Hollister City Council
December 3, 2024

26 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
City of Hollister
TDM
Measure
#
Transportation
Demand
Management
Measure
Description TDM Type Max VMT
Reduction
VMT
Reduction
Type
T-9 Subsidized
Transit Program
This measure will provide
subsidized or discounted, or free
transit passes for employees
and/or residents. Reducing the
out-of-pocket cost for choosing
transit improves the
competitiveness of transit against
driving, increasing the total
number of transit trips and
decreasing vehicle trips.

Incentive 1.2%All
T-10
Provide End-of-
Trip Bicycle
Facilities
This measure will install and
maintain end-of-trip facilities for
employee use. End-of-trip
facilities include bike parking, bike
lockers, showers, and personal
lockers.

Infrastructure 0.75%All
T-11
Employer-
Sponsored
Vanpool
This measure will implement an
employer-sponsored vanpool
service. Vanpooling is a flexible
form of public transportation that
provides groups of 5 to 15 people
with a cost-effective and
convenient rideshare option for
commuting.

Incentive /
Infrastructure 20.0%Commute
T-12
Price
Workplace
Parking
(Includes T-13)
This measure will price onsite
parking at workplaces. Because
free employee parking is a
common benefit, charging
employees to park onsite
increases the cost of choosing to
drive to work.

Incentive 20.0%Commute
T-13
Employee
Parking Cash-
Out
This measure will require project
employers to offer employee
parking cash-out. Cash-out is
when employers provide
employees with a choice of
forgoing their current
subsidized/free parking for a cash
payment equivalent to or greater
than the cost of the parking
space.

Incentive 12.0%Commute

27 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
City of Hollister
TDM
Measure
#
Transportation
Demand
Management
Measure
Description TDM Type Max VMT
Reduction
VMT
Reduction
Type
T-23
Community-
Based Travel
Planning
This measure will target
residences in the plan/community
with community-based travel
planning (CBTP). CBTP is a
residential based approach to
outreach that provides
households with customized
information, incentives, and
support to encourage the use of
transportation alternatives in
place of single occupancy
vehicles.

Incentive 2.3%All
Parking or Road Pricing / Management - Group Max Reduction: 20% T-14
Provide Electric
Vehicle
Charging
Infrastructure
Install onsite electric vehicle
chargers in an amount beyond
what is required by the 2019
California Green Building
Standards (CALGreen) at
buildings with designated parking
areas (e.g., commercial,
educational, retail, multi-family).

Infrastructure 11.9%All
T-15
Limit
Residential
Parking Supply
This measure will reduce the total
parking supply available at a
residential project or site. Limiting
the amount of parking available
creates scarcity and adds
additional time and inconvenience
to trips made by private auto, thus
disincentivizing driving as a mode
of travel.

Incentive 13.7%All
T-16
Unbundle
Residential
Parking Costs
This measure will unbundle, or
separate, a residential project’s
parking costs from property costs,
requiring those who wish to
purchase parking spaces to do so
at an additional cost.

Incentive 15.7%Residential
T-24
Implement
Market Price
Public Parking
(On-Street)
This measure will price all on-
street parking in a given
community, with a focus on
parking near central business
districts, employment centers,
and retail centers. Increasing the
cost of parking increases the total
cost of driving to a location,
incentivizing shifts to other modes
and thus decreasing total VMT to
and from the priced areas.

Infrastructure 20.0%All

28 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
City of Hollister
TDM
Measure
#
Transportation
Demand
Management
Measure
Description TDM Type Max VMT
Reduction
VMT
Reduction
Type
Neighborhood Design - Group Max Reduction: 6.4%
T-18
Pedestrian
Network
Improvement
This measure will increase the
sidewalk coverage to improve
pedestrian access. Providing
sidewalks and an enhanced
pedestrian network encourages
people to walk instead of drive.

Infrastructure 5.0%All
T-19-A
Construct or
Improve Bike
Facility
This measure will construct or
improve a single bicycle lane
facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that
connects to a larger existing
bikeway network. Providing
bicycle infrastructure helps to
improve biking conditions within
an area.

Infrastructure 0.6%All
T-19-B
Construct or
Improve Bike
Boulevard
Construct or improve a single
bicycle boulevard that connects to
a larger existing bikeway network.

Bicycle boulevards are a
designation within Class III
Bikeway that create safe, low-
stress connections for people
biking and walking on streets.

Infrastructure 0.2%All
T-20
Expand
Bikeway
Network
This measure will increase the
length of a city or community
bikeway network. A bicycle
network is an interconnected
system of bike lanes, bike paths,
bike routes, and cycle tracks.

Infrastructure 0.5%All
T-21-A
Conventional
Carshare
Program
This measure will increase
carshare access in the user’s
community by deploying
conventional carshare vehicles.

Carsharing offers people
convenient access to a vehicle for
personal or commuting purposes.

Incentive/
Infrastructure 0.15%All
T-21-B
Electric
Carshare
Program
This measure will increase
carshare access in the user’s
community by deploying electric
carshare vehicles. Carsharing
offers people convenient access
to a vehicle for personal or
commuting purposes.

Incentive/
Infrastructure 0.18%All

29 SB 743 Implementation
March 2023
City of Hollister
TDM
Measure
#
Transportation
Demand
Management
Measure
Description TDM Type Max VMT
Reduction
VMT
Reduction
Type
T-22-A
Non-Electric
Bikeshare
Program
This measure will establish a
bikeshare program. Bikeshare
programs provide users with on-
demand access to bikes for short-
term rentals.

Incentive/
Infrastructure 0.02%All
T-22-B
Electric
Bikeshare
Program
This measure will establish an
electric bikeshare program.

Electric bikeshare programs
provide users with on-demand
access to electric pedal assist
bikes for short-term rentals.

Incentive/
Infrastructure 0.06%All
T-22-C Scootershare
Program
This measure will establish a
scootershare program.

Scootershare programs provide
users with on-demand access to
electric scooters for short-term
rentals.

Incentive/
Infrastructure 0.07%All
Transit Strategies - Group Max Reduction: 7.5%
T-25 Expand Transit
Network
This measure will expand the
local transit network by either
adding or modifying existing
transit service or extending the
operation hours to enhance the
service near the project site.

Infrastructure 4.6%All
T-26 Increase Transit
Frequency
This measure will increase transit
frequency on one or more transit
lines serving the plan/community.

Increased transit frequency
reduces waiting and overall travel
times, which improves the user
experience and increases the
attractiveness of transit service.

Infrastructure 6.4%All
T-27
Transit-
Supportive
Roadway
Treatments
This measure will implement
transit-supportive treatments on
the transit routes serving the
plan/community. Transit-
supportive treatments incorporate
a mix of roadway infrastructure
improvements and/or traffic signal
modifications to improve transit
travel times and reliability.

Infrastructure 0.6%All
T-29 Reduce Transit
Fares
This measure will reduce transit
fares on the transit lines serving
the plan/community.

Incentive 1.2%All

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

A PPENDIX G :

C OMMENT L ETTERS

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

June 9, 2023
Eva Kelly
Interim Planning Manager.

Development Service Department ‐Planning Division
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
RE: Comments on City of Hollister’s GP 2040, CAP, and ALPP Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2021040277)
Dear Ms. Kelly:

Thank you for the opportunity to review Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Hollister’s General Plan 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The following comments are offered for your consideration.

In Chapter 4 (Environmental Analysis), Chapter 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), Chapter 4.11 (Land Use Planning), and Chapter 4.14 (Population and Housing), Chapter 4.16 (Transportation), and Chapter 6 (CEQA Required Assessment), AMBAG requests the following revisions:

Chapter 4. (Environmental Analysis)
On page 4‐8, the DIER states: “Land Use and Planning: The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning effects considers impacts from projected growth in the rest of San Benito County and the surrounding region, as forecast in the 2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS” and “Public Services and Recreation: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of projected growth in the rest of San Benito County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the 2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS, and contiguous with the service area boundaries of the service providers evaluated in this section.” Revise the sentences to state “…the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” Chapter 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions)
On page 4.8‐25, revise the sentence regarding the AMBAG Energy Watch Program. The AMBAG Energy Watch Program does not exist anymore and instead AMBAG has a Sustainability Program.

COMMENT LETTER GOV1
GOV1-2
GOV1-1

2 Furthermore, the proposed 2023 CAP also supports partnering with CCCE and AMBAG Energy AMBAG’s Sustainability Program by publicizing energy‐efficiency programs (Strategies 3, 4, and 7). Thus, implementation of the proposed 2023 CAP would result in beneficial impacts to GHG emissions. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and impacts would be less than significant. On page 4.8‐26, the DIER states: “The 2045 AMBAG RTP/SCS focuses on achieving GHG reduction goals by focusing housing and employment growth in urbanized areas; protecting sensitive habitat and open space; and investing in a more accessible transportation system.”
Revise the sentences to state “…the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” On page 4.8‐26, revise the citation regarding the adoption date of the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The 2045 MTP/SCS was adopted in June 2022, not June 2020.

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 20222020, June. Monterey Bay 2045 Moving Forward: 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).  https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2022‐ 07/AMBAG_MTP‐SCS_Final_EntireDocument_PDFA_Updated071422.pdf, accessed August 11, 2022.
On page 4.8‐27, the DEIR states: “As described in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, the proposed 2040 General Plan outlines specific goals, policies, and actions that will help reduce VMT and therefore reduce GHG emissions from automobiles. Please see Impact Discussion TRANS‐2 for a complete list of these goals, policies, and actions. Furthermore, implementation of the 2040 General Plan is projected to result in a decrease in GHG emissions on a per‐capita basis. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of AMBAG’s 2045 RTP/SCS in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure and transit (see Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in AMBAG’s 2045 RTP/SCS and impacts would be less than significant.” Revise the sentences to state “…the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” GOV1-2
CONT.

3 On page 4.8‐27, the DEIR states: “The proposed 2023 CAP is a strategic plan focused on GHG emissions reduction through recommended community‐wide GHG reduction strategies and an implementation plan and does not involve any land use changes that would result in indirect growth or change in building density and intensity. Furthermore, as discussed under Impact Discussion GHG‐1, implementation of the 2023 CAP would result in beneficial GHG emissions impacts by contributing to reducing VMT, increasing energy and water use efficiency, and increasing renewable energy use. Therefore, the 2023 CAP would be complementary to statewide and regional plans to reduce GHG and would not interfere with or obstruct the implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan or the 2045 AMBAG RTP/SCS. Implementation of the proposed CAP would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant.” Revise the sentences to state “…the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” Chapter 4.11 (Land Use Planning)
On pages 4.11‐2, the DEIR states “By considering the regional forecasts, and goals and policies of the AMBAG MTS/SCS, the City of Hollister General Plan can support these regional planning efforts. AMBAG is currently developing the 2050 MTP/SCS, which is scheduled for adoption in 2026.”
Revise the sentences to state “…the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” Chapter 4.14 (Population and Housing)
On page 4.14‐1, the DEIR states “The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the official comprehensive planning agency for Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County. AMBAG is responsible for taking the overall regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) provided by the State and preparing a formula for allocating that housing need by income level across its jurisdiction. AMBAG produces growth projections on four‐year cycles so that other regional agencies, including the San Benito County Council of Governments, can use the forecast to make project funding and regulatory decisions. AMBAG projections have practical consequences that shape growth and environmental quality, and the general plans, zoning regulations, and growth management programs of local jurisdictions inform the AMBAG projections. The AMBAG projections are also developed to reflect the impact of “smart growth” policies and incentives that could be used to shift development patterns from historical trends toward a better jobs‐housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and greater GOV1-2
CONT.

GOV1-3

4 development and redevelopment in urban core and transit‐accessible areas throughout the AMBAG region.

