide a written statement of findings/recommendations to the review authority for its consideration simultaneously with a Conditional Use Permit. Department staff may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of a project. The report containing findings, recommendations and conditions, shall also be forwarded to the applicant prior to consideration by the review authority.

Where the findings/recommendations of the staff may substantially alter a proposed development, the applicant may be requested to submit revised plans at the discretion of the Director.

4. Preliminary Design Concept Review. The Director may require that a project applicant submit design concept plans for preliminary design review prior to submittal of a formal application for a project deemed significant by the Director. The purpose of the preliminary consultation is to advise the project applicant of applicable design guidelines, design review policies, and other specific design criteria that may affect the design of the project.

F. Hearings and Notice. Upon receipt of a Planned Development Permit application in proper form, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set and notice of the hearing given in compliance with Section 17.24.120 (Public Hearings) of this chapter.

G. Decision and Findings. Following a hearing, if required, the Planning Commission, as outlined in Table 17.24- 1, shall record the decision in writing and shall recite the findings upon which the decision is based. The Planning Commission may approve or modify a Planned Development Permit in whole or in part, and shall impose specific development conditions. These conditions shall relate to both on- and off-site improvements that are necessary to accommodate flexibility in site planning/property development, mitigate project- related adverse impacts, and to carry out the purpose/intent and requirements of the respective zoning district. The Planning Commission may approve a Planned Development Permit, only if all of the following findings are made:

E.1.f
Packet Pg. 412

Created: 2022‐06‐14 12:38:08 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5)

1. The proposed development is one allowed within the subject zoning district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, including prescribed development/site standards/guidelines and any adopted design guidelines;

2. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan;

3. The approval of the Planned Development Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

4. The proposed development would be harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the zoning district and general area, as well as with the land uses presently on the subject property;

5. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed;

6. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed development would not be detrimental to public health and safety; and

7. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed development would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

H. Expiration. A Planned Unit Development Permit shall be exercised within two years from the date of approval or the Permit shall become void except when:

1. An extension is approved by the Planning Commission in compliance with procedure for extending a permit found in this Zoning Code; or

2. An extension is required to allow the expiration date of the Planned Unit Development Permit to be consistent with the expiration date of the Tentative Subdivision Map for the same development project.

I. Revocation. The Planning Commission may revoke or modify a Planned Development Permit in compliance with Section 17.24.130(H) (Revocations) and Article III (Enforcement).

J. Performance Guarantee. The applicant/owner may be required to provide adequate performance security for the faithful performance of any condition of approval imposed by the review authority. (Ord. 1038, § 2, 2008; Ord. 1071, § 19, 2011)
E.1.f
Packet Pg. 413

Created: 2022‐06‐14 12:38:08 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5)

E.1.f
Packet Pg. 414

Approved Planned Unit Developments in Hollister
File No.Zoning District Reason for PD Request Additional PD Information Date of Approval
CUP 2015-2 Downtown Mixed Use Unknown (potentially lot size)7/23/2015 CUP 2015-3
Medium Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
Setbacks Front=10' (garage = 20')4/23/2015
CUP 2015-4 Downtown Mixed Use Unknown 7/23/2015
Front=6' and 18' (garage)
Rear=5' (garage)
CUP 2016-3
Low Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
Setbacks
Front=10' (garage = 17')
Side=4'
Rear=10'
1/28/2016
CUP 2016-4
Low Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
Setbacks (Side Ony)Side=5'2/25/2016
CUP 2017-1 Low Density Residential Setbacks (Side Ony)
Minimum Lot Size
Side=5'
Minimum Lot Size = 5,204
SF
2/23/2017
CUP 2017-6
Low Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
Dwelling Types
To include multi-family
dwelling units (Roberts
Ranch)
9/28/2017
CUP 2017-15 Neighborhood Mixed Use Dwelling Types Allow Condominiums 9/28/2017 Housing Types Triplexes and multi-family
(Roberts Ranch)
Front=15'
Side=5'
Rear=10'
CUP 2016-2
Medium Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
Setbacks 1/28/2016
CUP 2019-3
Low Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay Setbacks
6/27/2019
1 of 3
E.1.g
Packet Pg. 415

Approved Planned Unit Developments in Hollister
File No.Zoning District Reason for PD Request Additional PD Information Date of Approval
Rear= 9'
Side=2.5'
Front =0'
Lot Coverage 82.50%
Open Space 219 sq. ft.

CUP 2021-4 Downtown Mixed Use Open Space Request to reduce the required open space 8/26/2021
Setbacks Front=3'
Lot Size Duplex= 3,165 sq. ft. and
Triplex=4,653 sq. ft.

Housing Types Duettes and single family
Lot Size Duettes 3,066 sq. ft.

CUP 2021-9 Downtown Mixed Use Open Space None 9/23/2021 Setbacks Front=13' to porch and 15'
to house
Lot Coverage 55%
Lot Size 4,400 SF and 3,360 duette
Front=13' residence and
10' porch
Front= 5'
Side yard = 5'
Rear yard =13'
SetbacksCUP 2022-2
Low Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
11/17/2022
Setbacks
8/26/2021Old Town High Density
Residential CUP 2020-3
Medium Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
CUP 2021-6 5/27/2021
10/28/2021
Medium Density
Residential/Performance
Overlay
CUP 2021-8
8/25/2022CUP 2021-10
Low
Density/Performanece
Overlay
2 of 3
E.1.g
Packet Pg. 416

Approved Planned Unit Developments in Hollister
File No.Zoning District Reason for PD Request Additional PD Information Date of Approval
Housing Types Single Family and duettes
Front= 5'
Side yard = 5'
Rear yard =13'
Lot size, setbacksWest of FairviewCUP 2022-7 11/17/2022 3 of 3
E.1.g
Packet Pg. 417

E.1.h
Packet Pg. 418

E.1.h
Packet Pg. 419

E.1.h
Packet Pg. 420

From:Dennis Martin
To:Mayor Casey; COHDistrict1 Rick Perez; COHDistrict2 Rolan Resendiz; COHDistrict3 Dolores Morales; COHDistrict4 Tim Burns
Cc:COH Manager; COH City Clerk
Subject:City Council Meeting 8.7.23 Item E1; Planned Developments and Associated Fees Date:Sunday, August 6, 2023 12:41:35 PM
Attachments:CityofHollister BIA 8.7.23 ItemE1 PlannedDevelopmentFees.pdf Hollister BP Fee Comparison FINAL 2.9.22.pdf
Hollister Memo 3.29.22.pdf
Greetings Mayor Casey, City Council and Staff,
Please accept the attached letter of comment and accompanying documents in support of lower fees on residential development in Hollister. Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.

Yours truly,
Dennis Martin
BIA Government Affairs
ITEM E. 1

PUBLIC COMMENT
8/7/2023

August 7, 2023

The Honorable Mia Casey, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Hollister
975 Fifth St.

Hollister, CA 95023
Transmitted Via Email

Re: City Council 8.7.23 Item E.1, Planned Developments and Associated Fees

Dear Mayor Casey and City Council Members,

On behalf of the Building Industry Association, BIA Bay Area I request that the City Council to continue the adoption of two new planned development amendment fees and instead move to reconsider the City’s actions regarding imposition of extremely high residential building permit fees that are now adding tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of building new housing in Hollister.

BIA respectfully requests that the City Council direct the City Manager to schedule a hearing regarding the exorbitant Building Permit Fees on the Council agenda soon and to respond to BIA information that we have previously submitted to the City Council and the City Manager showing that the City is overcharging for building permit and other development services.

Inadequate Notice and Outreach
Additionally, BIA Bay Area requests that the City Council postpone the August 7, 2023 hearing for the Planned Development Fee until a later date that would allow for adequate noticing under State Government Code 66016 & 66019. BIA asks that the City establish reliable communication procedures to notice any new and increased development fees including application and impact fees and provide all support documentation and data in relation to new and/or increased fees.

The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (BIA|Bay Area) annually submits a request that the City of Hollister, along with every other jurisdiction in the Bay Area, notify BIA of any action to adopt or increase a fee, charge, or other exaction imposed on or in connection with development approvals or the issuance of building permits. (See Gov't Code Sections 66016 and 66019.) The request includes any fee, charge or other requirement related to the provision of

affordable housing including inclusionary zoning requirements. This fee notice request was emailed to the City Clerk in January of 2023.
66016 (a) Prior to levying a new fee or service charge, or prior to approving an increase in an existing fee or service charge, a local agency shall hold at least one open and public meeting, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this section is available, shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges. Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed.

Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service.

At least 10 days prior to the meeting, the local agency shall make available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund revenues...

Background of Fee Increases
Approximately two years ago, the City Council adopted a new fee schedule based on a Wildan Financial Services study from 2020 that claimed to show the City needed to raise building and development services fees by nearly 400 percent in order to provide full cost recovery of providing these services.

At that time, a recommendation from City Staff and the Consultant to phase in fees over a 4-year time frame was ignored by the Council who proceeded to adopt fees at the highest levels in the Wildan report. Immediately, building permits fees for new residential construction shot up to over $25,000 per single family house, far more than any neighboring jurisdiction charges for these services. As a result, Hollister now charges some of the highest building permit fees in the whole South Bay Region.

Documentation of Overcharging for Building Permit Services BIA believes that the City Staff and Consultant reports failed to provide all the information the Council needed prior to making its decision. Importantly, the reports failed to include a comparison of fees in neighboring jurisdictions. BIA submitted to the Council and City Manager a benchmark comparison of building permit fees in six neighboring jurisdictions that shows Hollister charges twice as much as the next highest jurisdiction, Santa Cruz County, and nearly three times more the San Benito County Building Department.

Other questions that BIA has raised with the fee adoption include:

1. Failure of the Wildan Report to Demonstrate Analysis for then Current Building Permit Cost Recovery at 21%

2. Failure of the Wildan Report to Demonstrate that New Fee Amounts Constitute 100% Cost Recovery
BIA points out that city fees can only be set to the cost of providing service and that fees cannot be set at an exceedingly high level in order to try to recuperate past years of inaction to adjust fees to full cost recovery. And it should go without saying that high fees should never be used to discourage home building.

Attached you will find the Peer Review study that BIA commissioned comparing fees across the region and a review of the methodology used in the 2020 fee study. BIA is requesting that the City Council agendize this issue for discussion and provide adequate advance legal notice of the agenda schedule.

Yours truly,
Dennis Martin
BIA|BAY AREA

Cc: David Mirrione, City Manager

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525            148.33$                        374,533$ Garage Sq. Ft. 416               59.88$                          24,910$ Porch Sq. Ft. 35                 59.88$                          2,096$ 401,539$
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fees 12,964.57$
Electrical Sub‐Permit Fee 2,592.91$
Plumbing Sub‐Permit Fee 2,981.85$
Mechanical Sub‐Permit Fee 2,852.21$
Total Building Permit Fee (BMEP Fees)21,391.54$
Plan Check Fee Flat Fee 862.50$
Planning Fee 1,204.62$
Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)17.00$
Strong Motion Fee 52.20$
Technology Fee 4% of BMEP Fees 855.66$
General Plan Update Fee 3.5% of BMEP Fees 748.70$
Document Fee Flat Fee 14.00$
Total Other Permit Fee 3,754.68$
Total Building Permit Fees 25,146.23$
Notes:
[1] Based on permit invoice for 2350 Hibiscus Drive dated 8/10/2021.

