Hollister City Council
December 3, 2024

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

3. Expand and promote residential energy-efficiency services to homeowners and of existing and new below market- rate homes in Hollister.
3-1. Promote and support efforts of Central Coast Energy Services (CCES) and other similar community-based organizations and local contractors to provide affordable energy efficiency retrofits and low- to no-cost weatherization services to homeowners and renters.
3-2. Seek grant funding for weatherization programs that support low-income households. 3-3. Develop an inventory of residential buildings in the city that were constructed prior to 1980 to identify the greatest opportunities for energy efficiency and conservation improvements and targeted outreach and education campaigns.
3-4. Prepare information materials targeted to these buildings and engage with the owners of the buildings to promote energy-efficiency upgrades.
3-5. Support and promote programs and incentives for installation of all-electric appliances in new residential construction and remodels by partnering with 3CE AMBAG Energy Watch. 3-6. Partner with San Benito County Water District and San Benito County to establish or expand existing recycling and appliance rebate programs for energy and water-efficient washing machines and electric, including heat pump, dryers.
3-7. Support AMBAG Energy Watch, San Benito County, 3CE, and other partners with their outreach and education campaigns, including but not limited to, promoting programs through City communication and promotion tools, engaging in person or online with homeowners and contractors, maintaining a City webpage of resources, and sharing permitting data to inform targeted outreach.
540 1,400 2,640
Existing residential
units receiving energy
efficiency retrofits
(number of units)
Development
Services
Department
Central Coast Energy
Services
3CE
AMBAG
San Benito County
Water District
San Benito County
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page 97
Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

4. Support energy conservation and efficiency improvements in nonresidential uses, including businesses, office complexes, commercial and retail buildings, shopping centers, medical facilities and hospitals, warehouses, and industrial facilities.
4-1. Support existing 3CE and AMBAG Energy Watch programs by publicizing energy efficiency programs, technical assistance, and financing opportunities for businesses and non-profit organizations. 4-2. Encourage businesses to conduct energy audits. Use the business license process (new and renewals) as an opportunity to share information about incentives for energy efficiency improvements. 4-3. Support outreach to small business owners by partnering with the Cal Coastal Small Business Development Center.
4-4. Expand energy-saving opportunities and assistance for large and small commercial and industrial businesses by working with AMBAG Energy Watch, 3CE, and non-profit organizations. 4-5. Expand the distribution of free or subsidized energy and water efficiency and conservation toolkits, devices, and services to residents and businesses citywide through partnerships with public libraries, AMBAG Energy Watch, and local non-profit organizations.
1,000 2,250 3,370
Existing nonresidential
units receiving energy
efficiency retrofits
(number of units)
Development
Services
Department
3CE
AMBAG
Cal Coastal Small
Business Development
Center
Local nonprofit
organizations.

Near term (by
2024)
General Fund
Partnerships

5. Ensure new large nonresidential development includes on-site renewable energy to support the site’s energy needs by promoting solar photovoltaic panels or other appropriate on-site renewable energy generation systems for the following types of projects:
• New commercial and office buildings, or existing commercial and office building expansions greater or equal to 45,000 square feet in size.
• New industrial or existing industrial buildings expansions greater or equal to 99,000 square feet in size. 5-1. Prepare, adopt, and implement a reach code that requires certain large non-residential development to install and use renewable and carbon free energy generated and stored, as appropriate, on-site. At a minimum, this code will apply to new commercial and office buildings, or existing commercial and office building expansions greater or equal to 45,000 square feet in size and new industrial or existing industrial buildings expansions greater than or equal to 99,000 square feet in size.
5-2. Support outreach and education activities by community and regional partners and supplement with City- specific outreach as needed to raise awareness about the benefits of solar energy for businesses, promote incentives, and increase installations of nonresidential solar PV systems in Hollister. 5-3. Establish a solar permitting webpage on the City's website that summarizes requirements for installing solar PV systems to ensure the information is easily accessible to the public. Provide handouts at City Hall to promote the website.
5-4. Update City permit tracking as appropriate to track size and number of renewable energy installations. 5-5. Provide incentives and rebates for solar PV systems to encourage increased local use of renewable energy.

Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
Nonresidential solar
systems installed (total
kW installed)
Development
Services
Department
San Benito County
3CE
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e
5-6. Work with San Benito County, 3CE, and regional partners to explore opportunities to provide financial incentives to residents and businesses purchasing small-scale on-site battery energy storage systems for new development.

6. Transition municipal operations and buildings to local, renewable, and resilient energy sources. 6-1. Conduct a feasibility study to identify opportunities and benefits of constructing and operating solar or other renewable, clean energy generation technology on or at existing City-owned properties. The study should consider optimized conservation and technology as well as new uses, including generating power for vehicle charging stations, supporting energy storage, and new City uses. 6-2. Install back-up power sources at City-owned community facilities, prioritizing solar energy battery storage and microgrid systems where feasible.
6-3. Partner with regional agencies and jurisdictions to establish a regional microgrid agency to support 3CE in developing local microgrids for energy resilience.
6-4. Seek grant funding to conduct a feasibility study for a microgrid to serve public facilities in Hollister.

Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
Solar, battery, and
microgrid energy
systems installed at
City-owned sites (total
kW installed)
City Manager 3CE Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

7. Promote on-site renewable energy production and storage, and community-wide utilization of 3CE’s renewable energy service in existing Hollister homes and businesses. 7-1. Develop and implement a community outreach and education program that promotes the benefits and incentives for renewable energy and energy resilience and increase awareness of the benefits and incentive programs for rooftop solar energy and on-site energy storage systems. This includes developing a City webpage to inform residents and business owners about the permitting process for residential and commercial solar energy systems and links to partner pages for more details about incentive programs. 7-2. Work with PG&E on its efforts to prepare the community for power outages through battery storage programs and incentives, including the Self-Generation Incentive Program and related energy resilience efforts. 7-3. Work with San Benito County, 3CE, and regional partners to explore opportunities to provide financial incentives to residents and businesses purchasing small-scale on-site battery energy storage systems for existing development.

Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
Solar energy systems
installed (total kW
installed)

Participation rate in
3CE among Hollister
nonresidential
accounts (rate of
participation)
Development
Services
Department
3CE
PG&E
San Benito County
Near term (by
2024)
General Fund
Partnerships

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page 99
Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

8. Promote and incentivize the phase-out of gas appliances in existing homes and businesses throughout the community to advance GHG reductions, increase energy efficiency, and protect public safety and environmental health.
8-1. Support education and outreach to increase participation in electric appliance rebate programs offered by 3CE, AMBAG Energy Watch, and other providers with a focus on contractors and residents of older properties (constructed in or before 1980).

Identify and remove any existing code, permitting, or other City requirements that serve as barriers to all-electric conversions of existing homes and businesses and assess opportunities to provide incentives and streamline the permitting process through bundled projects and one-stop permits. 8-2. Update the City’s permit tracking system as appropriate to track electrification improvements. 8-3. Review City-supported weatherization and energy efficiency programs and requirements, if applicable, to ensure they support all-electric, high-efficiency appliances. 8-4. Work with local contractors to increase public awareness about and participation in existing incentive programs that promote replacement of natural gas appliances with electric space and water heating systems. 8-5. Explore and adopt, as feasible, local building code amendments requiring replacement of natural gas-powered space and water heaters with electric models at end of life during the 2022 and successive Buildings Standards Code updates.
8-6. Work with local and regional partners to identify ways to decrease the financial burden of electrification of low- income households and rental units, including paying up-front costs or identification of financial incentives. 9,220 16,330 17,310
Existing buildings
converted to electric
(number of buildings)
Development
Services
Department
3CE
AMBAG
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

9. By 2026, all new development to be “all electric," with minor exceptions for appropriate facilities, which may include restaurants, manufacturing, and industrial uses. 9-1. Identify and partner with local industry organizations, community-based organizations, and regional partners to inform the preparation of an All-Electric Reach Code for new development, which would leverage the use of the 3CE's Reach Code Incentive Program to offset some costs associated with adopting a Reach Code. 9-2. Seek grant funding for electrification of affordable housing, such as the California Energy Commission’s (CEC's) Building Initiative for Low Emissions Development (BUILD) program (SB 1477). 9-3. Promote public awareness about and participation in existing incentive programs that promote electric space and water heating systems to upgrade and replace natural gas appliances. 2,090 7,290 8,370
All-electric buildings
constructed (number
of new buildings)
Development
Services
Department
Near term (by
2024) General Fund

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

10. Reduce community-wide VMT and associated transportation-related emissions per resident and employee. 10-1. Promote transit as a viable option for local and regional trips. − Collaborate with the San Benito Council of Governments, Caltrans, and San Benito County to ensure efficient and accessible public transit services are available to all residents, workers, and visitors. − Support further integration and overall expansion of public transit service within the city, region, and to and from Salinas, Central Coast communities, and Silicon Valley communities. − Promote transit-friendly street design by encouraging features such as bus stop shelters, street lighting, bus-only signal phases, curb extensions, and wayfinding. − Collaborate with the San Benito Council of Governments, Caltrans, and San Benito County to develop, implement, and maintain park-and-ride facilities.
10-2. Assess the feasibility of incorporating infrastructure to support micro-mobility devices in the downtown or in other locations that such a program could have success. 10-3. Aid new and existing multifamily and commercial developments in implementing and expanding opportunities for transit-oriented development and affordable housing. 10-4. Encourage employers to provide ridership programs, public transit passes, and offer telecommuting to employees. Regularly assess and update incentives to respond to employee needs. 10-5. Provide transportation-demand incentives to City employees, including telecommuting as a viable option to reduce VMT and GHGs, without compromising the ability to provide public services. 10-6. Collaborate with regional partners to explore the feasibility of a shuttle between Hollister and Pinnacles National Park during high-traffic season.
5,310 8,660 12,540
Transit ridership

Vehicle miles traveled
(vehicle service miles)
Development
Services
Department

Community Services
Department
Council of San Benito
County Governments
Caltrans
San Benito County
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page 101
Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

11. Ensure the community has safe and connected opportunities for bicycling and walking, especially between and within residential areas and commercial areas, parks, schools, job centers, and transit centers. 11-1. Develop and adopt a Complete Streets Plan to support safety, accessibility, and equity in multi-mobility. 11-2. Conduct an assessment of the City’s existing sidewalk and prepare a list of sidewalk improvement projects, with priorities to complete gaps and connectivity in existing sidewalks, provide safe connections between residential areas and key destinations like parks, schools, places of employment, and shopping centers. 11-3. Improve street design to include safe, accessible, and interconnected pedestrian routes and bicycle paths in the downtown area and near existing and planned commercial centers and job centers. Develop street design guidelines to ensure consistency and safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 11-4. Improve bike and pedestrian connections as identified in the 2019 Hollister Parks Facilities Master Plan. 11-5. Require bicycle parking at all new commercial centers, job centers, and large-scale mixed-use developments, and ensure all City facilities provide safe and secure bicycle parking. 11-6. Promote incentive programs to fund the purchase of bicycles or electric-assist bicycles for low-income community members.
11-7. Support community-led bicycle safety training and materials for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. 11-8. Coordinate with Caltrans and other agencies to ensure future Caltrans-funded projects in Hollister consider pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements to incentivize active transportation trips. 11-9. Facilitate and support the development of shared micro-mobility programs in Hollister, including:
− Amending the City’s municipal code to regulate parking for scooter and bike-share programs. − Developing and implementing regulations specifying right-of-way rules for e-bikes and e-scooters. − Identifying accessible and equitable locations for micro-mobility hubs. − Marketing micro-mobility programs across the community. − Working with service providers to keep micro-mobility safe and affordable. 980 1,030 1,090
Bike lanes and
facilities (miles of bike
lanes)
Community Services
Department
Parks and
Recreation
Council of San Benito
County Governments
Caltrans
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

12. Support regional agencies in ensuring that K-12 students in Hollister have pollution-free, safe, and accessible modes to get to and from school.
12-1. Partner with school districts to promote "walk pools" or "walking buses" to increase the number of students who walk to school.
12-2. Work with regional partners to promote incentives to provide bicycles to low-income youth in the community. 12-3. Establish a committee in the City focused on implementing Safe Routes to Schools projects and programs. 12-4. Work with regional partners to offer bicycle safety and pedestrian education classes at schools. 12-5. Conduct walkability scores of residential neighborhoods, starting with neighborhoods within a 1-mile radius of a public or private school. Use the results to inform identification of City projects that would improve or provide new safe, comfortable, and connected pedestrian networks between residential areas and schools. 0 0 0
Number of students
taking alternative
transportation to
school (number of
students)
Community Services
Department Schools Near term (by
2024) General Fund

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

13. Increase overall transit ridership and improve access to light-rail transit for commuting to Silicon Valley and Bay Area job centers.
13-1. Work with Caltrain or San Benito County Express to offer express bus service from Hollister to Gilroy to provide a public transit link to Caltrain service and Bay Area employment centers. 13-2. Develop marketing materials to promote San Benito County Express regional transit services, to be distributed at public facilities, workshops, and electronically on the City’s website, and social media channels. 13-3. Cooperatively work with Councils of Government (COG), Caltrans, and San Benito County to develop, implement, and maintain public transit services.
13-4. Support the development of a centrally located multi-modal transit hub to encourage transit ridership, improve connectivity, and build on existing services while reducing demand for parking and vehicle trips. 13,060 24,480 31,280 Transit service miles
(vehicle service miles)
Community Services
Department
Caltrain
San Benito County
Express
Councils of
Government
Caltrans
San Benito County
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

14. Promote adoption of electric and clean-fuel vehicles and expansion of public and private EV charging infrastructure.
14-1. Install electric vehicle charging stations equitably throughout the community at City facilities, parks, and parking lots.
14-2. Review the City’s municipal code to identify barriers and opportunities to accelerate the use of EVs by Hollister’s residents and employees, and update the code as needed. This review should ensure parking areas, gas stations, and fossil-fuel dependent transportation-related uses provide low and no carbon fuel options. 14-3. Adopt an EV reach code with minimum requirements for parking spaces with EV charging capacity for multifamily residential buildings and nonresidential buildings. 14-4. Provide dedicated parking spaces for electric or low carbon car-share vehicles at park-and-ride lots, public transit centers, and core commercial and business areas. 14-5. Participate in 3CE's Central Coast Incentive Project and other existing or future programs. 14-6. Work with San Benito County Express to ensure equitable access to electric or low carbon carshare vehicles. 14-7. Collaborate with regional partners such as 3CE and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District, among others, to support accelerated adoption of electric vehicles through the provision of incentives and public outreach campaigns.
24,370 87,640 129,510
EVs registered
(number of cars)

EV chargers installed
(number of chargers)
Development
Services
Department
3CE
Monterey Bay Air
Resources District
Caltrans
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

15. Expand the municipal EV fleet and promote low carbon transportation options. 15-1. Work with regional public transit partners to increase the adoption of electric buses and alternative fueled buses.
0 0 0
EVs registered
(number of cars)

Community Services
Department
3CE
Monterey Bay Air
Resources District
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page 103
Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e
15-2. Support the 3CE’s Zero Emission School Bus Program, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District, and other regional partners, to electrify school buses used for Hollister-area schools. 15-3. As part of preparation of a GHG emissions inventory of City Operations, identify present and future GHGs released by the City fleet and by contractor vehicles used to provide municipal services, including collection of trash, recycling, and compostable materials.
15-4. Transition the municipal vehicle fleet to hybrid, electric, or clean fuel vehicles to the greatest extent possible.

Incorporate an "electric vehicles first" policy into the City’s vehicle replacement program to support this transition.
15-5. Install electric vehicle chargers at all City facilities to provide sufficient chargers to City electric fleet vehicles.

EV chargers installed
(number of chargers)

16. Consider developing an EV Car-Share Program to provide an alternative for car ownership. 16-1. Conduct a feasibility study of different car share programs, such as a car-share program with dedicated parking spaces and “free-floating” car share, to be followed by a citywide pilot program. 16-2. Partner with San Benito County and neighboring jurisdictions and discuss opportunities for car-share programs with regional car share operators.
16-3. Incentivize car-share program use by providing special parking privileges for car share vehicles and providing EV charging stations at dedicated parking spaces.
16-4. Consider strategies to overcome barriers to participating in and accessing car share priority locations, including providing information in multiple languages and prioritizing locations near environmental justice communities and in easily accessible locations.
650 820 900
Electric car sharing
rides (number of rides
or vehicle service
miles)
Development
Services
Department
San Benito County
Neighboring
jurisdictions
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

17. Promote and incentivize the transition to electric construction and landscaping equipment. 17-1. Promote the health and safety benefits of battery operated or electric powered landscaping equipment and collaborate with regional partners such as the Monterey Bay Air Resources District and 3CE to identify and provide incentives to support replacement of gas-powered landscaping equipment. 17-2. Develop and implement a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. 17-3. Support State and regional efforts to replace diesel-powered construction and landscaping equipment with electric equipment.
17-4. Conduct targeted outreach to local construction and landscaping companies to raise awareness about and increase participation in available electric equipment rebate programs. 17-5. Require hybrid or clean-fuel construction and landscaping equipment in City contracts. 4,990 11,560 16,690
Offroad equipment
converted to electric
(number of units)
Development
Services
Department
3CE
Monterey Bay Air
Resources District
San Benito County
Near term (by
2024) General Fund

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

18. Promote programs and behavioral shifts to reduce community-wide consumption and generation of trash sent to landfills.
18-1. Work with Recology, San Benito County Waste Management Regional Agency, and community partners to establish a source-reduction program and associated outreach and education campaign that promotes options to rethink, refuse, reduce, reuse, regenerate, recycle, and recover materials and work toward a zero-waste community goal.
18-2. Work with waste haulers and regional agencies to encourage efforts to promote recycling and composting of organic materials.
18-3. Establish sharing, exchange, and reuse program(s), including fix-it clinics, swap events, second-hand markets, and shop local campaigns by collaborating with community and regional partners. 18-4. Work with San Benito County to require the recycling of demolition materials or the use of recycled materials in new construction, as feasible.
18-5. Continue to implement the City’s purchasing preference for products containing recycled materials, as described in Section 3.06.280 of the Hollister Municipal Code.
18-6. Develop and adopt an ordinance to prohibit specific types of single-use or disposable plastics, particularly for use by restaurants, caterers, and other commercial kitchens. 18-7. Engage with businesses and industry to encourage the purchase and use of recycled materials where possible. 18-8. Encourage the community to participate in waste exchanges and used goods resale programs. 2,970 5,890 10,160
Solid waste generated
(tons municipal solid
waste)
Recovery rate (percent
of waste recovered)
Community Services
Department
Recology
San Benito County
Waste Management
Regional Agency
San Benito County
Midterm
(2024–26)
General Fund
Partnerships

19. Publicize Recology’s composting services and educational resources to homes and businesses in Hollister. 19-1. Support San Benito County and Recology’s existing programs by publicizing information about composting services for homes and businesses through the city’s website, mailers, social media, and other communication channels.
19-2. Work with Recology to ensure residents and businesses have access to compost bins. 19-3. Work with local and regional partners to ensure each residence in the city is provided with curbside composting pursuant to Senate Bill 1383.
19-4. Require composting and other food waste diversion techniques at restaurants citywide. 810 970 1,560
Solid waste generated
(tons municipal solid
waste)
Recovery rate (percent
of waste recovered)
Community Services
Department
Recology
San Benito County
Waste Management
Regional Agency
San Benito County
Near term (by
2024)
General Fund
Partnerships

20. Support efforts to reduce methane emissions from regional landfills. 20-1. Encourage efforts of the John Smith Road Landfill to install or enhance existing methane capture technology and associated monitoring systems with a goal of increasing the methane capture rate to the highest extent feasible. 20-2. Encourage the use of captured methane for flaring or generation of electricity to offset fossil fuel energy use and reduce GHG emissions.
3,200 6,670 9,300
Methane captured
(metric tons of
methane)
Community Services
Department Near term (by
2024) General Fund

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page 105
Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

21. Reduce water use in the community through water conservation, water efficient retrofits, water-wise landscaping, and graywater and recycled water programs.
21-1. Work with Sunnyslope and San Benito County Water District to develop and implement a water conservation and storage plan to ensure sustainable water supply as droughts become more frequent. 21-2. Require a Plumbing Retrofit Water Conservation Certification in accordance with SB 407 upon sale of residential properties.
21-3. Provide educational resources and incentives to increase the planting of residential and commercial drought- tolerant landscaping.
21-4. Distribute resources from San Benito County Water District to educate homeowners and business owners about water-conserving appliances and devices and existing incentive programs. 21-5. Collaborate with regional partners to provide incentives for graywater, rainwater storage systems, and other on- site water reuse systems.
290 430 550
Water used (millions
of gallons)
Water-efficiency
devices installed
(number of water-
efficiency water
retrofits conducted)
Community Services
Department
Sunnyslope County
Water District
San Benito County
Water District
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

22. Reduce municipal water use.
22-1. Require water efficient retrofits in municipal buildings and facilities through implementation of requirements for water-conserving plumbing fixtures, and other techniques. 22-2. Implement drought tolerant landscaping and/or water efficient irrigation systems for public parks and facilities. 22-3. Work with the Regional Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (RDWWTP), the local wastewater treatment provider, to upgrade and replace wastewater treatment and pumping equipment with more energy-efficient equipment as feasible.
22-4. Assess and upgrade City-owned water pumping and treatment equipment, as needed, to increase energy efficiency and save energy costs.

Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
Water used (millions
of gallons)
Water-efficiency
devices installed
(number of water
efficiency water
retrofits conducted)
City Manager's
Office

Community Services
Department
Regional Domestic
Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

23. Work with the Regional Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant (RDWWTP), the City’s wastewater treatment plant, to increase methane capture rate in the indirect wastewater treatment process. 23-1. Work with RDWWTP to explore the possibility of generating electricity from captured methane to power various facilities and reduce operating costs.
100 220 530
Methane captured
(metric tons of
methane)
Community Services
Department
Regional Domestic
Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Near term (by
2024) General Fund

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

24. Ensure the preservation and expansion of park land and open space land to provide space for natural habitat, carbon sequestration, and recreation opportunities.
24-1. Explore opportunities to increase park space at locations identified in the Hollister Parks Master Plan. 24-2. Explore opportunities to increase tree plantings and vegetation in existing urban areas such as requiring landscaping on public and private sites such as entry areas, street medians, parks, schools, parking lots, plazas, courtyards, and recreational areas.
24-3. Become a Tree City USA city, which requires designation of a staff person, board, or department to be responsible for the care of trees in the city and administering the program; adopting a tree care ordinance; ensuring the expenditure of $2 per capita per year on tree planting and maintenance; and adopting an annual Arbor Day proclamation.
24-4. Develop a Trail Master Plan with a gap-analysis study of existing parks, trails, and open spaces in Hollister to ensure equal access to natural resources and open space. 24-5. Collaborate with San Benito County on implementation of their Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan and implementation of the Hollister Parks Master Plan to ensure regional connectivity to trails and open space, along with County and City collaborated efforts to enhance the San Benito River frontage through the San Benito River Parkway Master Plan and other studies.
24-6. Create open space preservation opportunities. Through the development review process, preserve open space areas. Encourage the dedication of open space areas that are adjacent to public open space. 0 0 0
Trees planted
(number of trees)
Park space created
(acres of parkland
created)
Parks and
Recreation
Community Services
Department
San Benito County Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page 107
Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

25. Maintain and expand the City’s existing tree canopy to improve urban environmental quality and mitigate the urban heat island effect.
25-1. Implement an urban forestry program to manage citywide tree planting and maintenance, conduct a citywide tree inventory and canopy cover, and monitor tree health to maintain and expand the City's existing tree canopy. 25-2. As part of the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, identify priority areas for tree planting, focusing on environmental justice communities, to mitigate the heat island effect in underserved neighborhoods. 25-3. Ensure that new and retrofitted large hardscaped areas, such as parking lots, incorporate trees and other green infrastructure appropriate for current and future climate conditions. 25-4. Explore grant funding opportunities for urban forestry, pervious concrete, and cool pavement. 25-5. Encourage property owners to plant and maintain trees in existing urban areas through a citywide “Adopt a Tree” program to reduce the urban heat island effect, while ensuring compliance with fire-safe planting protocols and maintaining defensible space, as applicable.
300 370 180 Trees planted
(number of trees)
Community Services
Department
Landscape architects,
landscapers, architects,
and other design and
industry professionals
and organizations
Community-based
organization
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

26. Incorporate drought-tolerant landscapes, bioswales, green roofs, and permeable pavements in new development to increase absorption of precipitation during heavy rain events and reduce surface water runoff. 26-1. Develop sustainable building design standards that include requirements for green infrastructure and landscaping for outdoor areas.
26-2. Adopt green infrastructure design standards to improve stormwater management at public facilities, streets, and parking lots based on recognized green infrastructure design guidelines, such as the one developed by Flows to the Bay.
26-3. Incorporate green infrastructure standards into design review. 0 0 0
Water used (millions
of gallons)
Landscaped areas
converted to drought-
tolerant landscaping
(acres of landscaping)
Community Services
Department
Development
Services
Department
Landscape architects,
landscapers, architects,
and other design and
industry professionals
and organizations
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

27. Promote local and sustainable food sources, including community gardens, home vegetable and fruit gardening, farmers markets, food cooperatives, and community-based efforts to grow and share locally grown food. 27-1. Identify locations for community gardens and work with community groups to establish gardens on appropriate sites.
27-2. Collaborate with community partners to share information and resources on the benefits of eating seasonally, locally grown food, which include reducing individual GHG emissions and support the local economy. 27-3. Work with community partners to increase reliable and affordable access to fresh and healthy food. 27-4. Support efforts of community partners to promote local and regional farms, viticulture, food processors, home gardeners, and other agriculture uses, including through educational farm tours, tasting events, farm-to-table community meals, gardening workshops, and more.
0 0 0
Community gardens
established (number
of gardens)
Food recovered (tons
of food)
Community Services
Department

Development
Services
Department
Community
organizations
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

28. Work with regional partners and farmers to increase sustainable agricultural practices and carbon sequestration on agricultural lands.
28-1. Implement Hollister 2040 goals and policies aimed at preserving agricultural lands in the City's SOI and mitigating the loss of such lands. Work with local and regional partners to track development at the State level pertaining to sequestration of natural and working lands, including through CARB's Natural and Working Lands GHG inventory and the California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. 28-2. Work with local and regional partners to explore innovative techniques to increase carbon sequestration on agricultural land, including through compost application, agroforestry, grazing land, grassland and cropland management, crop covering, mulching, reduced or no-till practices, and planting of windbreaks, among others. 28-3. Partner with farming groups, academic institutions, and other partners, to review and implement suggestions in the State's Healthy Soils Initiative, which facilitates the management of farms and ranches specifically for carbon sequestration and other benefits such as increased water holding capacity and soil fertility. 28-4. Work with CARB and other local and regional partners and participating agencies to identify and implement actions to maximize the use of the city's natural and working lands, including exploration of funding opportunities such as green loans, mitigation and carbon banking, or pursuit of grant funding. 28-5. Work with local farmers and community organizations involved with local farms to highlight agricultural properties and operating farms in the city's SOI , and to encourage their operation. 28-6. Work with Resource Conservation Districts and non-profit organizations to pursue funding for sustainable agriculture grants that can help incentivize farmers and ranchers to minimize synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use.
28-7. Develop and implement an ordinance that prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers on City-owned property.
840 0 0 Farm and grazing land
created (acres)
Development
Services
Department
CARB Resource
Conservation Districts
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page 109
Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

29. Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions, landfills, county agencies, the Central Coast Climate Collaborative, and community organizations to implement the Climate Action Plan. 29-1. Coordinate with regional partners to seek funding for regional climate projects, such as a weatherization program or energy efficiency rebates.
29-2. Collaborate with regional partners to share updates, case studies, and lessons learned from implementation of climate actions partners.
0 0 0
Development
Services
Department
Central Coast Climate
Collaborative
San Benito County
Community
organizations
Near term (by
2024) General Fund

30. Provide emergency information, essential services, and financial assistance to the community to enhance resilience during climate hazard events.
30-1. Partner with county agencies, local weather stations, and air quality districts to provide public health advisories regarding extreme heat and poor air quality.
30-2. Fund the creation and operation of centrally located accessible resilience hubs that can serve as shelters and resource centers during climate hazard events and natural disasters. 30-3. Work with community and regional partners to identify funding options and opportunities to provide temporary or permanent free air conditioning units and/or fans for highly vulnerable residents, including low-income households especially low-income households representing multiple characteristics of vulnerability to the effects of climate change.
30-4. Provide information on how to prepare for emergencies in the event of a wildfire, flood, or other natural disaster.
30-5. Partner with community organizations and faith-based groups to raise awareness about resilience resources and financial assistance programs, such as energy bill assistance and free air conditioning units. 0 0 0
Development
Services
Department
San Benito County
Monterey Bay Air
Quality Management
District
Community
Organizations
Near term (by
2024) General Fund

31. Ensure that workers in outdoor industries have adequate protection from environmental hazards. 31-1. Identify and support community organizations and regional partners that provide resources and training on workplace environmental hazards, including extreme heat, poor air quality, and diseases to all employers of outdoor workers (e.g., landscaping, construction, mining, farming) in Hollister. 0 0 0
Development
Services
Department
Local and regional
community
organizations and
service providers
Near term (by
2024) General Fund

32. Provide green job trainings to create living wages and quality employment opportunities while reducing health and environmental impacts of local industries.
32-1. Partner with community colleges, local non-profits, and community groups to provide green jobs training for residents.
32-2. Provide information about green jobs, especially to people currently or recently working in polluting or extractive industries.
32-3. Collaborate with community-based organizations and regional partners to amend the City’s economic development strategy and attract businesses to Hollister that contribute to a sustainable economy. 0 0 0
Development
Services
Department
Local community
groups
Midterm
(2024–26) General Fund

Chapter 5
CAP Implementation Strategy

Strategy
Actions
GHG Emission Reductions
Metrics Responsible
Departments Partner Agencies Timeframe Funding options 2030 MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e

33. Promote climate change awareness and GHG reduction community-wide, through a variety of mechanisms, including through support of climate change education in schools or community colleges. 33-1. Promote educational resources to students and parents each year and encourage community educators to incorporate clean energy and climate change discussions into their curriculum, by partnering with Gavilan College and school districts.
33-2. Use City newsletters to spotlight community members, including K-12 teachers and students, who are working on climate change or sustainability and who are making a difference in our community. 33-3. Increase energy educational resources in the Hollister School District by working with the San Benito County Office of Education.
33-4. Work with nonprofits and community-based organizations to develop a list of green volunteer opportunities and skills trainings for high school students, such as community gardening, tree planting, bicycle advocacy, food recovery, and composting.
0 0 0
Development
Services
Department
Gavilan College
Hollister School District
San Benito County
Office of Education
Near term (by
2024)
General Fund
Partnerships

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-1

APPENDIX A
This appendix provides additional details regarding the GHG emissions inventory, forecast, and reduction strategies. It summarizes the data sources, assumptions, and performance metrics used to calculate the potential for GHG savings from the community-wide reduction strategies in the Hollister Climate Action Plan (CAP).

The inventories include the years 2005 and 2019. These inventories assess emissions produced by transportation, residential and nonresidential energy use, off-road equipment, solid waste, water and wastewater, agriculture, and land use, including development and sequestration. For the purposes of the GHG inventory and forecast in the CAP, in addition to analyzing the GHG emissions in the city limits, the City assessed GHG emissions for the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). This combined area, known as the CAP Study Area, represents the potential expanded area of the city boundary if all growth areas are annexed and incorporated into the City of Hollister as anticipated by the Hollister 2040 General Plan. Urban expansion in Hollister has the potential to significantly increase community-wide GHG emissions in the future.

Emission Factors
The City calculated most GHG emissions using data on GHG-generating activities in combination with emission factors. An emissions factor describes how many metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) are released per unit of an activity. Table A-1 shows the emissions factors for 2005 and 2019. Some sectors, including agriculture and off-road emissions, are calculated using formulas or models that do not have specific emission factors.

Table A-1 Emissions Factors, 2005 and 2019
Sector Unit 2005 2019 Source
PG&E electricity MTCO2e/kWh 0.000224 0.000002 PG&E
3CE electricity MTCO2e/kWh N/A* 0.000005 3CE
Natural gas MTCO2e/therm 0.005319 0.005319 U.S. Community Protocol On-road transportation (light- and medium-duty
vehicles) MTCO2e/mile 0.000418 0.000352 California Air Resources Board On-road transportation (heavy-duty vehicles) MTCO2e/mile 0.001483 0.001417 California Air Resources Board On-road transportation (all vehicle types) MTCO2e/mile 0.000554 0.000489 California Air Resources Board Solid waste (municipal solid waste) MTCO2e/ton 0.293219 0.286056 AMBAG * 3CE did not operate in 2005 and did not provide electricity data or emissions factors for that year.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-2 October 2024
2005 and 2019 Inventory Updates (City Limit)
Prior to preparation of this CAP, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) prepared community-wide GHG inventories for Hollister for the baseline year of 2005 and the most recent year of 2019. The 2005 inventory provides a baseline for establishing targets, while the 2019 inventory is the most recent indication of how emissions have changed since the baseline and is the year from which future emissions are forecasted.

The City revised the existing AMBAG GHG inventories for 2005 and 2019 to use consistent and current methods and data sources that are in line with recommended guidance and best practices. These revisions included the addition of new sectors and sources, revised emission factors, updated global warming potentials for certain GHGs, different data sources for certain sectors for consistency with the General Plan Update, and adjustments to methods for certain sectors. The new sectors added to the updated inventories are agriculture and land use and sequestration. Updates in methods most noticeably affect the results of the transportation sector; all other changes are minor. Table A-2 and Table A-3 show how the baseline 2005 inventory and the 2019 inventory have been updated.

Both tables present inventory results in absolute and per capita emissions for comparison with previous inventories.

Table A-2 Updates to 2005 Baseline GHG Inventory within the City Limit (MTCO2e) Sector Original 2005
Absolute1
Original 2005
Per Capita
Updated 2005
Absolute1
Updated 2005
Per Capita
Percentage
Change
Transportation 23,660 0.54 110,040 2.52 365%
Nonresidential energy 55,120 1.26 55,120 1.27 0%
Residential energy 36,210 0.83 36,210 0.83 0%
Off-road equipment - - 32,310 0.74 -
Solid waste 10,660 0.24 11,330 0.26 6%
Water and wastewater 2,150 0.05 2,320 0.05 8%
Agriculture - - 400 0.01 -
Land use and sequestration - - -2,300 -0.05 -
Development activities - - 1,600 0.04 -
Total Annual MTCO2e 127,800 2.93 247,030 5.63 93%
1Absolute emissions are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-3
Table A-3 Updates to 2019 GHG Inventory within City Limit (MTCO2e) Sector Original 2019
Absolute1
Original 2019
Per Capita
Updated 2019
Absolute1
Updated 2019
Per Capita
Percentage
Change
Transportation 41,490 0.79 140,350 3.64 238%
Nonresidential energy 11,150 0.21 11,150 0.29 0%
Residential energy 24,230 0.46 24,240 0.62 0%
Off-road equipment - - 43,690 1.13 -
Solid waste 17,930 0.34 17,930 0.47 0%
Water and wastewater 890 0.02 1,040 0.03 17%
Agriculture - - 320 0.01 -
Land use and sequestration - - -2,460 -0.06 -
Development activities - - 500 0.01 -
Total Annual MTCO2e 95,690 1.82 236,760 6.15 147%
1Absolute emissions are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

The large increase in transportation-related emissions is due to a change in the method of quantifying emissions from VMT. The original GHG inventories prepared by AMBAG used a method called the “boundary model”. This model accounts for emissions from all travel miles that occurred within the geographic area, in this case, the city limits of Hollister. The boundary model does not account for travel miles outside of the area, even if the origin or destination of the trip was in Hollister. Although it does not account for travel demand, the original GHG inventories include a portion of “pass-through” or partial trips, which are those that do not begin or end in Hollister but pass through the community.

By contrast, the updated 2005 and 2019 GHG inventories use the “origin-destination” model, which accounts for travel demand by reporting all trips in which both the origin and destination are within the geographic area, as well as trips that have only an origin or destination within the area. The latter, known as transboundary trips, are quantified by allocating 50 percent of travel miles to the city where the trip began or ended. Due to the more comprehensive scope of the origin-destination model, which accounts for travel demand into and outside of the city limits, emissions associated with VMT are much higher in the updated GHG inventories. This change in method for quantifying vehicle emissions explains the large increase in emissions for the transportation sector in the updated 2005 and 2019 GHG inventories compared to the original inventory from AMBAG.

The increase in emissions for the water and wastewater sector in the revised 2005 and 2019 inventories as compared to the original AMBAG results is due to a more complete analysis of activities and emissions for this sector. The water and wastewater sector includes two types of GHG emissions: indirect and direct emissions. Indirect emissions are GHG emissions associated with electricity use for the supply, conveyance, distribution, and treatment of potable water and wastewater. Direct emissions are GHG emissions associated with biological processes that occur naturally through the treatment process. The original 2005 and 2019 GHG inventories assessed only direct emissions of nitrous oxide associated with effluent discharge and wastewater treatment. The update to the 2005 and 2019 GHG inventories includes indirect water and wastewater use in addition to the direct emissions. This change in method for quantifying the water and wastewater emissions explains the 8 and 13 percent increase in emissions for this sector in the updated 2005 and 2019 GHG inventories, respectively.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-4 October 2024
City Limits Inventory Sector Details
Each sector experienced notable changes in activity and emissions level between 2005 and 2019. This section provides a summary of the changes by sector and presents possible explanations for these changes.

Transportation
Hollister’s community members drove approximately 198,652,450 vehicle miles in 2005, increasing to 287,080,730 vehicle miles in 2019. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2005 resulted in the release of approximately 110,040 MTCO2e, which increased to 140,270 MTCO2e in 2019. Although vehicle miles increased by 45 percent between 2005 and 2019, emissions only increased by 27 percent due to increasingly fuel-efficient vehicles, along with a wider adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). The method used to calculate VMT for the transportation sector of the CAP, and the results of this process, are consistent with those of the General Plan Update. Table A-4 provides a breakdown of the activity data and GHG emissions for on-road transportation by each individual year included in the updated community-wide inventory.

Table A-4 Transportation Activity Data and GHG Emissions within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (VMT)
Light-duty vehicles 173,226,780 250,328,920 45%
Heavy-duty vehicles 25,425,670 36,751,810 45%
Total Annual VMT 198,652,450 287,080,730 45%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Light-duty vehicles 72,340 88,200 22%
Heavy-duty vehicles 37,700 52,070 38%
Total Emissions (MTCO2e) 110,040 140,270 27%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

Residential Electricity
Hollister’s GHG emissions from residential electricity totaled approximately 220 MTCO2e in 2019, compared to 13,560 MTCO2e in 2005, a decline of 98 percent. Improvements in energy efficiency have reduced the amount of electricity and natural gas used in Hollister despite a growing population, which has also contributed to reduced energy-related GHG emissions. While residential electricity use declined approximately 29 percent over this period due to increases in energy efficiency, much of the decline in emissions is due to electricity coming from renewable and carbon-free sources. This trend accelerated after the wide-scale adoption of 3CE, which in 2019 supplied electricity entirely from renewable and other carbon-free sources. Table A-5 provides a breakdown of the activity data and GHG emissions for residential electricity by each individual year included in the updated community inventory.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-5
Table A-5 Residential Electricity Activity GHG Emissions by Subsector within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (kWh)
Residential electricity PG&E 60,662,240 5,013,670 -92%
Residential electricity 3CE - 38,068,800 -
Total activity (kWh) 60,662,240 43,082,470 -29%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Residential electricity PG&E 13,560 10 -100%
Residential electricity 3CE - 210 -
Total emissions (MTCO2e) 13,560 220 -98%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

Residential Natural Gas
GHG emissions from residential natural gas use totaled approximately 24,020 MTCO2e in 2019, compared to approximately 22,650 MTCO2e in 2005, an increase of 6 percent. This increase in natural gas GHG emissions is proportional to the increase in natural gas use between the two inventory years. Table A-6 provides a breakdown of the activity data and GHG emissions for residential natural gas by year in the updated community-wide GHG inventory.

Table A-6 Residential Natural Gas Activity and GHG Emissions within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (therms)
Residential natural gas 4,257,670 4,515,300 6%
GHG emissions (MTCO2e)
Residential natural gas 22,650 24,020 6%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-6 October 2024
Nonresidential Electricity
Hollister’s GHG emissions from nonresidential electricity, including GHG emissions from direct access electricity, totaled 510 MTCO2e in 2019, compared to approximately 20,280 MTCO2e in 2005, a decline of 97 percent. This decline in nonresidential electricity emissions occurred despite an increase in electricity use of 7 percent and is primarily attributable to electricity coming from cleaner sources. As mentioned previously, this trend accelerated when 3CE started to supply electricity in Hollister, which provides electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources. Table A-7 provides a breakdown of the activity data and GHG emissions for nonresidential electricity by each year included in the updated community-wide inventory.