AMBAG is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the tri‐county region of Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counites and prepares regional growth forecasts for the tri‐ county region. AMBAG is the Council of Governments for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counites. AMBAG develops RHNA for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties only. The Council of San Benito County Governments is the Council of Governments for San Benito County and prepares RHNA for the Cities of Hollister and San Juan Bautista and the County of San Benito. Please revise this section to correctly state that the Council of San Benito County Governments allocates RHNA in San Benito County.
On page 4.14‐7, the DEIR states “The regional projections for Hollister anticipate a 17 percent increase in population and a 26 percent increase in housing units, as shown in Table 4.14‐6, Buildout Comparison of the Proposed 2040 General Plan to Regional Growth Projections. However, the table also shows that the regional forecasts do not accommodate the City’s fair share of 4,163 housing units for the 2023–2031 Housing Element. Though the RHNA methodology considered the AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast, the forecast data were accepted for planning purposes by AMBAG Board of Directors in November 2020 and did not consider the 2023‐2031 RHNA allocations, which were finalized in 2022.2 Accordingly, this indicates that the City needs to plan for development that exceeds the AMBAG 2040 regional growth forecasts, and the City is appropriately planning in order to provide its fair share of regional housing as part of the future Housing Element 2023‐2031.”
AMBAG does not develop RHNA for the City of Hollister. Furthermore, the Regional Growth Forecast and RHNA projections are based on different assumptions and serve different purposes. The Regional Growth Forecast projects a realistic future housing demand, while the RHNA numbers include unmet existing housing need AND future housing demand. Finally, the Regional Housing Needs Determination was issued in September 2021 to the County of San Benito County Governments, well after the regional growth forecast was completed.

Chapter 4.16 (Transportation)
On page 4.16‐30, the DEIR states “Implementation of AMBAG’s SB 375 Measures. Some of the key strategies identified in the AMBAG RTP/SCS that would apply to the Hollister General Plan include land use strategies, such as improve job‐housing balance in the region, focus new growth around transit; and transportation strategies such as improve GOV1-3
CONT.

GOV1-4

5 transit network, promote and improve active transportation, and promote shared mobility.”
Revise the sentences to state “…the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” Chapter 6 (CEQA Required Assessment)
On page 6.5, the DEIR states “The proposed project is a plan‐level document and does not propose any specific development; however, implementation of the proposed project would induce growth by increasing the development potential in the EIR Study Area, as shown in Table 3‐3, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections in the EIR Study Area, in Chapter 3, Project Description. As shown in Table 3‐3, the 2040 forecast for the EIR Study Area is approximately 60,535 total population, 17,640 housing units, 16,985 households, and 20,025 jobs. State law requires the City to promote the production of housing to meet its fair share of the regional housing needs distribution made by AMBAG. While the City provides adequate sites to meet its fair‐share housing obligations, the additional housing capacity provided by the project would meet the additional demand generated by new job growth. In addition, the proposed 2040 General Plan would result in regional benefits by promoting growth that encourages less automobile dependence, which could have associated air quality and GHG benefits. Encouraging infill growth in designated areas would help to reduce development pressures on lands outside the City Limits.” AMBAG does not prepare RHNA for San Benito County. RHNA for Hollister, San Juan Bautista, and San Benito County is developed by Council of San Benito County Governments.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR for the General Plan 2040. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (831) 264‐5086 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Heather Adamson
Director of Planning
GOV1-4
CONT.

GOV1-5
GOV1-6

State of California—Business, Transportation and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency Hollister-Gilroy Area
740 Renz Lane
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408)427-0700
June 21, 2023
File No.: 725.14548.17803
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Attention: Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
SCH: 2021040277
I was recently requested to review the Notice of Environmental Impact document from the State Clearinghouse (SCH) related to the Hollister 2040 General Plan. After reviewing SCH# 2021040277, as well as the information and procedures outlined in General Order 41.2, Environmental Impact Documents, the Hollister-Gilroy Area does not believe the addition of bicycle paths within the City of Hollister will adversely affect traffic-related matters in the area.

The Hollister-Gilroy Area is opposed to the bus-on-shoulder concept of this project. Motorists involved in traffic crashes, experiencing medical emergencies, or who have mechanical troubles, are instructed to move to the shoulder and out of the traffic lanes. Peace officers respond to these incidents make all efforts to move the involved vehicles off the freeway or to the right shoulder to minimize secondary traffic crashes and the associated risks. When officers make traffic stops on the freeway, drivers pull to the shoulder and stop, as they are instructed to do in driving classes and per California Vehicle Code §21806. Based on past experiences in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, if busses (or other vehicles) are allowed to drive on the shoulder, other motorists will undoubtedly follow suit, creating an additional lane and removing the availability of the shoulder for true emergencies. Busses driving on the shoulders, and the inevitable vehicles which follow them, may cause confusion for other motorists and result in an increase of traffic related crashes in the area. Additionally, Appendix F, exhibit 5, identifies a Class III Bicycle Path along SR-25. These scenarios have the potential of making the roadways more dangerous and increasing liability for the State and all involved government agencies.

Authorizing any vehicle to drive on the shoulder will cause an undue safety hazard to the motoring public, road workers, and peace officers working in the area. If the bus-on-shoulder program were to progress, additional discussion would be needed to develop proper procedures regulating specific times or scenarios which would allow busses to use the shoulder as well as the speeds at which they would be allowed to travel. The Hollister-Gilroy CHP Area has concerns with this overall project.

COMMENT LETTER GOV2
GOV2-1
GOV2-2

City of Hollister

June 21, 2023
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency The Hollister-Gilroy Area supports the construction of a Class I Bicycle Path adjacent to the existing railway. The Hollister-Gilroy Area recommends additional safety measures be considered for the proposed bicycle path along the existing railway to ensure the safety of the bicyclist and the passenger/freight trains.

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

Sincerely,
P. COOPER, Captain
Commander
GOV2-3

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559)243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 27, 2023
Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
(831) 636-4360
[email protected]
Subject: Hollister General Plan Update 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Sphere of Influence Amendments and Annexations Program Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Project (Project)
SCH No.: 2021040277
Dear Abraham Prado:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Hollister for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7 COMMENT LETTER GOV3 GOV3-1

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G.Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Hollister
Objective: The existing General Plan for the City of Hollister (City) was adopted in 2005, with a horizon year of 2023. The City is now updating its plan to extend the planning period to 2040. The Hollister General Plan Update will build off the current General Plan and provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the year 2040. The proposed General Plan will direct future growth within the EIR Study Area and address the City’s vulnerability to environmental challenges such as earthquakes, wildland fires, and other hazards identified in the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Action Plan, which is to be completed concurrently with the General Plan Update. The General Plan is intended to respond to local and regional housing needs, foster economic growth and local job creation, enhance civic identity and placemaking, and protect sensitive natural resources. The proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) will identify strategies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by existing and potential future uses in the City. The General Plan Update could potentially lead to Sphere of Influence amendments and annexations that would accommodate future housing sites and limited commercial development.

Location: City of Hollister, San Benito County.

Timeframe: 2040

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Special-Status Species: Given the City-wide nature of the Project, there is the potential for the Project to impact State-listed species. Records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) show that the following special-status species, including CESA-listed species (CDFW 2023) could be impacted: the State endangered (SE) and federally endangered (FE) San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), the federally threatened (FT) vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), the FT and State threatened (ST) California tiger salamander-central population (Ambystoma californiense), the State candidate-listed endangered (SCE) Crotch bumblebee DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7 GOV3-1
CONT.

GOV3-2
GOV3-3

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

(Bombus crotchii), the ST Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelauis tricolor), the FT and State species of special concern (SSC) California red-legged frog, the FT steelhead, south/central California coast (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), and the SSC burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), Monterey hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), and the 1B.2 plant rank (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere) San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana) and Hall’s tarplant (Deinandra halliana). Along with the species listed above that have been observed within the Project limits, there was a 2021 sighting of the SE and FE California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately two miles northeast of the proposed Project site near the John Smith Landfill, as well as a 2023 sighting of the fully protected (FP) golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) just north of the landfill site (CDFW 2023).

The primary purpose of a DEIR is to consider all the potential impacts associated with the suite of projects that would eventually tier from the EIR over time. As such, the DEIR should serve primarily as a planning level EIR and consider, in detail, the cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable projects on the environment, and on the species CDFW has identified in this comment letter. CDFW recommends that habitat assessments be conducted in and surrounding all locations for planned work/ground disturbance in the DEIR and identify all the potential plant, animal, invertebrate, and fish species that could be present. Then, for those species, CDFW recommends a robust analysis of cumulative impacts for each of those species along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that could be implemented on each project to reduce harm. For many species, subsequent protocol level surveys may be required during biological studies conducted in support of the future CEQA documents that will be tiered from the Final EIR and, depending on the results, avoidance and minimization measures, permits, and mitigation may be required.

CDFW recommends that survey-level protocols be conducted for these species as part of the biological technical studies prepared in support of each future CEQA document tiered from the Final EIR, with conclusions of those studies summarized therein and repeated as necessary prior to Project ground-disturbing activities. For all future projects tiered from the EIR, CDFW recommends that focused surveys be conducted by qualified biologists familiar with the appropriate survey protocols per individual species.

In the future CEQA documents tiered from the EIR, CDFW advises that special status species be addressed with appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. If take could occur as a result of Project implementation, consultation with CDFW would be warranted.

Cumulative Impacts: CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the Project, including those whose impacts DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7 GOV3-3
CONT.

GOV3-4

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the Project, even if those impacts are relatively small (i.e. less than significant). CDFW recommends cumulative impacts be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the Project. An appropriate resource study area identified and utilized for this analysis is advised. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA and we recommend that the City reach out to CDFW to discuss various methodologies and strategies for an analysis of this type for CDFW trustee agency resources.

CNDDB: Please note that the CNDDB is populated by and records voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be pre sent in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present at or near the Project area.

Lake and Stream Alteration: The Projects that tier from the EIR may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires the project proponent to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the LSA Program at (559) 243-4593, or [email protected].

Federally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to, the San Joaquin kit fox, the vernal pool fairy shrimp, the California tiger salamander, the California red-legged frog, and the south/central California coast steelhead. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7 GOV3-4
CONT.

GOV3-5
GOV3-6
GOV3-7

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

CDFW is available to meet with you ahead of Final EIR preparation to discuss potential impacts and possible mitigation measures for some or all of the resources that were or should be analyzed in the EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3194, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Patricia Cole; [email protected]
State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [email protected]
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW LSA/1600; [email protected]
Kelley Nelson; [email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7 GOV3-8

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

LITERATURE CITED
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS . Accessed May 17, 2023.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

LITERATURE CITED
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS . Accessed May 17, 2023.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
(805)549-3101 | FAX (805) 549-3329 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
June 30, 2023
SBt/VAR
SCH#2021040277
Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
COMMENTS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) – HOLLISTER 2040

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

PRESERVATION PROGRAM, HOLLISTER, CA
Dear Ms. Kelly:

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

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

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

COMMENT LETTER GOV4
GOV4-1
GOV4-2
GOV4-3

Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
June 30, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Chris Bjornstad
Associate Transportation Planner
District 5 Land Development Review
GOV4-4
GOV4-5
GOV4-6
GOV4-7

1220 Monterey Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Phone (831) 637-5831 x 132
www.sbhs.sbhsd.org
Dr. Shawn Tennenbaum
Superintendent
June 30, 2023
City of Hollister
Development Services Department – Planning Division
ATTN: Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
[email protected]
Re: Hollister General Plan Update 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (SCH# 2021040277) (“Project”)
Comments on the “Hollister GP 2040, CAP, and ALPP EIR” and Project Dear Ms. Kelly:

This letter is submitted to the City of Hollister (“City”) on behalf of the San Benito High School District (“District”) and its governing board concerning our review and assessment of both (1)the proposed General Plan Update 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (collectively, the “Project”), and (2) the City’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the Project.

As a California public school district serving children who reside and attend school within the City and the Planning Area defined in the General Plan and DEIR, and as an owner of both a school site within the City’s limits and Sphere of Influence, as well as a second property within the Urban Service Area and Planning Area set forth in Figure 3-2 of the DEIR, the proposed Project affects resources within the District’s expertise. Accordingly, we submit these comments to the City to ensure that the serious impacts of current and future growth from now through 2040 on our District and the families we serve are heard and meaningfully addressed with decisive policies to guide future growth.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, §21000, et seq., hereinafter “CEQA”) and its interpreting regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000, hereinafter “CEQA Guidelines”), the District looks forward to receiving the City’s written responses to these comments at least 10 days before certifying a final environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project. (CEQA Guidelines, §15088(b); Pub. Res. Code, §21092.5.) A.Comments on Hollister General Plan Update 2024, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (“Project”)
The self-described purpose of the City in adopting an updated General Plan is to “direct and coordinate future planning decisions . . . [the General Plan] also describes the desired character and quality of development, and the process for how development should proceed.” (2040 General Plan, Section 1.1). Finding itself under continuing development pressure, noting “severe constraints on the city’s infrastructure” resulting from development, the City COMMENT LETTER GOV5
GOV5-1
GOV5-2

clearly must adopt a set of guiding principles so that future development improves and protects the quality of life in Hollister, rather than imperiling or diminishing it.