0.3% of Valuation
Valuation / $25,000
$0.00013 x Valuation
Table 1
20% of Building Permit Fee
23% of Building Permit Fee
22% of Building Permit Fee
City of Hollister (2022)
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
$4,826.03 + 26.99 for each addl.
$1,000 over $100,000
Prepared by DPFG

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525            148.33$                           374,533$ Garage Sq. Ft. 416               59.88$                             24,910$ Porch Sq. Ft. 35                 59.88$                             2,096$ 401,539$
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fees 2,682.37$
Electrical Sub‐Permit Fee 536.47$
Plumbing Sub‐Permit Fee 456.00$
Mechanical Sub‐Permit Fee 482.83$
Total Building Permit Fee (BMEP Fees)4,157.67$
Plan Check Fee 50% of master plan check fee 1,351.24$
Planning Fee 300.00$
Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)17.00$
Strong Motion Fee 52.20$
Total Other Permit Fee 1,720.44$
Total Building Permit Fees 5,878.12$
Notes:
[1] Based on permit estimator for 511 Duran Drive.
[2] Master Plan Check Fee is composed of two components, (i) Plan Check Fee = 65% of building permit fee and (ii) MEP plan check fee = 55% of Plan Check Fee 20% of Building Permit Fee
17% of Building Permit Fee
18% of Building Permit Fee
$300 flat fee for all projects > $100k
Valuation / $25,000
$0.00013 x Valuation
Table 2 (2019)
City of Hollister
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
$993.75 + 5.60 for each addl. $1,000
over $100,000
Prepared by DPFG

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525                       148.33$                        374,533$ Garage Sq. Ft. 416                          59.88$                          24,910$ Porch Sq. Ft. 35                            59.88$                          2,096$ 401,539$
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fees 4,065.23$
(Includes MEP Fees)
N/A
Total Building Permit Fee 4,065.23$
Plan Review Fee (Bldg. Only)2,764.36$
Long Range Planning Fee 609.79$
GIS Technology Fee 203.26$
Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)17.00$
Strong Motion Fee 52.20$
Mircofilm Fee 10.00$
Total Other Permit Fee 3,656.61$
Total Building Permit Fees 7,721.84$
Notes:
[1] Based on City building permit fee schedule dated 1/1/2019. $4 base fee plus additional sheets
68% of Bldg. Permit Fee
Table 3
5% GIS Tech Fee added to permit fee
Valuation / $25,000
$0.00013 x Valuation
(For Valuations from $100,001 to
$500,000) $2,256.00 for the first $100,000
plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to and including
$500,000.
15% of permit & plan review fees
City of Morgan Hill
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
Prepared by DPFG

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525                       148.33$                        374,533$ Garage Sq. Ft. 416                          59.88$                          24,910$ Porch Sq. Ft. 35                            59.88$                          2,096$ 401,539$
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fees
Electrical Sub‐Permit Fee 403.51$
Plumbing Sub‐Permit Fee 403.51$
Mechanical Sub‐Permit Fee 403.51$
Total Building Permit Fee 4,975.86$
Plan Review Fee 3,234.31$
General Plan Update Fee 2,007.70$
GIS Technology Fee 248.79$
Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)17.00$
Strong Motion Fee 52.20$
Techology Fee 199.03$
Document Fee 50.00$
Total Other Permit Fee 5,809.03$
Total Building Permit Fees 10,784.89$
Notes:
[1] Based on City comprehensive fee schedule dated FY 2019‐2020.

Table 4

0.5% of Building Valuation
5% GIS Tech Fee added to permit fee
Valuation / $25,000
$0.00013 x Valuation
City of Los Gatos
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
3,765.33$
Based on sample permit
$1,395.23 + 7.86 for each addl. $1,000
over $100,000
$0.11/Sq. Ft. plus $80 Issuance Fee
$0.11/Sq. Ft. plus $80 Issuance Fee
$0.11/Sq. Ft. plus $80 Issuance Fee
4% Surcharge on BMEP Fees
65% of Bldg. Permit Fee
Prepared by DPFG

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525                       148.33$                        374,533$ Garage Sq. Ft. 416                          59.88$                          24,910$ Porch Sq. Ft. 35                            59.88$                          2,096$ 401,539$
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fees
Electrical Sub‐Permit Fee 399.98$
Plumbing Sub‐Permit Fee 399.98$
Mechanical Sub‐Permit Fee 399.98$
Total Building Permit Fee 4,324.63$
Plan Review Fee 2,343.52$
Plot Plan Review/Lot Change 550.00$
Hourly Plan Check 450.00$
Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)17.00$
Strong Motion Fee 52.20$
Total Other Permit Fee 3,412.72$
Total Building Permit Fees 7,737.35$
Notes:

Valuation / $25,000
$0.00013 x Valuation
Based on comprehensive fee schedule adopted 4/21/2014 and sample building permit provided for a 2,252 square foot SFR.

Table 5
$0.136/SF
$0.136/SF
$0.136/SF
75% of Building Permit
Flat Fee
Based on sample permit
City of Gilroy
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
$1,291.34 + 6.08 for each addl. $1,000
over $100,000 3,124.70$
Prepared by DPFG

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525                       148.33$                        374,533$ Garage Sq. Ft. 416                          59.88$                          24,910$ Porch Sq. Ft. 35                            59.88$                          2,096$ 401,539$
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fees
536.47$
456.00$
482.83$
Total Building Permit Fee 4,157.67$
Plan Review Fee 2,702.49$
MEP Plan Review 1,486.37$
Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)17.00$
Strong Motion Fee 52.20$
Document Fee 20.00$
Total Other Permit Fee 4,278.05$
Total Building Permit Fees 8,435.73$
Notes:

Based on City's Building Plan Check & Permit Fees Schedule dated 2/20/2018.

Table 6
55% of Plan Review Fee
Valuation / $25,000
$0.00013 x Valuation
$10 + $1/page
$993.75 + 5.60 for each addl. $1,000 over
$100,000
20% of Building Permit Fee
17% of Building Permit Fee
18% of Building Permit Fee
City of San Juan Batista
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
65% of Building Fee
2,682.37$
Prepared by DPFG

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525
Garage Sq. Ft. 416
Porch Sq. Ft. 35
N/A
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fee (Inspections)
N/A
Total Building Permit Fee 3,562.32$
Processing Fee 3,965.59$
Building Plan Check Fee 3,528.70$
Green Building Plan Check 653.00$
Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)11.31$
Technical Training Fee 55.28$
Strong Motion Fee 28.28$
General Plan Maintenace Fee 6% of Permit Fee 213.74$
Zoning Plan Check 742.00$
Records Management Fee 15.00$
Total Other Permit Fee 9,212.90$
Total Building Permit Fees 12,775.22$
Notes:

Based on County's fee estimator for a 2,525 square foot SFR seen in the link below. https://www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/County/Planning/bldg/FEE%20ESTIMATE%201617.xlsx $0.00013 x Valuation
Flat Fee
Table 7
Flat Fee
Valuation / $25,000
Santa Cruz County
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
3,562.32$
Flat Fee
Prepared by DPFG

Project Assumptions Sq. Ft. Value/Sq. Ft. Total Value
Dwelling Sq. Ft. 2,525                       148.33$                        374,533$ Garage Sq. Ft. 416                          59.88$                          24,910$ Porch Sq. Ft. 35                            59.88$                          2,096$ 401,539$
Building Permit Fees Fee Formula Total Amount
Building Permit Fees
Electrical Sub‐Permit Fee 477.63$
Plumbing Sub‐Permit Fee 405.99$
Mechanical Sub‐Permit Fee 429.87$
Total Building Permit Fee 3,701.63$
Plan Review Fee 2,406.06$
MEP Plan Review 1,323.33$
Planning Division Plan Check Fee 15% of Building Fee 555.24$ Engineering Division Plan Check Fee 15% of Building Fee 555.24$ Green Fee (CA Building Std. Fee)17.00$
Strong Motion Fee 52.20$
Document Fee 20.00$
Total Other Permit Fee 4,929.08$
Total Building Permit Fees 8,630.72$
Notes:
$0.00013 x Valuation
Flat Fee
Table 8
Based on Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2018‐2019 and SFR permits seen on County's online permit database.
20% of Building Permit Fee
17% of Building Permit Fee
18% of Building Permit Fee
65% of Building Fee
55% of Plan Review Fee
Valuation / $25,000
San Benito County
Building Permit Estimate
New Single Family Residence
February 9, 2022
Estimate based on example 2,700 sq. ft.
new home permit 2,388.15$
Prepared by DPFG

___________________________________________________________________________________________

To: Dennis Martin, South Bay Government Affairs – BIA|Bay Area From: DPFG
Date: March 29, 2022
Subject: City of Hollister ‐ Development Services User Fee Study Dear Mr. Martin
The Building Industry of the Bay Area (“BIA”) requested the services of DPFG in connection with conducting a peer review of the Development Services User Fee Study (“Study”) dated November 2020.

The Study was prepared by Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) for the City of Hollister (the “City”) and was adopted by the City on June 21, 2021.  The City’s adoption of the Study increased fee rates for Development Services Fee (“Fees”) which included fees related to building, planning, and engineering related City services.

Our review included the evaluation of the City’s new fee structure, including review of the City’s methodology for determining the Fees and related cost allocations.  Additionally, we conducted research of comparable cities development services fees to better understand the City cost structure as it relates to comparable jurisdictions performing similar services.

DPFG’s review of the Study is primarily focused on the Study’s methodology used to justify fee increases related to the issuance of building permits.  Following our review of the Study, DPFG has identified the following topics in which the City should consider for further evaluation:

1. Failure to Demonstrate Analysis for Current Building Permit Cost Recovery at 21% The Study states that the result of the cost analysis completed for the Building Permit program found that the program is currently operating at 21% cost recovery.  The Study uses the 21% cost recovery figure to justify increases to the City’s building permit fees.

The Study does not provide any supporting documentation on how the cost analysis was prepared and how the 21% cost recovery figure was arrived at.  Without backup to support the 21% cost recovery figure, the Study does not effectively demonstrate why increases to building permit fees are necessary.

2. Failure to Demonstrate that New Fee Amounts Meet 100% Cost Recovery The Study states that charging the new fee amounts as described in the Study will result 100% cost recovery to the City.  Appendix A of the Study provides a table of “Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered” which provides various City department’s salaries, operating costs, and allocation factors.  Appendix A does not illustrate any conclusions regarding the total amount needed by the City to meet 100% cost recovery nor does it explain how to interpret the information regarding department operating costs.

The Study claims that overhead costs related to several departments should be included as recoverable costs from user fees.  The Study does not demonstrate a reasonable relationship between user fees for development services and the City’s operating costs related to departments such as animal control, fire, police, airport, and the city manager’s office which are not typically associated with building permit costs

and development related services.  Furthermore, the Study does not explain how overhead costs from various departments were allocated to the total allowable cost to be recovered by user fees.

The Study also makes the statement that the overhead rates amounts listed in Appendix A will not reconcile to the City’s budget but does not provide an alternative source of backup for the costs provided.

Although not mentioned in the Study, the City contracts their permit services through a third‐party consultant, 4LEAF, Inc.  The Study claims to justify excessive building permit fee increases without describing the City’s 4LEAF, Inc. contract which would appear to be an important part of the City’s user fee cost structure related to building permits.

The Study does not effectively provide supporting documentation on the City’s costs related to providing user services and does not effectively demonstrate why increases to building permit fees are necessary.

3. Gradual Fee Adjustments Recommended by Staff Were Not Implemented At the time the Study was prepared, Willdan concluded that the City’s building permit program was operating at 21% cost recovery.  The Study and City staff recommended that a gradual increase annually, so that within four years of the adoption of the Study, the Fees would be at 100% cost recovery.  The Study recommended a roughly 95% fee increase per year for four years until 100% cost recovery was met.

Contrary to the Study and City staff’s recommendation to gradually implement Fee increases over time, City Council approved that the City begin charging Fees at 100% recovery after the  adoption of the Study.

This resulted in a 382% increase in building permit fees immediately after the adoption of the Study.

4. Other Jurisdiction Fee Comparison
In comparing building permit fees in other jurisdictions to the Study’s findings it was determined fees in the City are now substantially higher than comparable and neighboring jurisdictions.  Although many variables would have to be evaluated to fully understand what drives the higher fees in the Study as to a comparable jurisdiction it does illustrate the potential that the fees proposed in the Study are not reasonable.  DPFG’s fee comparison for comparable jurisdictions is illustrated in the table below

Conclusion
In accordance with our current scope of work, the analysis and summary of findings described above reflect our initial review of the Study. The Study failures to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the services provided, related costs of services, and how those costs are allocated in its justification of the new Fees.

A more detailed audit may be conducted with the cooperation of the City and Willdan to further evaluate the detailed cost recovery analysis not provided in the Study.

