Hollister City Council
December 3, 2024

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-50 JULY 2024
In general, the existing storm drain system has sufficient capacity to convey runoff generated during design storms. However, the 2011 Stormwater Master Plan stated that approximately 6 percent of the storm drain network does not have the capacity to convey future 10-year storm peak flows, and about 10 percent does not have the capacity to convey future 25-year storm peak flows.40 Most of the priority projects identified in the Stormwater Master Plan were included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program for FY 2017/2018 to 2021/2022.41
The industrial WWTP currently has the capacity to store additional stormwater at its facility, as described above in the Storm Water Resource Plan discussion. The discharge of stormwater to the indutrrial WWTP outside of canning season is currently limited to 1.75 mgd as per the Central Coast RWQCB’s NPDES permit. An increase in stormwater flow to the industrial WWTP would require approval by the Central Coast RWQCB and a modification to the existing NPDES permit.

The SWRCB, as the implementing agency for the Trash Amendments, mandates that all Small Phase II MS4 permittees, which includes the City of Hollister, must install certified trash treatment control systems on all catch basins no later than December 2, 2030.

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant stormwater related impacts if it would:

7. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

8. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to stormwater facilities.

IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-7 Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
2040 General Plan
New development and/or redevelopment as part of the proposed 2040 General Plan and the change in land uses would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which in turn could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges to drainage channels, and the potential to cause nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities. The proposed land use changes in the 2040 General Plan would primarily involve the conversion of agricultural land and open space, which would increase

40 City of Hollister, August 2011, City of Hollister Storm Drain Master Plan. 41 City of Hollister, 2017, City of Hollister 5-Year Capital Improvement Projects Program. Fiscal Years 2017-2018 to 2021/2022.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-51
impervious surfaces. However, the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan describes the improvements that are planned to accommodate future growth within the EIR Study Area, and the plan accounted for a larger population increase than is currently proposed for the 2040 General Plan. Existing storm drains would need to be upgraded and new detention basins would need to be built with future development.

However, the construction of these facilities would not cause significant environmental effects.

In addition, all future development that involves the disturbance of one acre or more of land would be subject to NPDES construction permit requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP, which includes BMPs to limit the discharge of sediment and non-stormwater discharges from the site. Also, the Phase II Small MS4 permit requires an erosion and sediment control plan to be submitted to the City prior to issuing a grading or building permit.

In addition, potential future development that involves the creation and/or replacement of 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surfaces would trigger the implementation of site design measures to reduce stormwater runoff, per the Phase II Small MS4 Permit requirements and the Central Coast RWQCB Post- Construction Stormwater Management Requirements. Also, regulated projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface would be required to implement site design, source control, and stormwater treatment and runoff measures using specific numeric sizing criteria based on the volume and flow rate of stormwater that is generated. Each project undergoes review by City personnel to ensure that the regulatory requirements for temporary on-site stormwater runoff retention have been met. Also, new projects are subject to storm drainage impact fees, which are used to fund new storm drain infrastructure within the city.

With the implementation of these provisions for future development, there would not be significant increases in stormwater runoff to the City’s storm drain system. The construction of new stormwater facilities through the CIP and storm drain impact fees, implementation of best management practices and on-site stormwater control measures, and preparation of the required documents and review by the City would serve to minimize any potential impacts associated with stormwater.

Also, the proposed Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Community Services and Facilities (CSF) Elements of the 2040 General Plan contain s goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to storm drain infrastructure. The following proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on stormwater discharge:

Goal LU-2: Manage growth in the new development areas outside the existing City Limits but within the Sphere of Influence through the use of Specific Plans. (new)  Policy LU-2.8: Adequate Infrastructure. Ensure adequate infrastructure is provided to support new development in Specific Plan Areas. (new)
Goal CSF-1: Provide an adequate level and maintenance of public services and facilities to ensure the continued health, education, welfare, and safety of all residents and businesses. (Goal CSF4)  Policy CSF-1.1: New Development Requirements for Public Services. Ensure that future growth does not create demands that exceed the capabilities and capacity of local public services, including police and fire services, by requiring new development applications to identify the impacts that the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-52 JULY 2024
proposed development would have on the provision of public services. Approve only development applications that can mitigate impacts or contribute a proportional fair share so that local public services can be maintained at an acceptable level. (Policy CSF1.2)  Policy CSF-1.2: Coordination of Facilities and Services Planning. Cooperate and coordinate with the County of San Benito, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and other local agencies in the provision of infrastructure and services in the Hollister Planning Area. (Policy CSF1.4)  Policy CSF-1.3: Infrastructure Planning. Require the preparation of a specific plan, financing plan, development agreement, creation of a Communities Facilities District, or another similar document or financing vehicle, as a pre-condition to annexation or redesignations of land for new urban use.

The plans shall identify means to ensure adequate funding to support construction of all needed public facilities, including water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, sidewalks, parks, and school facilities. (Policy CSF1.6)
 Policy CSF-1.4: Development Review Criteria for Public Services. Prior to granting approval, evaluate each new development in terms of the following criteria:

1. The project shall share a common border with a property that has already been developed.

2. The project shall be adequately served by infrastructure (water, sewer, streets, schools, parks, etc.), which is already in place or mitigated.

3. The project shall be within the existing service areas of local service providers (i.e., fire protection, police protection, solid waste disposal, schools), and not result in a reduction in their current capabilities. (Numbers 1 to 3, Policy CSF1.7)

4. The project shall have adequate water supply of sufficient quantity and quality.

5. There shall be adequate sanitary sewer capacity and treatment capability that can be provided to serve the proposed project.

6. There shall be adequate fire protection for the proposed project.

7. There shall be adequate police protection for the proposed project.

8. The proposed project shall result in no impact on local parks and recreational facilities, or the applicant will provide the resources required to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed development.

9. There shall be an adequate level of solid waste collection services and disposal capacity to serve the proposed project.

10. There shall be an appropriate level of utility services (gas, electric, and telephone) to serve the proposed project.

11. The project applicant shall finance the full costs associated with any drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows from the proposed project.

12. The proposed project shall not make a significant contribution to the emission of regional air pollutants.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-53

13. There shall be adequate elementary, middle, and high schools to serve the proposed project. (Numbers 4 to 13, Implementation Measure CSF.D)
 Policy CSF-1.6: Development Fees. Review the existing development fee structure, including the infrastructure connection fees, every two years and restructure as needed. (Policy LU2.1)  Policy CSF-1.7: Capital Improvements and Replacement. Ensure that the City’s Capital Improvement Program is coordinated with responsible districts and agencies and provides for ongoing, preventative maintenance of infrastructure facilities and the replacement of City equipment. (Policy CSF1.5)  Policy CSF-1.8: Capital Improvements Program. Conduct reviews of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at least every five years and add budget for transportation, infrastructure, and public facility improvements as funding sources are identified. (Implementation Measure LU.P)  Action CSF-1.2: Public Facilities Impact Fee. Regularly review the public facilities impact fee to ensure development funds its fair share of new community and public facilities, including public safety facilities, required to serve new residents and employees in Hollister. (Implementation Measure LU.S) Goal CSF-3: Provide adequate stormwater facilities. (Goal CSF3)  Policy CSF-3.1: Adequate Drainage Facilities. Require project developers to provide adequate storm drains for stormwater runoff. Proposed development projects must include adequate provisions to accommodate peak flows, shall not significantly impact downstream lands, and shall avoid impacts on riparian vegetation. (Policy CSF3.1)
 Policy CSF-3.2: Stormwater Capture. Encourage stormwater capture and encourage, when feasible and cost-effective, on-site rainwater catchment for new and existing development. (new)  Action CSF-3.1: Identification of Drainage System Improvements. Establish a program for drainage system improvements that would include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Continual monitoring of areas with insufficient drainage and implementation of any necessary improvements.

2. Construction of new system improvements to improve storm drainage performance.

3. Evaluation of stormwater volumes when replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger or parallel lines.

4. Establishing development guidelines to protect areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss.

5. Compliance with the NPDES requirements. (Implementation Measure CSF.P)  Action CSF-3.2: Drainage Channels and Culverts. Create a program to inspect all active drainage channels and culverts associated with subdivisions and large-scale developments for accumulated sediment during construction, post-construction, and on an ongoing basis. If the inspections indicate that sediment accumulation has occurred, then these drainage structures should be cleared of debris and sediment. (Implementation Measure CSF.HH)
Compliance with and implementation of these proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions that ensure adequate infrastructure and the regulatory provisions in the Phase II Small MS4 permit that

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-54 JULY 2024
limit runoff from new development would ensure that the potential future development would not result in significant increases in runoff and would not contribute to the construction of new storm drain facilities or expansion of existing facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. Specifically, proposed Policy CSF-3.1, Adequate Drainage Facilities, requires project developers to provide adequate storm drains for storm water runoff and requires that the project include adequate provisions to accommodate peak flows, shall not significantly impact downstream lands, and shall avoid impacts on riparian vegetation. Further, implementation of the proposed Policy CSF-1.4, Development Review Criteria for Public Services, requires the City to evaluate each new development to ensure it shall be adequately served by infrastructure, which is already in place or mitigated and there shall be adequate sanitary sewer capacity and treatment capability that can be provided to service the proposed project, and proposed Policy LU-2.8, Adequate Infrastructure, requires the City to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided to support new development within Specific Plan Areas. In addition, the City would continue to repair, rehabilitate, and upgrade the storm drain system through implementation of the CIP program funded through the General Fund and Storm Drain Impact Fees Fund. Therefore, impacts with respect to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. The proposed CAP includes policies and plans for reducing these emissions in the water and wastewater sectors. However, there are no sections in the proposed CAP that specifically address stormwater other than policies to increase park space and tree plantings and vegetation, which would reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. Therefore, implementation of the proposed CAP would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Since agricultural land does not discharge to the City’s storm drain system, implementation of the proposed ALPP would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-55
UTIL-8 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to stormwater facilities. 2040 General Plan
The analysis of cumulative storm drainage impacts considers future development within the EIR Study Area. The area surrounding the EIR Study Area is primarily agricultural land and streets with no associated storm drain system. The Central Coast RWQCB regulates discharges from runoff or leaching of irrigation water and/or stormwater from irrigated lands through the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. Therefore, the stormwater control program and storm drain improvements implemented by the City would not directly or adversely impact the surrounding area.

As discussed previously, development within the EIR Study Area would require conformance with State and local policies that would reduce hydrology and infrastructure construction impacts to less-than- significant levels. Any new development within the EIR Study Area would be subject to independent project review on a project-by-project basis as well as compliance with City policies and ordinances, design guidelines, zoning codes, and other applicable City requirements that reduce impacts related to hydrology and stormwater drainage facilities. More specifically, potential changes related to stormwater flows, drainage, impervious surfaces, and flooding would be minimized by the implementation of stormwater control measures, retention, infiltration, and LID measures and review by the City’s Public Works Department to integrate measures to reduce potential stormwater drainage and flooding impacts.

In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, proposed development and redevelopment within the EIR Study Area would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to stormwater infrastructure and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. As discussed previously, there are no sections in the proposed CAP that specifically address stormwater other than policies to increase park space and tree plantings and vegetation, which would reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. Therefore, implementation of the proposed CAP the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to stormwater infrastructure.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-56 JULY 2024
agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. As discussed previously, there is no direct impact on stormwater infrastructure associated with implementation of this program because agricultural land does not discharge to the City’s storm drain system. Therefore, implementation of the proposed ALPP the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to stormwater infrastructure.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.17.4 SOLID WASTE

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Part 258, contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.

State Regulations
Assembly Bills 939, 341, and 1826
The Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 codified in Public Resources Code 40050 et seq. (AB 939) established an integrated waste-management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates. Actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the county or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.

Assembly Bill 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide solid waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020. The law also mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses as well as schools and school districts.

California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq. (AB 1826) was signed into law in September 2014 and took effect in April 2016. It requires recycling of organic waste for all businesses and multi-family dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic waste includes food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-57
Organic Waste Methane Emissions Reduction Act
In September 2016, the Organic Waste Methane Emissions Reduction Act (SB 1383) was signed into law establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in various sectors of California's economy. SB 1383 establishes goals to reduce the landfill disposal of organics by achieving a 50 percent reduction in the 2014 level of statewide disposal of organic waste by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. SB 1383 grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food be recovered for human consumption by 2025.

Methane emissions resulting from the decomposition of organic waste in landfills are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change. Organic materials—including waste that can be readily recycled or composted—account for a significant portion of California's overall waste stream.

California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires new commercial and multi-family development projects to set aside areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. This act required CalRecycle to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency that provides adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials for development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, that establishes standards including space allocation for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.

CALGreen Building Code
CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408 mandate that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 65 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. CALGreen requires developers to prepare and submit a Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan for on-site sorting of construction debris, which is submitted to the City for approval. The Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan must:
 Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale.
 Specify if materials would be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.  Identify the diversion facility where the material collected can be taken.  Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.  Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or by volume but not both.

Regional Regulations
San Benito County Integrated Waste Management Agency (IWMA) administers recycling and waste reduction programs to meet CalRecycle waste mandates and increase sustainability measures for its members, which include the cities of Hollister and San Juan Bautista. The IWM has a franchise agreement with Recology San Benito County to provide collection services for recyclables, organics, and solid waste.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-58 JULY 2024
The IWMA also provides recycling guides and free technical support for city and county businesses to help them achieve their California Green Business Certification.

Local Regulations
The HMC includes various directives that pertain to solid waste collection and disposal in Hollister. Most provisions related to solid waste impacts are included in Title 8, Health and Safety; Title 15, Buildings and Construction; and Title 17, Zoning.
 Chapter 8.12, Solid Waste Collection and Disposal. This chapter states that every occupied property within the city must receive solid waste collection and disposal services, with associated billing. The chapter also provides the requirements for source separation of recyclables, garden waste, information on solid waste collection charges, prohibitions against littering, and times specified for setting out containers. The chapter also describes the edible food recovery program, as required by SB 1383 regulation and CalRecycle requirements.
 Section 15.04.045, Building and Demolition Permits. This section of the Building Code states that no building or demolition permit shall be issued until a solid waste diversion plan has been submitted and approved by the City. No final inspection would be schedules and no occupancy permit would be issued until the permittee has submitted verifiable documentation from a California Integrated Waste Management Board permitted disposal or recycling facility that the required diversions have been met.
 Section 17.16.130, Solid Waste/Recyclable Materials Storage. This section provides the standards for the construction and operation of solid waste and recyclable material storage area in compliance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act. The minimum storage areas are provided for multi-family residential developments based on the number of units, and nonresidential developments based on the amount of square feet. The required locations, design, and construction of the storage areas are also provided in this article.

Existing Conditions
Solid Waste Collection
The San Benito County IWMA coordinates recycling and garbage services for all of San Benito County. The San Benito County IWMA has contracted with Recology, a private company, to provide waste collection services. Recology provides the following services in Hollister:
 Weekly curbside collection of waste headed for the landfill in a grey container, recyclables in a blue container, and organics (includes yard waste and food waste) in a green container.  Curbside collection of bulky items (appliances, furniture, mattresses, tires, etc.) two times per year.  Three times per year events where residents can pick-up compost for free.  Three times per year events where residents can drop off old electronics to be recycled.  Three times per year events where residents can have confidential documents shredded on-site for free.
 Recycling services at community events and public places (like parks).

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-59
Recyclable waste is delivered to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District in Marina, which has a materials recovery facility where recyclables are sorted and shipped to different markets for processing.

Organic waste is transported to the South Valley Organics composting facility off Highway 152 near Gilroy where it is composted, and the finished product is marketed as landscape compost.42 The San Benito County IWMA is currently applying for a rural jurisdiction exemption from the organics reduction act (SB 1383) because it does not have the existing infrastructure, composting, or anaerobic facilities to handle all of the organic waste produced in the county.43
Landfills
In 2019, solid waste generated by the San Benito IWMA was delivered to 13 facilities and landfills for a total disposal rate of 88,184 tons. However, 91 percent of the solid waste was delivered to either the John Smith Road Landfill near Hollister (66,043 tons) or the Billy Wright Landfill near Los Banos (14,581 tons).44 The John Smith Road Landfill is owned by San Benito County and operated by Waste Solutions Group of San Benito. It is located at 2650 John Smith Road in Hollister. The landfill has a maximum permitted disposal date of 1,000 tons/day and has a remaining capacity of 1,921,000 cubic yards as of April 2021.45 Prior to March 2022, 80 percent of the waste received by this landfill came from outside of San Benito County. As of March 30, 2022, acceptance of out-of-county waste was suspended per the Landfill Operating Agreement as the 15-year waste threshold was reached.

The Billy Wright Landfill is owned and operated by Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority and is regulated under Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2011-0061. The landfill is at 17173 South Billy Wright Road, approximately 4.5 miles west of Los Banos. Approximately 172 acres are dedicated to landfill operations, with a maximum permitted throughput of 1,500 tons/day and a remaining capacity of 11 million tons. The estimated closure date is December 31, 2054. Table 4.17-8, Landfills, provides more information on landfill capacity and closing dates for the two primary landfill sites that receive solid waste from the San Benito IWMA.

AB 939 requires all counties to demonstrate that they have 15 years of available countywide solid waste landfill capacity, either in their jurisdiction or contracted with another entity. San Benito County IWMA has 15 years of available countywide solid waste landfill capacity at the Billy Wright Disposal Site. Although John Smith Road Landfill had less than a 15-year capacity under former operating conditions, the provision that no waste outside of San Benito County would be accepted has extended the life of the

42 Recology, FAQs, https://www.recology.com/recology-san-benito-county/faq/# , accessed February 8.2023. 43 San Benito County, 2023, Resolution to Affirm an Exemption from the Requirements of Mandatory Organics Collection Services and SB 1383 Related Activities on Behalf of the San Benito County Integrated Waste Management Regional Agency. file:///C:/Users/cfitzgerald/Downloads/Resolution_No._2021-129-1.pdf accessed February 9, 2023. 44 CalRecylcle, 2023, Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility , accessed February 8, 2023. 45 CalRecycle, 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2151?siteID=2583 , accessed February 8, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-60 JULY 2024
landfill to approximately 2048.46 With implementation of this provision, the amount of waste accepted at John Smith Road Landfill has decreased from 298,502 tons in 2019 to 77,519 tons in 2023.

TABLE 4.17-8 LANDFILLS
Landfill Name and Location
Maximum
Permitted
Throughput,
tons/day
Average
Disposal,
tons/day
Residual
Disposal
Capacity,
tons/day
Remaining
Capacity,
cubic yards
Estimated
Closing Year
John Smith Road Landfill
2650 John Smith Road
Hollister, CA 95023
1,000 221 779 1,921,000 2048

Billy Wright Disposal Site
17173 Billy Wright Road
Los Banos , CA 93522
1,500 600 900 11,370,000 2054
Sources: CalRecycle, 2024, SWIS Facility Detail John Smith Road Landfill (35-AA-0001); CalRecycle, 2019, SWIS Facility Detail Billy Wright Disposal Site (24-AA-0002); Douglas Environmental, 2022, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the John Smith Road Landfill Expansion Project.

Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling
Compliance with AB 939 is measured by comparing the CalRecycle target disposal rates for residents and employees to actual disposal rates. The latest reported 2022 target disposal rates for the San Benito IWMA, of which Hollister is a member, were 5.1 pounds per day (ppd) for residents and 18.3 ppd for employees. The actual disposal rates were 7.0 ppd for residents and 25.3 ppd for employees.47 Therefore, the solid waste diversion goals for San Benito County have not been met. The increase in disposal rates in San Benito County in 2022 may be due in part to the COVID pandemic and people staying at home. The San Benito IWMA is working diligently to implement additional waste reduction and recycling programs to meet the AB 939 compliance requirements.

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts related to solid waste if it would:

9. Generate solid waste in excess of State and local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

10. Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

11. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to solid waste.

