Hollister City Council
December 3, 2024

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.6-4 NOVEMBER 2022
 Solid Waste Regulations – AB 1327. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code Section 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects.

Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.  Solid Waste Regulations – AB 1826. In October of 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings with five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food- soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste.
 Water Efficiency Regulations – SBX7-7. The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 required urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.
 Water Efficiency Regulations – AB 1881. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or an equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.
 Short-Lived Climate Pollutants – SB 1383. On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and methane. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 required the state board, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies the state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants.

Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM REVISED DRAFT EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-5
fuel use.3 In-use on-road rules were expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020.

3 California Air Resources Board, 2017, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ shortlived/meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf, accessed June 12, 2024.

We Can Model Regional Emissions, But Are the
Results Meaningful for CEQA?

Authors: AEP Climate Change Committee (Michael Hendrix, Dave Mitchell, Haseeb Qureshi, Jennifer Reed, Brian Schuster, Nicole Vermilion, and Rich Walters)

On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.] (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S219783 (Friant Ranch), held that simply identifying that a project exceeds an emissions threshold is not sufficient to identify a project’s significant effect on the environment relative to the health effects of project emissions. The Court found that an EIR should make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s criteria pollutant emissions to likely health consequences, or explain why it is not currently feasible to provide such an analysis. In 2019, there were several CEQA documents that included health effects modeling to provide additional analysis for projects with criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed a significance threshold. While it is technically possible to conduct this modeling, we argue that this additional layer of quantitative analysis may not always provide decision-makers and the public with additional meaningful information. It is the air districts that are best suited to provide frameworks for how to identify health effects of regional criteria pollutant emissions under CEQA.

Introduction
Significance thresholds for regional criteria pollutants used by California air districts and lead agencies represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (AAQS). By analyzing the project’s emissions against these thresholds, the CEQA document assesses whether these emissions directly contribute to any regional or local exceedances of the applicable AAQS and exposure levels. The basis of the ruling in Friant Ranch was that the EIR did not provide a meaningful analysis of the adverse health effects that would be associated with the project’s criteria pollutant emissions, which were identified as being far above the relevant thresholds. The discussion of the adverse health effects in the EIR was general in nature and did not connect the levels of the pollutants that would be emitted by the project to adverse health effects.

The process of correlating project-related criteria pollutant emissions to health-based consequences is called a health impact assessment (HIA). An HIA involves two steps: 1) running a regional photochemical grid model (PGM) to estimate the small increases in concentrations of ozone and particulate matter (PM) in the region as a result of a project’s emissions of criteria and precursor pollutants; and 2) running the U.S. EPA Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) to estimate the resulting health impacts from these increases in concentrations of ozone and PM.

Limitations of Regional-Scale Dispersion Models
It is technically feasible to conduct regional-scale criteria pollutant modeling for a development project.

Particulate matter (PM) can be divided into two categories: directly emitted PM and secondary PM.

Secondary PM, is formed via complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere between precursor chemicals such as sulfur oxides (SOx) and NOx, Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant formed from the oxidation of reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. Rates of ozone formation are a function of a variety of complex physical factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns.. Secondary formation of PM and ozone can occur far from the original emissions source from regional transport due to wind and topography (e.g. low-level jet stream). As such, modeling concentrations of secondary PM and ozone require photochemical grid models (PGMs), such as CMAQ and CAMx. These models have a much larger “grid” system and much lower resolution than localized dispersion modeling (e.g., AERMOD). For example, common grid cells in PGMs are 4x4 kilometers, while AERMOD can identify concentrations at the meter-level.

[Date] | Page 2

Photochemical modeling also depends on all emission sources in the entire domain. Low resolution and spatial averaging produces “noise” and model uncertainty that can exceed a project’s specific emissions.

Additionally, regional-scale models are highly contingent upon background concentrations. Factors such as meteorology and topography greatly affect the certainty levels of predicted concentrations at receptor points. As a result, there are statistical ranges of uncertainty through all the modeling steps. Due to these factors, it is difficult to predict ground-level secondary PM and ozone concentrations associated with relatively small emission sources with a high degree of certainty. While it is possible to use a regional-scale model to predict these regional concentrations, when a project’s emissions are less than the regional model’s resolution, the resultant ambient air quality concentrations will be within the margin of uncertainty. In CEQA terms, this would fit the definition of “speculative”. Only when the scale of emissions would result in changes in ambient air quality beyond the model margin of uncertainty would the results not be “speculative” as defined by CEQA.

Identifying Health Effects due to Ambient Air Quality Changes BenMap is a model developed by the USEPA to understand the health effects from changes in ozone and PM concentrations. If there is an acceptable level of confidence that the results provided by the regional dispersion modeling are valid, then these concentrations can be translated into health outcomes using BenMap. The health outcomes in BenMap are based on changes in ambient air concentrations and the population exposed to these changes. Data provided by this analysis may indicate increased number of workdays lost to illness, hospital admissions (respiratory), emergency room visits (asthma), or mortality, among other health effects. These are called “health incidences.” Translating the incremental increase in PM and ozone concentrations to specific health effects is also subject to uncertainty. For example, regional models assign the same toxicity to PM regardless of the source of PM (such as road dust as exhaust), and thus potentially overpredict adverse health effects of PM. BenMap also assumes that health effects can occur at any concentration, including small incremental concentrations, and assumes that impacts seen at large concentration differences can be linearly scaled down to small increases in concentration, with no consideration of potential thresholds below which health impacts may not occur.

Additionally, BenMap is used for assessing impacts over large areas and populations and was not intended to be used for individual projects. For health incidences, the number of hospitalizations or increase in morbidity predicted by BenMap is greatly affected by the population characteristics.1 Small increases in emissions in an area with a high population have a much greater affect than large increases in emissions over an area with a small population. As a result, the same amount of emissions generated in an urban area could result in greater health consequences than if the same emissions occurred on the urban periphery, where fewer people may be affected. This will also depend on other factors including meteorology and photochemistry, as discussed above. Emissions in areas with conditions that favor high air dispersion or unfavorable ozone formation will likely have relatively lower effects on ambient air quality and health outcomes.

While BenMap provides additional statistical information about health consequences requested by the Court in the Friant Ranch decision, this information is only meaningful when presented with the full health context of the region or locality at hand. For example, if the BenMap analysis says that the project would result in two additional hospital admissions, this result alone is not useful unless one identifies how many hospital admissions are caused by poor air quality now (without the project) and how many hospital admissions occur

1 BenMap assigns prevalence rate for asthma and other health effects based on indicators such as gender, race, age, ethnicity, etc. The BenMap user manual specifically states that there are a wide range of variables that can be included in the health effect function. The health effect function was developed based on epidemiological studies, and specifically states that “there are a number of issues that arise when deriving and choosing between health effect functions that go well beyond this user manual. Hence, it is important to have a trained health researcher assist in developing the impact function data file.”

[Date] | Page 3

overall (due to air quality and other causes). Because health is not solely influenced by ambient air quality, and has many factors that are highly variable across geographies and populations, there is an added level of uncertainty in using a generalized identification of health effects due to air quality conditions overlaid onto a specific diverse set of health conditions and other factors. Regardless of the uncertainty levels, if regional health effects are identified for a project, then the CEQA analysis needs to provide a full health baseline for decision-makers and the public to be able to understand the marginal change due to project criteria pollutant emissions. Given the margin of uncertainty at each step in the process (regional scale modeling, existing ambient air quality effects on health, population health conditions vulnerability, and marginal health effects of air pollution), the identification of marginal health effects due to individual projects using regional air quality modelling and tools such as BenMap are likely to be within the level of uncertainty and thus defined as “speculative” per CEQA.

The Role of Air Districts
Regional, community, multiscale air quality modeling conducted by the air districts for each individual air basin or locality within the air basin would be the most appropriate indictor of health effects for projects.

The AQMPs provide a forecast of regional emissions based on regional dispersion modeling for all sources within the air basin. Regional-scale models attempt to account for all emissions sources within an air basin.

The regional scale model requires inputs such as existing and future regional sources of pollutants and global meteorological data, which are generally not accessible by CEQA practitioners. Modeling of future years should consider future concentrations of air pollutants based on regional growth projections and existing programs, rules, and regulations adopted by Federal, State, and local air districts. In general, air pollution in California is decreasing as a result of Federal and State laws. Based on the air quality management plans (AQMPs) required for air districts in a nonattainment area, air quality in the air basins are anticipated to improve despite an increase in population and employment growth. Air districts are charged with assessing programs, rules, and regulations so that the increase in population and employment does not conflict with the mandate to achieve the AAQS. Because emissions forecasting and health outcomes based on the regional growth projections to achieve the AAQS is under the purview of the air districts, it should also fall on the air districts to identify the potential health outcomes associated with individual project’s criteria pollutant emissions.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD) are exploring concepts for project-level analysis in light of Friant Ranch to assist local lead agencies. » South Coast AQMD is looking at the largest land use development project they have had in the air basin and doing a sensitivity analysis (using CAMx for photochemical grid modeling and BenMap for health outcomes) to see how locating a very large project in different parts of the air basin (Los Angeles, Inland Empire, v. Orange County) would affect the health incidence. » Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD is also looking at a screening process. Rather than looking at the upper end (i.e., largest project in the air basin), Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD is starting at the smallest project that exceeds the regional significance threshold and running CAMx and BenMap at different locations in the air basin to see how it affects regional health incidences.

Guidance from Air Districts would be the most effective way to incorporate meaningful information concerning regional health effects of project criteria pollutants in CEQA analyses, including guidance as to when modelling is and is not useful and meaningful, how modelling should be conducted, and how to best present additional information to inform decision-makers and the public about a project’s impacts.

[Date] | Page 4

So…until air districts do their part, what should we do?

PROJECTS WITH CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS BELOW AIR DISTRICT THRESHOLDS The Friant Ranch ruling was about providing disclosure of health effects of project emissions that were well over the significance thresholds. Since the air district thresholds are tied to a level the air districts find to not have a significant effect on ambient air quality, there should be no need to discuss the health effects of criteria pollutant emissions that are less than the significance thresholds.

PROJECTS WITH CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ABOVE AIR DISTRICT THRESHOLDS Pursuant to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, the environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. For CEQA, the health effects associated with buildout of a project would occur at the project’s horizon year. Because CEQA requires an analysis of the change from existing conditions, the change in effects would be associated with changes in ambient air quality and associated health outcomes between existing conditions and the project’s horizon year. Therefore, in order to show how a project affects health outcomes in an air basin, the CEQA documents will need to qualitatively or quantitatively address: (1) existing ambient criteria pollutant concentrations, health incidences due to existing air quality, and health incidences overall; 2) future (without project) ambient criteria pollutant concentrations and health incidences, and 3) future (with project) ambient criteria pollutant concentrations and health incidences.

Projects with significant criteria pollutant emissions could use regional modelling and BenMap to identify health effects of project emissions, but it is likely that many (or most) projects that are not regionally substantial in scale will be shown to have minimal regional changes in PM and ozone concentrations and therefore minimal changes in associated health effects. In addition, many projects may have emissions that are less than the uncertainty level of regional air quality models and BenMap health effects modeling; in these cases, quantitative results will not be meaningful. Thus, absent better direction from air districts, CEQA lead agencies will have to determine on a case by case basis whether a qualitative discussion of health effects will suffice, or whether regional modeling, despite its limitations, should be conducted for the project.

Where a project has substantial criteria pollutant emissions when considered on a regional scale, and there is reason to believe that the modeling of ambient air quality and regional health effects would produce non- speculative results when considering modeling uncertainties, then CEQA lead agencies should use regional modelling.

Conclusion
The purpose of CEQA is to inform the public as to the potential for a project to result in one or more significant adverse effects on the environment (including health effects). A CEQA document must provide an understandable and clear environmental analysis and provide an adequate basis for decision making and public disclosure. Regional dispersion modeling of criteria pollutants and secondary pollutants like PM and ozone can provide additional information, but that information may be within the margin of modelling uncertainty and/or may not be meaningful for the public and decision-makers unless a full health context is presented in the CEQA document. Simply providing health outcomes based on use of a regional-scale model and BenMap may not satisfy the goal to provide decision-makers and the public with information that would assist in weighting the environmental consequences of a project. A CEQA document must provide an analysis that is understandable for decision making and public disclosure. Regional scale modeling may provide a technical method for this type of analysis, but it does not necessarily provide a meaningful way to connect the magnitude of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions to health effects without speculation.

[Date] | Page 5

In order to accurately connect the dots, we urge California air districts to provide more guidance on how to identify and describe the health effects of exceeding regional criteria pollutant thresholds. The air districts are the primary agency responsible for ensuring that the air basins attain the AAQS and ensure the health and welfare of its residents relative to air quality. Because emissions forecasting and health outcomes are based on the regional growth projections to achieve the AAQS is under the purview of the air districts, it should fall on the air districts to identify the potential health outcomes associated with exceeding the CEQA thresholds for projects. The air districts should provide lead agencies with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analytical approach to correlate specific health effects that may result from a project’s criteria pollutant emissions.

Glossary
AAQS – Ambient Air Quality Standards
BenMap – Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
CAMx – Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions
CMAQ – Community Multiscale Air Quality
NOx – Nitrogen Oxides
PM – Particulate Matter
SOx – Sulfur Oxides
State – California
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX C :

B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES D ATA

........................................................................................................................

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-1

5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes the existing biological resources in the General Plan Planning Area.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Biological resources within the General Plan Planning Area are subject to agency jurisdiction and regulations, as described below.

FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS

5.1.1.1 Endangered Species Act
The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species.

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA. ESA defines “take” as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines the term “harass” as an intentional or negligent act that creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR§17.3). Furthermore, federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines “harm” as an act that either kills or injures a listed species. By definition, “harm” includes habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR217.12).

Section10(a) of the ESA establishes a process for obtaining an incidental take permit that authorizes nonfederal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish. Incidental take is defined by ESA as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of another wise lawful activity.” Preparation of a habitat conservation plan, generally referred to as a HCP, is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) have joint authority under the ESA for administering the incidental take program. NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all other fish and wildlife species.

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required to minimize impacts to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance of permits or funding. Section 7 requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on critical habitat (ESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the proposed activity would result in jeopardy to any federally-listed species or will adversely modify designated critical habitat, and identifies measures necessary to avoid or minimize effec ts to listed species.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-2 SEPTEMBER 2020
Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, Section 9 of the ESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting the malicious destruction on federal land and other “take” that violates State law. Protection for plants not occurring on federal lands is provided by the California Endangered Species Act.

5.1.1.2 Clean Water Act
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. These waters, and their lateral limit, are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) and include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a non-tidal stream are measured at the line of the Ordinary High Water Mark (33 CFR Part 328.3[e]) or the limit of adjacent wetlands (33 CFR Part 328.3[b]).

Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the U.S., whether natural or man-made, results in a similar extension of Corps jurisdiction (33 CFR Part 328.5).

Waters of the U.S. fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses generally lacking plant cover such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries. Wetlands are aquatic habitats that support hydrophytic wetland plants and include marshes, wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the U.S.

Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrologic connection to a navigable water of the U.S. are not tributary to waters of the U.S. These are termed “isolated wetlands”. Isolated wetlands are jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR Part 328.3[a]). The Corps may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands depending on the specific circumstances.

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule issued on April 21, 2020 identifies four categories of waters that are considered “waters of the United States” by the Corps. These include territorial seas and traditional navigable waters, tributaries with perennial and intermittent flows, lakes and other impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and adjacent wetlands. The rule also outlines features that are not considered “waters of the United States” and are not under federal jurisdiction. These include ephemeral drainages, groundwater, artificial lakes and ponds, waste treatment systems, prior converted cropland, and other features. 1
In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps before grading or placing fill into wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Prior to issuing the permit, the Corps is required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA if the project may affect federally listed species.

1 US Environmental Protection Agency, 2020, Navigable Waters Protection Rule, Final Rule: The Navigable Waters Protection Rule, available online at https://www.epa.gov/nwpr/final-rule-navigable-waters-protection-rule , accessed March 24, 2020.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-3
All Corps permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act as administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Project proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the U.S. must apply for water quality certification from the RWQCB. The RWQCB has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or other jurisdictional area.

5.1.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act. In December 2017, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a memorandum reversing the incidental take interpretation of the MBTA. Under the latest determination of the DOI, the take of a migratory bird or its active nest (i.e., with eggs or young) that is incidental to a lawful activity does not violate the MBTA. However, this opinion from the DOI is only the latest interpretation from the current Administration of the MBTA.

5.1.1.4 California Endangered Species Act
The CDFW has jurisdiction over State-listed endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). CESA is similar to the federal ESA both in process and substance; it is intended to provide additional protection to threatened and endangered species in California. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both acts (in which case the provisions of both State and federal laws apply) or under only one act. A candidate species is one that the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to the State list. Candidate species are protected by the provisions of CESA.

5.1.1.5 California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of CEQA, a species not included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria” for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and be considered a “de facto” rare or endangered species.

5.1.1.6 California Fish and Game Code
The CDFW is also responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code, which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. For example, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code governs the issuance of Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements by the CDFW. Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially divert or obstruct

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-4 SEPTEMBER 2020
the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stre am, or lake designated as such by the CDFW.

The Fish and Game Code also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which may not be taken or possessed at any time. The CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research, habitat restoration/species recovery actions, or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code, while Protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42.

Several provisions in the California Fish and Game code provide for the protection of birds and bird nests in active use. Unless the Fish and Game Code (FGC) or its implementing regulations provide otherwise, under California law it is unlawful to:
 Take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian (FGC Section 2000).  Take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird (FGC Section 3503).  Take, possess, or destroy any bird of prey in the orders Strigiformes (owls) and Falconiformes (such as falcons, hawks and eagles) or the nests or eggs of such bird (FGC Section 3503.5).  Take or possess any of the thirteen fully protected bird species listed in FGC Section 3511.  Take any non-game bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California that is not a game bird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird) (FGC Section 3800).  Take or possess any migratory non-game bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such bird, except as provided by rules or regulations adopted by the DOI under the MBTA (FGC Section 3513).
 Take, import, export, possess, purchase, or sell any bird (or products of a bird), listed as an endangered or threatened species under the CESA unless the person or entity possesses an Incidental Take Permit or equivalent authorization from CDFW (FGC Section 2050 et seq.).

Non-native species, including European starling, house sparrow, and rock pigeon, are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code.

5.1.1.7 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under this Act (California Water Code Sections 13000–14920), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State’s waters. The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands, as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by the Corps. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it still requires review and approval by the RWQCB.

When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the “beneficial uses” associated with waters of the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements (WDRs) into projects that will require discharge into waters of the State. For most construction projects, the RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs).

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-5

5.1.1.8 Other Statutes, Codes, and Policies Affording Species Protection The CDFW maintains an administrative list of Species of Special Concern (SSC), defined as a “species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:
 Is extirpated from the State, or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role.  Is listed as federally, but not State-, threatened or endangered.  Meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed.  Is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status.
 Has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s) that, if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status.” The CDFW’s Nongame Wildlife Program is responsible for producing and updating SSC publications for mammals, birds, and reptiles and amphibians. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines clearly indicates that SSC should be included in an analysis of project impacts if they can be shown to meet the criteria of sensitivity outline therein. In contrast to species listed under the federal ESA or CESA, however, SSC have no formal legal status.

The CNPS is a non-profit conservation organization dedicated to the preservation of native flora in California. The CNPS has been involved in assembling, evaluating, and distributing information on special- status plant species in the state, as listed in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.

CNPS has recently updated their rating system for the rarity of special-status plants, and now include both a California Rare Plant Rank and a Threat Rank. CEQA requires government agencies to consider environmental impacts of discretionary projects and to avoid or mitigate them where possible. Under Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for both State-listed species and for any other species which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. The CDFW recognizes that special-status plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1A (Presumed extinct in California), 1B (Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), and 2 (Rare and endangered in California, but are more common elsewhere) in the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that, in a majority of cases, would qualify for listing and these species should be addressed under CEQA review. In addition, the CDFW recommends, and local governments may require, protection of species which are regionally significant, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations, essential nesting and roosting habitat for more common wildlife species, or plants with a CNPS California Rare Plant Rank of 3 (Plant species for which additional data is needed – a review list) and 4 (Plant species of limited distribution - a watch list).

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-6 SEPTEMBER 2020

LOCAL REGULATIONS

5.1.2.1 County of San Benito General Plan
The San Benito 2035 General Plan provides a template for land use, development, and environmental quality in unincorporated areas of San Benito County. The Natural and Cultural Resources Element defines policies for management and conservation of open space, wildlife habitat, mineral, water and other resources in San Benito County. Relevant goals from the Natural and Cultural Resources Element include the following:
 Goal NCR-1: To preserve and enhance valuable open space lands that provide wildlife habitat and conserve natural, historical, archaeological, paleontological, tribal, and visual resources of San Benito County.
 Goal NCR-2: To protect and enhance wildlife communities through a comprehensive approach that conserves, maintains, and restores important habitat areas.

5.1.2.2 2005 Hollister General Plan
The Natural Resources and Conservation Element of the 2005 Hollister General Plan contains goals, policies, and implementing measures related to biological and wetland resources. These are listed in Table 5-1 by Element.

TABLE 5-1 2005 GENERAL PLAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL No. GOAL
GOAL NRC1. Assure enhanced habitat for native plants and animals, and special protection for threatened or endangered species.

GOAL NRC3 Conserve and manage natural resources.

Policy No. Policy
NRC 1.1. Protection of Environmental Resources. Protect or enhance environmental resources, such as wetlands, creeks and drainageways, and habitat for threatened and endangered species.

NRC 1.2.

Protection of Endangered Species Habitat. Identify and protect the habitats of endangered species which may found within the Hollister Planning Area, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, through the review all development proposals for compliance with regulations established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game as they apply to the protection of endangered species and their habitats.

NRC 1.3.

Compensatory Habitat, Habitat Enhancement or Habitat Protection Require developers to assure the provision of compensatory habitat, habitat enhancement or habitat protection if impacts to sensitive species that could result from proposed development cannot be avoided.

NRC 1.4. Other Habitat Planning Measures. Utilize regional planning and the use of concepts such as mitigation banking to offset the cumulative effects of piecemeal development on the habitat of special status species.

NRC 1.5.

Wetlands Preservation. Maintain existing riparian areas in their natural state to provide for wildlife habitat, groundwater percolation, water quality, aesthetic relief and recreational uses that are environmentally compatible with wetland preservation. Require appropriate public and private wetlands preservation, restoration and/or rehabilitation through compensatory mitigation in the development process for unavoidable impacts. Support and promote acquisition from willing property owners, and require those development projects, which may result in the disturbance of delineated seasonal wetlands to be redesigned to avoid such disturbance.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-7
TABLE 5-1 2005 GENERAL PLAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES Policy No. Policy
NRC 1.6.

Enhancement of Creeks and Drainageways. Explore enhancement of, and support continuous upgrades to, drainageways to serve as wildlife habitat corridors for wildlife movement and to serve as flood control facilities to accommodate storm drainage and groundwater recharge. Require setbacks, creek enhancement and associated riparian habitat restoration/creation for projects adjacent to creeks to maintain storm flows, reduce erosion and maintenance and improve habitat values, where feasible.

Generally, all new structures and paved surfaces should be set back 100 feet from wetlands and creeks.

NRC 1.7.