Our District’s goals are aligned with many of the values expressed in the General Plan , and while the District operates only partially within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s policies and actions dramatically affect the lives of our students. Our District has been deeply and negatively affected by the pace of such approvals by the City in the past five years. Thus, it is our expectation that the City will follow through on the 2040 General Plan goals that seek to protect and amplify the needs of families and how they receive public education services in Hollister.

The General Plan makes clear that the City projects the addition of 6,455 new dwelling units,

1.1 million new square feet of commercial and office space, and 2.8 million fe et of new industrial space (General Plan, Section 3.6, Policy LU-1.3).

Based on these growth projections, the General Plan goals and policies affect the District in two ways:
•First, development brings additional families to Hollister, creating the need for additional classrooms, support facilities and expanded capacity to be provided by school districts. Using current student enrollment projection models applied solely to the residential development projections of the General Plan, we anticipate a need t o house and educate up to 2,100 new students. This does not include students coming from development beyond City boundaries within the County of San Benito that must also be housed and educated by our District; and
•Second, development affects the conditions on and around existing school facilities, including Hollister High School and future sites within and outside City limits, such as traffic congestion, circulation, parking, noise, air quality and other conditions.

Our specific comments on the General Plan/Project include the following:

1.Community Services and Facilities Element – Schools (2040 General Plan Section 5.2.7)
We appreciate that the City invited us to contribute to the General Plan Advisory Committee process in 2021. We remain generally in support of all of the proposed new goals and policies included within the General Plan in support of schools, including those in Section 5.2 of the Community Services and Facilities Element, as follows:
•Goal CSF-1, Policy CSF-1.3 and 1.4; and
•Goal CSF-7, Policies CSF-7.1-7.5.

Respectfully, however, we request an amendment to Goals CSF-7.1 and 7.5, as follows:
“Policy CSF-7.1 New School Funding Initiatives. Consider incentives, such as density bonuses and waiver or reductions of development standards, when a proposed project voluntarily provides school fee contributions beyond their fair share statutory school impact fees for new school facilities (new).”
“Policy CSF-7.5 Construction of a Second High School. Support the San Benito High School District’s efforts to site, develop and construct a new high school, including GOV5-2
CONT.

approving connection of school parcels within any City Planning Area, Urban Service Area, Sphere of Influence or City limits to City’s municipal service infrastructure and systems.”
Finally, we request that every policy be supported by specific City actions created to ensure that these policies are realized.

Specifically:
o In support of Policy CSF-7.1, we request that the City add an action that mandates that a list of development incentives to be achieved in exchange for voluntary mitigation agreements in excess of school impact fees be presented these developers at the earliest possible point in the development process . o In support of Policy CSF-7.2, we request that the City add an action requiring City participation in an intergovernmental committee comprised of school districts, City officials and County officials to ensure that coordination of development occurs as identified.
o In support of Policy CSF-7.3, we request that the City add an action that requires every developer to participate in a mandatory meeting with the District to discuss (voluntary) mitigation options, as a condition of receiving project approval. Mitigation options can offer numerous benefits to develope rs. o In support of Policy CSF-7.5, we request that the City add an action requiring the Sphere of Influence be extended to include our school parcel located on Best Road.

We are available to consult with you further regarding other ideas for how the City can support these General Plan goals and policies with specific actions, but robust follow-through on these new policies is warranted.

2.Requested Additions to General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element (Section 3)
As noted in our letter to the City dated April 24, 2023, we seek the City’s support in including goals and policies within the General Plan that provide for the reservation of land pursuant to Government Code Section 66479 (see Hollister Municipal Code, §16.48) within identified Planning Areas and Specific Plans so that we can be assured that appropriate, developable land is identified and set aside for future high school use before it may be developed for other purposes.

In particular, the District seeks the reservation of 50-70 acres within the Buena Vista Road Special Planning Area and the Union Road Special Planning Area based upon current projected patterns of growth in enrollment, without regard to preservation of an agricultural “buffer” as contemplated for the Buena Vista Special Planning Area in the General Plan. This formal reservation will ensure that as development occurs in these areas, our District has the ability to secure future new school sites in these regions as part of the planning and development process.

We defer to the City as to the most appropriate way to include these land reservations within Section 3 of the General Plan. When and if Specific Plans are required for each of these planning areas, the school site reservations must be included.

GOV5-2
CONT.

B.Comments on Draft EIR
Because general plans govern the type and location of new development, CEQA and its interpreting regulations require cities and counties to study potential environmental impacts as part of the adoption or update process. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000, et seq.; see also CEQA Guidelines, §15378.) When a new general plan or revision is being considered, the EIR must evaluate the proposed plans or revision’s effects on both the existing physical environment and the environment envisioned by any adopted plan. (Environmental Planning and Information Council v. Co. of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 354; CEQA Guidelines §15125(e).) Under CEQA and its Guidelines, an EIR must set forth all significant effects on the environment of the proposed project, as well as mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, and alternatives to the proposed project. An EIR must “present information in such a manner that the foreseeable impacts of pursing the project can actually be understood and weighed.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Ranch Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450.)

1.Notice of Availability
The Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for the DEIR issued by the City is dated May 17, 2023, however it was not received by the District until June 6, 2023. As a result, the District has not been provided with the full 45-day review and comment period required under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

2.Project Description – Planning Boundaries and EIR Study Area (Section 3.4) •Inconsistency in Planning Areas. In general, there appear to be inconsistencies between the existing City Limits, Sphere of Influence, and Pl anning Area boundaries depicted in the proposed 2040 General Plan (Figure LU-2, p. LU-7) and DEIR (Figure 3-2, Figure 3-4) in comparison with the City Limits, Sphere of Influence, and Planning Area boundaries set forth in the City’s current General Plan (City of Hollister 2005 General Plan, p. 2.3). Please clarify where the existing boundaries are located and explain any discrepancies.
•Urban Service Area and Planning Area. By definition, development in the Planning Area “may have an impact on the City” (DEIR, p. 3-6; 2040 GP, p. LU-2), whereas development in the Urban Service Area to which the City provides access to municipal water and sewer services “directly influence[s] development planning and decision making in Hollister.” (2040 General Plan, p. LU-2.) As the owner of property located within both the Urban Service Area and Planning Area that will need to be connected to the City’s municipal service infrastructure and systems, and as the public high school district that will serve students residing in these areas, the District has an interest in how the 2040 General Plan will guide development and future service connections in these areas. o The Urban Service Area and Planning Area depicted in the DEIR and 2040 General Plan appear to be incomplete. For example, during its June 20, 2023 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023 -133 concerning a Wastewater Treatment Services Agreement between the City and San Juan Oaks Mutual Water Company with respect to sewer service for a development project known as the San Juan Oaks project (“San Juan Oaks”). According to Resolution No. 2023-133, as well as Resolution No. 2015-232, dated December 21, 2015, San Juan Oaks is “located within the unincorporated area of San Benito County and out side the City of Hollister GOV5-5
GOV5-4
GOV5-3
GOV5-6

Sphere of Influence and within the Urban Service Area.” Per the Mayor’s Meeting Report Out, dated June 21, 2023 (see attached), the sewer connections were approved in 2016. However, San Juan Oaks is not included within the Urban Service Area nor the Planning Area depicted in Figure LU-1 on page LU-4 of the 2040 General Plan and on Figure 3-2 of the DEIR. Because the City circulated the NOP for the EIR for the proposed Project on April 9, 2021, San Juan Oaks should be included in the Urban Service Area and Planning Area. (DEIR, p. 1-2.) The boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Planning Area need to be revised to include all areas fitting within the “Planning Area” and “Urban Service Area” definitions. o The DEIR explains that the Urban Service Area and Planning Area are excluded from the EIR Study Area because “lands outside of the SOI are not considered for urban development or annexation by the City within the 20-year planning horizon of the proposed 2040 General Plan.” (DEIR, 3 -6.) However, known development is occurring within the Urban Service Area and Planning Area, and will be connected to the City’s municipal service infrastructure and systems. It is unclear why such known and anticipated pockets of development are not included in the EIR Study Area. o Similarly, the proposed 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that specifically concern the City’s Urban Service Area and Planning Area, and such goals, policies, and actions are relied on throughout the DEIR in reaching the conclusion that environmental impacts of the Project would be less than significant, thus it is unclear why the City’s Urban Service Area and Planning Area are not included in the EIR Study Area. For example, the DEIR concludes that proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions “would minimize potential adverse impacts of future growth.” (DEIR,

4.14-7.) One of the goals relied on to mitigate impacts is Goal LU-1 (Goal LU6 of the current 2005 General Plan), which states: “Promote orderly and balanced growth within Hollister’s planning area boundaries.” (Id.) Such conclusions lack support if the City’s Urban Service Area and Planning Area are excluded from the EIR Study Area analyzed in the DEIR. •Sphere of Influence: As noted above, we are requesting that the City take action to extend its Sphere of Influence to include our property located on Best Road and Highway 25. Accordingly, we believe that the EIR Study Area should include that additional territory and any necessary adjustments be made to the DEIR.

3.Public Services and Recreation/Schools (Section 4.15.3) •We note some factual misstatements and conclusions in the impact analysis that we request be corrected and addressed in the EIR:
o Page 4.15-25: In the discussion of Hollister Municipal Code regarding school site dedication, the referenced sections apply only to elementary school districts. This option is not available to the District, and thus Hollister Municipal Code 16.48 should be referenced for the proposition that land for high school sites could be reserved in accordance with those provisions. As noted above, we are requesting school site reservation in accordance with applicable laws.

As a result, the discussion of this issue on page 4.15-30 must be updated.

GOV5-6
CONT.

GOV5-7
GOV5-8
GOV5-9
GOV5-10

o Table 4.15-1: This table of enrollment data is significantly out of date given the rapid enrollment growth we are experiencing, and thus i t seems to suggest that we have capacity at Hollister High School. That is unequivocally incorrect.

Please update this table to include 2022-23 enrollment and/or projected 2023- 24 enrollment. Our 2022-23 enrollment is 3,567 students and our projected 2023-24 enrollment is approximate 3,650 students.
•The District reiterates and incorporates by reference in our DEIR comments all of the comments made on the General Plan in Section A above, since the DEIR relies on the General Plan policies and goals to address concerns with school capacity created by future growth. To the extent the General Plan is adjusted per our comments, the DEIR should also be adjusted. (See DEIR, p 4.15-31).

4.Transportation (Section 4.16)
•General Plan Policies C-4.1 and C-4.5 recognize that the intersection of San Benito Street and Nash Road/Tres Pinos functions at a level of service below that which is expected at all other intersections in the City (LOS D). This location is the only intersection specifically identified within the General Plan for this designation. The intersection, which lies directly east of Hollister High School, is a critical access point for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists for school trips. Rather than identifying the location as a point of transportation failure, the General Plan should identify improvements that would allow the intersection to function in a manner consistent with the rest of the Cty’s infrastructure. Improvements could be developed in coordination with the District and could include modifications at the intersection and/or improvements to parallel routes.
•The DEIR identifies that implementation of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled, for which mitigation cannot be identified. As detailed in Table 4.16-1 (VMT by Land Use and Scenario) of the DEIR, in the year 2040 Plus Project scenario, the General Plan would result in significant impacts related to residential VMT per Capita, office VMT per Employee, and other use VMT per Employee. For both office VMT per Employee and other use VMT per employee, the General Plan increases VMT per capita in the year 2040 scenario. This is indicative of a land use plan that encourages development in portions of the city that are less VMT efficient. The General Plan should consider encouraging development in infill portions of the City that would yield more positive VMT outcomes. The continued expansion of the City into less efficient areas from a transportation perspective will only exacerbate overly congested conditions in and around the District’s schools. If these plans are approved and pursued, the City should work with the District to improve access to existing school facilities for automobiles, pedestrians, buses, and bicycles. •The DEIR includes a new goal and associated policies and actions directly related to District planning and operations. The following comments are provided to ensure the new policies allow for efficient implementation to meet the related General Plan goals while considering the responsibilities of the local districts as Lead Agencies under CEQA. Specifically, under Goal C-1, to provide for a healthy and active community based on complete streets, the DEIR introduces Policy C -1.9 Local Schools. The District appreciates the inclusion of the provision to coordinate with local school districts to improve transportation to new sites. The District requests the following revision to ensure maximum efficiency in complete streets planning around schools:

GOV5-11
GOV5-13
GOV5-12
GOV5-14
GOV5-15

o “During the initial stages of identifying transportation improvement priorities, coordinate with local school districts to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic flow around school sites.”
This requested revision is vital to address existing issues within the transportation network surrounding the current Hollister High School such as the poor l evel of service identified in the DEIR at the intersection of San Benito Street and Nash Road/Tres Pinos. Similarly, Action C-1.4: Safe Routes to School should include the same requirements as C-1.9 to “coordinate with local school districts” to fund and implement the Safe Routes to School improvements.

