Hollister City Council
September 11, 2023

June 21, 2023
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency

The Hollister-Gilroy Area supports the construction of a Class I Bicycle Path adjacent to the existing railway. The Hollister-Gilroy Area recommends additional safety measures be considered for the proposed bicycle path along the existing railway to ensure the safety of the bicyclist and the passenger/freight trains.

If you have any questions, please contact our office at (408) 427-0700.

Sincerely,

P. COOPER, Captain
Commander

2.c
Packet Pg. 357

TO: Christi Hopper
City of Hollister Planning Department
FROM: Geary Coats
DATE: 5/28/23

SUBECT: Hollister General Plan Update

Good afternoon Ms. Hopper;

I want to thank you and the Planning Commission for the opportunity to present my comments on the North Gateway Commercial Land Use Designation and the allowable uses. I am respectfully requesting to amend the allowable uses within the North Gateway Commercial Designation by permitting industrial uses along with the existing uses.

“The North Gateway Commercial designation is intended to foster an attractive entry to the City of Hollister by featuring commercial and service-oriented businesses along with high-employment uses such as office parks. The design guidelines described in the “Special Planning Area” section of this element stipulates additional criteria that development within the North Gateway must meet.”

The current North Gateway Commercial designation (NGC), limits land uses to commercial and/or office use. With the existing approved Regional Center at Hwy 25 and San Felipe Road; any other commercial center in the NGC will be in direct competition. At the present time there is not adequate residential use support to require this amount of commercial development. This type of Commercial land use is already provided for in current centers (Hwy 25 and Sunnyslope Road). In addition to the existing centers (Target, Ace Hardware, Nob Hill etc..) there is an existing, under used regional site, at the old K Mart property. The existing commercial sites, along with the old K-Mart property, provide adequate commercial development to meet the needs of the surrounding residentially designated lands. The location of these new, large scale commercial projects, need to be close to the city’s residential centers.

Putting larger scale commercial projects on the north side of town (NGC) does not provide convenient access availability to the city’s residential centers.

The current land use element provides for “Specific Plan / Area Plan Overlay – this designation is intended to identify areas that require special planning LAND PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING • ENTITLEMENT/PROJECT MANAGEMENT • BRANDING P 831.250.7192
F 831.250.7193
PO BOX 1356
CARMEL, CA. 93921
[email protected]

2.c
Packet Pg. 358

attention to promote a mix of land uses that remain flexible enough to adjust to changing market demands.”
Allowing the use of a Specific Plan or Area Plan Overlay, will permit a property of sufficient size (5 acres or larger) to propose a mixed-use plan. This plan will need to address the “Gateway” importance, but not limit the site’s potential of providing uses that may be varied, while at the same time providing for the creation of larger employment opportunities.

In the northern Hollister General Plan Area, a very new and important land use trend has begun. Area and Regional industrial uses have located in the corridor between San Felipe Road, Hwy 25 and Hwy 156 Bypass. It is easy to see the reason for the draw to this area:

 Ease of access to Hwy’s 101 & Hwy 5
 Parcel sizes adequate to allow “large scale” users to develop  Accessibility to the Hollister airport
 Additional land for development of support industrial uses.

A very large benefit will be the job creation. These types of industrial services will employee large numbers, and will look to Hollister, San Benito County, and reverse commuters from Santa Clara County to staff these jobs. Since “job creation” is a key element of the North Gateway Commercial designation, we need to allow industrial/job creators as allowable uses. I am concerned that if the allowable uses are not expanded to include “Industrial” job creators, the city will end up with underutilized properties having vacant in-line commercial strip centers, thus missing the clean industrial job creators of the future.

I request the City General Plan Committee, Planning Commission and City Council amend the allowable uses within the North Gateway Commercial Designation to include Industrial uses. Alternatively, a means of allowing a mixed-use project of Commercial, Office and Industrial uses will be to utilize an Area Plan or Specific Plan as an “Overlay” use in the North Gateway Commercial Designation, as previously discussed in the current land use element.

I would also like to request to be notified of when the General Plan Update Committee and the Planning Commission are meeting to discuss possible amendments to the City General Plan, so that I am able to present our approach for discussion and consideration.

Respectfully Submitted;
Geary
Geary Coats
Principal

2.c
Packet Pg. 359

James K. Churchill

Montrose, Colorado 81401

July 18, 2023

Christine Hopper, Development Services Director
City of Hollister Development Services
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023

Re: 2040 Draft General Plan Update

Dear Ms. Hopper,
The Churchill family has owned property in San Benito County for more than 75 years. It is with interest that I have reviewed the Draft General Plan Update, the proposed Agriculture Lands Preservation Program, and the proposed Climate Action Plan.

I have the following questions and comments regarding these three documents:

Chapter 17.13 – Agricultural Lands Preservation Program There are several requirements which are extreme and create an undue hardship on the property owner of agriculture land. These extreme conditions will also act to limit growth of all types due to the inability of the agricultural land owner to comply.

Concern: 17.13.030- B. 4 - Agricultural Lands: All lands which in the reasonable judgment of the City of Hollister have the physical characteristics and yield potential to qualify as one of the classifications in Section 17.13.030.B.2. Whether or not the land under consideration is currently used for agricultural production shall not be a criterion in this determination.

Concern – The four recognized classifications are adequate and a 5th “City Opinion” is excessive. The four classifications rely on recognized criteria and are sufficient for making a determination on specific land.

Concern: 17.13.050 - Overall Requirement: Before any Development Project that involves conversion of one (1) acre or more of Agricultural Land to uses other than Agricultural Uses may occur, Agricultural Conservation Easements on other Agricultural Lands that Comply with criteria established in Section 17.13.090 shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder selected by the City of Hollister, at a rate of at least two(acres) of Agricultural Land for each one (1) acre of Agricultural Land to be converted [2:1 ratio] Response: What is the nexus that would require twice as much mitigation as impact? This is not reasonable.

2.c
Packet Pg. 360

Concern: 17.13.090 - Eligible Lands: To Achieve the purpose of this chapter, lands proposed for acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements shall share the characteristics of Agricultural Land and meet the following criteria:

A. The lands shall be located in the City of Hollister Planning Area, as defined in the City of Hollister General Plan.

Concern: Limiting eligible land to those properties which are in the City Planning Area will ensure that the Developer will be forced to pay top dollar for a limited commodity. Further criteria in the new program will severely limit the properties that are actually available for mitigation.

D. Where a dedication of Twenty (20) or more acres is required, lands shall be composed of legal parcels of twenty net acres or more in size. Parcels less than twenty net acres in size shall only be allowed for dedication if merged to meet the minimum size requirement prior to execution of the Agricultural Conservation Easement.

Concern: the requirement that parcels be a minimum size of twenty acres or be adjacent parcels, capable of being merged will further reduce the opportunities to locate properties to satisfy the mitigation. If preservation is the goal, does the size really matter?

In Summary: This program creates a situation where almost any vacant land could be deemed subject to mitigation, at double the impact. Trying to locate a suitable property is further hindered by limiting location and requiring a minimum size of 20 acre parcels. If the goal is to discourage development, this is an effective tool.

Climate Action Plan
Concern: How are the origins of Green House Gas determined? Who will make these decisions? Is a project responsible for determining their impacts or will the City?

2040 General Plan Update
Section 3 – Land Use

3.3 Land Use Designations
Comment – section 3.3.3 precludes single family detached homes from the Medium Density Residential category. If a housing product is able to meet the density, it should not be excluded. This also applies to Policy LU-2.7. Section 3.3.9 details the uses under General Commercial. The Churchill property (Hillcrest and Fairview) is proposed for this use. The land use designation is reasonable, however, trying to direct the type of commercial to be a regional attraction or community destination (such as Santana Row) is not realistic. Commercial Brokers have advised that they would not be able to bring those types of business to the Churchill property. That vision also seems to be in conflict with supporting the downtown business area and those existing merchants.

3.4 Special Planning Areas
Comment – Figure LU-4 shows the Churchill property is included in the Meridian Street Extension Planning Area. The majority of the owners in this planning area have no interest in

2.c
Packet Pg. 361

selling their property or annexing into the City. The requirement for a specific plan is going to make it nearly impossible to get group consensus on future uses of the area which will cause a hardship for the Churchill property. The Churchill property is anxious to annex now, but is potentially prevented from doing so by the expense and timing of securing a specific plan for this 250 acre (+/-) area, of which the Churchill project is only 23 acres. The Churchill property should be excluded from the Specific Plan, but kept as General Commercial. At a minimum, the requirement for a Specific Plan should be deferred to after annexation, but prior to approval of a development project (see Action LU-13.2)

3.6 Land Use and Community Design Element Goals, Policies, and Actions Comment – Policy LU-1.7 requires a Specific Plan on annexation requests over 20 acres, or any non-residential use regardless of size. 20 acres is too small to require a Specific Plan and should be applicable to larger parcels with more potential for development. A single property owner with more than 20 acres should not be subject to a Specific Plan as there are other planning tools for the City to use to get a project they want. Non-residential properties should be allowed to proceed without a Specific Plan if they are smaller than 25 acres – especially commercial as most of the site will be parking.

Comment – Action LU-13.1 calls for the City to prepare a cost analysis for the implementation of the Meridian Street bridge. The costs for a bridge should not be placed solely on new development. This is an improvement that would benefit all residents as they travel through town and should be paid for by all residents.

3.6.16 Community Design
Comment – Policy LU-16.1 discourages the use of franchise architecture and/or corporate branding. The Churchill property has a General Commercial land use designation. There is a concern that this type of restriction will keep certain national businesses (Sprouts, Trader Joes) from coming to Hollister if they are not allowed to use proven architecture and branding. This part of the policy should be removed. Policy LU-18.9 requires 48” box trees for street trees.

Most arborists agree that planting large box trees is not the best idea. Tree roots in a large box tend to grow much slower than tree roots from smaller containers. The result is not only slower overall growth of the tree but less drought tolerant. Trees that have been transplanted or transferred from large containers tend to go into shock, the roots are less aggressive, meaning less overall growth. The proposed policy goes against current thinking by the experts. The larger sizes are also harder to find in quantities that would be needed to fill in a landscape strip.

Section 4 – Circulation
Figure C-1 – Roadway Classifications – Is it accurate to depict Fairview Road as a highway? Table C-1 shows an association of Commercial use with an Arterial/Major collector Street. Figure LU- 2 proposes the property at the corner of Hillcrest and Fairview as General Commercial.

Surrounding uses along Fairview are residential.

4.1.5.1 Transportation Demand Management states the City will prepare a list of TDM strategies for new development projects to reduce VMT generated from the development.

2.c
Packet Pg. 362

Policy C-1.4 – Transportation Demand Management – Reduce single-occupant vehicle usage using TDM strategies.

Comment: What are examples of TDM strategies? How would these strategies be implemented if a project is located in a more rural setting? Is it reasonable to expect a rural resident to avoid using their car and how can a developer influence that decision? It seems likely that a rural resident would require their single occupancy vehicle to visit a commercial property that sold products.

4.3.2 Circulation System Improvements
Action C-2.2 - Meridian Street Extension –
Comment: How will this study be funded? How will the costs be shared by all city residents? It is unfair to straddle the owners of the study area with the expense of the study and possibly the improvements.

4.3.4 Roadway Standards
Policy C-4.6 Transportation Demand Management Requirements – Require new or existing developments that meet specific size capacity and/or context conditions to implement TDM strategies.

Comment: What are the strategies? What criteria will be used to determine which developments are subject to this policy? How can existing development be required to participate. This policy is very vague and needs more information/explanation of its goal.

Section 7 – Natural Resource and Conservation
Comment: Section 7.2.1 lists multiple policies for ensuring enhanced habitat for native plants and animals (Goal NRC1). Policy NRC-1.7 is written to require an impact fee by the County for every home or acre developed, if the property is within San Joaquin Kit Fox habitat area boundaries. There should be no assessment if there are no species detected during the preconstruction surveys. Will projects within the City limits be subject to the San Benito County Habitat Conservation Plan?
Does Policy MRC-1.8 requires site assessments within critical habitat areas, to evaluate project potential for negative impact on CTS and CRLF. Is a 2nd peer review only required when the habitat is high quality? If not, it should be limited to this scenario. Is this policy suggesting that lengthy, time consuming protocol studies are the only way to confirm absence? Is this precluding the opportunity to acquire a Take Permit if habitat is not “high quality”? Section 7.2.3 (Air Quality) includes policy NRC-3.8 which requires Commercial and Industrial Projects exceeding 10,000 sf to be zero emissions operations – including the facilities themselves and associated fleets. Our state is not prepared to supply the electric energy necessary to achieve these measures. It is not reasonable to expect a business to control the engine types on vehicles that deliver supplies to their facility. This is a business killer! Are we trying to discourage those tax dollars?
Figure NRC-3 Illustrates locations of Special-Status Animal Species and Critical Habitat? At what point will this exhibit be updated to reflect existing conditions? For example, the Santana Ranch

2.c
Packet Pg. 363

2.c
Packet Pg. 364

From:Talli Robinson
To:Erica Fraser; Christine Hopper; Eva Kelly
Cc:Ross Doyle; Dr. Christopher Churchill; Jennifer Churchill; John Churchill; Jim Churchill Subject:RE: Churchill Property Designation
Date:Friday, August 4, 2023 9:33:06 AM
Good Morning,
Please see the email below from Mr. Jim Churchill. He would like to add an additional comment to those already provided for the 2040 General Plan Update. He is not in favor of the proposed land use (noted in the draft update of the general plan) for his property at the corner of Hillcrest and Fairview.

Thank you,
Talli Robinson
Senior Planner

RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR

ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS
8055 Camino Arroyo
Gilroy, CA 95020
T: (408) 848-0300 x227
D: (408) 848-0308
F: (408) 848-0302
[email protected]
Electronic Media Disclaimer
These plans and files are provided in an electronic format as a courtesy only. Information exchanged by electronic media can deteriorate, alter by conversion, be damaged, lost or modified unintentionally or otherwise. Therefore, use of this electronic data by anyone other than Ruggeri- Jensen-Azar (RJA) shall be at the sole risk of such user and without liability or legal exposure to RJA.

The recipient is responsible for verifying the accuracy of data against the governing most current hard copy documentation, and if there are any differences between the two, the signed hard copy documents shall control. Furthermore, users will comply with the State Business and Professions Code Chapters 7 & 15. Any such use governed by these codes will be performed by, or under the responsible charge of a qualified/licensed individual as set forth therein. Recipient assumes all risks and expense in the use, changing or modification of data and revisions or updating of hard copy documents.

From: Jim Churchill []
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 4:24 PM

2.c
Packet Pg. 365

To: Christine Hopper
Cc: Erica Fraser ; Eva Kelly ; Talli
Robinson ; Ross Doyle ; Dr. Christopher Churchill
<>; Jennifer Churchill <>; John Churchill
<>
Subject: Churchill Property Designation
I have made several inquiries as to the viability of providing a "Barnyard" approach to the Churchill property. All responses have replied with a negative. Hollister, or the County of San Benito, does not have a population or affluence that would support such a community/development. Nor will it have a surrounding population for years to come.