Specialized Surveys for Special Status Species. Require specialized surveys for special status species for those projects that have been proposed in areas that contain suitable habitat for such species. All surveys should take place during appropriate seasons to determine nesting or breeding occurrences.

Implementation
Measures Measure
Implementation Measures - 2-Year Time Frame:

NRC.B
Explore regional planning opportunities to preserve habitats. Explore opportunities for regional planning and the use of concepts such as mitigation banking to offset the cumulative effects of piecemeal development on the habitat of special status species.

Implementation Measures - 3-Year Time Frame:

NRC.F Establish and update the list of species. Maintain a current list of threatened and endangered and special status species.

NRC.G
Establish mitigation for the burrowing owl colony in the Fairview Road/Santa Ana Road area. Require project applicants in the Fairview Road/Santa Ana Road area to develop and implement a mitigation plan to avoid or otherwise compensate for any disturbance to the burrowing owl colony in that area. This plan should be developed in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game.

Implementation Measures - On-going Time Frame:

NRC.K: Conduct surveys for burrowing owls. Require project applicants with proposed projects on grazing or fallow agricultural land to conduct a spring survey for the presence of burrowing owls.

NRC.U:

Require pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors. Require preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors, to be conducted by a qualified ornithologist, for those projects that would affect on-site oaks or orchards, or which would involve construction during the nesting season (March to July). Hollister shall allow no construction activities that would result in the disturbance of an active raptor nest (including tree removal) to proceed until after it has been determined by a qualified ornithologist that the nest has been abandoned.

NRC.V: Require project mitigation for habitat. Continue the City's practice of requiring mitigation for projects that would affect wetlands, in conjunction with recommendations of State and Federal agencies.

NRC.X:

Require wetlands delineation. Require a delineation of jurisdictional waters by a qualified biologist at the outset of the project planning stage of any proposed development that contains or is immediately adjacent to wetlands. This delineation shall be verified and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

NRC.Y:

Require wetlands replacement plans. Require those development projects that involve the unavoidable loss of riparian areas to replace any such loss onsite or in immediately adjacent off-site areas along the river/stream corridor, and require project sponsors to develop re-vegetation plans which offset losses of biotic values, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Source: City of Hollister, 2005 General Plan.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-8 SEPTEMBER 2020

5.1.2.3 Hollister Municipal Code
Chapter 12.24 of the City of Hollister Municipal Code outlines a Street Tree ordinance for trees along publicly maintained streets, paved or unpaved, for the purpose of vehicle travel. Section 12.24.050 states:
“No person shall plant, root-trim, cut, prune, trim, brace, spray, remove or replace any street tree without prior written authority therefore issued by the director.” There are no regulations regarding trees on private property.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
This assessment of the biological existing conditions within the General Plan Planning Area is based on available information on biological and wetland resources in the Hollister vicinity. This includes the 2005 City of Hollister General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR);2 San Benito County 2035 General Plan;3 environmental documents for recent development applications within the City of Hollister; a resource list of federally-listed species, critical habitat and other resources generated for the General Plan Planning Area as part of the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPac) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) for the General Plan Planning Area;4 the California Native Plant Species (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants;5 and available Geographic Information System (GIS) data. The GIS data was used to map the existing vegetative cover and associated wildlife habitats, the known distribution of special-status species and sensitive natural communities, and the known distribution of wetlands in the General Plan Planning Area. GIS data on vegetation cover was obtained from the National Land Cover Database mapping program by the Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center overseen by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). GIS data on special-status species was obtained from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Designated critical habitat for federally-listed special-status species was obtained from the USFWS. GIS data on wetlands was obtained from the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping program maintained by the USFWS. This data was used in preparing maps contained in this chapter, consisting of the following:
 Figure 5-1 shows the various vegetation cover types in the General Plan Planning Area vicinity according to the National Land Cover Database.
 Figure 5-2 shows the distribution of known occurrences of special-status plant species in the General Plan Planning Area vicinity as reported by the CNDDB.  Figure 5-3 shows the distribution of known occurrences of special-status animals reported by the CNDDB and designated critical habitat as mapped by the USFWS in the General Plan Planning Area vicinity.
 Figure 5-4 shows the extent of wetlands mapped as part of the NWI program.

2 City of Hollister, 2005, City of Hollister General Plan – Final Program EIR, October 2005. 3 San Benito County, 2015, San Benito County 2035 General Plan, July 21. 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020, IPac Resource List for Hollister General Plan 2040, May 21. 5 California Native Plant Society, 2020. Inventory of rare and endangered plants in California (online edition). Website:
www.cnps.org/inventory (accessed February 10, 2020).

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-9
Biological Resources within the General Plan Planning Area The following section provides a description of vegetation types and associated wildlife, known distribution of special-status species, and sensitive habitats.

5.2.1.1 Habitat Types
The Hollister General Plan Planning Area is characterized by the broad alluvial plains of the San Benito River and Santa Ana Creek, surrounded by rolling grassland covered hills to the east, south, and southwest. Beginning in the early 1880’s, the San Benito River Valley has been altered by grazing and agriculture, replacing the original riparian wetlands and grasslands. Scattered native riparian woodlands and scrub remain along segments of the San Benito River and Santa Ana Creek, and extensive grasslands occupy the surrounding hillside on the western slopes of Santa Ana Mountain and the northeast slopes Fremont Peak and the Gabilan mountain range.

Today, most of the SOI has been highly modified for agricultural and urban uses. Development on unincorporated land within the SOI and the Planning Area has increased rapidly since the adoption of the 2005 Hollister General Plan. This land, as discussed in greater detail in the sections below, contains sensitive habitats that could be home to special status plant and animal species. As the County of San Benito processes development applications within these areas, the County requires mitigation measures to protect the special status plant and animal species such as requiring site surveys, establishing development buffers, and avoiding construction during migration periods.

Figure 5-1 shows the extent of urbanization, agricultural crops, and remaining vegetative cover around the perimeter of the General Plan Planning Area, based on the National Land Cover Database of the USGS.

Estimates of various vegetation cover types within the General Plan Planning Area are summarized in Table 5-2, based on the National Land Cover Database. In general, each cover type differs in its relative value as wildlife habitat and can be characterized by both vegetative cover and associated animal species that are dependent on that habitat, although some wildlife species may utilize more than one habitat type. The characteristic plant and wildlife species typically associated with each of these habitat types is summarized below.

Urban Development/Ornamental Landscaping
Urban development, ornamental landscaping and barren areas occupy most of the valley floor in the General Plan Planning Area. As indicated in Table 5-2 and mapped in Figure 5-1, an estimated 3,789 acres, or roughly 58 percent, of the land cover types in the SOI are mapped as developed, with an additional 826 acres devoted to golf courses, parklands and other open space. Developed areas include structures, impervious surfaces, ornamental landscaping, with some locations supporting remnant native vegetation, such as specimen oaks. Most plant species used in landscaping are non-native ornamentals, consisting of a wide variety of tree, shrub, groundcover, and turf species. Native trees are scattered throughout the established residential neighborhoods and urbanized areas, including specimen coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), valley oaks (Q. lobata), and California buckeye (Aesculus californica). Larger ornamental and non-indigenous native species include: Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens),

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-10 SEPTEMBER 2020
Figure 5-1 Land Cover

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-11
Figure 5-2 Special Status Plant Species

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-12 SEPTEMBER 2020
Figure 5-3 Special-Status Animal Species and Critical Habitat

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-13
Figure 5-4 National Wetland Inventory

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-14 SEPTEMBER 2020
TABLE 5-2 ESTIMATES OF LAND COVER TYPES IN GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA Land Cover Type
SOI
(acres)
Planning Area
(acres)
Barren Land 1 21
Cultivated Crops 1,172 7,304
Hay Crops/Pasture 71 772
Developed - High Intensity 444 4943
Developed - Low Intensity 906 1,958
Developed - Medium Intensity 2,439 2,964
Developed - Open Space 826 2,456
Forest - Evergreen 0 9
Forest – Mixed 1 84
Grassland/Herbaceous 644 10,416
Scrub/Scrub 11 908
Open Water 22 92
Wetlands – Emergent Herbaceous 16 409
Woody Wetlands (Riparian Woodland and Scrub) 1 168
Urban/Barren 0 7,548
Total 6,554 28,054
Source: USGS, 2020.
incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), American elm (Ulmus americana), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), among many others.

Some non-native ornamental species are considered highly invasive because of their ability to spread and eventually dominate natural areas if unmanaged. Many of these are common in developed areas, along riparian corridors, and in hillside open space and remaining undeveloped private lands. These include:
silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), several species of broom (Genista monspessulana; G. juncea; and Cytisus scoparius), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster spp.), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), Germany ivy (Delairea odorata), English ivy (Hedera helix), giant reed (Arundo donax), Himalaya blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), periwinkle (Vinca major), and Tasmanian blue gum. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) has developed a comprehensive data base, the Invasive Plant Inventory,6 which ranks invasive species based on the threat they pose to natural habitat. All of the above species and others known to exist in the vicinity of Hollister are considered to have a high to moderate ranking by Cal-IPC because of their invasive properties and the threat they pose to natural areas.

In general, urbanized areas tend to have low to poor wildlife habitat values due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance.

The diversity of urban wildlife depends on the extent and type of landscaping and remaining open space, as well as the proximity to natural habitat. Trees and shrubs used for landscaping provide nest sites and

6 Cal-IPC, 2006, California Invasive Plant Inventory, electronic update in 2017.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-15
cover for wildlife adapted to developed areas. Typical native bird species include: mourning dove, scrub jay, northern mockingbird, American robin, northern flicker, California towhee, and American kestrel.

Introduced species include: rock dove, European starling, house finch, and house sparrow. Urban areas also provide habitat for several species of native mammals such as black-tailed deer, California ground squirrel, raccoon, gray fox, striped skunk, and coyote, as well as the introduced eastern fox squirrel and eastern red fox. Introduced pest species such as Norway rat, house mouse, and Virginia opossum are also abundant in developed areas.

Agricultural Croplands
As indicated in Table 5-2 an estimated 1,172 acres of the SOI and 7,304 acres of the Planning Area are occupied by cultivated crops and pastureland. Irrigated row crops occupy a majority of the agricultural lands in the Planning Area, comprised of monocultures of alfalfa, garlic, tomatoes, and sugar beets.

Orchard crops include English walnut, cherry and apricot tree plantings. Weedy species often grow between rows and along field margins and irrigation ditches. These include field knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), bull mallow (Malva nicaeensis), cheeseweed (M. parviflora), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspelliensis), and Farmer’s foxtail (Hordeum leporinum). The drainage ditches that are physically part of the agricultural fields and orchards support hydrophytic (i.e. water loving) plants, such as cattail (Typha spp.), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), and tall umbrella plant (Cyperus eragrostis). The upper banks of these ditches tend to be covered with non-native weedy species, and a few opportunistic native perennials such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia grandiflora), and fat hen (Atriplex patula).

The value of agricultural crops to wildlife depends on a number of factors, including intensity and frequency of maintenance activities, available cover, and proximity to surface water. Numerous species of small mammals and birds frequent many of the crop types, especially where field margins and drainage ditches provide retreat habitat. These include ring-necked pheasant, red-winged blackbird, California ground squirrel, Botta’s pocket gopher, and black-tailed jackrabbit. The abundant prey attracts predatory birds and mammals such as northern harrier, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, and western burrowing owl, and coyote.

Grasslands
Grasslands occupy most of the undeveloped hillsides to the east, south and southwest of the General Plan Planning Area outside the largely developed valley floor. The grasslands are generally composed of introduced grasses and broadleaf species. In locations where the ground surface has been disturbed, ruderal (weedy) species, which quickly recolonize disturbed areas, tend to dominate. As indicated in Table 5-2, an estimated 10,416 acres of the Planning Area supports grassland (herbaceous) cover. However, only 644 acres of grassland cover remain within the SOI that haven’t been converted to urban development, agricultural crops or pasture.

Intensive grazing and other disturbance factors have eliminated most of the native grasslands throughout California over the past 100 years, including the historic rangelands of the Hollister vicinity. Common species in the remaining grasslands today are dominated by non-native grasses and forbs such as wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus mollis), foxtail barley (Hordeum

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-16 SEPTEMBER 2020
leporinum), field mustard (Brassica campestris), wild radish (Rhaphanus sativus), field bindweed, cheeseweed, bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), and yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Native species include common perennials, such as California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), Douglas' lupine (Lupinus nanus), and soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum).

Remnant native grasslands may still occur in some locations of herbaceous cover, forming stands of needlegrass grassland. This natural community is characterized by several species of native grasses such as purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), California melic (Melica californica), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), and beardless wildrye (Elymus triticoides), together with common wildflowers such as California poppy, lupines, soap plant, and wild hyacinth (Dichelostemma pulchellum), and other native forbs. Most of the native grasslands throughout the state have been eliminated, which has led the CNDDB to now recognize native grasslands as a sensitive resource with a high inventory priority. The CNDDB typically considers grasslands containing 10 percent or greater cover by native grass species to represent a natural grassland community. This 10 percent threshold is a loosely applied standard that has been used by the state for many years. As most of the remaining native grassland communities have been highly modified by past and on-going disturbance, the remaining native grassland communities generally form a mosaic of different cover classes, sometimes interspersed with areas dominated by non-native species.

Nonnative and native grasslands support a variety of mammals, birds, and reptiles, and provide foraging habitat for raptors. Many species use the grassland for only part of their habitat requirements, foraging in the grassland and seeking cover in the limited tree and scrub cover. Grassland cover provides foraging, nesting, and denning opportunities for resident species such as western fence lizard, northern alligator lizard, gopher snake, western rattlesnake, western meadowlark, goldfinch, ring-necked pheasant, red- winged blackbird, California ground squirrel, California vole, Botta’s pocket gopher, and black-tailed jackrabbit. The rodent, bird, and reptile populations offer foraging opportunities for avian predators such as white-tailed kite, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, barn owl, and great horned owl, as well as mammalian predators such as striped skunk, grey fox, American badger, and coyote.

Forest and Woodlands
Forest and woodlands occupy an estimated 93 acres of the land cover types in the Planning Area, occurring in scattered stands along the San Benito River corridor and southern slopes above the river plain. Dominant tree species varies and includes coast live oak, valley oak, and California buckeye. Shrub species found in the forest and woodland habitats include: toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and California blackberry, among others. Understory cover varies depending on the amount of available sunlight and other factors. In areas with higher light levels, the understory consists of non-native grassland species, miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), bedstraw (Galium aparine) and other herbaceous species.

The forest and woodland cover provide nesting and foraging opportunities for numerous species of birds, including raptors. They also provide essential food resources for acorn woodpeckers, scrub jay, and other birds. Wildlife commonly associated with well-developed forest and woodland habitats include: dusky- footed woodrat, deer mouse, western flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, plain titmouse, Hutton vireo, orange-crowned kinglet, rufous-sided towhee, fox sparrow, bushtit, ringneck snake, Coast Range newt, and California slender salamander.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-17
Riparian Woodland and Scrub
Riparian vegetation occurs along San Benito River, segments of Santa Ana Creek, and some reaches of tributary drainages in the General Plan Planning Area. The riparian tree and shrub cover occupies an estimated 168 acres in the Planning Area as indicated in Table 5-2. Dominant cover includes willows (Salix spp.), black cottonwood, coast live oak and California buckeye, together with shrub and vine species such as mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and wild rose (Rosa californica).

Stands of highly invasive non-native species such as Himalaya blackberry, ivy, giant reed, periwinkle, and broom have become particularly problematic in some reaches of the San Benito River corridor in the General Plan Planning Area, outcompeting and replacing native shrub and groundcover species, and severely limiting wildlife habitat values. Well-developed stands of riparian woodland and scrub are considered a sensitive natural community type by the CNDDB.

While fragmented, riparian habitat supports a large number of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species, and tend to have high wildlife habitat values. Surface water along riparian corridors is available for aquatic- dependent organisms, and as a source of drinking water for terrestrial mammals and birds. The San Benito River and major creek channels serve as movement corridors for aquatic and terrestrial species which use the protective cover found along the creeks. Water diversion now limits the aquatic habitat value of the San Benito River through the General Plan Planning Area but reaches with perennial flows continue to support native fish such as roach, minnow, and sucker. Wildlife dependent on the cover provided by the riparian woodland and scrub include black-tailed deer, black-tailed jackrabbit, brush rabbit, red and grey fox, rufous-sided towhee, scrub jay, flycatchers, and warblers. Mammals and birds typically found in the remaining adjacent grasslands most likely use areas of dense riparian growth as protective cover and refuge from summer heat and drought.

Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh habitat is also associated with the San Benito River and tributary drainage channels, ponds and other waterbodies, mapped as emergent herbaceous wetlands in Figure 5-1. Marshlands are typically dominated by emergent monocots such as cattail, but as salinity levels increase brackish hydrophytes tend to dominate, including bulrush and saltgrass. Seasonal wetlands found in open fields and margins or drainages also support wetland indicator species characteristic of poorly developed freshwater marsh habitat such as curly dock (Rumex crispus), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), and wild celery (Apium graveolens). Segments of the larger creeks in the General Plan Planning Area that do not support a canopy of woody riparian vegetation generally support some type of freshwater marsh cover along the margins of the active channel. Freshwater marsh species also dominate the ground cover at freshwater seeps and springs in the General Plan Planning Area.

Freshwater aquatic habitats and the associated marsh vegetation are of high value to wildlife, providing a source of drinking water, protective cover, nesting substrate, and serving as movement corridors. Species found in freshwater marsh habitats include Wilson’s snipe, marsh wren, and red-winged blackbird, among others. Channels supporting marsh vegetation within the General Plan Planning Area provide foraging habitat for egrets and great blue herons, as well as mammalian predators such as northern river otter, muskrat, raccoon, striped skunk, and coyote. Aquatic species found in freshwater ponds and waterbodies include: Pacific chorus frog, western toad, western pond turtle, western mosquito fish, green sunfish, blue gill, and largemouth bass.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-18 SEPTEMBER 2020
Scrub Cover Types
A number of native and non-native vegetative cover types occur along the margins or just outside the General Plan Planning Area, such as mixed chaparral and coastal scrub. Areas of chaparral and scrub are dominated by woody shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum), toyon, chamise (Adonostoma fasciculatum), poison oak, manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), (Ceanothus sp.), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica).

Coyote brush, mule fat and other indicator species of scrub cover occupy an estimated 11 acres within the SOI and 908 acres of the Planning Area, as indicated in Table 5-2.

Chaparral and scrub cover provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife adapted to shrub-dominated communities. Numerous rodent species inhabit chaparral, and deer and other herbivores make extensive use of it for browse and protective cover. Some small herbivores use chaparral species in fall and winter when grasses are not abundant. Brush rabbits eat twigs, evergreen leaves, and bark from chaparral plants.

Shrubs are important to many other mammals such as bobcat and gray fox as shade during hot weather.

Reptiles frequently observed in chaparral include western rattle snake, western fence lizard, alligator lizard, and gopher snake. Representative bird species include: California quail, common poorwill, Anna’s hummingbird, western scrub-jay, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, California thrasher, rufous-crowned sparrow, and sage sparrow.

5.2.1.2 Special-Status Species
This section outlines special-status species and sensitive habitats within the General Plan Planning Area.

Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or federal Endangered Species Acts or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat (see Regulatory Setting discussion above). Species with legal protection under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts often represent major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide-ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a “take” of these species.7
The primary information source on the distribution of special-status species in California is the CNDDB inventory, which is maintained by the Biogeographic Data Branch of the CDFW. The CNDDB inventory provides the most comprehensive statewide information on the location and distribution of special-status species and sensitive natural communities. Occurrence data is obtained from a variety of scientific, academic, and professional organizations, private consulting firms, and knowledgeable individuals, and entered into the inventory as expeditiously as possible. The occurrence of a species of concern in a particular region is an indication that an additional population may occur at another location if habitat

7“Take” as defined by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, would, kill, trap, capture, or collect” a threatened or endangered species. “Harm” is further defined by the USFWS to include the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e. breeding, feeding, or sheltering) through significant habitat modifications or degradation. The CDFW also considers the loss of listed species habitat as “take”, although this policy lacks statutory authority and case law support under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-19
conditions are suitable. However, the absence of an occurrence in a particular location does not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the area in question; only that no data has been entered into the CNDDB inventory. Detailed field surveys are generally required to provide a conclusive determination on presence or absence of sensitive resources from a particular location, where there is evidence of potential occurrence.

For the purposes of this background report, special-status species are defined as follows:
 Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
 Plant species with a Rank of 1A, 1B and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.  Animal species designated as “Species of Special Concern” or “Fully Protected” by the CDFW.  Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines; or
 Species considered to be a taxon of special concern by the relevant local agencies.

Special-Status Plants
Review of the CNDDB, IPac resource list, and CNPS occurrence records indicate a total of 23 special-status plant species that have been reported from or in the vicinity of the General Plan Planning Area. These special- status plant species are listed in Table 5-3, together with information on their status, description of typical habitat characteristics, and normal flowering season. Of these 23 species, a total of nine have actually been reported by the CNDDB in or near the General Plan Planning Area, as indicated in Figure 5-2.

These consist of San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana),Hairless popcorn flower (plagiobothrys glaber), Alkali milk-vetch (astragalus tener), saline clover (trifolium hydrophilum), Pinnacles buckwheat (Eriogonum nortonii), western Heermann’s buckwheat (Eriogonum heermannii var. occidentale), Indian valley bush-mallow (malacothamnus aborignum), Pajaro manzanita (Arctostaphylos pajaroensis), and Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-20 SEPTEMBER 2020
TABLE 5-3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED FROM THE PLANNING AREA Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
State
Status
CNPS Rare
Plant Rank Habitat
Plants
Arctostaphylos gabilanensis Gabilan Mountains
manzanita — — 1B.2 Granitic substrate in chaparral and cismontane woodland. Elev: 984–2,297 feet (300–700 m).

Blooms: January.

Arctostaphylos pajaroensis Pajaro manzanita — — 1B.1 Sandy soils in chaparral. Elev: 98–2,493 feet (30–760 m). Blooms: December–March.

Arenaria paludicola Marsh sandwort FE SE 1B.1 Sandy openings in freshwater or brackish marshes and swamps. Elev: 10–558 feet (3–170 m).

Blooms: May–August.

Astragalus tener var. tener Alkali milk-vetch — — 1B.2 Alkaline soils. Playas, valley & foothill grassland (adobe clay), and vernal pools. Elev: 3–197 feet (1–60 m). Blooms: March–June.

Atriplex joaquiniana San Joaquin spearscale — — 1B.2 Alkaline chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elev: 3– 2,739 feet (1–835 m). Blooms: April–October.

California macrophylla Round-leaved filaree — — 1B.1 Clay soils in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grasslands. Elev: 49 – 3,937 feet (15– 1,200 m). Blooms: March–May.

Castilleja rubicundula var.
rubicundula
Pink creamsacs — — 1B.1 Serpentinite soils of chaparral opening, cismontane woodlands, meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elev: 66–2,986 feet (20–910 m). Blooms: April–June.

Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant — — 1B.1 Alkaline valley and foothill grasslands. Elev: 0–755 feet (0–230 m). Blooms: May–November.

Chorizanthe biloba var.
immemora
Hernandez spineflower — — 1B.2 Chaparral and cismontane woodland. Elev: 1,969–2,625 feet (600–800 m). Blooms: May– September.

Chorizanthe pungens var.
pungens
Monterey spineflower FT — 1B.2 Sandy soils in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley/foothill grasslands. Elev: 10–1,476 feet (3–450 m). Blooms: April–August.