Including the school districts as a planning and operational partner for transportation planning within the City is vital to ensuring General Plan goals, policies, and actions are implemented in a strategic manner improving circulation within the City while ensuring access to a quality education for the community served by the District.
•The District understands that the City recently submitted a U.S. Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All Implementation Grant application with respect to traffic safety and roadway improvements near two elementary schools located in Hollister. The District is similarly interested in partnering with the City and the County to seek a federal grant from thi s program to fund traffic safety and roadway improvements surrounding Hollister High School , which is located within City Limits and the Sphere of Influence. These improvements are consistent with the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies set forth in the Circulation Element, including, without limitation, Goal s C-1, C-3, and C-4, Policies C-1.2, C-3.1, C-3.2, C-3.3, C-3.4, C-3.5, C-3.6, C-4.1, and C-4.7, and Actions C-

3.2, C-3.4, as well as in the Health and Safety Element, including Goal HS-1. The District seeks a commitment from the City to seek funding for, and implement, traffic safety and roadway improvements around Hollister High School.

5.Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 4.9)
•Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR must describe the existing physical environmental conditions as they exist when the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) is published in order for the project’s significant impacts to be considered in the full environmental context. (CEQA Guidelines, §15125(a)&(c).) The DEIR and the NOA include a “Hazardous Materials/Waste Disclosure”, which states: “A search of the online databases on May 1, 2020, identified four EnviroStor sites that have not been full remediated or closed.” (NOA, p.2; EIR, p. 4.9-11.) However, according to the DEIR, the City circulated the NOP for the EIR for the proposed Project on April 9, 2021. (DEIR, p. 1-2.) Therefore, the information provided in the NOA and EIR is outdated and does not satisfy bas eline condition requirements under CEQA.

Please provide a timely list and location of active cleanup sites. •The location of the District’s “San Benito High School Modernization Project” clean - up appears to be inaccurate or mislabeled on Figure 4.9 -1. Clean-up of this site is anticipated to commence in the Fall.

6.Alternatives (Section 5)
•An EIR must present “a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives” to the project or its location, as is necessary to permit a reasoned choice , and describe GOV5-15
CONT.

GOV5-17
GOV5-16
GOV5-18

the rationale for selecting the alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6(a), (b) & (f).) With respect to a general plan, a reasonable range of alternatives would typically include different levels of density and compactness, different locations and types of uses for future development, and different general plan policies. Here, the alternatives considered in the DEIR are (a) manifestly unreasonable, and (b) do not contribute to a reasonable range of alternatives. o Alternative A, the “No Project” alternative, and Alternative B, the “Focused Growth” alternative, are impracticable, unreasonable, and would be impossible to achieve:
▪As set forth in the 2040 General Plan and DEIR, a 56 percent increase in total population and 58 percent increase in housing units over the 20- year horizon is estimated in the EIR Study Area by 2040. (DEIR, 4.14-

6.) This does not include estimated housing and population increases in the City’s Urban Service Area or Planning Area. Yet Alternative A “assumes that development growth throughout the city would remain unchanged until the buildout horizon year 2040” (DEIR, p. 5 -6), while Alternative B unreasonably assumes that the population and number of housing units would both double by more than half within the same footprint as the 5,220-acre City Limits and 1,817-acre Sphere of Influence. (DEIR, pp. 5-20 & 3-3.) For these reasons, Alternative A is unreasonable, while Alternative B is impracticable.
▪In reaching the conclusions that Alternative B would be the environmentally superior alternative, the DEIR fails to consider the cumulative impacts of Alternative B, and unreasonably assumes that, by encouraging more development and redevelopment within existing City Limits, development will cease outside the current Sphere of Influence. (See DEIR, p. 5-31.) However, San Benito County has been one of the fastest growing populations in California over the last three decades,1 and as discussed above, known development will continue to occur outside City boundaries within the City’s Urban Service Area and Planning Area, and such developments will continue to be connected to the City’s municipal service infrastructure and systems. ▪In concluding that impacts under Alternative B would be similar to those of the proposed Project, the DEIR inconsistently states that Alternative B “would allow for the same level of residential and nonresidential development in the EIR Study Area through 2040.” (DEIR, p. 5-28.) However, the EIR Study Area includes the proposed Sphere of Influence expansion area, which is expressly excluded under Alternative B. (DEIR, p. 5-20.) Accordingly, this conclusion isn’t supported by the evidence, further illustrating that Alternative B would be impossible to achieve.

For these reasons, both Alternatives are infeasible.
1 BenitoLink, “Hollister 2040 General Plan: City Aims to Solve Future Traffic Congestion” (May 18, 2023), available at: https://benitolink.com/hollister-2040-general-plan-city-aims- to-solve-future-traffic-congestion/.

GOV5-18
CONT.

GOV5-19
GOV5-20
GOV5-21

o The District requests that the City consider a third alternative, which shall be referred to herein as “Alternative C”, the “Concentrated Buildout” alternative.

Similar to the proposed Project, u nder Alternative C, the Hollister Municipal Code would be amended to add the proposed ALPP, and likewise would adopt the proposed 2023 CAP to serve as the strategic plan for how the City will reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. However, we recommend that Alternative C further expand the General Plan’s proposed Sphere of Influence to include concentrated areas of planned or anticipated development within the City’s Planning Area that will be serviced by the City, including if it is reasonably foreseeable or anticipated that such development will be serviced by the City. Including such an alternative would foster informed decision-making and public participation because it would meet most of the stated objectives and would provide sig nificant environmental advantages.
•An EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying such determination. (CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6(b).) Such discussion is absent from the DEIR.
•The District requests clarification with respect to Alternative B’s scope:
o The DEIR contains an inconsistent description of the proposed Sphere of Influence under Alternative B. Specifically, the DEIR states, “Alternat ive B would not propose to change the SOI as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, but instead would maintain the current Hollister SOI.” (DEIR, pp. 5-20 – 5-21.) However, in the same paragraph concerning Alternative B, the DEIR inconsistently provides: “As shown on Figure 3-7, Existing and Proposed Sphere of Influence, in Chapter 3, the proposed SOI would extend further north and south of the existing SOI, but would remain contiguous with the existing SOI border to the east and west.” (DEIR, p. 5-21.) Figure 3-7 shows the proposed Sphere of Influence with the Project as proposed, but does not show the proposed Sphere of Influence under Alternative B. Moreover, while Figure 3-7 shows a proposed extension south of the existing Sphere of Influence, i t does not depict a proposed north extension. Please clarify the proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries under: (i) the proposed Project; and (ii) Alternative B. o The DEIR is silent on whether Alternative B includes adoption of the proposed 2023 CAP and a Zoning amendment to add the proposed ALPP to the Hollister Municipal Code.

C.Request for Notice
Pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21080.4, 21083.9, 21092, 21108, and/or 21152, as well as Government Code sections 65090 and/or 65091, please prov ide me with a copy of any future notices issued for the proposed Project.

D.Summary
The San Benito High School District is the sole provider of regular high school education services to families in Hollister and has a 100+-year history of providing excellent service to the community. However, quality education services are threatened by anticipated growth if we are unable to address the health, safety, and capacity impacts of that growth.

GOV5-22
GOV5-23
GOV5-24
GOV5-25
GOV5-26

As stated in previous correspondence to the City, as well as in recent presentations made to City officials, the District’s school facilities are currently operating over capacity, and as projects continue to get approved, the demand for new school facilities continues to increase.

The District looks forward to the City’s cooperation and collaboration in addressing these deficiencies to ensure the continued high quality of life in the City and education in its schools.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, section 15204(d), please be advised that I, Shawn Tennenbaum, am the contact person for the District who is available for consultation on the District’s behalf. My contact information is provided below.

Very truly yours,
Shawn Tennenbaum, Ed.D.

Superintendent
San Benito High School District
(831) 637-5831 (x133)
[email protected]
cc: Members, San Benito High School District Board of Trustees John Frusetta, Chief Business Officer, San Benito High School District GOV5-26
CONT.

1 From: San Benito County Business Council
Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 3:13 PM
Subject: June 21, 2023 Hollister City Council Report Out from Mayor Mia Casey To: San Benito County Business Council
Good afternoon.

Below is Hollister Mayor Mia Casey's report out of last night's City Council meeting.

Thank you, Mayor.

To review the meeting agenda, agenda packet and video, please see http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx ...

CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPORT OUT FOR JUNE 21, 2023:

We had standing room only last night in part because we were honoring the Baler Baseball and Softball teams with proclamations in recognition of their excellent seasons! I also want to highlight the 3 sewer items before us last night, and to be clear about what was discussed and voted on so people have correct information, since there has been a good deal of political spin happening:
1) Sewer System Report and Request for Direction
Our director William Via did an assessment and reported out to us some issues with our sewer plant that needed repair and upgrade. Back in 2016, 2 of the 4 "membranes" that process waste were upgraded/replaced, but unfortunately these new membranes cannot work alongside the 2 older membranes, which actually caused our waste capacity to go down from 4MGD (4 million gallons per day) to only 3.4MGD. Also, those 2 older membranes have a lifespan of about 15 years, and they are about 15 years old. So the staff had recommended replacing them.

The cost is I believe in the $2-3M range. There is a specific sewer expansion fund, which has collected sewer impact fees from developers over the years, with about $27M in it. Those funds are earmarked specifically to cover these kinds of costs. So there is no impact to the City's general fund on this. Council gave direction to do the repairs/upgrades. This also increases our capacity to keep us in compliance with state so we don't get above the 90% level. There was also discussion at the request of one council member to not repair the equipment and instead do a moratorium but the majority of council (vote 4-1) opted to take care of our infrastructure and keep it in good repair.

The other thing discussed, and which council has requested more info on is updating our bio-solids processing.

Currently, there is an older system that processes waste and presses out the water and then it is hauled off to the landfill. If we can upgrade this system we can turn waste into compost, which is environmentally friendly, and will also allow us to divert that waste from the landfill, which is important given our landfill issues! 2) San Juan Bautista sewer connection
GOV
5-27

2 The city of San Juan Bautista has an emergency situation and the state and the EPA have intervened and they needed sewer access. Last year an agreement was made by Mayor Velazquez and council to allow the sewer connection. An agreement was presented last night which detailed the terms, and the Council pushed back on the flow rate that would be allowed, and approved the agreement with that reduced amount language included. 3) San Juan Oaks project
This is an older project from 2016. This sewer connection was unanimously approved by Mayor Velazquez and council in 2016. LAFCO also gave approval, and the City Manager gave a 'will-serve' letter to San Juan Oaks.

So the approvals were all made back in 2016. Now that the project is under construction and the sewer connections are ready to be made, they brought us the maintenance/service agreement for approval. If this had not been approved and the City had tried to renege on the earlier approvals for connection given in 2016, we would have faced significant legal exposure that would have been very harmful for the city. So the council approved the agreement with a 4-1 vote.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Mayor Mia Casey
[email protected]
(831) 537-7271
...

Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or further information.

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

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the DANNIS WOLIVER KELLEY organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Never open unsolicited ema il links or attachments you did not ask for.

GOV
5-27
CONT.

State of California -- Transportation Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency 740 Renz Lane
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 427-0700
(800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD)
(800) 735-2922 (Voice)
July 29, 2024
File No.: 725.15606
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Subject: SCH 2021040277
The California Highway Patrol, Hollister-Gilroy Area received the Revised July 2024 – Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program – Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearing House (SCH) number 2021040277. After review, we have some concerns as previously described in a June 2023 response letter from this command, see enclosed for reference.