We look forward to discussing our findings with you at you earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Chris Austin
Managing Principal

Reference Materials
City Council Meeting Minutes and Video for 6/21/21
http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1145&Format=Minutes

‐ 0:18:30 – Public Hearing Starts for Study
‐ 0:46:00 – Discussion Begins Regarding 100% Cost Recovery ‐ 0:49:00 – 4LEAF Contract
‐ 0:52:50 – Question Regarding 21% Cost Recovery
o Tony Thrasher (Willdan) states that the total cost to provide services is roughly $1.5 million but current revenue received over the past five years averages out to $300,000.  These figures are not substantiated in the Study
Staff Report
http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=13634 Adopted Development Services User Fee Study (Willdan – November 2020) http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=3952&MeetingID=1145 Willdan Slide Presentation
http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=3953&MeetingID=1145 City Adopted Operating Annual Budget 2020‐2021
http://hollister.ca.gov/wp‐ content/uploads/2020/09/FY20‐21‐Hollister‐Annual‐Budget‐Final.pdf City Adopted Operating Annual Budget 2021‐2022
http://hollister.ca.gov/wp‐ content/uploads/2022/01/Hollister‐Budget‐2021‐2022.pdf

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023
SUBMITTED: June 7, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Public Works - Utilities
William Via, Community Services
Director

TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-154, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROPRIATING $2,500,000 FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (DWWTP) MEMBRANE BIO-REACTORS UPGRADES AND $105,000

FOR A DWTTP CAPACITY STUDY AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT MASTER PLAN

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This Resolution will appropriate $2,500,000 for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP) Membrane Bio-Reactors upgrade and $105,000 for a DWTTP capacity study and Wastewater Treatment Master Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution appropriating $2,500,000, approving DWWTP Membrane Bio-Reactors upgrade, and appropriating $105,000 for a DWTTP capacity study and Wastewater Treatment Master Plan.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: In 2008, an expansion and upgrade project was completed on the Domestic Waste Water Treatment Plant (DWWTP) which provided the City of Hollister the ability to treat domestic wastewater and produce recycled water. The building moratorium caused by the lack of available capacity at the DWWTP, in place since 2002, was lifted as a result of this expansion and upgrade.

In 2016, two of the four membrane bio-reactors (MBRs) at the DWWTP were upgraded, increasing the ability to process wastewater in those two trains. The two different MBR types (2008 models and 2016 models) have caused a lack of coordination and communication between the two technologies, which has caused a limiting effect on the treatment capacity at the DWWTP. Prior to June of 2023, the DWWTP’s capacity per the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) set by California’s Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was

4.00 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). Due to the conflict with the two sets of MBRs, the City’s new WDR will be set at 3.40 MGD by the RWQCB.

After a presentation on the DWWTP at the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting, staff received direction to bring back an item to proceed with upgrading the two remaining MBRs, to commission a capacity study, a wastewater treatment master plan, and to replace manholes at connection sites in preparation for approved connections for the City of San Juan Bautista and the San Juan Oaks development.

By upgrading the two MBRs, it could increase the future capacity to 6.80 MGD only if other improvements were made to the DWWTP. These improvements will be identified via a capacity study. Staff estimates that the MBR upgrade would allow the capacity to increase to 5.00 MGD without any additional improvements. In order to have a capacity of over 5.00 MGD, the City of Hollister would be required by the RWQCB to implement an industrial pretreatment program.

The preliminary cost estimates for the study required to develop an industrial pretreatment program range from $100,000 to $500,000. All increases in capacity is subject to approval by the RWQCB.

A cost estimate for the MBRs was recently obtained from Veolia, who purchased the technology through mergers and acquisitions, to upgrade these last two MBRs. Once upgraded these two F.1
Packet Pg. 421

MBRs will be the same as the two already replaced, which will eliminate the lack of communication and coordination.

The cost estimate of $2.1 million includes materials, shipping, installation, and startup and the amount requested includes a $400,000 contingency for unforeseen costs associated with the upgrades. The need for communication and coordination between all of the MBR trains requires that all of the technology be the same and compatible, which makes the MBR upgrades a sole source item.

The cost estimate for the capacity study and wastewater treatment master plan is $105,000.

Staff will contract with an on-call engineering firm to commission the study.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Decrease in Fund balance in Fund 661 of $2,605,000

CEQA: Statutorily exempt per CCR Title 14 §15301 b. for improvements to publicly-owned existing facilities that provide public sewerage service.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Budget Transfer-Appropriation Form

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

F.1
Packet Pg. 422

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-154

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROPRIATING $2,500,000 FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (DWWTP) MEMBRANE BIO-REACTORS UPGRADES AND $105,000 FOR A DWTTP CAPACITY STUDY AND

WASTEWATER TREATMENT MASTER PLAN

WHEREAS, City of Hollister owns and operates the Hollister Domestic Waste Water Plant (DWWTP); and

WHEREAS, the capacity of the DWWTP to treat waste water needs to be increased; and

WHEREAS, two of the Membrane Bio-Reactors (MBRs) were upgraded in 2016; and

WHEREAS, the remaining two MBRs need to be upgraded to provide increased treatment capacity and redundancy for maintenance and repairs; and

WHEREAS, the lack of communication and coordination between the old and new technologies produces capacity and operational issues, the needed upgrades are considered a sole source item; and

WHEREAS, a budgetary quote was received from Veolia to upgrade the two remaining MBRs at a cost of $2,100,000; and

WHEREAS, there may be unforeseen costs during the installation of the new MBR equipment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister approves the appropriation of $2,605,000 from Fund 661 for MBR upgrade improvements for $2,500,000 which includes a $400,000 contingency (19 percent) and $105,000 for a wastewater treatment master plan and capacity analysis.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Veolia to provide the materials, installation, and start - up of the new MBRs as a sole source item.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister authorizes the City Manager to enter into agreements with an on -call engineering firm to conduct a wastewater treatment master plan and capacity analysis.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 7th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

F.1
Packet Pg. 423

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

F.1
Packet Pg. 424

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-154, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of August, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister
F.1
Packet Pg. 425

APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT

1. TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN CLASSIFICATIONS OF EXPENDITURES (i.e. BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND SUPPLIES EXPENSE) MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO FINANCE WITH DEPARTMENT HEAD’S SIGNATURE.

2. TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN CLASSIFICATIONS OF EXPENDITURES (i.e. BETWEEN SALARIES AND SERVICES AND SUPPLIES) MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

3. TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN FUNDS OR COST CENTERS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

4. INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS NEEDS TO BE OFFSET BY ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE OR AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE.

(ROUND UP TO WHOLE DOLLAR)

Explanation of Transaction:

Supplemental appropriation for DWWTP Bio-Reactors Membrane upgrades

Prepared by Date
Department Head

FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE OFFICE ONLY

Approved
for Entry Date
Finance Office

Approved Date Journal No.

City Manager

Date Resolution No.

City Clerk

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 426

From:David H. Weibel
To:Mayor Casey; COHDistrict1 Rick Perez; COHDistrict2 Rolan Resendiz; COHDistrict3 Dolores Morales; COHDistrict4 Tim Burns
Cc:COH City Clerk; [email protected]; Kevin P. Bundy; Carmen J. Borg Subject:Comments re Proposed Expansion of Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (for 8-7-23 meeting) Date:Monday, August 7, 2023 1:05:36 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Protect San Benito County Comments re 8-7-23 Agenda Item F.1 - 8-7-23.pdf Mayor Casey, Members of the Hollister City Council:

Attached is a letter with exhibits submitted on behalf of Protect San Benito County regarding Item No. F.1 on the agenda for tonight’s City Council meeting.

Please contact the undersigned if you have any difficulty accessing the attachment.

Thank you,
David H. Weibel
Legal Secretary
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4421
p: 415/552-7272 x234 |
www.smwlaw.com | A San Francisco Green Business
ITEM F.1
PUBLIC COMMENT 1
8/7/2023

396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
August 7, 2023
Via Electronic Mail

Mia Casey, Mayor
Members of the Hollister City Council
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
E-Mail: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]

Re: Proposed Expansion of Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (Agenda Item No. F.1, August 7, 2023)

Dear Mayor Casey and Members of the City Council,
This firm represents Protect San Benito County in matters related to the above- referenced agenda item. As discussed in detail below, the City of Hollister has not complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) or Government Code section 56133 in considering approval of proposals to expand the capacity of the City’s City’s Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (“DWWTP”) and to extend sewer service to developments and locations outside the City’s boundaries (the “Project”). Please include these comments in the administrative record of proceedings for this matter.

At its June 20, 2023 meeting, the Council directed staff to develop a proposal to expand the City’s DWWTP by replacing two membrane bio-reactors (“MBRs”), and to place the proposal on the Council’s agenda for further discussion and a vote.1 According to a staff presentation at the June 20 meeting, replacing the two MBRs would effectively

1 Hollister City Council, Regular Meeting Video (June 20, 2023) at approx. 4:13-4:20, available at http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx .

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

double the DWWTP’s current capacity.2 The June 20 staff presentation also revealed that the expanded capacity would exceed the projected flow at potential buildout under the City’s 2005 General Plan by nearly 2 million gallons per day (“MGD”).3 The presentation identified several specific developments outside the City’s boundaries that are expected to connect to the DWWTP, several of which appear to be located outside the City’s jurisdictional boundaries, and even outside the City’s sphere of influence.4 The presentation also mentioned “2040 General Plan Impacts,” regional housing needs allocation planning goals, and future accessory dwelling units as “other considerations,” raising questions as to whether the City is contemplating additional extensions of service to facilitate further development projects.5 Following extensive discussion and public testimony, the Council directed staff to bring the Project back for a vote at the August 7, 2023 meeting.

The Project is now before the Council as Item F.1 on the August 7 agenda. The Council, however, cannot lawfully approve the project because the City has not complied with CEQA. First, the City has already violated CEQA by approving wastewater service agreements with San Juan Bautista and San Juan Oaks on June 20, 2023, without any CEQA compliance whatsoever. Both service agreements necessitate expansion of the DWWTP, and both agreements thus represent a commitment to a definite course of action that cannot be taken prior to complying with CEQA. Second, the Staff Report for Item F.1 on the August 7 agenda erroneously claims that the Project is exempt from CEQA under section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.6 By its plain terms, this exemption applies only to projects “involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” The Project before the Council would dramatically expand capacity above both existing flow levels and the DWWTP’s past capacity. This is not a “negligible” expansion of use, and section 15301 is facially inapplicable to the Project. The City must comply with

2 Staff Presentation, June 20, 2023 Council Packet at 424 (“6/20/23 Council Packet”) (current average day capacity is 3.4 MGD), 435 (upgrading two MBRs could increase capacity to 6.8 MGD), available at
http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1247&Inline=True . 3 Id. at 424 (estimating flow at potential buildout of 4.7 MGD). 4 Id. at 428-31.
5 Id. at 429.
6 Staff Report, Resolution No. 2023-154, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hollister Appropriating $2,500,000 for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP) Membrane Bio-Reactors Upgrades and $105,000 for a DWWTP Capacity Study and Wastewater Treatment Master Plan (Aug. 7, 2023) (“Staff Report”), included in August 7, 2023 Council Packet (“8/7/23 Council Packet”) at 421-22.

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

CEQA before voting to approve the expansion. Because it has not yet done so, any vote to approve the expansion at the Council’s August 7, 2023 meeting would be unlawful.

Protect San Benito County also believes that the City’s effort to transform the DWWTP into a truly regional facility is an important legislative act that will determine both wastewater and development policy in the City for many years. This type of decision must be made in a manner that reflects its importance—with adequate public notice, Planning Commission review, and full CEQA compliance—not accomplished in a piecemeal fashion through individual out-of-jurisdiction wastewater service agreements and hasty, unexamined approval of facility upgrades without adequate CEQA review or public discussion. The City should complete its capacity analysis and conduct a full environmental review of all aspects of the Project before considering any expansion.

Finally, even if the DWWTP is expanded, the San Benito County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) must approve any extension of wastewater service beyond the City’s boundaries. The City has not yet identified evidence sufficient to show that the service extensions it is contemplating can be approved by LAFCO pursuant to Government Code section 56133.

Detailed comments follow.

I. The City may not lawfully approve the Project because it has not complied with CEQA.

The proposed DWWTP expansion is a “project” under CEQA. CEQA’s “project” definition expressly applies to “[a]n activity directly undertaken by any public agency,” including “public works construction and related activities,” and “improvements to existing public structures.” CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)(1).

CEQA defines a “project” as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a) (emphasis added); see also Pub. Resources Code § 21065. CEQA thus prohibits “segmentation” or “piecemeal” analysis of a project and its impacts. See Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1229 (“when one activity is an integral part of another activity, the combined activities are within the scope of the same CEQA project” and must be analyzed together). Breaking the project into smaller sub-projects is impermissible because it leads to inadequate environmental review. See, e.g., Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm’n (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84 (CEQA mandates that “environmental

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones”).