Table A-7 Nonresidential Electricity Activity and GHG Emissions by Subsector within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (kWh)
Nonresidential electricity PG&E 83,591,440 1,333,710 -98% Nonresidential electricity 3CE - 93,299,730 -
Direct access electricity* 4,874,830 - -100%
Total activity (kWh) 88,466,270 94,633,440 7%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Nonresidential electricity PG&E 18,690 Less than 0.0002 -100% Nonresidential electricity 3CE - 510
Direct access electricity 1,590 - -100%
Total emissions (MTCO2e) 20,280 510 -98%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows. *No direct access electricity was reported in 2019.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-7
Nonresidential Natural Gas
Nonresidential natural gas GHG emissions totaled approximately 10,640 MTCO2e in 2019, compared to approximately 34,840 MTCO2e in 2005, a decrease of 69 percent. This decrease in natural gas GHG emissions may be due to changes in weather conditions (affecting the need for natural gas heating), and general improvements in energy efficiency. Conversions from natural gas to electric appliances may also contribute to reduced natural gas emissions. Table A-8 provides a breakdown of the activity data and GHG emissions for nonresidential natural gas by each individual year included in the updated community inventory.

Table A-8 Nonresidential Natural Gas Activity and GHG Emissions within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (therms)
Nonresidential natural gas 6,550,060 2,001,050 -69%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Residential natural gas 34,840 10,640 -69%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

Solid Waste
Hollister’s GHG emissions associated with municipal solid waste (MSW) thrown away by community members within the city limits increased by 58 percent between 2005 and 2019, from 11,330 MTCO2e in 2005 to 17,930 MTCO2e by 2019. This increase in emissions, which is smaller than the rate of increase in the volume of solid waste, is potentially the result of an increase in population during the time period. Table A-9 presents specific solid waste data for each year.

Table A-9 Solid Waste Activity and GHG Emissions within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (tons)
MSW 38,640 62,680 62%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
MSW 11,330 17,930 58%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-8 October 2024
Off-Road Equipment
GHG emissions from the off-road equipment sector in Hollister increased approximately 35 percent between 2005 and 2019, from 32,310 MTCO2e in 2005 to 43,590 MTCO2e in 2019, based on data available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Table A-10 shows the change in GHG emissions for each year. As shown, emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRUs) have increased the most significantly, followed by construction and mining equipment and light commercial equipment, which rose by 8,350, 973, and 92 percent, respectively. Increases in TRU and light commercial equipment emissions may be attributed to an increase in commercial and agricultural activity, while growth in construction and mining equipment emissions may be attributed to an increase in construction activities and employment. Portable equipment emissions rose by 57 percent. These increases are largely attributed to the increases in population that Hollister experienced during this time.

Conversely, lawn and garden equipment emissions remained relatively constant, pleasure craft equipment emissions decreased by 2 percent, and recreational equipment emissions decreased by 11 percent between 2005 and 2019. The decrease in industrial equipment may be due to more fuel-efficient equipment becoming available in combination with changing equipment needs.

Table A-10 Off-Road Equipment GHG Emissions by Subsector within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Off-Road Equipment 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Agricultural - 20 -
Construction and mining 660 7,080 973%
Industrial 750 1,050 40%
Lawn and garden 5,510 5,490 0%
Light commercial 4,120 7,930 92%
Pleasure craft 13,100 12,790 -2%
Portable equipment 470 740 57%
Recreational 7,680 6,800 -11%
Transport Refrigeration Units 20 1,690 8,350%
Total Off-Road Equipment (MTCO2e) 32,210 43,590 -35% All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-9
Water and Wastewater
GHG emissions from Hollister’s water and wastewater consumption decreased by 56 percent from 2,320 MTCO2e in 2005 to 1,010 MTCO2e in 2019. Emissions associated with indirect water and indirect wastewater (i.e., the electricity needed to move and process water and wastewater) both decreased by 97 percent. GHG emissions released from direct wastewater grew by 15 percent due to increased indoor water consumption. Although the activity data in Table A-11 shows a decrease in water consumption of only 8 percent and a significant increase (41 percent) in the amount of wastewater produced, the GHG emissions for these subsectors decreased due to the use of renewable and carbon-free electricity sourced from 3CE.

Table A-11 Water and Wastewater Activity and GHG Emissions by Subsector within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data
Indirect water (millions of gallons) 1,750 1,610 -8%
Indirect water (kWh) 5,331,260 4,908,890 -8%
Indirect wastewater (kWh) 1,305,600 1,836,260 41%
Water and Wastewater Total 6,636,860 6,532,090 -2%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Indirect water 1,190 30 -97%
Indirect wastewater 290 10 -97%
Direct wastewater 840 970 15%
Water and Wastewater Total
(MTCO2e) 2,320 1,010 -56%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-10 October 2024
Agriculture
The project team assessed GHG emissions from agriculture by calculating the nitrous oxide emissions associated with fertilizer use for all types of agricultural production in Hollister, including field, vegetable crops, fruit, and nut crops. As shown in Table A-12, GHG emissions in this sector decreased from 400 MTCO2e in 2005 to 320 MTCO2e in 2019, a decrease of 20 percent during this period.

The decrease in emissions is attributed to a decrease in agricultural production, reflected in the proportional decline in acres of crop production between 2005 and 2019.

Table A-12 Fertilizer Use and GHG Emissions within City Limit, 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (acres)
Acres of Fertilized Crops 1,120 890 -21%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Fertilizer GHG Emissions 400 320 -20%
All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows.

Land Use and Sequestration
GHG emissions from land use and sequestration can be either positive or negative. Natural lands and street trees can absorb carbon by storing it in biomass such as wood, plants, and soil. As a result, when natural land is preserved or when more street trees are planted, emissions from this sector go down because GHGs are being removed from the atmosphere. However, developing natural lands or converting them to a different form (for example, replacing forests with crop land) or removing street trees causes carbon to be released, creating GHG emissions.

The land use and sequestration sector includes emission sources and sinks from two types of activities: (1) emissions caused by permanently removing vegetation from natural lands or farmlands as a part of development (emissions source), and (2) sequestration of GHG emissions in street trees in urbanized areas (emissions sink). As shown in Table A-13, the development of agricultural land resulted in the release of 1,600 MTCO2e and 500 MTCO2e in 2005 and 2019, respectively. These emissions are calculated based on development of agricultural land that occurred during a 20-year period. Urban street trees absorbed approximately 2,300 MTCO2e and 2,460 in 2005 and 2019, respectively, offsetting the emissions caused by urban development and other activities. As a result, the net impact of land use change, when accounting for urban street trees, is a decrease in emissions. Emissions from this sector total - 700 MTCO2e in 2005 and -1,960 MTCO2e in 2019.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-11
Table A-13 Land Use Change and Street Tree Biomass within City Limit 2005 and 2019 Sector 2005 2019 Percentage Change
2005 to 2019
Activity Data (acres)
Land use change* 1,700 590 -69%
Street tree biomass 730 780 7%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Land use change* 1,600 500 -69%
Street tree biomass -2,300 -2,460 -7%
Total MTCO2e -700 -1,960 -180%
*The conversion of agricultural to urban land method assumes that all developed agricultural land was converted into urban land uses, and no street trees were removed on those urban lands.

All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not equal the sum of individual rows. 2019 GHG Inventory Totals for CAP Study A rea
As noted in the Introduction section, the General Plan anticipates that Hollister will grow within its existing boundary and through the annexation of land outside of the current city boundary but within the General Plan’s CAP Study Area (see Table A-14). This land consists primarily of agricultural or low-density residential land west, south, and east of the city boundary. The Hollister SOI, totaling approximately 6,844 acres, including the area in the city boundary, is the area designated to indicate land that is likely to be annexed into the city in the near future.

Table A-14 Combined 2019 GHG Emissions – Existing City Limit, Sphere of Influence, and Combined Total (CAP Study Area)
Total Emissions (MTCO2e) 2019
City Limit 236,760
Sphere of Influence 7,990
CAP Study Area (Total) 244,750

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-12 October 2024
Demographic Projections
The community-wide GHG emissions forecasts are based on the 2019 community-wide GHG emissions inventory, taking into account Hollister’s 2019 demographics and predicted demographic trends used in the Hollister 2040 General Plan Update. Table A-15 shows projected changes in population, households, jobs, service population, and VMT between 2019 and 2045. The 2019 demographic statistics are from the US Census, the Department of Finance, and AMBAG. Projected demographic information is from General Plan Update buildout projections. VMT are derived from Kimley-Horn (2019). VMT is modeled for 2015 and 2040. The City interpolated and extrapolated these results to obtain VMT estimates for 2019, 2030, and 2045.

The City of Hollister’s service population in the city boundary is projected to increase by 78 percent between 2019 and 2045.

Table A-15 City of Hollister Demographic Projection within City Limit, 2019-2045 Metric 2019 2030 2040 2045
Percentage
Change, 2019
to 2045
Relevant
Sectors
Population 38,507 53,250 63,295 68,317 77% Off-road equipment Households 10,660 15,352 18,619 20,253 90% Residential energy, off-road equipment
Jobs 14,164 19,934 23,506 25,293 79% Nonresidential energy, off-road equipment
Service
population 52,671 73,183 86,801 93,610 78%
Solid, water and
wastewater, off-road
equipment
Vehicle miles
traveled 287,080,730 453,820,480 512,416,640 541,714,540 89% Transportation Table A-16 shows the demographic projections used to prepare the GHG emissions forecast for the SOI.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-13
Table A-16 Hollister Demographic Projection in Sphere of Influence, 2019-2045 Metric 2019 2030 2040 2045
Percentage
Change,
2019 to 2045
Relevant Sectors
Population 1,863 2,610 3,289 3,628 95% Off-road equipment Households 588 829 1,048 1,157 97% Residential energy, off- road equipment
Jobs 294 312 329 338 15% Nonresidential energy, off-road equipment
Service
population* 2,157 2,922 3,618 3,966 84%
Solid waste, water and
wastewater, off-road
equipment
Vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) 9,178,059 13,273,444 16,996,407 18,858,062 105% Transportation Sources: 2019 demographic numbers are from US Census, the Department of Finance, and AMBAG. * Service population is the sum of populations and jobs.

All numbers except residents per household are rounded to the nearest 10.

Future demographics are from buildout projections. VMT are derived from Kimley-Horn (2019) using modeled VMT analysis for the years 2015 and 2040 to interpolate and extrapolate as needed to obtain VMT estimates for 2019, 2030, and 2045.

The service population of the city’s SOI, not including the city boundary, is projected to increase by 84 percent between 2019 and 2045.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-14 October 2024

STATE GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS
California has adopted and committed to implementing policies to decrease GHG emission levels statewide, many of which apply to the major GHG emitters in Hollister. Many of these policies are identified in the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which was originally adopted in 2008 in response to the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The Scoping Plan outlines several regulatory and market-based solutions to achieving California’s GHG emission reduction goals. Successive updates to the Scoping Plan in 2014,2017, and 2022 revised these State level actions and identified additional opportunities for GHG emission reductions, as applicable.

While the Scoping Plan and related documents lay out policies to reduce GHG emissions statewide, the CAP focuses on the policies that most directly impact Hollister. The CAP accounts for the impacts of the State’s GHG emissions reduction efforts on the level of emissions released by activities that take place in Hollister. These efforts are:

The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires increases in renewable and carbon-free electricity supplies. RPS was first established in 2002 and has been amended multiple times, most recently by Senate Bill (SB) 1020 in 2022. It requires all electricity providers in the state to obtain at least 60 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable resources by the end of 2030 and all their electricity from carbon-free (although not necessarily eligible renewable) resources by the end of 2045. This policy reduces GHG emissions from electricity use, including the electricity used to transport and process water and wastewater, and the electricity used for electric vehicles.

The Clean Car Standards, which require increased fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles and decreased carbon intensity of vehicle fuels. In 2002, California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, the New Passenger Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards, or Pavley standard. It required a reduction in tailpipe GHG emissions from new vehicles produced from 2009 to 2015.

In 2012, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an extension of this policy, the Advanced Clean Car Standards, which requires more stringent reductions in tailpipe GHG emissions from vehicles produced from 2016 to 2025. In August 2022, CARB adopted another expansion of these standards, known as the Advanced Clean Cars II standards. This regulation requires that all new light-duty vehicles (e.g., passenger cars, small trucks, and SUVs) sold in the state be zero-emission by 2035, with interim targets for new light-duty vehicle sales beginning in 2026. There are some limited exceptions for plug-in hybrid vehicles. CARB adopted similar rules for heavy-duty vehicles and State and local government fleets in 2020 (Advanced Clean Trucks) and 2023 (Advanced Clean Fleets).

The updated Title 24 building energy-efficiency standards require new buildings to achieve increased energy-efficiency targets.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 are California’s energy-efficiency standards for new and renovated buildings, which are applied at the local level through the project review and building permit process. The standards are strengthened every three years, with the ultimate goal of making new buildings net-zero energy, meaning that they would generate as much energy as they use. The most recent set of Title 24 standards, known as the 2022 standards, went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 Title 24 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation standards. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) mandates reduced carbon intensity of fuels used in off-road equipment.

The short-lived climate pollutants law (SB 1383) requires that communities divert 75 percent of organic waste (e.g., food scraps, grass, and plant trimmings) away from landfills and toward alternatives such as composting or energy generation. As a part of this requirement, all jurisdictions must offer curbside composting to single-family and small multifamily properties (less than five units).

Larger multifamily properties and businesses must either participate in curbside composting or self-haul organic waste to a composting

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-15
program or collection site. SB 1383 also includes requirements related to diverting surplus food to people in need, increasing the use of products made from recycled organics, and providing more detailed reporting statistics.

Title 24: Building Standards Code
Title 24 is the section of the California Code of Regulations that establishes standards to promote energy efficiency, public health, and GHG reduction standards for the construction of new commercial, residential, and public-school buildings. Title 24 includes Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (also known as the Energy Code), which focuses on reducing energy consumption of new buildings, and Part 11, CALGreen Code, which focuses on reducing environmental impacts and improving public health through mandatory measures in the building sector.

Title 24 is applied at the local level through the building permit and development review process, implemented through the municipal building code. Section 15.04.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code adopts the California Building Standards Code, including the CALGreen Code, by reference. The Municipal Code thus requires compliance with statewide Title 24 standards that improve energy efficiency, public health, and environmental sustainability in new homes and nonresidential buildings, such as high-efficiency electric air and water heating systems, improved ventilation systems, and rooftop solar and battery storage systems. This CAP was prepared with the 2022 standards in effect.

GHG Emission Reductions from State Actions in City Limit In the city limit, if no changes in activities or emissions occur (business as usual scenario), GHG emissions are projected to increase by approximately 93 percent between 2019 and 2045. By comparison, with State actions, Hollister’s community-wide GHG emissions are projected to increase by 15 percent relative to 2019 levels by 2045. Table A-17 shows the GHG emission forecast for the city limit with and without reductions from State actions.

Table A-17 GHG Emission Reductions from State Actions in City Limit, 2019-2045 GHG Emissions 2019
MTCO2e
2030
MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e
Percentage Change
2019 to 2045
Forecasted emissions without
State actions 236,760 371,180 428,080 456,050 93%
Reductions from RPS 0 310 730 1,400 ---
Renewable natural gas 0 3,070 9,300 11,800
Reductions from Clean Car
standards 0 44,630 78,850 88,150 ---
Reductions from Title 24 0 5,030 12,310 16,390 ---
Reductions from LCFS
(off-road only) 0 45,120 54,190 58,500 ---
Reductions from SB 1383 0 5,870 6,960 7,500 ---
Reductions from all State actions 0 104,030 162,340 183,740 --- Emissions with State actions 236,760 267,150 265,740 272,310 15%

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-16 October 2024
GHG Emission Reductions from State Actions in Sphere of Influence In the SOI, if no changes in activities or emissions occur, GHG emissions are projected to increase by 112 percent between 2019 and 2045. By comparison, with State actions, 2045 GHG emissions in the SOI are projected to increase by 28 percent. Table A-18 shows the GHG emission forecast with and without reductions from State actions in the SOI.

Table A-18 GHG Emission Reductions from State Actions in the Sphere of Influence, 2019 – 2045 GHG Emissions 2019
MTCO2e
2030
MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e
Percentage
Change
2019- 2045
Forecasted emissions without State
actions 7,990 11,340 13,950 16,920 112%
Reductions from RPS 0 10 20 40 -
Renewable natural gas 0 130 400 500
Reductions from Clean Car standards 0 1,300 2,600 3,070 - Reductions from Title 24 0 60 120 150 -
Reductions from LCFS
(off-road only) 0 1,900 2,370 2,590 -
Reductions from SB 1383 0 230 290 320 -
Reductions from all State actions 0 3,630 5,790 6,670 - Emissions with State actions 7,980 7,710 8,170 10,250 28% GHG Emission Reductions in CAP Study A rea
With State actions, the CAP Study Area’s GHG emissions are projected to increase by 15 percent relative to 2019 levels by 2045.

Table A-19 shows the GHG emission reductions from State actions in the CAP Study Area.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-17
Table A-19 GHG Emission Reductions from State Actions in the CAP Study Area, 2019 – 2045 GHG Emissions 2019
MTCO2e
2030
MTCO2e
2040
MTCO2e
2045
MTCO2e
Percentage
Change
2019- 2045
Forecasted emissions without
State actions 244,750 382,520 442,030 472,970 93%
Reductions from RPS 0 320 750 1,440 -
Renewable natural gas 0 3,200 9,700 12,300
Reductions from Clean Car
standards 0 45,930 81,450 91,220 -
Reductions from Title 24 0 5,090 12,430 16,540 -
Reductions from LCFS (off-road
only) 0 47,020 56,560 61,090 -
Reductions from SB 1383 0 6,100 7,250 7,820 -
Reductions from all State actions 0 107,660 168,130 190,410 - Emissions with State actions 244,750 274,860 273,910 282,560 15%

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-18 October 2024

TECHNICAL DATA FOR EXISTING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES
Existing Activities
EXISTING ACTION 1 CITYWIDE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
Existing Action 1 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10

EXISTING ACTION 2 3CE RENEWABLE ENERGY PORTFOLIO
Existing Action 2 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 610 400 Less than 10

EXISTING ACTION 3 INSTALLATION OF EV CHARGERS
Existing Action 3 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-19
Planned Activities
Strategy 1 MUNICIPAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION Strategy 1 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 10 20 20
SOI Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
CAP Study Area 10 20 20

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of municipal
electricity reduced 15.0% 25.0% 30.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Percentage of municipal
natural gas use reduced 10.0% 20.0% 25.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A

Strategy 2 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY-WIDE BUILDING STANDARDS Strategy 2 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 1,210 3,170 4,900
SOI 70 110 160
CAP Study Area 1,280 3,280 5,060

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of residential
electricity reduced 15.0% 25.0% 30.0% Number of retrofitted residential units 2,290 4,570 6,860

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-20 October 2024
Assumptions Performance Standards
Percentage of residential
natural gas use reduced 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% - - - -
Source: Greenblatt, J. (2015) “Modeling California policy impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.” Energy Policy. Accessed online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514006892?via%3Dihub Strategy 3 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION Strategy 3 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 510 1,330 2,500
SOI 30 70 140
CAP Study Area 540 1,400 2,640

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of residential
electricity reduced 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% Number of retrofitted low- income residential units 1,110 3,320 6,640
Percentage of residential
natural gas use reduced 5.0% 15.0% 30.0% - - - -
Sources:

Greenblatt, J. (2015) “Modeling California policy impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.” Energy Policy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514006892?via%3Dihub California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2022). State Income Limits for 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and- funding/inc2k22.pdf

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-21
Strategy 4 NONRESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY Strategy 4 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 980 2,210 3,320
SOI 20 40 50
CAP Study Area 1,000 2,250 3,370

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage nonresidential
electricity use reduced 15.0% 25.0% 30.0%
Number of
nonresidential spaces
retrofit
230 450 670
Percentage nonresidential
natural gas use reduced 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% - - - -
Source: Greenblatt, J. (2015) “Modeling California policy impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.” Energy Policy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514006892?via%3Dihub

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-22 October 2024
Strategy 5 ONSITE SOLAR ENERGY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
Strategy 5 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
SOI Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
CAP Study Area Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of new
nonresidential buildings with
solar installations

65.0% 80.0% 90.0% Solar installations on new
nonresidential buildings 150 290 390
Source:

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. PV Watts Calculator. https//pvwatts.nrel.gov/

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-23
Strategy 6 MUNICIPAL RENEWABLE AND CARBON-FREE ENERGY
Strategy 6 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
SOI Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
CAP Study Area Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Number of new solar
installations on municipal
property
5 10 15
Number of new solar
installations on municipal
property
5 10 15
Source:

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. PV Watts Calculator. https//pvwatts.nrel.gov/ Strategy 7 COMMUNITY-WIDE RENEWABLE, CARBON-FREE, AND RESILIENT ENERGY SYSTEMS Strategy 7 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
SOI Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
CAP Study Area Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-24 October 2024
Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage existing
nonresidential buildings
obtaining new solar systems (city
limits)

10.0% 25.0% 30.0% New solar installations
(City Limit) 1,120 2,800 3,360
Percentage existing
nonresidential buildings
obtaining new solar systems
(SOI)

10.0% 25.0% 30.0% New solar installations
(SOI) 60 150 180
Source:

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. PV Watts Calculator. https//pvwatts.nrel.gov/ Strategy 8 BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION
Strategy 8 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 8,820 15,570 16,480
SOI 400 760 830
CAP Study Area 9,220 16,330 17,310

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of existing homes
converting to all-electric 30.0% 70.0% 85.0%
Residential units
undergoing all-electric
retrofits
3,220 7,500 9,110
Percentage of existing
nonresidential spaces converting to
all-electric

25.0% 50.0% 65.0%
Nonresidential spaces
undergoing all-electric
retrofits
140 280 370
Source:

Greenblatt, J. (2015) “Modeling California policy impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.” Energy Policy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514006892?via%3Dihub

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-25
Strategy 9 BUILDING CODE UPDATES AND INCENTIVES FOR ELECTRIFICATION OF NEW BUILDINGS Strategy 9 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 2,010 7,020 8,050
SOI 80 270 320
CAP Study Area 2,090 7,290 8,370

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of new homes built
to be all-electric 20% 70% 80% Residential units built to be all-electric 990 5,890 8,130
Percentage of new
nonresidential spaces built to
be all-electric
25% 65% 75% Nonresidential spaces
built to be all-electric 60 240 330
Source:

Greenblatt, J. (2015) “Modeling California policy impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.” Energy Policy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514006892?via%3Dihub

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-26 October 2024
Strategy 10 REDUCING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Strategy 10 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 5,170 8,380 12,120
SOI 140 280 420
CAP Study Area 5,310 8,660 12,540

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Target participation rate in
Commute Trip Reduction Program 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%
Employees participating in
commute trip reduction
program
1,010 2,380 3,840
Percent of new residents in transit-
oriented development 5.0% 15.0% 25.0% Residents in transit- oriented developments 770 3,930 7,890
Percent new jobs in transit-
oriented development 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% Jobs in transit-oriented developments 580 1,880 3,350
Percent new multifamily units
designated affordable 20.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Target light-duty VMT/service
population reduction for new
development

15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Percent transit routes that receive
treatments 10.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2022). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/residents/climate-change/ghg-handbook- caleemod
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (22 November 2019). Travel Chapter 3: Mode Choice. FHWA. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/23cpr/chap3.cfm#vmt-and-person-miles-traveled .

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-27
Strategy 11 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Strategy 11 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 980 1,030 1,090
SOI Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
CAP Study Area 980 1,030 1,090

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of installation of planned
bicycle facilities 28.0% 56.0% 69.0% Total mileage of
bicycle facilities 10.6 21.2 26.5
Percentage of installation of planned
pedestrian facilities 28.0% 56.0% 69.0%
Total mileage of
pedestrian facility
improvements

1.4 2.8 3.5
Percent reduction in VMT from
displaced vehicles due to bicycle
facility

0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Percent reduction in VMT from
displaced vehicles due to pedestrian
improvements

3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
Percent change of residences who
have access to scootering 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2022). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/residents/climate-change/ghg -handbook- caleemod
California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory .

City of Hollister. (February 8, 2018). Engineering and Traffic Survey. City of Hollister. https://hollister.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/EngineeringTrafficSurvey.pdf
City of Hollister. (2020). Hollister Complete Streets Plan. City of Hollister. https://hollister.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Hollister_Report_v9.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Total population, 2020. American Community Survey, 5-year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-28 October 2024
Strategy 12 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS
Safe Routes to Schools is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 13 TRANSIT ACCESS
Strategy 13 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 12,780 23,950 30,530
SOI 280 530 750
CAP Study Area 13,060 24,480 31,280

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Average round trip commute
distance in Hollister (miles) 50 50 50
Number of new Hollister
transit trips per year with
service expansion
76,110 207,050 240,120
Average round trip commute
distance in Hollister SOI
(miles)
50 50 50
Number of new Hollister
SOI transit trips per year
with service expansion
3,040 8,630 10,170
Percent increase in transit
network coverage 15.0% 25.0% 35.0%
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2022). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/residents/climate-change/ghg-handbook- caleemodCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory .

U.S. Census. (2019). Distance/Direction Report: Home census block to work census block. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) OnTheMap. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/ .

San Benito County Express. (2022). Intercounty schedule 2022. San Benito County Express. http://www.sanbenitocountyexpress.org/pdf/2022/06/Intercounty%20Schedule_May%202022.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Means of transportation to work, 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ .

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-29
Strategy 14 ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EVS)
Strategy 14 Per reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 23,670 84,820 125,150
SOI 700 2,820 4,360
CAP Study Area 24,370 87,640 129,510

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Target for eVMT share of
community wide VMT
(light-duty)

25.0% 65.0% 90.0% Light duty eVMT
in city limits 59,857,630 183,793,070 251,678,790
Target for eVMT share of
community wide VMT
(heavy-duty)

10.0% 55.0% 85.0% Light duty eVMT
in SOI 1,782,640 6,145,170 8,800,780
City Limit target number
of new charging stations 20.00 35.00 45.00
Heavy-duty
eVMT in city
limits
6,176,330 39,128,740 65,077,890
SOI target number of
new charging stations 1 2 3 Heavy-duty
eVMT in SOI 178,230 1,285,740 2,250,690
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2022). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/residents/climate-change/ghg -handbook- caleemod
California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Light-duty vehicle population in California. CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/zero-emission-vehicle -and-infrastructure-statistics/light-duty-vehicle.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory .

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2018). California public road data. Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/research-innovation-system -information/documents/california-public-road-data/prd-2018-a11y.pdf.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-30 October 2024
Strategy 15 EXPAND MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE FLEET AND PROMOTE LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.

Expand Municipal Electric Vehicle Fleet and Promote Low Carbon Transportation Options is not a quantifiable strategy in Hollister because municipal electric fleet and public bus data are not available. Instead of being quantified as a stand-alone strategy, GHG emissions reductions for this strategy were quantified at the community-wide scale. As a result, there are no specific GHG reductions, assumptions, or performance targets specific to municipal operations.

Strategy 16 CONSIDER DEVELOPING AN EV CAR SHARE PROGRAM.

Strategy 16 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 650 820 900
SOI Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
CAP Study Area 650 820 900

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Number of EVs in Car Share
Program 20 30 35 Number of EVs in Car
Share Program 20 30 35

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-31
Strategy 17 ELECTRIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT Strategy 17GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 4,830 11,460 16,560
SOI 160 100 130
CAP Study Area 4,990 11,560 16,690

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of construction
equipment converted to electric 30.0% 60.0% 80.0% N/A - - - Percentage of landscaping
equipment converted to electric 40.0% 65.0% 80.0% N/A - - - Percentage of all other off-road
equipment converted to electric 30.0% 60.0% 80.0% N/A - - - Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2022). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/residents/climate-change/ghg -handbook- caleemod
California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory .

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-32 October 2024

Strategy 18 REDUCE COMMUNITY-WIDE WASTE GENERATION
Strategy 18 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 2,860 5,650 9,750
SOI 110 240 410
CAP Study Area 2,970 5,890 10,160

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Reduction in solid waste
generation 15.0% 25.0% 40.0% N/A - - -
Strategy 19 RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING EDUCATION
Strategy 19 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 780 930 1,500
SOI 30 40 60
CAP Study Area 810 970 1,560

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Organic recycling target 85.0% 85.0% 90.0% Tons of solid waste reduced 1,820 2,160 3,500

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-33
Strategy 20 METHANE CAPTURE AT LANDFILLS
Strategy 20 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 3,080 6,400 8,920
SOI 120 270 380
CAP Study Area 3,200 6,670 9,300

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Current methane capture rate 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% N/A - - - Target for methane capture rate 80.0% 85.0% 92.0% N/A - - - Percentage of captured methane
that will be combusted for
cogeneration

4.0% 6.0% 8.0% N/A - - -
Source:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2022). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. https://www.airquality.org/residents/climate-change/ghg-handbook-caleemod

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-34 October 2024
Strategy 21 REDUCE COMMUNITY-WIDE WATER USE
Strategy 21 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 280 410 530
SOI 10 20 20
CAP Study Area 290 430 550

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of
water use reduced 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Water use reduction (MG) 310 360 430
N/A - - - Wastewater generation
reduction (MG) 120 150 170
N/A - - - Energy use reduction
(kWh) 1,568,230 2,325,060 3,008,920
Source:

PlaceWorks. (2021). City of Hollister 2019 GHG Inventory, Water and Wastewater Sector. PlaceWorks.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-35
Strategy 22 REDUCE MUNICIPAL WATER USE
Strategy 22 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
SOI Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10
CAP Study Area Less than 10 Less than 10 Less than 10

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Efficiency improvement
in water treatment and
distribution system

10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
Electricity use of water
treatment and
distribution system
3,570,070 3,041,870 2,688,970

Strategy 23 METHANE CAPTURE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Strategy 23 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 100 210 510
SOI Less than 10 10 20
CAP Study Area 100 220 530

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
RDWWTP’s existing wastewater
methane capture rate (2019) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A - - -
RDWWTP’s target wastewater
methane capture rate 70% 80% 90% N/A - - -
Source:

PlaceWorks. (2021). City of Hollister 2019 GHG Inventory, Water and Wastewater Sector. PlaceWorks.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-36 October 2024
Strategy 24 NATURAL RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE
Reducing Community-wide Waste Generation is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy.

There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 25 TREE PLANTING AND PRESERVATION
Strategy 25 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 250 310 150
SOI 50 60 30
CAP Study Area 300 370 180

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Trees planted 100 300 500 N/A - - -
Mortality rate 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% N/A - - -
Cumulative total number
of trees planted 700 1,700 2,200 N/A - - -
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2010). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. CAPCOA. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf Hilbert, D. R., Roman, L. A., Koeser, A. K., Vogt, J., & van Doorn, N. S. (2019). Urban tree mortality: a literature review. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry:
45 (5): 167-200., 45(5), 167-200.

Strategy 26 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Green Infrastructure is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 27 LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS
Local Food Systems is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page A-37
Strategy 28 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION Strategy 28 GHG reduction (MTCO2e)
Geography 2030 2040 2045
City Limit 180 0 0
SOI 660 0 0
CAP Study Area 840 0 0

Assumptions Performance Standards
Description 2030 2040 2045 Description 2030 2040 2045
Percentage of prime farmland
involved in Healthy Soils
Program

10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
City limit acres of prime
farmland involved in
Healthy Soils Program
49 0 0
Percentage of grazing land
involved in Healthy Soils
Program

10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
SOI acres of farmland
involved in Healthy Soils
Program
178 0 0
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2022). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/residents/climate-change/ghg-handbook- caleemodCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARB).

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2022). COMET-Planner CDFA Healthy Soils Program (HSP). USDA NRCS. http://comet- planner-
cdfahsp.com/#:~:text=COMET%2DPlanner%20California%20Healthy%20Soils&text=COMET%2DPlanner%20for%20the%20CDFA,Practice s%20included%20in%20the%20program

Strategy 29 REGIONAL COOPERATION
Regional Cooperation is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 30 COMMUNITY RESILIENCE RESOURCES
Community Resilience Resources is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Appendix A
Technical Appendix
Page A-38 October 2024
Strategy 31 SAFETY FOR OUTDOOR WORKERS
Safety for Outdoor Workers is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 32 GREEN JOBS
Green Jobs is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 33 CLIMATE CHANGE AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
Climate Change Awareness and Education is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG reductions for this strategy.

There are no assumptions or performance targets.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page B-1

APPENDIX B
State of California Regulations and Guidance
California has adopted several laws to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. These laws and associated regulations are briefly summarized here.

Executive Order S-03-05
In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, which established the first statewide GHG reduction goals for California: reduce emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.

Assembly Bill 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was adopted in 2006. It establishes a legislative target for the State of California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It also makes the California Air Resources Board (CARB) responsible for reducing statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 includes the major GHGs and groups of GHGs that are being emitted into the atmosphere. These gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen dioxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). Through the adoption of AB 32, the California Legislature declared:
(a) Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems. (b) Global warming will have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry. It will also increase the strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air conditioning in the hottest parts of the State.

Climate Change Scoping Plan
The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was first adopted by CARB in 2008. It lays out the State’s plan to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with adopted targets, including direct regulations, alternate compliance mechanisms, incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based approaches like a cap-and-trade program. CARB updated the Scoping Plan in 2014 and 2017 to reflect new State targets and additional opportunities for GHG emission reduction.

In December 2022, CARB adopted a third update to the Scoping Plan. Core strategies in the 2022 Scoping Plan include:
 Making the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and near-ZEV technologies.  Continued investment in renewables, such as solar, wind, and other types of renewable energy.  Greater use of low carbon fuels.

Appendix B
State of California Regulations and Guidance
Page B-2 October 2024
 Integrated land conservation and development strategies.  Coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases).  Integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conserve agricultural and other lands.  Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement local air pollution control efforts by the local air districts to tighten criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources.

Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations.

Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 was signed in 2015 by Governor Jerry Brown and set a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the State to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. EO B-30-15 directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the State and requires State agencies to implement strategies to meet the interim 2030 goal.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197, making the EO goal for 2030 into a statewide, mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires CARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.

Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18, signed in 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter”. EO B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant State agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other statewide goals, meaning that not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions should be offset by equivalent net removals of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.

Executive Order N-79-20
In 2020, Governor Newsom issued EO N-79-20, which sets a time frame for the transition to ZEVs, including passenger vehicles, trucks, and off-road equipment. It directs CARB to develop and propose passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZEVs sold in California toward the target of 100 percent of in-state sales by 2035, and similar regulations for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to achieve a target of 100 percent fleet electrification by 2045. In addition, EO N-79-20 provides strategies— in cooperation with other State agencies, the EPA, and local air districts—to achieve 100 percent zero emissions from all off-road vehicles and equipment operations in California by 2035.

City of Hollister
Climate Action Plan
October 2024 Page B-3
Assembly Bill 1279
AB 1279, also referred to as the California Climate Crisis Act, was approved by the California legislature on August 31, 2022, and signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022. The California Climate Crisis Act requires the State to:
 Achieve net-zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.
 Ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below statewide 1990 levels.

The legislation requires CARB to work with relevant State agencies to ensure that updates to the Climate Change Scoping Plan identify and recommend measures to achieve these policy goals and to identify and implement a variety of policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in California, as specified. “Net zero greenhouse gas emissions” means emissions of GHGs released to the atmosphere are balanced by removals of GHG emissions over a period of time, as determined by the State board. The goals established by AB 1279 are in addition to, and do not replace or supersede, the statewide GHG emissions reduction targets established by AB 32 for SB 32.

Monterey Bay Air Resources District
The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is the regional air district responsible for air quality management in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito Counties, also geographically known as the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The MBARD is responsible for monitoring air quality, achieving and maintaining air quality standards, and supporting the mission to protect environmental and public health in the Monterey Bay region. MBARD plays an important role in controlling emissions of GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, released from privately owned facilities in the region that are not under the jurisdiction of city planning. These facilities are called stationary sources of emissions, and they include industrial facilities and natural gas fired-power plants. In addition, MBARD is the regional agency responsible for compliance with State air quality standards, such as the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which established regulatory standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide. Pinnacles National Park is classified as a nonattainment area for ozone under the State’s Ambient Air Quality Standards, which means that it exceeds the threshold for ozone levels deemed acceptable for human health in California.18 According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), GHG emissions and ozone levels are correlated because ozone formation in the atmosphere accelerates as temperature increases. Ozone exposure can exacerbate human health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, asthma, and other respiratory diseases.19 Fortunately, studies show that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin Air Basins areas are forecast to decline through the year 2030.

18 Monterey Bay Air Resources District. 2017, March 15. Air Quality Management Plan: 2012-2017. https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012- 2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf
19 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022, February 15. “How Climate Change May Impact Ozone Pollution and Public Health Through the 21st Century.” https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/how-climate-change -may-impact-ozone-pollution-and-public-health-through-21st-century.

Appendix B
State of California Regulations and Guidance
Page B-4 October 2024
This page intentionally left blank.

CHAPTER 17.28 – AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM

17.28.010 – Chapter Title.

The ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Agricultural Lands Preservation Program" of the City of Hollister.

17.28.020 – Purpose.

Due to favorable soil and topographical and climatic conditions, the City of Hollister contains large areas of local, State and Federal classified agricultural lands. These lands are environmental and economic assets that contribute to local quality of life.

The purpose of this Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to urban uses directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements.

17.28.030 – Definitions.

A. Agricultural Conservation Easement. An Agricultural Conservation Easement is a legally binding deed limitation which has been executed voluntarily by the owner of the land subject to the easement, the purpose of which is to retain the land in its agricultural condition. The terms of the easement remain binding even when the land is sold or passed to heirs.

B. Agricultural Lands. Agricultural Lands subject to this Program are defined as:

1. All lands defined as Prime Agricultural Land per California Government Code 51201.

These include the following:
a. All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications. b. Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. c. Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. d. Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre.
e. Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years.

2. All lands currently used for an Agricultural Use per California Government Code 51201. This means use of the land, including for greenhouses, for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes.

3. All lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance by the California Department of

Conservation (DOC) on the most recently published map of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Agricultural Lands developed for non-agricultural use prior to the adoption of this Program are not included in this definition. The four (4) classifications of farmland referenced above are defined by the DOC as follows:
a. Prime Farmland. Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Prime Farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture needed to produce sustained high yields. In order to qualify as Prime Farmland, land must meet the specific soil criteria required by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Service (NRCS.) b. Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. To qualify as Farmland of Statewide Importance, land must meet the specific soil criteria required USDA NRCS.
c. Unique Farmland. Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California.
d. Farmland of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county’s local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing or has the capability of production; but does not meet the criteria of Prime, Statewide or Unique Farmland. For the purposes of this ordinance and as adopted by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, Farmland of Local Importance is defined as land cultivated as dry cropland for wheat, barley, oats, safflower and grain hay, as well as orchards affected by boron within the area specified in San Benito County Resolution Number 84-3. If the County of San Benito expands the definition of Farmland of Local Importance to include more lands, such lands shall also be considered to be Farmland of Local Importance under this ordinance.

4. 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

17.28.030.B.2 above. Whether or not the land under consideration is currently used for agricultural production shall not be a criterion in this determination.

C. Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee. The Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee (also referred to as the Administration Fee) refers to a fee paid to the City of Hollister which will be credited to a City fund and used by the City and/or transferred to the Program Manager for the purpose of administering the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and/or to cover ongoing management and monitoring of the Agricultural Conservation Easements.

D. Agricultural Use. Agricultural Use means the use of land, including for greenhouses, for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes, per California Government Code 51201.

E. Arm's Length Transaction. An Arm's Length Transaction is a business deal in which buyers and sellers act independently without one party influencing the other.

F. Developer. A Developer is a person or entity who files an application to develop land under the jurisdiction of the City of Hollister.

G. Development Project. A Development Project is a project to convert the use of land that is subject to an application under the jurisdiction of the City of Hollister.

H. Easement Holder. An Easement Holder is a government entity or 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit corporation that takes ownership of, or authority over, real property and/or Agricultural Conservation Easements at the behest of an owner. The City will consider the following criteria when selecting an Easement Holder:

1. Whether the entity is based locally, is statewide, or is a regional branch of a national organization, with preference given to a locally-based organization;

2. Whether the entity has an established record of holding easements for the purposes of conserving Agricultural Land;

3. Whether the entity has a history of holding easements in San Benito County;

4. Whether the entity is operating in compliance with the most recent version of the Land Trust Alliance’s “Standards and Practices” available at the Land Trust Alliance Resource Center.

An Easement Holder may also serve as the Program Manager. The City of Hollister may also serve as an Easement Holder.