Our concern relates to the lack of detail provided for the proposed Bus-On-Shoulder concept, see draft page 586. Without the opportunity to: review details regarding the specific location(s) and day(s)/time(s) for planned use; evaluate plans for traffic control devices to be installed; and assess plans for motorist education to ensure safe implementation of the concept, none of which are described in the revised draft, the previously articulated concerns offered by this command remain.

Should you have any questions regarding these concerns, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Captain Noel Coady at (408) 427-0700.

Sincerely,
N. C. COADY, Captain
Commander
Enclosure
cc: Coastal Division
GOV6-1
GOV6-2
COMMENT LETTER GOV6
GOV6-3

State of California—Business, Transportation and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency Hollister-Gilroy Area
740 Renz Lane
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408)427-0700
June 21, 2023
File No.: 725.14548.17803
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Attention: Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
SCH: 2021040277
I was recently requested to review the Notice of Environmental Impact document from the State Clearinghouse (SCH) related to the Hollister 2040 General Plan. After reviewing SCH# 2021040277, as well as the information and procedures outlined in General Order 41.2, Environmental Impact Documents, the Hollister-Gilroy Area does not believe the addition of bicycle paths within the City of Hollister will adversely affect traffic-related matters in the area.

The Hollister-Gilroy Area is opposed to the bus-on-shoulder concept of this project. Motorists involved in traffic crashes, experiencing medical emergencies, or who have mechanical troubles, are instructed to move to the shoulder and out of the traffic lanes. Peace officers respond to these incidents make all efforts to move the involved vehicles off the freeway or to the right shoulder to minimize secondary traffic crashes and the associated risks. When officers make traffic stops on the freeway, drivers pull to the shoulder and stop, as they are instructed to do in driving classes and per California Vehicle Code §21806. Based on past experiences in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, if busses (or other vehicles) are allowed to drive on the shoulder, other motorists will undoubtedly follow suit, creating an additional lane and removing the availability of the shoulder for true emergencies. Busses driving on the shoulders, and the inevitable vehicles which follow them, may cause confusion for other motorists and result in an increase of traffic related crashes in the area. Additionally, Appendix F, exhibit 5, identifies a Class III Bicycle Path along SR-25. These scenarios have the potential of making the roadways more dangerous and increasing liability for the State and all involved government agencies.

Authorizing any vehicle to drive on the shoulder will cause an undue safety hazard to the motoring public, road workers, and peace officers working in the area. If the bus-on-shoulder program were to progress, additional discussion would be needed to develop proper procedures regulating specific times or scenarios which would allow busses to use the shoulder as well as the speeds at which they would be allowed to travel. The Hollister-Gilroy CHP Area has concerns with this overall project.

GOV6-4

City of Hollister

June 21, 2023
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency The Hollister-Gilroy Area supports the construction of a Class I Bicycle Path adjacent to the existing railway. The Hollister-Gilroy Area recommends additional safety measures be considered for the proposed bicycle path along the existing railway to ensure the safety of the bicyclist and the passenger/freight trains.

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

Sincerely,
P. COOPER, Captain
Commander
GOV6-4
CONT.

August 5, 2024
Eva Kelly
Planning Manager
Development Service Department -Planning Division
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
RE: Comments on City of Hollister’s GP 2040, CAP, and ALPP Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2021040277)
Dear Ms. Kelly:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Hollister’s General Plan 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The following comments are offered for your consideration:
•Page 4.8-1 states, “The analysis in this chapter is based on buildout of the proposed project, as modeled using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Emissions Factor Model (EMFAC2021), the Off-Road Emissions Factor Model (OFFROAD2021, version

1.0.2), energy use provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE), solid waste disposal from Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)…”
AMBAG is not responsible for solid waste disposal, so this sentence is incorrect. Please revise.
•Page 4.8-28 states, “Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in AMBAG’s 2045 RTP/SCS and impacts would be less than significant.” Revise sentence to state “…AMBAG’s 2045 MTP/SCS…”
•Page 4.11-2 states, “The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the federally designated MPO and Council of Governments (COG) for Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County.”
GOV7-1
GOV7-2
GOV7-3
GOV7-4
COMMENT LETTER GOV7

2 AMBAG is not the Council of Governments for San Benito County; instead, it is the Council of San Benito County Governments (San Benito COG).
•Page 4.11-2 states, “The 2045 MTP/SCS is the long-range SCS and RTP for the three counties and 18 local jurisdictions within the tri-county Monterey Bay region, including the City of Hollister.”
Revise sentence to state, “The 2045 MTP/SCS is the long-range SCS and Metropolitan Transportation Plan…”
•Page 4.14-2 states, “The 2045 MTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is the long- range SCS and regional transportation plan for the 3 counties and 18 local jurisdictions in the Monterey Bay Region, including the City of Hollister.” Revise sentence to state, “The 2045 MTP/SCS is the long-range SCS and Metropolitan Transportation Plan…”
•Starting on the bottom of Page 5.6, it states, “Implementation of the No Project Alternative assumes that development growth throughout the city would remain unchanged until the buildout horizon year 2040, which is consistent with other regional plans, including Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s (AMBAG) 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan & the Sustainable Communities Strategy (2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS).”
Revise the sentence to state “… (AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS).”
•Page 5-29 states, “However, implementation of the proposed project was found to have a less-than-significant impact due to the focus on infill development, which is in alignment with the regional planning framework of the 2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS.” Revise the sentence to state “… the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” •Page 6-5 state, “State law requires the City to promote the production of housing to meet its fair share of the regional housing needs distribution made by AMBAG.” The Council of San Benito County Governments (San Benito COG) is responsible for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process for San Benito County. AMBAG is responsible for RHNA for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties only.

GOV7-4
CONT.

GOV 7-5
GOV7-6
GOV7-7
GOV7-8
GOV7-9

3 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Revised DEIR for the General Plan 2040. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (831) 264-5086 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Heather Adamson
Director of Planning
GOV7-10

24580 Silver Cloud Court
Monterey, CA 93940
PHONE: (831) 647-9411 • FAX: (831) 647-8501
Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
August 16, 2024
Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
Development Services Department- Planning Division
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Submitted via email: [email protected]
Re: Hollister GPU 2040, CAP and ALPP Revised EIR
Dear Ms. Kelly,
Thank you for providing the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) with the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft EIR for the Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Land Preservation Program. MBARD has reviewed the EIR and has the following comments:

Rule 424 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) On page 4.3-13, MBARD rules and regulations that are applicable to the Plan are listed. Please add MBARD Rule 424 NESHAP. Rule 424 states that, “All suspect building materials, in each building, that will be disturbed by planned demolition or renovation activities shall be sampled and analyzed for asbestos using the method specified in Appendix E, Subpart E, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 763, Section 1 (Polarized Light Microscopy) or assumed to be asbestos containing. Suspect materials include, friable asbestos-containing material, Category I nonfriable asbestos-containing material, Category II nonfriable asbestos-containing material or any other material that may contain asbestos, based on past manufacturing practices or use”. Additionally, MBARD requires a “written building survey report be submitted along with notification for each demolition project and for asbestos removal projects that will disturb building materials”.

Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) and Other Asbestos Piping Infrastructure MBARD has prior experience with abatement of asbestos cement pipe (ACP) and other asbestos utility infrastructure components within the City of Hollister. Proper procedures must be followed during construction activities when encountering active or abandoned ACP or other asbestos-containing subsurface infrastructure.

MBARD Attainment Status
Table 4.3-4: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the NCCAB on page 4.3-18 reports the NCCAB is in nonattainment for ozone regarding the state standard. The NCCAB has been in attainment since September 2021 for the State’s 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. Please visit the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) State and Federal Area Designations webpage for more details- State and Federal Area Designations | California Air Resources Board.

Furthermore, impact AIR-2 “Implementation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard”, on page 4.3-38, should be reassessed. As stated above, MBARD is in attainment for ozone, therefore conclusions regarding air quality impacts should reflect this fact. The general plan, when fully implemented, will exceed the threshold for VOCs, NOx and CO. MBARD would like to see more GOV8-1
GOV8-2
GOV8-3
GOV8-4
GOV8-5
COMMENT LETTER GOV8

Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
approaches to reduce emissions from transportation, such as construction and installation of public electric vehicle infrastructure.

Engine Permitting
If a generator, boiler, or another stationary source of air pollutants is needed to support the construction process or will be installed for use in the operation of the project, a permit may be required. Per Rule 201, any stationary piston-type internal combustion engine of greater than or equal to 50 brake horsepower (bhp) requires a permit.

Please contact MBARD’s Engineering Division if there are any questions regarding the permitting process.

Portable Equipment Registration Program
If project construction uses portable equipment registered with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP), MBARD must be notified within two working days of commencing operations when a registered unit will be at a location for more than five days. Portable equipment not registered with CARB may be subject to MBARD permit requirements.

VOC Emissions

consumer products (Table 4.2-7). Therefore, a reference to the state consumer products regulation should be added to the discussion. This regulation was recently updated and should result in emissions reductions by the proposed project buildout year of 2040. The updated regulations are reported to achieve statewide VOC reductions of 3.00 tons per day (tpd) in 2023 and 9.80 tpd in 2031. Therefore, the emissions reported in Table 4.2-7 should reflect these reductions in the consumer products category.

products, MBARD recommends adding a sentence to the discussion of this policy that consumer product regulation updates and consumer product emission calculation tools should be reviewed. The EIR does not reflect emissions reductions in this category which may be required in the future.

Odors

odors due to the additional infrastructure needed to support these land uses such as expansion of wastewater treatment plants or sewer lines. MBARD suggests adding language to explain these potential indirect odor sources from future residential or other land use development projects.

MBARD appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft EIR for the Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Please let me know if you have any questions. I may be reached at (831) 718-8030 or [email protected].

Regards,
Edward Ballaron
Air Quality Planner I
cc: Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
David Frisbey, Planning and Air Monitoring Manager
Shawn Boyle, Planning and Air Monitoring Supervisor
GOV8-5
CONT.

GOV8-6
GOV8-7
GOV8-8
GOV8-9
GOV8-10
GOV8-11

�'I San Benito

HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
August 16, 2024
City of Hollister
Co11ti1111i11g f\cellem:e
Development Services Department -Planning Division ATTN: Eva Kelly, Planning Manager 339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Email: [email protected]
RE: Hollister GPU 2040, CAP, and ALPP Revised EIR
Dear Ms. Kelly,
1220 Monterey Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Phone(831)637-5831x1133
www.sbhs.sbhsd.org
Shawn Tennenbaum, Ed.D.

Superintendent
This letter regarding the City of Hollister's ("City") Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan ("General Plan"), Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (collectively, "Project") is sent on behalf of the San Benito High School District ("District") and its Board of Trustees. As a California public school district serving children who reside and attend school within the City, and as an owner of property within the City and proposed sphere of influence in Figure LU-1 of the General Plan, the proposed Project directly affects the District's operations. Thus, the District wishes to comment in support of the Project.

The District first wants to thank the City for the significant revisions made to the Project since it was circulated for review in 2023. While the previous version of the Project projected 6,455 new dwelling units and 21,635 new residents by the year 2040, the revised Project now projects 10,530 new dwelling units and 31,575 new residents. With this increase in projected residents, there will also be a dramatic increase in the number of projected students served by the District by 2040.

As the City is likely aware, the District has been planning to develop a second high school in the Buena Vista Corridor. The elements described in the Project reflect a direction shared by the District and the City to plan for residential and nonresidential growth within identified new growth areas, including the Buena Vista area. Most notably, the City proposes to expand its sphere of influence to include the entire Buena Vista Corridor, the area where the District has projected the greatest density of students will be generated from new residential development. Moreover, the City identifies a Buena Vista Specific Plan Area to encourage a complete neighborhood with a mix of housing types where residents may live within close proximity to commercial/industrial services, parks, schools and open space. The District appreciates that the City illustrates an anticipated location of a school in the Buena Vista Specific Plan Area in Figure LU-5 of the General Plan, which is also the approximate location of the District's site for its new high school. The mixed use illustrated in Figure LU-5 The mission of San Benito High School District is to educate all students to their highest potential so they will have the greatest range of personal options upon graduation.

COMMENT LETTER GOV9
GOV9-1
GOV9-2
GOV9-3
f ll
l
l
,
\

I
f

GOV9-3
CONT.