46 Waste Solutions, 2019, Second Amendment to New Landfill Operating Agreement, Exhibit C, Determination of Reservation of Disposal Capacity.
47 CalRecycle, 2024, Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DiversionDisposal accessed May 27, 2024.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-61

IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-9 Implementation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
2040 General Plan
The San Benito IWMA reports annual solid waste disposal rates for the County to CalRecycle. The IWMA does not differentiate the amount of solid waste generated by each city or town within its jurisdiction. The 2019 disposal rate for San Benito IWMA was 88,184 tons.48 Approximately 91 percent of the total tonnage went to John Smith Landfill and Billy Wright Landfill, with the remainder shipped to various landfills and facilities in the Bay Area. According to the California Department of Finance, the population of San Benito County, which is the service area for San Benito IWMA, was 62,051 in 2019 and the population of Hollister was 40,370. Therefore, it is assumed for this analysis that the percentage of solid waste generated by the City of Hollister is 65 percent of the total.

With implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan, the population is anticipated to increase by 31,575 residents, and assuming the amount of waste generated per person is 7 lb/day, this would result in an increase in solid waste of 40,337 tons/year or approximately 111 tons/day. These numbers are conservative because, with continued recycling and waste reduction programs implemented by the City and San Benito IWMA, the waste generation rates would be reduced over time. As shown in Table 4.17-9, Solid Waste Landfill Disposal Rates at Buildout, this would result in a total solid waste disposal rate of 86,494 tons/year for Hollister, or approximately 237 tons/day that would be sent to the landfills.

TABLE 4.17-9 SOLID WASTE LANDFILL DISPOSAL RATES AT BUILDOUT Area
2019 Hollister
Population
Existing Solid
Waste Generation
(tons/year)

2040 Hollister
Population
Solid Waste
Generation at
Buildout
(tons/year)
Solid Waste
Generation at
Buildout
(tons/day)
EIR Study Area 40,370 51,573 71,945 91,910 252
Note: The increase in population with implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be 31,575 people at a waste generation rate of 7 pounds/day/person, resulting in an additional 40,337 tons/year. Adding to the existing disposal rate of 51,573, that would be 91,910 tons/year or a total of 252 tons/day.

Source: Placeworks, 2024, CalRecycle, 2024.

With implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan, an increase of approximately 111 tons/day would be about 12 percent of the current excess capacity of 900 tons/day at Billy Wright Landfill or about 14 percent of the current excess capacity of 779 tons/day at John Smith Road Landfill. Therefore, the landfills have the capacity to accept the solid waste associated with the proposed 2040 General Plan buildout.

48 CalRecycle, 2023, Jurisdictional Disposal by Facility, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility , accessed February 11, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-62 JULY 2024
Furthermore, all new development pursuant to the proposed 2040 General Plan would need to comply with Division 4.4 of the 2022 CALGreen Building Code, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from residential and nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. New development and redevelopment would also need to comply with the requirements of AB 341 that mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses. Therefore, solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant.

Also, the proposed Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Community Services and Facilities (CSF) Elements of the 2040 General Plan contain s goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to minimize impacts related to solid waste generation. The following proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on solid waste generation:

Goal LU-2: Manage growth in the new development areas outside the existing City Limits but within the Sphere of Influence through the use of Specific Plans. (new)  Policy LU-2.8: Adequate Infrastructure. Ensure adequate infrastructure is provided to support new development in Specific Plan Areas. (new)
Goal CSF-1: Provide an adequate level and maintenance of public services and facilities to ensure the continued health, education, welfare, and safety of all residents and businesses. (Goal CSF4)  Policy CSF-1.1: New Development Requirements for Public Services. Ensure that future growth does not create demands that exceed the capabilities and capacity of local public services, including police and fire services, by requiring new development applications to identify the impacts that the proposed development would have on the provision of public services. Approve only development applications that can mitigate impacts or contribute a proportional fair share so that local public services can be maintained at an acceptable level. (Policy CSF1.2)  Policy CSF-1.2: Coordination of Facilities and Services Planning. Cooperate and coordinate with the County of San Benito, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and other local agencies in the provision of infrastructure and services in the Hollister Planning Area. (Policy CSF1.4)  Policy CSF-1.3: Infrastructure Planning. Require the preparation of a specific plan, financing plan, development agreement, creation of a Communities Facilities District, or another similar document or financing vehicle, as a pre-condition to annexation or redesignations of land for new urban use.

The plans shall identify means to ensure adequate funding to support construction of all needed public facilities, including water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, sidewalks, parks, and school facilities. (Policy CSF1.6)
 Policy CSF-1.4: Development Review Criteria for Public Services. Prior to granting approval, evaluate each new development in terms of the following criteria:

1. The project shall share a common border with a property that has already been developed.

2. The project shall be adequately served by infrastructure (water, sewer, streets, schools, parks, etc.), which is already in place or mitigated.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-63

3. The project shall be within the existing service areas of local service providers (i.e., fire protection, police protection, solid waste disposal, schools), and not result in a reduction in their current capabilities. (Numbers 1 to 3, Policy CSF1.7)

4. The project shall have adequate water supply of sufficient quantity and quality.

5. There shall be adequate sanitary sewer capacity and treatment capability that can be provided to serve the proposed project.

6. There shall be adequate fire protection for the proposed project.

7. There shall be adequate police protection for the proposed project.

8. The proposed project shall result in no impact on local parks and recreational facilities, or the applicant will provide the resources required to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed development.

9. There shall be an adequate level of solid waste collection services and disposal capacity to serve the proposed project.

10. There shall be an appropriate level of utility services (gas, electric, and telephone) to serve the proposed project.

11. The project applicant shall finance the full costs associated with any drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows from the proposed project.

12. The proposed project shall not make a significant contribution to the emission of regional air pollutants.

13. There shall be adequate elementary, middle, and high schools to serve the proposed project. (Numbers 4 to 13, Implementation Measure CSF.D)
 Policy CSF-1.6: Development Fees. Review the existing development fee structure, including the infrastructure connection fees, every two years and restructure as needed. (Policy LU2.1)  Policy CSF-1.7: Capital Improvements and Replacement. Ensure that the City’s Capital Improvement Program is coordinated with responsible districts and agencies and provides for ongoing, preventative maintenance of infrastructure facilities and the replacement of City equipment. (Policy CSF1.5)  Policy CSF-1.8: Capital Improvements Program. Conduct reviews of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at least every five years and add budget for transportation, infrastructure, and public facility improvements as funding sources are identified. (Implementation Measure LU.P)  Action CSF-1.2: Public Facilities Impact Fee. Regularly review the public facilities impact fee to ensure development funds its fair share of new community and public facilities, including public safety facilities, required to serve new residents and employees in Hollister. (Implementation Measure LU.S) Goal CSF-5: Ensure adequate and sustainable solid waste management that meets the existing and future needs of the city and reduces disposable waste over time. (new)  Policy CSF-5.1: Solid Waste Management. Coordinate with the County of San Benito in addressing solid waste management and landfill capacity needs consistent with this General Plan. (Policy CSF4.10)

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-64 JULY 2024
 Policy CSF-5.2: Waste Reduction and Recycling. Comply with State laws to promote recycling and divert recyclable materials from the landfill, such as encouraging businesses to recycle building and other materials; promoting composting by restaurants, institutions, and residents; and supporting programs to promote recycling. Encourage residential, commercial, and industrial customers to evaluate and reduce their waste streams and to participate in waste exchanges and used goods resale programs. (Policy CSF4.11)
 Policy CSF-5-3: Zero Waste Legislation. Support zero-waste legislation locally, regionally, and statewide. (new)
 Policy CSF-5-4: Green Jobs. Support the development of green jobs through investment in zero-waste programs and infrastructure. (new)
 Policy CSF-5-5: Litter and Illegal Dumping. Reduce litter and illegal dumping in Hollister. (new)  Action CSF-5.1: Identification of Recycling Program Opportunities. Create a formal recycled product procurement program for the City and work with local industry and commercial enterprises to encourage the purchase and use of recycled materials where possible. (Implementation Measure CSF.K)
 Action CSF-5.2: Zero Waste Goal. Prepare a zero-waste strategic plan to maximize solid waste diversion community-wide. (new)
 Action CSF-5.3: Reusable Foodware Ordinance. Develop and adopt a Reusable Foodware Ordinance that requires the use of reusable foodware when dining on-site at restaurants and the use of compostable or recyclable foodware containers for carryout orders. (new)  Action CSF-5.4: Solid Waste Reduction Programs. Adopt and implement programs that reduce the amount of materials entering the solid waste stream. (new) With continued compliance with the applicable regulations, leading to increased recycling and waste diversion, and adherence to the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, anticipated rates of solid waste disposal from the proposed project would be less than significant with respect to permitted landfill capacity. Specifically, implementation of the proposed Policy CSF-1.4, Development Review Criteria for Public Services, would require the City to evaluate each new development to ensure it shall be located within the existing service areas of local service providers, including solid waste disposal services, and not result in a reduction in their current capabilities, and that there shall be an adequate level of solid waste collection services and disposal capacity to serve the proposed project. Also, proposed Policy LU-2.8, Adequate Infrastructure, requires the City to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided to support new development within Specific Plan Areas. In addition, the ban on accepting solid waste from areas outside of San Benito County by John Smith Road Landfill until the expansion project is approved would reduce the daily disposal rates significantly, since 80 percent of the solid waste is generated outside of the county. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-65
Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. The proposed CAP has several policies for reducing GHG emissions by reducing the amount of waste produced by the community and capturing emissions released from landfills. This can include reducing the amount of packaging used in food service and retail products, as envisioned in Hollister 2040’s Zero-Waste Community policy, and partnering with Recology, San Benito IWMA, and community partners to promote recycling and composting of organic materials. The City is in the process of developing an ordinance to prohibit single- use plastic bags for retail establishments and Styrofoam take-out containers and plastic food service ware for restaurants and caterers. Additional strategies to achieve waste reduction goals and increase recycling and organic waste collection are provided in the proposed CAP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed CAP would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Implementation of the proposed ALPP would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals because agricultural lands are not included in Recology San Benito County’s waste collection program or the State’s solid waste regulations. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed ALPP would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-10 Implementation of the proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 2040 General Plan
As previously discussed, Recology San Benito County, which serves the EIR Study Area, complies with State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and organic waste diversion. In addition, all development pursuant to the proposed 2040 General Plan would comply with Division 4.4, Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency, of the 2022 CALGreen, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. New development and redevelopment would also need to comply with the requirements of AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-66 JULY 2024
land uses. Therefore, the City, Recology San Benito County, and the San Benito IWMA would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. As described under Impact Discussion UTIL-9, the proposed CAP provides many strategies to achieve waste reduction goals and increase recycling and organic waste collection. Therefore, the proposed CAP would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Implementation of the proposed ALPP would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, since agricultural lands are not covered by the State and local regulations and are not part of Recology San Benito County’s service area for solid waste collection. Therefore, impacts from implementation of the proposed ALPP would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-11 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to solid waste.
2040 General Plan
The area considered for cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal facilities is San Benito County. The San Benito IWMA, which has contracted with Recology San Benito County for solid waste collection services, serves the entire county. As reported by the California Department of Finance, the total population of San Benito County was 64,432 in 2020 and the population was projected to increase to 75,462 by the year 2040.49 Assuming that solid waste generation increases at the same rate as the population (17 percent), the amount of waste generated by San Benito County in 2040 would be 103,175 tons. This conservatively

49 California Department of Finance, 2023, Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to 2060. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/projections/ accessed June 12, 2024.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-67
assumes no reduction in solid waste generation rates over time with increased recycling and organic waste diversion from the landfills.

The two landfills (Billy Wright Landfill and John Smith Road Landfill) receive 91 percent of the solid waste generated by the San Benito IWMA. Therefore, this analysis assumed that all of the waste generated by the San Benito IWMA would be delivered to these two landfills. Assuming 350 operational days per year, the 2040 total tonnage of 103,175 tons per year is equivalent to approximately 295 tons/day. The two landfills have a combined excess capacity of approximately 3,200 tons/day, assuming that the expansion of John Smith Road Landfill is approved. The Billy Wright Landfill alone has an excess capacity of 900 tons/day, which could easily accommodate the solid waste generated by San Benito County.

In addition, new development within San Benito County would comply with Division 4.4 of the 2022 CALGreen, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from residential and nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. This would reduce the volume of solid waste transported to the landfills. Therefore, with continued compliance with the applicable regulations and an increase in recycling and landfill diversion rates, solid waste cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. As discussed previously, the proposed CAP provides policies, strategies, and actions to achieve waste reduction goals and increase recycling and organic waste collection. Therefore, the proposed CAP would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to solid waste.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. As discussed previously, agricultural lands are not covered by the State and local solid waste regulations and are not part of Recology San Benito County’s service area for solid waste collection. Therefore, implementation of the proposed ALPP would result in a less-than- significant cumulative impact with respect to solid waste.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-68 JULY 2024

4.17.5 ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Signed into law in December 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act contains provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and the availability of renewable energy. The Act contains provisions for increasing fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, while establishing new minimum efficiency standards for lighting as well as residential and commercial appliance equipment.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to address energy issues. This Act includes tax incentives for energy conservation improvements in commercial and residential buildings, fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities, and construction and operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind energy, and other alternative energy producers.

National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, the National Energy Policy is designed to help the private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.

National Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the United States Department of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation system. The regulations enacted under this act have been updated several times. The latest revision, the PIPES Act of 2020, includes additional safety regulations for gas pipeline leak detection and gas distribution pipelines as well as additional inspection and maintenance procedures. The regulations are encoded in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 192.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-69
State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
Established in 1974, the Warren-Alquist Act created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in response to the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the state’s unsustainable growing demand for energy resources. The CEC’s core responsibilities include advancing State energy policy, encouraging energy efficiency, certifying thermal power plants, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transforming transportation, and preparing for energy emergencies. The Warren-Alquist Act is updated annually to address current energy needs and issues, and its latest edition was in January 2022.

California Public Utilities Commission Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan Adopted in September 2008 and updated in January 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying specific near-, mid-, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. The plan sets forth the following four goals, known as “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies,” to achieve significant reductions in energy demand:
 All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020.  All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030.  Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate.
 All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.

The CPUC and CEC have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy levels by 2030 in the commercial sector:
 Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean, distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.  Goal 2: 50 percent of existing buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.  Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative utility initiatives.

California Energy Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for energy conservation through Title 24, Part 6 California Code of Regulations, commonly referred to as the California Energy Code. The California Energy Code was first adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977. The standards are updated on a three-year cycle to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. In August 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 California Energy Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric ready to accommodate replacement of gas

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-70 JULY 2024
appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the new standards also include prescriptive photovoltaic systems and battery requirements for high-rise, multi-family buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers.50
California Green Building Standards
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. CALGreen (24 California Code of Regulations, Part 11) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. It includes mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the governor. The latest 2022 CALGreen code became effective on January 1, 2023.

The CALGreen code is established to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, etc. The code provides for design options, allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency.51 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations Sections 1601 through 1608), combined with federal standards, set minimum efficiency levels for energy and water consumption in products, such as consumer electronics, household appliances, and plumbing equipment. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the state, and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment. These regulations exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

California Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure
The Building Energy Benchmarking Program is mandated under AB 802 and requires owners of large commercial and multi-family buildings to report energy use to the CEC by June 1 annually. This program applies to all buildings with more than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area and owners of multi-family

50 California Energy Commission, 2021, Amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy Code) Draft Environmental Report. CEC-400-2021-077-D.
51 California Building Standards Commission, 2022, 2022 California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1 , accessed December 29, 2022.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-71
residential building with more than 50,000 square feet and 17 or more utility accounts. The bill requires each utility, upon the request and authorization of the owner, owner’s agent, or operator of a building covered under the regulation, to deliver or provide aggregated energy usage data for a covered building.

The required energy usage shall be reported to the CEC through the Energy Star Portfolio Manager.

California Renewable Portfolio Standards
A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). The standard requires that a specified percentage of the electricity that utilities provide comes from renewable resources. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. SB 1020, signed into law on September 16, 2022, requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040. Additionally, SB 1020 requires all State agencies to procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2035.

CPUC Natural Gas Regulations
The CPUC regulates natural gas utility rates and services as well as the transportation of natural gas over the extensive transmission and distribution pipeline systems. The CPUC also regulates gas storage facilities. The Gas Safety and Reliability Branch of the CPUC ensures than natural gas pipeline systems are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained according to the safety standards set by the CPUC and the federal government. The regulations are provided in the CPUC General Order No. 112-E and the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 2011.

Local Regulations
The HMC includes various directives that pertain to energy impacts in Hollister. Most provisions related to energy impacts are included in Title 13, Public Services; Title 15, Buildings and Construction; and Title 17, Zoning.
 Chapter 13.20, Underground Utility Districts. This chapter pertains to the establishment of underground utility districts if the council determines that overhead wires and structures within designated areas of the city should be removed, and the electric services, communication facilities, or similar services should be installed underground for health and safety reasons. The chapter also outlines the responsibilities of the utility companies and property owners to comply with the underground installation.
 Chapter 13.32, Community Choice Aggregation Program. In order to provide businesses and residents within the City of Hollister with a choice of power providers, the City implements a community choice aggregation program by participating in the Community Choice Aggregation Program of the Monterey Bay Community Power Authority. Under this program, cities and counties can buy or generate electricity for residences or businesses within their communities, and PG&E partners with each program to deliver the electricity through their transmission and distribution system.  Section 17.04.030, Residential general development standards. This section establishes regulations for energy efficiency, in that solar access shall be maintained through the siting and orientation of buildings and two- and three-story residences.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-72 JULY 2024
 Chapter 17.10, Industrial/Manufacturing Zones. This chapter defines the regulations applicable to development and new land uses in the industrial zoning districts and establishes building regulations that are designed to conserve energy, such as passive solar or solar panels on roofs or in parking lots.  Chapter 17.12, Special Purpose Zones. This chapter regulates development of new land uses in the special purpose zoning districts and encourages the use of solar panels on roofs or in parking lots to conserve energy.
 Section 17.16.120, Solar energy development standards. This section establishes solar energy development standards that shall be incorporated in all new development.

Existing Conditions
Electricity
Two electricity providers, Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), serve the EIR Study Area.

The CCCE was created in 2018 as part of the Community Choice Energy model implemented by the State of California. CCCE is the default electricity provider for all communities in San Benito County, including Hollister, as well as for communities in Santa Cruz, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. CCCE provides two plans for electricity customers.

The first plan, 3CE Choice, provides the following mix of electricity sources:
 35.8 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and geothermal  5.9 percent large hydroelectric
 58.3 percent unspecified power, defined as electricity purchases through open market transactions that are not traceable to a specific generation source
Customers also have the option of using the 3CPrime plan, which provides 100 percent renewable and carbon-free electricity.52 Conversely, customers have the option to opt-out of CCCE renewable energy sources and receive their energy service from PG&E. PG&E is responsible for maintaining transmission lines, handling customer billing, and responding to new service requests and emergencies within the CCCE service area.

PG&E is a publicly traded utility company that generates, purchases, and transmits energy under contract with the CPUC. PG&E’s service territory is 70,000 square miles, roughly extending north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield, and east to west from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean.53 PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines with approximately 5.6 million electric customer accounts.

52 Central Coast Community Energy, 2021 Power Content Label, https://3cenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2021- PCL-Postcard-final.pdf, accessed January 9, 2023.
53 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2023, Company Info, http://www.pge.com/about/company/profile/ , accessed February 18, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-73
The electricity is generated by a combination of sources such as natural gas-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, and hydro-electric dams as well as newer sources of energy such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, also known as solar farms. The electric grid is a network of high-voltage transmission lines that link power plants with the PG&E system. The distribution system, comprised of lower voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level and consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that connect to the individual customer.

The power mix PG&E provided to customers in 2021 consisted of renewable resources (50 percent), nuclear (39 percent), natural gas plants (7 percent), and large hydroelectric facilities (4 percent). The renewable resources include wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydro.54 PG&E also has 600 megawatts of battery storage capacity already connected to the electric grid and has contracts for an additional 3,300 megawatts of capacity by 2024.

Although PG&E currently has the capacity to provide electricity to existing customers in the City, there are currently delays in connecting new service and there could also be capacity issues in the future as the 2040 General Plan is built out. PG&E is currently in the process of upgrading the Hollister substation by adding new banks that would increase available capacity and a new feeder line would be installed to serve the area in northern Hollister near the airport. Completion of this project would address the current delays in electricity connections.55 Most of the City’s future growth can be served by PG&E’s existing transmission system after the substation upgrade. However, depending on the rate of growth in Hollister, projects that are farther from the Hollister substation, such as the very northern and southern edges of the City, could experience shortfalls in electrical capacity and some development projects could experience delays in obtaining new electricity connections.