CEQA also requires agencies to develop a stable and consistent description of the “project” under consideration. See San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 730; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 193. The use of a “truncated project concept” violates CEQA and mandates the conclusion that the lead agency did not proceed in the manner required by law. San Joaquin Raptor, 27 Cal. App. 4th at 729–30. Furthermore, “[a]n accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity.” Id. at 730. Thus, an inaccurate or incomplete project description renders the analysis of significant environmental impacts inherently unreliable.

Construction and operation of the expanded DWWTP may have a number of direct impacts, particularly on residents living in close proximity to the facility. For example, community members spoke at the June 20, 2023 Council meeting about odors from the facility and expressed serious concerns that expansion will cause or exacerbate adverse impacts related to odors and air quality. The City must assess these and other impacts under CEQA, including but not limited to those of capacity expansion and any foreseeable facility improvements (such as modifications to treatment equipment, ponds, or treated wastewater discharges).

In evaluating the impacts of the Project, the City must consider not only impacts related to construction and operation of the expanded DWWTP itself, but also the impacts of any development the expansion will facilitate. The California Court of Appeal considered an analogous situation in City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325. There, the City of Pittsburg prepared a negative declaration for construction of a road and associated sewer utility infrastructure, claiming that it need not address the impacts of potential development resulting from the project because the extent of future development was speculative and there were no specific plans to connect to the road and sewer. Id. at 1333. The court disagreed, holding that “[c]onstruction of the roadway and utilities cannot be considered in isolation from the development it presages.” Id. at 1336. Here, as discussed above, the City has identified several specific development proposals that the DWWTP expansion is intended to facilitate, and has conceded the possibility that the expansion may support even more development in the future. Analysis of the impacts of these developments is not only clearly required under CEQA, but far less speculative than the developments at issue in City of Antioch.

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

Moreover, the City must address the environmental impacts of both the DWWTP expansion and these developments in compliance with CEQA before approving the expansion. Environmental review under CEQA “should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design.” Guidelines § 15004(b). And, “public agencies shall not undertake actions concerning the proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures, before completion of CEQA compliance.” Guidelines § 15004(b). The basic purposes of CEQA, including informing decision-makers and the public about potential environmental effects of a proposed activity and identifying alternatives and mitigation measures, are best served when environmental review provides information to be used in deciding whether to approve a project, not to inform of environmental effects after a project has already been approved. POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Board (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 714-15.

When environmental review occurs after a project has been approved, “it is likely to become nothing more than a post hoc rationalization to support action already taken.” Id.

A. The City prematurely committed itself to expansion of the DWWTP without completing CEQA review.

At its June 20, 2023 meeting, the Council approved agreements to provide wastewater treatment services to San Juan Bautista and San Juan Oaks. In the resolutions approving these agreements, the City acknowledged that it “will need to make future improvements to the DWWTP” to treat wastewater collected from San Juan Bautista and San Juan Oaks.7
In approving the agreements to provide service to San Juan Bautista and San Juan Oaks, the City unlawfully committed itself to a definite course of action regarding expansion of the DWWTP without first complying with CEQA. Agencies may not undertake actions concerning a project “that would have a significant adverse effect or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures before completion of CEQA compliance.” Guidelines § 15004(b)(2). An agency violates CEQA when it commits itself to a definite course of action in a manner that forecloses consideration of environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures. Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 138-40.

7 6/20/23 Council Packet at 448, 498; see also id. at 430 (table showing commitments to serve San Juan Bautista and San Juan Oaks, in combination with projected future flows from the City, will exceed current capacity by 1.64 MGD).

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

Accordingly, although the Council ultimately postponed an explicit vote on expanding the DWWTP until its August 7, 2023 meeting, it nonetheless violated CEQA by committing the City to a definite course of action regarding expansion of the facility by approving the San Juan Bautista and San Juan Oaks agreements.

B. The Project is not exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15301.

The Staff Report contains a single sentence claiming, in conclusory fashion, that the Project is “[s]tatutorily exempt per CCR Title 14 §15301 b. for improvements to publicly-owned existing facilities that provide public sewerage service.”8 The Staff Report offers no additional analysis or evidence supporting staff’s assertion that this categorical exemption9 applies. The draft resolution appended to the Staff Report does not contain any CEQA findings; indeed, the resolution does not mention CEQA at all.10 The exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15301 is inapplicable here. By its plain terms, this exemption applies to operation, repair, maintenance, and “minor alteration” of existing public facilities “involving no or negligible expansion of existing or former use” (emphasis added). Indeed, the Guideline expressly states that the “key consideration” in determining whether the exemption applies is “whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.” Id.; see 1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act § 5.77 (Cont. Ed. Bar 2023) (same).

The Project would involve far more than a “negligible” expansion of existing or former use. Following the 2008 upgrade, the DWWTP had a maximum capacity of 4.0 MGD.11 Current flows (not counting increased flows from San Juan Bautista and San

8 Staff Report at 2 (8/7/23 Council Packet at 422).
9 The exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15301 is not a “statutory” exemption—it does not appear in CEQA itself—but rather a “categorical” exemption adopted by the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to the Guidelines. See Pub. Resources Code § 21084; CEQA Guidelines § 15300.
10 Draft Resolution No. 2023-154 (8/7/23 Council Packet at 423-24). 11 See State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, Staff Report for Regular Meeting of December 4-5, 2008, Item No. 30 (Nov. 6, 2008) at 2 (describing “newly constructed 4.0 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity DWTP”), 10 (describing 2008 upgrade as increasing wastewater flows from 2.69 MGD to 4.0 MGD) (attached as Exh. A); see also 6/20/23 Council Packet at 425-26 (staff presentation describing “current capacity” as “4.00 MGD average flow,” and explaining that the four “existing MBRs” (i.e., the four MBRs installed during the 2008 expansion) had a capacity of 1.0 MGD each).

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

Juan Oaks) are only 2.6 MGD.12 According to the Staff Report, upgrading the two older MBRs would “allow the capacity to increase to 5.00 MGD without any additional improvements.”13 The Staff Report further states that “other improvements” to the DWWTP, to be “identified via a capacity study,” could increase capacity to 6.8 MGD.14 The accompanying resolution approves $105,000 for the capacity analysis necessary to support this further expansion.15
The full increase to 6.8 MGD is thus part of this Project and must be considered in determining whether CEQA Guidelines section 15301 applies.16 But even if only the immediate expansion were considered, an increase from 2.6 MGD (current flows) to 5.0 MGD would still represent a doubling of capacity. Moreover, although the Staff Report fails to provide any evidence or analysis regarding “former” or historic flows, past flows could not have exceeded the 2008 DWWTP’s capacity of 4.0 MGD (and appear to have been considerably lower in practice).17 Even an increase to 5.0 MGD—an expansion of 25 percent over the DWWTP’s prior maximum capacity—is not “negligible.” Accordingly, CEQA Guidelines section 15301 by its plain terms does not apply to this Project. Approval of the Project in reliance on section 15301 would be unlawful.

Rather, the City must analyze all of the impacts of the Project—including direct impacts of construction and operation, and all foreseeable impacts of development and growth facilitated by the Project—in compliance with CEQA before proceeding.

C. The City’s description of the Project is incomplete and unstable, which could lead to impermissible “piecemeal” review of impacts.

The Staff Report does not clearly state exactly what project the City expects to approve at the August 7 meeting. As discussed above, the Staff Report suggests that upgrading the two MBRs could increase capacity to 5.0 MGD, but also states that

12 6/20/23 Council Packet at 427, 430.
13 Staff Report at 1 (8/7/23 Council Packet at 421). This assertion is difficult to square with the staff presentation at the June 20, 2023 Council meeting, which stated that each upgraded MBR has a capacity of 1.7 MGD. 6/20/23 Council Packet at 426. 14 Staff Report at 1 (8/7/23 Council Packet at 421).
15 Draft Resolution No. 2023-154 (8/7/23 Council Packet at 423). 16 As discussed below, consideration of only the immediate increase to 5.0 MGD would constitute impermissible “piecemealing” of environmental review. 17 In evaluating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines section 15301, the City must consider increases in capacity compared to actual current and former flows, not permitted maximum current and former flows.

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

additional, unspecified “improvements” following a capacity study could expand capacity to 6.8 MGD. The draft resolution commits substantial funding to the capacity study, suggesting that the City also is committing to the “other improvements” once the capacity study is complete. In any event, the “other improvements” are entirely foreseeable and thus part of the “whole of the action” before the Council. See, e.g., Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393-99.

The City must adopt a stable and consistent project description before proceeding with this Project. Moreover, the City may not dismiss the Project’s environmental effects by proceeding in “piecemeal” fashion with an upgrade to 5.0 MGD, followed by future additional upgrades, when the full expansion is a foreseeable result of the MBR upgrades and the commitment to a capacity study.

II. The City has not shown that it can satisfy LAFCO’s requirements for extension of service outside the city limits and sphere of influence.

The City of Hollister must apply for and secure approval from the San Benito Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for any extension of services beyond its jurisdictional boundaries. Under the California Government Code, a “city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundary only if it first requests and receives written approval from the commission of the county in which the affected territory is located.” Gov. Code § 56133(a) (emphasis added). Section 56133 “is a limitation upon the power of cities and districts to expand urban services beyond their borders,” including “for an extension of City water and sewer services . . . .” Cmty. Water Coal. v. Santa Cruz Cnty. Loc. Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1327, 1321. Absent LAFCO approval, the City lacks the authority to extend any wastewater treatment services beyond its boundaries.

Section 56133 imposes different limitations on LAFCO approval depending on the location of the services proposed for extension. See id. at 1327 (“Subdivisions (b) and (c) describe the two situations in which a LAFCO is authorized to approve such an expansion”) (emphasis added). Services may be extended beyond a city’s jurisdictional boundary but within its sphere of influence only “in anticipation of a later change of organization”—i.e., in anticipation of annexation to the city. Gov. Code § 56133(b).

Services may be extended beyond a city’s sphere of influence only in response to “an existing or impending threat to the health or safety of the public or the residents of the affected territory.” Gov. Code § 56133(c). To obtain approval, the city must provide “documentation of a threat to the health and safety of the public or the affected

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

residents,” and must notify any “alternative service provider . . . that has filed a map and a statement of its service capabilities” with the LAFCO. Gov. Code § 56133(c)(1), (2).

A. The City must secure LAFCO Approval for each individual extension of sewer services outside its boundaries.

Consistent with section 56133, the San Benito LAFCO has made clear that the statutory requirement for approval of extension of services remains in full force, notwithstanding LAFCO’s approval of changes to the Hollister Urban Area boundary in 2012.18 LAFCO’s approval of the Hollister Urban Area boundary did not give “blanket approval to the City to provide sewer services outside its boundary without having to obtain LAFCO approval for specific extensions.”19 Rather, as the staff report for LAFCO’s January 22, 2015 meeting explained,
[i]t is clear to the LAFCO staff that by approving the creation of the Hollister Urban Area Boundary to provide wastewater services the Commission was not approving specific annexations or out-of-agency service agreements. It was, however, agreeing on the area where sewer service extensions could be favorably considered even though a portion of that area is not within the City sphere of influence.20 LAFCO concurred with staff’s opinion and adopted a resolution affirming that “for the City of Hollister to provide sewer services outside of its boundaries to a specific territory it must first request and receive written approval from the Commission.”21 Both

18 See Local Agency Formation Commission of San Benito County, Agenda No. 9:

Implementing Hollister Urban Service Area with Respect to Extending City Sewer Services (Oct. 23, 2014),
https://www.cosb.us/home/showpublisheddocument/2628/637245453639370000 (included in Exh. B).
19 Local Agency Formation Commission of San Benito County, Agenda No. 10:

Implementing Hollister Urban Service Area with Respect to Extending City Sewer Services (Jan. 22, 2015),
https://www.cosb.us/home/showpublisheddocument/2554/637245433495300000 (included in Exh. B).
20 Id. at 4-5.
21 Id. at 7; San Benito Local Agency Formation Commission, Minutes of Meeting (Jan. 22, 2015),
https://www.cosb.us/home/showpublisheddocument/1488/637245435037130000 (included in Exh. B).