GOV9-4
reflects both the District's and City's shared vision to create a walkable community that promotes pedestrian activity and reduce the need to drive to other areas in the City, including the opportunity for students to safely walk or bike to school. (General Plan Goal LU-4).

The proposed expansion of the sphere of influence and the development of a Buena Vista Specific Plan are both major elements of the City's plans to ensure logical growth of the City. The District chose the location of its second high school in anticipation of the community's natural development into the Buena Vista Corridor, so the District is excited that the General Plan also anticipates similar growth patterns for the City. The District is eager to serve as the cornerstone of the Buena Vista neighborhood with its new high school and looks forward to supporting the City in its careful growth of the Buena Vista area. With the City's focus on continuing to increase the connectivity between neighborhoods, schools, shops, jobs, healthcare, and public services, the District looks forward to the thoughtful and eventual integration of its future high school, and the entire Buena Vista area, into the City.

With the addition of the proposed expansion of the City's sphere of influence to include the Buena Vista area to the City's long-term plans, the District hopes to be involved in that process, since the District's high school may very well be amongst the initial development in the Buena Vista area and will ultimately serve as a focal point for the future community.

Policy CSF-1.2 of the General Plan highlights the City's priority of "cooperat[ing] and coordinat[ing] with the County of San Benito, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and other local agencies in the provision of infrastructure and services in the Hollister Planning Area." (emphasis added.) Likewise, Policy LU-1.11 sets the City's intention to coordinate regional planning efforts through intergovernmental coordination. Accordingly, the District seeks to support the City through joint efforts to amend the City's sphere of influence as proposed in the General Plan and through the annexation process, as contemplated by General Plan Actions LU-1.1 to 1.3.

For instance, following the City's submission of its application to LAFCO to amend its sphere of influence, the District hopes to be at the table to support a potential agreement that expands the City's sphere of influence to include the Buena Vista area and that would be beneficial for both the City and County, while ensuring that the second high school is able to connect to the municipal services provided by the City and special districts. Moreover, opportunity for the District's participation in the process aligns with the General Plan's Policy CSF-8.5 to support the District's efforts to construct a new high school. The District is prepared to actively contribute to the process by consulting on issues in the community that the District is intimately familiar with, as related to the District's second high school, including adequacy of education facilities, traffic congestion, circulation, parking, noise, and air quality.

Lastly, the District would like to draw the City's attention to the revised Draft EIR which includes now out-of-date enrollment numbers for the District. While the District's lone high school has a current capacity for 3,437 students, the District would like to state on record that enrollment for 2023-2024 should be included to reflect 3,556 students. These accurate and current enrollment numbers truly showcase the severity of the District's overcrowding concerns as the District works to provide an excellent education to its students. The District has quickly become the second largest high school in Northern California, with the fastest growth rate in Northern California.

The mission of San Benito High School District is to educate all students to their highest potential so they will have the greatest range of personal options upon graduation.

GOV9-5
The District, again, wants to thank the City for its revisions to the Project. The District is excited for the envisioned development of the Buena Vista Corridor and hopes to actively contribute to the discussions and decisions regarding its development and incorporation into the City's sphere of influence, and its eventual annexation. The District appreciates the City's support in the District's efforts to continue providing an excellent education as its student enrollment continues to grow.

Verytr~
Shawn Tennenbaum, Ed.D.

Superintendent
San Benito High School District
(831) 637-5831 (x133)
stennenbaum @sbhsd.k12.ca.us
cc: Members, San Benito High School District Board of Trustees John Frusetta, Chief Business Officer, San Benito High School District The mission of San Benito High School District is to educate all students to their highest potential so they will have the greatest range of personal options upon graduation.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
August 21, 2024
Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
(831) 636-4360
[email protected]
Subject: Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (Plan)
Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
SCH No.: 2021040277
Dear Eva Kelly:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Revised EIR (REIR) from the City of Hollister for the above-referenced Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW respectfully requests that the City of Hollister still consider our comments.

CDFW previously provided comments and recommendations to the City of Hollister during circulation of the Plan’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 10, 2021, and Draft EIR (DEIR) on June 27, 2023 (Attachment 1). Within these letters, CDFW provided a list of special-status species to be evaluated as part of the Plan’s DEIR and recommended measures be incorporated for projects tiered from this Plan, including habitat assessments, protocol surveys, and a robust analysis on cumulative impacts to 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC COMMENT LETTER GOV10 GOV10-1
GOV10-2

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
August 21, 2024

biological resources. CDFW recommends that the comments and recommendations provided in CDFW’s DEIR comment letter for the Plan be incorporated as part of the REIR and that recommended measures be carried forward into the Final EIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, §21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data . The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals .

FILING FEES
If it is determined that the Project has the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees will be necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project and to assist the City of Hollister in identifying and mitigating the Plan’s impacts on biological resources.

If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3194, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC GOV10-2
CONT.

GOV10-3
GOV10-4
GOV10-5

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
August 21, 2024

ec: State Clearinghouse,
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]

CDFW LSA/1600; [email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
August 21, 2024

Attachment 1
Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

May 10, 2021

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
[email protected]

Subject: Hollister General Plan Update 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Sphere of Influence Amendments and Annexations Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Project (Project)
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
SCH No.: 2021040277

Dear Mr. Prado:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a NOP from the City of Hollister for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE

CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Ga me Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

Proponent: City of Hollister

Objective: The City of Hollister’s existing General Plan was adopted in 2005, with a horizon year of 2023. Since the horizon year is approaching, the City is now updating its plan to extend the planning period to 2040. The Hollister General Plan Update will build off the current General Plan and provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the year 2040. The proposed General Plan will direct future growth within the EIR Study Area and address the city’s vulnerability to environmental challenges such as earthquakes, wildland fires, and other hazards identified in the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Action Plan to be completed concurrently with the General Plan Update. The General Plan is intended to respond to local and regional housing needs, foster economic growth and local job creation, enhance civic identity and placemaking, and protect sensitive natural resources. The proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) will identify strategies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by existing and potential future uses in Hollister. The General Plan Update could potentially lead to Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendments and annexations that would accommodate future housing sites and limited commercial development.

Location: The Project encompasses the Hollister City Limits, the SOI, Urban Service Area, and Planning Area located in San Benito County, also referred to as the EIR Study Area.

Timeframe: The proposed project would extend its planning period to 2040.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The NOP indicates that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project will describe existing environmental conditions in the Project area, and analyze potential impacts resulting from Project activities. The EIR will also identify and evaluate alternatives to the proposed project.

When an EIR is prepared, the specifics of mitigation measures may be deferred, provided the lead agency commits to mitigation and establishes performance standards for implementation. There are numerous special-status species that have been documented in the Project vicinity (CDFW 2021) that may be present at individual Project sites in the Project area. These resources need to be addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities or land use changes to adequately assess potential impacts. CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to, the State and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and the steelhead south-central California Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9); the State and federally threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense); the Federally threatened and State Species of Concern California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii); the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelauis tricolor); the State species of special concern burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), San Joaquin Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki) and American badger (Taxidea taxus).

CDFW also recommends consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to, San Joaquin kit fox, vernal pool fairy shrimp, steelhead, California tiger salamander, and California red-legged frog. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS and NMFS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities.

In addition to potential species impacts, it is likely that some Project activities that will be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. If a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) is needed, CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance or the renewal of a LSAA. Therefore, for efficiency in environmental compliance, we recommend that any potential lake or stream disturbance that may result from Project activities be described, and mitigation for the DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

disturbance be developed as part of the EIR. This will reduce the need for the CDFW to require extensive additional environmental review for a LSAA in the future. If inadequate, or no environmental review, has occurred, for the Project activities that are subject to notification under Fish and Game Code section 1602, CDFW will not be able to issue the Final LSAA until CEQA analysis for the project is complete. This may lead to considerable Project delays.

CDFW is available to meet with you ahead of draft EIR preparation to discuss potential impacts and possible mitigation measures for some or all of the resources that may be analyzed in the draft EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager

ec: Leilani Takano
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
[email protected]

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DE for
Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

Literature Cited
CDFW. 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS . Accessed May 1, 2021.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 27, 2023
Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
(831) 636-4360
[email protected]
Subject: Hollister General Plan Update 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Sphere of Influence Amendments and Annexations Program Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Project (Project)
SCH No.: 2021040277
Dear Abraham Prado:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Hollister for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Hollister
Objective: The existing General Plan for the City of Hollister (City) was adopted in 2005, with a horizon year of 2023. The City is now updating its plan to extend the planning period to 2040. The Hollister General Plan Update will build off the current General Plan and provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the year 2040. The proposed General Plan will direct future growth within the EIR Study Area and address the City’s vulnerability to environmental challenges such as earthquakes, wildland fires, and other hazards identified in the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Action Plan, which is to be completed concurrently with the General Plan Update. The General Plan is intended to respond to local and regional housing needs, foster economic growth and local job creation, enhance civic identity and placemaking, and protect sensitive natural resources. The proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) will identify strategies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by existing and potential future uses in the City. The General Plan Update could potentially lead to Sphere of Influence amendments and annexations that would accommodate future housing sites and limited commercial development.

Location: City of Hollister, San Benito County.

Timeframe: 2040

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Special-Status Species: Given the City-wide nature of the Project, there is the potential for the Project to impact State-listed species. Records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) show that the following special-status species, including CESA-listed species (CDFW 2023) could be impacted: the State endangered (SE) and federally endangered (FE) San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), the federally threatened (FT) vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), the FT and State threatened (ST) California tiger salamander-central population (Ambystoma californiense), the State candidate-listed endangered (SCE) Crotch bumblebee DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

(Bombus crotchii), the ST Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelauis tricolor), the FT and State species of special concern (SSC) California red-legged frog, the FT steelhead, south/central California coast (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), and the SSC burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), Monterey hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), and the 1B.2 plant rank (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere) San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana) and Hall’s tarplant (Deinandra halliana). Along with the species listed above that have been observed within the Project limits, there was a 2021 sighting of the SE and FE California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately two miles northeast of the proposed Project site near the John Smith Landfill, as well as a 2023 sighting of the fully protected (FP) golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) just north of the landfill site (CDFW 2023).

The primary purpose of a DEIR is to consider all the potential impacts associated with the suite of projects that would eventually tier from the EIR over time. As such, the DEIR should serve primarily as a planning level EIR and consider, in detail, the cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable projects on the environment, and on the species CDFW has identified in this comment letter. CDFW recommends that habitat assessments be conducted in and surrounding all locations for planned work/ground disturbance in the DEIR and identify all the potential plant, animal, invertebrate, and fish species that could be present. Then, for those species, CDFW recommends a robust analysis of cumulative impacts for each of those species along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that could be implemented on each project to reduce harm. For many species, subsequent protocol level surveys may be required during biological studies conducted in support of the future CEQA documents that will be tiered from the Final EIR and, depending on the results, avoidance and minimization measures, permits, and mitigation may be required.

CDFW recommends that survey-level protocols be conducted for these species as part of the biological technical studies prepared in support of each future CEQA document tiered from the Final EIR, with conclusions of those studies summarized therein and repeated as necessary prior to Project ground-disturbing activities. For all future projects tiered from the EIR, CDFW recommends that focused surveys be conducted by qualified biologists familiar with the appropriate survey protocols per individual species.

In the future CEQA documents tiered from the EIR, CDFW advises that special status species be addressed with appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. If take could occur as a result of Project implementation, consultation with CDFW would be warranted.

Cumulative Impacts: CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the Project, including those whose impacts DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the Project, even if those impacts are relatively small (i.e. less than significant). CDFW recommends cumulative impacts be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the Project. An appropriate resource study area identified and utilized for this analysis is advised. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA and we recommend that the City reach out to CDFW to discuss various methodologies and strategies for an analysis of this type for CDFW trustee agency resources.

CNDDB: Please note that the CNDDB is populated by and records voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be pre sent in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present at or near the Project area.

Lake and Stream Alteration: The Projects that tier from the EIR may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires the project proponent to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the LSA Program at (559) 243-4593, or [email protected].

Federally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to, the San Joaquin kit fox, the vernal pool fairy shrimp, the California tiger salamander, the California red-legged frog, and the south/central California coast steelhead. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

CDFW is available to meet with you ahead of Final EIR preparation to discuss potential impacts and possible mitigation measures for some or all of the resources that were or should be analyzed in the EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3194, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Patricia Cole; [email protected]
State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [email protected]
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW LSA/1600; [email protected]
Kelley Nelson; [email protected]

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

LITERATURE CITED
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS . Accessed May 17, 2023.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

-1 -
June 15, 2023
City of Hollister
975 Fifth St.