Natural Gas
PG&E is also the natural gas service provider for the city of Hollister. The natural gas system includes approximately 50,000 miles of natural gas pipelines, including 6,700 miles of transmission pipelines and 42,000 miles of distribution pipelines.56 The transmission pipelines move natural gas from compressor stations and storage facilities to regulator stations. At the regulator station, the pressure in the pipeline is reduced before gas enters the distribution system, which consists of smaller diameter pipelines that deliver gas to residences and businesses. PG&E has approximately 4.5 million natural gas customer accounts.

Natural gas demand statewide is projected to decline an average of 1.1 percent per year through 2035.57 This is primarily due to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the ordinances of some cities

54 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2023, PG&E’s 2021 Power Mix, https://www.pge.com/en_US/about- pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page, accessed February 18, 2023. 55 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2024, Conference call between PlaceWorks, the City of Hollister, and PG&E on March 22, 2024.
56 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2023, PG&E Natural Gas System, https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system- works/natural-gas-system-overview/natural-gas-system-overview.page, accessed February 18, 2023. 57 California Public Utilities Commission, 2022, 2022 California Gas Report, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas_Report_2022.pdf , accessed February 18, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-74 JULY 2024
for new construction to be all electric. Gas demand is expected to decrease from 5,298 million cubic feet of gas per day in 2022 to 4,857 million cubic feet per day by 2035. California’s gas storage facilities supplement pipeline gas supply during high demand periods and also provide supply reliability. The supplies of natural gas would meet the demand through year 2035.58 Telecommunications and Internet Providers
There are numerous telecommunication and internet providers that serve the Hollister area.

Telecommunication providers include AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon , and others. Internet providers include Spectrum, Xfinity, AT&T, T-Mobile, Earthlink, and others. There is infrastructure in place to serve existing and future customers in Hollister and the surrounding area.

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant impacts related to solid waste if it would:

12. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

13. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-12 Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. 2040 General Plan
Electrical service to the EIR Study Area would be provided by PG&E and CCCE through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. As shown in Table 4.17-10, Year 2040 Forecast Electricity Consumption, implementation of the proposed project would require electrical services totaling an estimated 177,551,060 kilowatt-hours per year.

58 58 California Public Utilities Commission, 2022, 2022 California Gas Report, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas_Report_2022.pdf , accessed February 18, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-75
TABLE 4.17-10 YEAR 2040 FORECAST ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION Land Use
Electricity Usage (kilowatt-hours/year)
Existing Conditions Proposed 2040 General Plan Net Change City
Residential 43,082,470 54,684,210 11,601,740
Nonresidential 94,633,440 118,093,150 23,459,710
SOI
Residential 2,374,790 2,731,060 356,270
Nonresidential 1,962,690 2,042,640 79,950
Total 142,053,390 177,551,060 35,497,670
Note: Residential energy and nonresidential energy forecasts do not account for reductions due to an increase in energy efficiency from compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.

Source: See Appendix B, Revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Revised Draft EIR.

As shown in Table 4.17-11, Year 2040 Forecast Natural Gas Consumption, natural gas use under the proposed project would total 9.305,190 therms annually. By 2040, natural gas use in the EIR Study Area would increase by 2,498,450 therms annually, or approximately 37 percent, from existing conditions.

TABLE 4.17-11 YEAR 2040 FORECAST NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION Land Use
Natural Gas Usage (therms per year)
Existing Conditions Proposed 2040 General Plan Net Change City
Residential 4,515,300 6,140,110 1,624,810
Nonresidential 2,001,050 2,778,490 777,440
SOI
Residential 248,890 342,320 93,450
Nonresidential 41,500 44,270 2,770
Total 6,806,740 9,305,190 2,498,450
Note: Residential energy and nonresidential energy forecasts do not account for reductions due to increase in energy efficiency from compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen.

Source: See Appendix B, Revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Revised Draft EIR.

These energy consumption rates are modest increases when considered in the context of PG&E’s service territory. The electricity usage for the EIR Study Area is approximately 0.15 percent of PG&E’s projected energy supply in 2035, and the natural gas consumption for the EIR Study Area is less than 0.05 percent of PG&E’s natural gas supply.59
As stated in the existing conditions section, PG&E has experienced delays in connecting new electrical service to areas of Hollister that are located farther from the Hollister substation. However, these issues are being addressed by upgrading the Hollister substation and adding a new feeder line to serve the area in northern Hollister near the airport. PG&E also has the capability of providing additional capacity with future growth and has interconnections to supply electricity from the San Benito substation.

59 PG&E’s projected energy supplies for electricity and natural gas do not extend beyond 2035.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-76 JULY 2024
In addition, potential future development would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the California Energy Code and the CALGreen Code, which would contribute to reducing energy demands. New buildings would also use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations, which would ensure the use of efficient electricity and natural gas consumption. New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. Also, California is in the process of developing legislation to ban the sale of all new natural-gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances by 2030, which would further reduce natural gas demand.

The proposed Land Use and Community Design (LU), Community Services and Facilities (CSF), Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC), and Health and Safety (HS) Elements of the 2040 General Plan contain goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to address efficient use of energy and energy conservation. The following proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would further limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption:

Goal LU-2: Manage growth in the new development areas outside the existing City Limits but within the Sphere of Influence through the use of Specific Plans. (new)  Policy LU-2.8: Adequate Infrastructure. Ensure adequate infrastructure is provided to support new development in Specific Plan Areas. (new)
Goal CSF-1: Provide an adequate level and maintenance of public services and facilities to ensure the continued health, education, welfare, and safety of all residents and businesses. (Goal CSF4)  Policy CSF-1.4: Development Review Criteria for Public Services. Prior to granting approval, evaluate each new development in terms of the following criteria:

1. The project shall share a common border with a property that has already been developed.

2. The project shall be adequately served by infrastructure (water, sewer, streets, schools, parks, etc.), which is already in place or mitigated.

3. The project shall be within the existing service areas of local service providers (i.e., fire protection, police protection, solid waste disposal, schools), and not result in a reduction in their current capabilities. (Numbers 1 to 3, Policy CSF1.7)

4. The project shall have adequate water supply of sufficient quantity and quality.

5. There shall be adequate sanitary sewer capacity and treatment capability that can be provided to serve the proposed project.

6. There shall be adequate fire protection for the proposed project.

7. There shall be adequate police protection for the proposed project.

8. The proposed project shall result in no impact on local parks and recreational facilities, or the applicant will provide the resources required to mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed development.

9. There shall be an adequate level of solid waste collection services and disposal capacity to serve the proposed project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-77

10. There shall be an appropriate level of utility services (gas, electric, and telephone) to serve the proposed project.

11. The project applicant shall finance the full costs associated with any drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows from the proposed project.

12. The proposed project shall not make a significant contribution to the emission of regional air pollutants.

13. There shall be adequate elementary, middle, and high schools to serve the proposed project. (Numbers 4 to 13, Implementation Measure CSF.D)
 Policy CSF-1.5: Utility Provider Coordination. Coordinate land use planning activities with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), County of San Benito, internet, and other utility providers to ensure that utility systems are available for new development and are installed to meet the needs of new residents. Promote the availability and adequate delivery of reliable, modern, and competitively priced utilities necessary for businesses to prosper. (Implementation Measure CSF.MM)  Policy CSF-1.9: Telecommunications and Technology. Ensure that residents, schools, businesses, and organizations have access to reliable, modern, and cost-effective telecommunications. (Policy CSF4.14)
 Action CSF-1.1: Information Technology Plan. Develop and adopt an Information Technology Plan to guide investment in the City’s hardware and software. (Implementation Measure CSF.A) Goal CSF-4: Promote the development of a clean energy supply, and use of energy-efficient technology that benefits all members of the community. (new)
 Policy CSF-4.1: Resource Efficiency in Site Development. Encourage site planning and development practices that reduce energy demand and incorporate resource- and energy-efficient infrastructure. (Policy NRC3.3)
 Policy CSF-4.2: Resource-Efficient Building Design. Promote and encourage residents and businesses to be resource and energy efficient by creating incentives and removing obstacles to promote their use. Require those proposing new development to incorporate energy conservation measures in the design and construction of all proposed residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings. This would include:
 Shading of parking lots and summertime shading of south-facing windows  Requiring those proposing new development to design all proposed commercial, office, and industrial structures with high-efficiency heating-ventilation-air conditioning (HVAC) systems for maximum energy efficiency
 Requiring those proposing new development to design all window systems to reduce thermal gain during warm weather and heat loss during cool weather
 Encouraging the use of domestic solar energy. (Policy NRC3.4 and Implementation Measures NRC.S)

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-78 JULY 2024
 Policy CSF-4.3: Energy Efficiency in Government. Promote and serve as an effective leader in implementing conservation practices and incorporating resource-efficient alternatives in government facilities and services. (Policy NRC3.5)
 Policy CSF-4.4: Title 24 Requirements. Require new development projects to meet or exceed Title 24 energy conservation requirements, and, where possible, require structural and landscaping design to make use of natural heating and cooling. Encourage the use of solar and alternative energy technologies to meet or exceed Title 24 requirements. (Implementation Measures NRC.J)  Policy CSF-4.5: LEED Program. Encourage developers to use Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards. (Implementation Measures NRC.O)
 Policy CSF-4.6: Solar Design. Promote the use of solar energy and develop design standards relating to solar orientation, including landscaping, and appropriate impervious surfaces. (Implementation Measures NRC.P)
 Policy CSF-4.7: Distributed Energy Systems. Encourage the development of distributed energy systems for new construction, such as rooftop solar panels, customer-owned battery backup systems, fuel cell technologies, backup generators, and combined heat and power systems. (new)  Policy CSF-4.8: Building Energy Load Reduction. Reduce the energy load per building by using energy- saving techniques, such as upgrading insulation, reducing electricity loads from lighting and appliances, and revising building design guidelines. (new)  Policy CSF-4.9: Microgrids. Encourage the development of microgrids for large-scale development projects, such as college campuses, hospital complexes, business centers, and large industrial land uses. (new)
 Policy CSF-4.10: Battery Energy Storage Systems. Encourage the installation of battery energy storage systems (BESS) for commercial and industrial users to meet short-term peak power needs. (new)  Policy CSF-4.11: Reach Codes. Consider the implementation of reach codes for the City, which are local building energy codes that go beyond the minimum requirements of the California Building Code. (new)
 Policy CSF-4.12: On-site Renewable Energy Sources. Require the installation of on-site renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaic, for new commercial and office buildings greater than 45,000 square feet and new industrial buildings greater than 99,000 square feet. (new)  Policy CSF-4.13: Energy Providers Assistance. Obtain the assistance of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Central Coast Community Energy in reviewing proposals for commercial buildings and major subdivisions of more than 25 units during the design and approval process to ensure the incorporation of energy-efficiency recommendations into the plans. (Implementation Measures NRC.C)
 Policy CSF-4.14: PG&E Coordination on Energy Technology. Coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric Company in the development of smart grid technology, demand management programs, and battery storage systems. (new)

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-79
 Policy CSF-4.15: PG&E Coordination on Future Growth Projections. Keep PG&E informed of projected growth rates and electricity usage in Hollister to assist in PG&E’s five-year electricity demand forecasts. (new)
 Policy CSF-4.16: Peak Energy Demand Calculations. Require large-scale projects that require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to calculate peak electricity demands and apply early in the planning process to PG&E for proposed electricity connections so that PG&E can determine capacity to serve the project. (new)
 Action CSF-4.1: Backup Energy. Evaluate backup energy provisions for critical City facilities and upgrade as needed. Encourage the use of alternatives, such as fuel cell and solar generator backups, to the sustained use of gasoline-powered generators. (Implementation Measures NRC.D)  Action CSF-4.2: “Green” Building Standards. Adopt a “Green Building Program” to encourage the use of green building materials and energy conservation. Provide a resource list of local suppliers and builders that promote green building materials and practices. (Implementation Measures NRC.E)  Action CSF-4.3: Green Building Grant Funding. Monitor available grant funding sources and apply for grant funding that will assist with the implementation of green building and green energy policies and actions. (new)
 Action CSF-4.4: Energy Conservation Programs. Provide public information on alternative energy technologies for residential developers, contractors, and property owners. Publicize energy conservation programs and weatherization services that are available to provide subsidized or at-cost inspection and corrective action by making information available through websites and newsletters. (Implementation Measures NRC.Q)
Goal NRC-4: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Hollister to meet or exceed State targets. (new)  Policy NRC-4.3: Energy Use. Reduce energy use through use of energy-efficient appliances, lighting, and materials in our homes, businesses, and City facilities and use education and incentives to promote and sustain energy-conserving design and practices. (new)  Policy NRC-4.8: Carbon Free Energy. Promote carbon-free energy sources in new and existing developments. (new)
 Action NRC-4.2: Building Standards Code Efficiency Amendments. Conduct a study to explore opportunities to amend the Hollister Building Standards Code to improve building energy efficiency, transition to carbon-free energy sources, increase renewable energy supplies, and promote greater electric vehicle adoption. (new)
 Action NRC-4.4: Community Energy Efficiency Education Programs. Develop community education programs on energy efficiency and renewable energy, sustainable transportation options, waste reduction, and water conservation in partnership with regional agencies and community groups. (new)
Goal HS-2: Develop a resilient community with the ability to adapt to climate change hazards.  Policy HS-2.5: Sustainability Features. Encourage new developments and existing property owners to incorporate sustainable, energy-efficient, and environmentally regenerative features into their

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-80 JULY 2024
facilities, landscapes, and structures to reduce energy demands and improve on-site resilience.

Support financing efforts to increase community access to these features. (new) Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, and Renewables Portfolio Standards) would increase building energy efficiency and reduce building energy demands. Additionally, the proposed 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions related to land use, energy efficiency, and renewable energy generation that will contribute to minimizing building-related energy demands and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy. Implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, would ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the proposed project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, therefore avoiding the need for new or expanded electric power and natural gas facilities. Implementation of the proposed Policy CSF-1.4, Development Review Criteria for Public Services, would require the City to evaluate each new development to ensure there shall be an appropriate level of utility services (gas, electric, and telephone) to serve the proposed project. Also, proposed Policy LU-2.8, Adequate Infrastructure, requires the City to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided to support new development within Specific Plan Areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. Energy efficiency improvements described in the proposed CAP would reduce the heating and cooling requirements for buildings. These measures that increase energy efficiency, promote water conservation, and reduce energy demand would minimized energy demand and energy sector emissions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed CAP would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Since the proposed ALPP does not involve land use changes that would significantly impact energy use, implementation of the proposed ALPP would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.17-81
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-13 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
2040 General Plan
The area considered for cumulative impacts are the service areas of CCCE and PG&E for electricity and PG&E for natural gas. Other projects within the service areas would increase electricity and natural gas demands.

The CPUC has identified the Integrated Energy Policy Report as “the appropriate venue for considering issues of load forecasting, resource assessment, and scenario analyses, to determine the appropriate level and ranges of resource needs for load serving entities in California.” The latest report shows that California’s electricity sector is leading efforts to reduce GHG emissions and there has been an increase in electricity consumption of only 10 percent while California’s economy grew by 54 percent between 2000 and 2018.60 Natural gas consumption is expected to level out between 2020 and 2030 with no significant increase due to energy savings from new building standards and the implementation of city and county ordinances that require new construction to have all-electric appliances and heating.

In addition, all future projects developed within the CCCE and PG&E service areas would implement the requirements of the California Energy Code and CALGreen Building Code. New buildings would also use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations.

Counties and cities review project design plans against these codes and ensure compliance before issuing construction permits. These measures would reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas.

The energy providers and telecommunications providers that serve the EIR Study Area indicate that they have the capability to serve future increases in population within their service areas without significant changes to the existing infrastructure. In addition, the proposed 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that would contribute to minimizing inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption and ensure compliance with State, regional, or local plans for renewable energy, therefore avoiding the need for new or expanded electric power and natural gas facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

60 California Energy Commission, 2020. Adopted 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.17-82 JULY 2024
Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. As described under Impact Discussion UTIL-12, the proposed CAP contains policies and actions that would minimize GHG emissions and promote energy conservation. Therefore, the proposed CAP would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. As described under Impact Discussion UTIL-12, the proposed ALPP does not have a direct impact on energy, since it involves the establishment of agricultural easements for projects that convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed ALPP would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-1

4.18 WILDFIRE
This chapter of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potential wildfire impacts associated with the approval and implementation of the proposed project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential wildfire impacts, and identifies policies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.18.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy
In the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009, Congress mandated the development of a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy for all lands in the United States.

Wildfire management is guided by the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, which has three primary goals—resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities, and safe and effective wildfire response.1 These three goals enable land managers to manage vegetation and fuels; protect homes, communities, and other values at risk; manage human-caused ignitions; and effectively and efficiently respond to wildfires. California is part of the Western Regional Strategy Committee, chartered to support and facilitate the implementation of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy.

National Fire Protection Association Standards
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. NFPA standards are recommended (advisory) guidelines for fire protection that are referenced in the California Fire Code (CFC), which is adopted by the City of Hollister every three years.

Specific standards applicable to wildland fire hazards include, but are not limited to:
 NFPA 1141, Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildlands  NFPA 1142, Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting  NFPA 1143, Wildland Fire Management
 NFPA 1144, Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire  NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations

1 United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture. 2014. The National Strategy: The Final Phase of Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/strategy/CSPhaseIIINationalStrategyApr2014.pdf .

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-2 JULY 2024
State Regulations
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is dedicated to the fire protection and stewardship of over 31 million acres of California’s wildlands. CAL FIRE provides fire assessment and firefighting services for land in State Responsibility Areas (SRA), conducts educational and training programs, provides fire planning guidance and mapping, and reviews general plan safety elements to ensure compliance with State fire safety requirements. CAL FIRE staff, or a designee, also reviews building permit applications, parcel maps, and use permits for construction or development in SRAs and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).

The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is a government-appointed approval body within CAL FIRE. It is responsible for developing the general forest policy of the state, determining the guidance policies of CAL FIRE, and representing the state’s interest in federal forestland in California. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection also promulgates regulations and approves general plan safety elements that are adopted by local governments for compliance with State statutes.

The California Office of the State Fire Marshal supports the mission of CAL FIRE by focusing on fire prevention. These responsibilities include regulating buildings in which people live, congregate, or are confined; controlling substances and products that may, in and of themselves or by their misuse, cause injuries, death, and destruction by fire; providing statewide direction for fire prevention within wildland areas; regulating hazardous liquid pipelines; developing and renewing regulations and building standards; and providing training and education in fire protection methods and responsibilities. These are accomplished through major programs, including engineering, education, enforcement, and support from the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. For jurisdictions in SRAs or very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), the Land Use Planning Program division of the Office of State Fire Marshal reviews safety elements during the update process to ensure consistency with California Government Code, Section 65302(g)(3).

Together, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, Office of State Fire Marshal, and CAL FIRE protect and enhance the forest resources of all wildland areas of California that are not under federal jurisdiction. 2021 California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan The Governor’s Forest Management Task Force developed California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, which is a framework for establishing healthy and resilient forests that can withstand and adapt to wildfire, drought, and climate change. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan accelerates efforts to restore the health and resilience of California’s forests, grasslands, and natural places; improves the fire safety of communities; and sustains the economic vitality of rural forested areas. CAL FIRE, in partnership with the United States Forest Service, intends to scale up forest thinning and prescribed fire; integrate climate adaptation into the statewide network of regional forest and community fire resilience plans; improve the electricity grid resilience, and promote sustainable land use.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-3
Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas
CAL FIRE designates FHSZs as authorized under California Government Code Sections 51175 et seq. FHSZs may be designated Very High, High, or Moderate. CAL FIRE considers many factors when designating FHSZs, including fire history, existing and potential vegetation fuel, flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and weather patterns for the area. CAL FIRE designates FHSZs in two types of areas depending on which level of government is financially responsible for fire protection.  Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Incorporated communities are financially responsible for wildfire protection.
 State Responsibility Area (SRA). CAL FIRE and contracted counties are financially responsible for wildfire protection.