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

section 56133 and LAFCO’s prior resolutions thus confirm that the City may not extend wastewater treatment services beyond its jurisdictional boundaries without first securing LAFCO approval.

B. The City has failed to provide documentation of a threat to public health and safety, which is required for LAFCO approval of extension of services beyond the City’s sphere of influence.

The two areas for which the City approved extensions of service on June 20, 2023—San Juan Bautista and San Juan Oaks—lie outside the City’s sphere of influence.

The City proposes to serve several additional development projects that also appear to lie outside the City’s sphere of influence if the wastewater treatment plant expansion is approved.22 As discussed above, LAFCO may authorize the City to extend services outside its sphere of influence only “to respond to an existing or impending threat to the health or safety of the public…” Gov. Code § 56133(c) (emphasis added). The City must provide LAFCO with “documentation of a threat to the health and safety of the public or the affected residents.” Gov. Code § 56133(c)(1). To our knowledge, the City has failed to document any specific threat to public health and safety to which its proposed extensions of service respond.23 LAFCO may not approve extensions to any of these areas absent such documentation.

C. The City has not shown that exceptions to LAFCO approval rules apply here.
“Subsection (e) of section 56133 denotes a handful of contexts in which the mandates of section 56133 do not control ex ante.” Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2004) 309 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1161. However, “unless a specific section 56133 exception applies, or section 56133 is otherwise invalid [a city] is required to seek LAFCO approval for new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries.” Id., at 1167. The only exception even potentially relevant to the City’s wastewater services extension is found in section 56133(e)(1). This exception, however, does not clearly apply to any of the City’s proposed extensions of service. Moreover, it cannot apply to any new developments the City intends to serve if the wastewater plant is

22 6/20/23 Board Packet at 429 (listing, for example, Fairview Corners, Gavilan College Campus, and Lands of Lee Subdivision).
23 Indeed, in a draft application to LAFCO regarding the San Juan Oaks development in 2013, the City admitted that “[t]his is not an emergency health and safety situation” and that annexation was neither currently possible nor anticipated in the future due to existing conservation easements and prime agricultural land.” 6/20/23 Council Packet at 554-55.

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

expanded, because those new developments are not already served by an existing public service provider.

Section 56133(e)(1) provides that the section as a whole “does not apply to”:
[t]wo or more public agencies where the public service to be provided is an alternative to, or substitute for, public services already being provided by an existing public service provider and where the level of service to be provided is consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider.

This exception is narrowly construed. Modesto, the only case discussing the exception, declined to apply it to an agreement between the City of Pittsburg and the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) allowing MID to provide utility services outside its jurisdictional boundaries. The court noted that “[w]ere Pittsburg granting MID the right to compete with (or replace) the City of Pittsburg itself as a supplier of utilities and services, and were MID promising to offer services on par with those already offered to Pittsburg’s residents” by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the existing service provider, “subsection (e) might apply.” Modesto, 309 F. Supp. 2d at 1169. The court found, however, that the MID-Pittsburg agreement neither replaced existing services provided by a public entity, nor did so in a comparable manner to existing services.

Rather, the agreement “simply condone[d]…MID’s attempt to select a group of particularly profitable customers . . . while usurping PG&E’s status as Pittsburg’s state- licensed electricity provider.” Id. Further, “[n]o guarantees [were] made regarding the level and extent of service MID plan[ned] to offer,” id., indicating that section 56133’s requirement that the level of service to be provided be “consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider” was not met. Thus, “subsection (e) [could not] excuse MID’s unauthorized expansion into Pittsburg.” Modesto, 309 F. Supp. 2d at 1169.

Section 56133(e)(1) appears inapplicable to most if not all of the City’s planned extensions of service. Several of the areas to which the City intends to extend service are currently undeveloped and not served by any existing public service provider; accordingly, it does not appear that the extension of service to these areas would replace or substitute for “public services already being provided by an existing public service provider.” Gov. Code § 56133(e)(1). And even if the City’s services would in some instances replace existing services, Modesto indicates that in order to meet subsection (e)’s requirement of a consistent level of service, there must be some “guarantee[] . . . regarding the level and extent of service.” Id. The City has not identified evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 56133(e)(1). Lacking evidence that this

Mia Casey, Mayor, and Council Members
August 7, 2023

exemption applies, the City should proceed under the assumption that LAFCO approval is required for any extension of sewer services outside its boundaries.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP

Kevin P. Bundy

cc: City Clerk, [email protected]
San Benito County LAFCO, [email protected]

Attachments:

Exhibit A: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Report (Nov. 6, 2008)

Exhibit B: Staff Reports and Minutes of the San Benito County LAFCO

1673990.4

EXHIBIT A

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION

STAFF REPORT FOR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 4-5, 2008
Prepared on November 6, 2008

ITEM NUMBER: 30

SUBJECT: Master Reclamation Requirements Order No. R3-2008-0069 for the City of Hollister Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant, San Benito County

KEY INFORMATION

Discharger: City of Hollister
Location: 2690 San Juan Hollister Road, Hollister, CA 95023, San Benito County
Type of
Treatment:

Immersed membrane biological reactor (MBR) and chlorination disinfection
Discharge Type: Disinfected tertiary recycled water to use areas and storage reservoirs. Undisinfected treated wastewater to percolation ponds.

Recycling: As allowed under Title 22 for disinfected tertiary, including irrigation and other approved uses.

Design Flow: 4.0 million gallons per day (MGD)
Projected
Actual Flow:

2.72 MGD to 3.10 MGD (Year 2008 through 2013)

3.10 MGD to 4.04 MGD (Years 2013 through 2023)
Current
Disposal
Capacity:

Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant:

1. 0.88 MGD non-disinfected treated wastewater to percolation Ponds 1 through 8.

2. 1.72 MGD disinfected treated wastewater to seasonal
disposal/storage reservoirs Ponds 1, 2, and 3 west of Highway 156 and Ponds 1, 2, and 3 east of Highway 156. Total capacity for all six seasonal disposal/storage reservoirs is 365 million gallons or 1,120 acre-feet. Future upgrades include lining reservoirs and increasing storage capacity.

Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP): Time schedule diversion as detailed in the Order beginning with 2.6 MGD through 2010 to a zero allowed discharge to the IWTP by the year 2015.

Reclaimed Water: 0.60 MGD disinfected tertiary treated domestic and light commercial wastewater. Future upgrades include acquiring additional reuse areas within service area.

Existing Orders: Waste Discharge Requirements 87-47, Cease and Desist Order R3- 2002-0105 (scheduled for rescission on December 5, 2008) This Action: Adopt Master Reclamation Requirements Order No. R3-2008- 0069

Item No. 30 2 December 4-5, 2008

SUMMARY

The City of Hollister (Discharger, Supplier,
Distributor, or User) domestic wastewater
treatment plant was originally built in 1979. At
that time, the treatment plant consisted of a
facultative pond system with percolation
ponds. In late 2002, the Discharger initiated
interim improvements at the domestic
wastewater treatment plant (DWTP) to improve
treatment and disposal quality and efficiency
until implementation of the Long Term
Wastewater Management Plan (LTWMP). The
Discharger successfully completed the
installation of the DWTP on October 23, 2008.

The DWTP upgrade is part of a series of on-
going efforts to manage water resources in the
region. These efforts will increase quality of
effluent produced and increase the treatment
capacity of the DWTP. It will also change the way treated effluent is disposed of by reducing the amount of water disposed of by percolation and develop disposal for agricultural and urban irrigation. The upgraded DWTP uses ultrafiltration technology in the form of an immersed membrane bioreactor (MBR) and chlorination disinfection to achieve turbidity and bacteriological standards for recycled water in its newly constructed 4.0 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity DWTP. A select number of established water use sites will first use the recycled water, but the Discharger plans additional customers in the future. Therefore, the Discharger requested a California Water Code §13523.1 master reclamation permit. This Order proposes such a permit.

DISCUSSION

In the past eight years, the DWTP has had a lack of disposal capacity to dispose of all the City of Hollister’s wastewater. In times when the inflow is too great to process, the Discharger diverts the flow to the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP). The Discharger developed a Long-term Wastewater Management Plan (LTWMP) as required by Cease and Desist Order No. R3-2002-0105 (CDO) and Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R3-2002-0097 (ACL). Water Board staff accepted the final draft of the LTWMP submitted in March 2007. It was at this time that the Discharger began upgrade construction of its DWTP. The Discharger planned improvements at the DWTP to occur during a 15-year implementation period starting in the year 2008. The project includes two phases (2008 – 2013 and 2014 - 2023). In Phase I, the new DWTP will improve effluent water quality by the installation of an immersed membrane bioreactor process train, which will significantly reduce discharges of nitrogen, suspended solids, and biological oxygen demand, and will produce wastewater that meets Title 22 recycling criteria. The wastewater to be recycled will originate from the City of Hollister’s domestic service area.

Facility Location

Item No. 30 3 December 4-5, 2008

The new facilities at the DWTP include:
a. Grit removal with grit classifier
b. Fine screens with screening
washer/compactor
c. Screened wastewater flow split
structure
d. Biological process basins (anoxic,
aeration and post-anoxic zones)
e. Mixed liquor recirculation pump
station
f. MBR basins to house the
membrane filters
g. MBR permeate pumps
h. Chlorine contact basins
i. Plant water and effluent pump
stations
j. Process blower and membrane
blower building
k. Solids thickening and dewatering
facility
l. Solids stabilization basin (utilizing
the existing Pond 1A)
m. Chemical feed and storage
building
n. Operations building, including
laboratory and maintenance shop
o. Septage receiving station
p. Odor control biofilter
q. Plant drain pump station
r. New electrical power service
s. Standby power generators
t. Plant access/security system
u. Instrumentation and control
system
v. Recycled water distribution pump
station
w. Return water pumping station
x. Seasonal storage ponds
y. Nine miles of distribution
pipelines

Water use studies project wastewater flows into the DWTP to be from 2.72 MGD to 4.04 MGD through to the year 2023. It is the Discharger’s goal to maximize the reuse of disinfected tertiary treated wastewater within the Hollister region. The Discharger has performed environmental studies at several areas throughout the Hollister region as potential reclaimed water use areas with an estimated 200 to 300 acres of spray fields acquired during Phase I. Currently, the Discharger has approved two spray field sites:
1) Hollister Municipal Airport and 2) Riverside Park/Brigantino properties. The Discharger can maintain or eliminate the current level of wastewater disposal to percolation ponds as the Discharger increases areas of reclaimed water use areas, therefore increasing the disposal capacity of the DWTP.

The proposed order sets requirements for municipal wastewater recycling and disposal, incorporating relevant regulations, plans, and guidelines to protect water quality and public health. This staff report discusses the relevant regulations, plans, and guidelines as they relate to the specific needs of the greater Hollister area.

Water Recycling -- Regulatory Considerations

Water Code
The California Water Code provides the Water Board authority to regulate water recycling in order to protect water quality. Relevant water recycling regulations are as follows:

Item No. 30 4 December 4-5, 2008

California
Water
Code
Section
Language
13576(e) The use of recycled water has proven to be safe from a public health standpoint and that the State Department of Public Health is updating regulations for the use of recycled water.
13510 The people of the state have a primary interest in the development of facilities to recycle water containing waste to supplement existing surface and underground water supplies and to assist in meeting the future water requirements of the state.
13512 It is the intention of the legislature that the State undertake all possible steps to encourage development of water recycling facilities so that recycled water may be made available to help meet the growing water demands of the State.
13523.1 Provides that (a) Each regional board, after consulting with, and receiving the recommendations of, the California Department of Public Health and any party who has requested in writing to be consulted, with the consent of the proposed permittee, and after any necessary hearing, may, in lieu of issuing waste discharge requirements pursuant to Section 13263 or water reclamation requirements pursuant to Section 13523 for a user of reclaimed water, issue a master reclamation permit to a supplier or distributor, or both, of reclaimed water. A master reclamation permit shall include, at least, all of the following:

1. Waste discharge requirements, adopted pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 13260) of Chapter 4.

2. A requirement that the permittee comply with the uniform statewide reclamation criteria established pursuant to Section 13521. Permit conditions for a use of reclaimed water not addressed by the uniform statewide water reclamation criteria shall be considered on a case-by- case basis.

3. A requirement that the permittee establish and enforce rules or regulations for reclaimed water users, governing the design and construction of reclaimed water use facilities and the use of reclaimed water, in accordance with the uniform statewide reclamation criteria established pursuant to Section 13521.