Eriogonum heermannii var.
occidentale
Western Heermann's
buckwheat — — 1B.2
Often serpentine soils. Typically roadsides, alluvium floodplains; more rarely, clay or shale slopes.

Found in openings in cismontane woodlands. Elev: 345–2,608 feet (105–795 m). Blooms: July– October.

Eriogonum nortonii Pinnacles buckwheat — — 1B.3 Sandy soils, often on recent burns, in chaparral, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elev: 984– 3,199 feet (300– 975 m). Blooms: April–September.

Eryngium aristulatum var.
hooveri
Hoover’s button-celery — — 1B.1 Vernal pools. Elev: 10–148 feet (3–45 m). Blooms: July–August.

Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale — — 1B.2 Alkaline soils. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grasslands. Elev:
3–2,740 feet (1–835 m). Blooms: April–October.

Fritillaria liliaceae Fragrant fritillary — — 1B.2 Serpentinite soils in cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley & foothill grassland. Elev: 10– 1,345 feet (3–410 m). Blooms: February– April.

KEY
Federal & State Status
(FC) FEDERAL CANDIDATE
(FD) FEDERALLY DELISTED
(FE) FEDERAL ENDANGERED
(FP) FULLY PROTECTED
(FT) FEDERAL THREATENED
(PT) PROPOSED THREATENED
(SCT) STATE CANDIDATE THREATENED
(SE) STATE ENDANGERED
(SR) STATE RARE
(SSC) STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
(ST) STATE THREATENED
(X) FEDERALLY DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
CNPS Rare Plant Rank

RARENESS RANKS
(1A) PRESUMED EXTINCT IN CALIFORNIA
(1B) RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN

CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE
(2B) RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN

CALIFORNIA, BUT MORE COMMON ELSEWHERE

THREAT RANKS
(0.1) SERIOUSLY THREATENED IN CALIFORNIA
(0.2) FAIRLY THREATENED IN CALIFORNIA
(0.3) NOT VERY THREATENED IN CALIFORNIA

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-21
(SCE) STATE CANDIDATE ENDANGERED

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-22 SEPTEMBER 2020
The exact locations of most of these occurrences are unknown because of the vague descriptions and date of the historic records, so these are mapped as relatively broad occurrences within the General Plan Planning Area in Figure 5-2. Existing development limits the likelihood of continued occurrences of any populations of special-status plant species on the valley floor within the SOI, with the possible exception of riparian and wetland-dependent species that may occur along San Benito River corridor and other major drainages, or species associated with seasonal wetlands and native grasslands where suitable habitat remains. Many of the special-status plant occurrences in the General Plan Planning Area are vulnerable to off-road vehicle use, disturbance associated with fire and fuel reduction activities, competition with invasive species, and other threats. There remains a possibility that additional populations of one or more species occurs on the remaining undeveloped lands in the General Plan Planning Area. Detailed surveys would be required to provide confirmation on presence or absence from undeveloped portions of the General Plan Planning Area where thorough studies have not been conducted.

Special-Status Animals
Based on a review of the CNDDB, the IPac resource list, and other sources, a total of 40 special-status animal species are known or suspected to potentially occur in the vicinity of Hollister. These special- status animal species are listed in Table 5-4, together with information on their status, and description of typical habitat characteristics. As indicated in Figure 5-3, a total of 17 of these special-status animal species have been reported by the CNDDB within or near the General Plan Planning Area. Critical habitat has been designed by the USFWS for California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in the eastern foothills and for California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) in the southern and southwestern foothills, as indicated in Figure 5-3.

Many of the special-status animal species listed in Table 5-4 may occasionally pass through or forage in the Hollister vicinity, but are not known or believe to breed in the General Plan Planning Area. These include: steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), merlin (Falco columbarius), California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). It should also be noted that most of the species listed in Table 5-4 without State and/or federal listing status are not closely monitored by the CNDDB and therefore occurrence records are typically not included in the data base. These include most of the numerous species identified as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-23
TABLE 5-4 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED FROM THE PLANNING AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT — Found in vernal pools and ephemeral wetlands. Distributed throughout the Central Valley and suitable habitat in Bay Area and Coast ranges.

Optioservus canus Pinnacles optioservus riffle
beetle — — Small beetle occurring in flowing streams and rivers. Endemic to Pinnacles and surrounding areas.

Fish
Lavinia exilicauda Sacramento hitch — SSC Found in warm lowland waters with side pools and riffles. Spawning occurs in gravel riffles of streams which are tributaries to larger waters such as lakes, rivers, and sloughs.

Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus
Steelhead, south/central
California coast FT — Anadromous species found in accessible rivers and streams of central coast for spawning and returns to ocean as young adult.

Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander,
central population FT/X ST
Occurs in grasslands of the Central Valley and oak savannah communities in the Central Valley, the Sierra Nevada and Coast ranges, and the San Francisco Bay area. Needs seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands to reproduce, and terrestrial habitat with active
ground squirrel or gopher burrows.

Rana draytonii California red-legged frog FT/X SSC
Found mainly near ponds in riparian woodlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, and streamsides with emergent vegetation. Most common in lowlands or foothills. Frequently found in woodlands adjacent to streams.

Breeding habitat is in permanent or ephemeral water sources; lakes, ponds, reservoirs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, and swamps. Ephemeral wetland habitats require animal burrows or other moist refuges for estivation when the wetlands are dry.

Spea hammondii Western spadefoot — SSC
Occurs in open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats ranging from grasslands and woodlands to floodplains, alluvial fans, and alkali flats. Rainpools which do not contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding.

Taricha torosa Coast Range newt — SSC Found in wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grasslands. In Southern California, drier chaparral, oak woodland, and grassland are used.

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra Silvery legless lizard — SSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodland, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces.

Emys marmorata Western pond turtle — SSC
Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant vegetation, and either rocky or muddy bottoms, in woodland, forest, and grassland. In streams, prefers pools to shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and exposed banks are required for basking.

Gambelia sila Blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE SE Occurs in grasslands, alkali flats, and washes. Flat areas with open space for running, avoids densely vegetated areas. Uses mammal dens and burrows for cover.

Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki San Joaquin coachwhip — SSC Occurs in open, dry, treeless areas, including grassland and saltbush scrub. Takes refuge in rodent burrows, under shaded vegetation, and under surface objects.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-24 SEPTEMBER 2020
TABLE 5-4 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED FROM THE PLANNING AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat
Phrynosoma blainvilli Coast horned lizard — SSC Occurs in valley-foothill hardwood, conifer, and riparian habitats, as well as in pine- cypress, juniper, and annual grassland habitats.

Birds
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird — ST,SSC
Nests in wetlands or in dense vegetation near open water. Dominant nesting substrates: cattails, bulrushes, blackberry, agricultural silage. Nesting substrate must either be flooded, spinous, or in some way defended against predators.

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle — FP, WL Uncommon resident and migrant throughout California, except center of Central Valley. Habitat typically rolling foothills, mountains, sage-juniper flats, and desert.

Athene cunicularia Western burrowing owl — SSC
Occurs in grasslands, open scrub, desert, agricultural fields and vacant land with open, flat expanses, short/sparse vegetation and few shrubs, level to gentle topography and well-drained soils. Requires underground burrows or cavities for nesting and roosting, but also uses rock cavities, debris piles, pipes and culverts.

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk — WL
Forages in habitat fringes and patchy woodlands. Occurs in dense stands of oak, riparian, and other forested areas near water. Breeds in dense stands of oak
woodland or riparian.

Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk — ST Nests in stands with few trees in riparian areas, juniper-sage flats, and oak savannah in the Central Valley.

Forages in adjacent grasslands, agricultural fields, and pastures.

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover — SSC Frequents open plains with low, herbaceous or scattered shrub vegetation.

Circus hudsonius Northern harrier — SSC
Widespread in open grasslands, marshes and agricultural fields with low, thick vegetation. During winter uses a range of habitats with low vegetation, including deserts, pasturelands, croplands, grasslands, and ruderal fields.

Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo PT SE Requires large, dense tracts of riparian woodland with well-developed understories. Occurs in deciduous trees or shrubs. Restricted to moist habitats along slow-moving waterways during breeding season.

Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite — FP Found in wide variety of open habitats, including open oak savanna, grasslands, desert grassland, agricultural fields and marshes. Requires trees for perching and nesting, and open ground with high prey populations.

Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher FE SE Dense riparian forest and scrub habitats associated with rivers, swamps, wetlands, lakes, and reservoirs.

Eremophilia alpestris
actia California horned lark — WL Found often in treeless areas such as grasslands and sparsely vegetated open areas. Sea level to alpine dwarf- scrub habitat. Forages along the ground for small prey and forbs.

Falco columbarius Merlin — WL
Occurs in California during winter from September to May. Found along coastlines, grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, lakes, wetlands, and habitat fringes. Often in open habitats at low elevations near water and tree.

Does not breed in California.

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon — WL
Ranges from Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, and Coast Ranges to southeastern deserts. Most commonly found in perennial grasslands, savannahs, rangeland, agricultural fields, and desert scrub. Forages in open areas and uses nearby cliff ledges, canyons or outcrops for cover and nesting.

Gymnogyps californianus California condor FE SE, FP Chaparral, coniferous forest and oak savannah in Southern and Central California. Nests in cliff cavities, large rock outcrops, or large trees. Roosts on large cliffs or trees near feeding areas.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-25
TABLE 5-4 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED FROM THE PLANNING AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle FD SE/FP Requires large bodies of water or rivers with abundant fish, and adjacent snags and trees with open branch structure for nesting.

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat — SSC
Nests in early-successional riparian habitats with a well-developed shrub layer and an open canopy.

Restricted to narrow border of streams, creeks, sloughs, and rivers. Often nest in dense thicket plants such as blackberry and willow.

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike — SSC Breeds in shrublands or open woodlands with a fair amount of grass cover and areas of bare ground.

Riparia riparia Bank swallow — ST Found along riparian areas with sandy, vertical bluffs or riverbanks for nesting burrows. Also nests on banks and stockpiles in sand and gravel pits.

Setophaga petechia Yellow warbler — SSC Occurs in riparian vegetation along streams and in wet meadows. Willow cover and Oregon ash important predictors of abundance in Northern California.

Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's vireo FE SE Obligate riparian breeder found along watercourses with cottonwood, willow, oak woodlands, and scrub cover.

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat — SSC Day roosts in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and buildings.

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat — SCT/SCC Typically roosts in caves but also in old mine tunnels and occasionally found in buildings.

Eumops perotis
californicus Western mastiff bat — SSC
Found in open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban areas. Roosts in crevices on vertical cliff faces, high buildings, trees, and tunnels.

Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat — SSC Roosting habitat includes forests and woodlands, often in edge habitats adjacent to streams, fields, or urban areas.

Neotoma fuscipes
annectens
San Francisco dusky- footed
woodrat — SSC Found in grassland, scrub, and wooded areas with evergreen or live oaks and other thick-leaved trees and shrubs.

Taxidea taxus American badger — SSC Occurs in grasslands, open shrub, and forests cover with friable soils. Associated with treeless regions, prairies, parklands, and cold desert areas.

Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE ST Occurs in grasslands and desert-like habitats characterized by sparse or absent shrub cover, sparse ground cover, and short vegetative structure. Areas having open, level, sandy ground necessary for dens.

KEY
Federal & State Status
(FC) FEDERAL CANDIDATE
(FD) FEDERALLY DELISTED
(FE) FEDERAL ENDANGERED
(FP) FULLY PROTECTED
(FT) FEDERAL THREATENED
(PT) PROPOSED THREATENED
(SCE) STATE CANDIDATE ENDANGERED
(SCT) STATE CANDIDATE THREATENED
(SE) STATE ENDANGERED
(SR) STATE RARE
(SSC) STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
(ST) STATE THREATENED
(WL) CDFW WATCH LIST
(X) FEDERALLY DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-26 SEPTEMBER 2020
Special-status animal species known from the General Plan Planning Area and of greatest concern from a planning standpoint because of their status or distribution are discussed in further detail below.

California Tiger Salamander (State and Federally Threatened). California tiger salamander occurs in grassland and savanna habitat, breeding in vernal pools and swales, seasonal drainages, and man-made ponds, and spending most of the year in subterranean refugia such as rodent burrows, cracks, and under rocks and logs. Adults migrate to suitable breeding locations with the onset of sustained rainfall and have been reported to move considerable distances. The migratory behavior of this species presents challenges when attempting to define occupied habitat for known populations or the effects of proposed development.

California tiger salamander have been reported from the periphery of the development core of Hollister, including the eastern hills, the plains along the San Benito River corridor, and even the vicinity of the Hollister airport. The USFWS has designated the hillsides in the eastern hills, generally east of Fairview Road, as Critical Habitat, as indicated in Figure 5-3.

California Red-Legged Frog (Federally Threatened). California red-legged frog has been extirpated or nearly extirpated from 70 percent of its former range. Population declines of this species have been attributed to a variety of factors, with habitat loss and predation by non-native Aquatic predators (e.g., bullfrogs, crayfish, other non-native fishes) typically implicated as the primary factors. California red- legged frogs occur in and along freshwater marshes, streams, ponds, and other semi-permanent water sources. Optimal habitat contains dense emergent or shoreline riparian vegetation closely associated with deep (i.e., greater than 2.3 feet), still, or slow-moving water. Cattails, bulrushes, and willows provide the habitat structure that seems to be most suitable for California red-legged frogs. Although the species can occur in intermittent streams and ponds, they are unlikely to persist in streams in which all surface water disappears. Suitable breeding ponds and pools usually have a minimum depth of 20 inches, but California red-legged frogs do sometimes breed successfully in pools as shallow as 10 inches.8 Regardless of water depth, suitable breeding habitat must contain water during the entire development period for eggs and tadpoles. Reproduction for red-legged frogs is also sensitive to salinity levels in the water.

According to the CNDDB records , occurrences of California red-legged frogs have been reported within the General Plan Planning Area along the San Benito River, Santa Ana Creek, and drainages with suitable habitat in the eastern and southwestern hills. Suitable habitat remains in other locations with freshwater bodies where predatory species haven’t precluded their occupation. Designated critical habitat for this species occurs in the southern and southwestern portion of the General Plan Planning Area, extending south of Tres Pinos through the Gabilan Mountains, as indicated in Figure 5-3.

8 Fellers, G.M., 2005. California red-legged frog. In M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of Unites States Species.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-27
Western Pond Turtle (California Species of Special Concern). Western pond turtles occur in a wide variety of aquatic habitats, including ponds, lakes, marshes, rivers, streams, and canals that typically have a rocky or muddy bottom and contain stands of aquatic vegetation. The presence or absence of pond turtles at a given aquatic site is largely dependent on the availability of suitable basking sites and adjacent upland habitat for egg-laying (e.g., sandy banks or grassy open fields) and over-wintering. Nests are typically dug in dry substrate with a high clay or silt fraction since the female moistens the site where she will excavate the nest prior to egg-laying. Hatchlings require shallow water habitat with relatively dense submergent or short emergent vegetation in which to forage. Western pond turtles have been reported from scattered locations with suitable habitat in the General Plan Planning Area, as indicated in Figure 5-3. Other freshwater bodies and drainages with deep pools may provide suitable habitat for this species.

Western Spadefoot Toad (California Species of Special Concern). This nocturnally active toad is generally associated with seasonal pools in grasslands or open mixed woodlands where temporary pools form, or in washes or temporary streams with sandy or gravelly substrate. For most of the year, they live in burrows that they dig with their hind feet. They depend on heavy rainfall during the winter and early spring where water ponds and creates suitable habitat conditions for breeding and metamorphosis of young. As indicated in Figure 5-3, numerous occurrences of this species are found in the eastern hills of the General Plan Planning Area, in similar habitat known to support California tiger salamander.

Bank Swallow (State Threatened). Bank swallow is a migrant species found primarily in riparian and other lowland habitat of California, arriving from South America in early April and leaving by mid-September.

Typically a colonial breeder, this species requires vertical banks and cliffs with fine-textured or sandy soils along stream banks, rivers, ponds, and other bodies of water for nesting, where it excavates a hole for breeding. Although it generally nests along exposed channel banks, stockpiled or exposed topsoil in gravel mines and even trenches have been used for nesting. It is known to colonize the vertical faces of trenches within one day of excavation. This species was once believed to be more common as a breeder in California, but now only a few larger colonies remain. As indicated in Figure 5-3, the CNDDB reports an occurrence of this species along San Benito River in the western portion of the General Plan Planning Area.

Northern Harrier (California Species of Special Concern). Northern harriers are widespread in California, although they have become uncommon in the southern part of the State. Their preferred habitats are freshwater wetlands and saltmarshes, although they are also commonly found over grasslands and agricultural fields. Harriers breed from mid-March to September, building their nests on the ground and in low vegetation. Suitable foraging habitat for northern harriers are present in the remaining grasslands and open croplands in the General Plan Planning Area, although nesting opportunities are limited because of the presence of humans and generally limited nesting areas along field margins.

Tricolored Blackbird (State Threatened and California Species of Special Concern). Tricolored blackbirds were once widespread in marshes and agricultural fields in the Central Valley and valleys of the inner Coast Range, but numbers have diminished in recent years. They usually nest in cattails or tules, sometimes in thickets of willow, blackberry and other riparian habitat near available surface water. Due to the absence of well-developed marshland vegetation, suitable nesting habitat is generally absent in most of the General Plan Planning Area. However, several occurrences of tricolored blackbird have been reported by the CNDDB along the San Benito River corridor, as indicated in Figure 5-3.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-28 SEPTEMBER 2020
Western Burrowing Owl (California Species of Special Concern). Western burrowing owl inhabits open grasslands and shrublands that have perches and burrows. These owls eat mainly insects, with small mammals and birds also making up a portion of their diet. The owls use old rodent burrows, particularly California ground squirrel burrows, for cover and breeding. They are also known to utilize pipes, debris piles and other man-made structures for retreat and nesting. As indicated in Figure 5-3, this species has been reported by the CNDDB from the open grasslands in the eastern hillsides and agricultural fields in the General Plan Planning Area.

White-tailed Kite (California Fully Protected Species). Most white-tailed kites in California occur west of the Sierra Nevada in lowlands and foothills, where they are often seen year-round. This species tends to nest in solitary trees and large shrubs located near suitable foraging habitat such as grasslands, marshes, and agricultural fields. Preferred prey items include California voles and mice.

The grasslands and open croplands in the General Plan Planning Area provide foraging habitat for white- tailed kites, where scattered trees and large shrubs are present in the vicinity to provide suitable perching and nesting locations. Nests of white-tailed kite in active use are fully-protected by the CDFW from any disturbance. Nests of native birds, including raptors such as white-tailed kite, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State Fish and Game code (see Regulatory Framework below).

American Badger (California Special Status Species). American badger is usually found in open, dry country of western North America. This predator species relies on ground dwelling rodents such as California ground squirrel, voles and pocket gopher as its primary prey source, and will excavate burrows to capture prey. The rolling grasslands in the eastern, southern and southwestern portions of the General Plan Planning Area provide suitable habitat for this species, and several occurrences have been reported by the CNDDB from these locals as indicated in Figure 5-3.

San Joaquin Kit Fox (State Threatened and Federally Endangered). San Joaquin kit fox occurs in annual grasslands and alkali scrub communities with suitable prey base and loose-textured sandy soils where dens can be enlarged from California ground squirrel burrows. This species was once widely distributed throughout the native grasslands that formerly occupied the low rolling hills around the San Joaquin, Salinas, Santa Clara and San Benito Valleys. Agricultural operations and more recently, urban development, have eliminated or fragmented their habitat, resulting in a substantial decline in numbers.

Suitable foraging habitat occurs in the hillsides around the perimeter of the General Plan Planning Area, particularly where ground squirrels are abundant. As indicated in Figure 5-3, the CNDDB records include occurrences of this subspecies in the southwestern, southeastern, and eastern margins of the General Plan Planning Area where development remains sparse. Ground squirrel burrows with openings of at least four inches are typically considered potential dens for kit fox by the USFWS in areas occupied by San Joaquin kit fox.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-29

5.2.1.3 Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive natural communities and jurisdictional waters are described below.

Sensitive Natural Communities
The CDFW tracks the occurrences of “special” plant communities that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. These plant communities are listed in the CDFW publication List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database.9 These communities are sometimes addressed by lead or trustee agencies in CEQA documents, but generally are not afforded the same protection as CNPS Rank 1B and 2 plant species. Many sensitive natural community types support special-status plants and animals and are addressed under CEQA as essential habitat for those species.

Sensitive natural community types in the General Plan Planning Area include remnant native grasslands, wetlands, and possibly some areas with forest and scrub cover. The vegetated wetland types (Emergent and Forested/Scrub) shown in Figure 5-4 are most likely considered sensitive natural community types associated with waters regulated by State and federal agencies (see Regulatory Setting below). These include emergent marshland, willow scrub, and well-developed stands or riparian woodland along the San Benito River, segments of Santa Ana Creek, and some reaches of tributary drainages.

Based on the Manual of California Vegetation 10 classification system and latest list of terrestrial natural communities prepared by CDFW, sensitive natural community types known from or suspected to occur in the General Plan Planning Area include several associations of Black Oak Forests and Woodlands, California Bay Forests and Woodlands, California Buckeye Woodlands, several associations of Coyote Brush Scrub, freshwater marsh, freshwater seeps and springs, and numerous alliances of native grasslands. Occurrences of these sensitive natural community types may be present within the remaining woodland, forest, and grasslands in the General Plan Planning Area, but have not been mapped as part of the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) of the CDFW or other regional mapping efforts. Detailed surveys would be required to provide confirmation on presence or absence of any sensitive natural community types from undeveloped portions of the General Plan Planning Area where thorough studies have not been conducted.

Jurisdictional Waters
Although definitions vary to some degree, in general, wetlands are considered areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and floodwaters, and water recharge, filtration, and purification functions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the USFWS developed

9 California Department of Fish and Game, 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Data Base. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, last updated in November 2019. 10 Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-30 SEPTEMBER 2020
technical standards for delineating wetlands that generally define wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils, and vegetation.

A formal jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. and State was not conducted for the General Plan Planning Area as part of this Background Report. However, based on information available from the NWI, numerous features can be assumed to fall under jurisdiction of the Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and as state waters regulated by the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Creeks and lakes are also regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, with jurisdiction extending to the top of bank or the outer dripline of riparian vegetation along these features, whichever is greater.

As indicated in Figure 5-4, features within the General Plan Planning Area that would be considered wetlands or other waters of the U.S. by the Corps include: the San Benito River corridor, Santa Ana Creek, and numerous smaller tributary drainages. Additional jurisdictional other waters of the U.S. and wetlands maybe be present elsewhere in the General Plan Planning Area, but detailed site-specific assessments would be required to confirm presence or absence from undeveloped lands. As discussed under the Regulatory Setting below, the Corps, RWQCB and CDFW generally exercise authority over these various wetland habitat types.