State Responsibility Area and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Fire Safe Regulations California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, SRA/Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, establishes minimum wildfire protection standards for construction and development in the SRA and Very High FHSZ and requires CAL FIRE to review development proposals and enact recommendations that serve as conditions of approval in these zones. These standards include basic emergency access and perimeter wildfire protection measures; signing and building numbering; private water supply resources for emergency fire use; and vegetation modification. These regulations apply to all residential, commercial, and industrial buildings in the SRA and Very High FHSZs in the LRA, the siting of new mobile homes, all tentative and parcel maps, and applications for building permits approved before 1991 when these standards were not proposed. Fire Safe Regulations also include a minimum setback of 30 feet for all buildings from property lines and/or the center of a road. Section 1273.08, Dead-End Roads, of these standards provide regulations for the maximum lengths of single access roadways:
 Parcels zoned for less than one acre: 800 feet
 Parcels zoned for 1 acre to 4.99 acres: 1,320 feet
 Parcels zoned for 5 acres to 19.99 acres: 2,640 feet
 Parcels zoned for 20 acres or larger: 5,280 feet
Fire Safe Regulations Section 1299.03, Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structure Requirements, provides defensible space requirements for areas within 30 feet of a structure (Zone 1) and between 30 and 100 feet from a structure (Zone 2). In Zone 1, all dead and dying plants must be removed, as must any flammable vegetation that could catch fire. In Zone 2, horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees must be created and maintained.

Public Resources Code Section 4291
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4291, Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass-Covered Lands, is intended for any person who owns, lease, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, shrub-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material, regardless of whether the property is in an SRA or Very High LRA FHSZ. This section requires defensible space to be maintained within 100 feet from each side of a structure. An

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-4 JULY 2024
ember-resistant zone is also required within 5 feet of a structure and more intense fuel reduction between 5 and 30 feet of a structure.

California Building Code
Building Design Standards
The California Building Code (CBC), Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. The CBC is updated on a three-year cycle. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC and any applicable local edits. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in buildings and other facilities; the establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction in high FHSZs; requirements for smoke-detection systems; exiting requirements; and the clearance of debris. The City of Hollister regularly adopts each new CBC update under the Hollister Municipal Code (HMC) Section 15.04.050, Construction Codes Adopted by Reference.

Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure
Chapter 7A, Materials and Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, of the CBC prescribes building materials and construction methods for new buildings in an FHSZ or Wildland Interface Fire Area. Chapter 7A contains requirements for roofing; attic ventilation; exterior walls; exterior windows and glazing; exterior doors; decking; protection of underfloor, appendages, and floor projections; and ancillary structures. Other requirements include vegetation management compliance, as prescribed in the CFC Section 4906 and PRC 4291 (previously described).

California Fire Code
The CFC incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. This is the official fire code for the State and all political subdivisions. It is found in California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9, and, like the CBC, it is revised and published every three years by the California Building Standards Commission. Also like the CBC, the CFC is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions. The City of Hollister regularly adopts each new CFC update under HMC Section 15.04.050, Construction Codes Adopted by Reference. The CFC is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety regulations for new and existing buildings; facilities; storage; processes, including emergency planning and preparedness; fire service features; fire protection systems; hazardous materials; fire flow requirements; and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Typical fire safety requirements include: installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-5
Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition
Chapter 33, Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition, of the CFC provides requirements for fire safety precautions during construction and demolition of a development project. The purpose of this chapter is to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during construction and demolition operations, including those in underground locations. Specific requirements include a prohibition of smoking on-site, except for in approved areas; management of combustible materials and debris; cutting and welding; electrical wiring; and cooking. Additional requirements include the preparation of site safety plans prior to building permit issuance, providing fire watch during nonworking hours, and maintaining water supply for fire protection as soon as combustible materials arrive on a project site.

Wildland-Urban Interface Areas
Chapter 49, Requirements for Wildland Urban Interface Fire Areas, of the CFC applies to any geographical area identified as an FHSZ by CAL FIRE. It defines FHSZs, connects to the SRA/Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulation requirements for defensible space, and parallels requirements for wildfire protection buildings construction and hazardous vegetation fuel management in other sections of the California Code of Regulations and the PRC. Chapter 49 of the 2022 CFC includes a definition for the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and provides requirements for fire protection plans, landslide plans, long-term vegetation management, and creation and maintenance of defensible space for all new development within the WUI. 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California
CAL FIRE produced the 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, which contains goals, objectives, and policies to prepare for and mitigate the effects of fire on California’s natural and built environments. The 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California focuses on fire prevention and suppression activities to protect lives, property, and ecosystems, in addition to providing natural resource management to maintain state forests as a resilient carbon sink to meet California’s climate change goals. A key component of the 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California is the collaboration between communities to ensure fire suppression and natural resource management is successful.2
California Public Utilities Commission
In 2007, wildfires in southern California were ignited by overhead utility power lines and aerial communication facilities near power lines. In response, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) began considering and adopting regulations to protect the public from fire hazards due to overhead power lines and nearby aerial communication facilities. The CPUC published a Fire-Threat Map under Rulemaking 15-05-006, following procedures in Decision 17-01-009, revised by Decision 17-06-024, which

2 California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2018, 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California, http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/fireplan/fpupload/fpppdf1614.pdf , accessed on April 27, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-6 JULY 2024
adopted a work plan for the development of a utility high fire-threat district where enhanced fire safety regulations in Decision 17-12-024 apply.3 The fire regulations require electric utilities to:4  Prioritize the correction of safety hazards.
 Correct nonimmediate fire risks in “Tier 2” (elevated fire threat) areas on the CPUC high fire-threat district within 12 months, and in “Tier 3” (extreme fire threat) areas within 6 months.  Maintain increased clearances between vegetation and power lines within the high fire-threat district.  Maintain stricter wire-to-wire clearances for new and reconstructed facilities in Tier 3 areas.  Conduct annual inspections of overhead distribution facilities in rural areas of Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas.  Prepare a fire prevention plan annually if overhead facilities exist in the high fire-threat district.

California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(g) and Section 65302.15 require that safety elements be reviewed and revised as needed with the revision of a housing element or local hazard mitigation plan, but no less than every eight years, to ensure the goals, policies, actions, mapping, and background content are consistent with State regulations and reflect the best available information for wildfire risks, climate adaptation and resiliency, and emergency evacuation routes for certain residential areas.

Communities with local hazard mitigation plan updates after January 1, 2022, must also ensure their safety elements or local hazard mitigation plans include an assessment of evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability as well as evacuation locations under a range of emergency scenarios.

For wildfire and evacuation purposes, a safety element must:
 Identify wildfire hazards with the latest fire severity zone maps from the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, US Geological Survey, and other sources.
 Consider guidance given by the Office of Planning and Research’s Fire Hazard Planning document.  Demonstrate that the jurisdiction or contract agency and associated codes satisfactorily address adequate water supply, egress requirements, vegetation management, street signage, land use policies, and other criteria to protect from wildfires.  Establish in the safety element (and other elements that must be consistent with it) a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation measures for protection of the community from unreasonable risks of wildfire.
 Identify evacuation-constrained residential parcels in hazard-prone areas.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Fire Hazard Technical Advisory The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research published the Fire Hazard Technical Advisory in 2015 and revised it in 2022 as a planning guide for addressing fire hazards, reducing risk, and increasing resilience across California’s diverse communities and landscapes. The Fire Hazard Technical Advisory provides a

3 California Public Utilities Commission, http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/firethreatmaps/ , accessed on April 27, 2020. 4 California Public Utilities Commission, press release: CPUC Adopts New Fire-Safety Regulations, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M201/K352/201352402.PDF , accessed on April 27, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-7
range of goals, policies, and programs for fire hazard prevention and mitigation, disaster preparedness, and emergency response and recovery. The 2022 update includes specific land use strategies to reduce fire risk to buildings, infrastructure, and communities.

California Environmental Quality Act
In November 2022 the California Attorney General issued the Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act. This guidance document was designed to help lead agencies comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (PRC Section 21000 et seq) when considering whether to approve projects in wildfire-prone areas.

These areas are often in the WUI area—i.e., the area where the built environment meets or intermingles with the natural environment. This guidance provides suggestions for how best to comply with CEQA when analyzing and mitigating a proposed project’s impacts on wildfire ignition risk, emergency access, and evacuation. The guidance is aimed at proposed development projects, such as residential, recreational, or commercial developments. The extent to which it applies will vary by project based on project design and location. It does not impose additional requirements on local governments or alter any applicable laws or regulations but is intended to provide guidance on some of the issues, alternatives, and mitigation measures that should be considered during the environmental review process.

Regional Regulations
Unit Strategic Fire Plan San Benito-Monterey
The Unit Strategic Fire Plan San Benito-Monterey (USFP) was adopted by CAL FIRE and updated in April 2018. The USFP is a multi-jurisdictional off-shoot of the 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, which provides region-specific guidance for fire response. The USFP for the San Benito-Monterey region meets several objectives, including collecting and analyzing data to assess communities at risk and in need of fuel reduction, working with grant writers to secure funding, utilizing CAL FIRE personnel and resources, educating the public on fire prevention, and incorporating fire resistant landscaping and construction as well as hazardous fuel reduction.5
San Benito County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The San Benito County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), developed in 2010 by the San Benito Fire Safe Council, identifies and prioritizes prefire and postfire management strategies and tactics meant to reduce the loss of values at risk throughout the county. The San Benito County CWPP has been developed upon the priority goals and objectives identified by the San Benito Fire Safe Council, CAL FIRE, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, San Benito County, and local collaborators.

The primary component of fire prevention in this plan is treatment of structural ignitability through defensible-space fuel treatments, indefensible-space fuel treatments, and fuel treatment prescription recommendations. Additional methods to reduce wildfire hazards in this plan include long term

5 California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, April 2018, Unit Strategic Fire Plan San Benito-Monterey, https://3d82c780-2a61-40e4-adf4-605487cebd0f.filesusr.com/ugd/076511_500bb92634e14e75bf5e394851700145.pdf , accessed on April 27, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-8 JULY 2024
maintenance and monitoring and public education and outreach. The strategies in this plan are implemented in cooperation with local fire departments and the San Benito Regional Fire Safe Council.

San Benito County Emergency Operations Plan
The San Benito County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), adopted August 2015, is designed to set the foundation for emergency management to reduce the county’s vulnerabilities to both natural and man- made disasters. The EOP provides basic guidance related to earthquakes, flooding, fires, landslides, severe weather, pandemics and epidemics, and hazardous material emergencies. Guidance is presented in the form of mitigation programs, which are split into three categories: emergency prevention and protection, response concept of operations, and recovery concept of operations. The City of Hollister does not have an Office of Emergency Services or an assigned emergency planner. Therefore, responsibility for preparation and response to a disaster is enforced by the San Benito County Office of Emergency Services.6
San Benito County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the impact of disasters. The San Benito County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), updated in 2022 in accordance with the Federal Disaster Mitigation Action of 2000 (DMA 2000), provides an assessment of natural hazards in the county and a set of short-term mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from these hazards. The Hollister Jurisdictional Annex of the MJHMP provides an assessment and mitigation actions for Hollister specifically while considering the results from the countywide effort. In the context of an MJHMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards, including wildfire. Mitigation actions related to wildfire in Appendix G of the MJHMP include promoting home hardening, defensible space, and increased use of fire-resistant materials in new developments, and working with property owners to manage dead vegetation in flood control facility footprints, railroad rights-of-way, parks, and open spaces.

The MJHMP must be reviewed and approved by FEMA every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster relief funding. As part of this process, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services reviews all local hazard mitigation plans in accordance with DMA 2000 regulations and coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide. As part of the proposed project, the MJHMP is adopted in its entirety into the proposed Health and Safety (HS) Element by reference.

6 San Benito County Office of Emergency Services, August 2015, San Benito County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan, http://www.cosb.us/wp-content/uploads/SBC-EOP-2015.pdf , accessed on April 25, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-9
Local Regulations
Hollister Municipal Code
The HMC regulates fire hazard reduction and evacuation in the city. The HMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. The provisions related to wildfire and evacuation impacts are included Title 13, Public Services; Title 15, Buildings and Construction; and Title 16, Subdivisions.  Chapter 13.20, Underground Utility Districts. This chapter allows for the creation of underground utility districts in the city, which makes it unlawful for any person or utility to erect, construct, place, keep, maintain, continue, employ, or operate poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures in the district.
 Chapter 15.20, Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. This chapter provides methods for reducing flood losses through restricting or prohibiting uses that could endanger the health, safety, and property in the city; requires that uses vulnerable to flooding be protected against flood damage; and regulates the construction of flood barriers that divert floodwaters or increase flood hazards.  Chapter 15.24, Grading and Stormwater Best Management Practices Control. This chapter provides safe grading operations to safeguard life and property and to preserve and enhance the natural environment. This chapter also defines the regulations to control land disturbances, land cuts and fills, soil storage, and erosion and sedimentation resulting from clearing and grading activities on both private and public property.
 Section 16.24.050, Underground Utilities. This section requires subdivisions to underground utility distribution facilities, including electric, communication, and television lines.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Wildfire Background
The term “wildfire” refers to fires that usually result from the ignition of dry grass, brush, or timber.

Historically, wildfires commonly occurred in steep or heavily vegetated areas, which makes suppression of the fire difficult. More recently, wildfires have been encroaching into more urban areas, that is, the WUI, threatening homes, businesses, and essential infrastructure. Though wildfires play an important role in the ecology of many natural habitats, risks to human safety and property increase as urban development moves into areas susceptible to wildfire hazards.

Types of Wildfires
There are three basic types of wildland fires:
 Crown fires burn trees to their tops; these are the most intense and dangerous wildland fires.  Surface fires burn surface litter and duff. These are the easiest fires to extinguish and cause the least damage to the forest. Brush and small trees enable surface fires to reach treetops and are thus referred to as ladder fuels.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-10 JULY 2024
 Underground fires occur underground in deep accumulations of dead vegetation. These fires move very slowly and can be difficult to extinguish.7
Wildfires burn in many types of vegetation—forest, woodland, scrub (including chaparral, sage scrub, and desert scrub), and grassland. Many species of native California plants are adapted to fire, and habitats such as chaparral and grasslands can recover from fire. For example, some species of chaparral plants, such as ceanothus, require intense heat for germination and therefore have flammable resins on leaves and roots that can quickly sprouts up in burned areas.8 Between 2010 and 2017, wildfires in California burned about 265,000 acres of forest land, 207,000 acres of scrub vegetation, 99,000 acres of grassland, 18,000 acres of desert vegetation, and 14,000 acres of other vegetation types.9 Wildfires have been observed to be more frequent and growing in intensity over the past several years, with 4,304,379 acres and 2,569,386 acres burning in 2020 and 2021, respectively.10 Wildfire Causes
Although the term wildfire suggests natural origins, a 2017 study that evaluated 1.5 million wildfires in the United States between 1992 and 2012 found that humans were responsible for igniting 84 percent of wildfires, accounting for 44 percent of acreage burned.11 The three most common types of human-caused wildfires are debris burning (logging slash, farm fields, trash, etc.); arson; and equipment use.12 Power lines can also ignite wildfires through downed lines, vegetation contact, conductors that collide, and equipment failures.13 CAL FIRE determined that between 2017 and 2021, 1,344 fires and 639,437 acres were burned due to electrical power and distribution lines.14 Lightning is the most common cause of nature-induced wildfire.15
An analysis of US Forest Service wildfire data from 1986 to 1996 determined that 95 percent of human- caused wildfires and 90 percent of all wildfires, started within a half mile of a road; and that about 61 percent of all wildfires and 55 percent of human-caused wildfires started within approximately 650 feet

7 Natural Resources Canada, 2018, Fire Behavior, https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire-insects-disturbances/fire/13145 , accessed on May 4, 2020.
8 National Park Service. 2018. “Wildland Fire in Chaparral: California and Southwestern United States.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildland-fire-in-chaparral.htm . 9 State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, 2019, 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5504/strategicplan2019-final.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020. 10 CAL FIRE. 2022, October 6 (accessed). “Stats and Events.” https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/ . 11 Balch, Jennifer; Bradley, Bethany; Abatzoglou, John, et. al., March 2017, Human-Started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche Across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Volume 114 No. 11, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/11/2946.full.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020. 12 Pacific Biodiversity Institute, 2007, Roads and Wildfires, http://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020. 13 Texas Wildfire Mitigation Project, 2018, How Do Power Lines Cause Wildfires? https://wildfiremitigation.tees.tamus.edu/faqs/how-power-lines-cause-wildfires , accessed on May 4, 2020. 14 CAL FIRE. 2021. “Stats and Events.” https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/ , accessed on January 4, 2023. 15 Balch, Jennifer, et al. 2017, March 14. Human-Started Wildfires Expand the Fire Niche Across the United States.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 114 No. 11. Accessed January 4, 2023. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/11/2946.full.pdf .

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-11
(200 meters) of a road. The study concluded that the increase in human-caused ignition greatly outweighs the benefits of increased access for firefighters.16
There are three primary methods of wildfire spread:
 Embers. The most prolific cause of home ignition, at a rate of two out of every three homes destroyed. Embers are glowing or burning pieces of vegetation or construction debris that are lofted during the wildfire and can move up to a mile ahead of a firestorm. These small embers or sparks may fall on the vegetation near a home (on dry leaves, needles, or twigs on the roof) and subsequently ignite and burn down the home. Embers can travel several miles during high wind events, such as the Diablo winds, posing a potential risk to all structures without fire-resistant landscaping and construction within a mile of the fire.17
 Direct Flame Contact. Direct flame impingement refers to the transfer of heat by direct flame exposure. Direct contact will heat the building materials of the home; if the time and intensity of exposure is severe enough, windows will break and materials will ignite.  Radiant Heat. A house can catch fire from the heat that is transferred from nearby burning objects, even in the absence of direct flames or embers. By creating defensible space around homes, the risk from radiant heat is significantly reduced.

Secondary Effects
Secondary effects of wildfire include additional hazards such as poor air quality, landslides, and power outages. This section describes potential secondary hazards.

After a high intensity wildfire is suppressed, the burn scar is typically bare of its vegetative cover, which had supported the hillsides and steeper slopes. As a result, rainstorms increase the possibility of severe landslides and debris flows in these areas. The intense heat from the fire can also cause a chemical reaction in the soil that makes it less porous, causing water to run off during precipitation events, which can lead to flooding downstream. As discussed in Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils, of the Revised Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area is in the Hollister Valley, a largely flat region that abuts the Diablo and Gabilan Mountain Ranges to the west and southwest, respectively. However, the EIR Study Area is several miles from each mountain range and is immediately surrounded by flat agricultural land. Therefore, landslides and debris flow are not an environmental hazard to which the EIR Study Area would be susceptible after a wildfire event.

In addition to damaging natural environments, wildfires can injure and kill residents and firefighters as well as damage or destroy structures and personal property. Wildfires also deplete water reserves, down power lines, disrupt communication services, and block evacuation routes, which can isolate communities. Wildfires can also indirectly cause flooding if flood control facilities become inadequate to

16 Pacific Biodiversity Institute, 2007, Roads and Wildfires, http://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020. 17 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. “Fire Perimeters.” Fire and Resource Assessment Program. https://frap.fire.ca.gov/mapping/gis-data/ . Accessed January 4, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-12 JULY 2024
handle increases in stormwater runoff, sediment, and debris that are likely to be generated from burn scars.

Regionally, smoke from wildfires creates poor air quality that can last for days or weeks, depending on the scale of the wildfire and wind patterns. Smoke itself is made up of a complex mixture of gases and fine particles produced when wood and other organic materials burn. Health risks from smoke inhalation are largely from microscopic particles (PM2.5) that can penetrate the lungs and cause a range of health problems, including chronic heart and lung diseases. Exposure to particulate pollution is even linked to premature death. There are some populations that are more sensitive than others to smoke—for instance, people with heart or lung diseases, the elderly, children, people with diabetes, people with compromised immune systems, and pregnant women.18 Through observations of wildfires, experts have determined that wildfires which produce large plumes of smoke can result in that smoke and ash being carried thousands of miles from the burn area of the wildfire. Therefore, air pollution is a major secondary risk from wildfires in the region.19
Wildfire in Hollister
As shown on Figure 4.18-1, Wildfire Responsibility and Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the majority of the EIR Study Area is in an LRA, in lands designated Urban and Non-Wildland/Non-Urban. The majority of the land that surrounds the EIR Study Area is designated Non-Wildland/Non-Urban. A small western portion of the EIR Study Area in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) includes LRA lands with a High FHSZ designation and SRA lands with High and Moderate FHSZ designations. The eastern EIR Study Area within the SOI are SRA lands with a Moderate FHSZ designation. The lands adjacent to the western and eastern EIR Study Area boundary are classified as LRA Moderate and High FHSZs and SRA Moderate and High FHSZs.