I. Highest and Best Use. Highest and Best Use refers to the legal use of vacant or improved land that is physically possible and financially feasible, and that results in the highest value.

J. Legal Parcel. A Legal Parcel is a portion of land separated from another parcel or portion of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. A separate Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) alone shall not constitute a legal parcel.

K. Program Manager. The Program Manager is a government entity or 501(c)(3) tax- exempt nonprofit organization selected by and accountable to the City of Hollister to serve as the manager of the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The City will consider the following criteria when selecting the Program Manager:

1. Whether the entity is based locally, is statewide, or is a regional branch of a national organization, with a preference given to a locally-based organization;

2. Whether the entity has an established record of managing Agricultural Land;

3. Whether the entity has a history of managing easements in San Benito County;

4. Whether the entity is operating in compliance with the most recent version of the Land Trust Alliance’s “Standards and Practices” available at the Land Trust Alliance Resource Center.

The Program Manager may also serve as an Easement Holder. The City of Hollister may also serve as the Program Manager.

17.28.040 – Applicability.

The regulations and provisions of this chapter shall apply to all public and private Development Projects under the jurisdiction of the City of Hollister which would result in the conversion of at least one (1) acre of Agricultural Land for uses other than Agricultural Uses.

17.28.050 – 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 17.28.090 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 one (1) acre of Agricultural Land for each one (1) acre of Agricultural Land to be converted [1:1 ratio].

The total acreage for which Agricultural Conservation Easements are dedicated shall be calculated based on the total acreage subject to conversion, not the total size of the Legal Parcel(s) on which the development is to be located, unless the total size of the area of the subject Legal Parcel(s) not subject to conversion is ten (10) acres or less, in which case the total acreage for which Agricultural Conservation Easements are dedicated shall be calculated based on the total size of the subject Legal Parcel(s).

17.28.060 – Timing.

Agricultural Conservation Easements shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder specified by the City of Hollister prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits that would result in the conversion of Agricultural Land.

17.28.070 – Program Mechanism.

The requirements of this Agricultural Lands Preservation Program may be satisfied in one of the following two ways:

A. Dedication of Agricultural Conservation Easement(s). The Developer shall dedicate Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) to either the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder specified by the City of Hollister, subject to the following provisions:

1. The location and characteristics of all lands acquired for Agricultural Conservation Easements shall comply with the eligibility requirements established in Section

17.28.090 and Section 17.28.100.

2. A Developer dedicating the Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) shall pay the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee as described in Section

17.28.110.A.

3. Water rights deemed essential to the conservation of the agricultural purpose and ongoing support of the Agricultural Use of the land shall be conditioned in the Agricultural Conservation Easement.

4. The City Council and Program Manager shall review each potential Agricultural Conservation Easement prior to contribution by the Developer for consistency with the purpose and mechanisms established in this ordinance.

If the Agricultural Conservation Easement is dedicated to an Easement Holder other than the City of Hollister, the dedication shall include the stipulation that the Agricultural Conservation Easement shall revert to the City of Hollister if the Easement Holder ceases to operate or fulfill the terms of this Agricultural Lands Preservation Program.

B. Payment of In-Lieu Fees. The payment of an Agricultural Conservation Easement in-lieu fee is subject to the following provisions:

1. Rather than dedicating an Agricultural Conservation Easement(s), the Developer may pay a fee to the City of Hollister calculated to be equal to the cost of acquiring required Agricultural Conservation Easement(s).

2. The dollar amount of the in-lieu fee shall be determined by the City Council following review of a study prepared by the Developer, peer reviewed by the Program Manager and/or a consultant selected by the City, and recommended by the Planning Commission. The peer review shall be paid for by the Developer.

3. The in-lieu fee shall be calculated based on the actual value of the required Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) and on transaction costs associated with transactions to acquire such easements.

4. The Planning Commission shall review the in-lieu fee proposal for consistency with these guidelines prior to submitting it for approval by the City Council. The Commission shall make a formal recommendation to the Council for consideration.

5. The City Council shall approve by resolution the amount and other terms of the in- lieu fee.

6. A Developer paying an in-lieu fee instead of dedicating Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) shall also pay the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee as described in Section 17.28.110.A.

17.28.080 – Administration of the Overall Program and In-Lieu Fees.

A. Program Administration.

1. Agricultural Conservation Easements generated by this Program shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or an Easement Holder approved by the City under the terms of this ordinance, and shall be recorded in San Benito County.

2. If an Agricultural Conservation Easement is held by an Easement Holder other than the City of Hollister, the Easement Holder may be compensated for costs incurred related to holding the easement, as may be agreed among the City, the Program Manager and the Easement Holder, based on the character and acreage of the Agricultural Conservation Easement, using funds collected through the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee.

B. In-Lieu Fee Administration.

1. Within sixty (60) days after collection by the City, in-lieu fees shall be transferred to a fund administered by the Program Manager.

2. In-lieu fees shall be used to acquire Agricultural Conservation Easements on eligible Agricultural Lands, which shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or an Easement Holder approved by the City of Hollister under the terms of this ordinance, and shall be recorded in San Benito County.

17.28.090 – 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.

B. The farmland classification shall be equal to or better than the classification of the land converted.

C. The lands shall support an active Agriculture Use at the time that easements are acquired, or shall be capable of supporting an Agricultural Use within one (1) year as determined by the Program Manager. Lands not actively supporting an Agricultural Use shall be brought into Agricultural Use by the Program Manager, using funds paid for by the Developer, in excess of other funds required by this Program, within one (1) year of dedication. The amount of funds to be paid to bring the land into Agricultural Use shall be agreed upon by the Developer, Program Manager and City in advance of the acceptance of the easement and approval of the Development Project.

D. Where a dedication of twenty (20) or more acres is required, lands shall be composed of legal parcel(s) of twenty (20) net acres or more in size. Parcels less than twenty (20) 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.

E. Where a dedication of less than 20 acres is required, lands shall be composed of a single legal parcel. In this case, multiple parcels shall only be allowed for dedication if merged to meet the minimum size requirement prior to execution of the Agricultural Conservation Easement.

F. The lands shall be served by a water supply adequate to support Agricultural Use of the land, and the water rights on the lands proposed for acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements shall be protected in the Agricultural Conservation Easement in accordance with State water rights law.

G. The dedication shall be consistent with a plan for overall acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements in the City of Hollister Planning Area if such a plan is adopted by the City of Hollister.

17.28.100 – Ineligible lands.

A property is ineligible for acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements if it does not meet the requirements of Section 17.28.090 or if any of the circumstances below apply:

A. The property is currently encumbered by any conservation, flood or other easement that cannot be subordinated to the Agricultural Conservation Easement.

B. The property is under public ownership at the time of the proposed acquisition of the Agricultural Conservation Easement.

C. The property is subject to conditions that practicably prevent utilizing the property for a viable Agricultural Use.

17.28.110 – Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee.

The Developer shall pay a one-time Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee to cover the cost of stewardship and administration of the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program by the City and Program Manager, which shall be calculated as follows:

A. Dedicated lands. If the Developer dedicates existing Agricultural Conservation Easement(s), the fee shall be ten percent (10%) of the value of the easements dedicated.

1. If the easements were acquired through an Arm’s Length Transaction in the one- year period prior to dedication to the City of Hollister, the value of the easements on which the Administration Fee shall be based will be the acquisition cost of the easements.

2. If the easements were not acquired through an Arm’s Length Transaction and/or were acquired more than one-year prior to dedication to the City of Hollister, the value of the easements on which the Administration Fee shall be based will be determined by the City Council after review of a report prepared by a real estate appraiser certified in agricultural conservation easement appraisals and licensed in California, and paid for by the Developer, which shall be peer reviewed by a consultant selected by the City and Program Manager and reviewed by the Planning Commission. The appraisal and peer review shall both be paid for by the Developer.

B. In-lieu fees. If the Developer pays an in-lieu fee, the Administration Fee shall be ten percent (10%) of the in-lieu fee.

17.28.120 – Monitoring, Enforcing and Reporting.

Easements acquired in accordance with this Chapter shall be monitored and enforced in compliance with the following provisions:

A. Monitoring. The Program Manager shall annually monitor all easements acquired in accordance with these regulations and shall review and monitor the implementation of all management and maintenance plans for these lands and easement areas.

B. Enforcing. The Program Manager shall enforce compliance with the terms of the Agricultural Conservation Easement. Any costs incurred in enforcing the terms of the Agricultural Conservation Easement, including costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by the Developer’s violation of the terms of the Agricultural Conservation Easement (including costs of routine monitoring compliance) from such time as the violation was first identified through completion, to the satisfaction of the Program Manager, of any required restoration, shall be borne by the Developer.

C. Reporting. The Program Manager shall provide to the City Development Services Director an annual report delineating the activities undertaken pursuant to the requirements of these guidelines and assessment of these activities. The report shall describe the status of all lands

and easements acquired in accordance with this Chapter, including a summary of all enforcement actions (if any), a detailed statement of financial activities, and the status of all easements acquired via the provisions of this ordinance.

Final | October 2024
SCH: 2021040277
Climate Action Plan and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Final | October 2024

CITY OF HOLLISTER
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE placeworks.com
Prepared By: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
In Association with:

Environmental Collaborative
Kimley-Horn
Climate Action Plan and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

HOLLISTER

GENERAL PLAN
~ PLACEWORKS

PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................ 1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................... 1-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Government Organizations .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Private Organizations .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Members of the Public .................................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 Public Hearing ................................................................................................................ 3-2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Project Merits .................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Speculation without Substantial Evidence ................................................................. 4-2

4.3 Additional Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4-3

4.4 Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR ...................................................................................... 4-4

4.5 Individual Responses ..................................................................................................... 4-4 REVISIONS TO THE REVISED DRAFT EIR ....................................................................................... 5-1 Chapter 2, Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 5-1 Chapter 3, Project Description .................................................................................................. 5-1 Chapter 4.3, Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 5-2 Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 5-6 Chapter 4.5, Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 5-6 Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 5-6 Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. 5-7 Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 5-9 CHapter 4.12, Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 5-10 Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing .................................................................................. 5-10 Chapter 5, Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 5-11 Chapter 6, CEQA Required Assessment ................................................................................ 5-12 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ........................................................ 6-1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii OCTOBER 2024

APPENDICES
Appendix G: Comment Letters

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Significant Impacts, Mitigating Policies, and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 4-1 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR .................................................................. 4-5 Table 6-1 Hollister 2040 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........... 6-1

PLACEWORKS 1-1
Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provides responses to comments received on the Revised Draft EIR for the adoption and implementation the proposed City of Hollister 2040 General Plan (2040 General Plan), Climate Action Plan (CAP), and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP), herein referred to separately or together as the “proposed project.” The Revised Draft EIR identifies significant impacts associated with the proposed project, identifies, and considers alternatives to the proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts.

This Final EIR also contains text revisions to the Revised Draft EIR. This Final EIR, together with the Revised Draft EIR, constitutes the complete EIR for the proposed project.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. A Draft EIR was prepared for the proposed project to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adoption and implementation of the proposed project. A Notice of Preparation of an EIR was issued by the City of Hollister (City) on April 9, 2021, for a 30-day-review period. A Notice of Availability (NOA) was issued by the City on May 17, 2023, and the Draft EIR was made available for public review for a 45-day public review period through June 30, 2023.

Since the release of the 2023 Draft EIR, changes have been made to each of the key components of the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but before certification. Accordingly, the City recirculated the Revised Draft EIR for the proposed project to provide additional analysis as a result of these changes to the project description.

The Revised Draft EIR provides an additional assessment of potential environmental consequences of the approval and implementation of the proposed project as revised. A summary of the proposed changes to the key components of the proposed project and subsequent revisions to the environmental analyses are summarized in see Chapter 1, Introduction, and described in detail of Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR.

The NOA for the Revised Draft EIR was issued by the City on July 3, 2024, and the Revised Draft EIR was made available for public review for a 45-day public review period through August 16, 2024. The Revised Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional, and State agencies and the general public was advised of the

1.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

INTRODUCTION
1-2 OCTOBER 2024
availability of the Revised Draft EIR. The Revised Draft EIR was made available for review to interested parties online at: https://hollister2040.org/ .

Written comments received on the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR are included in their original format as Appendix G, Comments Letters, of this Final EIR. These comments are also reproduced in Chapter 4, Comments and Responses, of this Final EIR, and responses to comments that were made on environmental issues are provided.

This Final EIR will be presented at a Planning Commission hearing at which the Commission will advise the City Council on certification of the EIR. However, the Planning Commission will not take final action on the EIR or the proposed project. Instead, the City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the Final EIR and the proposed project during a noticed public hearing and will take the final action with regard to certification of the Final EIR. The City Council will consider certification of the complete EIR (Revised Draft and Final) at a public hearing in Fall 2024.

PLACEWORKS 2-1
Executive Summary
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and implementing City of Hollister 2040 General Plan (2040 General Plan), Climate Action Plan (CAP), and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP), herein referred to separately or together as the “proposed project.” The Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR. The Final EIR also contains corrections, clarifications, and changes to the text and analysis of the Revised Draft EIR, where warranted.

Table 2-1, Summary of Significant Impacts, Mitigating Policies, and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis in the Revised Draft EIR and presents a summary of the identified significant impacts and the proposed 2040 General Plan policies and actions and the CEQA- required mitigation measures that reduce impacts. As summarized in Table 2-1, and as required by CEQA, some impacts remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan policies and actions and consideration of feasible mitigation. Table 2-1 is organized to correspond with the environmental issues in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, and its subchapters, 4.1 through 4.18, of the Revised Draft EIR. Table 2 -1 is arranged in four columns: (1) environmental impact, (2) significance without mitigation, (3) General Plan policies and actions and CEQA-required mitigation measures, and (4) significance with mitigation. All environmental topics not listed in this table were found to have less-than- significant impacts without mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, and Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of the Revised Draft EIR.

Some text revisions in Table 2-1 include typographical corrections, insignificant modifications, amplifications and clarifications to the Revised Draft EIR. Revisions are shown as underlined text to represent language that has been added to the EIR and text with strikethrough represent language that has been deleted from the Revised Draft EIR. None of the revisions constitutes significant new information as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; therefore, the Revised Draft EIR does not need to be recirculated.

2.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (AG)
Impact AG-1: Implementation
of the proposed project would
result in the conversion of
Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, or
Unique Farmland land
(together referred to as
“qualified Farmland”) to
nonagricultural land uses.

Significant Open Space and Agriculture (OS)
 *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 the same amount agricultural land in perpetuity. (new)
 *Action OS-2.1: Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion. Require the creation and adoption of an agricultural preservation program to address the conversion of land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City Limits and Sphere of Influence to nonagricultural uses. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable
In compliance with CEQA, “each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of the project it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.”1 The term “feasible” is defined in CEQA to mean, “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.”2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 defines “mitigation” as: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The following is a brief discussion of the mitigation measures considered for mitigating or avoiding the impact of the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses and their infeasibility. However, as shown, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the agricultural resource impact to less-than-significant levels.  Replacement of Agricultural Resources. This measure would replace the existing agricultural use with the same use on other property that is not currently used for agriculture. From a statewide perspective, the replacement of farmland means that there will be no net loss of farmland in the state. However, qualified Farmlands would still be developed. There is limited undeveloped land within the proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the EIR Study Area that is not currently designated as agricultural, restricting the amount of agricultural land that would be able to be replaced elsewhere in the area, and thus conversion of these lands would be insufficient to achieve no net loss. Moreover,

1 Public Resources Code, Section 21002.1(b).
2 Public Resources Code, Section 21061.1

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
even if adequate land could be identified to achieve no net loss, the challenges of creating the soil, irrigation, climatic, and economic conditions that are required for productive farmland (i.e., that achieves the same Important Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland status) are significant and there would be no guarantee that replacement land could be successfully farmed. In addition, replacing existing undeveloped areas with active agriculture could trigger a range of negative environmental impacts, including increased groundwater consumption, habitat destruction, erosion, air quality impacts, and herbicide and pesticide application. As such, the replacement of the existing agricultural uses on other properties within the proposed SOI is infeasible.  Transfer of Development Rights. Transferring development rights would involve the purchasing of the right to develop land from a currently undeveloped piece of land and transferring those rights to farmland within the city. Thus, this option is also infeasible because there would still be a net loss of farmland (i.e., the farmland preserved would still likely be preserved anyhow). Even if farmland would be preserved elsewhere in San Benito County, the qualified Farmland in the city would be developed, resulting in a net loss of Farmland. Therefore, for the reasons outlined previously, and in this paragraph, it would not prevent significant impacts from occurring in the city and it would not be an effective CEQA mitigation measure, nor is this mitigation measure feasible from an economic perspective within this region.
 Relocation of Prime Farmland Topsoil. This measure would remove the top 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from affected areas and haul this soil to a farm site or several farm sites that have lower-quality soils.

The Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland soils may assist in increasing crop yield at the relocated site. This measure would have its own environmental impacts, including increased truck traffic on local roadways from both hauling soil off-site and replacement of soil on-site, increased diesel truck emissions, construction noise, and increased duration of construction. The relocation of prime farmland soils on another active farm would increase other environmental impacts and is therefore considered infeasible.

As described, these measures were considered and found to be infeasible for mitigating or avoiding the impact of the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses pursuant to the definition of CEQA in that there is no guarantee that measures would result in successfully establishing Important Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, if doing so could happen within a reasonable period of time, that their implementation would not potentially cause greater environmental impacts, and that acquiring additional lands to be established as Important Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland would be economically possible.

As discussed previously, implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan would designate qualified Farmland as nonagricultural land uses. Through the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP), impacts related to the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
conversion of qualifying agricultural lands would be reduced, but not to a less-than-significant level. The proposed 2040 General Plan contains a policy and action to mitigate and reduce the conversion of qualifying agricultural lands. Specifically, proposed *Policy OS-2.1, Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land, and proposed *Action OS-2.1, Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion, requiring all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for the preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, which are being implemented via the proposed ALPP. Proposed *Policy OS-2.1 and proposed *Action OS-

2.1 and the proposed ALPP, would not reduce the amount of acreage converted under buildout of the proposed 2040 General Plan; however, they would forestall development of the best agricultural land within the EIR Study Area. While these efforts and other mitigation measures were considered, such as preserving agricultural uses in the EIR Study Area, replacement of agricultural resources by replacing lost agricultural uses to other areas of the city, and relocation of Prime Farmland topsoil to other areas, these mitigations are not feasible. While these efforts and other mitigating efforts, such as proposed Policy OS-

2.3, San Benito County Future Development Areas, encouraging San Benito County to focus future development within the areas identified for development; proposed Policy OS-2.4, Coordination with San Benito County to Preserve Important Farmlands, requiring coordination with the County of San Benito in efforts to maintain prime farmlands, unique farmlands, and farmlands of statewide significance in active agricultural use; and proposed Action OS-2.3, Urban Growth Boundary, to establish and maintain an Urban Growth Boundary that delineates future urbanization areas from areas in which urbanization will not occur, work to mitigate impacts, the only way to fully avoid the agricultural impact from implementation of the proposed project is to not allow the conversion of state-designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland to nonagricultural land uses, thereby eliminating the agricultural impact. However, doing so is not feasible or practical as the City has a responsibility to meet other conflicting obligations, including increases in the number and type of jobs available in Hollister and to reduce the need for residents to commute to high-quality jobs. These measures are critical to reducing single-occupant vehicle travel to and from Hollister and meeting State targets for greenhouse gas reduction. The City needs to promote both economic development and corresponding residential development, as required by State housing law, within its City Limits. While possible forms of mitigation for, or avoidance of, conservation of agricultural lands in the EIR Study Area would be implemented by the City through proposed *Policy OS-2.1 and proposed *Action OS-2.1 and the proposed ALPP, doing so to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level would be infeasible and inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact AG-2: Implementation
of the proposed project would
Significant Open Space and Agriculture (OS)
 *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 the same amount agricultural land in perpetuity. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
result in the loss of agricultural
land under the Williamson Act.
 *Action OS-2.1: Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion. Require the creation and adoption of an agricultural preservation program to address the conversion of land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City Limits and Sphere of Influence to nonagricultural uses. (new)
As described under Impact Discussion AG-1, pursuant to CEQA, the City has considered mitigation to reduce impacts from implementation of the proposed project that could conflict with lands under a Williamson Act contract. However, as shown, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the agricultural resource impact to less-than-significant levels. Specifically, the City considered a measure that would result in the replacement of Williamson Act contract farmland that would place other farmland under Williamson Act contract. Even if feasible, the placing of alternative farmland under Williamson Act contract would establish a commitment to retain that alternative farmland for agricultural use. The length of time that the alternative land will remain in agricultural use would depend on the terms of the Williamson Act contract. However, the Williamson Act contract will only reduce the potential that the alternative land will convert to nonagricultural use. The individual and cumulative loss of agricultural land caused by the proposed project would still occur. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not reduce impacts on agriculture to below the level of significance. For these reasons, placing alternative privately held land under permanent restriction through Williamson Act contracts is considered infeasible.