A detailed wetland delineation and verification by the Corps would be required to determine the extent of jurisdictional wetlands on sites where modifications are proposed. Federally regulated waters along the San Benito River and tributary drainages in the General Plan Planning Area (see Figure 5-4) are generally defined by the "Ordinary High Water Mark" rather than the band of any adjacent riparian vegetation, limiting Corps jurisdiction where dense willow riparian scrub and forest extend a considerable distance from the channel bank. However, the limits of State waters regulated by CDFW and RWQCB typically encompass both the bed and bank of a drainageway, as well as the limits of the associated riparian vegetation where it extends beyond the top of bank, and both agencies typically request that an adequate setback be provided to avoid both direct and indirect impacts on riparian corridors as part of environmental review for specific development plans.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The 2005 Hollister General Plan serves as the principal planning document regulating development and providing for conservation of important resources on a local level. The Hollister General Plan Update provides an opportunity to reevaluate the current policies and associated programs and determine any additional goals and policies necessary to provide a framework to adequately identify, protect, and manage natural resources within the General Plan Planning Area. Based on information contained in this chapter, the General Plan Update process should address the following issues:
 Protect mature trees and other native vegetation, particularly along riparian corridors and in stands of native woodlands.
 Further control the eradication of non-native invasive species where they compromise native habitat values.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5-31
 Require site-specific assessments or sensitive habitats and species on development sites before development is approved.
 Limit development in areas designated as Critical Habitat for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5-32 SEPTEMBER 2020
This page intentionally left blank.

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX D :

R EVISED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES
D ATA

........................................................................................................................

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

February 22, 2024

Ambur Cameron
City of Hollister

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4, Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Project, San Benito County

To Whom It May Concern:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties.

Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

The law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

The NAHC also believes that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded or are adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:

• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code §6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band on the attached list for more information.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we are able to assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,

Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Last Updated Amah Mutsun Tribal Band N Valentin Lopez, Chairperson P.O. Box 5272 Galt, CA, 95632
(916) 743-5833 [email protected] Costanoan
Northern Valley Yokut
7/20/2023
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band N Ed Ketchum, Vice-Chairperson (530) 578-3864 [email protected] Costanoan Northern Valley Yokut
7/20/2023
Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San
Juan Bautista
N Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 3030 Soda Bay Road
Lakeport, CA, 95453
(650) 851-7489 (650) 332-1526 [email protected] Costanoan Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan N Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD Contact
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122
(408) 673-0626 [email protected] Costanoan 4/17/2018 Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan N Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA, 95024
(831) 637-4238 [email protected] Costanoan
Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band N Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 1179 Rock Haven Ct.

Salinas, CA, 93906
(831) 443-9702 [email protected] Foothill Yokut
Mono
6/19/2023
Alameda,Contra Costa,Monterey,San
Benito,San Francisco,San Mateo,Santa
Clara,Santa Cruz
Alameda,Contra Costa,Monterey,San
Benito,San Francisco,San Mateo,Santa
Clara,Santa Cruz
Alameda,Calaveras,Contra
Costa,Fresno,Inyo,Kings,Madera,Marin,Marip
osa,Merced,Mono,Monterey,San Benito,San
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 et seq for the proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Project, San Benito County.

Record: PROJ-2024-000991
Report Type: SB18
Counties: All
NAHC Group: All
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Benito County
2/22/2024
Counties
Merced,Monterey,San Benito,Santa
Clara,Santa Cruz
Merced,Monterey,San Benito,Santa
Clara,Santa Cruz
Alameda,Contra Costa,Monterey,San
Benito,San Francisco,San Mateo,Santa
Clara,Santa Cruz
02/22/2024 11:40 AM
1 of 1

February 29, 2024

Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA, 95632

RE: Invitation to request consultation pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) for the proposed updates to the Hollister General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Dear Honorable Chairperson Lopez:

Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as an affiliated California Native American tribal representative. We are sending this letter to advise you that the City of Hollister (City) is continuing their ongoing effort to update the General Plan and prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project). An outreach letter for the proposed project was previously sent to you on May 13, 2020. However, since then the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary has been further expanded from what was proposed in 2020 and evaluated in the 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This letter serves as a follow-up to the initial consultation on the project sent in May 2020.

The General Plan is required to be updated as needed reflect current conditions, issues, resources, and community perspectives through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes nine-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as an additional: Arts and Culture Element and with the proposed update, the City’s SOI would also expand by approximately 2,423 acres. The proposed project also includes the City’s first CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. Lastly, the proposed project includes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, as Chapter

17.13, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City is the lead agency. The proposed project is strictly a policy document that would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. See additional project details at https://hollister2040.org/ .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the City is contacting you to provide an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The City is requesting that you provide any information you may have regarding tribal cultural resources (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074) within the proposed SOI, which also serves as the EIR Study Area, as shown on the attached proposed sphere of influence expansion changes map. A regional and vicinity map is also attached showing the boundaries of the city and location within San Benito County.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, in May 2020 and February 2024. The results of the SLF searches were positive.

The input of your tribe is important to the City’s planning process. Please respond in writing to this invitation to request consultation if your tribe wishes to consult on the ongoing and revised proposed project. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (831) 636- 4360 Ext. 1223 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Senior Planner

Attachments:

Regional and Vicinity Map
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion Changes Map

,-

PLACEWORKS
,,, ,,' .............. _!,
HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HOLLISTER
,,
us ) ,,,

RCED UNTY
County Boundaries
City of Hollister
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

1.5 Miles Cf)
'
Regional and Vicinity Map

February 29, 2024

Ed Ketchum, Vice-Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band

RE: Invitation to request consultation pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) for the proposed updates to the Hollister General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Dear Honorable Vice-Chairperson Ketchum:

Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as an affiliated California Native American tribal representative. We are sending this letter to advise you that the City of Hollister (City) is continuing their ongoing effort to update the General Plan and prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project). An outreach letter for the proposed project was previously sent to you on May 13, 2020. However, since then the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary has been further expanded from what was proposed in 2020 and evaluated in the 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This letter serves as a follow-up to the initial consultation on the project sent in May 2020.

The General Plan is required to be updated as needed reflect current conditions, issues, resources, and community perspectives through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes nine-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as an additional: Arts and Culture Element and with the proposed update, the City’s SOI would also expand by approximately 2,423 acres. The proposed project also includes the City’s first CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. Lastly, the proposed project includes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, as Chapter

17.13, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City is the lead agency. The proposed project is strictly a policy document that would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. See additional project details at https://hollister2040.org/ .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the City is contacting you to provide an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The City is requesting that you provide any information you may have regarding tribal cultural resources (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074) within the proposed SOI, which also serves as the EIR Study Area, as shown on the attached proposed sphere of influence expansion changes map. A regional and vicinity map is also attached showing the boundaries of the city and location within San Benito County.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, in May 2020 and February 2024. The results of the SLF searches were positive.

The input of your tribe is important to the City’s planning process. Please respond in writing to this invitation to request consultation if your tribe wishes to consult on the ongoing and revised proposed

project. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (831) 636- 4360 Ext. 1223 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Senior Planner

Attachments:

Regional and Vicinity Map
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion Changes Map

,-

PLACEWORKS
,,, ,,' .............. _!,
HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HOLLISTER
,,
us ) ,,,

RCED UNTY
County Boundaries
City of Hollister
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

1.5 Miles Cf)
'
Regional and Vicinity Map

February 29, 2024

Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
3030 Soda Bay Road
Lakeport, CA, 95453

RE: Invitation to request consultation pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) for the proposed updates to the Hollister General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Dear Honorable Chairperson Zwierlein:

Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as an affiliated California Native American tribal representative. We are sending this letter to advise you that the City of Hollister (City) is continuing their ongoing effort to update the General Plan and prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project). An outreach letter for the proposed project was previously sent to you on May 13, 2020. However, since then the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary has been further expanded from what was proposed in 2020 and evaluated in the 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This letter serves as a follow-up to the initial consultation on the project sent in May 2020.

The General Plan is required to be updated as needed reflect current conditions, issues, resources, and community perspectives through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes nine-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as an additional: Arts and Culture Element and with the proposed update, the City’s SOI would also expand by approximately 2,423 acres. The proposed project also includes the City’s first CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. Lastly, the proposed project includes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, as Chapter

17.13, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City is the lead agency. The proposed project is strictly a policy document that would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. See additional project details at https://hollister2040.org/ .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the City is contacting you to provide an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The City is requesting that you provide any information you may have regarding tribal cultural resources (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074) within the proposed SOI, which also serves as the EIR Study Area, as shown on the attached proposed sphere of influence expansion changes map. A regional and vicinity map is also attached showing the boundaries of the city and location within San Benito County.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, in May 2020 and February 2024. The results of the SLF searches were positive.

The input of your tribe is important to the City’s planning process. Please respond in writing to this invitation to request consultation if your tribe wishes to consult on the ongoing and revised proposed project. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (831) 636- 4360 Ext. 1223 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Senior Planner

Attachments:

Regional and Vicinity Map
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion Changes Map

,-

PLACEWORKS
,,, ,,' .............. _!,
HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HOLLISTER
,,
us ) ,,,

RCED UNTY
County Boundaries
City of Hollister
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

1.5 Miles Cf)
'
Regional and Vicinity Map

February 29, 2024

Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD Contact
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122

RE: Invitation to request consultation pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) for the proposed updates to the Hollister General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Dear Honorable MLD Contact Sayer-Roods:

Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as an affiliated California Native American tribal representative. We are sending this letter to advise you that the City of Hollister (City) is continuing their ongoing effort to update the General Plan and prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project). An outreach letter for the proposed project was previously sent to you on May 13, 2020. However, since then the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary has been further expanded from what was proposed in 2020 and evaluated in the 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This letter serves as a follow-up to the initial consultation on the project sent in May 2020.

The General Plan is required to be updated as needed reflect current conditions, issues, resources, and community perspectives through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes nine-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as an additional: Arts and Culture Element and with the proposed update, the City’s SOI would also expand by approximately 2,423 acres. The proposed project also includes the City’s first CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. Lastly, the proposed project includes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, as Chapter

17.13, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City is the lead agency. The proposed project is strictly a policy document that would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. See additional project details at https://hollister2040.org/ .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the City is contacting you to provide an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The City is requesting that you provide any information you may have regarding tribal cultural resources (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074) within the proposed SOI, which also serves as the EIR Study Area, as shown on the attached proposed sphere of influence expansion changes map. A regional and vicinity map is also attached showing the boundaries of the city and location within San Benito County.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, in May 2020 and February 2024. The results of the SLF searches were positive.

The input of your tribe is important to the City’s planning process. Please respond in writing to this invitation to request consultation if your tribe wishes to consult on the ongoing and revised proposed project. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (831) 636- 4360 Ext. 1223 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Senior Planner

Attachments:

Regional and Vicinity Map
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion Changes Map

,-

PLACEWORKS
,,, ,,' .............. _!,
HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HOLLISTER
,,
us ) ,,,

RCED UNTY
County Boundaries
City of Hollister
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

1.5 Miles Cf)
'
Regional and Vicinity Map

February 29, 2024

Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024

RE: Invitation to request consultation pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) for the proposed updates to the Hollister General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Dear Honorable Chairperson Sayers:

Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as an affiliated California Native American tribal representative. We are sending this letter to advise you that the City of Hollister (City) is continuing their ongoing effort to update the General Plan and prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project). An outreach letter for the proposed project was previously sent to you on May 13, 2020. However, since then the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary has been further expanded from what was proposed in 2020 and evaluated in the 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This letter serves as a follow-up to the initial consultation on the project sent in May 2020.

The General Plan is required to be updated as needed reflect current conditions, issues, resources, and community perspectives through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes nine-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as an additional: Arts and Culture Element and with the proposed update, the City’s SOI would also expand by approximately 2,423 acres. The proposed project also includes the City’s first CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. Lastly, the proposed project includes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, as Chapter

17.13, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City is the lead agency. The proposed project is strictly a policy document that would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. See additional project details at https://hollister2040.org/ .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the City is contacting you to provide an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The City is requesting that you provide any information you may have regarding tribal cultural resources (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074) within the proposed SOI, which also serves as the EIR Study Area, as shown on the attached proposed sphere of influence expansion changes map. A regional and vicinity map is also attached showing the boundaries of the city and location within San Benito County.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, in May 2020 and February 2024. The results of the SLF searches were positive.

The input of your tribe is important to the City’s planning process. Please respond in writing to this invitation to request consultation if your tribe wishes to consult on the ongoing and revised proposed project. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (831) 636- 4360 Ext. 1223 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Senior Planner

Attachments:

Regional and Vicinity Map
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion Changes Map

,-

PLACEWORKS
,,, ,,' .............. _!,
HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HOLLISTER
,,
us ) ,,,

RCED UNTY
County Boundaries
City of Hollister
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

1.5 Miles Cf)
'
Regional and Vicinity Map

February 29, 2024

Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
1179 Rock Haven Ct.

Salinas, CA, 93906

RE: Invitation to request consultation pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) for the proposed updates to the Hollister General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Dear Honorable Chairperson Woodrow:

Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as an affiliated California Native American tribal representative. We are sending this letter to advise you that the City of Hollister (City) is proposing an update to their General Plan, creating a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project). Please note that this is an ongoing project that started in 2020 and that due to additional revisions to the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, the City requested an updated list of tribal representatives in February 2024. Your contact information was provided on the updated list. This letter serves as the initial consultation on the project.

The General Plan is required to be updated as needed reflect current conditions, issues, resources, and community perspectives through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes nine-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as an additional: Arts and Culture Element and with the proposed update, the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) would also expand by approximately 2,423 acres. The proposed project also includes the City’s first CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. Lastly, the proposed project includes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, as Chapter

17.13, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City is the lead agency. The proposed project is strictly a policy document that would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. See additional project details at https://hollister2040.org/ .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the City is contacting you to provide an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The City is requesting that you provide any information you may have regarding tribal cultural resources (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074) within the proposed SOI, which also serves as the study area for the Environmental Impact Report, as shown on the attached proposed sphere of influence expansion changes map. A regional and vicinity map is also attached showing the boundaries of the city and location within San Benito County.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, in May 2020 and February 2024. The results of the SLF searches were positive.

The input of your tribe is important to the City’s planning process. Please respond in writing to this invitation to request consultation within 90 days of the date of this letter if your tribe wishes to consult on the ongoing and revised proposed project. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (831) 636-4360 Ext. 1223 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Senior Planner

Attachments:

Regional and Vicinity Map
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion Changes Map

,-

PLACEWORKS
,,, ,,' .............. _!,
HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HOLLISTER
,,
us ) ,,,

RCED UNTY
County Boundaries
City of Hollister
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

1.5 Miles Cf)
'
Regional and Vicinity Map

February 29, 2024

Karen White, Chairperson
Xolon-Salinan Tribe
P.O. Box 7045
Spreckels, CA, 93962

RE: Invitation to request consultation pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) for the proposed updates to the Hollister General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Dear Honorable Chairperson White:

Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as an affiliated California Native American tribal representative. We are sending this letter to advise you that the City of Hollister (City) is continuing their ongoing effort to update the General Plan and prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project). An outreach letter for the proposed project was previously sent to you on May 13, 2020. However, since then the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary has been further expanded from what was proposed in 2020 and evaluated in the 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This letter serves as a follow-up to the initial consultation on the project sent in May 2020.

The General Plan is required to be updated as needed reflect current conditions, issues, resources, and community perspectives through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan includes nine-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as an additional: Arts and Culture Element and with the proposed update, the City’s SOI would also expand by approximately 2,423 acres. The proposed project also includes the City’s first CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. Lastly, the proposed project includes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, as Chapter

17.13, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City is the lead agency. The proposed project is strictly a policy document that would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. See additional project details at https://hollister2040.org/ .

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2), the City is contacting you to provide an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The City is requesting that you provide any information you may have regarding tribal cultural resources (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074) within the proposed SOI, which also serves as the EIR Study Area, as shown on the attached proposed sphere of influence expansion changes map. A regional and vicinity map is also attached showing the boundaries of the city and location within San Benito County.

The City requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, in May 2020 and February 2024. The results of the SLF searches were positive.

The input of your tribe is important to the City’s planning process. Please respond in writing to this invitation to request consultation if your tribe wishes to consult on the ongoing and revised proposed project. If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (831) 636- 4360 Ext. 1223 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Senior Planner

Attachments:

Regional and Vicinity Map
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion Changes Map

,-

PLACEWORKS
,,, ,,' .............. _!,
HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HOLLISTER
,,
us ) ,,,

RCED UNTY
County Boundaries
City of Hollister
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

1.5 Miles Cf)
'
Regional and Vicinity Map

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

March 12, 2020

Ambur Cameron, Assistant City Planner
City of Hollister

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, City of Hollister 2040 General Plan Update Project, San Benito County

Dear Ms. Cameron:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission. The request form can be found at http://nahc.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/Local-Government-Tribal-Consultation-List-Request-Form-Update.pdf.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Sarah Fonseca
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

Amah MutsunTribal Band
Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA, 95632
Phone: (916) 743 - 5833
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA, 94062
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
[email protected]
Costanoan
Xolon-Salinan Tribe
Karen White, Chairperson
P. O. Box 7045
Spreckels, CA, 93962
Phone: (831) 238 - 1488
[email protected]
Salinan
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3, 65352.4 et seq. and Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed City of Hollister 2040 General Plan Update Project, San Benito County.

PROJ-2020-
002714
05/12/2020 01:42 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Benito County
5/12/2020

May 13, 2020

Ms. Irenne Zwierlein
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Chairperson 789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA, 94062

Dear Ms. Zwierlein,

The City of Hollister is updating its General Plan. We received your contact information from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the contact person for the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista. State law requires the City to contact all tribes on the list provided by the NAHC. Please consider this letter as a request for tribal consultation for the purpose of protecting and/or mitigating potential cultural impacts. Per requirements of Government Code Section 65352.3 (Senate Bill 18), the City requests that you advise us at the earliest possible time of your interest in consulting on the subject project, but no later than 90 days from receipt of this notice. The General Plan Update might propose land use changes and changes to existing policies and requirements pertaining to cultural resources. The project is still in the initial phase, and no decisions about future changes have been made at this time.

The General Plan Update will make targeted updates to the 2005 Hollister General Plan to:
• Create a communitywide vision for Hollister’s future; • Bring the General Plan into compliance with new State laws that have come into effect since 2005;
• Ensure there are sufficient schools, police, fire, and parks and recreation facilities to support future residents;
• Identify new lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other development; and • Make other changes to update overall concepts.

The General Plan Update will include all State required Elements as well as a few optional Elements:
• Land Use and Community Design
• Circulation, Open Space and Agriculture
• Natural Resources and Conservation
• Health and Safety
• Community Services and Facilities
• Economic Development
• Arts

The City and its consultant team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of this project. The EIR will analyze all required subjects, including whether there are impacts to cultural resources. Potential mitigation measures will be proposed for all potential impacts.

Per the requirements of Government Code §65352.3, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista has 90 days to respond to this request for consultation upon receipt of this letter. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have comments or questions pertaining to the City of Hollister General Plan Update.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Assistant City Planner
Development Services Department
City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
(831) 636-4360 Ext. 1223

May 13, 2020

Mr. Valentin Lopez
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Chairperson
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA, 95632

Dear Mr. Lopez,

The City of Hollister is updating its General Plan. We received your contact information from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the contact person for the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. State law requires the City to contact all tribes on the list provided by the NAHC.

Please consider this letter as a request for tribal consultation for the purpose of protecting and/or mitigating potential cultural impacts. Per requirements of Government Code Section 65352.3 (Senate Bill 18), the City requests that you advise us at the earliest possible time of your interest in consulting on the subject project, but no later than 90 days from receipt of this notice. The General Plan Update might propose land use changes and changes to existing policies and requirements pertaining to cultural resources. The project is still in the initial phase, and no decisions about future changes have been made at this time.

The General Plan Update will make targeted updates to the 2005 Hollister General Plan to:
• Create a communitywide vision for Hollister’s future; • Bring the General Plan into compliance with new State laws that have come into effect since 2005;
• Ensure there are sufficient schools, police, fire, and parks and recreation facilities to support future residents;
• Identify new lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other development; and • Make other changes to update overall concepts.

The General Plan Update will include all State required Elements as well as a few optional Elements:
• Land Use and Community Design
• Circulation, Open Space and Agriculture
• Natural Resources and Conservation
• Health and Safety
• Community Services and Facilities
• Economic Development
• Arts

The City and its consultant team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of this project. The EIR will analyze all required subjects, including whether there are impacts to cultural resources. Potential mitigation measures will be proposed for all potential impacts.

Per the requirements of Government Code §65352.3, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band has 90 days to respond to this request for consultation upon receipt of this letter. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have comments or questions pertaining to the City of Hollister General Plan Update.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Assistant City Planner
Development Services Department
City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
(831) 636-4360 Ext. 1223

May 13, 2020

Ms. Ann Marie Sayers
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024

Dear Ms. Sayers,

The City of Hollister is updating its General Plan. We received your contact information from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the contact person for the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Tribe. State law requires the City to contact all tribes on the list provided by the NAHC. Please consider this letter as a request for tribal consultation for the purpose of protecting and/or mitigating potential cultural impacts. Per requirements of Government Code Section 65352.3 (Senate Bill 18), the City requests that you advise us at the earliest possible time of your interest in consulting on the subject project, but no later than 90 days from receipt of this notice. The General Plan Update might propose land use changes and changes to existing policies and requirements pertaining to cultural resources. The project is still in the initial phase, and no decisions about future changes have been made at this time.

The General Plan Update will make targeted updates to the 2005 Hollister General Plan to:
• Create a communitywide vision for Hollister’s future; • Bring the General Plan into compliance with new State laws that have come into effect since 2005;
• Ensure there are sufficient schools, police, fire, and parks and recreation facilities to support future residents;
• Identify new lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other development; and • Make other changes to update overall concepts.

The General Plan Update will include all State required Elements as well as a few optional Elements:
• Land Use and Community Design
• Circulation, Open Space and Agriculture
• Natural Resources and Conservation
• Health and Safety
• Community Services and Facilities
• Economic Development
• Arts

The City and its consultant team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of this project. The EIR will analyze all required subjects, including whether there are impacts to cultural resources. Potential mitigation measures will be proposed for all potential impacts.

Per the requirements of Government Code §65352.3, the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Tribe has 90 days to respond to this request for consultation upon receipt of this letter. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have comments or questions pertaining to the City of Hollister General Plan Update.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Assistant City Planner
Development Services Department
City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
(831) 636-4360 Ext. 1223

May 13, 2020

Ms. Karen White
Xolon-Salinan Tribe, Chairperson
P.O. Box 7045
Spreckels, CA, 93962

Dear Ms. White,

The City of Hollister is updating its General Plan. We received your contact information from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the contact person for the Xolon-Salinan Tribe. State law requires the City to contact all tribes on the list provided by the NAHC. Please consider this letter as a request for tribal consultation for the purpose of protecting and/or mitigating potential cultural impacts. Per requirements of Government Code Section 65352.3 (Senate Bill 18), the City requests that you advise us at the earliest possible time of your interest in consulting on the subject project, but no later than 90 days from receipt of this notice. The General Plan Update might propose land use changes and changes to existing policies and requirements pertaining to cultural resources. The project is still in the initial phase, and no decisions about future changes have been made at this time.

The General Plan Update will make targeted updates to the 2005 Hollister General Plan to:
• Create a communitywide vision for Hollister’s future; • Bring the General Plan into compliance with new State laws that have come into effect since 2005;
• Ensure there are sufficient schools, police, fire, and parks and recreation facilities to support future residents;
• Identify new lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other development; and • Make other changes to update overall concepts.

The General Plan Update will include all State required Elements as well as a few optional Elements:
• Land Use and Community Design
• Circulation, Open Space and Agriculture
• Natural Resources and Conservation
• Health and Safety
• Community Services and Facilities
• Economic Development
• Arts

The City and its consultant team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of this project. The EIR will analyze all required subjects, including whether there are impacts to cultural resources. Potential mitigation measures will be proposed for all potential impacts.