1. In view of this, I am asking to change the land designation from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use/ Commercial".

The Churchill's envisions about 110 apartments, minimum, along with sufficient parking. The apartments should be 2-3 stories. Parking would be covered with solar panels. In addition, some units may have a lesser number of detached garages or storage units for cars and electrical charging. There are also available charging stations for individual use in the outdoor covered parking spaces.

Some of the commercial properties will be two stories for business tenants. Commercial details and types of business will be designed and presented to planning prior to construction.

All available rooftop space will have solar. Electrical charging will be available to shoppers.

Jim Churchill

2.c
Packet Pg. 366

From:Ambur Cameron
To:Carey Stone; David Early
Cc:Eva Kelly; Christine Hopper
Subject:FW: Hollister GP 2040, CAP, and ALPP EIR
Date:Monday, July 3, 2023 1:16:16 PM
Good afternoon Carey and David,
Please see the email below form Kristina Chaves-Wyatt on behalf of the San Benito Business Council providing comment on
the City of Hollister General Plan 2040, Climate Action Plan, Agricultural Plans Preservation Program and Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Thank you,
Ambur
Get Involved In Community Planning!
General Plan Update Hollister2040.org|[email protected] DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT. REGULAR PUBLIC HOURS
Monday – Thursday 8:30a - 12:00p, 1:00p - 4:30p
Friday – Sunday CLOSED
ALL Planning Applications require an appointment with a City Planner for submittal.

From: San Benito County Business Council [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 4:38 PM
To: GeneralPlan
Subject: Hollister GP 2040, CAP, and ALPP EIR
Good afternoon,
I am writing on behalf of the San Benito County Business Council to provide comments on the City of Hollister General Plan 2040, Climate Action Plan, Agricultural Plans Preservation Program and Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Established in 2001, the Business Council is a 501(c) 6 non-profit member-based organization representing over 45 local and regional municipal agencies, businesses, trade organizations and major employers representing more than 6000 employees in the Monterey Bay, Central Coast and South Bay Regions.

Our current member & organizational goals include; 1) Retention, expansion, job creation and

2.c
Packet Pg. 367

growth of existing businesses, 2) EDC 2017-2022 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Implementation, Supporting development of 2023-2028 CEDS - Supporting new business attraction, 3) Improving Infrastructure: Measure G Implementation- road and highway improvements, broadband, energy, education, housing, water & wastewater, tackling blight & litter, and 4) Building relations with elected officials, staff, regional organizations and community.

There has been a major lack of community outreach and engagement as described in the consultants Scope of Work (i.e., two community outreach events referred in scope, presentations, staff reports). Many of our residents lack access to internet, lack knowledge on how to operate the Zoom application and in many cases were unaware that the virtual meetings were taking place.

On many occasions, community members that posed questions and concerns at the General Plan Public Advisory Committee Meeting were rebuffed, ignored and subjected to condescending behavior by officials, committee members and consultants.

We respectfully request and would support the City’s efforts to host at least one large-scale, in- person community workshop to present the Draft General Plan and EIR- including “general plan 101” education and workstations with detailed information on each element, the proposed Agricultural Plans Preservation Program (ALPP) and Climate Action Plan (CAP). EJ-2 states, “Promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process.”

Stakeholder groups, especially in agriculture (i.e, the San Benito County Farm Bureau) were not targeted for outreach and engagement. Please conduct this engagement to inform and encourage community participation.

Phone calls and emails to the City regarding the Plan were not returned, responded to.

We are concerned that the EIR was prepared prior to draft General Plan review by the public, the City Planning Commission and City Council. Please extend the review and comment period on the Draft General Plan for 60-days and pause work on the EIR until the plan is completed to ensure that the impacts of the final Plan are evaluated, the Draft EIR presented to the public followed by time to prepare and submit comments.

Additional consideration should be made for habitat conservation and mitigation measures already in place (i.e, California Tiger Salamander). Additional consideration may also be revisited for joining the County’s efforts underway to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan.

Consider extending the Sphere of Influence further outward to the Urban Service Area or even the Planning Area to help support longer term, comprehensive planning, public utilities and services.

This is especially important apply City codes and standards for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, roads and parks.

Regarding the 2:1 proposed ALPP, please consider matching San Benito County’s 1:1 policy as that ratio best adheres to 1.3.7 “maintain productive and VIABLE ag land.”

2.c
Packet Pg. 368

Additionally, any lands within the Plan that have low density or zoning other than agriculture cannot be re-zoned/downzoned to agriculture as investments and planning have been in place for other uses.

Lands are only productive and viable for agricultural production if the commodities are marketable, when food safety programs can be implemented, where adequate, high-quality water is readily available and ag/urban interfaces (dust, noise, ag inputs, employees, heavy equipment traffic) can be avoided.

Furthermore, the proposed ALPP, in addition to the 200-foot buffer requirement and the VMT presents major obstacles to job growth and meeting our housing needs. These policies do not confirm to 1.3.2 “attracting employment generating uses” and “range of housing choices.”

Local job creation reduces commuting and reduces/eliminates traffic.

Consider adding educational attraction to 3.4.1 North Gateway Special Planning Area.

Evaluate the opportunities and implications of the California Opportunity Zone and high-wage job creation in 3.4.2 West Gateway Special Planning Area.

Extend the Buena Vista Road Special Planning Area west to SR156 to help ensure continuity with planning future growth in an area with existing infrastructure and access to current and planned regional transportation networks.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and for your consideration of our questions, concerns and ideas.

Please don’t hesitate to reply with any questions, concerns or needs.

Sincere regards,
Kristina
Kristina Chavez Wyatt
Executive Director, San Benito County Business Council
341 First Street Hollister, CA 95023
831.524.0408 / 831.637.6637 fax
[email protected]
SBCBusinessCouncil.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

2.c
Packet Pg. 369

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
(805) 549-3101 | FAX (805) 549-3329 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

June 30, 2023
SBt/VAR
SCH#2021040277

Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023

COMMENTS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) – HOLLISTER 2040

GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP), AND AGRICULTURE LANDS

PRESERVATION PROGRAM, HOLLISTER, CA
Dear Ms. Kelly:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 5, Development Review, has reviewed the Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program DEIR which builds off the existing 2005 General Plan to provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the horizon year of 2040. Caltrans offers the following comments in response to the DEIR:

1. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City of Hollister on future transit and complete streets concepts located within state right of way. The state views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all users and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation network. Early coordination with Caltrans, in locations that may affect both Caltrans and the City of Hollister, is encouraged.

2. We support Goal C-1 and the policies to help reduce VMT (vehicle miles traveled) to insignificant levels. The listed policies will help appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to multimodal transportation, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Caltrans encourages the city to begin working on these policies as soon as possible to find the best local based practices to best alleviate VMT in the region.

2.c
Packet Pg. 370

Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
June 30, 2023

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

3. Further, we support the Predefined VMT Mitigation Bank to lower VMT. The bank should complement State goals to promote equitable transportation outcomes, advance multi-modal transportation strategies, and advance innovative technology and systems as a corollary to new land use projects.

4. Caltrans appreciates Policy C-4.6 TDM Requirements which requires new or existing developments that meet specific conditions to implement transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and other single vehicle occupancy reduction methodologies which will be monitored. TDM monitoring should be supported with long term maintenance of effort. Measures that are more useful to consider include transit and micro-mobility pass discounts, carpool matching and incentives, bike facilities at workplaces, vanpools, and emergency-ride-home services for non-driving employees.

5. Additional traffic studies will be needed for any operational changes on the state highway system (SHS). For example, any proposed changes to the type of intersection control would require an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) to be performed.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, or need further clarification on items discussed above, please contact me at (805) 835-6543 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,

Chris Bjornstad
Associate Transportation Planner
District 5 Land Development Review

2.c
Packet Pg. 371

2.c
Packet Pg. 372

2.c
Packet Pg. 373

From:Ambur Cameron
To:Carey Stone; David Early
Cc:Eva Kelly; Christine Hopper
Subject:FW: Meridian Street Extension area
Date:Thursday, August 31, 2023 8:47:19 AM
Attachments:Cluster Lots Hillcrest.png
Lot Plan Hillcrest.pdf
Topo Hillcrest .png
Good morning Carey and David,
Please see the email below from Alex and Ingrid Sywak to the Planning Commission requesting them to reconsider their recommendation regarding the change in density at the Meridian Street Extension Special Planning Area.

Thank you,
Ambur
Get Involved In Community Planning!
General Plan Update Hollister2040.org|[email protected] DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT. REGULAR PUBLIC HOURS
Monday – Thursday 8:30a - 12:00p, 1:00p - 4:30p
Friday – Sunday CLOSED
ALL Planning Applications require an appointment with a City Planner for submittal.

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 7:00 AM
To: Kevin Henderson ; Carol Lenoir ; Steven Belong
; Luke Corona ; christina ross
; Planning Dept ; Christine Hopper
; David Mirrione ; Mayor Casey
; GeneralPlan ; Ingrid Sywak
Subject: Meridian Street Extension area
August 31, 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners,
We request that you reconsider your recommendation to designate parcels in the Meridian Street study area from medium/high density and keep that area’s current designation of low density residential.

2.c
Packet Pg. 374

For the past forty years (two GP cycles) this area has been designated as low density residential, upto 8 units/acre. By designating it as medium/high density, densities as high as 60 units/acre would apply, and with the imminent adoption of the BMR ordinance, by that ordinance’s own proforma, an increase of density to ~ 100 units/acre would have to be proposed to make any project there be financially feasible.

We have prepared a tentative map for our 43 acres in that area. Using cluster homes as the base unit, we are able to site 429 single detached homes.[1] You can see from the cluster layout, that it is already fairly dense at 10 units/acre. When you see the individual lots, it appears even denser.[2] Increasing this density 10 times would require at a minimum 4-5 story podium buildings with underground parking.

The topography in this area would not be able to support medium/high density residential. The attached contour lines are every 2 feet.[3] Who would consider it feasible or safe to build 4-5 story buildings on hillside? Mr. Joe Tonascia at the August 10 meeting made a great point. Each commissioner should at a minimum drive by the areas they will vote on. Commissioner Lenoir, by inspecting the Glenmore area, quickly concluded designating it as HDR was infeasible and a burden to the immediate neighborhood.

The Meridian area item was the last of the evening and considered well after 10pm. Hopefully, in the morning light, keeping the current designation of LDR will be found to be the better option.

We are happy to discuss this issue any time –
Thank you for your consideration,
Ingrid and Alex Sywak
[1]Cluster lot layout.
[2]Individual lot layout.
[3]Aerial topo of Meridian area.
joe tonascia

2.c
Packet Pg. 375

BKF
E
N

GINEERS
1730
N.

FIRST
STREET
SUITE
600
SAN
JOSE,
CA
95112
(408)
467-9100
www.bkf.com

2.c
Packet Pg. 376

7/26/2023
Mayor Casey & City Council
Development Services Dept. Staff
375 5th St.

Hollister, Ca 95023
Re: General Plan Update
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft general plan. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to review and consider our positions on the draft policies and goals stated below. My name is Anthony Lico. My family and I own the parcel located between Union, Southside, and Enterprise Roads and Airline Highway in the unincorporated county with APN 020-290-056. Please note as you review our letter that ours is the only parcel in the planning area or sphere of influence that is proposed to be zoned mixed use (please see Table LU-2 of draft general plan, if needed). We have recently submitted an application for prezone to the planning department and look forward to working with the development services on our application. Thank you, again.

3.3.4- Mixed-use commercial and residential (30-60 units/gross acre; 3.0 FAR) We believe that our parcel is well suited for a combination of residential and commercial uses due to its location and accessibility. Our concern is not with the zoning designation but with the attached minimum densities. When you multiply the densities by the number of acres of the parcel you get a potential of 1,680-3,360 housing units. We don’t believe a project of this size would be feasible to construct or palatable to the community. Most of the acreage contemplated for this zoning is in the central portion of Hollister. In areas adjacent to downtown these densities may work, but on a parcel as large as ours it does not make much sense.

Policy LU – 1.4 – Balance of Uses/LU 3.1 Mix of Uses
We’d like to lend our support to this particular land use policy. We believe that the city should look to accomplish its goals of meeting the housing needs of the community while also looking to generate jobs and tax revenue. We hope that the future development of our parcel will be a great example of what is possible through Policy LU – 1.4.

Policy LU – 2.2 – Diverse Neighborhoods
This is a laudable goal for the general plan update. We understand that having a mix of housing types and residents of different incomes levels helps create cohesion within a community. We look forward to our property being able to provide both for sale and for rent housing opportunities for those in search of home.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F70E80-F53B-4C7E-99E9-4BFE8A1DC8BA

2.c
Packet Pg. 377

Policy LU – 2.3- Housing Types
We believe that is important to offer the community a variety of housing types as people of different ages and stages of life have different needs. As proposed, our future project would be able to accommodate a range of housing types including apartments, townhouses, smaller lot, and standard size lot detached homes.

Policy LU 14.1 Union Rd Specific Plan
We look forward to working with our neighboring property owners to help design a plan that is acceptable to the city and that provides the most benefit to its residents. We hope that through this specific plan we can create an inviting new neighborhood in which current and future citizens can be proud.

Thank you again for your time and attention.

Anthony Lico
Cc:

Karson Klauer
K2 Solutions LLC
(831)801-0858
[email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: A3F70E80-F53B-4C7E-99E9-4BFE8A1DC8BA

2.c
Packet Pg. 378

The Mission of the San Benito Agricultural Land Trust is to conserve regionally significant lands that sustain productive agriculture, preserve open space, and maintain the rural character of the county. 501(c)(3) nonprofit EIN 77-0338085 | P.O. Box 145, San Juan Bautista CA 95045 | (831) 593-1030 | www.SanBenitoLandTrust.org August 10, 2023
Eva Kelly
City of Hollister Development Services Department
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
RE: Chapter 9 – Open Space and Agriculture Element
Dear Ms. Kelly, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Open Space and Agriculture Element of the City of Hollister 2040 Draft General Plan. The San Benito Agricultural Land Trust (SBALT) supports the Element overall. We have made specific comments within the pdf version of the document and will include it with an electronic version of this letter.

Farmland Classification The Draft General Plan is using a state classification system that was designed to track the loss of productive agriculture. To achieve this goal, “land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production (or “cropped”) at some point during the four years prior to the mapping date” or its classification is changed, usually to “Grazing Land”. The City wishes to protect land that has the potential to be productive agricultural land regardless of how long it may have been out of production. SBALT, therefore, recommends that the City add a statement that captures part 3 of the “Agricultural Lands” definition in the February draft of “Chapter 17.13 – Agricultural Lands Preservation Program”. All lands which in the reasonable judgment of the City of Hollister have the physical characteristics and yield potential to qualify as one of the classifications in Section 17.13.030.B.2 above. Whether or not the land under consideration is currently used for agricultural production shall not be a criterion in this determination. The San Benito Agricultural Land Trust further requests that when using the FMMP categories that “Farmland of Local Importance” be included. It is included in the Figure OS-1 legend.