As described under Impact Discussion AG-1, the proposed 2040 General Plan includes a policy and action to mitigate and reduce the conversion of qualifying agricultural lands. Proposed *Policy OS-2.1, Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land, and proposed *Action OS-2.1, Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion, requiring all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for the preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, which are being implemented via the proposed Agricultural Land Preservation Program (ALPP). Proposed *Policy OS-2.1 and proposed *Action OS-2.1 and the proposed ALPP would also minimize impacts from conflicts with Williamson Act lands and reduce the likelihood of premature contract cancellations by the property owners of the Williamson Act parcels in the EIR Study Area. Additional mitigation for this impact was considered, including the placement of other farmland under Williamson Act contract. However, the individual and cumulative loss of agricultural land under the Williamson Act caused by the proposed project would still occur. Given that CEQA does not require that the project be changed to avoid an impact, and no additional mitigation is available, this would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AG-4: The proposed
project, in combination with
past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, could
Significant Open Space and Agriculture (OS)
 *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 the same amount agricultural land in perpetuity. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
result in a significant
cumulative impact with respect
to the conversion of Prime
Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, or
Unique Farmland land
(together referred to as
“qualified Farmland”) under
CEQA and Williamson Act
properties to nonagricultural
uses.
 *Action OS-2.1: Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion. Require the creation and adoption of an agricultural preservation program to address the conversion of land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City Limits and Sphere of Influence to nonagricultural uses. (new)
As described previously, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts related to the conversion of qualified Farmland under CEQA and Williamson Act properties to nonagricultural uses. As such, the proposed project would contribute to the cumulative impact described in the San Benito County General Plan Update EIR. Although the proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy OS-

2.1, Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land, and proposed *Action OS-2.1, Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion, and the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program would reduce and partially offset regional agricultural impacts, as well as consideration of mitigation measures to avoid conversion, the only way to fully avoid the agricultural impact of the proposed project is to not allow development on state-designated farmland. However, this would be infeasible and inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives. Further, the amount of growth foreseen in the region and the decisions of San Benito County and other surrounding counties regarding conversion of agricultural land are outside the control of the City of Hollister. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

AIR QUALITY (AIR)
Impact AIR-1: Implementation
of the proposed project would
result in the generation of
substantial operational (long-
term) criteria air pollutant
emissions that would exceed
Monterey Bay Air Resources
District’s (MBARD’s) regional
significance threshold for
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and carbon monoxide (CO)
and would; therefore, not be
considered consistent with the
existing Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP).

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD- adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable
The various goals, policies, and actions of the proposed 2040 General Plan identified under Impact Discussions AIR-1 and AIR-2, in addition to applicable MBARD rules and regulations, would reduce operational (long-term) criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Specifically, proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, Technical Assessments, would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts and submit to the City of Hollister for review and approval. Pursuant to proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, the evaluations must be prepared in conformance with MBARD criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. Where the technical assessment finds that air pollutants have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, the technical assessment shall identify project- specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
activities. Examples of types of project-specific mitigation measures that are available to future projects in Hollister are listed in Impact Discussion AIR-2. However, because of the magnitude and intensity of development accommodated by the proposed 2040 General Plan, as well as regional air quality influences beyond the control of Hollister, impacts associated with consistency with the MBARD would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures or mitigating policies at the program level would ensure consistency of the proposed project with the MBARD’s AQMP. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable project-level thresholds of significance.

Impact AIR-2a: Operation of
development projects that
could occur from
implementation of the project
would generate emissions that
would exceed Monterey Bay
Air Resources District’s
(MBARD’s) regional significance
thresholds for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and carbon
monoxide (CO).

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD- adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable
Long-term emissions for VOC that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed 2040 General Plan would exceed MBARD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designation of the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The goals, policies, and actions of the proposed 2040 General Plan, and implementation of MBARD Rule 207, Review of New or Modified Sources, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Specifically, proposed *Policy NRC-

3.6, Technical Assessments, would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval. Pursuant to proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, the evaluations must be prepared in conformance with MBARD criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts.

Where the technical assessment finds that air pollutants have the potential to exceed the MBARD- adopted thresholds of significance, the technical assessment shall identify project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. Possible mitigation measures for potential future project-specific developments to reduce operational (long-term) emissions can include, but are not limited to the following:
 Provide preferential carpool/vanpool parking spaces
 Implement a parking surcharge for single occupant vehicles  Provide for shuttle/mini-bus service

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-8 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
 Provide bicycle storage/parking facilities and bicycle paths within major subdivisions that link to an external network
 Provide shower/locker facilities
 Provide onsite child care centers
 Provide transit design features within the development  Develop park-and-ride lots
 Off-site mitigation
 Employ a transportation/rideshare coordinator
 Implement a rideshare program
 Provide incentives to employees to rideshare or take public transportation  Implement flexible work schedules that do not reduce transit ridership  Implement compressed work schedules
 Implement telecommuting program
 Provide pedestrian facilities within major subdivisions The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants within the city. However, operational (long-term) emissions would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in VOCs from residential development and increase in NOX and CO from mobile sources associated with the project.

This EIR quantifies the increase in criteria air pollutants emissions in the city. However, at a programmatic level analysis, it is not feasible to quantify the increase in toxic air contaminants (TACs) from stationary sources associated with the proposed project or meaningfully correlate how regional criteria air pollutant emissions above the MBARD’s significance thresholds correlate with basin wide health impacts.

To determine cancer and noncancer health risk, the location, velocity of emissions, meteorology and topography of the area, and locations of receptors are equally important as model parameters as the quantity of TAC emissions. The white paper prepared by the Association of Environmental Professionals’ Climate Change Committee, We Can Model Regional Emissions, But Are the Results Meaningful for CEQA, describes several of the challenges of quantifying local effects—particularly health risks—for large-scale, regional projects, and these are applicable to both criteria air pollutants and TACs.

Similarly, the two amicus briefs filed by the air districts on the Friant Ranch case describe two positions regarding CEQA requirements, modeling feasibility, variables, and reliability of results for determining

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-9
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
specific health risks associated with criteria air pollutants. The discussions also include the distinction between criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs with respect to health risks. Additionally, the MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines demonstrate the infeasibility based on the current guidance/methodologies.

The following summarizes major points about the infeasibility of assessing health risks of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs associated with implementation of a general plan. The white paper and amicus briefs are provided in Appendix B, Revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Revised Draft EIR.

To achieve and maintain air quality standards, the MBARD has established numerical emission indicators of significance for regional and localized air quality impacts for both construction and operational phases of a local plan or project. MBARD has established criteria for Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and EIRs which can be used by lead agencies as a checklist to determine a project’s significance on air quality.3 The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the NCCAB is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health. The thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a plan or project that are expected not to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. By analyzing the plan’s emissions against the thresholds, an EIR assesses whether these emissions directly contribute to any regional or local exceedances of the applicable ambient air quality standards and exposure levels.

MBARD currently does not have methodologies that would provide the city with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. For criteria air pollutants, exceedance of the regional significance thresholds cannot be used to correlate a project to quantifiable health impacts unless emissions are sufficiently high to use a regional model. MBARD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and their effect on health (note Appendix B, Revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Revised Draft EIR provides the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s amicus brief and South Coast Air Quality Management District’s amicus brief).

Ozone concentrations depend on a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric

3 The criteria for Negative Declarations are equivalent to those for a NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) while the criteria for an EIR are equivalent to those for a NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-10 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
stability, and wind patterns. Secondary formation of particulate matter (PM) and ozone can occur far from sources as a result of regional transport due to wind and topography (e.g., low-level jet stream).

Photochemical modeling depends on all emission sources in the entire domain (i.e., modeling grid). Low resolution and spatial averaging produce “noise” and modeling errors that usually exceed individual source contributions. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.

Current models used in CEQA air quality analyses are designed to estimate potential project construction and operation emissions for defined projects. The estimated emissions are compared to significance thresholds, which are keyed to reducing emissions to levels that will not interfere with the region’s ability to attain the health-based standards. This serves to protect public health in the overall region, but there is currently no CEQA methodology to determine the impact of emissions (e.g., pounds per day) on future concentration levels (e.g., parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter) in specific geographic areas.

CEQA thresholds, therefore, are not specifically tied to potential health outcomes in the region.

Further, as shown in Table 4.3-10, Net Change in Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Existing Baseline, compared to existing baseline year conditions, emissions of NOX are projected to decrease from current levels and be below MBARD’s regional significance threshold despite growth associated with the proposed 2040 General Plan. Meaning, that the finding that the project would cumulatively contribute to health effects is conservative in light of reductions in emissions as a result of improvements in technology. However, because cumulative development within the city would exceed the regional significance thresholds compared to the no project conditions, this EIR identifies that the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the NCCAB until the attainment standards are met.

The EIR must provide an analysis that is understandable for decision making and public disclosure.

Regional-scale modeling may provide a technical method for this type of analysis, but it does not necessarily provide a meaningful way to connect the magnitude of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions to health effects without speculation. Additionally, this type of analysis is not feasible at a general plan level because the location of emissions sources and quantity of emissions are not known.

In summary, as described above, implementation of the proposed project would generate emissions that would exceed MBARD’s regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce these long-term regional criteria air pollutant emissions. Proposed *Policy NCR-3.6, Technical Assessments, requires potential future development in Hollister to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase- related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval by the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-11
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
City. Where the technical assessment determines the MBARD-adopted thresholds are exceeded, the applicants for new development projects would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. Due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, no additional mitigation measures or mitigating policies are available, and the impact is found to be significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

Impact AIR-2b: Construction
activities that could occur over
the buildout horizon of the
proposed 2040 General Plan
would generate substantial
short-term criteria air pollutant
emissions that would exceed
Monterey Bay Air Resources
District’s (MBARD’s) regional
significance thresholds and
cumulative contribute to the
nonattainment designations of
the North Central Coast Air
Basin (NCCAB).

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD- adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable
Implementation of the proposed project would occur over a period of 15 years or longer. Construction activities associated with development that could occur under the proposed project could generate short-term emissions that exceed the MBARD’s significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the NCCAB. Implementation of applicable regulatory measures (e.g., MBARD Rule 400, Visible Emissions, Rule 402, Nuisances, and Rule 426, Architectural Coatings) and the proposed 2040 General Plan goals and policies listed above would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible and may result in reducing construction-related regional air quality impacts of subsequent individual projects to less than significant.

Specifically, proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, Technical Assessments, would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval. Pursuant to proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, the evaluations must be prepared in conformance with MBARD criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. Where the technical assessment finds that air pollutants have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, the technical assessment shall identify project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. Future project-specific mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
 Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim (model year 2008 or newer) or higher emission limits, applicable for engines between

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-12 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
50 and 750 horsepower. A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor on-site, which shall be available for City review upon request.  Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Use of alternative-fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment, if available and feasible.  Clearly posted signs that require operators of trucks and construction equipment to minimize idling time (e.g., five-minute maximum).
 Preparation and implementation of a fugitive dust control plan that may include the following measures:
 Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.
 Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 miles per hour).  Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).  Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.
 Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet and zero inches of freeboard.  Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials.  Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects, if adjacent to open land.
 Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.  Cover inactive storage piles.
 Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks.  Pave all roads on construction sites.
 Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.  Post a publicly visible sign which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the MBARD shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisances).
 Limit the area under construction at any one time.

However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, construction time frames and equipment for individual site-specific projects are not available and there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-13
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
Therefore, despite adherence to proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, Technical Assessments, and due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, no additional mitigation measures or mitigating policies are available, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

Impact AIR-3a: Implementation
of the proposed project could
expose air quality sensitive
receptors to substantial toxic
air contaminant concentrations
from non-permitted sources
during operation.

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-3.15: Operational Health Risk Assessment. Require project applicants of discretionary projects to prepare an operational health risk assessment (HRA) for industrial or warehousing land uses and commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day based on the California Air Resources Board recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) prior to project approval. The operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the operational HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD, the City shall require the project applicant to identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable
Potential future development from implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan could result in a substantial increase in diesel particulate matter (DPM) near existing or planned air quality sensitive receptors (e.g., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases, disadvantaged communities). Proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-3.15, Operational Health Risk Assessments, would mitigate impacts by requiring that applicants of industrial or warehousing land uses in addition to commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day based on the California Air Resources Board recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) to prepare and submit an operational health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Hollister for review and approval. If the operational HRA determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the Monterey Bay Air Resource District (MBARD), project-specific mitigation measures shall be integrated to reduce cancer and acute risk below the MBARD threshold. The operational HRA is required to be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and MBARD. If the operational HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant would be required to identify and demonstrate that measures

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-14 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

Examples of project-specific mitigation measures that future projects in Hollister can apply to reduce risk impacts may include but are not limited to:
 Restricting idling onsite beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.  Electrifying warehousing docks.
 Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
 Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

Implementation of proposed *Policy NRC-3.15, Operational Health Risk Assessments, would ensure mobile sources of emissions not covered under MBARD permits are considered and mitigated during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Hollister. Potential future development projects in the city that have the potential to generate potentially significant risks associated with the release of TACs are required to undergo an analysis of their potential health risks associated with (toxic air contaminants) TACs based upon the specific details of each individual project. Though individual projects would be required to have less-than-significant impacts, cumulative development in the City would result in an increase in diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentrations and could increase the environmental burden on sensitive populations, including environmental justice communities, in the North Central Coast Air Basin. Overall, because there are no specific development projects identified or approved under the proposed 2040 General Plan and the location and exact nature of future development projects are unknown, determining health risk at this time is considered speculative pursuant to Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines. Health risk impacts from development of industrial and commercial land uses are considered a significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impact.

However, the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than- significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

Impact AIR-3b: Construction
activities associated with
potential future development
could expose nearby air quality
sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of
toxic air contaminants during
construction.

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD- adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-15
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
 *Policy NRC-3.14: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Require project applicants of discretionary projects on sites greater than one acre, within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, day care facilities, and nursing homes, etc.), as measured from the property line of the project, that utilize off-road equipment of 50 horsepower or more, and that occur for more than 12 months of active construction (i.e., exclusive of interior renovations) to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the construction HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD, require the project applicant to identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. (new) Implementation of the proposed project would occur over a period of 15 years or longer. Construction activities associated with potential future development over the buildout horizon of the proposed 2040 General Plan could expose air quality sensitive receptors to short-term construction emissions.

Implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-3.14, Construction Health Risk Assessment, would mitigate impacts by requiring subsequent project-specific evaluation of qualifying future development projects to assess potential impacts and mitigate those impacts to acceptable levels.

Proposed *Policy NRC-3.14 would require new sources of air pollution that will generate new air quality impacts or expose to harmful emissions of toxic air pollutants to prepare a construction Health Risk Assessment in alignment with the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Monterey Bay Air Resource District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The construction Health Risk Assessment shall be submitted to the City of Hollister for review and approval and shall identify project- specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities such as the use of construction equipment with United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4-rated (or higher) engines. Implementation of proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, Technical Assessments, in addition to applicable regulatory measures, would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible and may result in reducing construction-related regional air quality impacts of subsequent individual projects to a less-than-significant level. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, construction time frames and equipment for individual site-specific projects are not available and there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to proposed *Policy NRC-3.6, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, no additional mitigation measures or mitigating policies are available, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-16 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
Impact AIR-4: Operation of new
industrial land uses
accommodated under the
proposed 2040 General Plan
has the potential to create
objectionable odors that could
affect a substantial number of
people.

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-3.16: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD- adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. (new)
Less than
significant
Implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-3.16, Odor Management Plan, would ensure that sources identified by MBARD are mitigated through adherence to an odor control plan and comply with MBARD Rule 402, Nuisances. Therefore, Impact AIR-4 would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

Impact AIR-5: The emissions
that could occur over the
buildout horizon of the
proposed 2040 General Plan
could generate a substantial
increase in emissions that
exceeds the Monterey Bay Air
Resources District’s (MBARD’s)
significance thresholds and
cumulatively contribute to the
nonattainment designations
and health risk in the North
Central Coast Air Basin
(NCCAB).

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD- adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. (new)
 *Policy NRC-3.14: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Require project applicants of discretionary projects on sites greater than one acre, within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, day care facilities, and nursing homes, etc.), as measured from the property line of the project, that utilize off-road equipment of 50 horsepower or more, and that occur for more than 12 months of active construction (i.e., exclusive of interior renovations) to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the construction HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD, require the project applicant to identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. (new)  *Policy NRC-3.15: Operational Health Risk Assessment. Require project applicants of discretionary projects to prepare an operational health risk assessment (HRA) for industrial or warehousing land Significant and
Unavoidable

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-17
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
uses and commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day based on the California Air Resources Board recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) prior to project approval. The operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the operational HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD, the City shall require the project applicant to identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. (new)
Criteria air pollutant emissions generated by land uses of the proposed 2040 General Plan could exceed the MBARD regional thresholds (see Impact Discussions AIR-2 and AIR-3). Air quality impacts identified in the discussion under Impact AIR-2a, AIR-2b, AIR-3a, and AIR-3b constitute the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts in the NCCAB. Proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-

3.6, Technical Assessments, *Policy NRC-3.14, Construction Health Risk Assessments, and *Policy NRC-

3.15, Operational Health Risk Assessments, identified previously to mitigate impacts by reducing project- related emissions, would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Due to the programmatic nature of the project, no additional mitigation measures are available. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts and remain significant and unavoidable at the program level. The identification of this program-level cumulative impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant cumulative impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO)
Impact BIO-1: Impacts to
special-status species or the
inadvertent loss of bird nests in
active use, which would
conflict with the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
California Fish and Game Code,
could occur as a result of
implementation of the
proposed project.

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-1.4: Specialized Surveys for Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities.

Require that sites with suitable natural habitat, including creek corridors through urbanized areas, be surveyed for special-status species and sensitive natural communities prior to development approval as part of the environmental review process. Such surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and occur prior to development-related vegetation removal. All surveys shall take place during appropriate seasons to determine presence or absence, including nesting or breeding occurrences, with a determination on whether the project site contains suitable habitat for such species and sensitive natural community types. These results would inform the site assessment and environmental review process for proposed developments and other activities that could adversely affect special- status species. (Policy NRC1.7)
 *Policy NRC-1.5: Biological Site Assessment. Require a biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, Less than
significant

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-18 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters. The assessment shall be prepared prior to project approval and conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by proposed development, shall provide an assessment of the potential impacts, and shall define measures for protecting the resource and surrounding buffer habitat, in compliance with City policy and state and federal laws. An assessment shall not be necessary for locations where past and existing development have eliminated natural habitat and the potential for presence of sensitive biological resources and regulated waters. (new)  *Policy NRC-1.6: Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas.

Require that potential significant impacts on special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters be minimized through adjustments and controls on the design, construction, and operations of a proposed project prior to project approval. Where impacts to these sensitive biological habitat areas are unavoidable, appropriate compensatory mitigation shall be required by the City. Such compensatory mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with City policy and any relevant state and federal regulations. These may include on-site set asides, off-site acquisitions (conservation easements, deed restrictions, etc.), and specific restoration efforts that benefit the special-status species and sensitive habitat areas. (new)  *Policy NRC-1.7: Preconstruction Surveys for the San Joaquin Kit Fox. Require preconstruction surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox prior to project approval, in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Preconstruction Surveys for the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox, for new developments in the County-designated kit fox habitat area. Development in the habitat area boundaries shall be assessed an impact fee by the County for every home or acre developed. (new)  *Policy NRC-1.8: California Red-Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander Site Assessments.

Require site assessments by a qualified biologist to evaluate the potential for proposed projects in identified Critical Habitat areas for the California red-legged frog and/or California tiger salamander to have a negative effect on these species. Such assessments shall be prepared prior to project approval and identify any high-quality habitat for these species and shall be peer reviewed by a second qualified biologist. Protocol surveys may be warranted to confirm presence or absence of these species based on the results of the habitat assessment. Development in areas with identified high- quality occupied habitat shall be avoided. High-quality habit includes sites known to be occupied by the species, breeding habitat, large areas of suitable habitat, and the absence of nearby development. (new)
 *Policy NRC-1.9: Surveys and Mitigation for Burrowing Owls. Require project applicants with proposed projects on grazing or fallow agricultural land to conduct a survey for burrowing owls in accordance with the latest guidelines of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to project approval.