Per the requirements of Government Code §65352.3, the Xolon-Salinan Tribe has 90 days to respond to this request for consultation upon receipt of this letter. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have comments or questions pertaining to the City of Hollister General Plan Update.

Sincerely,

Ambur Cameron
Assistant City Planner
Development Services Department
City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
(831) 636-4360 Ext. 1223

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX E :

R EVISED N OISE D ATA

........................................................................................................................

TRANSORATION NOISE MODELING

ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed
Limit Grade % Autos
% Med
Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks % Daytime % Evening % Night
Number of
Lanes Site Condition Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
1 70.6 74.3 74.7 103 223 480 San Felipe Rd North of Flynn Rd 13,450 55 0.0% 91.3% 0.0% 8.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2 65.2 68.9 69.3 45 97 209 San Felipe Rd South of Flynn Rd 13,700 40 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 3 59.1 62.9 63.2 18 38 82 Flynn Rd West of San Felipe Rd 1,930 40 0.0% 93.1% 0.0% 6.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 4 67.3 71.0 71.4 62 134 288 San Felipe Rd North of Wright Rd 13,780 40 0.0% 94.3% 0.0% 5.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 5 66.3 70.1 70.4 53 115 248 San Felipe Rd South of Wright Rd 16,410 40 0.0% 97.6% 0.0% 2.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 6 62.6 66.3 66.7 30 65 140 McCloskey Rd East os San Felipe Rd 3,800 50 0.0% 96.3% 0.0% 3.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 7 66.8 70.5 70.9 57 124 266 San Felipe Rd North of SR-25 16,090 40 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 3.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 66.1 69.8 70.1 51 110 237 San Felipe Rd South of SR-25 16,300 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 68.7 72.4 72.8 77 166 357 SR-25 East of San Felipe Rd 13,150 55 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 70.2 74.0 74.3 97 210 451 SR-25 West of San Felipe Rd 12,020 55 0.0% 90.4% 0.0% 9.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 11 71.2 74.9 75.2 112 241 520 SR-156 North of Buena Vista Rd 6,540 55 0.0% 67.5% 0.0% 32.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 12 69.0 72.7 73.1 80 172 371 SR-156 South of Buena Vista Rd 7,210 55 0.0% 86.0% 0.0% 14.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 13 56.6 60.3 60.7 12 26 56 Buena Vista Rd East of SR-156 2,710 30 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 3.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 14 53.1 56.8 57.2 7 15 32 Buena Vista Rd East of Beresini Ln 1,110 35 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 2.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 15 56.6 60.3 60.7 12 26 56 Buena Vista Rd West of Beresini Ln 1,600 30 0.0% 92.7% 0.0% 7.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 16 53.1 56.8 57.2 7 15 32 Buena Vista Rd East of Miller Rd 2,380 25 0.0% 98.3% 0.0% 1.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 17 53.1 56.8 57.2 7 15 33 Buena Vista Rd West of Miller Rd 1,810 30 0.0% 98.6% 0.0% 1.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 18 55.0 58.7 59.0 9 20 43 Westside Rd North of Buena Vista Rd 2,430 35 0.0% 99.5% 0.0% 0.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 19 57.5 61.2 61.6 14 30 64 Westside Blvd South of Buena Vista Rd 4,150 35 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 20 55.2 58.9 59.3 10 21 45 Buena Vista Rd West of Westside Blvd 2,390 30 0.0% 97.7% 0.0% 2.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 21 65.9 69.6 70.0 50 108 233 San Felipe Rd North of North St 16,550 35 0.0% 96.5% 0.0% 3.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 22 60.5 64.2 64.6 22 47 101 San Benito St South of North St 12,100 25 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 23 58.1 61.8 62.2 15 33 70 Santa Ana Rd East of San Felipe Rd 6,460 25 0.0% 97.7% 0.0% 2.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 24 57.2 60.9 61.3 13 28 61 North St West of San Felipe Rd 6,310 25 0.0% 98.4% 0.0% 1.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 25 70.7 74.4 74.8 104 224 482 SR-25 North of Santa Ana Rd 13,110 55 0.0% 90.7% 0.0% 9.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 26 67.4 71.1 71.5 63 136 293 SR-25 South of Santa Ana Rd 16,420 45 0.0% 97.7% 0.0% 2.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 27 60.4 64.1 64.5 22 47 100 Santa Ana Rd East of SR-25 6,160 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 28 60.4 64.1 64.5 21 46 100 Santa Ana Rd West of SR-25 7,050 35 0.0% 98.7% 0.0% 1.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 29 66.4 70.1 70.5 54 116 249 San Juan Hollister Rd East of Felice Dr 13,110 40 0.0% 95.6% 0.0% 4.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 30 62.8 66.5 66.9 31 67 144 San Juan Hollister Rd West of Felice Dr 12,870 30 0.0% 97.4% 0.0% 2.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 31 69.3 73.0 73.4 84 182 392 SR-25 North of Meirdian St 16,560 45 0.0% 93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 32 68.3 72.1 72.4 73 157 338 SR-25 South of Meridian St 19,110 45 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 33 61.5 65.3 65.6 26 55 119 Meridian St East of SR-25 6,480 40 0.0% 98.7% 0.0% 1.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 34 61.9 65.6 66.0 27 58 126 Meridian St West of SR-25 8,210 40 0.0% 99.5% 0.0% 0.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 35 69.4 73.1 73.4 85 183 394 SR-25 North of Hillcrest Rd 18,890 45 0.0% 94.9% 0.0% 5.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 36 68.5 72.3 72.6 75 161 348 SR-25 South of Hillcrest Rd 20,460 45 0.0% 97.4% 0.0% 2.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 37 64.5 68.2 68.6 40 86 186 Hillcrest Rd East of SR-25 9,270 45 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 38 63.7 67.5 67.8 36 77 167 Hillcrest Rd West of SR-25 8,060 35 0.0% 94.6% 0.0% 5.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 39 57.9 61.6 62.0 15 31 68 San Benito St North of Nash Rd 6,630 30 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 40 57.9 61.6 62.0 15 31 68 San Benito St South of Nash Rd 6,880 30 0.0% 99.4% 0.0% 0.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 41 58.7 62.4 62.8 17 36 77 Nash Rd East of San Benito St 10,340 30 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 42 56.3 60.0 60.4 11 25 53 Nash Rd West of San Benito St 3,790 35 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 43 59.9 63.6 64.0 20 43 93 San Benito St North of Union Rd 6,900 30 0.0% 97.6% 0.0% 2.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 44 64.0 67.7 68.1 37 80 173 Union Rd East of San Benito St 9,060 40 0.0% 97.0% 0.0% 3.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 45 66.0 69.7 70.1 51 109 235 Union Rd West of San Benito St 10,540 40 0.0% 94.4% 0.0% 5.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 46 57.5 61.2 61.5 14 29 63 Southside Rd North of Union Rd 1,980 45 0.0% 98.8% 0.0% 1.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 47 60.7 64.4 64.8 23 49 105 Southside Rd South of Union Rd 3,800 45 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 48 67.5 71.2 71.6 64 138 297 Union Rd East of Southside Rd 9,440 55 0.0% 96.2% 0.0% 3.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 49 65.3 69.0 69.4 46 98 212 Union Rd West of Southside Rd 8,940 45 0.0% 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 50 69.6 73.3 73.7 88 190 410 Airline Hwy/SR-25 North of Union Rd 12,400 55 0.0% 93.3% 0.0% 6.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 51 67.2 70.9 71.3 61 131 283 Airline Hwy/SR-25 South of Union Rd 8,880 55 0.0% 96.3% 0.0% 3.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 52 59.8 63.5 63.9 20 42 91 Avenida Cesar Chavez East of Airline Hwy/SR-25 7,050 35 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 53 67.3 71.0 71.4 62 134 288 Union Rd West of Airline Hwy/SR-25 9,330 55 0.0% 96.6% 0.0% 3.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 54 59.5 63.2 63.6 19 40 87 San Benito St North of 4th St 7,670 25 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 55 51.5 55.2 55.6 6 12 26 San Benito St South of 4th St 3,370 25 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 1 Soft 50 0.5 6 56 62.4 66.1 66.5 29 63 136 4th St East of San Benito St 7,000 35 0.0% 95.9% 0.0% 4.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 57 62.8 66.5 66.9 31 67 144 4th St West of San Benito St 9,560 35 0.0% 97.4% 0.0% 2.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 58 63.4 67.1 67.5 34 73 157 Fairview Rd North of Hillcrest Rd 9,290 35 0.0% 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 59 61.8 65.5 65.9 26 57 123 Fairview Rd South of Hillcrest Rd 7,560 35 0.0% 97.5% 0.0% 2.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 3 Soft 50 0.5 32 60 57.2 60.9 61.3 13 28 61 Hillcrest Rd East of Fairview Rd 1,400 45 0.0% 96.6% 0.0% 3.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 61 61.3 65.0 65.4 25 53 115 Hillcrest Rd West of Fairview Rd 3,330 50 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 2.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 62 64.2 67.9 68.3 38 83 178 Fairview Rd North of Sunnyslope Rd 7,440 35 0.0% 93.2% 0.0% 6.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 63 60.7 64.4 64.8 23 49 105 Fairview Rd South of Sunnyslope Rd 5,730 35 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 64 54.6 58.3 58.7 9 19 41 Sunnyslope Rd East of Fairview Rd 2,550 25 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 65 60.5 64.2 64.6 22 47 101 Sunnyslope Rd West of Fairview Rd 4,920 40 0.0% 98.3% 0.0% 1.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 66 61.4 65.2 65.5 25 54 117 Fairview Rd North of Airline Hwy/SR-25 3,440 35 0.0% 91.3% 0.0% 8.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 67 59.7 63.4 63.8 19 41 89 Ridgemark Dr South of Airline Hwy/SR-25 4,360 35 0.0% 97.0% 0.0% 3.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 68 65.6 69.3 69.7 47 102 220 Airline Hwy/SR-25 East of Fairview Rd 4,440 55 0.0% 91.8% 0.0% 8.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 69 67.9 71.6 72.0 68 146 315 Airline Hwy/SR-25 West of Fairview Rd 6,980 55 0.0% 90.3% 0.0% 9.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 70 71.1 74.8 75.2 111 240 517 SR-156 North of San Juan Hollsiter Rd 7,090 55 0.0% 71.0% 0.0% 29.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 71 71.1 74.8 75.2 111 239 516 SR-156 South of San Juan Hollister Rd 12,830 55 0.0% 87.8% 0.0% 12.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 72 67.0 70.7 71.1 59 127 274 San Juan Hollister Rd East of SR-156 7,420 55 0.0% 95.0% 0.0% 5.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 73 69.7 73.4 73.8 89 192 415 San Felipe Rd North of Fallon Rd 8,520 55 0.0% 86.7% 0.0% 13.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 74 68.4 72.2 72.5 74 159 343 San Felipe Rd South of Fallon Rd 13,460 55 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 75 65.7 69.4 69.8 49 105 225 Fallon Rd East of San Felipe Rd 6,200 45 0.0% 91.1% 0.0% 8.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 76 69.1 72.8 73.1 81 175 376 San Felipe Rd North of Rd P 8,350 55 0.0% 88.7% 0.0% 11.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 77 67.1 70.9 71.2 60 130 281 San Felipe Rd South of Rd P 8,410 55 0.0% 95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 78 60.5 64.2 64.6 22 47 102 San Felipe Rd North of Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR-156 5,480 35 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 79 63.1 66.8 67.2 32 70 150 San Felipe Rd South of Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR-156 8,120 35 0.0% 95.9% 0.0% 4.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 80 70.3 74.0 74.4 99 213 458 Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR -156 East of San Felipe Rd 6,810 55 0.0% 75.9% 0.0% 24.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 81 69.3 73.0 73.4 84 181 389 Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR -156 West of San Felipe Rd 4,470 55 0.0% 69.6% 0.0% 30.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 82 68.8 72.5 72.9 78 168 362 SR-25 North of Flynn Rd 13,180 45 0.0% 91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 83 65.3 69.0 69.4 46 98 212 SR-25 South of Flynn Rd 11,780 40 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 3.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 84 68.2 71.9 72.3 71 152 329 SR-25 North of Wright Rd 11,770 40 0.0% 89.6% 0.0% 10.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 85 65.6 69.3 69.7 48 102 221 SR-25 South of Wright Rd 12,010 40 0.0% 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 86 60.2 63.9 64.3 21 45 97 Wright Rd East of SR-25 1,450 40 0.0% 85.1% 0.0% 14.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 87 55.9 59.6 60.0 11 23 50 Wright Rd West of SR-25 1,650 40 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 88 62.7 66.5 66.8 31 66 143 Fairview Rd North of Avenida Cesar Chavez 5,150 35 0.0% 92.5% 0.0% 7.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 89 58.6 62.4 62.7 16 35 76 Fairview Rd South of Avenida Cesar Chavez 3,540 35 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Hollister General Plan Update (HOLL-01) Existing Traffic Noise dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs Auto Inputs

ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed
Limit Grade % Autos
% Med
Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks % Daytime % Evening % Night
Number of
Lanes Site Condition Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
1 71.6 75.3 75.7 120 260 559 San Felipe Rd North of Flynn Rd 16,930 55 0.0% 91.3% 0.0% 8.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2 65.6 69.3 69.7 47 102 220 San Felipe Rd South of Flynn Rd 14,770 40 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 3 62.8 66.5 66.9 31 67 144 Flynn Rd West of San Felipe Rd 4,480 40 0.0% 93.1% 0.0% 6.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 4 67.8 71.5 71.9 67 145 312 San Felipe Rd North of Wright Rd 15,520 40 0.0% 94.3% 0.0% 5.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 5 66.9 70.6 70.9 58 125 268 San Felipe Rd South of Wright Rd 18,430 40 0.0% 97.6% 0.0% 2.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 6 64.0 67.7 68.1 37 80 173 McCloskey Rd East os San Felipe Rd 5,220 50 0.0% 96.3% 0.0% 3.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 7 67.8 71.5 71.9 67 144 311 San Felipe Rd North of SR-25 20,240 40 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 3.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 67.7 71.4 71.8 66 142 306 San Felipe Rd South of SR-25 23,900 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 69.8 73.5 73.9 91 197 424 SR-25 East of San Felipe Rd 17,040 55 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 72.9 76.6 77.0 147 317 683 SR-25 West of San Felipe Rd 22,360 55 0.0% 90.4% 0.0% 9.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 11 71.3 75.0 75.4 114 246 531 SR-156 North of Buena Vista Rd 6,750 55 0.0% 67.5% 0.0% 32.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 12 69.5 73.2 73.6 87 187 402 SR-156 South of Buena Vista Rd 8,120 55 0.0% 86.0% 0.0% 14.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 13 56.9 60.6 61.0 13 27 58 Buena Vista Rd East of SR-156 2,890 30 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 3.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 14 53.6 57.3 57.7 8 16 35 Buena Vista Rd East of Beresini Ln 1,250 35 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 2.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 15 57.0 60.7 61.1 13 27 59 Buena Vista Rd West of Beresini Ln 1,740 30 0.0% 92.7% 0.0% 7.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 16 54.6 58.3 58.7 9 19 41 Buena Vista Rd East of Miller Rd 3,400 25 0.0% 98.3% 0.0% 1.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 17 54.8 58.5 58.9 9 20 42 Buena Vista Rd West of Miller Rd 2,680 30 0.0% 98.6% 0.0% 1.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 18 55.1 58.8 59.2 10 21 44 Westside Rd North of Buena Vista Rd 2,530 35 0.0% 99.5% 0.0% 0.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 19 57.8 61.5 61.9 14 31 67 Westside Blvd South of Buena Vista Rd 4,430 35 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 20 57.8 61.5 61.8 14 31 66 Buena Vista Rd West of Westside Blvd 4,260 30 0.0% 97.7% 0.0% 2.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 21 67.5 71.2 71.6 64 138 296 San Felipe Rd North of North St 23,710 35 0.0% 96.5% 0.0% 3.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 22 61.0 64.7 65.1 23 51 109 San Benito St South of North St 13,460 25 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 23 60.0 63.7 64.1 20 44 94 Santa Ana Rd East of San Felipe Rd 9,990 25 0.0% 97.7% 0.0% 2.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 24 58.5 62.2 62.6 16 35 74 North St West of San Felipe Rd 8,560 25 0.0% 98.4% 0.0% 1.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 25 71.8 75.5 75.9 124 267 576 SR-25 North of Santa Ana Rd 17,100 55 0.0% 90.7% 0.0% 9.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 26 68.2 71.9 72.2 71 152 328 SR-25 South of Santa Ana Rd 19,430 45 0.0% 97.7% 0.0% 2.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 27 61.6 65.3 65.7 26 55 119 Santa Ana Rd East of SR-25 7,990 35 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 2.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 28 61.0 64.7 65.1 24 51 109 Santa Ana Rd West of SR-25 8,100 35 0.0% 98.7% 0.0% 1.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 29 67.3 71.1 71.4 62 134 289 San Juan Hollister Rd East of Felice Dr 16,410 40 0.0% 95.6% 0.0% 4.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 30 63.8 67.6 67.9 36 78 169 San Juan Hollister Rd West of Felice Dr 16,290 30 0.0% 97.4% 0.0% 2.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 31 70.0 73.8 74.1 94 203 438 SR-25 North of Meridian St 19,560 45 0.0% 93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 32 69.3 73.0 73.4 84 181 390 SR-25 South of Meridian St 23,740 45 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 33 62.2 65.9 66.3 28 61 131 Meridian St East of SR-25 7,550 40 0.0% 98.7% 0.0% 1.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 34 62.5 66.2 66.6 30 64 138 Meridian St West of SR-25 9,430 40 0.0% 99.5% 0.0% 0.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 35 70.3 74.0 74.4 98 212 456 SR-25 North of Hillcrest Rd 23,520 45 0.0% 94.9% 0.0% 5.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 36 69.6 73.3 73.7 88 189 408 SR-25 South of Hillcrest Rd 25,970 45 0.0% 97.4% 0.0% 2.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 37 64.7 68.4 68.8 42 89 193 Hillcrest Rd East of SR-25 9,760 45 0.0% 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 38 64.6 68.3 68.7 41 89 191 Hillcrest Rd West of SR-25 9,870 35 0.0% 94.6% 0.0% 5.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 39 58.5 62.2 62.6 16 35 75 San Benito St North of Nash Rd 7,690 30 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 40 59.5 63.2 63.6 19 40 87 San Benito St South of Nash Rd 9,940 30 0.0% 99.4% 0.0% 0.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 41 59.0 62.7 63.1 17 37 81 Nash Rd East of San Benito St 11,100 30 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 42 56.8 60.5 60.9 12 26 57 Nash Rd West of San Benito St 4,230 35 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 43 61.8 65.5 65.9 27 58 124 San Benito St North of Union Rd 10,690 30 0.0% 97.6% 0.0% 2.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 44 65.4 69.1 69.5 46 99 214 Union Rd East of San Benito St 12,440 40 0.0% 97.0% 0.0% 3.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 45 67.1 70.8 71.2 60 130 280 Union Rd West of San Benito St 13,730 40 0.0% 94.4% 0.0% 5.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 46 57.7 61.5 61.8 14 31 66 Southside Rd North of Union Rd 2,120 45 0.0% 98.8% 0.0% 1.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 47 62.3 66.0 66.4 29 62 133 Southside Rd South of Union Rd 5,430 45 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 48 68.8 72.5 72.9 78 168 362 Union Rd East of Southside Rd 12,740 55 0.0% 96.2% 0.0% 3.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 49 66.8 70.5 70.9 57 123 266 Union Rd West of Southside Rd 12,530 45 0.0% 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 50 70.8 74.5 74.9 105 227 489 Airline Hwy/SR-25 North of Union Rd 16,140 55 0.0% 93.3% 0.0% 6.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 51 68.4 72.2 72.5 74 159 342 Airline Hwy/SR-25 South of Union Rd 11,800 55 0.0% 96.3% 0.0% 3.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 52 61.3 65.0 65.4 25 53 115 Avenida Cesar Chavez East of Airline Hwy/SR-25 9,970 35 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 53 68.6 72.3 72.7 75 162 349 Union Rd West of Airline Hwy/SR-25 12,470 55 0.0% 96.6% 0.0% 3.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 54 60.6 64.3 64.7 22 48 103 San Benito St North of 4th St 9,920 25 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 55 54.3 58.0 58.4 8 18 39 San Benito St South of 4th St 6,330 25 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 1 Soft 50 0.5 6 56 63.5 67.2 67.6 35 75 161 4th St East of San Benito St 9,000 35 0.0% 95.9% 0.0% 4.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 57 64.2 67.9 68.3 38 82 178 4th St West of San Benito St 13,050 35 0.0% 97.4% 0.0% 2.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 58 63.4 67.2 67.5 34 74 159 Fairview Rd North of Hillcrest Rd 9,470 35 0.0% 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 59 61.9 65.6 66.0 27 59 126 Fairview Rd South of Hillcrest Rd 7,850 35 0.0% 97.5% 0.0% 2.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 3 Soft 50 0.5 32 60 58.2 61.9 62.3 15 33 71 Hillcrest Rd East of Fairview Rd 1,760 45 0.0% 96.6% 0.0% 3.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 61 62.0 65.7 66.1 28 59 128 Hillcrest Rd West of Fairview Rd 3,900 50 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 2.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 62 64.4 68.1 68.4 39 85 183 Fairview Rd North of Sunnyslope Rd 7,750 35 0.0% 93.2% 0.0% 6.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 63 61.0 64.7 65.1 23 50 109 Fairview Rd South of Sunnyslope Rd 6,050 35 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 64 54.6 58.3 58.7 9 19 41 Sunnyslope Rd East of Fairview Rd 2,550 25 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 65 60.6 64.3 64.7 22 48 102 Sunnyslope Rd West of Fairview Rd 4,990 40 0.0% 98.3% 0.0% 1.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 66 62.5 66.2 66.6 30 64 137 Fairview Rd North of Airline Hwy/SR-25 4,380 35 0.0% 91.3% 0.0% 8.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 67 60.9 64.6 65.0 23 50 108 Ridgemark Dr South of Airline Hwy/SR-25 5,820 35 0.0% 97.0% 0.0% 3.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 68 66.7 70.4 70.8 57 122 262 Airline Hwy/SR-25 East of Fairview Rd 5,770 55 0.0% 91.8% 0.0% 8.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 69 69.4 73.1 73.5 85 184 396 Airline Hwy/SR-25 West of Fairview Rd 9,830 55 0.0% 90.3% 0.0% 9.7% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 70 72.2 75.9 76.3 131 282 608 SR-156 North of San Juan Hollister Rd 9,050 55 0.0% 71.0% 0.0% 29.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 71 73.4 77.1 77.5 158 340 732 SR-156 South of San Juan Hollister Rd 21,040 55 0.0% 87.8% 0.0% 12.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 72 68.2 71.9 72.3 71 153 330 San Juan Hollister Rd East of SR-156 9,810 55 0.0% 95.0% 0.0% 5.0% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 73 70.5 74.2 74.5 100 216 466 San Felipe Rd North of Fallon Rd 10,160 55 0.0% 86.7% 0.0% 13.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 74 68.8 72.5 72.9 78 168 363 San Felipe Rd South of Fallon Rd 14,670 55 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 75 68.2 71.9 72.2 71 152 328 Fallon Rd East of San Felipe Rd 10,870 45 0.0% 91.1% 0.0% 8.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 76 69.2 72.9 73.3 83 178 384 San Felipe Rd North of Rd P 8,610 55 0.0% 88.7% 0.0% 11.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 77 67.3 71.0 71.4 62 133 286 San Felipe Rd South of Rd P 8,670 55 0.0% 95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 78 61.3 65.0 65.4 24 53 114 San Felipe Rd North of Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR-156 6,470 35 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 79 63.3 67.0 67.3 33 72 154 San Felipe Rd South of Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR-156 8,450 35 0.0% 95.9% 0.0% 4.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 80 73.1 76.8 77.1 150 323 695 Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR -156 East of San Felipe Rd 12,730 55 0.0% 75.9% 0.0% 24.1% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 81 73.4 77.2 77.5 159 343 738 Pacheco Pass Hwy/SR -156 West of San Felipe Rd 11,670 55 0.0% 69.6% 0.0% 30.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 82 71.8 75.5 75.9 124 267 575 SR-25 North of Flynn Rd 26,340 45 0.0% 91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 83 68.2 71.9 72.3 71 153 330 SR-25 South of Flynn Rd 22,830 40 0.0% 96.7% 0.0% 3.3% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 84 71.3 75.0 75.3 114 245 527 SR-25 North of Wright Rd 23,950 40 0.0% 89.6% 0.0% 10.4% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 85 68.3 72.0 72.4 72 155 334 SR-25 South of Wright Rd 22,430 40 0.0% 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 86 63.5 67.2 67.6 35 74 160 Wright Rd East of SR-25 3,080 40 0.0% 85.1% 0.0% 14.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 87 58.0 61.7 62.1 15 32 69 Wright Rd West of SR-25 2,680 40 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 1.9% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 88 63.3 67.0 67.4 33 72 155 Fairview Rd North of Avenida Cesar Chavez 5,810 35 0.0% 92.5% 0.0% 7.5% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 89 59.3 63.0 63.4 18 39 85 Fairview Rd South of Avenida Cesar Chavez 4,030 35 0.0% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 75.0% 10.0% 15.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Hollister General Plan Update (HOLL-01) Existing Traffic Noise Output Inputs Auto Inputs