Board of Directors:

Michael Reeves
President
Paul Hain
Vice-President
Emily Renzel
Secretary
Rick Carpenedo
Treasurer
Jessica Brem
Nikhilesh Dholakia
Sara Steiner
A dvisors &
Committee
Members:

Dave Brigantino
Michael Brigantino
Christine Breen
Sallie Calhoun
Robert Connolly
Zooey Diggory
Dan Dungy
Katherine Foster
Mark Gibson
Jeremy Lackey
Julie Morris
Laura Naccarato
Ron Ross
Cathy Summa-Wolfe
Kerry Tobias

2.c
Packet Pg. 379

The Mission of the San Benito Agricultural Land Trust is to conserve regionally significant lands that sustain productive agriculture, preserve open space, and maintain the rural character of the county. 501(c)(3) nonprofit EIN 77-0338085 | P.O. Box 145, San Juan Bautista CA 95045 | (831) 593-1030 | www.SanBenitoLandTrust.org Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion (Policy OS-2.1 and Action OS-2.1) San Benito Agricultural Land Trust strongly supports adopting code that enforces the policies in this plan. Past local general plans have recommended offsets and ordinances to enforce it, but the ordinances have not been written. For these policies to be effective, the City must complete actions that will ensure they are implemented consistently for all developers. We strongly support the 2:1 ratio. We encourage the offsets to conserve land within the County.

Agricultural Buffers and Ordinance (Policy OS-2.2 and Action OS-2.2) We support requiring buffers between new development and agricultural land. As stated in the first bullet of the action, this must not impact the footprint of the agricultural parcel. The second bullet is very important to the farmland operations. The growers are held to high food safety standards and buffer landscaping that attracts wildlife would be burdensome to the grower and hazardous to the wildlife. It is critical that the ongoing costs of maintaining the buffers be adequately calculated and managed so that funds are not transferred to other City needs.

Urban Growth Boundary (Action OS-2.3) San Benito Agricultural Land Trust believes that urban growth boundaries provide assurance to developers, the community, and agricultural producers of local land uses for the foreseeable future. This allows all interests to plan more effectively for their operations. The City of Hollister lacked this common tool.

Residential Development Near Agricultural Areas & Agricultural Community Disclosure Ordinance (Policy OS-2.5 and Action OS-2.4) SBALT supports the policy and action. We recommend that the City work to align their ordinance with that of the County. The County is submitting a state grant to fund developing an Agricultural Element for the County General Plan. If awarded, we encourage the City to collaborate with the County to integrate the two plans. The Policy (OS-2.5) would require that developers inform potential buyers. How will subsequent buyers or renters be informed of the possible hazards? Is there a tool that can be used that passes on this information to each resident? Thank you for protecting our agricultural lands. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of these comments, please contact me at any time. Sincerely, Lynn Overtree Executive Director Attached: Open Space and Agricultural Element with SBALT’s comments

2.c
Packet Pg. 380

9.OPEN SPACE AND

AGRICULTURE

ELEMENT
OS-1
9 Photo by Sabrina Stark

9.1 HOLLISTER TODAY
Preservation of open space and the natural environment have been a priority for Hollister residents for many years. Recognizing the importance of agriculture to the community, the City will protect agricultural lands by maintaining parcels large enough to sustain agricultural production, preventing conversion to nonagricultural uses, and prohibiting uses that are incompatible with long-term agricultural production.

9.1.1 T OPOGRAPHY
The land within the Hollister Planning Area generally slopes upward from north to south, with elevations of approximately 210 feet near the Hollister Municipal Airport, 290 feet near City Hall, and 500 feet near the intersection of Fairview Road and Airline Highway (State Route 25). Although the topography is relatively flat in most areas, the terrain is hilly near the San Benito River, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad line northwest of Hollister and in the eastern portion of the Planning Area.

9.1.2 O PEN S PACE
Open space areas in Hollister include public and privately owned lands used for low- intensity, open space activities such as hiking, walking, or picnicking. Environmentally sensitive areas, such as rivers and creeks, plant and animal habitats, City parks, and recreation facilities are also considered open space.

This Open Space and Agriculture Element focuses on policies and actions for the City of Hollister to implement in support of the preservation and enhancement of open space and agriculture. This section presents goals, policies, and actions for the following topics:

9.2.1 Open Space Preservation

9.2.2 Agriculture Preservation

2.c
Packet Pg. 381

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-2
Photo by Sabrina Stark

9.1.3 A GRICULTURAL L AND
When the State of California evaluates agricultural land, areas are designated as Prime Farmland when they are found to have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production, and have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained yields of crops when treated and managed. Lands identified as Prime Farmland must have been used for the production of irrigated crops within the last three years. Areas designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance represent land other than Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. As in the case of Prime Farmland, these areas must have been used for the production of irrigated crops within the last three years. Lands identified as Unique Farmland consists of lesser- quality soils used for agricultural production.

The San Benito Valley, which includes the City of Hollister, is generally considered a prime agricultural area due to its favorable soil types and climate. There is a significant amount of agricultural land both inside and outside of the General Plan Planning Area.

As seen in Figure OS-1, the Planning Area includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland as classified by the State Department of Conservation and as protected by the California Environmental Quality Act.

The City has an Agriculture land use designation that encompasses lands with continuing commercial agriculture potential. The intent of this category is to retain primary agricultural use to the greatest extent practical. These areas should be kept free of any urban-type development and annexations. Allowed uses include orchards, row crops, nurseries, grazing lands, open space, farm services, and parks.

The most prevalent type of agriculture in San Benito County is vegetable and irrigated row crops, largely spinach, lettuce, wine grapes, broccoli, celery, and tomatoes, which are arranged in rows. Common orchard crops in San Benito County include apples, walnuts, cherries, and apricot trees. Wine grapes are also plentiful and profitable.

Standard field crops include grains, hay, nursery plants, and seeds that cover the entire field in which the crops are planted.

Agricultural operations are an important source of local farm-fresh food within San Benito County and are transported throughout the United States and to several other countries on most continents, including South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia.

2.c
Packet Pg. 382

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-3
Photo by Nicole Larusso
There are three soil associations within the Hollister Planning Area under the classification system of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture:
Soils of the Sorrento-Yolo Mocho association consist of nearly level to sloping soils that formed in very deep alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks and underlie the central and western portions of the Planning Area. The dominant soils in this association are very deep and well drained and include some of the most productive soils in the country.
Soils of the Rincon-Antioch-Cropley association consist of nearly level to strongly sloping soils on fans and terraces and underlie the southeastern quadrant of the Planning Area. These soils are very well drained, although erosion is a problem on the more sloping soils.
Soils of the Clear Lake-Pacheco-Willows association consist of nearly level and gently sloping soils that formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks and underlie the northern portion of the Planning Area. For these soils to support agricultural activity, drainage is needed in most areas, and reclamation may be necessary in those areas affected by salts and alkali.

2.c
Packet Pg. 383

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-4
Figure OS-1: Important Farmland and Williamson Act Contracts

2.c
Packet Pg. 384

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-5
Photo by Jaquelyn Scimeca

9.2 OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT GOALS,

POLICIES, AND ACTIONS
The following section provides goals, policies, and actions relating to open space and agriculture in Hollister.

9.2.1 O PEN S PACE P RESERVATION
GOAL OS-1 Preserve and protect open space and the natural environment for all to enjoy. (Goal OS1)

P OLICIES
Policy OS-1.1 Open Space Preservation. Retain and protect open space areas through the protection of prime farmlands, the prevention of new development in areas subject to natural and human-caused hazards, that serve as wildlife habitat or as visual assets for the community, and where the development of additional parks and trails is possible. Open space areas can also function as connections between neighborhoods, for example with the creation of pedestrian pathways in environmentally appropriate areas. (Policy OS1.1)
Policy OS-1.2 Access to Open Space. Encourage access to open space areas in the design of adjacent development. Secure access paths as part of subdivision approvals and design access paths to avoid or minimize neighborhood and user conflicts with sensitive wildlife habitat areas. (Policy OS1.8)
Policy OS-1.3 Cluster Development. Wherever feasible, encourage those proposing development to cluster planned residential
development, leaving open space buffers in proposed site plans, particularly on the borders of development facing agricultural uses and State Routes 25 and 156. This will diminish the potential for land use conflicts and improve opportunities for visual harmonization between agricultural and urban activities. (Policy OS1.2)
Policy OS-1.4 Utilities in Open Space. Discourage utilities in open space areas.

Necessary utilities in open space should be located and designed to minimize harm to the area’s environmental and visual quality. (Policy OS1.6)

2.c
Packet Pg. 385

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-6
Photo by Kent Rossi
Policy OS-1.5 Open Space Use. Protect and preserve the natural value of open space and wildlife habitat areas while permitting educational and recreational uses compatible with these resources. Uses of open space areas shall be secondary to open space preservation. (Policy OS1.5)
Policy OS-1.6 Site Planning to Preserve Open Space. Consider the use of creative site planning in a way that is responsive to open space values. Require those proposing new development to design open spaces to minimize paved areas and to maximize
landscaping to reduce outdoor air temperatures around
buildings in warm weather. (Policy OS1.3)
Policy OS-1.7 Coordination with Other Jurisdictions. Coordinate Hollister’s open space preservation and enhancement with other County of San Benito, regional, and state open space preservation efforts. (Policy OS1.7)
Policy OS-1.8 Private Open Space Uses. In designating open space as part of a development project or with the dedication of land for open space, identify limitations to uses in those areas, such as restrictions on ornamental landscaping, structures, and fences. (Implementation Measure OS.F)

A CTIONS
Action OS-1.1 Open Space Management Plan(s). Prepare one or more Open Space Management Plan(s) and zoning amendments that
address the following:
 Use and ongoing maintenance of open space areas.
 Appropriate access points, parking areas, public
information signage, and trail extensions.
 Restoration of erosion and other degraded areas.
 Guidelines for the location of amenities such as picnic tables and benches.
 Activities harmful to the open space environment,
including illegal camping and campfires and disease
control, urban/wildlife interface, recreation, and other uses.
 Vegetation management and protection issues.

2.c
Packet Pg. 386

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-7
Photo by Jenny Knerr
This work should be accomplished with guidance by a
committee with representatives from neighborhood
associations, environmental organizations, user groups, and other stakeholders. (Implementation Measure OS.B)

9.2.2 A GRICULTURE P RESERVATION
GOAL OS-2 Preserve viable agricultural activities and lands. (Goal OS2)

P OLICIES
Policy OS-2.1 Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land. Require that all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for preservation of twice as much agricultural land in perpetuity. (new)
Policy OS-2.2 Agricultural Buffers. Require that developers of all new developments adjoining agricultural land provide a 200-foot buffer to ensure that agricultural practices will not be adversely affected, and that developers also pay a fee adequate to allow the City to maintain this buffer land. (new)
Policy OS-2.3 San Benito County Future Development Areas. Encourage the County of San Benito to focus future development within the areas identified for development in this City of Hollister General Plan, so as to help protect agricultural lands and preserve open space areas within the other portions of the Hollister Planning Area. (Part of Policy OS2.2)
Policy OS-2.4 Coordination with San Benito County to Preserve Important Farmlands. Coordinate with the County of San Benito in efforts to maintain prime farmlands, unique farmlands, and farmlands of statewide significance in active agricultural use and in all efforts to maintain the continued economic viability of agriculture within the Hollister Planning Area. (Part of Policy OS2.2)

2.c
Packet Pg. 387

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-8
Photo by Sabrina Stark
Policy OS-2.5 Residential Development Near Agricultural Areas. Require developers to inform potential buyers of homes near agricultural areas of the possible hazards associated with the application of pesticides/herbicides and nuisances from other cultivation practices. In those cases where the County of San Benito’s Right- to-Farm Ordinance applies to the City review of projects, homeowners shall also be informed of this ordinance by
developers. (Policy OS2.4)

A CTIONS
Action OS-2.1 Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion. Create and adopt an agricultural preservation program to address the conversion of land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City Limits and Sphere of Influence to nonagricultural uses. (new)
Action OS-2.2 Agricultural Buffer Ordinance. Adopt a zoning program that requires developers of new projects adjoining agricultural land to provide, fund, and maintain a 200-foot buffer to ensure that agricultural practices will not be adversely affected. (new) (1) The ordinance shall include agricultural buffer guidelines, including, but not limited to, the following:
 Buffers shall be on the parcel for which a permit is sought and shall protect the maximum amount of farmable land.
 Buffers shall be physically and biologically designed to avoid conflicts between agriculture and nonagricultural uses.
 Appropriate types of land use for buffers include
compatible agriculture, open space, landscaping, and
recreational uses, such as parks, industrial uses, and
cemeteries.
 The buffer may include spatial separations (e.g.,
greenbelts, open space setbacks), fencing, and/or
berming.
 The City or County will condition the approval of a project on the ongoing maintenance of buffers.

2.c
Packet Pg. 388

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-9
Photo by Sabrina Stark
 A homeowner’s association, agricultural land trusts, or other appropriate entity shall be required to maintain
buffers to control litter, fire hazards, pests, and other maintenance problems.
 Buffer restrictions may be removed if agricultural uses on all adjacent parcels have permanently ceased.

Action OS-2.3 Urban Growth Boundary. Work with the County of San Benito and the City of San Juan Bautista to establish and maintain an Urban Growth Boundary that delineates future urbanization areas from areas in which urbanization will not occur, so as to protect agricultural and open space uses. Lands outside of the Urban Growth Boundary shall only be designated for agriculture, park, open space, public facility, and utility uses. When establishing the Urban Growth Boundary, the following qualities should be taken into consideration: access to infrastructure, public services, transit, healthcare, and commercial uses; preserving farmland; and establishing a buffer between urban and rural uses. (new)
Action OS-2.4 Agricultural Community Disclosure Ordinance. Develop, adopt, and enforce an Agricultural Community Disclosure Ordinance (similar to the County of San Benito’s Right to Farm Ordinance No. 577) that applies to all future subdivisions adjacent to or incorporating agricultural operations.
(Implementation Measure OS.A)

2.c
Packet Pg. 389

CITY OF HOLLISTER 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN

9. OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT
OS-10
This page left intentionally blank.

2.c
Packet Pg. 390

From:Ambur Cameron
To:Carey Stone; David Early
Cc:Eva Kelly; Christine Hopper
Subject:FW: Hollister 2040
Date:Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:10:48 PM
Good afternoon Carey,
Please see the email below from Sara Steiner providing comment on the draft 2040 Hollister General Plan.

Thank you,
Ambur
Get Involved In Community Planning!
General Plan Update Hollister2040.org|[email protected] DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT. REGULAR PUBLIC HOURS
Monday – Thursday 8:30a - 12:00p, 1:00p - 4:30p
Friday – Sunday CLOSED
ALL Planning Applications require an appointment with a City Planner for submittal.

From: Sara Steiner
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:14 AM
To: GeneralPlan
Subject: Hollister 2040
If not too late to comment on the draft 2040 Hollister General Plan but I know how difficult it is to engage people and I want you to know that I am!
First, thank you to the facilitators for the opportunity to participate via Zoom as part of public comment. The meetings were well organized and I believe everyone was welcomed and given the opportunity to express their concerns, and more importantly, were heard.