4. A requirement that the permittee submit a quarterly report summarizing reclaimed water use, including the total amount of reclaimed water supplied, the total number of reclaimed water use sites, and the locations of those sites, including the names of the hydrologic areas underlying the reclaimed water use sites.

5. A requirement that the permittee conduct periodic inspections of the facilities of the reclaimed water users to monitor compliance by the users with the uniform statewide reclamation criteria established pursuant to Section 13521 and the requirements of the master reclamation permit.

6. Any other requirements determined to be appropriate by the regional board after the regional water board issues a master reclamation permit.

Item No. 30 5 December 4-5, 2008

California
Water
Code
Section
Language
Section 13522.5(e) exempts any such user of recycled water from the requirement to file a report with a regional water board related to any material change in the character of the recycled water or its use, except when requested by the regional water board.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) provides the California Department of Public Health the authority to regulate water recycling in order to protect public health.

State Water Board and DPH MOA
On February 20, 1996, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed between the California Department of Public Health (formerly the California Department of Health Services) and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), on behalf of the State Water Board and nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

The MOA allocates primary areas of responsibility and authority between these agencies. The MOA provides methods and mechanisms necessary to ensure ongoing and continuous future coordination of activities relative to the use of recycled water in California.

Wastewater Disposal -- Regulatory Considerations

The Water Board regulates wastewater discharges under California Water Code authority, according to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (Basin Plan).

Basin Plan
The Basin Plan was adopted by the Water Board on November 19, 1989, and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on August 16, 1990. The Water Board approved amendments to the Basin Plan on February 11, 1994, and September 8, 1994. The Basin Plan incorporates statewide plans and policies by reference and contains a strategy for protecting beneficial uses of State Waters. This Order implements the Basin Plan.

The Basin Plan designates the existing and anticipated beneficial uses of groundwater in the vicinity of the land discharge to include:

1. Municipal and Domestic Water Supply

2. Agricultural Water Supply

3. Industrial Process Supply

4. Industrial Service Supply

The Basin Plan specifies median water quality objectives for certain groundwater basins, which are intended to serve as a baseline for evaluating water quality management in the basin. The objectives are, at best, representative of gross areas only, and are as follows for the San Benito River sub-area of the Pajaro River groundwater basin beneath the Facility and recycled water irrigation reuse areas:

Item No. 30 6 December 4-5, 2008

Median Groundwater Objectives for the Pajaro River Groundwater Sub- basin/Hollister Sub-area
Parameter Concentration (mg/L)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 1200
Chloride (CL) 150
Sulfate 250
Boron 1.0
Sodium 200
Total Nitrogen as N 5
Excerpted from Table 3-8, page III-16 of the Basin Plan

The San Benito River is the closest surface water body to the DWTP and reuse areas.

The Basin Plan designates existing and anticipated beneficial uses of the San Benito River along the reach adjacent to the Facility and reuse areas that could be affected by the discharge to include:

a. Municipal and Domestic Supply
b. Agricultural Water Supply
c. Industrial Service Supply
d. Groundwater Recharge
e. Water Contact Recreation
f. Non-Contact Water Recreation
g. Wildlife Habitat
h. Warm Freshwater Habitat
i. Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development
j. Freshwater Replenishment
k. Commercial and Sport Fishing

The Basin Plan specifies water quality objectives for certain surface waters, which are intended to serve as a baseline for evaluating water quality management in the basin.

The objectives are, at best, representative of gross areas only, and are based on preservation of existing quality or water quality enhancement believed attainable following control of point sources. Water quality objectives are as follows for the San Benito River:

Surface Water Quality Objectives for
the San Benito River
Parameter Concentration
(mg/L)
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS)
1400
Chloride (Cl) 200
Sulfate 350
Boron 1.0
Sodium 250
Excerpted from Table 3-7, page III-13 of the Basin Plan

Municipal and domestic water supply beneficial use designations are applied to receiving waters in accordance with the provisions of State Water Resources Control Board

Item No. 30 7 December 4-5, 2008

Resolution No. 88-63. Resolution 88-63 designates all surface and groundwater within the State as suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply except where:

• TDS exceeds 3,000 mg/L (5,000 uS/cm electrical conductivity) • Contamination exists, that cannot reasonably be treated for domestic use, or • The source is not sufficient to supply an average sustained yield of 200 gallons per day.

Pursuant to Resolution 88-63, the Basin Plan designates all groundwater throughout the Central Coast Basin, except for that found in the Soda Lake Sub-basin, suitable for agricultural supply, municipal and domestic water supply, and industrial use.

Numeric inorganic constituent guidelines and water quality objectives for agricultural supply beneficial use are listed in Basin Plan Tables 3-3 and 3-4 on pages III-8 and III-9, respectively.

Section II.A.4. (Objectives for Groundwater) of the Basin Plan contains both narrative and numeric groundwater quality objectives for the protection of municipal and domestic water supply beneficial uses. The numeric water quality objectives include primary and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water supply.

The MCLs for various constituents are set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15.

The narrative groundwater objectives found on page III-14 of the Basin Plan state:
“Groundwater shall not contain taste or odor producing substances at concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.” The Department of Public Health has established secondary MCLs for certain substances that will cause adverse taste and/or odor in drinking water. Secondary MCLs are generally presented as recommended, upper, and short-term water supply limits based on consumer acceptance levels. “Recommended” concentrations are desirable for a higher degree of consumer acceptance. “Upper” concentrations are acceptable if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable waters for supply. “Short-term” concentrations are acceptable only for existing systems on a temporary basis pending construction of treatment facilities or development of acceptable new water sources.

There are no narrative or numeric water quality objectives specific to the protection of the industrial supply beneficial use in the Basin Plan. Acceptable constituent levels for industrial use vary significantly from one industry to the next. For example, excessive salinity in industrial supply waters may impair beneficial use through such factors as scaling and corrosion or elevated salt concentrations for food processing industries.

Certain industries may require extremely low salinity levels only achievable through pretreatment prior to use, even in cases where supply water has low salinity in comparison to other standards. In general protection of agricultural, municipal and domestic supply beneficial uses will be reasonably protective of most industrial uses.

Anti-Degradation
When issuing WDRs and MRRs, the Water Board must consider State Water Board Resolution 68-16. State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 – “Statement of Policy With Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California” requires that the Water

Item No. 30 8 December 4-5, 2008

Board, in regulating the discharge of waste, to maintain high quality waters of the state (i.e., background water quality) unless it is demonstrated that any change in quality will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect beneficial uses, and will not result in water quality less than that described in the Water Board’s policies (e.g., quality that exceeds water quality objectives). Resolution 68-16 requires that any discharge to existing high quality water be required to meet waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control (BPTC) of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained.

The application of disinfected tertiary recycled water to appropriately sited, designed and managed reuse areas as authorized by this Order will not cause degradation of receiving waters, including San Benito River and groundwater. This permit requires that recycled water meeting California Code of Regulations Title 22 criteria for disinfected tertiary recycled water be applied to applicable reuse areas at times and rates which do not result in surface runoff and minimize the leaching of water, nutrients, and minerals to groundwater. In addition, this Order requires elimination of waste constituents at concentrations that exceed Basin Plan water quality objectives or background conditions in the groundwater basin or that exceed the assimilative capacity of the groundwater basin.

The Discharger is implementing wastewater reclamation at this DWTP to maximize the potable water supply. The reclamation project directly and incidentally provides a net environmental benefit by minimizing potable water supply usage that the Discharger would otherwise utilize for routine landscape irrigation.

Total Maximum Daily Loads
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify and prepare lists of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for listed water bodies. The San Benito River and several of its tributaries are on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as impaired due to elevated concentrations of sediment and fecal coliform. The US Environmental Protection Agency approved the Pajaro River (including San Benito River) Sediment TMDL on May 3, 2007. Water Board staff continue to develop waste load and load allocations for sources of fecal coliform entering the San Benito River, as well as other water bodies within the Pajaro River watershed. The Water Board may modify requirements described in this Order to meet the allocations described in current and future TMDLs if the Water Board determines that discharges from the Discharger’s DWTP facility are causing or contributing to water quality impairment.

Biosolids Handling and Disposal
Municipal wastewater treatment generates biosolids. 40 CFR Part 503 sets forth the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) final rule for the use and disposal of biosolids, or sewage sludge, and governs the final use or disposal of biosolids. The intent of this federal program is to ensure that sewage sludge is used or disposed of in a way that protects both human health and the environment.

The promulgated regulations require that producers of sewage sludge meet certain reporting, handling, and disposal requirements. Use and disposal of biosolids should comply with the self-implementing federal regulations of Title 40, Code of Federal

Item No. 30 9 December 4-5, 2008

Regulations (CFR), Part 503, which are subject to enforcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, not the Water Board. If during the life of this Order the State accepts primacy for implementation of 40 CFR 503, the Water Board may also initiate enforcement where appropriate.

Use of biosolids as a soil amendment must comply with valid waste discharge requirements issued by the Water Board. In most cases, this will mean the General Biosolids Order (SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 2004-0012-DWQ, General Waste Discharge Requirements for the Discharge of Biosolids to Land for Use as a Soil Amendment in Agricultural, Silvicultural, Horticultural, and Land Reclamation Activities). The Discharger must file a complete Notice of Intent and receive a Notice of Applicability for each project in order for Water Board staff to enroll the biosolids use project into the General Biosolids Order.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows
The Supplier’s sanitary sewer system collects wastewater using pipes, pumps, and/or other conveyance systems, and directs the raw sewage to the wastewater treatment facility. A “sanitary sewer overflow” is defined as a discharge to ground or surface water from the sanitary sewer system at any point upstream of the wastewater treatment facility.

Temporary storage and conveyance facilities (such as wet wells, regulated impoundments, tanks, highlines, etc.) may be part of a sanitary sewer system, and discharges to these facilities are not considered sanitary sewer overflows provided that the waste is fully contained within these temporary storage/conveyance facilities.

Sanitary sewer overflows can consist of varying mixtures of domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, and commercial wastewater. The mixture generally depends on the pattern of land use in the sewage collection system area tributary to an overflow location. The chief causes of sanitary sewer overflows include, but are not limited to, line blockages due to grease, roots, or debris, sewer line flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump station mechanical failures, power outages, storm or groundwater inflow/infiltration, lack of capacity, and contractor-related incidents.

Sanitary sewer overflows often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen demanding organic compounds, oil and grease, and other pollutants. Sanitary sewer overflows can pose a threat to public health, cause temporary exceedances of applicable water quality objectives, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the public recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters in the area.

The State Water Board adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for sanitary sewer systems and the associated monitoring and reporting program by issuing Order No. 2006-0003 (General Order) on May 2, 2006.

All federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California are required to apply for coverage under and comply with the terms of the General Order. The City of Hollister is enrolled under the General Order.

Item No. 30 10 December 4-5, 2008

PROPOSED ORDER

Pursuant to authority in Sections 13263 and 13523.1 of the California Water Code, the proposed order sets requirements to govern the production, distribution, storage, and use of reclaimed wastewater, as well as the disposal of treated wastewater. The requirements have been developed considering:

• Best Professional Judgment of Regional Water Quality Control Board staff • The Discharger’s Report of Waste Discharge
• Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
• State Water Board Resolution 68-16
• Water Quality Control Plan-Central Coast Region
• California Department of Public Health
• Title 22 CCR, Division 4, Chapter 3, Water Reclamation Criteria • Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code) The proposed Order substantially revises and updates the existing order and associated monitoring and reporting program. Water Board staff has divided the proposed Order into Supplier and Distributor specific requirements with general prohibitions, specifications and provisions applicable to both parties.

Significant changes from the existing Order include:

Supplier Requirements
• Wastewater Flows are increased from 2.69 MGD to 4.0 MGD capacity with a future potential increase of wastewater flow to 5.0 MGD capacity after installation of a fifth Zenon Zeeweed 500d system ultrafiltration membrane.
• Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water Limitations – new turbidity, coliform, and disinfection requirements excerpted from Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations for disinfected tertiary recycled water are added.
• Reclamation Facility Operational Requirements – Detailed reclamation facility requirements excerpted from Title 22 are added to the proposed Order for the operation and maintenance of the treatment facility.
• Off-Specification Contingency Plan – Requirements for the implementation of a contingency plan in the event effluent that does not meet the criteria for disinfected tertiary recycled water is discharged to the effluent storage basins.