User Input Noise Situation Shielding Ldn 65 Contours Numeric Output (in feet) Noise Situation (Pick from List)1 Horns Existing and Future 1 Dense Urban 1 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 145 Horn Lmax (dBA) @ 100 feet 110 Horns in Future Only 2 Light Urban 2 Future 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 145 Horn Location on Locomotive(Pick from List)1 No Horns Existing and Future 3 Dense Suburban 3 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 102 Non Train Noise Environment (pick from list)2 Light Suburban 4 Future 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 102 Shielding (Pick from List)4 Horn Location on Locomotive Rural 5 Zone Length 1320 Length of Impact Area (pick from list)1 National Average (50% front, 50% middle)1 No Shielding 6 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Train Speed (mph)10 All Front Mounted 2
Future Train Speed (mph)10 All Middle Mounted 3 Length of Impact Area Impact Zones Numeric Output (in feet) Number of Existing Trains in one Direction 1 User Defined 9 % front mounted horns 4 1/4 mile 1 Impact Distance at X-ing 0 Number of Future Trains in one Direction 1 20 seconds 2 Severe Impact Distance at X-ing 0 Existing Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.)1 Non Train Noise Environment 15 seconds 3 Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 0 Future Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.)1 Urban 1 Severe Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 0 Existing Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am)0 Suburban 2 Zone Length 1320 Future Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am)0 Rural 3 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Average Number of Cars 8 User Defined Ldn =50 dBA 4 Future Average Number of Cars 8
Existing Average Number of Locomotives 2
Future Average Number of Locomotives 2
FRA Grade Crossing Noise Model
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0 500
1000
1500
2000
13 2
0 66
0 0
66 0
13 2
0 Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Ldn 65 Contours
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0 500
1000
1500
2000
13 2
0 66
0 0
66 0
13 2
0 Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Impact Zones

Noise Model
Noise Model Based on Federal Transit Adminstration General Transit Noise Assessment Developed for Chicago Create Project
Copyright 2006, HMMH Inc.

Case:

Noise Source
All Sources
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Enter noise receiver land use category below.
2 Enter data for up to 8 noise sources below - see reference list for source numbers.

NOISE SOURCE PARAMETERS
Parameter
Source Num.Freight Locomotive 9 Freight Cars 10
Distance (source to receiver)distance (ft) 7 distance (ft) 7 Daytime Hours speed (mph) 10 speed (mph) 10
(7 AM - 10 PM)trains/hour 0.13 trains/hour 0.13
locos/train 2 length of cars (ft) / train 480
Nighttime Hours speed (mph) 10 speed (mph) 10
(10 PM - 7 AM)trains/hour 0 trains/hour 0
locos/train 0 length of cars (ft) / train 0
Wheel Flats?0.00% % of cars w/ wheel flats 0.00%
Jointed Track?Y/N n Y/N n
Embedded Track?Y/N n Y/N n
Aerial Structure?Y/N n Y/N n
Barrier Present?Y/N n Y/N n
Intervening Rows of of Buildings number of rows 0 number of rows 0 Ldn (dB)
65 64
54 0
0 0
0 0
0 Hollister GP Existing and Future Conditions
0 0
Leq - daytime (dB)
66 65
56 0
51 51
Leq - nighttime (dB)

LAND USE CATEGORY
0 0
0 0
00 0
Noise receiver land use category (1, 2 or 3)

RESULTS
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
34 0
0

NOISE MONITORING LONG-TERM GRAPHS

35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
No
i
s
e

L
e
v
e
l

(
d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Noise Levels at LT-1
1st Street & San Benito Street, Hollister, CA
Monday, January 24 through Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Lmax
Leq (hr)
L(50)
L(25)
L(8)
L(2)
Lmin
76 dBA DNL

35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
No
i
s
e

L
e
v
e
l

(
d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Noise Levels at LT-2
SR 156B e/o Rajkovich, Hollister, CA
Monday, January 24 through Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Lmax
Leq (hr)
L(50)
L(25)
L(8)
L(2)
Lmin
72 dBA DNL

35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
No
i
s
e

L
e
v
e
l

(
d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Noise Levels at LT-3
SR-25 s/o Sunnyslope Rd, Hollister, CA
Monday, January 24 through Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Lmax
Leq (hr)
L(50)
L(25)
L(8)
L(2)
Lmin
73 dBA DNL

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX F :

R EVISED T RANSPORTATION D ATA

........................................................................................................................

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 1 of 10

Memorandum

To: Eva Kelly, City of Hollister
From: Michael Schmitt, AICP CTP, PTP, RSP1
Mehul Champaneri, PTP

Re: DRAFT SB 743 Analysis
City of Hollister General Plan

Date: February 16, 2024

This memorandum documents SB 743 compliant analysis completed for the proposed General Plan update for the City of Hollister, CA. The General Plan Update effort is a comprehensive update to the Housing Element and related updates to the Land Use Element of the City of Hollister General Plan. With the passage of SB 743, Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) has become an important indicator for determining if new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This memorandum summarizes the VMT analysis and resultant findings for the proposed General Plan Update.

Methodology and Assumptions

Based on the land use information provided, for the purposes of SB 743 analysis and the determination of transportation related significant impacts, the following land uses were analyzed:

 Residential
 Employment Based (Manufacturing and Mining, Construction and Transportation, Finance and Real Estate, Service, Public Administration, Agriculture, Wholesale, Education, Healthcare)

Retail land-uses typically redistribute shopping trips rather than generate new trips which is why retail was analyzed qualitatively. For residential and employment-based land uses, the most recent version of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Regional Travel Demand Model 1 (AMBAG RTDM) was used as the principal tool to determine VMT impact. The land uses were evaluated based on these scenarios:

 2045 MTP No Project
 2045 With Project

The City of Hollister currently has draft VMT thresholds and analysis guidelines that were used as the basis of the analysis contained herein.

Project Land Use Model Input Conversion
In order to evaluate the General Plan’s VMT, the land use designations for the General Plan needed to be first turned into a AMBAG RTDM compatible dataset. This dataset relied on land use assumptions developed by PlaceWorks and the City of Hollister as part of the General Plan Update.

While the AMBAG RTDM uses dwelling units as its input, there is no differentiation between single-family and multi-family residential in terms of trip generation and distribution. However, the AMBAG RTDM is a

1 The AMBAG RTDM was provided to Kimley-Horn by AMBAG staff on September 23, 2022.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 2 of 10

hybrid model as its processes follow the traditional four-step model (trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment), but it also contains a population synthesis step. The population synthesis process is based on socioeconomic data collected throughout the AMBAG region to produce individuals living in each household that contain their own trip making characteristics. In the most recent version of the AMBAG RTDM, the population synthesis step is integrated into the overall model run rather than being completed before a model run is started. This change is important to note because the population synthesis process uses the sampling data based on populations in the AMBAG region to generate populations. The inherent randomness in the population sampling and synthesis process can result in different population numbers each time the model is run. Therefore, a process was developed to use the results of the initial population synthesis step to estimate the population exclusively for the City’s proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI) area so that it remained constant throughout the model runs.

The proposed General Plan land uses were distributed throughout the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that represent the proposed Hollister SOI based on the growth between the base year and future year for those TAZs. In order to maintain a conservative analysis and avoid negative growth, it was assumed that all land uses analyzed as a part of the General Plan Update were in addition to land uses that currently exist, rather than a reuse of existing buildings. Note that the growth between the base year and proposed future year for the TAZs representing the proposed Hollister SOI was assumed to be a part of the project.

Therefore, while the 2045 MTP version of the AMBAG RTDM was used to represent 2045 No Project Conditions, the additional growth in land uses representing the 2045 With Project scenario is a result of the additional growth representing the full build out of the City’s General Plan land use in the proposed Hollister SOI. The land use totals for the proposed General Plan input into the model are summarized in Exhibit 1 below.

Exhibit 1 – AMBAG RTDM Land Use Inputs by Scenario
Land Use 2015
Existing
2045
MTP
(No Project)
2045
MTP
Growth
2045
With
Project
2045 With
Project
Growth
Households 10,951 15,615 4,664 21,410 10,459
Manufacturing 1,545 1,789 244 4,307 2,762
Transportation & Construction 2,288 2,973 685 6,274 3,986 Finance & Real Estate 1,117 1,531 414 1,513 396
Service 2,044 2,817 773 2,862 818
Public Administration 839 1,006 167 995 156
Agriculture 349 387 38 385 36
Wholesale 439 492 53 1,010 571
Retail 1,918 1,946 28 2,229 311
Education 847 1,036 189 1,044 197
Healthcare 2,186 2,731 545 3,044 858
Total Employment 13,572 16,708 3,136 23,662 10,090

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 3 of 10

Roadway Network Assumptions
The baseline and future travel demand model uses the 2015 and 2045 roadway networks from the AMBAG model, respectively. For the purposes of this analysis, in order to estimate the VMT more precisely within the City of Hollister, slight modifications were made to how TAZs within the proposed Hollister SOI connect to the external roadway system. Specifically, in the large TAZ representing the airport and surrounding areas that include new employment-based developments (TAZ 1463), a zone split was completed. TAZ 1463 was split into two TAZs that covered smaller areas east and west of the airport.

The splits were completed as the trips to and from TAZ 1463 would have otherwise been distributed to inappropriate roadways compared to how traffic functions in the real world, which would lead to flawed VMT projections. After splitting the TAZ covering the airport area, centroid connectors (model roadway links that represent local streets that distribute trips generated for each TAZ to the surrounding roadway network) were added to the AMBAG RTDM’s roadway network. These new centroid connectors were added in order to link the newly split TAZs to the surrounding roadway network in a manner representing current roadway connections. In addition, minor modifications were made to the roadway segments between Wright Road and Buena Vista Road to better represent the existing and future planned roadways in the City.

The 2045 With Project and 2045 No Project scenarios both used the modified 2045 AMBAG model roadway network for consistency in analysis to isolate the effects of the addition of the project.

Analysis

The following sections detail the analysis completed.

Residential and Employment Based Land Uses
The VMT for the residential land uses was computed by combining the production VMT for all Home- Based trip purposes. VMT for non-residential land uses was computed from the attraction Home-Based Work VMT. The external VMT for residential land uses was determined by multiplying the calibrated external trip distance by TAZ determined using big data (Replica) by the total internal-external (I-X) Home- Based trips for that TAZ. The external VMT for non-residential land uses was determined by multiplying the calibrated external trip distance by TAZ determined previously by the total external-internal (X-I) Home-Based Work trips for that TAZ.

To determine the share of the non-residential VMT for the employment-based land uses, the total number of trips attracted to each TAZ were calculated by multiplying the model’s underlying trip generation rate for the Home-Based Work trip purpose by employment type. The employment land use share of the total Home-Based Work VMT was then calculated by dividing the number of trips generated from that employment type by the total number of Home-Based Work Trips calculated using the trip generation rates. The VMT for the employment-based land uses were calculated by multiplying the employment type land use share by the total Home-Based Work VMT (including External VMT).

Each TAZ had its VMT per capita (residential) and VMT per employee (employment-based) computed by dividing the total residential VMT or non-residential VMT by the total population or total employees by employment type.

Once the VMT per capita and VMT per employee were calculated, to determine the impact of the Hollister SOI, the citywide VMT efficiency metrics were calibrated using Replica, a big data platform.

Replica provides travel behavior patterns along roadways throughout the United States using trip data generated from multiple sources such as location-based services from cell phones and in-dash navigation

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 4 of 10

units. This data is used to provide travel behavior estimates for trips taken as recently as the spring of 2023 (representing weekday trips from March through May). The AMBAG’s RTDM has a base year of 2015, so the Replica data provides a more recent estimate of existing travel behavior within the Hollister SOI and surrounding areas. The Replica data was used to develop the thresholds of significance that the project’s VMT per capita and VMT per employee are compared against. In order to provide a like-for-like comparison using the AMBAG RTDM, the change in VMT per capita and VMT per employee efficiencies between ABMAG’s baseline scenario representing 2015 conditions, and the 2045 No Project and With Project scenarios was applied.

As Replica’s platform does not currently support the analysis of future conditions, the percent difference in citywide VMT per capita and VMT per employee between base year and future year was calculated using the AMBAG RTDM. This percent difference was then applied to Replica’s 2023 Citywide VMT per capita and VMT per employee for the 2045 No Project and 2045 With Project scenarios to calculate the Replica based citywide VMT per capita and VMT per employee, as shown in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2 summarizes the VMT evaluation across the analysis scenarios, as well as the City’s calculated residential and employment VMT per capita and VMT per employee thresholds. The thresholds were determined using the methodology outlined in the City of Hollister’s draft guidelines. As stated in the guidelines, the thresholds were determined by setting them 15-percent below the baseline San Benito countywide average VMT per capita and per employee. As shown in Exhibit 2, the thresholds were calculated to be 18.8 VMT per capita for residential uses and 20.6 VMT per employee for employment uses.

Exhibit 2 – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by Land Use and Scenario Scenario VMT/Capita
(Residential) VMT/Employee
Calculated VMT per Capita or VMT per Employee by Scenario City Threshold 18.8 20.6
2045 MTP (No Project) 21.5 18.9
2045 With Project 19.7 15.2
Over Threshold?
2045 MTP (No Project) Yes No
2045 With Project Yes No

As shown in Exhibit 2, the 2045 No Project scenario resulted in a VMT per capita of 21.5 and VMT per employee of 18.9. The 2045 With Project scenario resulted in a VMT per capita of 19.7 and VMT per employee of 15.2. Both 2045 scenarios—whether No Project or With Project—exceed the VMT thresholds for residential land uses but do not exceed the VMT thresholds for employment-based land uses. It should be noted that the VMT per capita for the 2045 With Project scenario is 1.8 VMT per capita lower compared to the No Project scenario and the VMT per employee value is 3.8 VMT per employee lower for the 2045 With Project scenario compared to the 2045 No Project scenario. This shows that the project results in more efficient travel behavior (lower VMT per capita or VMT per employee) compared to the No Project scenario, likely due to providing housing and job opportunities in close proximity within the City, leading to fewer residents traveling outside of the City for employment or other housing- supportive uses such as shopping and other services.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 5 of 10

An analysis of the model results was undertaken to better understand the travel pattern changes between the No Project and With Project future scenarios. The total number of households estimated within the City’s SOI under the 2045 With Project scenario is approximately 37-percent higher compared to the total number of households estimated for the No Project scenario. The total employment estimated within the City’s SOI under the 2045 With Project scenario is approximately 42-percent higher than the 2045 No Project scenario. The employment opportunities per resident under the 2045 With Project scenario is also estimated to be higher compared to the 2045 No Project scenario. Based on the results of the VMT analysis summarized in Exhibit 2, it was observed that the increase in the total residential VMT and employment-based VMT under the 2045 With Project scenario compared to the 2045 No Project is not directly proportional to the increase in future household and employment estimates. This suggests that under the 2045 With Project scenario, the City’s residents would have more job opportunities and supportive land uses within the City, resulting in shorter trips overall for both residential and employment-based land uses. This leads to the reduction in VMT per capita and VMT per employee for the 2045 With Project Scenario compared to the 2045 No Project scenario, as shown in Exhibit 2.

Retail Land Uses
As described previously, the retail land uses were analyzed qualitatively. The City of Hollister SB 743 Implementation Guidelines2 specifically addresses some of the key issues surrounding how a local serving retail store should be evaluated in terms of its VMT impact. As described, the threshold for significance is “a net increase.” This means that if a proposed retail use results in additional VMT, it would result in a finding of significance.

Local serving retail primarily serves pre-existing needs (i.e., they do not generate new trips because they meet existing demand). Because of this, local-serving retail uses can be presumed to reduce trip lengths when a new store is proposed. Essentially, the assumption is that someone will travel to a newly constructed local serving store because of a its proximity, rather than the proposed retail store fulfilling an unmet need (i.e., the person had an existing need that was met by the retail located further away and is now traveling to the new retail use because it is closer to the person’s origin location). This results in a trip on the roadway network becoming shorter, rather than a new trip being added to the roadway network, which would result in an impact to the overall transportation system. Conversely, residential and office land uses often drive new trips given that they introduce new participants to the transportation system. The City of Hollister SB 743 Implementation Guidelines provides for a general threshold of 50,000 square-feet as an indicator as to whether a retail store can be considered local serving or not. Based on the understanding that no single store within the estimated 875,000 square feet of retail uses will exceed 50,000 square feet, it is presumed that the proposed retail uses will not result in a net increase in VMT and would therefore not result in a significant impact.

Exhibit 3 visually demonstrates the basis of this finding. Note that the numbers provided are for illustrative purposes as the analysis technique used is qualitative.

2 City of Hollister SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, March 2023

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 6 of 10

Exhibit 3 – Illustration of the VMT Reducing Effect of Local Serving Retail

If regional serving retail is ultimately determined to be part of the project, those sites will need to be evaluated on their own merits as detailed project descriptions become available in the future.

VMT Reducing Design Principles, Policies, and Improvements Given the lack of project level specifics that are available at the General Plan level, it is not possible to fully account for the effect of project specific design principles, policies, and improvements that will reduce VMT as part of this analysis. However, these approaches are still important considerations in evaluating the results of this VMT analysis and as appropriate they should be accounted for in subsequent VMT evaluations of specific projects as they are proposed within the City of Hollister.

VMT Reducing Design Principles
Design elements of the project that are VMT reducing, may reduce project VMT. The following are considerations consistent with the Hollister General Plan Update:

 Compactness of design/Transit Oriented Development,
 A range of housing options,
 Mixed uses,
 Walkable community, and
 A variety of transportation options, and
 Preservation of open space.

Transit Oriented Development
Potential transit improvements are planned along the SR 25 corridor with bus along the existing rail corridor, and commuter rail to accommodate future development projects. These transit services would help alleviate congestion along SR 25 by providing more efficient and reliable transit services to commuters.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 7 of 10

Mixed-Use Specific Principles
Mixed-Use combines two or more types of land uses into a building or set of buildings that are physically or functionally integrated. Mixed-Use, as planned for the General Plan, seeks to promote smart growth principles including:

 Diversity and appropriate mix of uses
 Pedestrian Orientation
 Community Focal Point
 Excellence in Design
 Coordination of development strategies
 Sustainability

The plan includes guidance for specific use types (commercial, residential, etc.) and based on location (downtown, mixed-use/commercial areas, etc.) that contribute to favorable conditions for active transportation through denser development. As the AMBAG Model does not include specific functionality to reflect the impact of many of the design principles outlined and the exact nature, location, and timing of these VMT reducing considerations is not known, the additional impact of these design features will need to be evaluated at the individual project-level rather than at the programmatic level. However, it should be noted that these considerations will have a material impact on development project analysis although it will vary on the location and design features selected.

VMT Reducing Policies and Improvements
This section discusses the establishment of a framework for a programmatic approach to policies and improvements that respond to the need for feasible Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) mitigation within the City of Hollister. Identified VMT mitigation opportunities include:

1. Transportation Demand Measures

2. Implementation of AMBAG’s SB 375 Measures

3. Transit and Multimodal Improvements

4. Establishment of a VMT Bank/Exchange

Transportation Demand Measures
VMT mitigation often relies heavily on Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs). These measures generally represent two basic approaches: policy and infrastructure. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guide for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures is one of the primary bases for estimating mitigation effects in California. Although this resource is invaluable, care needs to be taken in terms of its application given that some TDMs have limited sample sizes and many of the measures are based on experiences in highly urbanized areas. Depending on the selected TDMs, it can be challenging from the standpoint of mitigation monitoring and are often unpopular with project applicants because they may need to be managed and paid for in perpetuity. These limitations have led jurisdictions to increasingly consider programmatic approaches to VMT mitigation.

As part of the Hollister’s development of its SB 743 Guidance, a review of TDM measures was undertaken for the purpose of identifying TDMs that are both appropriate to the City and setting reasonable maximums for their resultant VMT reductions. Future project level analyses should rely on the City’s current TDM options and associated maximum reductions as provided for in its SB 743 Guidance.

Although, many of the TDM options may be appropriate to individual project implementation, many of the identified TDMs may be better suited to a programmatic approach where they are implemented

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 8 of 10

across the entire City of Hollister SOI. The following TDMs have been identified as the potential basis for a programmatic approach to TDM implementation within the City of Hollister:
 Reduce Parking Supply
 Transit Stops
 Mandatory Travel Behavior Change Program
 Promotions & Marketing
 Emergency Ride Home (ERH) Program
 Bike Share
 Implement on-street and on-site Pedestrian facilities  Implement/Improve on-street and on-site Bicycle facilities  Traffic Calming Improvements

Implementation of the City of Hollister SB 375 Measures Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375, AMBAG prepared a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that was incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SB 375 requires that the RTP include an SCS, which outlines growth strategies that better integrate land use and transportation planning and help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. There are two mutually important facets to the SB 375 legislation: reducing VMT and encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient communities for the future. As identified in the AMBAG RTP/SCS, the region is projected to meet or exceed these targets, and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. The AMBAG RTP/SCS has also identified several strategies to achieve these goals. The strategies focus on integrating land use planning and transportation improvements. Some of the key strategies identified in the RTP/SCS that would apply to the Hollister General Plan are mentioned below:

Land Use Strategies
 Improve job-housing balance in the region
 Focus new growth around transit
Transportation Strategies
 Improve transit network
 Promote and improve active transportation
 Promote shared mobility

Multimodal Improvements
In terms of transit, the AMBAG model currently includes the Gilroy-Hollister Commuter Rail. It is reasonable to assume that at a minimum of a 4% mitigation effect would result if a supporting transit infrastructure, as are being planned along this route. It is likely the potential impact of transit may be higher given that SR 25 is not planned to be improved in the future and growth will continue to occur as shown in the AMBAG model.