I spoke in support of agriculture, open space and wildlife. Hollister is between a "rock and a hard place”, located in the center of the county’s best prime agricultural farm lands. At the same time it is important to prevent leap frog development and concentrate growth around the city. I am pleased that the draft recognizes the need for 2:1 development mitigation of our important agricultural lands. Anything less will not preserve or support our farming community.

The definition of prime and important agriculture must be updated to reflect innate potential

2.c
Packet Pg. 391

use and not the current system based on arbitrary productivity.

Land preserved as mitigation for development should be located within our county and with an eye towards long term sustainability of San Benito County’s important economic and environmental farming and ranching heritage.

The recommendation of the draft Plan is to create policies that protect agriculture and wildlife and mitigate its take. This is an important guide for planning department actions and accountability.

Thank you,
Sara Steiner
Sara A. Steiner

2.c
Packet Pg. 392

From:Eva Kelly
To:Carey Stone; David Early
Cc:Christine Hopper; Ambur Cameron
Subject:FW: Comments on General Plan
Date:Tuesday, August 8, 2023 9:15:18 AM
Good morning Carey and David,
Please see the comment below regarding the draft general plan.

Best,
Eva
Get Involved In Community Planning!
General Plan Update
Hollister2040.org|[email protected]
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT. REGULAR PUBLIC HOURS
Monday - Thursday 8:30a - 12:00p, 1:00p - 4:30p
Friday - Sunday CLOSED
ALL Planning Applications require an appointment with a City Planner for submittal.

From: Deirdre Ryan
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 3:16 PM
To: GeneralPlan
Subject: Comments on General Plan
Hi Planning Department,
First off, while admitting I didn't have the time to read everything completely, great job on well-written and thorough plans.

I was born and raised in the Hollister planning area (outside the urban boundary) and my comments are influenced by that experience as well as my years living overseas (different city design) and my professional experience as a research scientist (sea- level fluctuation as related to climate change).

Increasing the number of parks and green spaces and improved alternatives to car transportation are all excellent (I hope that includes intercity transit as well). More bike

2.c
Packet Pg. 393

paths and more walkable spaces - yes please. Increased tree cover - super great.

Planting with natives or other low-water, non-invase plants - awesome. Solar panels - yay.

Things I find not so great are related to air quality and climate change. I have noticed a marked increased in smog over Hollister. Undoubtedly related to the increase increased in population and people commuting into and out of the city for work. (One of the reasons I love the improved transporation alternatives.) Therefore, I am somewhat concerned about the eased restrictions to increasing industry. I was very displeased to hear that Amazon is opening a warehouse here. I fail to see how increasing the number of vehicles on our (let's be honest - really shitty roads) does anything positive for air quality, with the knock on public health effects. It seems Strada Verde falls outside of the General Plan juristiction but I have very similar feelings regarding that (in case any of you are working on county stuff as well).

I would also like to see more mixed use zoning and more medium-high density zoning. Both somewhat to address the urban sprawl growth the city seems to be prioritizing now. Mixed use, specifically to allow more mom and pop / convenience stores in the low density areas of the city. For example the grocery stores are all located in the center of town. If a person lives out near the current boundaries they have no alternative but to get in their car and drive to the store for something as simple as a carton of milk. It would be great if some of the essential services were available within walking / biking distance throughout town. Sort of like little business nodes within the city. This could have a positive health impact and possibly help reduce emissions.

Finally, can you find some better commercial zone developers? That new shopping center between McCray and 25 is a desolate sea of asphalt. The parking lot is so huge and not friendly for pedestrians. Even walking to the adjacent Walgreens is difficult. I recongize that parking is a necessity but why not have it to one side? All the store fronts could be facing each other with a car free pedestrian zone in between. It would certainly make eating outside in front of one of the food places more enjoyabe rather than being between the highway and a parking lot.

Thanks for your time and efforts.

Best Wishes,
Deirdre
--
"Science says the first word on everything, and the last word on nothing." - Victor Hugo

2.c
Packet Pg. 394

August 7, 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Parts of the 2040 GP Update you are to review are schizophrenic. Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest would like a lot.

On a vacant 8 acre island surrounded by a 40 year old established neighborhood of single family homes the current density of 8 homes/acre is to be upsized to 60 homes/acre.1 Per proforma in the pending BMR ordinance, the density would have to be increased another 60% to be feasible. Building 100 homes/acre would require a 4-5 story structure with at least the bottom floor a parking maze. And the traffic from those 800 homes would funnel down 2 blind streets all onto Powell Street. It may look good for future RHNA numbers, but is it really feasible? The majority of Hollister lives in a single family home. Would you all want a 4-5 story complex looking into your backyard? After spending over half a million dollars, this is the best planning money can buy?
Across town at the east end of Hillcrest Road, there are about 100 acres within the SOI of worthless agricultural land currently designated as a Priority Infill Area, which the 2040 GP proposes to downsize from 8 homes/acre to one home/5 acres, a 40 times downsizing.2 The County GP designates it as Residential Mixed, upto 20 homes/acre. At the same time the adjacent 30 acres to the east and further from downtown, is to be designated commercial. And the trap is already set to have this area be addressed in a future Specific Plan. Translation – somebody spend another half million dollars to put words on paper, build a four-lane extension of Meridian Street, a bridge and include the mandatory roundabout, all to service 20 homes? Remember, a specific plan cannot change the density designated in the GP. When is the last time anyone has seen 5 acre residential estate homes backed up to a commercial area? And in the same breath, to meet RHNA numbers, the 2040 GP intends to expand the SOI, gobble up productive agricultural land, promote urban sprawl and increase VMT. How is this a top shelf Climate Action Plan?
What about Gov. Code §66300(b)(i)(A)? 3
Shall not enact a development policy … Changing the general plan land use designation … to a less intensive use … below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018.

Planning and City attorneys are determined to play hardball. State law permits our 43 acre parcel along Hillcrest Road to submit a tentative map for 429 homes of which 18 would be for very-low-income households, a park and a site for a childcare facility. This parcel is also an island in the County. It had an EIR certified, a Deferred Improvement Agreement recorded and half street frontages along Hillcrest and Meridian dedicated to the City in 1990. 1 Glenmore Drive/Powell Street area.
2 Meridian Extension area.
3 Gov. Code Section §66300.

2.c
Packet Pg. 395

By state law and City ordinance, only the planning commission has authority to disapprove a tentative map. But the fix is in. The City and its attorneys have schemed to simply not provide an appointment to file the maps. This will deny their processing and right to public hearing, just in case Commissioners show interest or merit in the project.4 And the cherry – Planning and City attorneys have concocted their refusal to provide an appointment to file a tentative map permitted by statute, is not appealable.5,6 Perfect, Planning and their attorneys know best, no need for Planning Commission or Council oversight. No wonder the state laments there is a shortage of affordable housing. Is this still America? Happy to discuss any of the above further. Call anytime – We appreciate your unenviable task.

Thx,
Ingrid and Alex Sywak.
4 Ms. Breen to City attorney, dated July 18, 2023.
5 Ms. Breen to City attorney, dated July 24, 2023.
6 City attorney to Ms. Breen, dated July 26, 2023.

2.c
Packet Pg. 396

Attachment 1

2.c
Packet Pg. 397

Attachment 2

2.c
Packet Pg. 398

Attachment 3

GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58]
( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 - 66301]
( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) CHAPTER 12. Housing Crisis Act of 2019 [66300 - 66301]
( Chapter 12 added by Stats. 2019, Ch. 654, Sec. 13. )
66300.
(a)As used in this section:
(1)(A) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), “affected city” means a city, including a charter city, that the Department of Housing and Community Development determines, pursuant to subdivision (e), is in an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), “affected city” does not include any city that has a population of 5,000 or less and is not located within an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(2)“Affected county” means a census-designated place, based on the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, that is wholly located within the boundaries of an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (3)Notwithstanding any other law, “affected county” and “affected city” includes the electorate of an affected county or city exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the affected county or city.
(4)“Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development. (5)“Development policy, standard, or condition” means any of the following:
(A)A provision of, or amendment to, a general plan.
(B)A provision of, or amendment to, a specific plan.
(C)A provision of, or amendment to, a zoning ordinance. (D)A subdivision standard or criterion.
(6)“Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b)of Section 65905.5.
(7)“Objective design standard” means a design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application. (b)(1) Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or condition that would have any of the following effects:
(A)Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect

2.c
Packet Pg. 399

on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (i). For purposes of this subparagraph, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.
(B)(i) Imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development, including mixed-use development, within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the affected county or city, other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium or for projects specifically identified as existing restricted affordable housing. (ii)The affected county or affected city, as applicable, shall not enforce a zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium or other similar restriction on or limitation of housing development until it has submitted the ordinance to, and received approval from, the department. The department shall approve a zoning ordinance submitted to it pursuant to this subparagraph only if it determines that the zoning ordinance satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph. If the department denies approval of a zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development as inconsistent with this subparagraph, that ordinance shall be deemed void. (C)Imposing or enforcing design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards.
(D)Except as provided in subparagraph (E), establishing or implementing any provision that:
(i)Limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that will be issued or allocated within all or a portion of the affected county or affected city, as applicable.
(ii)Acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed either annually or for some other time period.
(iii)Limits the population of the affected county or affected city, as applicable. (E)Notwithstanding subparagraph (D), an affected county or affected city may enforce a limit on the number of approvals or permits or a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed if the provision of law imposing the limit was approved by voters prior to January 1, 2005, and the affected county or affected city is located in a predominantly agricultural county. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “predominantly agricultural county” means a county that meets both of the following, as determined by the most recent California Farmland Conversion Report produced by the Department of Conservation:
(i)Has more than 550,000 acres of agricultural land.
(ii)At least one-half of the county area is agricultural land. (2)Any development policy, standard, or condition enacted on or after the effective date of this section that does not comply with this section shall be deemed void. (c)Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (f), an affected county or affected city may enact a development policy, standard, or condition to prohibit the commercial use of land that is designated for residential use, including, but not limited to, short-term occupancy of a residence, consistent with the authority conferred on the county or city by other law. (d)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section and notwithstanding local density requirements, both of the following shall apply:

2.c
Packet Pg. 400

(1)An affected city or an affected county shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of one or more residential dwelling units unless the project will create at least as many residential dwelling units as will be demolished. (2)An affected city or an affected county shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of occupied or vacant protected units, unless all of the following apply:
(A)(i) The project will replace all existing or demolished protected units. (ii)Any protected units replaced pursuant to this subparagraph shall be considered in determining whether the housing development project satisfies the requirements of Section 65915 or a locally adopted requirement that requires, as a condition of the development of residential rental units, that the project provide a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households, as specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (B)The housing development project will include at least as many residential dwelling units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existed on the project site within the last five years.
(C)(i) Any existing occupants will be allowed to occupy their units until six months before the start of construction activities with proper notice, subject to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1.
(ii)Any existing occupants that are required to leave their units shall be allowed to return at their prior rental rate if the demolition does not proceed and the property is returned to the rental market.
(D)The developer agrees to provide both of the following to the existing occupants of any protected units that are lower income households:
(i)Relocation benefits to the occupants of those affordable residential rental units, subject to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1. (ii)A right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housing development affordable to the household at an affordable rent or an affordable housing cost. This clause shall not apply to any of the following:
(I)A development project that consists of a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is being demolished.
(II)(ia) Units in a housing development in which 100 percent of the units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are reserved for lower income households. (ib) Notwithstanding sub-subclause (ia), clause (ii) shall apply to protected units occupied by an occupant who qualifies for residence in the new development and for whom providing a comparable unit would not be precluded due to unit size limitations or other requirements of one or more funding source of the housing development.
(iii)(I) For purposes of complying with clause (ii), if one or more single-family homes that qualify as protected units are being replaced in a development project that consists of two or more units, “comparable unit” means either of the following, as applicable:
(ia) A unit containing the same number of bedrooms if the single-family home contains three or fewer bedrooms.
(ib) A unit containing three bedrooms if the single-family home contains four or more bedrooms.
(II)For purposes of this clause, a comparable unit is not required to have the same or similar square footage or the same number of total rooms.

2.c
Packet Pg. 401

(iv)This subparagraph does not apply to an occupant of a short-term rental that is rented for a period of fewer than 30 days.
(E)This paragraph does not confer additional legal protections upon an unlawful occupant of a protected unit.
(F)For purposes of this paragraph:
(i)“Affordable housing cost” has the same meaning as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii)“Affordable rent” has the same meaning as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii)“Equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.
(iv)“Persons and families of low or moderate income” has the same meaning as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(v)“Lower income households” has the same meaning as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(vi)“Protected units” means any of the following:
(I)Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years.
(II)Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years. (III)Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low income households within the past five years.
(IV)Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 within the past 10 years.
(vii)(I) “Replace” shall have the same meaning as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915.
(II)Notwithstanding subclause (I), for purposes of a development project that consists of a single residential unit on a site with a single protected unit, “replace” shall mean that the protected unit is replaced with a unit of any size at any income level. (3)This subdivision shall not supersede any objective provision of a locally adopted ordinance that places restrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units or the subdivision of residential rental units that are more protective of lower income households, requires the provision of a greater number of units affordable to lower income households, or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households.
(4)This subdivision shall only apply to a housing development project that submits a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 on or after January 1, 2020. (5)This subdivision shall not apply to a housing development project for which an application was submitted after January 1, 2019, but prior to January 1, 2020, in a jurisdiction with a population of under 31,000 as of the 2020 United States Census that has a rent or price control ordinance. (e)The Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine those cities and counties in this state that are affected cities and affected counties, in accordance with subdivision (a) by June 30, 2020. The department may update the list of affected cities and affected counties once on or after January 1, 2021, and once on or after January 1, 2025, to account for changes in urbanized areas or urban clusters due to new data obtained from the 2020 census. The department’s determination shall remain valid until January 1, 2030.

2.c
Packet Pg. 402

(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) and subdivisions (h) and (i), this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision of this title or other law regulating housing development in this state to the extent that this section more fully advances the intent specified in paragraph (2). (2)It is the intent of the Legislature that this section be broadly construed so as to maximize the development of housing within this state. Any exception to the requirements of this section, including an exception for the health and safety of occupants of a housing development project, shall be construed narrowly.
(3)This section shall not be construed as prohibiting the adoption or amendment of a development policy, standard, or condition in a manner that:
(A)Allows greater density.
(B)Facilitates the development of housing.
(C)Reduces the costs to a housing development project.
(D)Imposes or implements mitigation measures as necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
(4)This section shall not apply to a housing development project located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. For purposes of this paragraph, “very high fire hazard severity zone” has the same meaning as provided in Section 51177.
(g)This section shall not be construed to void a height limit, urban growth boundary, or urban limit established by the electorate of an affected county or an affected city, provided that the height limit, urban growth boundary, or urban limit complies with subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
(h)(1) Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of, or the standards of review pursuant to, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(2)Nothing in this section supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). For a housing development project proposed within the coastal zone, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an affected county or an affected city from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition necessary to implement or amend a certified local coastal program consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(i)(1) This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city, including the local electorate acting through the initiative process, from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use, or reducing the intensity of land use, if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity. (2)(A) For purposes of this subdivision, “concurrently” means the action is approved at the same meeting of the legislative body.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the action that would result in a net loss of residential capacity is requested by an applicant for a housing development project, “concurrently” means within 180 days.
(C)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of an initiative measure, “concurrently” means the action is included in the initiative in a manner that ensures the added residential capacity is effective at the same time as the reduction in residential capacity.