Distributor and User Requirements
• Design Requirements - Detailed distribution system and use area requirements excerpted from Title 22 are added to the proposed Order for the design, operation and maintenance of the distribution system and application areas.

Item No. 30 11 December 4-5, 2008

• Nutrient Management Plan – Specific requirements are added to the proposed Order requiring the Distributor to develop and implement a nutrient management plan for the application of recycled water to ensure it is applied at agronomic rates and will not result in the leaching of nitrogen to the groundwater basin. • Long Term Salinity Management Program - Specific requirements are added to the proposed Order requiring the Distributor to develop and implement a Long Term Salinity Management Program to document salt loading and to evaluate and implement reduction measures as practicable to reduce salt loading to the groundwater basin.
• Individual Recycled Water Use Permits – The proposed Order requires the Distributor to develop a set of rules and regulations for the Users and apply them via Recycled Water User Permits for each individual User.

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program requirements are organized as follows:
• Supplier Requirements
• Water Supply Monitoring
• Influent Monitoring
• Effluent Monitoring
• Waste Disposal and Storage Facility Monitoring
• Solids/Biosolids Monitoring
• Equipment Calibration
• Reporting
• Distributor Requirements
• Recycled Water Use Area Monitoring
• Groundwater Monitoring
• Reporting
• Supplier and Distributor Requirements
• Provisions
• Implementation

Significant changes from the existing Monitoring and Reporting Program include:

Supplier Requirements

• Water Supply Monitoring –The proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program requires the distributor to supply annual data representing the City of Hollister’s water supply quality.
• Influent Monitoring – Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), pH, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Settleable Solids (SS) monitoring are to be sampled weekly. Total nitrogen as N, nitrate as N, and ammonia as N are to be sampled monthly.

Semiannual Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), sodium, chloride, and sulfate monitoring is changed to quarterly. Quarterly boron, perchlorate, total trihalomethanes, and total trihaloacetic acid sampling is added.
• Effluent Monitoring – Continuous min/max flow, continuous turbidity, continuous total chlorine residual monitoring is added. Daily calculated average daily flow and coliform monitoring is added. Weekly BOD, ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N), and TSS

Item No. 30 12 December 4-5, 2008

monitoring is added. Quarterly pH monitoring is changed to weekly. Quarterly TDS, sodium, and chloride are changed to monthly. Boron and sulfate are added to be monitored monthly. Total nitrogen and nitrite (as N) are added to be monitored quarterly. Annual monitoring additions include aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, fluoride, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, thallium, and zinc. VOCs, PCBs, and pesticides are now to be tested for every 5 years.
• Storage Facility Monitoring – The proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program requires the Supplier to conduct visual monitoring of the recycled water disposal and storage ponds. Weekly analyses of pH and dissolved oxygen are required from all disposal and storage ponds. Sludge depth is required once every three years. • Solids/Biosolids Monitoring – The proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program requires the Supplier to provide an annual report of the amount of solids generated at the facility, with a description of the disposal methods. • Equipment Calibration – The proposed Monitoring and Reporting Program requires the Supplier to keep onsite calibration records of flow meters and other process instrumentation.
• Reporting – The Supplier is required to submit quarterly monitoring reports summarizing data for reclaimed water supplied. The Supplier is also required to submit annual monitoring reports compiling the previous year’s worth of supplied reclaimed water.

Distributor Requirements
• Recycled Water Use Area Monitoring – the proposed monitoring requirements require the Users or Distributor to conduct weekly metering of irrigation flows to each irrigation area receiving recycled water and weekly visual monitoring. Records will be kept to ensure the application of recycled water is being conducted in accordance with the Order. In addition, the Distributor is required to conduct quarterly operation monitoring of the reuse site irrigation systems. The Users are required to provide quarterly updates to the Distributor regarding daily irrigation flow rates, proposed system modifications, system peculiarities, and to verify employee training. These requirements also require annual testing of backflow prevention devices and cross- connection testing.
• Groundwater Monitoring – The Distributor is required to conduct groundwater monitoring from all monitoring wells (existing and required) on a quarterly frequency for depth to water, total nitrogen, nitrate (as N), nitrite (as N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N), pH, TDS, sodium, chloride, sulfate, boron, perchlorate, total trihalomethanes, and total trihaloacetic acid.
• Reporting – The Distributor is required to submit quarterly monitoring reports summarizing reclaimed water use. The Distributor is also required to submit annual monitoring reports compiling the previous years worth of irrigation flow, groundwater, and visual inspection data along with the required nutrient management plan and salt management program evaluations.

Item No. 30 13 December 4-5, 2008

COMPLIANCE HISTORY/STATUS

The City of Hollister has two wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, the domestic plant and the industrial plant. The Water Board adopted Existing Order No. 87-47 in March 1987 to regulate discharges from the domestic plant. Both plants achieved treatment through influent screening and facultative ponds. Disposal is through percolation beds.

Historically, the two have been separate entities, with the DWTP handling the Discharger’s domestic, commercial, institutional, and certain industrial wastewater flows, and the IWTP seasonal flows from tomato canneries. Currently, the DWTP continues to treat the same flows it always received, while the IWTP receives seasonal tomato cannery wastewater from a single operation and diverted domestic wastewater that would normally be directed to the DWTP. Wastewater diversion to the IWTP became necessary when the Discharger lacked adequate disposal capacity for treated wastewater at the DWTP.

The Discharger approached the Water Board to divert domestic wastewater flows to the IWTP in 1999. The Discharger proposed the IWTP represented excess treatment and disposal capacity, given both the seasonal nature of the cannery and the reduced cannery flow subsequent to some of the canneries shutting down operations. The Discharger proposed diverting a certain volume of domestic wastewater during the canning season, and greater volumes during the non-canning season (roughly October through June) to allow them greater flexibility for managing flows at the DWTP during the wet season when percolation capacity is reduced. Water Board staff drafted revised IWTP WDRs to allow the Discharger to divert domestic wastewater, and presented them to the Water Board.

The Water Board was strongly opposed to the Discharger’s proposal, but eventually adopted modified IWTP WDRs that included provisions requiring the Discharger to develop a Long-term Wastewater Management Program (LTWMP) that would address the Discharger’s overall wastewater treatment and disposal issues. Therefore, although the need for a LTWMP is focused on issues at the DWTP, the requirements for developing it are included in the IWTP WDRs. The Regional Board also included specific milestones for the Discharger in developing the LTWMP that were linked to incremental flow allocations for domestic wastewater diversion.

The Discharger was granted the initial flow allocation for diverting domestic wastewater to the IWTP shortly after the Water Board adopted the WDRs. However, the Discharger fell behind schedule in reaching subsequent milestones and faced other difficulties that prevented them from being granted subsequent flow allocations. The major issues were summarized as follows:

• The Discharger was unable to accurately measure influent flow rates at the DWTP. The Discharger’s inability to accurately measure influent flow rates, led, in part, to the Discharger’s decision to construct new headworks facilities at the DWTP.

• Treated wastewater seeped from a disposal bed at the DWTP to an inactive portion of the San Benito River channel over a 122-day period between November 2001 and March 2002. An estimated 6,100 gallons seeped out to the river channel. This violated the DWTP WDRs and was the direct result of the Discharger breaching an internal berm in the disposal bed that was originally constructed to increase separation between the disposal bed

Item No. 30 14 December 4-5, 2008

and the river channel. The internal berm was breached without consultation with Water Board staff, and Discharger inspections of the riverbank after the berm was breached never occurred. The seepage occurred in an area where seepage was suspected during the wet season of 1997-98.

• On May 6, 2002, a disposal pond levee breached at the IWTP, resulting in approximately 15 million gallons of treated wastewater spilling to the San Benito River, which was dry at the time of discharge. The levee breach was attributed to a hole from a burrowing animal or earthquake activity. As a result, the City Council enacted an emergency sewer connection ban.

In response to the potential flow violations, seepage incident, 15-million gallon spill, and delays in developing the LTWMP, Water Board Executive Officer issued Cleanup or Abatement Order (CAO) R3-2002-0082. The CAO required the Discharger to keep in effect its self-imposed connection ban and submittal of various technical reports evaluating flow-metering issues, disposal capacity, and implementing levee inspection and burrowing animal control programs. However, the Water Code specifically allows the Water Board to impose a connection ban through a Cease and Desist Order (CDO); therefore, the Water Board imposed the connection ban through CDO R3-2002-0105. At the same time, staff issued a complaint for Administrative Civil Liability (ACL) for the 15-million gallon spill. Both of these Orders were presented to the Water Board in September 2002. The CDO was adopted, and the ACL was deferred for further action in November. After the CDO was adopted, the Water Board Executive Officer rescinded the CAO.

CDO R3-2002-0105 instituted a formal sewer system connection ban, and set deadlines for various projects/submittals deemed necessary to bring the Discharger into compliance with its WDRs. These projects/submittals included an updated financial assessment for implementing the LTWMP, expanded water conservation efforts, reducing DWTP effluent suspended solids concentrations to 60 mg/L or less (to address plugging of the disposal beds and reduction in percolation capacity), construction of new headworks, submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge for the LTWMP, and full implementation of the LTWMP by October 2005. The Discharger has since then completed all the requirements of the CDO.

See Agenda Item No. 36 for request for rescission of CDO R3-2002-0105.

After further discussion at the November 2002 meeting, the Water Board adopted ACL R3- 2002-0097, doubling staff’s recommended civil liability amount to a total of $1.2 million. All but $24,000 in staff costs was suspended pending successful completion of various milestones. These included expending $150,000 on an emergency storage basin at the DWTP, $126,000 on water conservation efforts in the City, and $300,000 on a hydrogeologic study assessing impacts of wastewater disposal at both the DWTP and IWTP. $600,000 was suspended in $200,000 increments for constructing new headworks by August 1, 2003, reducing DWTP effluent suspended solids concentrations to 60 mg/L by August 1, 2003, and fully implementing the LTWMP by October 15, 2005.

The Discharger submitted its proposed LTWMP in September 2002. Water Board staff responded to the Discharger stating the submitted LTWMP lacked specific details in meeting water quality requirements and required the Discharger to re-submit the LTWMP.

The Discharger re-submitted the LTWMP in December 2005 and a final draft in March 2007 along with its final Report of Waste Discharge.

Item No. 30 15 December 4-5, 2008

More recent violations from the DWTP include low dissolved oxygen levels in the disposal ponds and minor spills (less than 100 gallons) from their sanitary sewer collection system mostly due to grease blockages.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
The facility poses the usual problems associated with municipal wastewater treatment, disposal, and recycling. Construction of a new treatment plant, a distribution system, and other appurtenances may have start-up problems. The Discharger is required to implement a Long-term Salinity Management Program which will set milestones in creating reclaimed water capable of agricultural uses throughout the Hollister region. The milestones are imposed by the Order requiring a reduction and eventual elimination of disinfected tertiary treated wastewater to the IWTP by the year 2015. It is possible that the Discharger will not meet the milestones set in the Long-term Salinity Management Program therefore, not meeting the elimination of discharges to the IWTP.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

The Hollister City Council certified a final Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 621000 et seq.) and the California Code of Regulations on October 31, 2006, for the City of Hollister’s Domestic Wastewater System Improvements and the San Benito County Water District Recycled Water Project (SCH2006012149). The City of Hollister determined the DWTP facility upgrade will have significant adverse environmental effects and that all potentially significant adverse effects can be avoided through implementation of mitigation measures.

Mitigation measures to prevent nuisance and ensure protection of beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater will be implemented through this Order.

The Hollister City Council certified a final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 621000 et seq.) and the California Code of Regulations on April 7, 2008, for the City of Hollister’s Reclaimed Water Irrigation Project (SCH2007021136). The City of Hollister determined the Reclaimed Water Irrigation Project will have no significant adverse environmental effects, although implementation of mitigation measures were prescribed. Mitigation measures to prevent nuisance and ensure protection of beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater will be implemented through this Order.

COMMENTS & RESPONSES

The City of Hollister and the California Department of Public Health submitted comments.