Participation in a Predefined VMT Mitigation Bank
Programmatic approaches that rely on collectively funding larger infrastructure projects appear to hold great promise for VMT mitigation as they allow a project to obtain an amount of mitigation commensurate with their impact, include only a single payment without the complexity of ongoing management, and do not require on-going mitigation monitoring. Programmatic approaches can also provide a public benefit in terms of funding transportation improvements that would not otherwise be constructed, resulting in improvements to congestion, GHG emissions, increased transportation choices, and additional opportunities for active transportation.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 9 of 10

Under a Predefined VMT Mitigation Program framework, a fixed set of VMT reducing projects are grouped together and their associated VMT reductions are monetized in the form of credits. These credits are then purchased for the purposes of mitigating VMT in excess of determined impact thresholds. The underlying projects may be either regionally or locally beneficial to the area in which the project is located. However, once the total amount of VMT available has been purchased by development projects, the program must be replenished with new projects and the cost per VMT is recalculated producing a new Predefined VMT Mitigation Program.

The City of Hollister has started developing its own Predefined VMT Mitigation Program that will provide meaningful opportunities for development projects that might otherwise not have the ability to mitigate their impact. The Predefined VMT Mitigation Program will fund the construction of facilities that support active transportation (cycling and walking) and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development. The set of facilities included in the program are fixed and include both bike trails, bike lanes, and mobility hubs. The projects included in this program focus on providing alternative mobility options throughout the City of Hollister to reduce vehicle trips. The program relies on a nexus evaluation to support the basis of the Predefined VMT Mitigation Program's development and monetization of the projects that are identified as part of this program. Once operational, a set amount of VMT is able to be purchased on a per VMT basis by development projects seeking to mitigate their VMT impact. Once the total amount of VMT has been purchased, or once the City determines the need to add additional projects to the program, the program will be replenished with new projects and the cost per VMT will be recalculated producing a new version of the City's Predefined VMT Mitigation Program.

VMT Mitigation
As discussed previously, given the lack of specifics that are available for this General Plan level plan, it is not possible to fully account for the effect of specific design principles, policies and improvements that will reduce VMT as part of this analysis. Although many of the VMT reducing design principles, policies, and improvements that are described in the prior section may ultimately mitigate and/or potentially reduce the VMT impacts outlined in this evaluation, necessary details to assure implementation and appropriately evaluate their effect are not yet available.

It is important to note that the approaches to VMT reduction described in the prior section are supportive of existing City policies and guidelines. However, the VMT reducing approaches cited in the prior section will require further planning and development as well as committed funding sources including those from participants in the development community (many of which may not be identified yet as large areas of and may be further subdivided into specific projects and developments). As such, it is reasonable to assume that the findings of this analysis reflect a worst-case scenario given the guidance within the City of Hollister SB 743 Guidance.

Conclusion
Based on the results of this analysis, the following findings are made:

 The residential land uses exceed the threshold of significance for both the 2045 No Project and 2045 With Project scenarios. As a result, the project is determined to have a significant transportation impact for residential development.
 The employment-based land uses do not exceed the threshold of significance for both the 2045 No Project and 2045 With Project scenarios. As a result, the Project is determined to have a less than significant transportation impact for employment-based land uses.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment February 2024
City of Hollister General Plan Page 10 of 10

 The proposed project’s retail stores are assumed to be smaller than 50,000 square feet per store.

Therefore, per the City of Hollister SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, they are presumed to not have a significant impact.

Note that specific development projects may perform better or worse than the overall impacts determined by this programmatic level analysis. However, in the aggregate it is likely that this VMT analysis represents a worst-case scenario given that it does not fully represent the effect of planned VMT reducing design principles or the effect that targeted mitigation measures may ultimately have on development projects.

1 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
DRAFT SB 743 Implementation Guidelines
City of Hollister
March 14, 2023

1.0 Background
In 2013, SB 743 was signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown with a goal of reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, promoting the development of infill land use projects and multimodal transportation networks, and to promote a diversity of land uses within developments. One significant outcome resulting from this statue is the removal of automobile delay and congestion, commonly known as level of service (LOS), as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) selected Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the principal measure to replace LOS for determining significant transportation impacts. VMT is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. OPR selected VMT, in part, because jurisdictions are already familiar with this metric. VMT is already used in CEQA to study other potential impacts such as GHG, air quality, and energy impacts and is used in planning for regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS).

VMT also allows for an analysis of a project’s impact throughout the jurisdiction rather than only in the vicinity of the proposed project allowing for a better understanding of the full extent of a project’s transportation-related impact. It should be noted that SB 743 does not disallow the City of Hollister to use LOS for other planning purposes outside the scope of CEQA.

2.0 Use of This Document
Note that although this document includes footnotes and references to other documents, this document has been developed to serve both as the basis of SB 743 implementation and VMT analysis within the City. Accordingly, the document does not require the reader to reference the footnotes unless they are interested in understanding the technical basis of elements of this document’s preparation. Analysis guidelines are separated into two distinct approaches, those that relate to land use projects (Section 3.0) and those that relate to transportation improvement projects (Section 4.0). If a project includes both land use and transportation improvement elements, analysis would be required to be carried out for both.

3.0 Land Use Projects
An approach to identify transportation impacts under CEQA for land-use that closely align with guidance provided within the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018). While the OPR guidance related to SB 743 has been a helpful introduction to using VMT to evaluate projects, it does not provide a complete solution.There are a multitude of complex practical issues that are not addressed by the OPR guidance. OPR Guidance does not specifically address land uses beyond residential, office and retail, and it provides latitude on some elements of implementation. In response

2 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
to this, a specific series of analysis steps for SB 743 project evaluation have been developed to clarify requirements and reduce potential confusion.Exhibit 1 provides a graphical representation of this analysis process.

Exhibit 1 – Process for CEQA VMT Analysis for Land Use Projects •Evaluate land useStep 1
•Screen for non-signifcant
transportation impactStep 2
•Determine significance threshold
and methodologyStep 3
•Scope of Analysis AgreementStep 4
•Analysis and MitigationStep 5
•Cummulative AnalysisStep 6
•Mitigation Monitoring (if Required)Step 7

3 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Step 1: Determine Land Use Type
During the initial step, land use projects will need to be evaluated for the following considerations:
§Land use type. For the purposes of analysis, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use codes serve as the basis of land use definitions. Although it is recognized that VMT evaluation tools and methodologies are typically not fully sensitive to some of the distinctions between some ITE categories, the use of ITE land use codes is useful for maintaining consistency across analyses, determining trip generation for other planning level tools, and maintaining a common understanding of trip making characteristics amongst transportation professionals. The ITE land use code is also used as an input into the VMT Analysis Tool. §Mixed Use. If there are multiple distinct land uses within the project (residential, office, retail, etc.), they will be required to be analyzed separately unless they are determined to be insignificant to the total VMT. Mixed use projects are permitted to account for internal capture which depending on the methodology may require a distinct approach not covered in this documentation. This analysis would be the responsibility of the applicant and will need to be prepared by a qualified transportation professional and approved by the City of Hollister. §Redevelopment projects. As described under the Non-Significant Screening Criteria section, redevelopment projects which have lower VMT than the existing on-site use can be determined to have a non-significant impact.

Step 2: Screen for Non-Significant Transportation Impact The purpose of this step is to determine if a presumption of a non-significant transportation impact can be made on the facts of the project. The guidance in this section is primarily intended to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings that would be inconsistent with the intent of SB 743. A detailed CEQA transportation analysis will not be required for land use elements of a project that meet the screening criteria shown in Exhibit 2. If a project has multiple distinct uses (residential, office, retail, etc.), only those elements of the project that are not screened out would require further evaluation to determine transportation significance for CEQA purposes.

4 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Exhibit 2 – Screening Criteria
Screening Criteria OPR Guidance
CEQA Exempt Projects
Projects that are
exempt from CEQA are
not required to
undertake the analysis
included in these
guidelines.

Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§Projects determined to be exempt from CEQA as determined by the City of Hollister.

Unless:
§It is determined by the City that a project is not determined to be exempt from CEQA by the City of Hollister.

Small Projects1
This applies to projects
with low trip
generation per existing
CEQA exemptions.

Note that this includes
any land use type
(residential, office,
etc.)
Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§Project generation is less than 110 trips per day per the ITE Manual or other acceptable source determined by City of Hollister Unless:
§It is inconsistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy as determined by the City of Hollister
Projects Near High
Quality Transit2
High quality transit
provides a viable
option for many to
replace automobile
trips with transit trips
resulting in an overall
reduction in VMT.

Note that, as of the
preparation of these
guidelines, there were
no locations within the
City of Hollister for
which this screening
criteria applies.

Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§Within a ½ mile of an existing or planned major transit stop3; and §Maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods
Unless:
§Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75; or
§Includes more parking, excluding on-street parking, for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City of Hollister zoning code; or
§It is inconsistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy as determined by the City of Hollister; or
§Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units
1 2018 OPR Guidance, page 12
2 2018 OPR Guidance, page 13
3 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”)

5 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Exhibit 2 – Screening Criteria
Screening Criteria OPR Guidance
Local-Serving Retail4
The introduction of
new Local-serving
retail has been
determined to reduce
VMT by shortening
trips that will occur out
of necessity (groceries,
other essentials, etc.).

Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§No single store on-site exceeds 50,000 square feet; and §Project is local-serving as determined by the City of Hollister Unless:
§The nature of the service is regionally focused as determined by the City of Hollister
Affordable Housing5
Lower-income
residents make fewer
trips on average,
resulting in lower VMT
overall.

Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§Affordable housing is 100-percent of the residential units within a project
Local Essential
Service6
As with Local-Serving
Retail, the introduction
of new Local Essential
Services shortens non-
discretionary trips by
putting those goods
and services closer to
residents, resulting in
an overall reduction in
VMT.

Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§Building is less than 50,000 square feet; and
§Land Use is:
•Day care center; or
•Public K-12 School; or
•Police or Fire facility; or
•Medical/Dental office building; or
•Government offices (in-person services such as post office, library, and utilities)
Unless:
§The nature of the service is regionally focused as determined by the City of Hollister
4 2018 OPR Guidance, page 16
5 2018 OPR Guidance, page 14. As described, “Evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations. Lead agencies may develop their own presumption of less than significant impact for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed-use projects) containing a particular amount of affordable housing, based on local circumstances and evidence.” 6 Based on assumption that, like local-serving retail, the addition of necessary local in-person services will reduce VMT given that trips to these locations will be made irrespective of distance given their non-discretionary nature.

6 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Exhibit 2 – Screening Criteria
Screening Criteria OPR Guidance
Map-Based Screening7
This method
eliminates the need for
complex analyses, by
allowing existing VMT
data to serve as a basis
for the screening
smaller developments.

Note that screening is
limited to residential
and office projects.

Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§Area of development is under threshold as shown on screening map as allowed by City of Hollister
Unless:
§Represent significant growth as to substantially change regional travel patterns as determined by the City of Hollister
Redevelopment
Projects8
Projects with lower
VMT than existing on-
site uses, can under
limited circumstances,
be presumed to have a
non-significant impact.

In the event this
screening does not
apply, projects should
be analyzed as though
there is no existing
uses on site (project
analysis cannot take
credit for existing
VMT).

Presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact:
§Project replaces an existing VMT-generating land use and does not result in a net overall increase in VMT
Unless:
§The project replaces an existing VMT-generating land use and results in a net overall increase in VMT
7 It is anticipated that the Maps on which this criteria rely will be updated every 2-years 8 2018 OPR Guidance, Page 18

7 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Step 3: Determine Significance Threshold and Methodology The purpose of this step is to determine which threshold of significance to apply to a land use project.

Significance thresholds are based on land use type, broadly categorized as efficiency and net change metrics. Efficiency metrics include VMT/Capita and Work VMT/employee9. “Net Change” refers to the net change in regional VMT. “Net Change” is used for elements that include a significant customer base, such as commercial uses, although it can extend to a variety of uses that have similar characteristics.

VMT Thresholds of Significance
OPR suggests a 15-percent VMT reduction relative to existing local or regional average VMT levels. The thresholds of significance recommended by OPR, as they relate to the City of Hollister, are summarized in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3 – VMT Thresholds of Significance
Land Use VMT Threshold Basis
Residential 18.8 VMT/capita10 15% below existing11 county-wide average VMT per capita
Office 20.6 Work VMT/Employee12 15% below existing11 county-wide average Work VMT per employee
Other Employment-
Based VMT 20.6 Work VMT/Employee12
15% below existing11 county-wide average
Work VMT per employee all other
employment-based land uses
Regional Retail and
Other Customer-
Based VMT
Net regional change
Using the county as the basis or other
area determined appropriate by the City
of Hollister
Note that the inclusion of “Other Employment-Based VMT” refers to all other employment-generating service providers. As shown, this group follows the same approach for impact determinations as the office category with Home-Based Work VMT per employee as the basis for the threshold. “Regional Retail and Other Customer-Based VMT” refers to retail land uses, or other land uses for which the primary source of VMT is not the employees but rather its customers (i.e., retail, medical office buildings, sports complexes, movie theaters, etc.).

Based on improvements to methods and data, as well as other modeling modifications, there will be periodic updates to the numerical threshold values shown. However, the relative approach for calculating the threshold values are expected to remain the same. It is anticipated that a reevaluation of 9 Work VMT specifically applies to commute trips as represented by the attractions in the Replica Big Data Model. Refer to Appendix A for additional information
10 Residential VMT specifically applies to all Home-Based trips residential trips as represented in the Replica Big Data Model. Refer to Appendix A for additional information.
11 Existing is represented as the base year of the Replica Big Data model, which is 2019. 12 Work VMT specifically applies to commute trips as represented in the Replica Big Data Model. Refer to Appendix A for additional information.

8 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
the thresholds will occur every two (2) years. The values in the current VMT Analysis Tool, discussed in the next section, will supersede the information provided in the table above.

VMT Analysis Tool
The City of Hollister has developed an online VMT Analysis Tool for use in SB 743 land use project analysis, which can be accessed at: https://tredlite.kimley-horn.com/sites/hollister/ . The primary use for this tool is to provide a streamlined approach to analyzing potential projects for VMT impacts. The source data of the tool was developed from the Replica big data model using the methodology described in Appendix A. As with any VMT Analysis Tool, there are distinct limitations in terms of its application including limits on the type and size of development that the tool can be applied to. Note that it is anticipated that the tool will continue to evolve in response to data or methodological changes and as such, it is important that the most current version of the tool be utilized. Broadly, the VMT Analysis Tool provides the following information:
§Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation §VMT Threshold Analysis
§Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Estimation
§Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Evaluation
The VMT Analysis Tool would not be appropriate to use for projects other than residential and employment-based land uses. Other project types that the VMT Analysis Tool would not be appropriate to use include very large projects (projects generating more than 2,500 daily trips), project that can potentially shift regional travel patterns, or projects with land use types that are not present within the project vicinity considered for the VMT analysis. For projects in which the VMT Analysis Tool would be inappropriate to use, the travel demand model maintained by the Association of Monterey Bay Area governments (AMBAG) would be required for the VMT analysis based on a preliminary review of the project. The VMT Analysis methodology using the AMBAG travel demand model is summarized in Appendix B.

Step 4: Scope of Analysis Agreement
Prior to undertaking VMT analysis, a scope compliant with the City of Hollister’s requirements must be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City for approval. Given the potential complexities of some uses, particularly those not identified as residential, retail, or office, an agreement regarding the threshold and methodology is important to avoid analyses that are not compliant with the City of Hollister’s requirements.

Step 5: Analysis and Mitigation
During this step, the analysis agreed to under Step 4 should be completed. Relevant documentation providing enough detail that assumptions are clearly understandable, and methods that can be replicated should be provided along with the results of the VMT analysis for the proposed project.

If a significant transportation impact is identified, feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact must be identified. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be included in the project’s

9 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
environmental assessment. OPR provides a list of potential measures to reduce VMT but gives the lead agency (the City of Hollister in this case) full discretion in the selection of mitigation measures.

The type and size of the project will determine the most appropriate mitigation strategies for VMT impacts. For large projects such as general plans or specific plans, VMT mitigations should concentrate on the project’s density and land use mix, site design, regional policies, and availability of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. For smaller projects such as an individual development project, VMT mitigations will typically require the preparation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program. A TDM program is a combination of strategies to reduce VMT. The program is created by an applicant for their land use project based on a list of strategies agreed to with the City of Hollister.

The City of Hollister has developed a list of potential TDM strategies appropriate for their jurisdiction and what magnitude of VMT reduction could be achieved. The selection process was guided by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) recommendations found in the 2010 publication Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. The area context of the City of Hollister also influenced the type of TDM strategies that were selected. CAPCOA has found strategies with the largest VMT reduction in rural areas include vanpools, telecommute or alternative work schedules, and master planned communities with design and land-use diversity to encourage intra-community travel.

Based on empirical evidence, CAPCOA found the cross-category maximum for all transportation-related mitigation measures is 15% for suburban settings.

Appendix C summarizes available TDM strategies along with the maximum VMT reduction, applicable land use application, and complementary strategies. The City of Hollister’s VMT Analysis Tool includes the TDMs summarized in Appendix C.

If all feasible mitigation measures are not sufficient to fully mitigate the impact, then the VMT impact will be classified as significant and unavoidable. The City of Hollister may still approve the project, as allowed by CEQA, by making a Finding of Overriding Consideration. Before making such a finding and approving the project, the City of Hollister will require a cumulative VMT analysis for the project, as described below.

Step 6: Cumulative Analysis
Typically, the comparison of Existing and Existing Plus Project results in an evaluation of the worst-case scenario whether it be under an efficiency metric (per capita/per employee) or a net change metric (such as for retail or a medical office building). This is a result of the fact that future year analyses (Cumulative analyses) include additional developments which typically have the effect of shortening trips as the proximity of complimentary land uses improve with increasing densities (i.e. houses are closer to stores, houses are closer to offices, etc.). As such, it can be presumed that a project will not have a significant impact under the cumulative condition if it is not determined to have one under the baseline condition unless there are known circumstances that might alter this outcome. Accordingly, the project analysis is not required for the Cumulative conditions unless there is a finding of a significant impact under the Existing Plus Project conditions.

If necessary due to a finding of a significant impact during the baseline analysis, during this step a Cumulative analysis will be completed. This analysis should consider the effect of any mitigation measures determined under Step 5.

10 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
If the Cumulative conditions analysis also results in a finding of a significant impact, this impact shall be considered to be significant and unavoidable and must therefore be called out in the project’s EIR and subject to the Finding of Overriding Consideration described in Step 5.

Step 7: Mitigation Monitoring
As required by CEQA, the City of Hollister will require ongoing mitigation monitoring and reporting. The specifics of this will be developed on a project-by-project basis.

4.0 Transportation Projects
Depending on the specific nature of a transportation project; it can alter trip patterns, trip lengths, and even trip generation. Research has determined that capacity-enhancing projects can and often do increase VMT. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as “induced demand”. The result of these increases in VMT can often both be measured in congestion increases and negative impacts to air quality including GHG emissions. While methods are generally less developed for the analysis of induced demand compared to other areas of transportation analysis, there is still the need to quantify and understand its impact to the transportation system considering the requirements of SB 743.

Similarly, to land use projects, the approach to transportation project analysis closely align with the 2018 OPR Guidance. In terms of analysis, the analyst should first determine whether the transportation project has been prescreened and determined to have a non-significant impact as described in the following section.

Screen for Non-Significant Transportation Impact
At the discretion of the City of Hollister, the following improvements may be presumed to result in a non-significant impact13:

1.Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways, roadways, bridges, or culverts)

2.Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, signals, tunnels, transit systems, and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity

3.Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such as median barriers and guardrails

4.Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes

5.Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety

6.Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and U-turn pockets, two-way left turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes
13 2018 OPR Guidance, Page 20

11 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023

7.Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, based on the City’s functional classification, provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit

8.Conversion of existing general-purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel

9.Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles

10.Reduction in number of through lanes

11.Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles

12.Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority (TSP) features

13.Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow

14.Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow

15.Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles

16.Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices

17.Adoption of or increase in tolls

18.Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase

19.Initiation of new transit service

20.Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in number of traffic lanes

21.Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces

22.Adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs)

23.Addition of traffic wayfinding signage

24.Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity

25.Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way

26.Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non- motorized travel

27.Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure

12 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023

28.Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake-check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor Significance Threshold and Methodology
For projects that increase roadway capacity and are not identified under the Non-Significant Screening Criteria in the prior section, the significance criterion should be changed in regional VMT. A finding of a significant impact would be determined if a transportation project results in a net increase in regional VMT. As a practical matter, any roadway with more than a quarter mile in new roadway travel lane (through lanes) should be evaluated for induced demand. A competent transportation professional will be required to provide a basis for this evaluation that considers available data, roadway context, and tools. Depending on the location and nature of the roadway this may be best accomplished using the AMBAG Travel Demand Model.

5.0 Feasible Mitigation
This section discusses how CEQA, and the State of California treat cases in which a project has a significant and unavoidable transportation impact and therefore is required to provide feasible mitigation. Based on research conducted by CAPCOA, the maximum reduction that VMT can be feasibly mitigated using exclusively site-specific solutions, is 65-percent. However, this mitigation total relies on a project being located in a dense urban area with a robust transit system and a large mix of land uses in the general area. Site-specific solutions most often rely on Transportation Demand Measures (TDMs), although project land use modifications can also be utilized to mitigate impacts. Based on the land use context and the resulting number of applicable TDMs in the City of Hollister, the combined implementation of all TDMs within the City was capped at 20-percent. Therefore, projects that exceed the VMT significant impact threshold by more than 20-percent must rely on non-site-specific approaches if full mitigation is to be achieved. CEQA guidelines require that a project provide feasible mitigation to reduce a project’s VMT impact even if it cannot fully mitigate that impact.

Due to the requirement of providing feasible mitigation, if a project exceeds the City’s VMT threshold by more than 20-percent, it will require a combination of site-specific measures and non-site-specific measures. One of the primary non-site-specific measures that can be used to mitigate a project’s impact is a VMT Mitigation Bank, which is discussed in more detail in the following section. There are three options that a project could take to mitigate its VMT impact. The options include using only site-specific mitigation measures to mitigate up to 20-percent of its VMT, using only the VMT mitigation bank to mitigate VMT up to the 20-percent cap, or using combination of site-specific measures and the VMT Mitigation Bank, such as using TDM measures to reduce VMT by 10-percent and then using the VMT mitigation bank to reduce VMT by the remaining 10-percent.

Importantly, VMT mitigation is required only to be achieved up to a maximum of 20-percent (the City’s established definition of maximum feasible mitigation). If this does not fully mitigate the project’s impacts, a finding of overriding considerations will be required. However, the project may go beyond the 20-percent cap using the VMT mitigation banking fees, as described in the next section, if that is determined by the applicant to be feasible.

13 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023

6.0 VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program
This section discusses a programmatic approach to respond to the need for feasible VMT mitigation programs. In suburban areas such as the City of Hollister, VMT analysis can result in a finding of a transportation impact, particularly in undeveloped areas, due to a lack of land use density and diversity.