Hollister, CA 95023

TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
Re: Comments to Draft 2040 General Plan Update
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (BIA) respectfully submits the following comments to the City of Hollister’s Draft 2040 General Plan Update. BIA offers these comments in the spirit of collaboration and support for the City adopting a comprehensive and productive General Plan that paves the way for achieving its challenging housing goals. These comments to the Draft 2040 General Plan may also pertain to the Draft EIR as many BIA comments and recommendations would touch on the Environmental Impact Report.

BIA is concerned that political opposition to housing production in the City and San Benito County has been ingrained in the Draft 2040 General Plan. The City has worked hard to bring forward a Draft General Plan that preserves and enhances many wonderful features of the region:
a productive farming industry, scenic parks and open spaces, and picturesque towns.

Integrating responsible future growth into the Draft General Plan is the key. The Draft 2040 General Plan is an excellent opportunity to balance and blend the rural, agricultural character of Hollister with future well planned residential communities that support families, business and a thriving economy.

Still, BIA remains concerned that the Draft 2040 General Plan Update has incorporated several concerning new policy proposals, actions and fees that may create major obstacles to housing production by choking off land supply, prescribing intractable new rules and burdening each home with tens of thousands of dollars in new fees.

Housing Element Law requires that the City identify adequate sites to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) at all income levels. BIA encourages the City Council and Staff to take steps to revise policies and actions that may potentially constrain the production of housing during the lifespans of the 2040 General Plan and 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Policies that may require the City to analyze these rules as severe constraints to housing and mitigate accordingly include:

COMMENT LETTER ORG1
ORG1-1
ORG1-2

-2 -
•Constrained Land Supply – Plan for sufficient land to accommodate housing production necessitated by the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA and additional land requirements; •Inflexible Transportation Policies – Compliance with Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) policies in the Plan will present an obstacle to housing under current and future transportation systems and development patterns unless mitigated with policies to offset this significant hindrance;
•Onerous Ag Land Mitigation Policies - Agriculture mitigation at a 2:1 ratio plus Agricultural Buffer Zone requirements would stymie many projects and land deals; •Impracticable Inclusionary Zoning Policy – A requirement of 20% inclusionary affordable housing on market rate for sale and rental housing would render projects infeasible or require implementation of a massive density bonus program.

Land Use and Community Design Element
The Draft 2040 General Plan Update severely constrains production of housing through limited Development Capacity, and tight Sphere of Influence (SOI). Figure LU-2, the Draft 2040 General Plan Update Land Use Map, when compared to the current General Plan shows that the SOI and Urban Service Area are nearly unchanged.

In order to accommodate more housing growth, BIA urges the City to expand the limited proposed Sphere of Influence in the Draft Plan to coincide with the Urban Service Line especially in the East and South quadrants of the City, incorporating more land for potential development where Prime Farmland is less prevalent.

LU-1.3. Development Capacity. Housing element site inventory requirements state that the purpose of the housing element’s site inventory is to identify and analyze specific land (sites) that is available and suitable for residential development in order to determine the jurisdiction’s capacity to accommodate residential development and reconcile that capacity with the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

In the 6th Cycle Housing Element that spans the 8 year time period from 2024 to 2032, the City of Hollister must plan the capacity for an unprecedented Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 4,163 housing units. In addition, to comply with the “No Net Loss Requirements Law” (Government Code § 65863), the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recommend that to reduce the likelihood of having to rezone should an identified housing site develop with less units than assigned, it is a best practice to have 30% more units listed in the inventory than are required to meet a jurisdiction’s RHNA.

Accommodating a 30%+ buffer capacity of Housing Element Site Inventories would add about 1248 units for a total housing need of 5,411 units. The Draft General Plan states capacity for 6,455 units, leaving only 1,292 units in excess capacity through 2040.

Finally, the goal of the Draft 2040 General Plan Update is to create a vision for the City’s next 20 years of growth. BIA strongly encourages the City to assume now that the 7th Cycle Housing Element, spanning the years 2032 to 2040, may require at least another 4,000 units plus a capacity buffer of 1500 units. In other words, the Plan is grossly under capacity by more than ORG1-2
CONT.

ORG1-3
ORG1-4

-3 -
4,000 residential units just for the City of Hollister’s future RHNA and other units that the City may need to absorb from the County.

LUD - Land Use Designations. Table LU-2 General Plan Land Use Designations shows several hundred acres identified for Medium Density and High Density Residential. Yet no market study or analysis is provided to substantiate that development of these residential densities can be feasible in Hollister.

LUD 3.3.3. Medium & High Density Residential. This paragraph is confusing as it lumps High Density Residential (30-65 DU/AC) in with Medium Density Residential (12-29 DU/AC).

Medium Density may support a viable product in the Hollister market in the future, but any densities above approximately 20 DU/AC (townhouses) will be very difficult to develop. High construction costs and low market demand make the Hollister market a tough sell to nonsubsidized multifamily builders.

Additionally, there is no need for High Density Residential land use and zoning in the Plan. In the Housing Element, HCD allows jurisdictions to use zoned density as a proxy for lower income, as long as certain statutory requirements are met. These include counting sites zoned at 20 units per acre as affordable because Hollister is a “suburban jurisdiction” as opposed to an “urban jurisdiction”. This is called the default density. BIA strongly recommends that reliance on Medium and especially High Density Land Use Designation to achieve housing production numbers be reduced.

Policy LU-2.1. Land Supply. This policy claims to ensure that there is adequate land designated to meet the projected future housing needs of the City. However, as noted earlier in this letter, the Draft 2040 General Plan Update fails to plan for enough housing to support this policy. The Draft Plan land supply available for residential capacity must be revised to increase the residential capacity through 2040.

Policy LU-2.6. Medium and High Density Residential. Medium Density and especially High Density housing development in Hollister is generally financially challenged. For sale medium density product above 20 units an acre, such as townhouses, would likely be viable, however 30- 60 DU/AC high density will present a very difficult challenge to develop.

While market rate high density housing is unlikely to develop in Hollister, subsidized 100% affordable housing may be feasible. 100% affordable projects require funding from a wide variety of sources including local sources. The City should keep the option open for market rate projects to pay inclusionary fees so as to amass local funding for affordable housing projects.

Action LU-2.1 Inclusionary Housing. No residential density or housing type is financially viable with a 20% inclusionary affordable housing requirement, according to the City’s Consultant. To justify the inclusionary percentage, the City would be forced to authorize a massive increase in density in every residential zoning district, along with concessions and waivers of development standards, impact fees and other development requirements.

Open Space and Agricultural Element
ORG1-4
CONT.

ORG1-5
ORG1-6
ORG1-7
ORG1-8
ORG1-9
ORG1-10

-4 -
Policy OS-2.1. Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land. Requiring 2:1 offset of any agricultural land used for development is may represent a loss of developable land that could result in a severe constraint to housing, especially if that land is located within the City’s Urban Service Area. Monterey County is now forming their new Agricultural Land Offset policy with a 1:1 mitigation requirement.

Ranking offsets on a sliding scale could be keyed to the soil quality of the mitigation land. For instance, the conversion of Prime Farmland might provide a 1.5:1 offset, but other classifications including Land of Local Importance, Grazing land, etc. to provide a 1:1 offset.

Policy OS-2.2. Agricultural Buffers. 200 foot buffer zones close to the City’s identified growth areas would rule out many developable parcels from proceeding because so much project land would be needed for the buffer zone. This policy could be revised to apply only to annexations outside the Sphere of Influence and allow the developer to provide a buffer zone proposal for projects larger than 40 acres adjacent to productive farmland. Coordinated Ag policies with the County of San Benito is key, especially as the City and County are updating their general plans at the same time.

The policy should incorporate exemptions and variances to allow building in the buffer area.

Consider establishing an “Agricultural Policy Advisory Commission” to hear proposals to build within a buffer area.

While the County of Santa Cruz applies a 2:1 agricultural buffer, it has established policies that ease the burden on projects by addressing buffer zone encroachment with some flexible approaches:

In most cases, agricultural buffer reductions can be approved if features are proposed or present that mitigate potential negative impacts to adjacent or surrounding commercial agricultural land. Existing mitigations can include changes in topography, permanent substantial vegetation, or other physical barriers between the agriculture and non-agricultural uses. Proposed mitigations include the establishment of a physical barrier, typically a 6 foot tall solid wood fence with a vegetative buffer and the recordation of a Statement of Acknowledgement on the property title which acknowledges the potential for conflicts between the agricultural and non-agricultural uses.

Circulation Element

4.1.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled. Mitigating VMT on a project by project basis would help pave the way to failure for housing production under the Draft 2040 General Plan Update. BIA encourages the City to complete an overarching EIR evaluating VMT for the entire City and devise cohesive City-wide policies and solutions supported by residential development mitigation fees. Impact fees, restrictive land use regulations, infrastructure costs, and rising labor costs create serious impediments to addressing the housing affordability crisis the region is facing.

ORG1-10
CONT.

ORG1-11
ORG1-12

-5 -
It is critical that the City of Hollister continue to produce housing for all incomes. The City high housing costs is a testament to the under production of housing to meet the demands of our robust economy. Unless significantly revised, the Draft 2040 General Plan Update represents a grave threat to the City’s obligation under RHNA and will almost certainly result in a constrained housing supply. The Draft 2040 General Plan Update in effect creates a housing moratorium by making it too expensive to build.

Again, BIA offers these comments in the spirit of collaboration and support for the City achieving its housing goals. BIA is committed to working with the City of Hollister to find creative and community based solutions that benefit current and future residents and support a healthy economy and lifestyle.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

Very truly yours,
Dennis Martin
BIA Government Affairs
cc: Mayor Mia Casey
Kevin Henderson, Chair, Planning Commission
David Mirrione, City Manager
Christy Hopper, Community Development Director
Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
Jennifer Woodworth, City Clerk
ORG1-12
CONT.

ORG1-13

10 Harris Court, Suite B‐1, Monterey, CA 93940
(831)649 ‐ 0220
June 28, 2023
City of Hollister Development Services Manager – Planning Division Attn: Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
Tel: (831) 636-4360
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comments on City of Hollister Draft 2040 General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021040277)
Dear Ms. Kelly,
On behalf of Wright Thirteen LLC and Felipe Nine LLC, the Orosco Group appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Hollister Draft 2040 General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021040277) dated May 2023. The Orosco Group applauds the City of Hollister for taking a pro-active look at how changing land use, emerging industries, technology, retail demand, housing needs, transportation improvements, demographic trends, and responsible and managed city growth will be addressed in the coming years.

With ownership stake in over 25 acres in the northern part of the City, approximately one- quarter of the total area within the City Limits designated North Gateway Commercial (NG), we provide the following comments:

Comment #1: As depicted on Figure LU-2 Land Use Map, the northern partition of the North Gateway land use area starts at Briggs Road and extends approximately 0.65 miles from the east side of Highway 25 to the west side of San Felipe Road resulting in multiple parcels without direct frontage on the two intended City “entry boulevards”, or parcels that have frontage but excessive depth not conducive to the allowable zoning uses, or parcels mid-block between the two “entry boulevards”. To avoid creating these “dead zones”, we recommend amending the North Gateway zoning district allowable uses to include the following complementary uses that will foster an attractive entry to the City, create technically skilled and high paying jobs, attract new and emerging businesses, and benefit from access to major transportation corridors:
Creative / Flex Office
Maker Space
Research & Development (R&D)
E-Commerce
Robotics
Fulfillment & Logistic Centers
COMMENT LETTER ORG2
ORG2-1
ORG2-2

2 Warehouse
Life Sciences
The proposed additional allowable uses would also benefit other North Gateway zoned properties on the east side of San Felipe Road that also do not have frontage along the major transportation corridor or have excessive lot depth.

These parcels occur between McCloskey Road to the north and North Chappell Road to the south.

Since “job creation” is a highly prioritized element of the North Gateway district, the City should allow for these job creators uses. In addition to creating jobs, it will reduce traffic (commuting), improve air quality (reduced length of trips), and make the City a further desirable place to live.