Although the EIR Study Area is on relatively flat land, the lower foothills to the east and west are High and Very High FHSZs, which means a large portion of the Hollister Valley Basin is in a WUI. As shown in Figure

4.18-2, Wildland Urban Interface Areas, much of the EIR Study Area is in the WUI. San Benito County rated all WUI land in the county as a Moderate FHSZ.20

18 US Geological Survey, 2018, How Smoke Fires Can Affect Your Health, https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/how-smoke- fires-can-affect-your-health, accessed on May 4, 2020.
19 Nasa Earth Observatory, August 2018, Smoky Skies in North America, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/92612/smoky-skies-in-north-america , accessed on May 4, 2020. 20 San Benito County, August 2015, County of San Benito Operation Area California, USA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, http://www.cosb.us/wp-content/uploads/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-_-SBC-FEMA-Approved.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-15
According to the California Office of Emergency Services, a WUI is defined as any area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle within wildland vegetation.21 According to CAL FIRE, the WUI is subdivided into the “interface” zone (housing adjacent to wildland vegetation, but not mingled with it), the “intermix” zone (where houses and wildland vegetation directly mingle), and the “influence” zone (areas of wildfire-susceptible vegetation surrounding the other zones). The interface and intermix zones carry the highest risk for wildfires affecting developed areas. Unlike wildfire in wildland areas, fires in WUI areas are more likely to damage or destroy buildings and infrastructure that support populations, the economy, and key services in the city.

Developments in the WUI exacerbate fire occurrence and fire spread in several ways, including:
 Increased numbers of human-caused wildfires.
 Wildfires become harder to fight.
 Firefighting resources are diverted from containing the wildfire to protecting lives and homes.  Letting natural fires burn becomes impossible, leading to buildup of fuel and increasing wildfire hazard further.22
Increased fire frequency tends to eliminate and replace native shrubs with weedy, highly flammable annual grasslands.23 The frequency of fire is anticipated to increase as dry conditions are exacerbated by climate change.

Wildfire History Near Hollister
There have been 28 wildfires recorded in San Benito County since the 1950s. Wildfires ranged in size from 35,380 acres with the Mack fire in 1950 near the San Benito and Fresno county lines, to the 236-acre Browns Valley fire in 2001.24 One wildfire, the 1981 Herbert Fire, burnt 1,866 acres mostly to the west of the EIR Study Area, although a small portion of the fire was within the EIR Study Area.25 The most recent wildfire, the Coyote Fire, was in July of 2020. Over 20 miles southeast of the EIR Study Area, the Coyote Fire burned approximately 1,500 acres.26

21 California Office of Emergency Services, 2018, California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. 22 Radeloff, Volker; Helmers, David; Kramer, H., et al., 2018, Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises Wildfire Risk, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Volume 115 No. 13, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/13/3314.full.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020. 23 US Geological Survey, 2012, Why Are Biologists Studying Housing Loss from Wildfires? https://www.usgs.gov/center- news/why-are-biologists-studying-housing-loss-wildfires, accessed on May 4, 2020. 24 San Benito County, August 2015, County of San Benito Operation Area California, USA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, http://www.cosb.us/wp-content/uploads/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-_-SBC-FEMA-Approved.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020.
25 Cap Radio, 2018, A History of California Wildfires pre-1950 to 2018, https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire- history/#11.58/36.8562/-121.4191, accessed on May 5, 2020. 26 Cal FIRE, 2020, Coyote Fire General Information, https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/7/15/coyote-fire/ , accessed on August 28, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-16 JULY 2024
Factors Influencing Wildfire
Weather
Prevailing winds are the wind pattern that is predominant at a place or season. Wind speed in the EIR Study Area ranges from seven- to ten-miles per hour. The direction of wind in the EIR Study Area trends from the northwest year-round.27 Although severe windstorms are not frequent in the EIR Study Area, high winds do occur on occasion and may cause significant damage. Damage could include destabilizing dry brush that covers hillsides and land in the WUI, which in turn increases the risk of wildfire threat.

Additional wind hazards can occur with destructive impacts to trees, power lines, and utility services, which could spark potential wildfires.28
Fuel
As described in more detail in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Revised Draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.4-1, Land Cover, of Chapter 4.4, the Planning Area includes 14 land cover types, 4 of which are considered natural vegetation communities.29 These include evergreen forests, mixed conifer forests, grassland/herbaceous, and scrub. Forests make up less than 1 percent of the vegetation cover in the Planning Area. The majority of vegetation consists of grassland/herbaceous plants and scrub land, which together total more acreage than any other land cover type in the Planning Area. Grasslands occupy most of the undeveloped hillsides to the east, south, and southwest, and scrublands occur along the margins or just outside of the Planning Area.

Grasslands and scrublands are highly flammable, particularly leaf litter that is left to accumulate, ultimately dries, and provides fuel for potential fires. The fire risk in grassland and scrubland vegetation communities can be reduced through several tactics, primarily controlled burns and annual grazing.30 Topography
Slope is a measure of land steepness, and wildfire intensity and rate of spread increase as slope increases due to the tendency of heat from a fire to rise via convection. For example, as slope increases from 20 to 40 percent, flame heights can double and rates of fire spread can increase fourfold; from 40 to 60 percent, flame heights can become three times higher and rates of spread can increase eightfold. The arrangement of vegetation throughout a hillside can also contribute to increased fire activity on slopes. As mentioned in Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils, of the Revised Draft EIR, the topography of the EIR Study Area is largely flat and mostly does not contain significant slopes. However, the surrounding foothills at the outskirts of the EIR Study Area include a varied, sloped terrain.

27 San Benito County, August 2010, San Benito County General Plan Background Report, Chapter 11, Safety, page 11-52. 28 San Benito County, August 2015, County of San Benito Operation Area California, USA Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, http://www.cosb.us/wp-content/uploads/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-_-SBC-FEMA-Approved.pdf , accessed on May 4, 2020.
29 Natural vegetation communities do not include cultivated crop land, hay crops/pastures, water, or urban developed land. 30 The Nature Conservancy, Restoring Fire to Native Grasslands, https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we- work/united-states/minnesota/stories-in-minnesota/restoring-fire-to-native-grasslands/, accessed August 28, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-17
Human Actions
Most wildfires are ignited by human action, the result of direct acts of arson, carelessness, or accidents.

Many fires originate in populated areas along roads and around homes and are often the result of careless disposal of cigarettes, mowing of dead grass, electrical equipment malfunction, use of equipment, or burning of debris. Recreation areas with increased human activity that are in fire-prone areas also increase the potential for wildfires.

Climate Change
Climate change is likely to increase annual average maximum temperatures in Hollister from a historical

71.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 75.8 °F by 2050 and 78.7°F by 2100.31 This will likely create warmer temperatures earlier and later in the year. Precipitation levels are projected to increase over the course of the century, changing from a historical annual average of 15.9 inches per year to an annual average of

17.2 inches by 2050 and an annual average of 19.1 inches by 2099.32 Variations in precipitation patterns will also lead to an increase in frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events as well as prolonged periods of drought. The combination of extreme heat and droughts can cause soils and vegetation to dry out, creating more fuel for wildfires. These factors are expected to increase wildfire conditions, creating the risk of more frequent and intense wildfires. Historically, an average of 286 acres burned annually in the city.33 Wildfires are projected to increase to an annual average in the city of 307 acres burned annually by 2050 and decrease to an annual average of 262 acres burned annually by 2100.34 Fire Protection Resources
Fire protection services in Hollister are provided by the Hollister Fire Department (HFD), which provides both firefighting and development review services for the city. HFD has two automatic aid agreements, with the South Santa Clara County Fire District and Aromas Tri -County Fire District.35 The HFD employs 41 uniformed emergency personnel, a fire chief, and a fire marshal. The HFD Fire Marshal works closely with the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement to ensure all structures meet CFC standards. There are three HFD fire stations in the city limits and one fire station in the unincorporated area of the county.

The HFD anticipates constructing two additional fire stations in San Benito County within the next 10 years to serve the growing population development in the areas surrounding Hollister. During 2019, the HFD responded to 33 grass fires and 22 building fires. The HFD also responded to 21 vehicle fires, 18 brush or brush-and -grass mixture fires, 17 trash/rubbish fires, and 12 cooking fires. Chapter 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, of the Revised Draft EIR provides additional details about fire protection resources and services in Hollister.

31 Cal-Adapt. 2023. “Annual Averages”. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages , accessed January 25, 2023. 32 Cal-Adapt. 2023. “Annual Averages”. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages , accessed January 25, 2023. 33 Cal-Adapt. 2023. “Wildfire”. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/wildfire , accessed January 25, 2023. 34 Cal-Adapt. 2023. “Wildfire”. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/wildfire , accessed January 25, 2023. 35 Martin Del Campo, Bob. Fire Chief, Hollister Fire Department. Personal communication with PlaceWorks. May 27, 2020.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-18 JULY 2024
Evacuation and Access
Evacuation routes are designated roadways that allow many people to quickly leave an area due to a potential or imminent disaster. These routes should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the needs of the community, be safely and easily accessible, and allow people to travel far enough away to be safe from emergency conditions.

As shown in Figure 4.18-3, Evacuation Routes, primary evacuation routes roads and highways that traverse the city include the following roadways:
 State Route (SR) 25
 SR-156
 San Felipe Road
 Fourth Street/San Juan Road
 Buena Vista Road
 Santa Ana Road
 Meridian Street
 Sunnyslope Road
 Nash Road
 Union Road South
 San Benito Street
 Westside Boulevard
 Fairview Road
During emergencies, the Hollister Police Department coordinates evacuations warnings and orders.

Evacuations are also coordinated through the Santa Cruz County “CodeRed” emergency notification system and the San Benito County Office of Emergency Services.

Several neighborhoods throughout the city have evacuation constraints, such as only one road in and out of a neighborhood. Figure 4.18-4, Evacuation Constrained Residential Parcels, shows identified evacuation-constrained residential areas throughout the city, some of which are near wildfire-prone areas pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302(g)(5).

4.18.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed project, if in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would result in significant wildfire impacts if it would:

1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

5. In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to wildfire.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-21

4.18.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
FIRE-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan . 2040 General Plan
Adopted emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans include those discussed under Section 4.18.1.1, Regulatory Framework, such as the San Benito County EOP. The proposed project could result in a significant impact if it would substantially impair the implementation of this EOP. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would increase development potential within the city, part of which is in the WUI.

Buildout under the proposed 2040 General Plan may result in changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes, especially in the proposed SOI where new planned developments may occur through the preparation of Specific Plans. However, any potential development under the proposed 2040 General Plan would be required to integrate the EOP as necessary into development to continue its facilitation in evacuating people in wildfire-prone areas. Additionally, future development in the WUI or Very High FHSZs would be required to comply with the SRA and Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, the CBC, the CFC, and the HMC, which have maximum requirements for lengths of single-access roads, minimum widths of roadways, and vegetation fuel management around roadways.

The proposed Health and Safety (HS) Element of the 2040 General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to emergency response and evacuation. The following proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to prepare for and facilitate evacuations caused by wildfires and other hazards:

Goal HS-5: Maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland and urban fires.  Policy HS-5.4: Fire Safety Requirements. Require new development to be protected from fire hazards through the provision of peak load water supply systems capable of providing the flow required for fire suppression, the design of roads with adequate widths and turning radii, and adequate separation between buildings, prior to project approval. (Policy CSF4.12) Goal HS-6: Minimize potential damage to life, environment, and property through timely, well-prepared, and well-coordinated emergency preparedness response plans and programs. (new)  Policy HS-6.4: Neighborhood Disaster Preparedness. Locate volunteer centers for emergency coordination in neighborhoods with potential for being isolated due to road closures or Public Safety Power Shutoff events. (Policy HS2.5)
 Policy HS-6.7: Access for Emergency Vehicles. Provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and equipment, including providing a second means of ingress and egress to all development. (Policy HS2.4)

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-22 JULY 2024
 Action HS-6.3: Emergency Evacuation Routes. Conduct education and outreach in conjunction with the County of San Benito, through multiple formats and media, to make evacuation routes known to the public. (Implementation Measure HS.M)
 Action HS-6.9: Emergency Infrastructure. Ensure that traffic lights at major intersections continue to function in the event of localized power outage. Repair any damaged sets of infrastructure or equipment as needed to continue City operations. (new)
Implementation of these proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would increase the effectiveness of the EOP, and therefore would not impair or conflict with the plan.

A temporary impact on emergency operations and evacuation under the proposed project could occur from construction of future development projects if they were to result in temporary lane closures that would alter evacuation routes. These would be limited to the duration of the construction period, and direct impacts of construction would be evaluated during the permit review process by the HFD and/or CAL FIRE. Potential future development in the WUI or a Very High FHSZ would also be required to comply with Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, the CBC, the CFC, and the HMC. Review and approval of temporary lane closures, if needed, for future development projects in the city would ensure that that no inconsistencies with emergency evacuation plans would occur.

As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, potential development under the proposed 2040 General Plan could occur in the WUI. Future development, regardless of whether it includes new development or redevelopment, is required to comply with adopted local, regional, and State plans and regulations addressing emergency access, response, and evacuation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) is strategic plan focused on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan.

The proposed CAP does not include any specific projects or proposals that would directly conflict with the EOP. Projects and programs facilitated by the proposed CAP strategies may include activities that require construction or operation on major roadways or may require the closure of major roadways to facilitate construction activities. However, these would be limited to the duration of the construction period, and direct impacts of construction would be evaluated during the permit review process by the HFD, Caltrans, and/or CAL FIRE. Review and approval of temporary lane closures, if needed, for future development project in the city would ensure that no inconsistencies with emergency evacuation plans would occur.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-23
Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP) is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Since the proposed ALPP would not affect evacuation capabilities or the implementation of the EOP, implementation of the proposed ALPP would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

FIRE-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
2040 General Plan
As discussed in Section 4.18.1.2, Existing Conditions, Hollister is prone to periods of high winds. These winds have high speeds and can shift suddenly, and they are often accompanied by low humidity. They create dangerous conditions for starting and spreading wildfires during the drier months of the year, and they also spread wildfire smoke hazards, as can prevailing winds.

Section 4.18.1.1, Regulatory Framework, describes plans, policies, regulations, and procedures that help to reduce wildfire risks. The 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, 2021 California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, Unit Strategic Fire Plan for San Benito-Monterey, San Benito County CWPP, and San Benito County MJHMP are intended to reduce wildfire hazards and coordinate response to these hazards on a statewide and regional scale. In addition, the Monterey Air Resources District provides air quality alerts, advisories, and an interactive online map to view current air quality conditions in the region.

Furthermore, the proposed 2040 General Plan includes Policy HS-2.10, Resilience Hubs, which requires the City to establish equitably located resilience hubs that offer refuge from poor air quality due to regional wildfire smoke.

As discussed in Section 4.18.1.2, Existing Conditions, the topography of Hollister is largely flat and mostly does not contain significant slopes. Construction of potential future development throughout the city may require grading and site preparation; however, these activities would not significantly change the slope.

All potential future development in Hollister would be required to comply with the CBC, CFC, and HMC requirements for grading, which would minimize the ignition and spread of wildfire due to slopes.

Additionally, the proposed 2040 General Plan includes Policy HS-1.1, Location of Future Development, and Policy HS-1.2, Safety Considerations in Development Review, which prevent future development from being in hazard-prone areas without appropriate hazard mitigation and require studies to be conducted during development review to assess hazards and potential mitigation. Therefore, potential future

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-24 JULY 2024
development under the proposed 2040 General Plan would not expose people to the uncontrolled spread of wildfire or pollutant concentrations due to slope.

Other factors, such as vegetation, have the potential to exacerbate wildfire risks. The grassland and brush areas of Hollister are easily ignited, especially during late summer and fall when temperatures and winds are high and relative humidity is low. During these conditions, grassland and brush vegetation can dry out, particularly in areas with unirrigated vegetation, becoming extremely flammable and increasing wildfire risks.

As described in Section 4.18.1.1, Regulatory Framework, the San Benito County MJHMP and the San Benito County CWPP contain several vegetation management, defensible space, fuel reduction, and fuel break projects to reduce the uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to vegetation. Additionally, all potential future development in wildfire-prone areas or the WUI in Hollister would be required to comply with Chapter 49 of the CFC, PRC Section 4291, and the HMC. These regulations have specific requirements for new and existing development to create defensible space and extensive fuel reduction within 100 feet of a structure, an ember-resistant zone within 5 feet of a structure, and the overall maintenance of properties to reduce the risk of uncontrolled fires or the spread of fires to other properties.

Furthermore, the proposed Health and Safety (HS) Element of the 2040 General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to wildfire risks. The following proposed 2040 General Plan goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize wildfire risks associated with vegetation:

Goal HS-5: Maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland and urban fires.  Policy HS-5.1: Wildland-Urban Interface. Coordinate between the Building and Fire Departments to ensure that new development in the wildland-urban interface is in full compliance with all applicable sections of the Building Code. (new)
 Policy HS-5.3: Fire Protection Master Plan. Ensure that all new development will be adequately designed to minimize risks to life and property through the implementation of the Fire Protection Master Plan. (Policy CSF4.12)
 Policy HS-5.6: Land Use Management for Fire Risks. Maintain all City-owned public lands to clear them of fuel loads, establish appropriately placed fire breaks, and educate all property owners in the city on proper landscape maintenance and fire-scaping standards to reduce the risk of fire hazards. (new)  Action HS-5.1: Requirements for Development in High Fire Hazard Areas. Require project-level development in the High Fire Hazard Zone in the Planning Area to occur in accordance with the California Building Standards Code to provide needed safeguards and facilities to control the spread of fire in any fire hazardous area. Provisions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) require spark arresters for any chimney; (b) prohibit open-flame devices; (c) clear brush or vegetative growth 30 feet from structures; and (d) clear brush 10 feet from roadways. (new)  Action HS-5.2: Tree Trimming. Trim all public trees and other vegetation in Hollister on a regular basis to clear them of any loose branches or debris that could serve as fuel in a fire event. (new)

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-25
These proposed 2040 General Plan goal, policies, and actions would ensure that fire hazard reduction measures are implemented and maintained, and that existing and new development would incorporate vegetation management measures. Adherence to the above building practices, fire safety regulations, and vegetation fuel management requirements would reduce the potential for exacerbating wildfire risks.

Therefore, potential future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. The proposed CAP does not include any specific projects or proposals that would exacerbate wildfire risks and aims to increase the resilience of the community. Projects and programs facilitated by the proposed CAP strategies would be required to comply with CBC, CFC, PRC Section 4291, HMC, and proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to reduce wildfire risks due to prevailing winds, topography, and other factors such as vegetation. Review of projects and programs for consistency with State and local regulations would ensure that the proposed CAP strategies would not exacerbate wildfire risks and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Because agricultural lands often create a buffer between wildland vegetation and developed areas, preserving the agricultural lands would further reduce wildfire risks.36 Thus, implementation of the proposed ALPP would not exacerbate wildfire risks and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

36 Teri Shore, Advocacy Director, Greenbelt Alliance. 2021. The Critical Role of Greenbelts in Wildfire Resilience. https://www.greenbelt.org/research/the-critical-role-of-greenbelts-in-wildfire-resilience/

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-26 JULY 2024
FIRE-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) but would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
2040 General Plan
Buildout under the proposed 2040 General Plan would require the installation of new roadways, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, transmission lines, and other utilities to serve future potential development in Hollister.
 Roadways. As shown in Figure C-4, 2040 General Plan Circulation Diagram, of the proposed 2040 General Plan, proposed buildout of the 2040 General Plan would include new roadways to connect to new developments throughout the city. Potential future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan could also create new or expanded roadways in WUI areas of Hollister, including converting unpaved roads to paved access roads, developing roadways to new development, and expanding existing roads to accommodate new development and multimodal forms of transportation.  Fuel Breaks. Proposed 2040 General Plan Policy HS-5.6, Land Use Management for Fire Risks, requires establishing and maintaining fuel breaks and defensible space in both public and private developments. These activities would likely occur in WUI areas.  Emergency Water Sources. Proposed 2040 General Plan Policy HS-5.2, Firefighting Infrastructure, and Policy HS-5.4 ensure that existing and future development have sufficient water supplies for fire- fighting purposes and structural suppression, which would require the installation of new water conveyance infrastructure in new development or areas not served by adequate water supplies.  Power Lines. Potential future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan would require electrical line installations and connections to provide power to buildings and infrastructure. Proposed 2040 General Plan Policy HS-1.5, Undergrounding Utilities, and proposed Action HS-1.3, Coordination with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), require continued collaboration with Pacific Gas & Electric to underground existing electrical transmission infrastructure throughout the city and encourage the undergrounding of utilities in new development.  Other Utilities. Potential future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan would require the installation and maintenance of water systems, septic or sewer systems, internet infrastructure, and stormwater systems in wildfire-prone areas.