2.c
Packet Pg. 403

(3)(A) (i) The City of San Jose may proactively change a zoning ordinance to a more intensive use and subsequently use the additional capacity to change a zoning ordinance applicable to an eligible parcel to a less intensive use as long as there is no net loss in residential capacity. (ii)A change to a zoning ordinance to a less intensive use under this paragraph shall occur within one year of the change to the zoning ordinance to a more intensive use. (iii)For purposes of this paragraph, “eligible parcel” means a parcel that meets all of the following criteria:
(I)It is zoned for residential uses.
(II)It does not have a multifamily housing general plan designation. (III)Its zoning is inconsistent with the general plan of the city in effect on January 1, 2018. (B)A change to a zoning ordinance to a less intensive use under this paragraph shall not be effective until the City of San Jose establishes zoning districts that implement mixed-use neighborhood, urban residential, transit residential, and urban village general plan land use designations.
(C)The City of San Jose shall report each zoning ordinance amendment establishing a less intensive use pursuant to this paragraph in the following ways:
(i)In its annual report submitted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 and submit the annual report to the relevant policy committees of the Legislature each year that the City of San Jose adopts a zoning ordinance amendment pursuant to this paragraph. (ii)Electronically on an internet website accessible to the public by the time the zoning ordinance amendment is in effect.
(D)This paragraph shall become inoperative upon the date that the City of San Jose’s housing element update for the sixth cycle is due pursuant to Section 65588. (4)This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use on a site that is a mobilehome park, as defined in Section 18214 of the Health and Safety Code, as of the effective date of this section, and the no net loss requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply.
(j)Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (f), this section does not prohibit an affected city or an affected county from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that is intended to preserve or facilitate the production of housing for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or housing types that traditionally serve lower income households, including mobilehome parks, single-room occupancy units, or units subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. (k)The amendments to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), and to paragraph (1) of subdivision (i) made by the act adding this subdivision do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
(Amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 161, Sec. 11. (SB 8) Effective January 1, 2022. Repealed as of January 1, 2034, pursuant to Section 66301.)

2.c
Packet Pg. 404

Attachment 4
7/31/23, 6:58 AMGmail - RE: City of Hollister | Natmar Application

Alexander Sywak
RE: City of Hollister | Natmar Application
Christine Breen Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:02 AM
To: "Jennifer P. Thompson"
Cc: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , " Ingrid Sywak
Planning Dept , "Mary F. Lerner"
Jennifer,
Thank you for your response. My client respectfully disagrees, and requests the City reconsider its decision.

The City actually is required to accept entitlement applications for parcels outside of City limits. “When a tentative map is submitted and deemed complete, a local agency must approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within time limits established in the Government Code.” (Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1198.) “[A] landowner is entitled to notice and a hearing, a decision based upon factual findings rather than speculation, and a right of review of the decision. A landowner is obviously not necessarily entitled to approval, but the landowner is entitled to agency action based upon appropriate criteria and to approval unless the agency finds cause for denial. (Id. at 1201.) Government Code sec. 66454 gives the City discretion whether to approve an application, but it does not authorize the City to refuse to process an application.

Secondly, my client intends to submit a petition along with his application pursuant to sec.

16.080.050 of the City’s Code. The petition must be considered by the planning commission with findings reported to the City Council.

Accordingly, my client requests an appointment to submit his vesting tentative map at the soonest available date. Please let us know when that it. Thank you. Christine Christine O. Breen
330 Tres Pinos Road, Suite F8-4
Hollister, CA 95023

2.c
Packet Pg. 405

Attachment 5
7/31/23, 7:00 AMGmail - RE: City of Hollister | Natmar Application

Alexander Sywak
RE: City of Hollister | Natmar Application
Christine Breen Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:35 AM
To: "Jennifer P. Thompson"
Cc: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , Ingrid Sywak
Planning Dept , "Mary F. Lerner"
Jennifer,
Hollister Code of Ordinances 17.24.140 Appeals (A)(1.), provides: Determinations … that are believed to be in error, and cannot be resolved with Department staff, are appealable to the Planning Commission.

Please provide an appointment time this week for my client to file appeals to the Planning Commission.

Please confirm the filing fee for each project’s appeal remains $1,347.00 plus $101.03, a total of $1,448.03.

Thank you. Christine
[Quoted text hidden]

2.c
Packet Pg. 406

Attachment 6
7/31/23, 7:01 AMGmail - RE: City of Hollister | Natmar Application

Alexander Sywak
RE: City of Hollister | Natmar Application
Jennifer P. Thompson Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:21 PM
To: Christine Breen
Cc: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , , Ingrid Sywak
, Planning Dept , "Mary F. Lerner"
Hello Christine,
As was previously explained to Mr. Sywak in the attached email, the City not accepting his applications for parcels outside City limits is not an appealable decision. The Hollister Municipal Code Section you reference is related to decisions interpreting the City’s zoning ordinance which is inapplicable because the City is not accepting Mr. Sywak’s applications based upon State law. I will also point out that because the parcels are outside City limits, they are not subject to the City’s zoning ordinance and cannot, therefore, rely upon the zoning ordinance to appeal.

The City Attorney’s Office and City staff consider this matter concluded.

Thank you,
Jennifer P. Thompson | Attorney at Law
656 Santa Rosa Street, Suite
3B
, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
T: 805.471.7080 F: 916.329.9050
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information only for use by the intended recipients. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message (or any information contained in or attached to it) to anyone. You may be subject to civil action and/or criminal penalties for violation of this restriction. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone at (800) 445-

2.c
Packet Pg. 407

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2023
SUBMITTED: September 1, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Planning
Christine Hopper, Development
Services Director

TITLE OF ITEM: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The City Council will hold a study session to discuss the draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and will provide direction to staff.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation, take public comment, and provide direction regarding the draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The City of Hollister contracted with Placeworks Inc. to prepare an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which will require new residential development projects to provide affordable housing as a percentage of the overall development. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at a public hearing on March 23, 2023 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2023-10 recommending approval of the ordinance to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing for the first reading of the draft ordinance on May 1, 2023. During that meeting, the City Council directed staff and Placeworks to host an additional public workshop and study session to receive further feedback and public comment on the draft ordinance prior to adoption. The staff report and draft ordinance from the May 1, 2023 meeting are attached to this report as a reference.

Staff held a public workshop on August 3, 2023 to receive feedback on the draft ordinance. A summary of the workshop and public comments received is attached to this report. The study session will provide an opportunity for additional public comment as well as for the City Council to provide feedback to staff on the draft ordinance. Pending direction from the City Council, staff will revise the ordinance as necessary, and schedule adoption hearings before the Planning Commission (if revisions are directed) and City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. IH_Workshop_Memo

2. 2023.05.01 CC Staff Report and Draft Ordinance

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

David Mirrione, City Manager

3 Packet Pg. 408

MEMORANDUM
DATE August 25, 2023
TO Eva Kelly, Ambur Cameron and Christine Hopper
City of Hollister
FROM Greg Goodfellow
SUBJECT Inclusionary Housing Workshop Results and Study Session Recommendations Eva, Ambur and Christy,
This Memo includes results and insights from the August 3, 2023, Inclusionary Housing (IH) Workshop at the City of Hollister Veteran’ Memorial Hall.

Twenty members of the public, excluding the project team and city staff members, attended the event in-person. Ten to fifteen community members participated virtually.

MEMO FRAMEWORK
The structure of this Memo parallels the eight questions of the “IH Preference Worksheet” (Appendix A) completed by workshop participants. Quantitative results of the questions are summarized and “Potential Study Session Topics” are presented. These topics are derived from participants’ questions and comments expressed during the discussion of the relevant worksheet section.

SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION
There were two significant workshop participation trends. First, nearly all participants engaged in robust discussions about all components of IH. These include the position of IH in the larger context of state and local housing regulation; the households and demographics set to benefit from IH and the impact of IH on Hollister’s built environment. At the same time, participants had many questions regarding the various technical components of IH, the administration of the policy and other ordinance details.

Similarly, not all participants completed the IH Preference Worksheet, and some who did, did not answer the more technical questions. PlaceWorks has concluded that:
» Residents of Hollister are supportive of inclusionary housing and the provision of affordable housing in general. Workshop participants demonstrated a commitment to involvement and understanding of IH policy.
» Inclusionary housing is complex and technical, and understanding the policy requires a learning curve that may have impacted full participation during this workshop. However, the workshop established a foundation of understanding that will inform the upcoming City Council Study Session.

3.a
Packet Pg. 409

August 25, 2023 | Page 2

QUESTION 1: MINIMUM AFFORDBAILITY REQUIREMENT
Summary: Community members prefer a 15% IH affordability requirement, with no density bonus.

Workshop participants were given the opportunity to select either a 20% affordability requirement with a local density bonus, as currently drafted in the IH Ordinance; a 15% requirement with no local density bonus, or “Other.” Participants nearly unanimously the selected 15% option, with only one participant choosing “Other,” in the form of a 15% requirement paired with a local density bonus.

No participants selected the 20% option. Multiple participants submitted strong verbal and written comments highlighting the perceived risk of a 20% requirement. One in-person resident wrote that it would “result in no housing construction….no CDBGs, lawsuits, community members left behind, piling into houses, [and] parking on lawns…” Another stated that it “…is essentially a housing moratorium.” Potential Study Session Topics
» Missing Middle Housing Support. Participants discussed the fact that while low-income households need housing support, so do middle income families. As stressed, there is a gap in housing opportunities for “missing middle” 1st time homebuyers and “we need opportunities to purchase housing in the $550-$700K range as well.”
» IH and State Housing. There is a need to contextualize IH policy for residents. Participants asked if IH is tied to the RHNA process and other state affordability laws, and whether the City’s RHNA number would impact the IH ordinance.

QUESTION 2: SPLIT OF AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ACROSS INCOME LEVELS Summary: Community members prefer allocating a higher proportion of required units to lower-income households, as currently drafted.

The second topic of the worksheet and discussion was the split of IH requirements across household income levels. The current Draft IH Ordinance includes the following split:

1. No more than six percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to Moderate Income Households.

2. Up to 13 percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to Low Income Households.

3. Seven to 20 percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to Very Low Income Households.

As shown in Figure 1, workshop results indicate that in general, the community agrees with the idea that more units should be made affordable to Low and Very Low Income households. About half of responders answered that three percent of Moderate Income units should be made affordable, while all responders felt that either five or six percent of Low Income units should be made affordable. Very Low Income units were also skewed to the higher end of affordability requirement, with deviations at both ends of the affordability spectrum.

3.a
Packet Pg. 410

August 25, 2023 | Page 3
Figure 1. Affordability Across Household Income

Potential Study Session Topics
» Sliding Scale vs. Straight Requirements. As described above, the current Draft Ordinance does not include defined required percentages for each affordability level but is designed to offer flexibility.

Some participants questioned this method and suggested a set of limited requirements may be more straightforward.

QUESTION 3: HOUSING TENURE
Summary: Community members feel that a larger portion of for-rent housing should be dedicated to lower-income units than that of for-sale units.

Per the current Draft IH Ordinance, the 20% affordability requirement applies equally to for-sale and rental housing projects. Participants were asked how their preferred total IH requirement should apply to housing projects of different tenure.

As shown in Figure 2, participants generally feel that most of the desired 15% total requirement should be allocated to for-rent development, with about 70% of responders stating that that an affordability requirement of at least 10% should be allocated to for-rent development. The remainder stated that all 15% should be allocated to for-rent housing. On the other hand, 80 percent of participants felt that an affordability requirement of 7.5 percent or less should be applied to for-sale housing.

0%20%40%60%80%100%
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Percent of Worksheet Responses
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

L
e
v
e
l

3% Affordable 5% Affordable 6% Affordable 7% Affordable

3.a
Packet Pg. 411

August 25, 2023 | Page 4
Figure 2. Application of IH Requirements to Housing Tenure Type

Potential Study Session Topics
» Ability of VLI households to purchase homes. Two participants stated verbally that VLI requirements should be skewed to for-rent units, because VLI households are unlikely to afford home buy-in costs such as a down payment. However, another participant stressed that first-time buyer programs can make home purchase possible for all households, including VLI households. » Constructing Rental Units for For-Sale Requirements. A potential topic of the study session is whether the IH ordinance should include a clause that states that all or some of the required IH units for for-sale developments, should be dedicated to rental housing. One workshop participant suggested that this would further ensure needed rental housing for low income households. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
For-Sale For-Rent
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
Housing Tenure Type
5% Affordable 7.5% Affordable 10% Affordable 15% Affordable

3.a
Packet Pg. 412

August 25, 2023 | Page 5
QUESTION 4: MINIMUM PROJECT SIZE
Summary: Community members support the currently-drafted minimum project size of 10-units.

The current draft ordinance includes a minimum project size of 10 units. Asked what their preferred minimum size threshold is, nearly all workshop participants selected “As drafted.’ Only one responder suggested raising the threshold to 15 units.

Potential Study Session Topics
There were no additional questions or comments related to this topic during the workshop.

QUESTION 5: IN-LIEU FEE OPTION FOR FOR-SALE HOUSING
Summary: The community is split on offering an in-lieu fee option for for-sale housing.

In accordance with state law for IH ordinances with for-rent affordability requirements greater than 15%, the current draft IH Ordinance includes an in-lieu fee option for all for-rent developments. As currently drafted, the option is not available for for-sale housing.

Fifty-five percent of respondents stated that an in-lieu fee should be made available to developers of for-sale housing, while 45 percent stated it should not. As indicated by the following questions and comments, the establishment and administration of in-lieu fees is a complicated process that may impact the community’s ability to make an informed decision on the topic.

Potential Study Session Topics
» In-lieu Fee Calculation and Process. Participants asked what kind of analysis would be performed to set the in-lieu fee. Others questioned why the draft ordinance did not include the specific fee amount and how it was possible to adopt the ordinance without that amount set. The questions indicate the need to outline the in-lieu fee analysis and administration process. » Ensuring the Value of In-lieu Fees. The study session should include a demonstration of how in-lieu fees will be adequate to cover the cost of constructing for-sale units. One participant stressed that because the “the fees won’t ever cover the cost of building the homes”, no developer would take on the process of actual construction over fee payment. » In-Lieu Fee Alternatives. Some participants suggested allowing options for in-lieu fees, such as having the fees credited in the form of on-site, vacant lots that would made available for BMR development by non-profit affordable builders.

QUESTION 6: ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
Summary: Community members overwhelmingly support developer options for complying with IH affordability requirements.