Water Board staff has provided these comments and a copy of the original comment letters as Attachments C, D, and E.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Order No. R3-2008-0069 as proposed.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Master Reclamation Requirements Order No. R3-2008-0069 B. Monitoring and Reporting Program Requirements Order No. R3-2008-0069

Item No. 30 16 December 4-5, 2008

C. Comments and Responses
D. City of Hollister Comment Letter and Email
E. California Department of Public Health Comment Letter

File: S:\WDR\WDR Facilities\San Benito Co\City of Hollister\MRR R3-2008-0069\Final Order\SR Master WRR R3-2008- 0069.doc

EXHIBIT B

SAN BENITO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

MINUTES OF MEETING
January 22, 2015
Board of Supervisors Chambers
Hollister, CA

1. Chair Anthony Botelho called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. The oath of office was administered to Commissioners Ignacio Velazquez and Robert Rivas by Denise Thome, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The two Commissioners were seated on the dais with the other Commissioners.

3. Present were Commissioners Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge, Rivas and Velazquez, Alternate Commissioner Tognazzini, Executive Officer Bob Braitman and Legal Counsel Matthew Granger. Alternate Commissioners Barrios and Gomez were not present.

4. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

5. Public Comment Period - There were no public comments.

SELECTION OF OFFICERS

6. Upon motion by Bettencourt, second by Edge, Commissioner Ignacio Velazquez was elected as Chair for calendar year 2015. He assumed chairmanship.

Ayes: Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge, Rivas, Velazquez
Noes: None

7. Upon motion by Edge, second by Bettencourt, Commissioner Robert Rivas was elected as Vice Chair for calendar year 2015.

Ayes: Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge, Velazquez
Noes: None

Absent: Rivas
CONSENT AGENDA:

8. Approval of Minutes
Upon motion by Bettencourt, second by Botelho, the minutes of the October 23, 2014 meeting were approved.

Ayes: Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge
Noes: None

SAN BENITO LAFCO
Minutes of Meeting
January 22, 2015

Abstain: Rivas, Velazquez

BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSALS

9. LAFCO No. 491 –Dissolution of Pacheco Pass Water District The staff presented a status report on this proposal and recommended the public hearing be held open and continued to May 28.

Testimony was provided by Garth Hall, representing the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

After due consideration, upon motion by Botelho, second by Rivas, the Commission continued the hearing until May 28, 2015
Ayes: Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge, Rivas, Velazquez
Noes: None

10. LAFCO No. 492 –De La Pena Annexation to the City of Hollister There were no public comments.

After due consideration, upon motion by Bettencourt, second by Edge, the Commission (1) found the proposal to be Categorically Exempt, (2) approved the proposal as recommended, (3) waived the conducting authority proceedings and (4) directed the staff to record the annexation after the County Surveyor finds the map and legal description to be acceptable.

Ayes: Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge, Rivas, Velazquez
Noes: None

BUSINESS ITEMS

11. Annexations to the Aromas Water District of Properties Within Monterey County The Executive Officer recommended the Commission designate Monterey LAFCO to process annexations to the Aromas Water District of properties within Monterey County.

Testimony was provided Vickie Morris representing the Aromas Water District.

Received into the record was a January 21, 2015 e-mail from Monterey LAFCO Executive Officer Kate McKenna supporting the recommendation.

SAN BENITO LAFCO
Minutes of Meeting
January 22, 2015

After due consideration, upon motion by Botelho, second by Bettencourt, the Commission designated Monterey LAFCO to process annexations to the Aromas Water District of properties within Monterey County.

Ayes: Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge, Rivas, Velazquez
Noes: None

12. Implementing Hollister Urban Service Area with respect to extending City sewer services The Executive Officer described the current procedure being followed to allow the City of Hollister to provide sewer services outside of its boundaries.

Testimony was provided by Scott Fuller, General Manager of San Juan Oaks LLC, and Bill Avera representing the City of Hollister.

After due consideration, upon motion by Botelho, second by Rivas, the Commission affirmed the policy that the City of Hollister can provide sewer services outside of its boundaries only if it requests and receives specific approval from the Commission.

The Commission, after deleting “within the urban area” from the fifth “Whereas” clause, adopted the resolution setting forth its policy on the process for the City of Hollister to be authorized to provide out-of-agency services.

Ayes: Bettencourt, Botelho, Edge, Rivas, Velazquez
Noes: None

13. Schedule to Consider and Adopt Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16 The Commission received the staff report the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16 will be heard on March 26 with the Final Budget to be heard on May 28.

There was no public comment.

14. Report on Future Agenda Items
The Commission received the staff report describing a work plan to be pursued by staff in including mapping for the Directory of Local Agencies, preparation of a Commissioner Handbook, preparation of the remaining Sphere of Influence updates, completing the inventory of Mutual Water Companies and processing applications as they are received.

There was no public comment.

SAN BENITO LAFCO
Minutes of Meeting
January 22, 2015

15. Report on LAFCO-related Legislation
The Commission received the staff report on pending legislation.

There was no public comment.

16. Commissioner Announcements
At the request of Commissioner Bettencourt the staff explained LAFCO can be requested to reconsider its decisions but there is no appeal of LAFCO decisions to any other administrative body, although LAFCO decisions are subject to judicial review.

Commissioner Bettencourt made reference to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the staff indicated it would review the matter and report back to the Commission.

INFORMATIONAL

17. Oral Staff Report on Pending Proposals
The Executive Officer reported on the status of pending proposals.

There was no public comment.

18. Staff Announcements.

The Commission Clerk informed the Commissioners of their obligation to file FPPC Conflict of Interest statements in their capacity as LAFCO Commissioners.

19. Upon motion by Bettencourt, second by Edge, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM to the next regular meeting on Thursday, February 26, unless canceled by the Chair or a special meeting is called.

Final Minutes Approved by the Commission
on April 26, 2015
By____________________________________
Ignacio Velazquez, Chair

From:Delia Ramon
To:Angie Gonzalez; Daisy Caceres; Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:FW: Letter re: Sewage Expansion
Date:Monday, August 7, 2023 1:57:37 PM
This email was received at the City Manager’s Office. A call was received today requesting email be printed and placed in the City Council’s mail boxes.

From: Bella Rosales [mailto ]
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:28 PM
To: COHDistrict1 Rick Perez ; COHDistrict2 Rolan Resendiz ; COHDistrict3 Dolores Morales ;
COHDistrict4 Tim Burns ; Mayor Casey

Cc: COH Manager
Subject: Letter re: Sewage Expansion
To Mayor Mia Casey & Hollister City Council Members:

We represent several neighborhood groups in Hollister.

We are writing to oppose your plan to spend millions of dollars to double Hollister's sewage capacity so that you can extend sewer service to thousands of houses outside of Hollister at:

San Juan Oaks golf community, San Juan Bautista, Fairview Corners, Lee subdivision on Fairview Road, and Ridgemark golf community.

These housing developments will increase our area's population and result in more traffic congestion because our road infrastructure simply cannot handle more vehicles. Many of us work out of town and our commutes are becoming longer and more exhausting because of the terrible traffic. Even driving inside our city and county takes much longer than it used to take.

New housing developments will also make our schools more overcrowded. Many families currently have difficulty getting their children admitted to schools near their homes because of overcrowding. Developers have not paid enough impact fees to build new schools.

Many of us are residents on the west side of Hollister. We already have difficulty living near the sewer facility as it creates a strong odor problem, especially in the summer. We must close all the windows and stay indoors. We can't have friends or family visit on those smelly days. We're worried that the smell will get worse when the sewer capacity is doubled. We've read that sewer gas has toxins that can harm the health of our children and the elderly. We've heard that COVID viruses are found in sewage water, which makes all of us who live near the sewer ponds more concerned. What if COVID viruses get airborne on windy days? Is the city monitoring air quality near the sewer treatment facility? Also, burdening our Latino neighborhoods with sewage from wealthy communities outside our city is a real environmental injustice.

By providing sewer extensions to housing developments outside of Hollister, in the County, you're also encouraging more orchards to be cut down and the loss of ITEM F. 1
PUBLIC COMMENT 2
8/7/2023

local agriculture which is important for our jobs and our food security.

More houses and a bigger population will lead to an increase in crime and homelessness. We've seen this happen in neighboring towns with larger populations than Hollister. It's starting to become a problem in Hollister with all the recent growth.

Has anyone done a study of the environmental and financial impacts of doubling the sewer capacity? Has anyone evaluated the impact on our quality of life from building thousands of new homes surrounding Hollister? These studies should have been done and discussed by the community before a vote by the City Council.

Why are you (Mayor Casey, Dolores Morales, Rick Perez, and Tim Burns) rushing to provide sewer extensions to housing developments outside of Hollister? Why are you working so hard to help developers in the County, outside of our city? You should be working for the residents of Hollister!

At the June 20 City Council meeting, the sewer expert said there's enough sewer capacity for Hollister to grow, within city limits, for many years. Your proposed sewer expansion is mostly for developments outside of Hollister. It does not benefit Hollister residents and will likely harm us in many ways. You're giving Hollister residents the financial burden of maintaining our sewer system for many other communities outside of Hollister.

We paid $120 million to rebuild Hollister's sewer system in 2008. The County Supervisors refused to help Hollister with the cost. Please keep Hollister's sewer system for Hollister residents only! Please vote "NO" on this sewer expansion.

Sincerely,

Delia Duran, Rosemary Sanchez, & Maxine Marquez for Westside Watchers MariCruz Ordaz-Diaz, Martín González, María Abonce, & Martha Sanchez for Grupo Bridgevale
Stephanie Pritchett for Rare Gems
Vicky Montoya for Westside Rebels
Julio Rodgriguez for Hollister Guardians
Bella Rosales for Hollister United
Daysi Aguayo for Hollister Hawkeyes

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7, 2023
SUBMITTED: August 1, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

City Manager
David Mirrione, Acting City
Manager

TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-155, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER REPLACING THE TEMPORARY 150TH ANNIVERSARY CITY

LOGO WITH A NEW CITY LOGO

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The City Council will consider a resolution to replace the temporary 150th Anniversary City logo with a new city logo and to pursue a trademark for the logo.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the replacement of the temporary 150th Anniversary City logo with a new city logo and brand graphics and delegate authority to the City Manager and his designees to trademark the new City logo.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The City of Hollister celebrated their 150th Anniversary of its incorporation in 2022. City of Hollister staff received an overwhelming level of positive feedback on the commemorative logo it commissioned. Although the commemoration year has ended, staff has worked with Creative GDS to create an updated logo similar to the 150th anniversary logo that incorporates the clock tower, but removes the 150 years’ reference. If approved by the City Council, staff will begin rolling out the new brand across both digital assets (email, social media, videos, website, etc.) and physical assets (vehicles, business cards, signage, etc.). Staff will also develop resources and guidelines to assist Council, City departments, employees, and partners to properly deploy the new brand assets.

The original City of Hollister logo can be found as “Attachment A” of this report in addition to the commemorative 150th logo.

The new proposed City of Hollister logo can be found as “Attachment B” of this report.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopts the attached Resolution authorizing the City of Hollister to utilize the attached updated logo on all official City business items and delegate authority to the City Manager and his designees to trademark the new City logo.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: $750.00

Additionally, as current engagement and printed materials are depleted, new materials with the new logo will be ordered using existing department budgets. The logo for all materials printed internally by the City and for the City’s website will be replaced with the new logo at no additional cost.

CEQA: Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment A - Draft Logo

2. Attachment B - Proposed New Logo

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
F.2
Packet Pg. 427

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

F.2
Packet Pg. 428

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-155

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER REPLACING THE TEMPORARY 150TH ANNIVERSARY CITY LOGO WITH A NEW CITY LOGO

WHEREAS, the City of Hollister recognizes the importance of a logo to help reinforce the City’s brand; and

WHEREAS, staff received an overwhelming level of positive feedback on the commemorative 150th logo; and

WHEREAS, upon adoption the City will develop a process for the transition for the use of the new logo and branding graphics; and

WHEREAS, the City will feature the new logo on all official City business moving forward to provide a consistent identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister hereby accepts and approves the updated City of Hollister logo and brand graphics attached hereto as Exhibit B, directs the City Manager to develop a style guide and proceed with the transition of the City’s visual identity consistent with the approved logo and graphics.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister delegate authority to the City Manager and his designees to trademark the new City logo.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 7th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

F.2
Packet Pg. 429

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-155, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of August, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister
F.2
Packet Pg. 430

Original City of Hollister Logo

Commemorative 150th Logo

F.2.a
Packet Pg. 431

F.2.b
Packet Pg. 432