These types of improvements would involve temporary construction and result in changes to the existing built environment. The installation and operation of new, above-ground power transmission lines would create a higher risk of wildfire compared to other infrastructure. However, as stated above, the proposed project encourages the undergrounding of new and existing electrical transmission lines, which is consistent with HMC Section 16.24.050. Additionally, CPUC requires maintenance of vegetation around power lines, strict wire-to-wire clearances, and annual inspections of above-ground power lines. These measures would reduce the wildfire risks associated with the installation and maintenance of power lines.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-27
Development in the WUI areas throughout the city would also be required to comply with building and design standards in the CBC and CFC, which include provisions for fire-resistant building materials, the clearance of debris, and fire safety requirements during demolition and construction activities.

Additionally, PRC Section 4291 requires a defensible space within 100 feet of a structure and an ember- resistant zone within 5 feet of a structure. These measures, along with the proposed 2040 General Plan policies and actions for undergrounding of power lines, creation and maintenance of vegetation, and ensuring adequate water supplies, would minimize wildfire risks associated with the installation and maintenance of infrastructure.

Such infrastructure and maintenance activities would also be required to comply with the adopted State regulations, HMC standards, and the proposed 2040 General Plan policies and actions to mitigate the impact of infrastructure on the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. The proposed CAP does not include any specific projects or proposals that would require the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Projects and programs facilitated by the proposed CAP strategies would be required to comply with CBC, CFC, PRC Section 4291, HMC, and proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to reduce wildfire risk, underground utilities, and ensure adequate emergency water supplies. Review of projects and programs for consistency with State and local regulations would ensure that the proposed CAP strategies would not exacerbate wildfire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. As discussed under Impact Discussion FIRE-2, agricultural lands often create a buffer between wildland vegetation and developed areas, and therefore preserving the agricultural lands would further reduce wildfire risks.37 Thus, implementation of the proposed ALPP would not exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

37 Teri Shore, Advocacy Director, Greenbelt Alliance. 2021. The Critical Role of Greenbelts in Wildfire Resilience. https://www.greenbelt.org/research/the-critical-role-of-greenbelts-in-wildfire-resilience/

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-28 JULY 2024
FIRE-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes.
2040 General Plan
Wildfires, such as the 1981 Herbert Fire and the 2020 Coyote Fire, can create favorable conditions for other hazards, such as flooding and landslides during the rainy season. Wildfires on hillsides can burn the vegetation that stabilizes the slope and create hydrophobic conditions that prevent the ground from absorbing water. This can lead to landslides, debris flows, and flooding. A project would result in a significant impact if—due to slopes, drainage patterns, or postfire slope instability—it would expose people or structures to significant risks from landsides, debris flows, or flooding.

As discussed in Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR, parts of Hollister are in floodplains. As shown in Figure 4.10-2, Flood Zones, in Chapter 4.10, areas adjacent to the San Benito River, Pacheco Creek, and Santa Ana Creek are in the flood zone.

As discussed in Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils, of the Revised Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area is generally flat, and earthquake-caused landslides would only occur on Park Hill. However, due to the soil profile, these landslides or mudflows would be small.

Potential future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan would not contribute to postfire slope instability due to the flat nature of the topography but may contribute to drainage changes upstream. However, the proposed Health and Safety (HS) Element of the 2040 General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to runoff, slope, and drainage. The following proposed 2040 General Plan goal, policies, and actions would serve to minimize runoff and prevent flooding:

Goal HS-4: Protect the community from flood hazards. (new)  Policy HS-4.1: Flood Hazards. Review all development proposals to verify that either no portion of the proposed development lies in the 100-year floodplain or that the applicant has taken adequate measures to eliminate the risk of flood damage in a 100-year storm consistent with the City of Hollister Flood Damage Prevention Regulations as amended from time to time. (Policy HS1.9)  Policy HS-4.2: Floodplain Uses. Encourage developers to dedicate identified lands in floodplains that are unsuitable for development to the City for use as parks or for preservation as open space, consistent with the City of Hollister Parks and Recreation Master Plan or other infrastructure plan developed for a given area. Development of these identified lands as community recreation amenities should be economically feasible to build and maintain. (Policy HS1.10)  Policy HS-4.3: Flood Control Coordination. Coordinate with the San Benito County Water District and other State agencies to maintain flood-control infrastructure to minimize flood damage. (new)  Action HS-4.1: Flood Control Requirements in New Development. Update and apply flood control requirements to regulate construction in flood zones. (Implementation Measure HS.H)

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-29
 Action HS-4.2: Areas of Poor Drainage. Identify areas of poor drainage and install new or upgrade existing drainage systems to accommodate drainage needs. Use natural infrastructure to the extent feasible. (new)
 Action HS-4.3: Floodplain Use Assessment. Identify those areas with natural hazards that are unsuitable for development, but which may be suitable for public recreational uses. (new) Furthermore, all new development in the city is required to comply with State and local regulations, such as the CBC and HMC, both of which have provisions to reduce flooding and landslides in existing and new development. As described in Section 4.18.1.1, Regulatory Framework, HMC Chapters 15.20 and 15.24 provide regulations for existing and new development to reduce flooding potential downslope or downstream.

New development complying with these proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would not expose people or structures to downslope landslides or downstream flooding due to postfire hazards.

Furthermore, as identified under Impact Discussions FIRE-1 and FIRE-2, development under proposed 2040 General Plan must also comply with best management practices regarding wildfire prevention, action, and recovery as outlined in the San Benito County EOP, San Benito MJHMP, and the San Benito County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. All future development, regardless of the location, is required to comply with adopted local, regional, and State plans and regulations addressing wildfire prevention, which would minimize risks of postfire hazards. Compliance with these policies and regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts from postfire instability would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. The proposed CAP does not include any specific projects or proposals that would expose people or structures to significant risks, including flooding or landslides as a results of postfire runoff or slope instability. Projects and programs facilitated by the proposed CAP strategies would be required to comply with CBC, CFC, PRC Section 4291, HMC, and proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to reduce wildfire risk, geologic hazard risks, and flood risks. Review of projects and programs for consistency with State and local regulations would ensure that the proposed CAP strategies would not expose people or structures to significant postfire risks such as slope instability or increased runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. As discussed under Impact Discussions FIRE-2 and FIRE-3,

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-30 JULY 2024
agricultural lands often create a buffer between wildland vegetation and developed areas, and therefore preserving the agricultural lands further reduces wildfire risks.38 Thus, implementation of the proposed ALPP would not expose people or structures to postfire runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

FIRE-5 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to wildfire impacts.
2040 General Plan
The cumulative setting includes potential future development in the EIR Study Area and the surrounding region. Future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire of uncontrolled spread of wildfire; would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to the installation or maintenance of infrastructure; and would not cause downslope or downstream post-fire flooding or landslide hazards. Cumulative development in the surrounding unincorporated County, local jurisdictions, and State lands would be subject to the same State regulations.

Future potential development in the EIR Study Area and the surrounding region would be required to comply with the same State and regional regulations, such as SRA and Very High FHSZ Fire Safe Regulations, PRC Section 4291, CBC, CFC, and San Benito County EOP. Lands throughout San Benito County would also implement wildfire reduction strategies through implementation of the San Benito County CWPP and the San Benito County MJHMP. Therefore, cumulative conditions would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire of uncontrolled spread of wildfire; would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to the installation or maintenance of infrastructure; and would not cause downslope or downstream postfire flooding or landslide hazards. These would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts when taken into consideration with the proposed project. Therefore, cumulative wildfire impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Climate Action Plan
The proposed CAP is strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community-wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan. The proposed CAP does not include any specific projects or proposals that would expose people or structures to significant wildfire

38 Teri Shore, Advocacy Director, Greenbelt Alliance. 2021. The Critical Role of Greenbelts in Wildfire Resilience. https://www.greenbelt.org/research/the-critical-role-of-greenbelts-in-wildfire-resilience/

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE
PLACEWORKS 4.18-31
risks or conflict with the EOP. Projects and programs facilitated by the proposed CAP strategies would be required to comply with CBC, CFC, PRC Section 4291, HMC, and proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to reduce wildfire risk and ensure adequate evacuation capabilities. The cumulative conditions of the proposed CAP would include the buildout of the proposed 2040 General Plan and development in surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to wildfire.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
The proposed ALPP is a program focused on mitigating the effects of agricultural land conversion through the dedication of eligible agricultural conservation easements at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio) for projects that would convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. As previously discussed, agricultural lands often create a buffer between wildland vegetation and developed areas, and therefore preserving the agricultural lands further reduces wildfire risks.39 Therefore, the proposed ALPP would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to wildfire.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

39 Teri Shore, Advocacy Director, Greenbelt Alliance. 2021. The Critical Role of Greenbelts in Wildfire Resilience. https://www.greenbelt.org/research/the-critical-role-of-greenbelts-in-wildfire-resilience/

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

WILDFIRE

4.18-32 JULY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.

PLACEWORKS 5-1
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines set forth the intent and extent of alternatives analysis to be provided in an environmental impact report (EIR). Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives, which are infeasible.

The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

5.1 PURPOSE
The alternatives evaluated in this Revised Draft EIR were developed consistent with Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As stated, the range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. As listed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Revised Draft EIR, the City has identified the following objectives, which build on the framework of the Vision and Values and reflect the community’s desires for the future of Hollister and will serve as the project objectives for the EIR.
 Provide for balanced and sustainable growth. Create and maintain a cohesive development pattern amidst the agriculture landscape, with clearly defined urban edges. The General Plan land use map

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-2 JULY 2024
focuses urban development within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and protects Hollister’s surrounding lands from sprawl, reduces the cost of extending costly infrastructure, and enhances the visual character of the city’s edge. Land use policies are enacted to reduce incompatible land uses and ensure developments pay for their share of infrastructure, public facilities, and any environmental costs they might impose.
 Create new jobs to develop the local economy. Strive for more local, high-quality jobs and an improved jobs/housing ratio.
 Integrate neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. Build quality neighborhoods and maintain a quality urban environment. Balanced neighborhoods include a mix of residential types and intensities at all levels of affordability and include activities and facilities that are used on a frequent basis—such as schools, stores, and parks. Land uses are designated to ensure balanced neighborhood development with a mix of uses and housing types, provision of parks and schools, and easy access to commercial activity centers.
 Create a network of parks and open space. In addition to neighborhood and community parks, create a network of trails.
 Create a safe, efficient, and equitable circulation system for all users. Establish a well-integrated and coordinated transit network and safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation.  Provide ample retail and shopping opportunities. Create quality retail sites to ensure jobs and sales tax revenue that serve both local residents and a regional population.  Plan for environmental justice. Senate Bill (SB) 1000, the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, was passed in 2016 and requires that General Plans address environmental justice for disadvantaged communities that exist within the planning area of the General Plan. California law defines “environmental justice” as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
 Respond to State law requirements. As previously described, the proposed 2040 General Plan builds off the current General Plan by incorporating similar topics and revising or adding new goals, policies, and actions that are required by State law. Table 3-1, 2040 General Plan Required by State Law, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Revised Draft EIR provides a list of the key State laws that are addressed in the 2040 General Plan, a summary of the purpose of the law, and the element that addresses the law.

5.3 SELECTION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states:

The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-3
lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

5.3.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Two project alternatives and the comparative merits of the alternatives are discussed in this section, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. All the potential environmental impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed project were found to be either less than significant without mitigation or less than significant with mitigation, except for impacts to agricultural resources (AG), air quality (AIR), greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), noise (NOI), and transportation (TRAN), which were found to be significant and unavoidable with mitigation measures at the program level. Although the proposed 2040 General Plan results in significant and unavoidable impacts, the identification of these program-level impacts does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent development proposals analyzed at the project level that do not exceed the applicable project-level thresholds. The program-level significant and unavoidable impacts include the following:
 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.
 Impact AG-2: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of agricultural land under the Williamson Act.
 Impact AG-4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could 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.  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).
 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).
 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).

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-4 JULY 2024
 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.  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.
 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).  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.
 Impact NOI-1.2: Operational vehicle traffic noise increases would exceed the City’s significance thresholds with implementation of the proposed project.  Impact NOI-4: Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan could contribute to an increase in cumulative construction noise and operational vehicle noise.  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.  Impact TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan would cumulatively contribute to regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The alternatives were selected because of their potential to further reduce and avoid these impacts. The alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed project include:
 Alternative A: No Project Alternative (Current General Plan)  Alternative B: Focused Growth
The first alternative is the CEQA-required “No Project” Alternative, which assumes the current 2005 General Plan remains in effect and is not replaced by the proposed 2040 General Plan, the proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) would not be adopted, and the Zoning Ordinance would not be amended to include the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP). Alternative B assumes the same amount of households, residential units, population, and jobs would occur as under the proposed project, but would allow for more dense housing in parcels within the Medium-Density Residential, High-Density Residential, Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential, and Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations and also increase the maximum floor-area ratios (FAR)1 in the Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential and Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations when compared to the

1 FAR is a ratio of the building square footage permitted on a lot to the net square footage of the lot. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet of net land area, a FAR of 1.0 will allow 10,000 square feet of building floor area to be built.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-5
proposed project. In addition, Alternative B would maintain the currently adopted SOI thus encouraging more development and redevelopment in the City Limits and less growth on undeveloped land.

5.3.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed project. The development intensity for the alternatives varies from the proposed project. The estimated growth under each alternative, as well as the proposed project, is provided in Table 5-1, Forecasted Additional Growth for the Proposed Project and the Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

TABLE 5-1 FORECASTED ADDITIONAL GROWTH FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE

PROPOSED PROJECT
Category Proposed Project Alternative A: No Project Alternative B: Focused Growth Households 10,160 5,723 a 10,160
Residential Units 10,530 5,845 b 10,530
Population 31,575 20,779 b 31,575
Jobs 11,170 8,970 b 11,170
Notes:
a. The 2000 U.S. Census reported a vacancy rate of 2.1 percent for the City of Hollister (2005-2023 General Plan, page A.14. b. See Table LU1, City of Hollister Growth Projections through 2023, of the 2005-2023 General Plan, page 2.4.

Source: City of Hollister, 2023.

The alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project and the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would apply to Alternative B, but would not apply to Alternative A. The following discussion compares the environmental impacts of the alternatives with those of the proposed project for each of the environmental topics analyzed in detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Revised Draft EIR. The impacts of each alternative are classified as less than ( ) the level of impacts associated with the proposed project. Table 5-2, Comparison of Impacts of the Project Alternatives and the Proposed Project, summarizes the relative impacts of each of the alternatives compared to the proposed project.

TABLE 5-2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic
Proposed
Project a
Alternative A:

No Project
Alternative B:

Focused Growth
Aesthetics LTS =
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS > =
Land Use and Planning LTS > =

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-6 JULY 2024
TABLE 5-2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic
Proposed
Project a
Alternative A:

No Project
Alternative B:

Focused Growth
Mineral Resources LTS > =
Public Services and Recreation LTS Greater impact in comparison to the proposed project

5.4 ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT

5.4.1 DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of taking no action or not approving the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when the project is the revision of a plan, as in this case, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan. Under Alternative A, potential future development in Hollister would continue to be subject to existing policies, regulations, development standards, and land use designations of the existing 2005 General Plan, the City would not adopt the proposed CAP or amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the proposed ALPP.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Revised Draft EIR, the existing 2005 General Plan was adopted in 2005 and included a horizon year of 2023. A number of State and federal laws guiding general plan policies have also been updated during this time.

Many of the community issues vetted in the 2005 General Plan are still relevant, well addressed, and do not require major changes. However, Alternative A would not incorporate new topics that are now required by State law, such as environmental justice, and would not revise relevant policies and actions to meet those requirements.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C), the City of Hollister, acting as the lead agency, should analyze the impacts of the No Project Alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Implementation of the No Project Alternative assumes that development growth throughout the city would remain unchanged until the buildout horizon year 2040, which is consistent with other regional plans, including Association of

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-7
Monterey Bay Area Government’s (AMBAG) 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan & the Sustainable Communities Strategy (2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS).

Future development permitted under the No Project Alternative would not increase development potential in Hollister beyond what was considered in the existing 2005 General Plan and analyzed in the associated EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2004081147), but rather assumes the remaining development growth shown in Table 5 -1 would occur through 2040. No General Plan land use designations changes would be required to accommodate these uses. Table 5 -3, 2019 to 2040 Growth Under the Proposed Project and Alternative A, shows the difference between 2019 to 2040 growth of the proposed project compared to Alternative A. As shown in Table 5-3, Alternative A would result in less residential, population, and job growth when compared to the proposed project.

TABLE 5-3 2019 TO 2040 GROWTH UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE A Category
Proposed
Project
Alternative A: No
Project a
Difference between the
Proposed Project and Alternative A
Households 10,160 5,723 a 4,437 fewer households
Residential Units 10,530 5,845 b 4,685 fewer residential units Population 31,575 20,779 b 10,796 fewer population
Jobs 11,170 8,970 b 2,200 fewer jobs
Notes:
a. The 2000 U.S. Census reported a vacancy rate of 2.1 percent for the City of Hollister (2005-2023 General Plan, page A.14. b. See Table LU1, City of Hollister Growth Projections through 2023, of the 2005-2023 General Plan, page 2.4.

Source: City of Hollister, 2023.

Alternative A would include the SOI shown on the current General Plan Land Use Map. Alternative A would also not adopt the proposed CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. The 32 reduction strategies and recommended implementation actions of the proposed CAP to help the City reduce GHG emissions to meet or exceed its targets would not be adopted.

Alternative A would also not amend Hollister Municipal Code (HMC) Title 17, Zoning, to add the proposed ALPP. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Revised Draft EIR, the purpose of the ALPP 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. None of the applicable mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project would apply to Alternative A.

5.4.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative A when compared to the proposed project are described herein.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-8 JULY 2024

AESTHETICS
As described in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to aesthetics.

Like the proposed project, potential future development in the EIR Study Area under Alternative A is anticipated to occur in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas. The proposed 2040 General Plan reinforces existing uses, heights, and densities in most locations, with allowances for greater intensity only in a limited number of locations and therefore would not substantially increase building height beyond what is previously accounted for under the current 2005 General Plan.

There are no officially designated scenic view corridors or vistas within the EIR Study Area. Therefore, implementation of either scenario would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be similar.

Applicable future projects under both scenarios would be subject to design review prior to project approval pursuant to HMC Section 17.24.190, Site and Architectural Review, and Section 17.24.140(E), Design Review Procedures, and comply with the various planning documents that govern scenic quality in the city, as described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework, in Chapter 4.1. However, Alternative A would not realize the new or modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, or actions that were prepared as part of the proposed 2040 General Plan update. For example, a new policy requires the City develop city- wide design guidelines and/or objective design standards to cover residential, commercial, and industrial uses and include standards for streetscape improvements to make the right-of-ways more attractive and pedestrian friendly. Thus, unlike the proposed project, which includes these new policies, development under this alternative would not provide the same level of design consideration related to the visual character or quality of a project site and its surrounding; thus, aesthetic impacts related to these topics from potential development under Alternative A would be greater when compared to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative A would result in new lighting sources that could result in sources of glare. Potential future development under both scenarios would be required to comply with best management practices in CALGreen and the Hollister Zoning Ordinance that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels and reduce light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses. Because Alternative A would result in less development than the proposed project, fewer new light and glare sources would be introduced, and impacts would be less when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, while Alternative A would not realize the new or modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, or actions that were prepared as part of the proposed 2040 General Plan update, development in the EIR Study Area under Alternative A would be less and would be guided by the current policies and regulations that guide development in Hollister, and as such, impacts related to aesthetics would be fewer when compared to the proposed project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-9

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
As determined in Chapter 4.2, Agricultural Resources, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources despite implementation of 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.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2, the EIR Study Area contains 1,990 acres of Prime Farmland, 134 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 92 acres of Unique Farmland, and 227 acres of these lands are under Williamson Act contracts. Under both scenarios, Alternative A and the proposed project, there is the potential for these agricultural lands to be converted to non-agricultural uses. However, there is fewer development potential under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project; therefore, impacts would be fewer under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project.