3.a
Packet Pg. 413

August 25, 2023 | Page 6
The current draft ordinance does not include options for complying with the current 20 percent affordability requirement, other than the state-required in-lieu fee for rental housing. Participants were shown a list of potential compliance options and asked which, if any, they support. The worksheet also included a “None” option, which no responders selected.

As shown in Figure 3, while all the potential alternative compliance options were selected by participants at a consistent rate, there was a slight preference for:
» Partnering with non-profit affordable housing builders. » Compliance split between affordable units and in-lieu fees

3.a
Packet Pg. 414

August 25, 2023 | Page 7
Figure 3. Alternative IH Compliance Options

Potential Study Session Topics
» Construction of Targeted Support Housing. Based on participant feedback, the community and Council could consider the construction of targeted support housing, such as group homes for needy youth and transitional housing developments, as an alternative to complying with IH requirements.
» Council Selection of Alternatives. There is a broad range of alternative compliance options that could be incorporated into the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. As indicated by participant discussion, the City Council should be prepared to discuss how the City would prioritize the selection of one alternative over another, and the total number of alternatives potentially included in the ordinance.

QUESTION 7: ADDITIONAL IH SUPPORT MEASURES
Summary: There is general sense that residents would like to include IH support measure in the ordinance However, written and verbal feedback on this topic was restricted to fewer participants than that of other topics.

12.9%

16.1%

25.8%

19.4%

12.9%

12.9%
Percent of Worksheet
Resonses Shown
None Off-Site Units
Off-Site Land Dedication Non-Profit Partnerships
Spit Units/In-Lieu Fees Clustering BMR Units
Other

3.a
Packet Pg. 415

August 25, 2023 | Page 8
The current draft ordinance includes a local density bonus developed to support developers in fulfilling IH requirements. Participants were asked what other support measures they support, from reduced parking standards to streamlined project review. Some participants left this answer blank on the worksheet, suggesting limited understanding of the nine IH support measures listed. Of those that answered the question, most selected all measures listed. Additional measures added by responders include:
» Impact fees paid by square feet/unit
» Project site “prezoning” for the development
Potential Study Session Topics
» City Interest in Incentives. Participants questioned how motivated the City is to allow for modifications to development standards, such as new height allowances, setback flexibility and reduced parking minimums. The current IH ordinance allows these for these incentives when fulfilling the density bonus, but not generally.
» Financial Incentives. Some participants raised the issue of providing some sort of financial incentives for developers to support IH development. This Council may wish to consider this issue as part of the study session.

QUESTION 8: OTHER COMMENTS AND ISSUES
The final question of the IH worksheet allowed participants to contribute final thoughts or questions.

The following were recorded both on the worksheets and in the ensuing discussion:
» Restriction to County Residents. One participant stressed that Hollister is already an “inclusionary environment” because “people move here because it is affordable.” The potential for a guarantee that locals would have the opportunity to qualify for the BMR units first was discussed. The community and Council could consider restricting the 15% requirement to existing residents of San Benito County.
» Avoid Clustering. Participants highlighted the desire to ensure that low-income neighborhoods are not clustered together and that neighborhoods include all income ranges and demographics. » Concerns about Density. Participants expressed the following concerns with future high building densities in Hollister:
o Lack of transit and the apparent difficulty building new bus and rail operations into and within Hollister.
o Lack of central parking structures and shared parking downtown. o Provision of open spaces associated with increased population densities. » Need for Collaboration. Participants stressed the need to work with outside advocates, including the San Benito County Homeless/Housing Committees, Silicon Valley Housing Trust and Home Key and other State programs focused on youth homelessness and foster housing » Community Trust. IH housing highlights the need to be careful about systemic racism and community planning, especially in the provision of offsite development. As stated, the entire

3.a
Packet Pg. 416

August 25, 2023 | Page 9
community benefits from the provision of inclusionary housing of all types, from for-sale homes to apartments. The ordinance should be developed so as to facilitate on-site development, to ensure balanced development of market-rate and affordable residential units throughout the community.

In-lieu fees and alternative compliance should be the second choice.

3.a
Packet Pg. 417

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 13, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Planning
Christine Hopper, Development
Services Director

TITLE OF ITEM: ORDINANCE NO. 2033 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-4 TO ADOPT CHAPTER 17.36

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance to Adopt a new Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, into the Zoning Ordinance, which would require new residential development to provide 20% affordable housing units on-site.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance to adopt Chapter 17.36 Inclusionary Housing Program, hold a public hearing, and schedule a second reading of the Ordinance for the May 15, 2023 City Council meeting.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY:

The City of Hollister has engaged with PlaceWorks to prepare the City’s 2040 General Plan Update (GPU). In community discussions, City leaders discussed prioritizing the a ffordable housing stock in Hollister and developing strategies to facilitate the development of affordable housing units. One specific strategy discussed is the creation of an inclusionary housing ordinance to require all new residential development projects to include a percentage of affordable housing units. The City Council, based on recommendations from the General Plan Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, provided staff direction to incorporate an action item into the General Plan Update calling for the creation of a citywide inclusionary housing ordinance that requires all for-sale and rental residential development projects to provide 20% affordable housing units on-site.

In addition, the City of Hollister was awarded SB 2 Planning Grant funding, part of which was allocated for the creation of an inclusionary housing ordinance. With the policy direction that resulted from the ongoing GPU, Staff was directed by the City Council to establish an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the City of Hollister with a 20% affordability requirement, and to prepare a feasibility analysis to assess the potential impacts of that requirement on the financial feasibility of a range of development prototypes.

BACKGROUND:

Assembly Bill (AB) 1505 was enacted to ensure that inclusionary housing ordinances do not unduly constrain housing production or deprive developers of fair and reasonable returns on their investments. Per AB 1505, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has the authority to review the financial feasibility analysis of a local inclusionary housing program if the program requires more than 15 percent of rental units to be restricted to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). AB 1505 also states that HCD may request review of the Feasibility Analysis if any of the following are true:

 The City failed to meet 75% RHNA over 5-year period; or

3.b
Packet Pg. 418

 The City failed to submit housing element for 2+ years.

As a result of AB 1505 and to ensure the City is meeting all State requirements, staff consulted with PlaceWorks to complete a financial feasibility analysis of the 20 percent inclusionary requirement directed by City Council, and to identify incentives required to offset potential financial constraints posed by the requirement. The financial feasibility analysis is based on a series of pro formas of five residential development “prototypes” that are representative of current development trends in Hollister. For each development prototype, the financ ial feasibility of a fully-market rate scenario is compared to the financial feasibility of a scenario that fulfills the 20% inclusionary requirement. The financial feasibility analysis also identifies strategies that are required to be implemented within the proposed ordinance in order to assure that the ordinance does not constrain development.

ANALYSIS:

Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility

Methodology

Feasibility studies for inclusionary housing ordinances determine the quantity of aff ordable housing units that proposed development project(s) can bear while remaining financially feasible. The financial impacts of an inclusionary housing requirement on a residential development project can be determined by comparing the difference between the financial performance of a fully market-rate development project to the same project that provides the required number of below-market rate (BMR) units, while also receiving any available density bonus and other allowed incentives.

Pro Forma

PlaceWorks prepared a series of pro forma financial analyses for each development prototype to identify whether, and how, a 20 percent affordability requirement could be supported by the market-rate components of the project. The pro formas rely on multi-year cash flow projections to achieve the most accurate evaluation of feasibility. PlaceWorks developed three for-sale and two for-rent housing development prototypes that reflect recent development patterns in Hollister. PlaceWorks developed these prototypes using multiple inputs to ensure they are representative of local development patterns and provide for the most accurate analysis possible within the limitations of a financial feasibility assessment.

The five analyzed prototypes are as shown:

 Prototype 1 For-Sale. Low-density single-family detached housing subdivision at a gross density of 4 dwelling units per acre.

 Prototype 2 For-Sale. Medium-density single-family detached housing subdivision at a gross density of 10 dwelling units per acre.

 Prototype 3 For-Sale. High-density stacked-flat condominium project comprising a four-story building with 12 residential units over tuck-under parking, for a gross density of 40 units per acre.

 Prototype 4 Rental. Medium-scale three-story apartment development at a density of 20 units per acre.

3.b
Packet Pg. 419

 Prototype 5 Rental. Larger-scale four-story apartment development at a density of 32 units per acre.

The financial feasibility of each development prototype was analyzed under three different scenarios. The industry-accepted metric of 15% Internal Rate of Return (IRR) was used to determine the feasibility of the for-sale prototypes; 6% Cash-on-Cash (COC) Yield was used for the rental projects:

1. Fully Market Rate Scenario. This scenario consists of a fully market rate development prototype, without the introduction of affordability requirements.

2. Inclusionary Scenario. Under this scenario, seven percent of the development prototype’s housing units are dedicated to very low income households, seven percent to low income households, and six percent to moderate income households, for a total of 20 percent. This scenario also includes the maximum 25% State Density Bonus which is afforded for projects which provide seven percent very low income units.

3. Local Bonus Scenario. In all five development prototypes, the Inclusionary Scenario resulted in financial infeasibility. The Local Bonus Scenario was developed to identify the number of additional market-rate units beyond those allowed under state density bonus law, that would be needed to achieve financial feasibility with the inclusionary requirement. It is assumed this additional density would be facilitated by a locally adopted density bonus allowance.

Summary

Overall, the financial feasibility analysis found the Fully Market-Rate Scenarios of all five development prototypes were financially feasible. The for-sale prototypes achieved IRRs of 17 to 47%, while the rental prototypes demonstrated COC Yields at or above six percent. This is not surprising given they are based on current development patterns and reflect current market trends.

As noted above, the Inclusionary Scenarios of all five prototypes dropped to infeasible levels.

For-sale projects showed IRRs of 6.3% to -19.4% and rental projects achieved COCs of 5.7% and 5.9%. This indicates that a 20% inclusionary requirement consisting of roughly equal proportions of very-low-, low- and moderate-income units will render residential development projects financially infeasible. The addition of units per State Density Bonus L aw is not sufficient to offset that impact.

The results of the Local Bonus Scenario illustrate the additional density that would be required to bring the inclusionary projects to feasibility. This increase ranges from up to 15% for rental projects to up to 55% for smaller, for-sale projects. As such, the analysis finds that in order to ensure that a 20% inclusionary requirement does “unduly constrain” development, the City of Hollister should provide the additional ordinance components:

 A local density bonus allowance that goes beyond the required by State law.

 Increases in allowed site density to accommodate bonus densities.

 An in-lieu fee for rental housing projects, to meet State requirements for an alternative to on-site inclusionary housing provision in rental projects.

3.b
Packet Pg. 420

 An allowance for for-sale residential projects to include affordable attached single -family units in a proportion that constitutes more than the proportion of attached units in the overall project.

 An allowance for single-family detached residential units counted toward the inclusionary requirement to have smaller lots than single-family detached market-rate units in the same residential project.

Inclusionary Ordinance

The purpose of this Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is to enhance the public welfare by facilitating the development of housing affordable to households of very-low, low, and moderate income, and to ensure the utilization of developable land in the City of Hollister is compatible with State and local housing policies. Requiring inclusionary below market rate (BMR) units within each residential development project is consistent with the City’s current Housing Element goals of developing affordable housing opportunities, creating diverse housing opportunities for existing and future residents, and maintaining economic diversity and geographically dispersed affordable housing.

Goals of the 2015-2023 Housing Element

Goal H4.1 promote a fair share of well-designed affordable and varied housing in all neighborhoods throughout the City.

Goal H4.4 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element establishes the primary intent to adopt an inclusionary housing policy around the year 2020.

Goal H4.6 focuses on establishing resale controls with future grant and inclusionary programs to ensure homes are maintained at an affordable rate through longer periods of time.

Key Provisions

Within the Inclusionary Ordinance is a set of key provisions as guidance to how the ordinance will be implemented on all future residential development projects.

As shown in Section 17.17.050 of the ordinance, the inclusionary requirements are broken into three income categories to equal the 20% inclusionary requirement with more emphasis is targeted to provide more very-low and low income units.

 At least seven percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to Very Low Income Households.

 At least seven percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to either Very Low Income or Low Income Households.

 At least six percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to Moderate Income Households.

Project Size Exemption

The ordinance indicates residential project developments 10 units or less are not subject to the inclusionary ordinance. All residential development projects greater than 10 units are subject to the inclusionary ordinance and expected to provide 7% very-low, 7% low, and 6% moderate income units.

3.b
Packet Pg. 421

Location & Size of Inclusionary Units

All inclusionary units must demonstrate the following requirements:

 Be built on the same site as the remainder of the Residential Development Project and be reasonably dispersed throughout the Residential Development Project to prevent a concentration of affordable units.

 Have the same access to common open space and shared facilities in the Residential Development Project as do the Market Rate Units.

 Be dispersed throughout the residential development project(s)

Fractional Units

If the number of for-sale and rentals inclusionary units result in a fractional unit equal to one -half (0.5) or more, the fraction shall be rounded to, the next higher whole number and an additional Inclusionary Unit shall be provided. If the number of for-sale and rentals inclusionary units result in a fraction less than one-half (0.5), the developer shall have the option of rounding up to the next whole number and providing the Inclusionary Unit or paying a fee in lieu of providing an additional Inclusionary Unit.

In-Lieu Fee

In-lieu fees shall be set by resolution of the city council and shall be an amount sufficient to pay the proportionate cost of providing Inclusionary Units elsewhere in the city. The fee shall be periodically reviewed and updated by the city council. The amount of in lieu fees shall be included in the City's master fee schedule and may be adjusted annually for inflation using an appropriate index, as determined by the city council.

In-Lieu Payments

A developer of a Rental Residential Development Project may pay a fee may in lieu of providing Inclusionary Units or to offset required fractional units below one-half (0.5) of a unit. A developer of a For-Sale Residential Development Project may only pay a fee to offset required fractional units below one-half (0.5) of a unit and cannot pay a fee in lieu of providing Inclusionary Units.

Density Bonus

The City shall provide a density bonus of up to 56% for for-sale residential projects, and up to 15% for rental residential projects.

Timing of Payment

Payment of in-lieu fees shall be due at the issuance of building permits for the Rental Residential Development Project. For Rental Residential Development Projects constructed in phases, in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit in the proportion the phase bears to the overall Rental Residential Development Project.

Unit Type & Physical Quality

3.b
Packet Pg. 422

 Be built in the same proportion as the Market Rate Unit Types, except as provided in Sections 17.17.080.C and 17.17.080.D.

 Have an average square footage of at least 85 percent of Market Rate Units with the same bedroom count.

 Be developed with the same bedroom count ratio as the Market Rate Units.

 Have the same interior finishes and features as the Market Rate Units.

 Have the same exterior design and overall quality of construction as the Market Rate Units.

Income Requirements & Resale Restrictions

The inclusionary program will require households purchasing an affordable unit qualify based on income and the sales price qualify as affordable to the household. Additionally, the city’s ordinance will restrict future resales for a term of thirty (30) years, so the next purchasing household must also be income-qualified and the sales price represent an affordable housing payment for the purchasing household. If the home is sold within the term, the new homeowner will be subject to a full thirty (30) year affordability requirement.