In addition, with fewer transportation options compared to more urbanized areas, mitigating impacts in suburban areas can prove to be more difficult than under LOS. For many jurisdictions, SB 743 is resulting in a reversal in the results of transportation significant findings as compared to how things were under an LOS-based analysis.

As a practical matter, SB 743 for many jurisdictions is also a more restrictive approach to identifying transportation impacts both because of the basis for setting an impact threshold and limited mitigation opportunities. In terms of the threshold of significance, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) recommends that projects consisting of residential or general employment category land uses effectively need to be located in an area where they are 15-percent less than the average VMT for similar uses. Effectively this means that new projects must be located in an area where they are more efficient than 65-percent of similar uses from a VMT standpoint. Given that most development in Hollister and elsewhere in California is still not planned as infill, this is resulting in an increasing need for feasible mitigation solutions.

To date, VMT mitigation has relied heavily on TDMs. These measures generally represent two basic approaches: infrastructure and policy. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) draft Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, released in December 2021, is one of the primary bases for estimating mitigation effects in California. Although this resource is invaluable, many of the mitigation options provided have questionable efficacy in suburban and rural contexts. TDMs are also challenging from the standpoint of mitigation monitoring and are often unpopular with project applicants because they may need to be managed and paid for in perpetuity. These limitations have led jurisdictions, including the City of Hollister, to increasingly consider programmatic approaches to VMT mitigation. Programmatic approaches that rely on collectively funding larger projects allow a project to obtain an amount of mitigation commensurate with their impact, include only a single payment without the complexity of ongoing management, and do not require on-going mitigation monitoring. Programmatic approaches can also provide a public benefit in terms of funding transportation improvements that would not otherwise be constructed, resulting in improvements to congestion, GHG emissions, increased transportation choices, and additional opportunities for active transportation.

The following section focuses on one programmatic approach to funding VMT mitigation, VMT Mitigation Banking. Under a VMT Mitigation Banking framework, multiple VMT reducing projects are grouped together and their associated VMT reductions are monetized in the form of credits. These credits are then purchased for the purposes of mitigating VMT in excess of determined impact thresholds. The underlying projects may be either regionally or locally beneficial to the area in which the project is located.

VMT Banking Projects
Exhibit 4 below provides detailed information on the projects included in the City of Hollister’s VMT Mitigation Bank that development projects can contribute funds towards (in the form of credits) to

14 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
mitigate their VMT impacts. The primary focus of these projects is to construct or improve active transportation facilities that will replace vehicular trips, thereby reducing VMT. In addition, the mobility hub projects are included to link the City’s existing transit system with other modes of travel to provide last-mile options for transit riders, thereby increasing transit ridership and reducing vehicular trips.

As shown in Exhibit 4,the City of Hollister has approximately $41,853,492 in VMT Banking Fees that projects can contribute funds to.Exhibit 5 displays the location of each of the projects.

Exhibit 4 – VMT Banking Projects
Project#Type Name of Project Description Length
(mi)
Cost Estimate
($)
1 Class I Path Southside Rd Southside Rd to Pinnacle Community School 0.9 mi $1,837,097 2 Class I Path San Benito River
Trail West of SR-156 to South of Hospital Rd 5.76 mi $11,825,420 3 Class I Path Union Pacific Rail South of Hudner Ln to 3th St 4.24 mi $8,698,657 4 Class II Bike Lane San Felipe Rd Wright Rd to Flynn Rd 0.85 mi $1,743,109 5 Class II Bike Lane North St/Santa Ana
Rd Union Pacific Rail to Fairview Rd 2.16 mi $140,089
6 Class II Bike Lane San Felipe Rd Flynn Rd to North of SR-156 1.99 mi $129,295 7 Class II Bike Lane Bert Dr/Shelton Dr North of Apollo Wy to North of Hamilton Ct 1.12 mi $72,937 8 Class II Bike Lane Planned Roadway Flynn Rd to South of Airway Dr 0.24 mi $15,743 9 Class II Bike Lane Fairview Rd Acquistapace Rd/Airline Hwy 7.26 mi $470,965 10 Class II Bike Lane SR-25/Airline Hwy Sunset Dr to North of Best Rd 2.73 mi $177,144 11 Class II Bike Lane Union Rd Cerra Vista Dr to Fairview Rd 0.55 mi $35,809 12 Class II Bike Lane Memorial Dr Santa Ana Rd to Sunset Dr 1.44 mi $93,663 13 Class II Bike Lane Hillcrest Rd McCray St to Fairview Rd 1.83 mi $118,966 14 Class II Bike Lane Meridian St McCray St to Memorial Dr 0.86 mi $55,554 15 Class II Bike Lane McCray St Meridian St to Hillcrest Rd 0.33 mi $21,414 16 Class II Bike Lane Sunnyslope Rd Memorial Dr to Cerra Vista Dr 0.7 mi $45,351 17 Class II Bike Lane Valley View Rd Sunset Dr to Union Rd 0.52 mi $34,063 18 Class II Bike Lane Union Rd San Benito St to Airline Hwy 0.99 mi $64,194 19 Class II Bike Lane Southside Rd Sunset Dr to Carousel Dr 0.15 mi $9,425 20 Class II Bike Lane Ladd Ln Nash Rd/Hillock Dr 0.16 mi $10,651 21 Class II Bike Lane Nash Rd North of San Benito River to Airline Hwy 1.45 mi $94,435 22 Class II Bike Lane Westside Blvd
Extension Nash Rd to Ladd Ln 1.6 mi $103,705
23 Class II Bike Lane Line St South St to Nash Rd 0.58 mi $37,414 24 Class II Bike Lane Westside Blvd Steinbeck Dr to Apricot Ln 0.14 mi $8,963 25 Class II Bike Lane Westside Blvd Jan Ave to South St 0.15 mi $9,538 26 Class II Bike Lane Line St Buena Vista Rd to South St 0.59 mi $38,026 27 Class II Bike Lane San Juan Rd San Juan Hollister Rd to Westside Blvd 1.8 mi $117,017 28 Class II Bike Lane Bridgevale Rd Graf Rd to Bridge Rd 0.25 mi $16,539

15 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Project#Type Name of Project Description Length
(mi)
Cost Estimate
($)
29 Class II Bike Lane Central Ave Bridgevale Rd to San Benito St 1.64 mi $106,623 30 Class II Bike Lane Buena Vista
Rd/North St Buena Vista Rd to Union Pacific Rail 1.81 mi $117,614 31 Class II Bike Lane McCray St Santa Ana Rd to Meridian St 0.28 mi $18,226 32 Class II Bike Lane San Felipe Rd Santa Ana Rd to Wright Rd 0.88 mi $56,936 33 Class II Bike Lane SR-156 Buena Vista Rd to San Benito River 0.37 mi $24,112 34 Class III Bike Route Fallon Rd San Felipe Rd to Dooling Rd 2.98 mi $86,365 35 Class III Bike Route SR-25 South of Frazier Lake Rd to San Felipe Road 4.37 mi $126,679 36 Class III Bike Route Union Rd West of Riverside Rd to San Benito St 1.42 mi $41,054 37 Class III Bike Route Beverly Dr Hillcrest Rd to Sunnyslope Rd 0.54 mi $15,556 38 Class III Bike Route Cerra Vista Dr Sunnyslope Rd to Union Rd 0.74 mi $21,455 39 Class III Bike Route Sunset Dr Airline Hwy to Cerra Vista Dr 0.83 mi $24,066 40 Class III Bike Route Clearview Dr Meridian St to Sunset Dr 1.16 mi $33,613 41 Class III Bike Route Meridian St Memorial Dr to Clearview Dr 0.42 mi $12,112 42 Class III Bike Route South St Westside Blvd to McCray St 1.04 mi $30,175 43 Class III Bike Route Monterey St 4th St to Nash Rd 0.88 mi $25,552 44 Class III Bike Route Sally St 3rd St to Nash Rd 0.92 mi $26,727 45 Class III Bike Route 4th St Westside Blvd to McCray St 0.82 mi $23,872 46 Class III Bike Route Steinbeck Dr Westside Blvd to Line St 0.1 mi $2,789 47 Class III Bike Route Hawkins St Monterey St to Prospect Ave 0.45 mi $12,896 48 Class III Bike Route Buena Vista Rd SR-156 to Buena Vista Rd 0.76 mi $21,884 49 Transit Mini Mobility Hub Hilcrest Rd and Memorial Dr $3,000,000 50 Transit Mobility Hub 4th St and San Benito St $12,000,000 Total $41,853,492

16 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Exhibit 5 – Location of City of Hollister VMT Banking Projects

17 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Maximum VMT Banking Fee Calculation and Nexus
The following steps were completed to monetize the identified VMT Mitigation Banking projects:

1.Identify mitigation projects;

2.Determine the cost of construction the mitigation projects;

3.Determine the total VMT that can be mitigated by the projects; and

4.Calculate the maximum mitigation fee per VMT by dividing total cost of the mitigation projects by the total VMT mitigated by the projects to determine the fee per unit of VMT.

The approach outlined above results in a calculation of the maximum fee per VMT mitigated based on the list of projects identified in Exhibit 4. Consistent with the guidance provided by the City of Hollister, the full cost of funding these improvements is used to calculate the maximum fee per VMT the City could apply to all new residential and non-residential development that result in VMT impacts proposed within the City between 2023 and 2033.

As part of this analysis, a nexus evaluation was undertaken to support the basis of the VMT Mitigation Bank’s development. Consistent with California’s Mitigation Fee Act, to develop a fee program a local agency must identify the purpose of the fee (Section 66001(a)(1)). The City of Hollister’s policy is that new development shall contribute to the VMT Banking Fee if needed for mitigation of their VMT impacts. In addition, the cost of constructing the improvements to help mitigate VMT citywide will be implemented through the VMT Mitigation Banking fee program administered by the City of Hollister.

The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling the City to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate a new development’s VMT impacts.

As noted above, the City of Hollister’s VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program will fund the construction of facilities that support active transportation (cycling and walking) and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development. These facilities include both bike trails, bike lanes, and mobility hubs.

The active transportation projects included in the nexus analysis focused on providing alternative mobility routes to driving throughout the City of Hollister. However, due to limitations with AMBAG’s travel demand model, these projects’ benefit could not be sufficiently analyzed using the travel demand model. Accordingly, the projects were analyzed using off-model techniques. Bicycle improvements were evaluated based on NCHRP 552 Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. This approach relies on spatial analysis techniques to determine the likely number of new active transportation users resulting from the introduction of a new bicycle improvement.Exhibit 6 summarizes the estimated existing ridership and forecasted future induced riders based on the construction of the projects.

Exhibit 6 – Future Project Induced Daily Bicycle Demand Demand Existing (2023)Future Induced Riders (2033)
Adult Bicyclist 6,463 8,825
Child Bicyclist 1,817 2,876
Total Facility Users 8,280 11,701
Note: Demand on individual facilities is counted as separate trips.

18 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
As shown in Exhibit 6, the projects included in the City of Hollister’s VMT Mitigation Bank could add a total of 11,701 bicycle trips per day throughout the City by 2033. These projects would also provide an alternative to congested vehicular travel as well as significant health and recreational value. While not related to VMT mitigation, it should be also be noted that construction of the bicycle improvements will result in additional safety benefits by reducing the potential for vehicle-to-bicycle conflicts.

The mobility hub projects included in this analysis focused on increasing transit ridership with the proposed passenger rail service between Hollister and Gilroy using the existing UPRR rail corridor, along with enhancements to the existing Park-and-Ride locations at Hollister Veteran’s Park and at 4th Street and San Benito Street. Similar to the bicycle projects, the mobility hub’s benefit could not be sufficiently analyzed using AMBAG’s travel demand model, so the projects were analyzed using off-model techniques. These techniques consisted of using big data existing travel patterns for commute purposes and estimated additional ridership once the mobility hubs are constructed. The ridership forecasts for the mobility hubs were based on the Council of San Benito Government’s (SBCOG) Highway 25 Congestion Relief Corridor study conducted in June 202014. Mobility hub VMT reductions were computed by multiplying the additional future daily ridership forecasts and average two-way commute trip distance.

Total VMT Reduction
The total VMT reduction per project for the bicycle projects was calculated by multiplying the average bicycle trip length taken by new riders induced by the construction of a project by the total number of new riders and the project’s lifecycle. For the purposes of this analysis, the average trip length used was four miles, based on industry standard assumptions. In addition, the project lifecycle was assumed to be ten years to cover the analysis period between 2023 and 2033. The number of new bicycle riders for each project was multiplied by the average trip length to obtain the total daily VMT reduction for each project. Each project’s VMT reduction was added together to determine the total VMT reduction for all bicycle projects, which for the projects listed in Exhibit 4 total 46,805.

The benefits of the mobility hub projects were determined using Replica big data work locations for residents of the City of Hollister and determining an average commute distance for future ridership. This distance was multiplied by the estimated daily ridership at the future Mobility Hubs in the City to determine the overall VMT reduction. The average trip distance was determined to be 17.2 miles and the total estimated transit ridership was 520 daily riders. Accounting for a two-way trip, the mobility hub project results in a total daily VMT reduction of 17,879. When this is added to the total daily VMT reduction for the bicycle and transit projects, the overall daily VMT reduction for all projects is 64,685.

Maximum Banking Fee Estimation
To determine the maximum overall fee, the total project cost of $41,853,492 was divided by the total VMT reduction of 64,685 daily VMT. This calculation resulted in a maximum cost per VMT reduction of $647.04. Note that this fee does not include any non-fee funding sources (grants, etc.). The addition of any funding sources for these projects could significantly reduce the cost of per VMT reduction cost. 14 Analysis of Public Transit Network Expansion Projects for Congestion Relief of the Highway 25 Corridor, June 2020.

19 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Appendix A
VMT Analysis Methodology Using Replica Big Data Model
The use of big data platforms has increased in the recent years with the advancement of technology and available resources. The Replica big data platform, which was used to develop the City of Hollister’s VMT Analysis Tool, provides detailed trip and demographic data that can be used to understand existing travel patterns.

Replica data representing Fall 2019 conditions were used to establish the baseline conditions in the City.

The dataset includes the entirety of the states of California and Nevada, and therefore, all trips that originate in, or are destined for, areas outside of San Benito County, but have one leg of their trip within the City of Hollister were accounted for in the VMT analysis to establish efficiency thresholds.

Replica Model Zone Structure
The smallest geographic area that Replica trip origin-destination data is available for is at the Census block group level. Therefore, the VMT analysis to determine the City’s efficiency thresholds (VMT per capita and VMT per employee) were computed at the block group level as well.

Census Data
The population and employment data associated with each block group was derived from data provided by the U.S. Census. The VMT analysis was completed using data from the U.S. Census for population and the total number of employees located in each block group, and trip characteristic data (length, origin- destination location, and trip purpose) from Replica.

Replica Trip Purpose and Travel Mode
The Replica platform provides trip origin and destination data, along with trip distance for various trip purpose and travel mode. These trip purposes and mode are listed below.

Trip Purpose:Trip Mode:
·Home ·Private Auto (Drive Alone)
·Work ·Auto Passenger (Carpool)
·Shop ·Biking
·Eat ·Walking
·Errands ·Freight
·Lodging (hotels etc.)·Public Transit
·Pass-through traffic ·Taxi/TNC
·Recreation ·Other
·Airport
·School
·Freight
·Other

20 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Trip productions and attractions for every block group, both within the City of Hollister and within San Benito County, were compiled from the larger Replica dataset using the home-based and work-based trip purposes for private auto (driver) and carpool (passenger) trips.

Replica Person Trips, Vehicle Occupancy, Trip Distance
Average vehicle trip lengths were computed for each block group using the total number of private auto person trips, carpool person trips and trip distances that are available from the Replica big data for the year 2019 Fall conditions. Average vehicle occupancy rates were computed by dividing the total auto person trips (private auto + carpool) by carpool person trips for each block group.

Replica VMT by Land Use Type
Once the average trip lengths and occupancy rates were calculated, and population and employment totals were determined, the total residential and work VMT for each block group was computed. The total residential VMT was computed by summing the production VMT for the Home-Based trip purposes at the Census block group level. VMT for non-residential land uses was computed by summing the attraction VMT by work trip purpose at the Census block group level.

VMT per capita and VMT per employee for each Census block group was computed by dividing the total residential VMT by the total population and the total work VMT by the total employment, respectively.

The average VMT per capita and VMT per employee efficiency metrics were determined at the City, County and AMBAG Region levels to determine the City of Hollister’s thresholds.

21 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Appendix B
VMT Analysis Methodology Using the AMBAG Travel Demand Model When a VMT analysis is required to use the travel demand model based on the requirements described in the Section 3 of this document, the project’s VMT efficiency metrics (VMT per capita or VMT per employee) should be calculated for baseline conditions. The travel demand model and VMT analysis methodology used for the baseline and project conditions should be consistent using the latest version of AMBAG’s travel demand model. The appropriate VMT efficiency metric for the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) representing the project should be calculated with and without the proposed project, and the percent change for the respective VMT efficiency metric should also be calculated. Once the percent change in the respective VMT efficiency metric is determined, it should then be applied to the project’s VMT efficiency metric that was determined using the VMT Analysis Tool. Once a factored VMT efficiency metric is determined, it can then be compared to the City’s thresholds provided in Section 3 to make an impact determination.

The methodology to calculate a project’s VMT efficiency metric based on the project type (residential or non-residential) using AMBAG’s travel demand model is described below. For projects that cannot be evaluated using either the VMT Analysis Tool or AMBAG’s travel demand model due to the project type or other unique circumstances, an evaluation methodology should be established in coordination with the City on a case-by-case basis.

The Association of Monterey Bay Area governments (AMBAG) maintains the regional travel demand model as a part of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy program (MTP/SCS) that includes San Benito County and the City of Hollister. The latest available version of the AMBAG model should be used in consultation with City staff and the most recent Base Year and Future Year model scenarios should be used for the baseline and cumulative conditions in the City.

AMBAG Model Zone Structure
VMT is computed at Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level to determine the appropriate project VMT efficiency metric, as well as to allow for comparisons among different areas throughout the County.

AMBAG Socio-Economic Data
Socioeconomic data (SED) and other model inputs are associated with each TAZ. Out of several different variables in the model’s SED, the VMT analysis mainly focuses on population, the number of households, the number of students, and types of employment that are used in the trip generation component. VMT computation is focused on the number of households in each TAZ and the number of jobs by employment category to determine rest of the trips. Employment categories used in the model are listed below.

Employment by Industry type:

1.Agricultural

2.Manufacturing and Mining

3.Construction and Transportation Waste

4.Finance and Real Estate

22 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023

5.Services (White Collar, non-government jobs)

6.Public Administration (Government jobs)

7.Wholesale

8.Retail

9.Education

10.Healthcare
AMBAG Trip Generation
The AMBAG model runs a series of complex steps to estimate daily trip productions and attractions by various trip purposes for each TAZ. The trip purposes are listed below.

Model Trip Purpose:

1.Home-Based Work (HBW)

2.Home-Based Shopping (HBShop)

3.Home-Based School, K-12 (HBSchool)

4.Home-Based University (HBUniv)

5.Home-Based Other (HBOther)

6.Non-Home-Based Work (NHBW)

7.Non-Home-Based Other (NHBO)

8.Visitor Shop

9.Visitor Tourist
The production model uses several variables such as number of workers, household income, age, household size and car availability depending on the trip purpose. Trip productions for every TAZ in the model are compiled separately by each trip purpose. The attraction model uses employment categories for the HW trip purpose, whereas it uses the employment categories and number of students (K-12 and University) for all non-HW trip purposes. The attraction model estimates trip attractions to each TAZ by regression coefficients that vary by employment type. Trip attractions for every TAZ are compiled by each purpose and by each employment type based on these regression coefficients.

AMBAG Person Trips, Vehicle Occupancy, Trip Distance
Trip productions and attractions are compiled after the mode choice step, and only auto trips are used for the analysis. After the vehicle trip productions and attractions are computed for each trip purpose, trip lengths are applied for each zone pair from the skim matrices in the model to compute the production and attraction VMT by purpose.

AMBAG VMT by Land Use Type
The residential VMT is computed by combining the production VMT for all the Home-Based trip purposes. VMT for non-residential land uses is computed from the attraction VMT by appropriate trip purposes and regression coefficients used in the attraction model.

23 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Residential or non-residential VMT for the project TAZ is computed and average VMT per Capita or Employee efficiency metrics are calculated for the with and without project conditions to determined percent change in VMT.

24 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
Appendix C
City of Hollister
TDM
Measure
#
Transportation
Demand
Management
Measure
Description TDM Type Max VMT
Reduction
VMT
Reduction
Type
Total Maximum Reduction 20%
Land Use Strategies – Group Max Reduction 20%
T-1
Increase
Residential
Density
This measure accounts for the
VMT reduction achieved by a
project that is designed with a
higher density of dwelling units
(du) compared to the average
residential density in the U.S.

Infrastructure 20%Residential
T-2 Increase Job
Density
This measure accounts for the
VMT reduction achieved by a
project that is designed with a
higher density of jobs compared
to the average job density in the
U.S.

Infrastructure 20%Commute
T-3
Provide Transit-
Oriented
Development
This measure would reduce
project VMT in the study area
relative to the same project sited
in a non-transit-oriented
development (TOD) location.

TOD refers to projects built in
compact, walkable areas that
have easy access to public
transit, ideally in a location with a
mix of uses, including housing,
retail offices, and community
facilities.

Infrastructure 20%All
T-4
Integrate
Affordable
housing
This measure requires below
market rate (BMR) housing. BMR
housing provides greater
opportunity for lower income
families to live closer to job
centers and achieve a
jobs/housing match near transit.

Infrastructure 20%All
T-17 Improve Street
Connectivity
This measure accounts for the
VMT reduction achieved by a
project that is designed with a
higher density of vehicle
intersections compared to the
average intersection density in
the U.S.

Infrastructure 20%All

25 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
City of Hollister
TDM
Measure
#
Transportation
Demand
Management
Measure
Description TDM Type Max VMT
Reduction
VMT
Reduction
Type
Trip Reduction Programs – Group Max Reduction 20%
T-5
Implement
Commute Trip
Reduction
Program
(Voluntary)
This measure will implement a
voluntary commute trip reduction
(CTR) program with employers.

CTR programs discourage single
occupancy vehicle trips and
encourage alternative modes of
transportation such as carpooling,
taking transit, walking, and biking,
thereby reducing VMT and GHG
emissions.

Incentive 4.0%All
T-6
Implement
Commute Trip
Reduction
Program –
(Mandatory)
Includes T-7,T-
8,T-9,T-10,T-11
This measure will implement a
mandatory CTR program with
employers. CTR programs
discourage single-occupancy
vehicle trips and encourage
alternative modes of
transportation such as carpooling,
taking transit, walking, and biking,
thereby reducing VMT and GHG
emissions.

Incentive 20.0%All
T-7
Implement
Commute Trip
Reduction
Marketing
This measure will implement a
marketing strategy to promote the
project site employer’s CTR
program. Information sharing and
marketing promote and educate
employees about their travel
choices to the employment
location beyond driving such as
carpooling, taking transit, walking,
and biking, thereby reducing VMT
and GHG emissions.

Incentive 4.0%All
T-8 Ridesharing
Program
This measure will implement a
ridesharing program and
establish a permanent
transportation management
association with funding
requirements for employers.

Incentive 4.0%Commute