AIR QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts even with implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-3.6, Technical Assessments, *Policy NRC-3.14, Construction Health Risk Assessment, and *Policy NRC-

3.15, Operational Health Risk Assessment. This significant and unavoidable impact is only related to the programmatic nature of the proposed project that precludes the availability of mitigation measures at the project level.

As described in Chapter 4.3, implementation of the proposed project would conflict with the Monterey Bay Air Resource District (MBARD) clean air plans (see Section 4.3.2.3, Regulatory Framework, in Chapter

4.3 for the complete list of clean air plans), exceed MBARD regional significance thresholds, and expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants during construction, but would not generate any substantial odors. At a program level, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction and operation of potential future development, as well as the cumulative contribution to the non-attainment designations of the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB).

Alternative A would continue development as allowed under the current 2005 General Plan, which would result in less development in the EIR Study Area compared to the proposed project. Development under both scenarios would be subject to MBARD Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, and would be required to prepare a detailed air quality impact assessment on a project-by -project basis. Additionally, future development under both scenarios could result in construction activities in close proximity to residential and other sensitive land uses, thus, temporarily elevating concentrations of toxic air contaminants in the vicinity of sensitive land uses. While the regulatory setting mitigating construction impacts is the same under both scenarios, less development would occur under Alternative A; therefore, construction impacts would be fewer when compared to the proposed project.

Under Alternative A, less development would occur; therefore, less direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping equipment) would occur. Under both scenarios, subsequent environmental review of applicable

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-10 JULY 2024
development projects would be required to assess potential impacts under MBARD project-level thresholds. As discussed in Chapter 4.14, Population, of this Revised Draft EIR, the expected buildout under the proposed 2040 General Plan would exceed the regional growth projections for 2040 for population, housing, and jobs. Therefore, growth accommodated by the proposed 2040 General Plan has the potential to generate emissions that could exceed the emissions forecasts in MBARD’s AQMP. While the growth accommodated by the current 2005 General Plan exceeds regional growth projections, it is a minor exceedance of less than one percent. Further, as described in Chapter 4.14, the regional growth forecasts do not yet include the City’s 2023–2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which are included in the analysis for the proposed 2040 General Plan. Additionally, total VMT per service population would be less under existing conditions than the proposed project. Therefore, operational air quality impacts of Alternative A would be less when compared to the proposed project.

Due to 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 at the program level. Because there is less development potential under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project, impacts under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project are considered to be fewer in this respect.

Like the proposed project, Alternative A is not the type of project that would result in significant impacts from odor and impacts would be similar under both scenarios.

Overall, air quality impacts under Alternative A would be fewer when compared to the proposed project.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to biological resources with implementation of 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, *Policy NRC-1.6, Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas, *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 Assessment, *Policy NRC-1.9, Surveys and Mitigation for Burrowing Owls, *Policy NRC-1.10, Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds, *Policy NRC-1.13, Wet land Preservation, and *Policy NRC-1.14, Wetlands Delineation.

The City of Hollister General Plan is the primary planning document for the City of Hollister. The current 2005 General Plan and the proposed revisions to policies and actions under the Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC) Element are intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources because the General Plan is the overriding planning document for Hollister. Accordingly, impacts to biological resources under Alternative A would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

Although potential future development under the proposed project could potentially affect animal and plant species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, proposed goals, policies, and actions; proposed mitigation measures; and adherence to all federal, state, and local regulations relating

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-11
to biological resources would fully mitigate any potential impacts. The proposed project would also have a less-than-significant impact on riparian habitats, wetlands, and wildlife movement corridors because compliance with proposed goals, policies, and actions; proposed mitigation measures; and adherence to all federal, state, and local regulations relating to biological resources would fully mitigate any potential impacts. Further, potential future development under the proposed project would primarily occur as infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing development, which reduces the likelihood that special-status plant and animal species could be impacted. Infill development also reduces the likelihood that the riparian habitats, wetlands, and wildlife movement corridors could be impacted.

The current 2005 General Plan encourages development to occur in existing urbanized areas, which would mean that Alternative A would also reduce the likelihood of development in areas of the EIR Study Area that are more likely to cause an adverse impact to a sensitive riparian habitat, wetland, or wildlife movement corridor. New and modified 2040 General Plan policies and actions require project applicants to conduct a biological site assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters and mitigate potential impacts on special-status species and sensitive habitat areas. Tree preservation would also be encouraged, and planting of invasive, non-native plant species would be prohibited. No similar requirement currently exists in the current 2005 General Plan conditions and these standards would not be realized under the Alternative A scenario; therefore, impacts would be greater when compared to the proposed project.

Under Alternative A, these goals, policies, and actions would not be adopted. Therefore, Alternative A would have greater impacts to biological resources as compared to the proposed project when following common protocols.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources with implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy LU-19.1, Historic Structure Preservation, Renovation, and Rehabilitation, *Policy LU-19.5, Historic Structure Alteration, *Policy NRC-2.3, Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Resources, *Policy NRC-2.4, Tribal Coordination During Project Construction, and *Policy NRC-2.5, Preconstruction Investigations.

Under Alternative A, new development would continue throughout the city under existing plans and regulations. As explained in Chapter 4.5, there are existing prehistoric, architectural, historical, or archaeological resources in the EIR Study Area that could all be impacted by new demolition, inappropriate modification, or inappropriate new construction under the proposed project or Alternative A. Like the proposed project, Alternative A would be subject to the procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Public Resources Code and the California Code of Regulations. Because less development would occur under the Alternative A scenario, the potential to impact these resources would be less when compared to the proposed project.

Additionally, the proposed project includes new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC)

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-12 JULY 2024
Elements which require additional actions that would further protect cultural and tribal cultural resources in the EIR Study Area. For example, new Land Use and Community Design policies require the City to promote preservation, renovation, and rehabilitation of historic structures, allow adjacent and abutting properties to work together to meet requirements in rehabilitation and reuse projects of historic buildings, pursue historic preservation funding sources, evaluate alternatives, relocation, or other mitigation prior to approving alteration of historically significant buildings, and educate the public about Hollister’s historic and cultural resources. Other new policies require the City to preserve areas that have identifiable and important tribal cultural resources, support the tribal consultation process, relationship building, and respect for tribal cultural resources, comply with state and federal standards to evaluate and mitigate impacts to tribal resources, and require preconstruction investigations of potential tribal cultural resources and on-site mitigation for all developments. New actions include requiring the City to conduct a study to consider establishing incentives for property owners to rehabilitate or preserve historic and cultural resources and form 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. Nonetheless, because there is less growth potential and therefore less development overall, there would be less likelihood of causing an impact to cultural resources in the EIR Study Area.

Under Alternative A, these goals, policies, and actions would not be adopted. Therefore, Alternative A would have greater impacts to cultural resources as compared to the proposed project when following common protocols.

ENERGY
As described in Chapter 4.6, Energy, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to energy.

All development that occurs in the State is required to comply with best management practices regulated in the California Green Building Code and Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which ensure new development would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Additionally, neither the proposed project nor Alternative A would introduce a level of development and population growth that would be anticipated to necessitate the construction of new energy supply facilities or transmission infrastructure.

Additionally, the proposed project includes new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC) and Health and Safety (HS), and Circulation (C) Elements and the proposed CAP that require additional actions that would further ensure energy efficiency in the EIR Study Area. These include reducing energy use through energy-conserving design and practices, promoting carbon-free energy sources, encouraging incorporation of sustainable, energy- efficient, and environmentally regenerative features, increasing mode shares for sustainable travel, reducing single-occupant vehicle usage, monitoring mode split progress on reducing VMT, and improving the pedestrian and cyclist experience through Master Plan updates, improvements in comfort, safety, and connectivity of the network, and increased awareness of amenities. Because transportation is a leading source of energy use in Hollister, these new and modified goals, policies, and actions promote energy conservation from the transportation sector by increasing safe and sufficient transit, bicycle, and

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-13
pedestrian facilities to reduce automobile use and VMT that would not be realized to the same level under Alternative A.

Less development would occur under the Alternative A scenario, so energy consumption from construction would be less when compared to the proposed project. Energy use from VMT would be less under Alternative A because there is less development potential when compared to the proposed project.

Because the standard of significance for energy impact is focused on efficiency and not on amount, it is assumed that the net benefits from more compact development, the new 2040 General Plan policies, and the proposed CAP would result in more efficient and less wasteful energy use when compared to Alternative A that would not realize these policies and increased density in urbanized area. Therefore, overall energy demand and consumption would be greater under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As described in Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils with implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-1.1, Location of Future Development, *Policy HS-1.2, Safety Considerations in Development Review, *Policy HS-3.2, Geotechnical and Geologic Review, and *Policy HS-3.3, Engineering Tests for Geologic Conditions.

Future development under both Alternative A and the proposed project would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations that address and prevent hazards associated with geology, soils, and seismicity. Both the current 2005 General Plan and proposed 2040 General Plan encourage development in urbanized settings where there is less likelihood for impacts from geologic hazards to occur. Although Alternative A would result in less overall development, compliance with existing regulations related to geologic and seismic safety would apply similarly to both future development under Alternative A and the proposed project.

While, as described above, state and local regulations to reduce hazards related to geology and soils would apply equally under both scenarios, there is less development potential under Alternative A and therefore less risk. Thus, Alternative A would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed project.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As described in Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The GHG emissions from new buildings constructed would be subject to the triennial updates to California’s Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which would presumably improve over time. While new buildings would be more energy efficient, there would be an overall increase in energy usage under the proposed project from construction due to the amount of proposed growth and construction energy use would be less under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-14 JULY 2024
As described in the air quality discussion, the total VMT per service population would be less under existing conditions than the proposed project. However, Alternative A would not include the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, or land use mix of the proposed project, which would concentrate development in existing urban areas and therefore could lessen the net benefit gained from siting future development near public transit and existing services. Therefore, Alternative A would not necessarily reduce trips for these reasons and would also increase trips from more development, which are the major source of GHG emissions. Alternative A would also not adopt the proposed CAP to ensure the City is on target to meet its GHG emissions reduction goals. As described in Chapter 4.8, GHG emissions are reduced at 2040 buildout from existing conditions. Therefore, GHG emissions from the operation of these uses would be considered greater when compared to the proposed project.

Additionally, the proposed project includes new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC) and Health and Safety (HS), and Circulation (C) Elements and the proposed CAP which require additional actions that would further ensure energy efficiency in the EIR Study Area which would reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Under Alternative A, the net benefits from the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions and the proposed CAP would not be realized through 2040 buildout.

In summary, overall impacts from GHG emissions under Alternative A would be greater when compared to the proposed project because while there is less development potential under Alternative A, the net benefits of new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and the proposed CAP that improve energy efficiency and reduce VMT would not be realized.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As described in Chapter 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

As discussed in Chapter 4.9, there are sites within the EIR Study Area that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Impact Discussion HAZ-4 of this Revised Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project could result in construction and operation activities on sites with known hazardous materials and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Additionally, both scenarios would routinely transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, the release of hazardous waste, or the emitting of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials in the proximity of an existing or proposed school. As further discussed in Chapter 4.9, the EIR Study Area is within an airport land use plan area.

Potential future development that could occur in the EIR Study Area from implementation of the proposed project or Alternative A would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials, and General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would further reduce impacts related to hazardous materials. Development that would occur under Alternative A would be required to comply with the same federal and state regulations and would be required to comply with policies in the current 2005 General Plan, which reduce impacts related to hazardous materials. The proposed project includes new goals, policies, and actions in the Health and Safety (HS) Element that protects the public’s health and safety, ensure compatible land uses with Hollister Municipal

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-15
Airport operations, and minimize potential damage to life, environment, and property through timely, well-prepared, and well-coordinated emergency preparedness response plans and programs. This includes working closely with appropriate agencies to ensure compatibility of land uses with airport facilities and operations and limiting building heights for airspace protection. Furthermore, the City is to pursue integration of the City’s safety and emergency management documents, prepare for and coordinate emergency management, participate in providing widely accessible emergency alerts, ensure resilient communication and power systems, and coordinate with other emergency management agencies on disaster preparedness and response procedures.

Because there is less development potential under Alterative A, the risk associated with hazards and hazardous materials is lesser. However, the net benefits from the new 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to protect the public’s health and safety, ensure compatible land uses with Hollister Municipal Airport operations, and minimize potential damage to life, environment, and property through timely, well-prepared, and well-coordinated emergency preparedness response plans and programs would not be realized throughout buildout. Therefore, Alternative A would have a greater impact when compared to the proposed project.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Compliance with existing state and local regulations and procedures would ensure that pre- and post-construction impacts to water quality would be less than significant. These regulations and procedures would be maintained under Alternative A.

Alternative A would result in less development overall, future development would likely occur within previously urbanized areas and would connect to existing drainage systems already in place and be subject to the same existing federal, state, and local regulations relating to hydrology and water quality, similar to the proposed project. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that pre- and post- construction impacts to water quality be minimized as future development occurs. However, the proposed project has updated and expanded the 2005 General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to hydrology and water quality to further minimize impacts. For example, new and modified 2040 General Plan policies and actions in the Community Services and Facilities (CSF) and Health and Safety (HS) Elements would require the City to manage water supply in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner, including ensuring that updates to the Urban Water Management Plant maximize water conservation and reuse, increasing the use of recycled water, implementing best practices, and educating the community about the challenges to the water supply system and need for responsible water management. The City is also to require all development that will utilize City water and wastewater services to be located within the City Limits and adopt citywide policies that encourage or require new and existing developments to incorporate measures to reduce potable water demand and/or increase water efficiency. Furthermore, the City is required to protect the community from flooding hazards by coordinating with the San Benito County Water District and other state agencies to maintain flood-control infrastructure, identify and correct areas of poor drainage, and identify areas with natural hazards that are unsuitable for development.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-16 JULY 2024
While Alternative A involves less development potential, would continue implementation of the 2005 General Plan, and would not implement the new and modified policies of the proposed 2040 General Plan to further minimize impacts related to hydrology and water quality, Alternative A would have greater impacts to hydrology and water quality when compared to the proposed project.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
As described in Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to land use and planning.

The current 2005 General Plan was adopted with the purpose of harmonizing changes to existing developed areas to better serve community needs. While the proposed project would aim to improve connectivity and would not create physical barriers within existing communities, Alternative A would also support the integration of infill development and does not propose physical features that could divide a community. Accordingly, impacts would be similar under both scenarios.

Under Alternative A, development would continue to occur throughout the EIR Study Area under the current 2005 General Plan and Zoning Code and would not conflict with these already approved standards. However, Alternative A would not implement new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and the updated land use mix to guide future development in a more sustainable and efficient manner consistent with AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS. Alternative A would also not adopt and implement the proposed CAP which further ensures consistency with the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS by ensuring the city is on a trajectory to meet its GHG reduction targets. Further, the proposed project includes forecasted housing projection that meets the City’s 2023–2031 RHNA to support the mandatory future Housing Element update. The proposed land use map, as shown in Figure 3-5, 2040 General Plan Land Use Map, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Revised Draft EIR includes enough land designated for housing to fulfill the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA as well as future buffer sites pursuant to SB 166 identified through the upcoming Housing Element update. Continuing the use of the current 2005 General Plan would conflict with the applicable land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and impacts would be greater when compared to the proposed project.

MINERAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.12, Mineral Resources, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to mineral resources.

The proposed project includes new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the Natural Resources and Conservation (NRC) and Open Space and Agricultural (OS) Elements which include new policies and actions that would further protect mineral resources in the EIR Study Area. For example, new Natural Resources and Conservation policies require the City to preserve regionally significant mineral resources, manage mineral resource extraction to ensure the fewest possible environmental impacts, establish guidelines for new or expanded mining operations, ensure compatible land use on lands containing important mineral resources, and reclaim former mining sites to adopt for alternative land uses. New Open Space and Agricultural action requires the City to work with San Benito County and

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-17
the City of San Juan Bautista to establish and maintain and Urban Growth Boundary to protect agricultural and open space land uses.

Although there would be no changes to the land use designations of the mining sites under Alternative A, the goals, policies, and actions of the proposed 2040 General Plan would not be adopted. Therefore, Alternative A would have greater impacts to mineral resources as compared to the proposed project.

NOISE
As described in Chapter 4.13, Noise, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to generation of noise in exceedance of standards, despite implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-8.1, *Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels, 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. This significant and unavoidable impact is only related to the programmatic nature of the proposed project that precludes the availability of mitigation measures at the project level.

Future development allowed under the proposed project would be subject to the standards of the HMC and current 2005 General Plan. As specific uses are proposed for particular sites, project-level design, permitting, and/or environmental review would serve to ensure that individual uses would comply with the noise regulations. Future development under Alternative A would also be subject to these applicable standards. Because less construction would occur, noise and vibration from construction would be fewer under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project.

The proposed project also includes new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the Health and Safety (HS) Element to further minimize the adverse effect from noise. For example, a new policy requires the City to pay attention to site planning and design techniques other than sounds walls to reduce noise impacts. New actions require the City to adopt noise and vibration thresholds and construction best management practices.

Alternative A would result in less development and as previously described in the air quality discussion, would generate fewer trips from vehicles than with the proposed project, which potentially generate more mobile sources of noise. Because construction is temporary, the increased noise impacts from the operational phase would result in fewer noise impacts under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
As described in Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to population and housing.

As described in Chapter 4.14, implementation of the proposed project would exceed current regional projections. However, the proposed project would include a slight increase in the projected growth of population and housing under the current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A). Further, the proposed

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-18 JULY 2024
project is the overriding policy document in the EIR Study Area, which has been updated to plan for population growth that is reasonably foreseeable through 2040.

Alternative A would not include the updated policy framework of the proposed project that ensures adequate planning occurs to accommodate the future population increase and future development to extended buildout year through 2040. Therefore, impacts under Alternative A would be greater when compared to those under the proposed project.

Although less than the proposed project, Alternative A would allow a net increase of residential and nonresidential uses in the EIR Study Area through 2040. Since implementation of Alternative A would result in a net increase in housing, like the proposed project, it would not require replacement housing outside the EIR Study Area. Therefore, impacts under Alternative A would be similar when compared to those of the proposed project.

In summary, while Alternative A would result in a different growth potential, impacts related to population and housing would be greater when compared to the proposed project as the current 2005 General Plan has not been updated to account for changes through 2040.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
As described in Chapter 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, of this Revised Draft EIR, impacts under the proposed project to fire protection services, police services, parks, schools, and libraries were found to be less than significant.

Alternative A would result in less residents and jobs in the EIR Study Area, and therefore, would result in less demand on the public service providers that serve the EIR Study Area. Potential future development under Alternative A would be required to comply with all existing City regulations adopted to ensure that development pays its fair share of the cost of delivering services, providing park space and libraries, while payment of property taxes would ensure that future development pays its fair share towards schools.

Overall, impacts under Alternative A would be fewer than those of the proposed project.

TRANSPORTATION
As described in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT generation of the proposed project exceeding the City’s draft thresholds, despite implementation of 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 Gee Program, and *Policy C-4.6, Transportation Demand Management Requirements.

This significant and unavoidable impact is only related to the programmatic nature of the proposed project that precludes the availability of mitigation measures at the project level.

The proposed project would focus potential future development in existing urban areas and the surrounding residential areas of the proposed SOI. As such, the VMT generated by potential future development would be lower than if development were proposed in areas not already served by public transportation and a network of sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The proposed project also includes new

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-19
2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions and the proposed CAP that expand upon existing 2005 General Plan to ensure the transportation system in the EIR Study Area is multi-modal and designed to increase bicycle and pedestrian access and safety. For example, new policies require the City to increase mode shares for sustainable travel to reduce GHG emissions, apply complete streets standards to future projects in the public rights-of-way, actively participate in planning for future rail service in Hollister, promote multimodal safety, create and maintain pedestrian- and bike-friendly environment through design and improvements to facilities, and implement transportation demand management requirements.