Monitoring

Homeowners will receive an annual monitoring notice from the City to confirm the owner occupancy requirement and prohibitions against rental of the dwelling. For rental units, an annual monitoring notice from the City will be sent to all management agencies to confirm residents are eligible to affordable units.

PLANNING COMMISSION:

At the March 23, 2023 regular meeting of the City of Hollister Planning Commission, the Commission voted unanimously to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the draft ordinance to the City Council (Resolution 2023-10 attached). There were no proposed changes to the draft ordinance, and no members of the public provided comment during the public hearing.

The full presentation and discussion of the Inclusionary Housing Program can be viewed at the following link, beginning at the 1:17:38 timestamp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1Y450raoTw

The presentation slides which were presented to the Planning Commission are also included as an attachment to this report.

CONCLUSION:

The City of Hollister seeks to use the inclusionary ordinance as a tool to assist in the production of affordable housing. Inclusionary housing is not intended as a single solution to Hollister’s affordable housing needs. Accomplishing state and local housing goals will require an additional combination of planning and zoning strategies, city policy decisions and regional coordination.

However, an inclusionary housing program is one tool that will help the City to meet its RHNA and is discussed in the current Housing Element and a goal in the General Plan Update. City of

3.b
Packet Pg. 423

Hollister staff recommend the City Council to receive and accept the financial feasibility study. In addition to the study, provide staff direction on the adoption of the inclusionary housing ordinance Section 17.36 of the City of Hollister Municipal Code.

CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:

The City Council can choose one of the following options:

1. Introduce the draft ordinance with the intention to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to adopt Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, with the draft Chapter 17.36 included as Exhibit A and the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis included as Exhibit B.

2. Introduce the draft ordinance with the intention to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to adopt Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, with the draft Chapter 17.36 included as Exhibit A and the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis included as Exhibit B with modifications by the City Council; or

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

Staff recommends the City Council select Option 1 for this Item.

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.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit A. DRAFT_IH_FFA_3.15.23

2. Attachment 1. Resolution 2023-10_ZOA 2023-4_Inclusionary Housing

3. Attachment 2. 3.23.23_Hollister PC_Pres_Inclusionary Housing

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

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

David Mirrione, Interim City Manager

3.b
Packet Pg. 424

ORDINANCE NO. 2033

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-4 TO ADOPT CHAPTER 17.36 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the State of California requires local governments to plan to meet the housing needs of all income groups. Specifically, "local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community" pursuant to the State Government Code Section 65580; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a demand for affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households in the City of Hollister as documented in the City of Hollister Housing Element; and

WHEREAS, Housing Element Goal H4 of the General Plan requires the City to develop affordable housing opportunities in the City. Furthermore, Policy H.4 of the Housing Element requires the City to establish a program for increasing affordable housing in the City by requiring residential developers to provide a percentage of the units within a residential development to very low, low and moderate income households; and

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2020 the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-147 accepting awarded grant funding from Housing and Community Development related to the Senate Bill 2:

Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB2) planning grant program; and

WHEREAS, as part of the ongoing 2040 General Plan Update, the City Council at its regular June 21, 2021 discussed affordable housing within the City and potential inclusionary requirements and directed Staff include a 20 percent affordability component as a recommended policy within the 2040 General Plan Update; and

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2021 the City Council, based on the recommended policy direction for the General Plan Update, directed Staff to conduct a financial feasibility analysis and prepare an inclusionary ordinance which requires residential developers to include a 20 percent affordability component utilizing the award SB Planning Grant funds; and

WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022 Staff discussed the inclusionary ordinance with the City Council and the City Council reaffirmed that the inclusionary ordinance should be prepared which requires a 20 percent affordability component for all residential projects; and

WHEREAS, the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis dated January 2023 was prepared by PlaceWorks and is included to this Resolution as Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis used, appropriate methodology to compare the difference between the financial performance of a fully market-rate development project and one that provides the required number of below-market rate (BMR) units while also receiving any available density bonus and other allowed incentives; and

WHEREAS, the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis finds that a 20% inclusionary requirement for for-sale and rental residential projects, consisting of roughly equal proportions of very-low-, low- and moderate-income unit, is financially feasible if the City of Hollister provides additional incentives to the developer as defined in the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis; and

3.b
Packet Pg. 425

WHEREAS, based on policy direction for the 2040 General Plan Update from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), Planning Commission, City Council, and the results of the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis, Staff has prepared Draft Chapter

17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, which requires a 20 percent affordability component for all residential developments over 10 units and includes additional incentives, as recommended in the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis, to ensure financial feasibility of the inclusionary requirement; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 2023 to review the new Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, during which all interested parties were heard; and

WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing the Planning Commission determined to adopt Resolution 2023-10 recommending approval of the draft ordinance to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 1, 2023 to review the new Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, during which all interested parties were heard; and

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

Title 17 Zoning is amended to add Chapter 17.36 Inclusionary Housing Program, which shall read as follows:

Chapter 17.36 – Inclusionary Housing Program

17.36.010 – Chapter Title

The Ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Inclusionary Housing Program" of the City of Hollister.

17.36.020 – Purpose

The purpose of this Inclusionary Housing Program is to:

A. Enhance the public welfare by facilitating the development of housing affordable to households of Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income.

B. To ensure that future residential development is consistent with housing policies of the State of California and the City of Hollister.

C. To ensure that each Residential Development Project complies with the requi rements of this Chapter and is consistent with the city's housing goals of developing affordable housing opportunities, creating diverse housing opportunities for existing and future residents, and maintaining economic diversity and geographicall y dispersed affordable housing.

3.b
Packet Pg. 426

17.36.030 – Definitions

A. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) shall have the same meaning as defined under Section 65852.2(j) of the Government Code and shall mean an attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling. An ADU also includes an efficiency unit and a manufactured home, provided it is built on a permanent foundation. An ADU may be located within an existing attached or detached garage, shed, barn or other accessory structure.

B. Administrator shall mean the Inclusionary Housing Program Administrator, which shall either be the City itself or a third-part administrator acting as an agent for the City in connection with all aspects of the operation of the Inclusionary Housing Program pursuant to an Agreement entered into between the City and the Administrator, as such agreement may be amended or replaced from time to time.

C. Affordable Dwelling Unit shall mean, for the purposes of this Chapter, a dwelling unit affordable to households earning at or below 120 percent of the county median income, including units that are affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income Households.

D. Attached Single-Family Dwelling Unit for the purposes of this Chapter shall mean a single-family dwelling unit having one or more walls attached to and in common with one or more single-family dwellings, with each dwelling unit on a separate parcel.

E. Density Bonus shall mean a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable density on a site, as may be permitted by the City of Hollister in Chapter 17.34, Density Bonus (referred to as the “Local Bonus” in this Chapter, or pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and Article 15.04.602 (referred to as the “State Bonus” in this Chapter, or for any other reason.

F. Detached Single-Family Dwelling Unit shall mean a dwelling unit intended for use by a single household and not attached to any other building.

G. For-Sale Residential Development Project shall mean a Residential Development Project that includes the creation of one or more new dwelling units that may be sold individually. A For-Sale Residential Development Project also includes the conversion of a residential rental development to a residential ownership development.

H. Inclusionary Unit shall mean a dwelling unit intended for sale or rent that is required by Article 17.36.050 to be affordable to Very Low, Low, or Moderate Income Households.

I. Low Income Household shall mean a household whose income does not exceed the low income limits applicable to San Benito County as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

J. Market Rate Unit shall mean a new dwelling unit in a Residential Development Project that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit.

3.b
Packet Pg. 427

K. Moderate Income Household shall mean a household whose income does not exceed the moderate income limits applicable to San Benito County as defined in Califo rnia Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

L. Multi-Family Unit shall mean a residential unit intended for the use of a single household that is part of a larger building having one or more walls attached to and in common with other residential units.

M. Rental Residential Development Project shall mean a Residential Development Project that creates one or more dwelling units that cannot be lawfully sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act.

N. Residential Development Project shall mean a development for which a discretionary approval or building permit is required for a residential development that includes the creation of one or more new dwelling units, conversion of nonresidential uses to dwelling units, or the conversion of a use from a Rental Residential Development Project to a For-Sale Residential Development Project.

O. Unit Type shall mean the type of dwelling unit, either Attached Single-Family Dwelling Unit, Detached Single-Family Dwelling Unit, or Multi-Family Unit.

P. Very Low Income Household shall mean a household whose income does not exceed the very low income limits applicable to San Benito County as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 and published annually pursuant to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6932 by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Q. Vesting Tentative Map shall mean a map which confers certain vested rights to proceed with development for a specified period of time after recordation.

17.36.040 – Effective Date and Inclusionary Housing Requirement Applicability

A. Applicability. All For-Sale and Rental Residential Development Projects that consist of 10 or more units built anywhere in the City of Hollister shall comply with the requirements of this chapter.

B. Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following projects:

1. Accessory Dwelling Units.

2. Residential Development Projects with less than 10 dwelling units.

3. Residential Development Projects on property with vested rights in effect on the effective date of this chapter, including:

a. Property that is part of a Vesting Tentative Map.

b. Development that is part of an existing development agreement with the City.

3.b
Packet Pg. 428

4. Residential Development Projects that have submitted a complete planning or building permit application along with the full payment of required application fees to the city prior to the effective date of this ordinance, provided that such Residential Development Projects shall comply with any approved affordable housing plan and any predecessor ordinance applicable to the development.

5. Residential Development Projects exempted by California Government Code Section 66474.2 or 66498.1, provided that such Residential Development Projects shall comply with any predecessor ordinance, resolution, or policy in effect on the date the application for the development was determined to be complete.

6. Residential Development Projects exempted by another state law or by final judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction.

17.36.050 – Inclusionary Housing Requirements

All new Residential Development Projects shall include Inclusionary Units. Calculations of the number of Inclusionary Units shall be based on the number of dwelling units in the Residential Development Project, without regard to any density bonus units as defined in this chapter. All required Inclusionary Units shall be built on the same site as the Residential Development Project.

A. Inclusionary Requirement. Twenty percent of all new Residential Development Projects shall be Inclusionary Units. The twenty percent total shall be achieved using the following allowable ranges of affordability. :

1. At least 7 percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to Very Low Income Households.

2. At least 7 percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to either Very Low Income or Low Income Households.

3. At least 6 percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable to either Very Low Income, Low Income or Moderate Income Households.

B. Rental Residential Development Projects. Instead of providing required inclusionary units on site, Rental Residential Development projects may pay the in-lieu fee specified in Section 17.36.060.

C. Fractional Units. When the application of the percentages specified in Section

17.36.060.A results in a number that includes a fraction equal to one-half (0.5) or more, the fraction shall be rounded to the next higher whole number. In that event an additional Inclusionary Unit shall be provided. If the result includes a fraction less than one-half (0.5), the developer shall have the option of rounding up to the next whole number and providing the Inclusionary Unit or paying a fee in lieu of providing an additional Inclusionary Unit. The amount of the fractional in-lieu fee shall be calculated as provided in Section 17.36.060.

D. State Density Program. Any Inclusionary Units provided on site in compliance with this chapter may be used to qualify for a density bonus under Chapter 17.34, Density

3.b
Packet Pg. 429

Bonus, California Government Code Section 65915, or any ordinance implementing Government Code Section 65915..

E. Local Incentives. Projects subject to this ordinance shall be entitled to the Local Incentives described in Section 17.17.070.

F. Base for Inclusionary Requirement. The number of Inclusionary Housing units required for a project shall be based on the total number of dwelling units in the Residential Development Project prior to the addition of units under the State Bonus or the additional Local Bonus.

G. Affordable Housing Agreement. The applicant shall execute a written agreement with the City indicating the number, type, location, approximate size, and co nstruction schedule of all dwelling units as required to determine project compliance with the requirements of this chapter.

H. Construction Timing. All Inclusionary Units shall be built prior to the full build -out of Market Rate Units in the same Residential Development Project. In phased developments, inclusionary units shall be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of Market Rate Units constructed and occupied in each phase.

1. A building permit may not be issued for any Market Rate Unit unle ss a proportional number of building units has been issued for inclusionary units.

2. A certificate of occupancy or final inspection may not be issued for Market Rate Units unless a proportional number of certificates of occupancy or final inspections have been issued for inclusionary units.

17.36.060 – Inclusionary Requirement In-Lieu Fees

As provided for in Sections 17.36.050.B and 17.36.050.C, a developer of a Rental Residential Development Project may pay a fee may in lieu of providing Inclusionary Units or to offset required fractional units below one-half (0.5) of a unit. A developer of a For-Sale Residential Development Project may only pay a fee to offset required fractional units below one-half (0.5) of a unit.

A. Purpose. This in-lieu fee is an option that may serve as an alternative to the provision of on-site inclusionary units as otherwise required by Section 17.36.050. Nothing in this chapter shall deem or be used to deem the in-lieu fee authorized in this section as an ad hoc exaction, as a mandated fee required as a condition to developing property, or as a fee subject to the analysis in Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, 171 Cal.App.4th 886 (2009).

B. Allowance. In-lieu fees may be paid as follows:

1. For-Sale Residential Development Projects. The developer of a For -Sale Residential Development Project may pay an in-lieu fee only for fractional units when the number of required inclusionary units includes a fraction less than one - half.

2. Rental Residential Development Projects. The developer of a Rental Residential Development Project may pay an in-lieu fee for all or any portion of inclusionary units required, including fractional units.

3.b
Packet Pg. 430

C. Amount. In-lieu fees shall be set by resolution of the city council and shall be an amount sufficient to pay the proportionate cost of providing Inclusionary Units elsewhere in the city. The fee shall be periodically reviewed and updated by the city council. The amount of in lieu fees shall be included in the City's master f ee schedule and may be adjusted annually for inflation using an appropriate index, as determined by the city council.

D. Timing of Payment. Payment of in-lieu fees shall be due at the issuance of building permits for Rental Residential Development Project. For Rental Residential Development Projects constructed in phases, in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit in the proportion that the phase bears to the overall Rental Residential Development Project. Payment of a For-Sale fractional unit below one-half (0.5) of a unit shall be due prior to the issuance of building permits. The fees shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the permit is used.

E. Use. The City shall use in-lieu fees paid under this chapter to support the development of new housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households on sites in the City, and improve and preserve the existing supply of affordable housing in the City. In-lieu fees paid under this chapter may also be used to support appropriate Inclusionary Housing Program implementation and enforcement, provided the fees allocated toward these activities are established by city council resolution per Section 17.36.090.A.

F. Management. All in-lieu fees and other monies on deposit with the City shall be separately accounted for and shall not be used for purposes not authorized by Section

17.36.060.

17.36.070 – Inclusionary Housing Incentives

The City of Hollister will grant the following incentives to the developer of a Residential Development Project that provides required inclusionary units:

A. Density Bonus. A density bonus pursuant to Chapter 17.34, Density Bonus, of the Municipal Code, as follows:

1. For-Sale Residential Project: Up to 56% density bonus.

2. Rental Residential Project: Up to 15% density bonus.

This bonus is in addition to the density bonus allowed for affordable housing projects under State law, and shall be calculated as a percentage of the base Residential Development Project. Under no circumstance shall the total of the total Density Bonus (including both the Local Bonus and the State Bonus) exceed 66% for For-Sale Residential Projects and 40% for Rental Residential Projects, unless a greater Density Bonus is required by State law.