Project applicants in the Fairview Road/Santa Ana Road area shall be required to develop and implement a mitigation plan to avoid or otherwise compensate for any disturbance to the burrowing

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-19
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
owl colony in that area. This plan shall be developed in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Implementation Measure NRC.G & NRC.I)  *Policy NRC-1.10: Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds. Require preconstruction surveys for nesting native birds, to be conducted prior to site disturbance by a qualified biologist, for those projects that would affect on-site oaks or orchards, or which would involve vegetation removal and construction during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). The City shall allow no construction activities that would result in the disturbance of an active native bird nest (including tree removal) to proceed until after it has been determined by a qualified biologist that the nest has been abandoned. (Implementation Measure NRC.U)
 *Policy NRC-1.13: Wetland Preservation. Require appropriate public and private wetlands preservation, restoration, and/or rehabilitation through compensatory mitigation in the development process for unavoidable impacts. Continue the City’s practice of requiring mitigation for projects that would affect wetlands in conjunction with requirements of state and federal agencies. (Implementation Measure NRC.V and Policy NRC1.5)
 *Policy NRC-1.14: Wetlands Delineation. Require a delineation of jurisdictional waters by a qualified wetland specialist at the outset of the project planning stage of any proposed development that may contain wetlands or other regulated waters. This delineation shall be verified and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Regional Water Quality Control Board where federally regulated waters are absent prior to project approval. (Implementation Measure NRC.X) The proposed 2040 General Plan policies and actions would mitigate impacts to special-status species by requiring that detailed surveys and assessments be completed as part of future project approval and/or environmental review, when applicable, to identify occurrences of special-status species and minimize adverse impacts on any species identified as an endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, or special- status species and their habitat. Where natural habitat remains that could support special-status species, wetlands, and other sensitive resources, further detailed studies and assessment would be performed to verify presence or absence. Specifically, proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-1.4, Specialized Surveys for Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities, requires surveys and project-specific mitigation for sites known to support special-status species; *Policy NRC-1.5, Biological Site Assessment, requires the preparation of biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters; *Policy NRC-1.6, Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas, requires that potential significant impacts on special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters be minimized through adjustments and controls on the design, construction, and operations of a proposed project; *Policy NRC-1.7, Preconstruction Surveys for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, *Policy NRC-1.8, California Red-Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander Site Assessments, *Policy NRC-1.9, Surveys and Mitigation for Burrowing

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-20 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
Owls, *Policy NRC-1.10, Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds, all require surveys and project-specific mitigation; and *Policy NRC-1.13, Wetland Preservation, and *Policy NRC-1.14, Wetlands Delineation, require the protection of wetlands through surveys and project-specific mitigation measures.

Additionally, future development on parcels with a proposed Specific Plan land use designation would be subject to additional site-specific policies to guide development and protect sensitive natural communities in these areas.

Furthermore, the location and nature of future development considered would be guided by the proposed 2040 General Plan and the Hollister Municipal Code. Future development would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA review, where applicable, to ensure consistency with local, state, and federal regulations and proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions intended to protect sensitive biological resources. Therefore, potential impacts on special-status species would be less than significant.

Impact BIO-2: Impacts to
riparian areas, drainages, and
sensitive natural communities
could occur from potential
future development under the
proposed 2040 General Plan
where natural habitat remains.

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-1.4: Specialized Surveys for Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities.

Require that sites with suitable natural habitat, including creek corridors through urbanized areas, be surveyed for special-status species and sensitive natural communities prior to development approval as part of the environmental review process. Such surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and occur prior to development-related vegetation removal. All surveys shall take place during appropriate seasons to determine presence or absence, including nesting or breeding occurrences, with a determination on whether the project site contains suitable habitat for such species and sensitive natural community types. These results would inform the site assessment and environmental review process for proposed developments and other activities that could adversely affect special- status species. (Policy NRC1.7)
 *Policy NRC-1.5: Biological Site Assessment. Require a biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters. The assessment shall be prepared prior to project approval and conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by proposed development, shall provide an assessment of the potential impacts, and shall define measures for protecting the resource and surrounding buffer habitat, in compliance with City policy and state and federal laws. An assessment shall not be necessary for locations where past and existing development have eliminated natural habitat and the potential for presence of sensitive biological resources and regulated waters. (new)  *Policy NRC-1.6: Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas.

Require that potential significant impacts on special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters be minimized through adjustments and controls on Less than
significant

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-21
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
the design, construction, and operations of a proposed project prior to project approval. Where impacts to these sensitive biological habitat areas are unavoidable, appropriate compensatory mitigation shall be required by the City. Such compensatory mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with City policy and any relevant state and federal regulations. These may include on-site set asides, off-site acquisitions (conservation easements, deed restrictions, etc.), and specific restoration efforts that benefit the special-status species and sensitive habitat areas. (new) Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed would serve to ensure that occurrences of sensitive natural communities are identified, avoided, or adequately mitigated. Specifically, proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-1.4, Specialized Surveys for Special- Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities, *Policy NRC-1.5, Biological Site Assessment, and *Policy NRC-1.6, Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas, would mitigate impacts through site surveys and project-specific mitigation measures. Additionally, future development within the Sphere of Influence on parcels with a proposed Specific Plan land use designation would be subject to additional site-specific policies to guide development and protect sensitive natural communities in these areas. Therefore, potential impacts on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.

Impact BIO-3: Potential future
development from
implementation of the
proposed 2040 General Plan
could result in direct and
indirect impacts to wetland
habitat.

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-1.5: Biological Site Assessment. Require a biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters. The assessment shall be prepared prior to project approval and conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by proposed development, shall provide an assessment of the potential impacts, and shall define measures for protecting the resource and surrounding buffer habitat, in compliance with City policy and state and federal laws. An assessment shall not be necessary for locations where past and existing development have eliminated natural habitat and the potential for presence of sensitive biological resources and regulated waters. (new)  *Policy NRC-1.6: Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas.

Require that potential significant impacts on special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters be minimized through adjustments and controls on the design, construction, and operations of a proposed project prior to project approval. Where impacts to these sensitive biological habitat areas are unavoidable, appropriate compensatory mitigation shall be required by the City. Such compensatory mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with City policy and any relevant state and federal regulations. These may include on-site set asides, off-site acquisitions (conservation easements, deed restrictions, etc.), and specific restoration efforts that benefit the special-status species and sensitive habitat areas. (new) Less than
significant

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-22 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
 *Policy NRC-1.13: Wetland Preservation. Require appropriate public and private wetlands preservation, restoration, and/or rehabilitation through compensatory mitigation in the development process for unavoidable impacts. Continue the City’s practice of requiring mitigation for projects that would affect wetlands in conjunction with requirements of state and federal agencies. (Implementation Measure NRC.V and Policy NRC1.5)
 *Policy NRC-1.14: Wetlands Delineation. Require a delineation of jurisdictional waters by a qualified wetland specialist at the outset of the project planning stage of any proposed development that may contain wetlands or other regulated waters. This delineation shall be verified and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Regional Water Quality Control Board where federally regulated waters are absent prior to project approval. (Implementation Measure NRC.X) The proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to ensure that wetlands and regulated waters are identified, avoided, or adequately mitigated. Specifically, proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-1.5, Biological Site Assessment, requires the preparation of biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special- status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters; *Policy NRC-1.6, Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas, requires that potential significant impacts on special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters be minimized through adjustments and controls on the design, construction, and operations of a proposed project; and *Policy NRC-1.13, Wetland Preservation, and *Policy NRC-1.14, Wetlands Delineation, require the protection of wetlands through surveys and project- specific mitigation measures. Additionally, future development within the Sphere of Influence on parcels with a proposed Specific Plan Area land use designation would be subject to additional site-specific policies to guide development in these areas. Therefore, potential impacts on wetlands and regulated waters would be less than significant.

CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)
Impact CUL-1: Impacts to
known or yet to be classified
historic buildings or structures
could occur from potential
future development under the
proposed 2040 General Plan.

Significant Land Use (LU)
 *Policy LU-19.1: Historic Structure Preservation, Renovation, and Rehabilitation. Require the preservation, renovation and rehabilitation of historic structures that conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures and the California Historical Building Code and require project applicants to demonstrate compliance with these standards when proposing new or redevelopment that could affect historic structures in Hollister. (new)
 *Policy LU-19.5: Historic Structure Alteration. Prior to approving alteration (including demolition) of historically significant buildings, require the evaluation of alternatives, including structural preservation, relocation or other mitigation, and demonstrate that financing has been secured for Less than
significant

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-23
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
replacement use. Demolition of historically significant buildings shall only be considered after all other options have been thoroughly reviewed and exhausted. (new) Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development and exterior remodels are compatible with cultural and historic resources; that landmarks and historic treasures would be preserved, enhanced, and rehabilitated; and that cultural and historic resources in the EIR Study Area would be protected and restored. Specifically, proposed *Policy LU-19.1, Historic Structure Preservation, Renovation, and Rehabilitation, would mitigate potential impacts by requiring the City to promote preservation, renovation and rehabilitation of historic structures that conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures and the California Historical Building Code and require project applicants to demonstrate compliance with these standards when proposing new or redevelopment that could affect historic structures in Hollister, and proposed *Policy LU-19.5, Historic Structure Alteration, would require that prior to approving alteration (including demolition) of historically significant buildings, the City shall require the evaluation of alternatives, including structural preservation, relocation or other mitigation, and demonstrate that financing has been secured for replacement use. Demolition of historically significant buildings shall only be considered after all other options have been thoroughly reviewed and exhausted. Additionally, implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan would require the formation of a historic resources commission whose function would be to evaluate the proposed demolition or alteration of historic buildings or cultural resources to minimize development impact.

Furthermore, Hollister Municipal Code (HMC) Section 15.04.050 adopts the California State Historic Building Code, which provides regulations for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, related construction, change of use, or continued use of a qualified historical building or structure. Section 15.16.060 of the HMC outlines the responsibilities of the Historic Resources Commission, including establishing criteria to conduct a comprehensive survey in conformance with federal and state survey standards and guidelines of historic resources; maintaining a local register of historic resources; and reviewing and commenting on the conduct of land use, housing and redevelopment, municipal improvement, and other types of planning and programs as they relate to the survey results and historic resources. Additionally, any permits for work for or on a designated historic resource are to be reviewed and approved by the commission staff, as outlined in HMC Section

15.16.090. HMC Section 17.16.030 establishes the procedure in the event of discovery of a historic resource during construction. Construction activities are to cease, and the City’s Planning Department is to be notified so that a qualified historian may record the extent and location of discovered materials.

Additionally, the City’s Downtown Design Guidelines contain design guidelines for new development projects as well as downtown projects that involve renovating or modifying historic buildings (as determined by the National Register or local equivalent). These guidelines also apply to property owners who wish to maintain the historical integrity of a building. The Downtown Design Guidelines include

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-24 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
standards for renovating or modifying historic buildings and addresses roofs, building façades, projecting façade elements, landscaping, and mechanical equipment. The Downtown Design Guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the guidelines for the appropriate building types (i.e., main street commercial building, apartment flat building, townhouse building, or detached house building) and other resources, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.

Finally, CEQA would require that future potential projects permitted under the proposed 2040 General Plan with the potential to significantly impact historical resources be subject to project-level CEQA review wherein the future potential project’s potential to affect the significance of a surrounding historical resource would be evaluated and mitigated to the extent feasible. The requirement for subsequent CEQA review, pursuant to state law, would minimize the potential for new development to indirectly affect the significance of existing historical resources to the maximum extent practicable.

Potential impacts from future development on historical resources could lead to (1) demolition, which by definition results in the material impairment of a resource’s ability to convey its significance; (2) inappropriate modification, which may use incompatible materials, designs, or construction techniques in a manner that alters character-defining features; and (3) inappropriate new construction, which could introduce incompatible new buildings that clash with an established architectural context. While any of these scenarios, especially demolition and alteration, have the potential to change the historic fabric or setting of an architectural resource such that the resource’s ability to convey its significance may be materially impaired, adherence to the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, specifically, proposed *Policy LU-19.1, Historic Structure Preservation, Renovation, and Rehabilitation, and proposed *Policy LU-19.5, Historic Structure Alteration, and HMC regulations identified, and compliance with federal and state laws as described in Section 4.5.1.1, Regulatory Framework, would ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact CUL-2: Impacts to
known and unknown
archeological resources could
occur from potential future
development under the
proposed 2040 General Plan.

Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-2.3: Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Resources. Require project applicants to comply with state and federal standards to evaluate and mitigate impacts to tribal resources prior to project approval. Continue to require that project areas found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist with recommendations for protection and preservation. (new)
Less than
significant
Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development in the EIR Study Area reduces potential impacts to archeological resources. Specifically, proposed *Policy NRC-2.3, Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Resources, would mitigate impacts from potential future development by requiring future project applicants to comply with state and federal standards to evaluate and mitigate impacts to archeological resources, including requiring

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-25
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
that project areas found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist with recommendations for protection and preservation. Additionally, the City plans to actively encourage infill development through the implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan to focus new residential and job-generating uses in the downtown and on residential and mixed-use infill sites where development already occurs and is in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services. The City does not support new urban development outside the proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI) and will work with the County to focus future development in already urbanized areas, thereby reducing the potential for unearthing archaeological resources on undeveloped lands.

Specifically, proposed Policy LU-1.1, Infill Development, requires the City to maintain a well-defined compact urban form that prioritizes infill development over the annexation of properties, thus reducing potential impacts to development in undisturbed lands which are more likely to contain unknown archaeological resources. Where development is considered outside of the SOI, future development with a proposed Specific Plan land use designation would be subject to additional site-specific policies to guide development and protect potential archeological resources in these areas. As demonstrated, the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions encourage infill development, adaptive reuse of structures, development on underutilized land, and the protection of open spaces, and specifically proposed *Policy NRC-2.3 requires the City to evaluate and mitigate project-specific impacts to archeological resources, which would reduce the potential for disturbing archaeological deposits since ground-disturbing activities have already taken place in developed areas.

As further shown in Impact Discussion CUL-4, the proposed 2040 General Plan also promotes the registration of historic sites in the National and California Register and requires applicants of major development projects to consult with Native American representatives regarding cultural resources to identify locations of importance to Native Americans, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties.

Compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed previously, would protect recorded and unrecorded archaeological deposits in the greater EIR Study Area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation would ensure that potential impacts from implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Impact CUL-4: Impacts to tribal
cultural resources could occur
from potential future
Significant Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)
 *Policy NRC-2.3: Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Resources. Require project applicants to comply with state and federal standards to evaluate and mitigate impacts to tribal resources prior to project approval. Continue to require that project areas found to contain significant archaeological Less than
significant

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-26 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
development under the
proposed 2040 General Plan.
resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist with recommendations for protection and preservation. (new)
 *Policy NRC-2.4: Tribal Coordination During Project Construction. Require the developer of a proposed project that could impact a tribal cultural resource to contact an appropriate tribal representative to train construction workers on appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, requirements for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment, other applicable regulations, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations prior to construction. (new)  *Policy NRC-2.5: Preconstruction Investigations. Require project applicants to prepare preconstruction investigations of potential tribal cultural resources and on-site mitigation for all developments prior to the issuance of building permits. (new)
Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development in the EIR Study Area reduces potential impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs).

Specifically, proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-2.3, Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Resources, would mitigate impacts from potential future development by requiring future project applicants to comply with state and federal standards to evaluate and mitigate impacts to archeological resources; *Policy NRC-2.4, Tribal Coordination During Project Construction, would mitigate impacts by requiring the developer of a proposed project that could impact a TCR to contact an appropriate tribal representative to train construction workers on appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, requirements for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment, other applicable regulations, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations; and *Policy NRC-2.5, Preconstruction Investigations, would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare preconstruction investigations of potential TCRs and on-site mitigation for all developments. Implementation of these mitigating policies and compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed here and under Impact Discussion CUL-2 would protect unrecorded TCRs in the EIR Study Area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. Therefore, the proposed 2040 General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact on TCRs.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS (GEO)
Impact GEO-1: Impacts from
potential future development
under the proposed 2040
General Plan where there are
known geological hazards
Significant Health and Safety (HS)
 *Policy HS-1.1: Location of Future Development. Permit development only in areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the community can be adequately mitigated. This includes prohibiting development that would be subject to severe flood damage or geological hazard because of its location and/or design and that cannot be mitigated to safe levels.

Less than
significant

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-27
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
could occur over the buildout
horizon of the proposed
project.

Development shall also be prohibited where emergency services, including fire protection, cannot be provided. (Policy HS1.1)
 *Policy HS-1.2: Safety Considerations in Development Review. Require project applicants to prepare appropriate studies to assess identified hazards and ensure that impacts are adequately mitigated prior to project approval. (Policy HS1.2)
 *Policy HS-3.2: Geotechnical and Geologic Review. Require all geologic hazards to be adequately addressed and mitigated prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy through project development. Development proposed within areas of potential geological hazards shall not be endangered by, nor contribute to, the hazardous conditions on the site or on adjoining properties. (Policy HS1.5)
 *Policy HS-3.3: Engineering Tests for Geologic Conditions. Require engineering tests prior to issuance of building permits for those development projects that may be exposed to impacts associated with expansive soils, so that building foundation footings, utility lines, roadways, and sidewalks can be designed to accept the estimated degree of soil contraction, expansion, and settlement, according to the standards of the Uniform Building Code. (Policy HS1.6) Implementation of the goals, policies, and actions of the proposed 2040 General Plan would reduce potential impacts from development in geologically hazardous areas. Specifically, proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-1.1, Location of Future Development, would mitigate impacts by permitting development only in areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the community can be adequately mitigated. This includes prohibiting development that would be subject to severe flood damage or geological hazard due to its location and/or design and that cannot be mitigated to safe levels; *Policy HS-1.2, Safety Considerations in Development Review, would mitigate impacts by requiring require project applicants to prepare appropriate studies to assess identified hazards and ensure that impacts are adequately mitigated prior to project approval; *Policy HS-3.2, Geotechnical and Geologic Review, would mitigate impacts by requiring that all geologic hazards be adequately addressed and mitigated through project development. Development proposed within areas of potential geological hazards shall not be endangered by, nor contribute to, the hazardous conditions on the site or on adjoining properties, and proposed *Policy HS-3.3, Engineering Tests for Geologic Conditions, would mitigate impacts by requiring engineering tests for those development projects that may be exposed to impacts associated with expansive soils, so that building foundation footings, utility lines, roadways, and sidewalks can be designed to accept the estimated degree of soil contraction, expansion and settlement, according to the standards of the Uniform Building Code. Implementation of these goals, policies, and actions, and specifically *Policy HS-1.1, *Policy HS-1.2,*Policy HS-3.2, and *Policy HS-3.3 of the proposed 2040 General Plan, as well as compliance with state, regional, and local regulations pertaining to structural safety regarding fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, would ensure that potential future development that results from implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-28 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

NOISE (NOI)
Impact NOI-1.1: Construction
activities associated with
potential future development
under the proposed 2040
General Plan could expose
sensitive receptors in close
proximity to a construction site
to excessive noise from
construction equipment.

Significant Health and Safety (HS)
 *Action HS-8.1: Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts. Require review of all development proposals prior to project approval to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds and that it would not generate noise that would be incompatible with existing uses in the vicinity of the proposed development. (Implementation Measure HS.T)
 *Action HS-8.6: Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance. Require the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan and to develop a procedure for handling noise complaints. (Implementation Measure HS.O)
 *Action HS-8.8: Noise and Vibration Thresholds. Require adoption of the noise and vibration thresholds applied in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance. For noise thresholds, this shall include the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise as well as Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

For vibration thresholds, this shall include FTA criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration during operation of commercial or industrial uses and groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment. If vibration levels exceed the FTA limits for construction, alternative methods/equipment shall be used. (new)
 *Action HS-8.9: Construction Best Management Practices. Require the adoption of the construction best management practices outlined in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report to be incorporated into the Noise Ordinance to minimize construction noise to the extent feasible. (new) Significant and
Unavoidable
In most cases, construction of individual developments associated with implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each individual project, potentially affecting existing and future nearby sensitive uses. The policies and actions of the proposed 2040 General Plan would minimize the effects of construction noise. Specifically, implementation of the proposed *Action HS-8.8, Noise and Vibration Thresholds, and proposed *Action HS-8.9, Construction Best Management Practices, would mitigate noise impacts by requiring the City to adopt noise and vibration thresholds based on the Federal Transit Authority criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise applied in this analysis (i.e., 80 dB(A) Leq(8hr), the Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor, and the construction best management practices outlined above. As part of the project approval process, future

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-29
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
project applicants would be required to comply with these new standards in the Hollister Municipal Code pursuant to proposed *Action HS-8.6, Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance, which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Proposed Policy HS-8.3, Construction Noise, is required to regulate construction activity to reduce noise as established in the Hollister Noise Ordinance, which prohibits excessive or unusually loud noises and vibrations from any and all sources in the community. Furthermore, proposed *Action HS-8.1, Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts, requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not significantly increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds. However, because construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because—depending on the project type, equipment list, time of day, phasing and overall construction durations—noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time, during the more sensitive nighttime hours, or may exceed 80 dB(A) Leq(8hr) even with future project-level mitigation, construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are considered significant and unavoidable. Due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, project-level conclusions of construction noise would be speculative; however, the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level that do not exceed the noise thresholds.