New actions require the City to adopt a citywide Complete Streets Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan and increase awareness of existing pedestrian and bicycle trails and routes.

Impacts related to hazards from design features, emergency access, and conflicting with adopted plans or decrease performance standards, were found to be less than significant under the proposed project.

Alternative A would be implemented under the current 2005 General Plan, which does not include the new mix of land uses that increase density to reduce VMT. Therefore, Alternative A would result in greater VMT impacts when compared to the proposed project.

Impacts to bicycles and pedestrians would be greater under Alternative A when compared to the proposed project since the proposed project’s improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would not be implemented.

Alternative A would not include the multi-modal circulation policies and actions that are included in the proposed project and more development would result in greater vehicle trips. Overall, transportation impacts in the EIR Study Area under Alternative A would be greater when compared to the proposed project.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As described in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Revised Draft EIR, impacts to sanitary wastewater, solid waste and stormwater infrastructure, and solid waste, under the proposed project, were found to be less than significant with the compliance of all applicable regulations.

Demand and consumption trends generally demonstrate that advances in recycling and solid waste reduction requirements, water-efficient regulations in building and landscaping, and stricter stormwater retention requirements, would reduce impacts from existing conditions. However, it is assumed that because Alternative A would result in less overall development than the proposed project, less overall water demand, and less wastewater and solid waste generation, impacts under Alternative A would be fewer than those of the proposed project.

WILDFIRE
As described in Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to wildfire.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-20 JULY 2024
Chapter 4.18 of this Revised Draft EIR determined that, due to compliance with applicable local, regional, and State regulations, the proposed project would not impair the implementation of an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Potential future development as a result of the proposed project would not be located in an area that would expose persons to wildfire or wildfire pollutants, nor would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. The proposed project would not result in the installation or maintenance of any infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the environment. Furthermore, the proposed project includes new goals, policies, and actions in the Health and Safety (HS) Element that minimize potential damage to life, environment, and property through timely, well-prepared, and well- coordinated emergency preparedness response plans and programs and maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland and urban fires. This includes ensuring traffic lights at major intersections continue to function in the event of localized power outage, maintaining all City-owned public lands to clear them of fuel loads and establish appropriately placed fire breaks, educating all property owners in the city on proper landscape maintenance and fire-scaping standards to reduce the risk of fire hazards, and trimming all public trees and other vegetation to clear them of any loose branches or debris that could serve as fuel in a fire event. Furthermore, the City would also require project-level development in the High Fire Hazard Zone or wildland-urban interface to occur in accordance with the Building Code and coordinate between Building and Fire Departments to ensure so.

Alternative A would continue implementation of the current 2005 General Plan, which focuses development in urbanized areas similar to the proposed project. The current 2005 General Plan also does not include any infrastructure-related projects and would not conflict with an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Because there is fewer development potential under Alterative A, the risk associated with wildfire is lesser However, the net benefits from the new 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to minimize potential damage to life, environment, and property through timely, well-prepared, and well-coordinated emergency preparedness response plans and programs and maintain adequate fire and life safety protection from wildland and urban fires would not be realized throughout buildout. Therefore, implementation of Alternative A would have greater impacts when compared to the proposed project.

5.4.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE OBJECTIVES Under Alternative A, the proposed project would not be implemented; therefore, this alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives.

5.5 ALTERNATIVE B: FOCUSED GROWTH

5.5.1 DESCRIPTION
Alternative B assumes the same amount of households, residential units, population, and jobs would occur as under the proposed project, but would allow for more dense housing in parcels within the Medium-Density Residential, High-Density Residential, Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential, and Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations and also increase the maximum floor-area

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-21
ratios (FAR)2 in the Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential and Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations when compared to the proposed project. In addition, Alternative B would maintain the currently adopted SOI thus encouraging more development and redevelopment in the City Limits and less growth on undeveloped land. As such the EIR Study Area referenced in this discussion includes the current City Limits and the existing SOI. Alternative B does not include expansion into the proposed SOI.

Alternative B would also adopt the proposed CAP and the proposed ALPP as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR.

As previously described, the purpose of this alternative is to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with agricultural resources (AG), air quality (AIR), noise (NOI), and transportation (TRAN).

As described in Chapter 4.2, Agricultural Resources, of the Revised Draft EIR, the conversion of lands designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, and lands under Williamson Act contracts to non-agricultural uses is a significant impact under CEQA. Accordingly, to reduce the potential for the conversion of agricultural lands, Alternative B would not propose to change the SOI as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, but instead would maintain the current Hollister SOI. The current SOI is roughly 1,817 acres or about 2.8 square miles. As shown on Figure 3-8, Existing and Proposed Sphere of Influence, in Chapter 3, the proposed SOI would extend further west, south, and east of the existing SOI but would remain contiguous with the existing SOI border to the north. On the west side, the proposed SOI would expand northward to Wright Road and westward to SR 156, reaching close to Union Road. The southern portion of the proposed SOI would expand past Union Road to Enterprise Road. The proposed SOI would also expand along Mansfield Road in the east and along SR 26 to Best Road in the southeast. As shown on Figure 4.2-1, Important Farmland and Williamson Act Contracts, in Chapter 4.2, there is land designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland in this area. Therefore, when compared to the proposed project, Alternative B would reduce the SOI where qualified farmland is located.

As described in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Revised Draft EIR, there is a direct relationship between potential new development and air pollutants, including GHG emissions and VMT. Accordingly, this alternative maintains the same amount of households, residential units, population, and jobs as under the proposed project, but would change the mix of uses in some General Plan land use designations to allow residential and commercial uses in close proximity. This would increase walking, bicycling, and transit opportunities thus reducing VMT. Alternative B would allow for more dense housing in parcels within the Medium-Density Residential, High-Density Residential, Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential, and Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations and increase the maximum floor-area ratios (FAR)3 in the Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential and Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations. By allowing increased intensities of development, Alternative B would accommodate the same amount of development as the proposed project, but in a smaller footprint.

2 FAR is a ratio of the building square footage permitted on a lot to the net square footage of the lot. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet of net land area, a FAR of 1.0 will allow 10,000 square feet of building floor area to be built. 3 FAR is a ratio of the building square footage permitted on a lot to the net square footage of the lot. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet of net land area, a FAR of 1.0 will allow 10,000 square feet of building floor area to be built.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-22 JULY 2024
The alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project and the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would apply to Alternative B.

5.5.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative B when compared to the proposed project are described herein.

AESTHETICS
As described in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to aesthetics.

Alternative B does not propose any changes that would result in substantial differences from the proposed growth potential of the proposed project. Potential future development would still be anticipated to occur in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas.

As discussed in Chapter 4.1, there are no officially designated scenic view corridors or vistas within the EIR Study Area. Therefore, overall impacts to scenic vistas would be the same under both scenarios.

Alternative B would benefit from the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions.

Alternative B would be required to comply with best management practices of CalGreen and the Hollister Zoning Ordinance that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels and reduce light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses. Therefore, impacts from light and glare under Alternative B would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, the same level of development with increased infill opportunities would be guided by the same regulations as the proposed project and would occur in the same development pattern and would result in similar aesthetics impacts when compared to the proposed project.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
As determined in Chapter 4.2, Agricultural Resources, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources despite implementation of 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.

Alternative B allows for more intense infill development potential, reducing the amount of the lands designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, and lands under Williamson Act contracts to be converted to non-agricultural uses. While the loss of any of these lands through the conversion to non-agricultural uses would result in a significant impact, because less qualifying agricultural lands could be converted, fewer overall impacts would occur under Alternative B when compared to the proposed project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-23

AIR QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts even with implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-3.6, Technical Assessments, *Policy NRC-3.14, Construction Health Risk Assessment, and *Policy NRC-

3.15, Operational Health Risk Assessment. This significant and unavoidable impact is only related to the programmatic nature of the proposed project that precludes the availability of mitigation measures at the project level.

As described in Chapter 4.3, implementation of the proposed project would conflict with the MBARD clean air plans (see Section 4.3.2.3, Regulatory Framework, in Chapter 4.3, for the complete list of clean air plans), exceed MBARD regional significance thresholds, and expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants during construction, but would not generate any substantial odors. At a program level, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction and operation of potential future development, as well as the cumulative contribution to the non-attainment designations of the NCCAB.

Alternative B would continue development as allowed under the proposed project but with increased infill opportunities, which could result in more redevelopment in the EIR Study Area. Development under both scenarios would be subject to the MBARD Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, and would be required to prepare a detailed air quality impact assessment on a project-by -project basis. Additionally, future development under both scenarios could result in construction activities in close proximity to residential and other sensitive land uses, thus, temporarily elevating concentrations of toxic air contaminants in the vicinity of sensitive land uses. Because the regulatory setting mitigating construction impacts is the same under both scenarios and the same development potential would occur under Alternative B, construction impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

Due to 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 at the program level. Under Alternative B, the same development would occur; therefore, the same direct and indirect criteria for air pollutant emissions from energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping equipment) would occur. Under both scenarios, subsequent environmental review of applicable development projects would be required to assess potential impacts under MBARD project-level thresholds. When combined with increased opportunities for infill development, Alternative B would realize a greater net benefit from siting future development near public transit and existing services.

Therefore, Alternative B would be more likely to reduce VMT when compared to the proposed project.

Additionally, the development under Alternative B would include the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to minimize air quality impacts. Air quality impacts from Alternative B would be considered less when compared to the proposed project.

Like the proposed project, Alternative B is not the type of project that would result in significant impacts from odor and impacts would be similar under both scenarios.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-24 JULY 2024
Overall, because Alternative B would result in more infill development and would be expected to decrease the number and length of driving trips, there would be fewer air quality impacts under Alternative B when compared to the proposed project.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to biological resources with implementation of 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, *Policy NRC-1.6, Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Areas, *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 Assessment, *Policy NRC-1.9, Surveys and Mitigation for Burrowing Owls, *Policy NRC-1.10, Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds, *Policy NRC-1.13, Wetland Preservation, and *Policy NRC-1.14, Wetlands Delineation.

Alternative B would result in the same level of growth as the proposed project but would be more compact and would potentially disturb less undeveloped land with the smaller SOI when compared to the proposed project. Under Alternative B, the same proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would apply. Therefore, while development would be more intensive in some land use designations under Alternative B, development would be concentrated in the same urban areas. Potential future development under Alternative B would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed project.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources with implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy LU-19.1, Historic Structure Preservation, Renovation, and Rehabilitation, *Policy LU-19.5, Historic Structure Alteration, *Policy NRC-2.3, Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Resources, *Policy NRC-2.4, Tribal Coordination During Project Construction, and *Policy NRC-2.5, Preconstruction Investigations.

Under Alternative B, new development would continue throughout the city under existing plans and regulations and would be guided by the proposed new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to further protect historic buildings. As explained in Chapter 4.5, there are existing prehistoric, architectural, historical, or archaeological resources in the EIR Study Area that could all be impacted by new demolition, inappropriate modification, or inappropriate new construction under the proposed project or Alternative B. Like the proposed project, Alternative B would be subject to the procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Public Resources Code and the California Code of Regulations. Alternative B would also include all new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions to further ensure the protection of historic resources. However, because the same development would occur under the Alternative B scenario, but in a more compact lay out that could reduce the potential to disturb unknown archaeological resources, the potential to impact these resources would be less when compared to the proposed project. Overall,

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-25
Alternative B would have fewer impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources when compared to the proposed project.

ENERGY
As described in Chapter 4.6, Energy, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to energy.

All development that occurs in the State is required to comply with best management practices regulated in the California Green Building Code and Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which ensure new development would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Additionally, neither the proposed project nor Alternative B would introduce a level of development and population growth that would be anticipated to necessitate the construction of new energy supply facilities or transmission infrastructure.

Additionally, Alternative B, like the proposed project, includes new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC) and Health and Safety (HS), and Circulation (C) Elements which require additional actions that would further ensure energy efficiency in the EIR Study Area. These include reducing energy use through energy-conserving design and practices, promoting carbon-free energy sources, encouraging incorporation of sustainable, energy-efficient, and environmentally regenerative features, increasing mode shares for sustainable travel, reducing single- occupant vehicle usage, monitoring mode split progress on reducing VMT, and improving the pedestrian and cyclist experience through Master Plan updates, improvements in comfort, safety, and connectivity of the network, and increased awareness of amenities. Because transportation is a leading source of energy use in Hollister, these new and modified goals, policies, and actions promote energy conservation from the transportation sector by increasing safe and sufficient transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to reduce automobile use and VMT.

The same amount of development would occur under the Alternative B scenario, so energy consumption from construction would be the same when compared to the proposed project. Energy use from VMT would be the less under Alternative B because the same level of development potential would occur when compared to the proposed project, but in a more compact and infill manner by intensifying development. Furthermore, under Alternative B, the net benefits from the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would be realized through 2040 buildout. Therefore, because the standard of significance for energy impact is focused on efficiency, it is assumed that the net benefits from more compact development, in addition to the new 2040 General Plan policies and the proposed CAP, would result in more efficient and less wasteful energy use when compared to proposed project and, the overall energy demand and consumption would be fewer when compared to the proposed project.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As described in Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils with implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-1.1, Location of Future Development, *Policy HS-1.2, Safety Considerations in

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-26 JULY 2024
Development Review, *Policy HS-3.2, Geotechnical and Geologic Review, and *Policy HS-3.3, Engineering Tests for Geologic Conditions.

Future development under both Alternative B and the proposed project would occur in the same urban areas and would be subject to the same federal, state, and local regulations that address and prevent hazards associated with geology, soils, and seismicity. Alternative B would result in the same overall development and compliance with existing regulations related to geologic and seismic safety would apply similarly to both future development under Alternative B and the proposed project.

Since, as described above, State and local regulations to reduce hazards related to geology and soils would apply equally under both scenarios and the same development potential under Alternative B with greater potential for infill development would be realized through 2040 buildout, impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As described in Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The GHG emissions from new buildings constructed would be subject to the triennial updates to California’s Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which would presumably improve over time. While new buildings would be more energy efficient, there would be an overall increase in energy usage under the proposed project from construction due to the amount of proposed growth. The proposed development potential is the same under both scenarios and energy from construction would be similar under Alterative B when compared to the proposed project, but would be less from operation due to more opportunities for infill development.

As described in the air quality discussion, the total VMT per service population would be less under existing conditions than the proposed project. Alternative B would include the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and would concentrate potential future development in existing urban areas and near public transit and existing services. However, Alternative B would allow for more infill development opportunities than the proposed project, reducing trips, which are the major source of GHG emissions. In addition, Alternative B would also adopt the proposed CAP to ensure the City is on target to meet its GHG emissions reduction goals. As described in Chapter 4.8, GHG emissions are reduced at 2040 buildout from existing conditions. Therefore, GHG emissions from the operation of these uses would be considered less when compared to the proposed project.

Additionally, as described in the energy discussion, the proposed project includes new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions in the Natural Resource and Conservation (NRC) and Health and Safety (HS), and Circulation (C) Elements which require additional actions that would further ensure energy efficiency in the EIR Study Area and would reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Under Alternative B, the net benefits from the new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would be realized through 2040 buildout, same as the proposed project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-27
In summary, overall impacts from GHG emissions under Alternative B would be fewer when compared to the proposed project because there is greater infill development opportunities under Alternative B and the net benefits of new and modified 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions that improve energy efficiency and reduce VMT would be realized.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As described in Chapter 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

As discussed in Chapter 4.9, there are sites within the EIR Study Area that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Impact Discussion HAZ-4 of this Revised Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project could result in construction and operation activities on sites with known hazardous materials and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Additionally, both scenarios would routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous waste, the release of hazardous waste, or the emitting of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials in the proximity of an existing or proposed school. As further discussed in Chapter 4.9, the EIR Study Area is within an airport land use plan area.

Potential future development that could occur in the EIR Study Area from implementation of the proposed project or Alternative B would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials, and General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would further reduce impacts related to hazardous materials. The regulatory setting, including the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would apply under both scenarios; therefore, impacts would be similar in this regard.

Overall, because there is the same amount of development potential under Alterative B although it has more opportunities for infill development with a mix of land uses, the risk associated with hazards and hazardous materials is the same. Therefore, Alternative B would have the same impact when compared to the proposed project.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As described in Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Compliance with existing State and local regulations and procedures would ensure that pre- and post-construction impacts to water quality would be less than significant. These regulations and procedures would be maintained under Alternative B.

Alternative B would result in the same amount of development overall, future development would likely occur within previously urbanized areas and would connect to existing drainage systems already in place and be subject to the same existing federal, state, and local regulations relating to hydrology and water quality, similar to the proposed project. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that pre- and post-construction impacts to water quality be minimized as future development occurs. Additionally,

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
5-28 JULY 2024
future development under Alternative B would be subject to the updated and expanded 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to hydrology and water quality to further minimize impacts.

Under Alternative B, the same amount of groundwater would be pumped to serve urban development within Hollister City Limits as under the proposed project. Therefore, net groundwater use would be similar to that of under the proposed project, and Alternative B would have similar impacts to hydrology and water quality when compared to the proposed project.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
As described in Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to land use and planning.

Like the proposed project, Alternative B would aim to improve connectivity and would not create physical barriers within existing communities. Implementation of Alternative B would result in a greater intensity of development, the integration of such development would be similar to that of the proposed project and does not propose physical features that could divide a community. Accordingly, impacts would be similar under both scenarios.

Under Alternative B, development would occur throughout the EIR Study Area under the proposed 2040 General Plan. Such development, but with greater infill opportunities, would be the same as under the proposed project and therefore implementation of either development scenario would not conflict with any applicable land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

MINERAL RESOURCES
As described in Chapter 4.12, Mineral Resources, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to mineral resources.

Under Alternative B, new development would be guided by the proposed new and modified 2040 General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and actions to protect mineral resources. This includes requiring the City to preserve regionally significant mineral resources, manage mineral resource extraction to ensure the fewest possible environmental impacts, establish guidelines for new or expanded mining operations, ensure compatible land use on lands containing important mineral resources, reclaim former mining sites to adopt for alternative land uses, and establish and maintain and Urban Growth Boundary to protect agricultural and open space land uses.

However, because the same development would occur under the Alternative B scenario, but in a more compact lay out that could reduce the potential to disturb mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites, the potential to impact these resources would be less when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, Alternative B would have fewer impacts to mineral resources when compared to the proposed project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-29
NOISE
As described in Chapter 4.13, Noise, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to generation of noise in exceedance of standards, despite implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-8.1, *Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels, 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. This significant and unavoidable impact is only related to the programmatic nature of the proposed project that precludes the availability of mitigation measures at the project level.

Future development allowed under the proposed project would be subject to the standards of the HMC as well as goals, policies, and actions proposed in 2040 General Plan. As specific uses are proposed for particular sites, project-level design, permitting, and/or environmental review would serve to ensure that individual uses would comply with the noise regulations. Future development under Alternative B would also be subject to these applicable standards. Impacts would be similar under both scenarios in this regard.

Alternative B would result in more intense development opportunities, but would not increase overall development potential, which would result in the same construction but less VMT. Because construction is temporary, the reduced VMT from Alterative B would result in less noise from the operational phase and fewer noise impacts under Alternative B when compared to the proposed project.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
As described in Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing, of this Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to population and housing.

As described in Chapter 4.14, implementation of the proposed project would exceed current regional projections. However, implementation of the proposed project was found to have a less-than-significant impact due to the focus on infill development, which is in alignment with the regional planning framework of the 2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS. Further, the proposed project is the overriding policy document in the EIR Study Area which plans for population growth that is reasonably foreseeable through 2040.

Alternative B would result in the same population and housing, and jobs as the proposed project; thus, the regional projections would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative B would include the updated policy framework of the proposed project, which ensures adequate planning occurs to accommodate the future population increase and future development. Therefore, impacts under Alternative B would be similar to those under the proposed project.

Alternative B would allow for same level of residential and nonresidential development in the EIR Study Area through 2040. Alternative B would result in the same level of housing as the proposed project and as such, would not require replacement housing outside the EIR Study Area. Therefore, impacts under Alternative B would be similar to those of the proposed project.