B. Modification of Zoning or Development Standards. The developer may be granted modifications to zoning and/or development standards as required to achieve the density bonus described in Section 17.36.070.A. Authority to act on a request for these development incentives shall rest with the final review authority regarding the underlying application.

17.36.080 - Inclusionary Unit Standards

3.b
Packet Pg. 431

The following standards shall apply to all Inclusionary Units built to satisfy the requirements of this chapter.

A. Recipient Requirements. All inclusionary units shall be sold or rented to:

1. Moderate Income, Low Income or Very Low Income Households;

2. The City of Hollister or its designee.

B. Unit Type and Physical Quality. The Unit Types of the Inclusionary Units within a Residential Development Project shall:

1. Be built in the same proportion as the Market Rate Unit Types, except as provided in Sections 17.36.080.C and 17.36.080.D.

2. Have an average square footage of at least 85 percent of Market Rate Units with the same bedroom count.

3. Be developed with the same bedroom count ratio as the Market Rate Units.

4. Have the same interior finishes and features as the Market Rate Units.

5. Have the same exterior design and overall quality of construction as the Market Rate Units.

C. For-Sale Single-Family Residential Development Projects may include affordable Attached Single-Family Dwelling Units in a proportion that constitutes more than the proportion of Attached Single-Family Dwelling Units in the overall project.

D. Affordable Detached Single-Family Dwelling Units counted toward the inclusionary requirement may have smaller lots than Market Rate Detached Single -Family Dwelling Units in the same Residential Development Project, provided that all lot sizes are consistent with the lot size requirements of this Title 17 (Zoning).

E. Location. All Inclusionary Units shall:

1. Be built on the same site as the remainder of the Residential Development Project and be reasonably dispersed throughout the Residential Development Project to prevent a concentration of affordable units.

2. Have the same access to common open space and shared facilities in the Residential Development Project as do the Market Rate Units.

3. Be dispersed throughout the Residential Development Project.

F. Eligibility Screening. The Administrator shall screen prospective buyers or renters of affordable units. Buyers of affordable units shall enter into an agreement with the City.

Occupants must be selected by means of an open, public process ensures that individuals of a group of interested participants are selected in accordance with the City’s Live-Work Policy. Private selection of individuals by project owners is not permitted for any affordable units.

G. Ongoing Affordability of For-Sale Units. In order to maintain the availability of For-Sale Inclusionary Units constructed pursuant to this chapter, the following requirements shall

3.b
Packet Pg. 432

apply to Inclusionary Units, as documented through an affordable housing agreement, as prescribed in Section 17.36.080.H, recorded against the property:

1. The affordable sales prices of for-sale Inclusionary Units shall be restricted to a period of thirty years pursuant to an affordable housing agreement recorded against the property and resets upon resale of the unit(s).

2. The owner shall occupy the Inclusionary Unit as the owner's principal place of residence within 60 days of the owner's receipt of a certificate of occupancy for the unit.

3. The owner shall reside in the Inclusionary Unit for at least 10 months out of each calendar year to be considered as occupying the Inclusionary Unit.

4. The owner shall not lease or rent the Inclusionary Unit or any portion of the Inclusionary Unit to another party. Any lease of the Inclusionary Unit or a portion of the Inclusionary Unit will constitute a default under the requirements of this chapter.

H. Ongoing Affordability of Rental Units. In order to maintain the availability of Inclusionary Units constructed pursuant to this chapter, rental Inclusionary Units shall remain affordable for fifty-five years, as documented through an affordable housing agreement, as prescribed in Section 17.36.080.H, recorded against the property.

I. Affordability Agreement Documentation. The developer shall be required to execute standard documents, in a form approved by the city attorney, to ensure the continued affordability of the Inclusionary Units approved for each Residential Development Project. The documents may include, but are not limited to, Inclusionary Housing agreements, regulatory agreements, promissory notes, deeds of trust, resale restrictions, rights of first refusal, options to purchase, and/or other documents. The affordability documents shall be recorded against the Residential Development Project, all Inclusionary Units, and any site subject to the provisions of this chapter.

17.36.090 – Implementation and Enforcement

A. Establishment of Guidelines by Resolution. If it so desires, the city council may adopt inclusionary housing guidelines, by resolution, to assist in the implementation of this chapter.

B. Establishment of Administration Fees by Resolution. The city council, by resolution, may establish fees for the ongoing administration and monitoring of the affordable units, which fees may be updated periodically, as required.

C. Enforcement. The city attorney is authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter and all inclusionary housing agreements, regulatory agreements, covenants, resale restrictions, promissory notes, deeds of trust and other requirements placed on Inclusionary Units by civil action and any other method permitted by law. The city may take such enforcement action as is authorized under this code and/or any other action authorized by law or by any regulatory document, restriction, or agreement executed under this chapter.

3.b
Packet Pg. 433

D. Project Approval Restrictions. No permit, license, map, or other approval or entitlement for a Residential Development Project shall be issued, including without limitation a final inspection or certificate of occupancy, until all applicable requirements of this chapter have been satisfied.

E. Annual Monitoring. Homeowners will receive an annual monitoring notice from the City to confirm the owner occupancy requirement and prohibitions against rental of the dwelling. The review will provide owners with an opportunity to become familiar with the guidelines of the Inclusionary Housing Program and any changes in adopted policies and procedures. For rental units, an annual monitoring notice from the City will be sent to all management agencies to confirm residents are eligible to affordable units.

INTRODUCED at a regular City Council meeting on the 1st day of May, 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 1st day of May, 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

3.b
Packet Pg. 434

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 2033 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 1st day of May, 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 May, 2023.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC

City Clerk of the City of Hollister

3.b
Packet Pg. 435

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2023
SUBMITTED: September 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD:

Planning
Christine Hopper, Development
Services Director

TITLE OF ITEM: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS/ PREZONES/ SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

AMENDMENTS

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The City Council will hold a study session to discuss processing of individual General Plan Amendment application requests during the ongoing General Plan update process.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation, take public comment, and provide direction to staff.

DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The City of Hollister is currently in the process of updating the 2005-2023 General Plan through the year 2040. A general plan serves as the vision and guiding policy document for all decisions that a jurisdiction makes, particularly when it comes to land use and development. General plans have a long life and provide overarching policy for a jurisdiction for a 20- to 30-year timeframe.

During the life of a general plan, a jurisdiction may make up to four (4) amendments to its general plan in a given calendar year. The updates may be major or minor, and can consist of any number of individual changes bundled into one approval, to remain consistent with the total allowed annual amendments. A comprehensive general plan update process, such as the current effort of the City, is typically a multi-year effort to realign the City’s General Plan with current and future policy goals for the community.

It is not unusual for a jurisdiction to limit the acceptance of individual applications for general plan amendments (includes rezoning, sphere of influence amendments, annexations, and other changes that require amendments to land use maps that affect the General Plan) during a city - initiated effort to prepare a comprehensive general plan update. The City of Hollister adopted a policy during the 2005 General Plan Update to defer consideration of individual general plan amendments during the update and required the request to first be considered by the General Plan Steering Committee for a review of the proposal in the context of the general plan update (see attached Resolution 2003-124). This is because the update of the City’s General Plan is a significant endeavor, and any request for an amendment outside of the update affects the City’s process and creates instability in the comprehensive planning effort. Changes at an individual level would need to be incorporated into the City’s General Plan Update. This can involve changes to mapping, text, diagrams, tables, etc. Additionally, processing an individual amendment may require changes to the environmental analysis prepared under CEQA for the City’s General Plan Update. Each general plan amendment requires its own environmental document to be prepared, and one document must be determined to be the “baseline” assumed condition for the other document.

This scenario is problematic in several ways. Firstly, for the document to be considered second that will utilize the first project as an assumed existing condition, if any changes are made to the 4 Packet Pg. 436

first project or it is not adopted as assumed, the second document will need to be rewritten to accommodate those changes to the baseline. The second project will have to re -prepare any analyses that utilized the baseline conditions assuming the other project was “existing”. This can be costly and time-consuming. Secondly, because the baseline condition of the first project must be assumed for the second project, the certification of the environmental document for the second project – even if completed before the first project – must be adopted after the certification of the environmental document for the first project. This means that any delays in the processing of the first project inherently transfer those delays to the processing of the second project. Finally, for a city-wide project such as a General Plan Update, revising the document to accommodate individual requests during the planning process can result in piecemeal development planning, and can negate the largescale planning discussion that is the intention of a comprehensive General Plan Update. Pausing (and/or revising) the City’s General Plan Update and all required technical documentation to accommodate an individual request for a general plan amendment will be both costly to the City from a time, resources, and budgeting perspective, but also will also be costly to the city-wide policy efforts that are proposed for inclusion in the General Plan because those policies and planning efforts will need to be amended to accommodate the individual general plan amendment request.

The City of Hollister Planning Division formally received six project applications which require a general plan amendment during the course of the ongoing General Plan Update (2040 GPU).

One of these projects is a proposal for an industrial annexation north of the Hollister Airport and was approved for processing alongside the 2040 GPU at approximately the same time as the start of the General Plan Update. This project is ongoing, but did require amendments to be made to the draft General Plan in December 2022 at the cost of the City due to their interconnected nature. This project has been assumed to follow the 2040 GPU at this time, changes to this assumption will require amendments to both environmental documents that are being prepared. The second project was authorized for initiation of a general plan amendment and rezone for a currently commercial, proposed mixed-use, site located near San Felipe Road and Maple Street. The City Council authorized the initiation of this request in January 2023 and directed that the 2040 GPU should follow that project. Amendments were made to the General Plan Update to accommodate this request, and work on the 2040 GPU since has been based on the assumption of this project moving forward ahead of the General Plan. At time of writing, the applicant has not submitted the formal application following the initiation authorization of the City Council. The project is relatively small in size, but amendments may be required to adjust the baseline conditions of the 2040 GPU if the project does not move forward ahead of the City’s update.

The remaining four applications received have been requests for initiation of general plan amendment, sphere of influence amendments, and/or prezone for annexation of properties for future residential development. Additionally, during the course of the 2040 GPU process, staff received inquiries for upwards of 30 other properties (or groups of properties) looking into either sphere of influence amendments and/or annexation into the City limits. Modifying the sphere of influence and annexation (prezoning) require a general plan amendment to be processed at the same time, due to mapping and land use changes affiliated with the process. The City does not currently have a policy in place to direct staff and the applicants on how to proceed with these requests for initiation of individual general plan amendments during the ongoing General Plan Update. Due to the complexities of the environmental analysis and potential cost to the City to amend the 2040 GPU to address these requests, staff requests City Council direction on how to proceed with both the formally received requests for general plan amendments as well as any future requests which may come forward during the 2040 General Plan Update process. As individual general plan amendments affect the timeline, budget, and policy direction of the General Plan Update, staff recommends the City Council provide direction to pause processing of any new requests for initiation of a general plan amendment until the adoption of the new general plan, and for those requests to be considered after the adoption of the General Plan 4 Packet Pg. 437

within the context of the new policies and land use designations as they are ultimately adopted by the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2003-06-16 R 2003-124

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

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

David Mirrione, City Manager

4 Packet Pg. 438

Resolution No 2003- 124

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER

DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF

APPLICATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS DURING THE 2003-04 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, On November 6, 1995, the City Council of the City of Hollister adopted a comprehensive 1995 to 2010 General Plan pursuant to Government Code 65300(the Planning and Zoning Law), and;
WHEREAS, in 1997 in response to proposed general plan amendments to the 1995-2010 General Plan, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-228 A Resolution of the City of Hollister Adopting a Policy Relating to the Acceptance and Processing Applications to Amend the City's General Plan, to prevent ad hoc planning and provide a stable consistent general plan amendment process, and;
WHEREAS; due to changing circumstances over time, the City Council determined that General Plan Update is appropriate at this time, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that processing General Plan Amendments pursuant to Resolution No. 97-228 is a serious public matter which could effect the overall development of the City's General Plan Update and;
WHEREAS, any proposed general plan amendment should be deferred to the 2003-2004 General Plan Steering Committee for a review conducted within the context of the General Plan Update, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, any proposed General Plan Amendment (text, policy or land use) during the 2003-2004 General Plan Update are hereby referred to the General Plan Steering Committee for their due consideration and recommendation.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 16th day of June 2003 by the following votes.

AYES: Council Members Valdivia, LoBue, Bruscia, Scattini and Mayor Conroy NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Brian V. Conroy, Mayor
tri
F nk 17. FeUce,C,Zy Jerk
ved_asite:Po .

Ela e . Cass, City Attorney

4.a
Packet Pg. 439

DUPLICATE OF ORIGINAL

ON FILE IN THE
RESOLUTION NO. 97-228 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERKCITYOFHOLLISTER

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER

ADOPTING A POLICY RELATING TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND
PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS TO AMEND 1HE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the General Plan represents a comprehensive and long-term guide to development in the City of Hollister; and WHEREAS, while a certain amount of flexibility is desirable in the planning process, it is also necessary for the General Plan, as a long-range vision of growth in the community, to possess a degree of stability and continuity; and
WHEREAS, the vast majority of General Plan amendments are privately initiated in conjunction with development applications, which, if approved, can result in ad hoc planning and haphazard community growth; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to avoid piecemeal adjustment of the General Plan, and to promote stability in the planning process.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT all applications to amend the General Plan, other than those initiated by the legislative body, shall first be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the following requirements:

1. The application to amend the General Plan, including supporting documentation, shall be submitted in the form and manner required by the Community Development Director, and shall be accompanied by an initial fee of$500.

2. Upon notice that an application has been deemed complete, the applicant shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City to provide funds for a staff member, or a Planning Consultant to be retained by the City, for the purpose of preparing a report which shall consider the impact of the proposed amendment on the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan; and

3. The application and supporting documentation, including the Planning Consultant's report, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. Four affirmative votes of the Planning Commission shall be required to approve a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a General Plan amendment.

4.a
Packet Pg. 440

Resolution No. 97 - 228

4. The City Council shall consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission in determining whether to allow the amendment application to proceed. No amendment application shall be processed any further by the City, unless approved by four affirmative votes of the City Council.

5. Following City Council approval, the application to amend the General Plan shall be returned to the Community Development Department for processing in accordance with CEQA, and other applicable state and city laws.

6. Four affirmative votes-of the Planning Commission and four affirmative votes of the City Council shall be required to recommend and/or approve an amendment to the General Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Hollister held on this 23rd day of September, 1997, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Scott, Boomer, Duran, and Mayor Felice.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Moretti.

ABSTAIN: None.
di4`
Y..

CE, Mayor
ATTEST:

IC D. FEL , y Cler
APPROVED AS TO FORM: of oRGrc

ZE SN EP
J
OU?\"Ng SN.0 SEEPPiie H t
oFF, oF',,,O01'4
ELAINE M. CASS, City Attorney

4.a
Packet Pg. 441