Impact NOI-1.2: Operational
vehicle traffic noise increases
would exceed the City’s
significance thresholds with
implementation of the
proposed project.

Significant Health and Safety (HS)
 *Policy HS-8.1: Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels. Protect the noise environment in existing residential areas by requiring mitigation measures be identified prior to project approval for the operational phase of projects under the following circumstances: (a) the project would cause the day-night average sound level (Ldn) to increase 5 dB(A) where ambient noise is below 60 dB(A); (b) the project would cause the Ldn to increase 3 dB(A) where ambient noise is between 60 dB(A) and 70 dB(A); or (c) the project would cause the Ldn to increase 1.5 dB(A) where ambient noise is 70 dB(A) or greater. (Policy HS3.1)
 *Action HS-8.1: Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts. Require review all development proposals prior to project approval to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds and that it would not generate noise that would be incompatible with existing uses in the vicinity of the proposed development. (Implementation Measure HS.T)
 *Action HS-8.6: Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance. Require the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan and to develop a procedure for handling noise complaints. (Implementation Measure HS.O)
Significant and
Unavoidable
Implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-8.1, Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels, requires the City to protect the noise environment where there are uses that are sensitive to noise (e.g., residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-30 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes) by requiring the evaluation of mitigation measures for the operational phase of projects that exceed the City’s established noise thresholds. As part of the project approval process, future project applicants would be required to comply with these new standards in the Hollister Municipal Code pursuant to proposed *Action HS-8.6, Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance, which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Proposed Policy HS-8.5, Site Planning and Design, and proposed Policy HS-

8.7, Techniques to Reduce Traffic Noise, would reduce impacts from traffic through site design such as installing earth berms, increasing the distance between the receptor and the noise source, using non- sensitive structures as shields, and the use roadway design. Roadway design could include installing and maintaining noise barriers and/or rubberized or special asphalt paving such as open grade asphalt concrete along roadway segments with significant noise increases that are adjacent to sensitive receptors, and working with the State to address noise impacts from highway traffic. Roadway design could include installing and maintaining noise barriers and/or rubberized or special asphalt paving, such as open grade asphalt concrete, along roadway segments with significant noise increases that are adjacent to sensitive receptors. Notable reductions in tire noise have been achieved via the implementation of special paving materials, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays. For example, Caltrans conducted a study of pavement noise along I-80 in Davis, California, and found an average improvement of 6 to 7 dB(A) compared to conventional asphalt overlay with only minimal noise increases over a ten-year period.4 These quieter pavement types can be used alone or in combination with noise barriers, which are common throughout the city. However, barriers may not be feasible in all cases if they would prevent access to driveways or properties. Further, proposed *Action HS-8.1, Review of New Development for Potential Noise Impacts, requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not exceed the City’s established thresholds and proposed Action HS-8.5, Traffic Noise Mitigation, requires the City to continue to enforce City Ordinances that restrict through truck traffic to approved truck routes only and prohibit the parking and maintenance of trucks in residential districts to reduce traffic noise from trucks. Since project- specific details are unknown and noise barriers and/or quieter pavement technologies may not be feasible or reduce vehicle traffic noise below significance thresholds in all cases, this impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact

4 California Department of Transportation, May 13, 2011, I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study: Traffic Noise Levels Associated With Aging Open Grade Asphalt Concrete Overlay.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-31
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level that do not exceed the noise thresholds.

Impact NOI-2.1: Construction
activities associated with
potential future development
under the proposed 2040
General Plan could generate
excessive short-term vibration
levels during project
construction.

Significant Health and Safety (HS)
 *Action HS-8.1: Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts. Require review of all development proposals prior to project approval to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds and that it would not generate noise that would be incompatible with existing uses in the vicinity of the proposed development. (Implementation Measure HS.T)
 *Action HS-8.6: Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance. Require the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan and to develop a procedure for handling noise complaints. (Implementation Measure HS.O)
 *Action HS-8.8: Noise and Vibration Thresholds. Require adoption of the noise and vibration thresholds applied in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance. For noise thresholds, this shall include the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise as well as Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

For vibration thresholds, this shall include FTA criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration during operation of commercial or industrial uses and groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment. If vibration levels exceed the FTA limits for construction, alternative methods/equipment shall be used. (new)
Less than
Significant
Implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan Policy HS-8.3, Construction Noise, requires the City to regulate construction activity to reduce noise as established in the Hollister Noise Ordinance, which prohibits noise sources from excessive or unusually loud noises and vibrations from any and all sources in the community. Proposed *Action HS-8.1, Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts, requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds. Proposed *Action HS-8.8, Noise and Vibration Thresholds, requires the City to adopt vibration thresholds based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment and should the FTA criteria be exceeded, a list of alternate methods/equipment shall be established, as provided above. This would ensure that construction vibration impacts would remain less than significant because alternate methods/equipment with less or no vibration, such as those shown in Table 4.13-14, Reference Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, would meet the thresholds. As part of the project approval process, future project applicants would be required to comply with these new standards in the Hollister Municipal Code pursuant to proposed *Action HS-8.6, Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance, which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Furthermore, Hollister Municipal Code Section 17.10.040 requires the City

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-32 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
to not approve any land use that generates ground vibration perceptible without instruments at any point along or outside the property line of the use, except for motor vehicle operations. Therefore, the temporary program-level construction vibration impacts associated with implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan are considered less than significant.

Impact NOI-2-2: Operational
activities associated with
potential future development
under the proposed 2040
General Plan could generate
excessive long-term vibration
levels.

Significant Health and Safety (HS)
 *Action HS-8.8: Noise and Vibration Thresholds. Require adoption of the noise and vibration thresholds applied in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance. For noise thresholds, this shall include the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise as well as Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

For vibration thresholds, this shall include FTA criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration during operation of commercial or industrial uses and groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment. If vibration levels exceed the FTA limits for construction, alternative methods/equipment shall be used. (new)
Less than
Significant
Implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Action HS-8.8, Noise and Vibration Thresholds, requires the City to adopt vibration thresholds based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria. As described in Section 4.13.2.3, Vibration, the FTA establishes vibration limits from operational activities in order for impacts to be less than significant on a project-by-project basis. For vibration annoyance from operational sources, the FTA recommends the following criteria for frequent events: 65 VdB for highly sensitive uses with vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., microscopes in hospitals and research facilities) and 72 VdB for residences. As part of the project approval process, future project applicants would be required to comply with these new standards in the Hollister Municipal Code pursuant to proposed *Action HS-8.6, Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance, which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Furthermore, proposed *Action HS-8.1, Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts, requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not significantly increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan *Action HS-8.1, *Action HS-8.6, and *Action HS-8.8, vibration from operation impacts is considered less than significant.

Impact NOI-4: Implementation
of the proposed 2040 General
Plan could contribute to an
increase in cumulative
Significant Health and Safety (HS)
 *Policy HS-8.1: Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels. Protect the noise environment in existing residential areas by requiring mitigation measures be identified prior to project approval for the operational phase of projects under the following circumstances: (a) the project would cause the day-night average sound level (Ldn) to increase 5 dB(A) where ambient noise Significant and
Unavoidable

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-33
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
construction noise and
operational vehicle noise.
is below 60 dB(A); (b) the project would cause the Ldn to increase 3 dB(A) where ambient noise is between 60 dB(A) and 70 dB(A); or (c) the project would cause the Ldn to increase 1.5 dB(A) where ambient noise is 70 dB(A) or greater. (Policy HS3.1)
 *Action HS-8.1: Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts. Require review all development proposals prior to project approval to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds and that it would not generate noise that would be incompatible with existing uses in the vicinity of the proposed development. (Implementation Measure HS.T)
 *Action HS-8.6: Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance. Require the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan and to develop a procedure for handling noise complaints. (Implementation Measure HS.O)
 *Action HS-8.8: Noise and Vibration Thresholds. Require adoption of the noise and vibration thresholds applied in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance. For noise thresholds, this shall include the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise as well as Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

For vibration thresholds, this shall include FTA criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration during operation of commercial or industrial uses and groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment. If vibration levels exceed the FTA limits for construction, alternative methods/equipment shall be used. (new)
 *Action HS-8.9: Construction Best Management Practices. Require the adoption of the construction best management practices outlined in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance to minimize construction noise to the extent feasible. (new) Because construction details are unknown, potential future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan could exceed the City’s significance threshold for construction noise. Even with proposed 2040 General Plan Policy HS-8.3, Construction Noise, *Action HS-8.1, Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts, *Action HS-8.6, Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance, *Action HS-8.8, Noise and Vibration Thresholds, and *Action HS-8.9, Construction Best Management Practices, described under Impact Discussion NOI-1, because construction details are unknown at the time and construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise-sensitive receptors, noise disturbances may exceed the City’s significance thresholds even with future project-level mitigation.

In addition, operational vehicle noise generated under the proposed project would exceed the City’s significance threshold. Even with proposed 2020 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-8.1, Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels, *Action HS-8.1, and *Action HS-8.6, Periodic

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-34 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
Updates to Noise Ordinance, described under Impact Discussion NOI-1, the effectiveness of traffic noise- reduction strategies is not certain.

Due to the programmatic nature of the project, no additional mitigation measures are available.

Construction noise and operational vehicle noise associated with the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise impacts and remain significant and unavoidable at the program level. The identification of this program-level cumulative impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant cumulative impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

TRANSPORTATION (TRANS)
Impact TRANS-2:

Implementation of the
proposed 2040 General Plan
would result in a significant
vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
impact for VMT per Capita
(Residential) and Retail VMT
over 50,000 square feet, due to
forecasted land use growth
through 2040, based on a
comparison of the VMT rate
increment for VMT to the
corresponding average
baseline rates for the San
Benito County region.

Significant Circulation (C)
 *Policy C-1.5: Transportation Demand Management. Require new development to reduce single- occupant vehicle usage using Transportation Demand Management strategies prior to project approval. (new)
 *Action C-1.1: Performance and Monitoring. Require the monitoring of the City's mode split progress on reducing VMT and reducing GHG emissions from VMT, as data is available. (new)  *Action C-1.2: VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program. Require the establishment of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Banking Fee Program. This program shall fund the construction of facilities throughout Hollister that support active transportation (cycling and walking) and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development. (new)
 *Policy C-4.6: Transportation Demand Management Requirements. Require new or existing developments that meet specific size, capacity, and/or context conditions to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies and other single-occupancy vehicle reduction methodologies. Require new developments to comply with tiered trip reduction and VMT reduction targets and monitoring that are consistent with the targets of the City’s VMT CEQA thresholds prior to project approval. (new)
Significant and
Unavoidable
Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would mitigate VMT impacts to the degree feasible. Proposed *Policy C-1.5, Transportation Demand Management, requires the City to reduce single-occupant vehicle usage using Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Proposed *Action C-1.1, Performance and Monitoring, requires the City to monitor mode split progress on reducing VMT, and reducing GHG emissions from VMT, as data is available. Proposed *Action C-1.2, VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program, requires the City to establish a VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program to fund the construction of facilities that support active transportation and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development. Proposed *Policy C-4.6, Transportation Demand Management Requirements, requires new or existing developments that meet specific size, capacity, and/or context conditions to implement TDM strategies and other single-occupancy vehicle reduction methodologies. Compliance with tiered trip reduction and VMT reduction targets and

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-35
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
monitoring that are consistent with the targets of the City’s VMT CEQA thresholds is also required. In addition, as listed under Impact Discussion TRANS-1, the City has numerous policies to promote safe and user-friendly transit and improve the bicycle and pedestrian network in Hollister, all which would serve to promote alternative forms of transportation and reduce VMT.

Furthermore, as previously described, given the lack of specifics that are available for this program-level EIR, it is not possible to fully account for the effect of specific design principles, policies, and improvements that will reduce VMT as part of this analysis. Although many of the VMT-reducing design principles, policies, and improvements that are described in the prior section may ultimately mitigate and/or potentially reduce the VMT impacts outlined in this evaluation, necessary details to ensure implementation and appropriately evaluate their effect are not yet available. While some of the approaches to VMT reduction described in the prior section are supportive of existing City policies and guidelines, the VMT-reducing approaches cited would require further planning and development as well as committed funding sources, including those from participants in the development community (many of which may not be identified yet as large areas of land may be further subdivided into specific projects and developments). As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the findings of this analysis reflect a worst- case scenario for this program EIR. This program-level land use impact for VMT does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent development projects that achieve applicable VMT thresholds of significance. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed 2040 General Plan, no additional mitigation measures are available, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Impact TRANS-5:

Implementation of the
proposed 2040 General Plan
would cumulatively contribute
to regional vehicle miles
traveled (VMT).

Significant Circulation (C)
 *Policy C-1.5: Transportation Demand Management. Require new development to reduce single- occupant vehicle usage using Transportation Demand Management strategies prior to project approval. (new)
 *Action C-1.1: Performance and Monitoring. Require the monitoring of the City's mode split progress on reducing VMT and reducing GHG emissions from VMT, as data is available. (new)  *Action C-1.2: VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program. Require the establishment of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Banking Fee Program. This program shall fund the construction of facilities throughout Hollister that support active transportation (cycling and walking) and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development. (new)
 *Policy C-4.6: Transportation Demand Management Requirements. Require new or existing developments that meet specific size, capacity, and/or context conditions to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies and other single-occupancy vehicle reduction methodologies. Require new developments to comply with tiered trip reduction and VMT reduction Significant and
Unavoidable

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-36 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact
Significance
without
Mitigation
General Plan Policies/Actions and
CEQA-Required Mitigation
Significance
with
Mitigation
targets and monitoring that are consistent with the targets of the City’s VMT CEQA thresholds prior to project approval. (new)
Even with the proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy C-1.5, Transportation Demand Management, *Action C-1.1, Performance and Monitoring, *Action C-1.2, VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program, and *Policy C-

4.6, Transportation Demand Management Requirements, described under Impact Discussion TRANS-2 to mitigate the impacts related to VMT, the effectiveness of the VMT-reduction strategies is not certain. As such, the cumulative impact on VMT is considered significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level cumulative impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant cumulative impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

PLACEWORKS 3-1
List of Commenters
Comments on the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR were received from the following agencies and organizations. Each comment letter and comment has been assigned a letter and a number as indicated below. The comments are organized by government organizations (GOV), private organizations (ORG), members of the public (PUB), and public hearing (PH).

3.1 GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Comments on 2023 Draft EIR
GOV1 Heather Adamson, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, June 9, 2023 GOV2 P. Cooper, Captain, Department of California Highway Patrol, June 21, 2023 GOV3 Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, June 27, 2023 GOV4 Chris Bjornstad, California Department of Transportation, June 30, 2023 GOV5 Shawn Tennenbaum, San Benito High School District, June 30, 2023

Comments on Revised Draft EIR
GOV6 N.C. Coady, Captain Commander, Department of California Highway Patrol, July 29, 2024 GOV7 Heather Anderson, Director of Planning, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, August 5, 2024
GOV8 Edward Ballaron, Air Quality Planner I, Monterey Bay Air Resources District, August 16, 2024 GOV9 Shawn Tannenbaum, San Benito High School District, August 16, 2024 GOV10 Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, August 21, 2024

3.2 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
Comments on 2023 Draft EIR
ORG1 Dennis Martin, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, June 15, 2023 ORG2 Matt Nohr, Orosco Group, June 28, 2023
ORG3 Kristina Chaves Wyatt, San Benito County Business Council, June 30, 2023 ORG4 Matt Nohr, Orosco Group, June 30, 2023

3.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

LIST OF COMMENTERS
3-2 OCTOBER 2024

3.3 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Comments on 2023 Draft EIR
PUB1 Jim Safranek, May 30, 2023
PUB2 Ingrid and Alex Sywak, June 16, 2023

3.4 PUBLIC HEARING
Comments on Revised Draft EIR
PH1 Jeffrey Small, July 16, 2024
PH2 Alexander Sywak, July 16, 2024
PH3 Dennis Martin, July 16, 2024
PH4 Victor Gomez, July 16, 2024
PH5 Dennis Martin, July 16, 2024

PLACEWORKS 4-1
Comments and Responses
This chapter includes a reproduction of, and responses to, each significant environmental issue raised during the public review period. Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix G, Comment Letters, of this Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), along with annotations that identify each comment number. Comment letters in this chapter follow the same order as listed in Chapter 3, List of Commenters, of this Final EIR. The comments are organized and categorized by government organizations (GOV) and public hearing (PH).

Responses to those individual comments are provided in this chapter alongside the text of each corresponding comment. Letters are identified by category and each comment is labeled with the comment reference number in the margin. Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to another numbered comment and response. Where a response requires revisions to analysis presented in the Draft EIR, these revisions are explained and shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. All comments included in this document are formally acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

Certain topics raised by commenters require a lengthy response, and certain topics addressed in this Final EIR require a detailed explanation. In addition, certain topics were raised repeatedly, albeit in slightly different forms, in comments on the Revised Draft EIR. In order to minimize duplication and to provide a more comprehensive discussion, “master responses” have been prepared for some of these issues.

Responses to individual comments reference these master responses as appropriate. A particular master response may provide more information than requested by any individual comment. Conversely, the master response may not provide a complete response to a given comment, and additional information may be contained in the individual response to that comment. Master responses in this Final EIR address the project merits, speculation without substantial evidence, and additional analysis.

4.1 PROJECT MERITS
Often during review of an EIR, commenters raise issues that relate to qualities of the project itself (in this case, the project includes the proposed City of Hollister 2040 General Plan (2040 General Plan), Climate Action Plan (CAP), and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP) or the project’s community consequences or benefits, personal wellbeing and quality of life, and economic or financial issues (referred to here as “project merits”), rather than the environmental analyses or impacts and mitigations raised in the EIR. However, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15131, Economic and Social Effects, the Draft EIR is not meant to address these project merits, rather, the purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR is to fully analyze and mitigate the project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment to the extent feasible.

4.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-2 OCTOBER 2024
In accordance with Sections 15088 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Final EIR must include a response to comments on the Draft EIR pertaining to environmental issues analyzed under CEQA. Several of the comments provided in response to the Revised Draft EIR express an opinion for or against the components of the project, but do not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Revised Draft EIR. Rather, these opinions relate to the merits of the project.

Lead Agency review of environmental issues and project merits are both important in the decision of what action to take on a project, and both are considered in the decision-making process for a project.

However, as part of the environmental review process, a lead agency is only required by CEQA to respond to environmental issues that are raised. The City of Hollister (City) will hold a publicly noticed hearing to consider action on the merits of the proposed project for approval or disapproval. The City will consider both the EIR and project merit issues that have been raised prior to acting to approve or disapprove the proposed project.

Section 15204(a), Focus of Review, of the State CEQA Guidelines provides direction for parties reviewing and providing comment on a Draft EIR, as follows:

In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), the City is not required to respond to comments that express an opinion about the project merits, but do not relate to environmental issues covered in the Revised Draft EIR. Although such opinions and comments on the project merits that were received during the EIR process do not require responses in the EIR, as previously noted, they do provide important input to the process of reviewing the project overall. Therefore, merits and opinion-based comment letters are included in the EIR to be available for consideration by the City decision-makers at the merits stage of the project. City decision-makers may consider these letters and issues as part of their deliberations on the merits of the project and whether to approve, modify, or disapprove the project.

4.2 SPECULATION WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Various commenters assert or request that significance conclusions of the EIR should be revised but fail to provide substantial evidence in support of their assertion. Predicting the project’s physical impacts on the