Comment #2: Per Section 3.4.1 North Gateway, the North Gateway includes a triangular area northeast of Highway 25 and San Felipe Road north of Downtown that could be developed for automobile dealerships. The site has access from Highway 25, and the dealerships would be visible to all motorists entering the City. In addition to allowing for automobile dealerships and to reflect the transition from combustible to clean air vehicles, we recommend amending the North Gateway zoning district allowable uses to include the following uses:
Electrical Vehicles Services
Collision Centers
Research & Development (R&D)
Manufacturing
Battery and Other Energy Related Power Systems and their Manufacturing, Servicing, and Sales
Comment #3: Figure LU-2 Land Use Map depicts multiple parcels to the east of the Highway 25 and San Felipe Road intersection as High Density Residential that bisects the North Gateway zoning to the north, south and partial east. Given the State’s housing crisis and the need for residents to activate commercial uses, reduce vehicle trips / traffic congestion, and reduce the impact to air quality, we recommend amending the North Gateway zoning district allowable uses to feather in adjacent bisects zoning uses to include:
High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Comment #4: Figure LU-2 Land Use Map identifies Industrial land use zoning to the north of McCloskey Rd then immediately jumping to North Gateway zoning to the south.

There are a number of existing, successful, and deeply entrenched industrial users along the south side of McCloskey Road that have no frontage along San Felipe Road that are zoned North Gateway creating a legal conforming situation.

Further the North Gateway zoning allowable uses are extremely limiting and not viable for parcels with no frontage along a major transportation corridor and/or excessively deep depths. As such, we recommend the City rezone these parcels ORG2-2
CONT.

ORG2-3
ORG2-4
ORG2-5

3 between McCloskey to North Chappell that have no frontage along San Felipe to Industrial zoning.

Comment #5: Per Section 3.4.1 North Gateway, the area is intended to create an entry boulevard for large retail uses that cater to the commuters and other motorists arriving in Hollister from the north along Highway 25 without duplicating services found Downtown. Creating competitive commercial in the NGC designated land use areas will impact the downtown and other commercial centers in the City of Hollister. In addition, with Highway 25 being a commuter’s corridor where the highest volume of trip hours occur well before sunrise as residents head to the bay area for work and return home after sunset, the majority of the targeted retail tenants the City envisions will not even be open so commuters will not stop.

Comment #6: Per Section 3.4.1 North Gateway, the area is intended to create an entry boulevard for large retail uses that cater to the commuters and other motorists arriving in Hollister from the north along Highway 25 without duplicating services found Downtown. With the North Gateway district beginning at Briggs Road on the east side of Highway 25 and extending south, the district area is on the opposite side of the flow of traffic it is intended to capture creating the dependance for left-in and left-out traffic circulation patterns that will further impact the poor level of service of Highway 25. Further, Highway 25 has restricted access points by Caltrans, therefore it will necessitate increased turning movements at existing intersections which will also slow and impact traffic flow.

Comment #7: The EIR under the utilities section discusses stormwater. The City has recently pushed developers to implement underground stormwater retention / detention facilities that are extremely costly and have their own set of engineering issues.

The EIR references the use of drainage ponds / on-grade detention / treatment facilities. We strongly encourage the City to allow the developer to decide which type of stormwater system is appropriate in complying with the stormwater codes while also being complementary to the project instead of a one type fits prescriptive approach. On-grade drainage pods and detention systems along with bioswales can be seamlessly integrated into landscape solutions and help reduce the excessive construction required (air quality impact), off-haul of spoils (more construction trip generation and air quality impacts), that underground systems generate.

Comment #8: The EIR under the utilities section discusses electrical and gas services. It does not appear the EIR authors are aware of the current lack of infrastructure and extensive service deficiencies PG&E has in providing electric and gas service to the norther part of the City of Hollister. Developers in northern part of Hollister have had to delay projects for over three (3) years due to the lack of available electric service. PG&E appears to be starting to investigate option for new substation and transmission lines but the timing and final implementation remain undetermined.

ORG2-5
CONT.

ORG2-6
ORG2-7
ORG2-8
ORG2-9

4 We look forward to continuing our engagement with the City of Hollister’s General Plan update process and will continue to respond to your request for input. Thank you for being responsive to all the input you are receiving from community members including residents, customers, business partners, employees, and property owners.

Sincerely,
Matt Nohr
Orosco Group & Associates
Cc: Patrick Orosco [email protected]
Chris Orosco [email protected]
Geary Coats [email protected]
Christy Hopper [email protected]
ORG2-10

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

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

Our current member & organizational goals include; 1) Retention, expansion, job creation and growth of existing businesses, 2) EDC 2017-2022 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Implementation, Supporting development of 2023-2028 CEDS - Supporting new business attraction, 3) Improving Infrastructure: Measure G Implementation- road and highway improvements, broadband, energy, education, housing, water & wastewater, tackling blight & litter, and 4) Building relations with elected officials, staff, regional organizations and community.

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

On many occasions, community members that posed questions and concerns at the General Plan Public Advisory Committee Meeting were rebuffed, ignored and subjected to condescending behavior by officials, committee members and consultants.We respectfully request and would support the City’s efforts to host at least one large-scale, in- person community workshop to present the Draft General Plan and EIR- including “general plan 101” education and workstations with detailed information on each element, the proposed Agricultural Plans Preservation Program (ALPP) and Climate Action Plan (CAP). EJ-2 states, “Promote civic engagement in the public decision- making process.”
Stakeholder groups, especially in agriculture (i.e, the San Benito County Farm Bureau) were not targeted for outreach and engagement. Please conduct this engagement to inform and encourage community participation.

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

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

COMMENT LETTER ORG3
ORG3-1
ORG3-2
ORG3-3
ORG3-4

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

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

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

Regarding the 2:1 proposed ALPP, please consider matching San Benito County’s 1:1 policy as that ratio best adheres to 1.3.7 “maintain productive and VIABLE ag land.” Additionally, any lands within the Plan that have low density or zoning other than agriculture cannot be re-zoned/downzoned to agriculture as investments and planning have been in place for other uses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincere regards,
Kristina
Kristina Chavez Wyatt
Executive Director, San Benito County Business Council
341 First Street Hollister, CA 95023
831.524.0408 / 831.637.6637 fax
[email protected]
SBCBusinessCouncil.com
ORG3-5
ORG3-6
ORG3-7
ORG3-8
ORG3-9
ORG3-10
ORG3-11

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

10 Harris Court, Suite B‐1, Monterey, CA 93940
(831)649 ‐ 0220
June 30, 2023
City of Hollister Development Services Manager – Planning Division Attn: Eva Kelly, Interim Planning Manager
339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
Tel: (831) 636-4360
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comments on City of Hollister Draft 2040 General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021040277)
Dear Ms. Kelly,
On behalf of Wright Thirteen LLC and Felipe Nine LLC, The Orosco Group appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Hollister Draft 2040 General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021040277) dated May 2023. The Orosco Group applauds the City of Hollister for taking a proactive look at how changing land use, emerging industries, technology, retail demand, housing needs, transportation improvements, demographic trends, and responsible and managed city growth will be addressed in the coming years.

Wright Thirteen LLC and Felipe Nine LLC have owned a combined 25 acres in the North Gateway district of City since 2017 and 2018 respectively, approximately one-quarter of the total area within the City Limits designated North Gateway Commercial (NG) as depicted on Exhibit A-1. During that time we have pursued development strategies that are intended to realize the vision of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. During the same period of time we have observed a changing opportunity set that reduced demand for certain approved uses and increased demand for uses that are either very similar to the existing approved uses in the North Gateway Zone or consistent with certain rezoning that is proposed by the current draft 2040 GP update.

Comment #1:

Towards the goal of advancing immediate economic development opportunities for the City and our 25 acres, as well as the 16 acres owned by our neighbor and affiliate Hollister-Forever 16 LLC (which property is presently within the County but proposed for annexation) as depicted in Exhibit A-2: we would encourage you to please consider amending allowable uses within the North Gateway zoning to include the following complementary uses:
1) Research & Development
2)Creative / Flex Office / Maker Space
3)Life Sciences related facilities (including but not limited to, Sales, Manufacturing, COMMENT LETTER ORG4
ORG4-1
ORG4-2

2 Fulfillment, Service, Logistics, Warehouse, Wholesaling and Distribution) 4)E-Commerce related facilities (including but not limited to, Sales, Manufacturing, Fulfillment, Service, Logistics, Warehouse, Wholesaling and Distribution) 5)Robotics related facilities (including but not limited to, Sales, Manufacturing, Fulfillment, Service, Logistics, Warehouse, Wholesaling and Distribution) 6)Computer, Artificial Intelligence, and Technology related facilities (including but not limited to, Sales, Manufacturing, Fulfillment, Service, Logistics, Warehouse, Wholesaling and Distribution)
7)Data Centers and the technological evolution thereof.

All of the above uses are unmentioned in the current zoning code but are consistent with the existing spirit and intent of the North Gateway Zone. In many cases, they are the result of technology or trends that did not exist at the time of the last General Plan Update. The allowance of these uses within the North Gateway will foster an attractive entry to the City. As consistent with the prioritized “job creation” in the the North Gateway district, this proposal create technically skilled and high paying jobs and attract new and emerging businesses. Given that the benefits from access to major transportation corridors. These uses will reduce traffic (commuting), improve air quality (reduced length of trips), and make the City a further desirable place to live.

Comment #2:

Per Section 3.4.1 North Gateway, the North Gateway includes a triangular area northeast of Highway 25 and San Felipe Road north of Downtown that could be developed for automobile dealerships. The site has access from Highway 25, and the dealerships would be visible to all motorists entering the City. In addition to allowing for automobile dealerships and to reflect the transition from combustible to clean air vehicles, we recommend amending the North Gateway zoning district allowable uses to include the following uses:
8)Electrical Vehicles related facilities (including but not limited to, Sales, Manufacturing, Fulfillment, Service, Logistics, Warehouse, Wholesaling and Distribution) 9)Battery, Solar, & Alternative Energy Related facilities (including but not limited to, Sales, Manufacturing, Fulfillment, Service, Logistics, Warehouse, Wholesaling and Distribution) All of the above uses are unmentioned in the current zoning code but are consistent with the existing spirit and intent of the North Gateway Zone. In many cases, they are the result of technology or trends that did not exist at the time of the last General Plan Update. The allowance of these uses within the North Gateway will foster an attractive entry to the City. As consistent with the prioritized “job creation” in the the North Gateway district, this proposal create technically skilled and high paying jobs and attract new and emerging businesses. Given that the benefits from access to major transportation corridors. These uses will reduce traffic ORG4-2
CONT.

ORG4-3

3 (commuting), improve air quality (reduced length of trips), and make the City a further desirable place to live.Comment #3:

Comment #3:

As depicted on Figure LU-2 Land Use Map (Exhibit A1 and A2), the northern partition of the North Gateway land use includes multiple parcels without direct frontage on the two intended City “entry boulevards”, as well as parcels that have frontage but excessive depth not conducive to the allowable zoning uses, or parcels mid-block between the two “entry boulevards”. Hard corners at the intersection of most roads within in the North Gateway Zone have already been developed with uses currently permitted within the zone. Further, a number of the existing retail approved uses within the NG zone are disconnected with current market demand as well as the priority of supporting the vibrancy of the City’s downtown and existing commercial centers. To avoid creating “dead zones” additional uses should be added to the list of allowed uses within the North Gateway Zone that are prepresently permitted in other zones, but also consistent with the spirit, intent and other uses already permitted within the NG zone:
10)Professional Offices
11)Convenience Store
12)Food Products / Food Processing
13)Pharmaceuticals
14)Repair and Maintenance - Consumer Products
15)Equipment Sales, Services, Rental
16)Food and Beverage Sales
17)Health / Fitness Clubs (Recreation)
18)Storage, Personal Storage Facilities
Comment #4:

Figure LU-2 Land Use Map (Exhibit A1 and A2) depicts multiple parcels to the east of the Highway 25 and San Felipe Road intersection as High Density Residential that bisects the North Gateway zoning to the north, south and partial east. Multiple parcels on the south side of N Chappell and the parcel on the northeast corner of San Felipe and N Chappell are also identified in Figure LU-2 Land Use Map as High Density Residential. Given the State’s housing crisis and the need for residents to activate commercial uses, reduce vehicle trips / traffic congestion, and reduce the impact to air quality, we request High Density Residential zoning continue to our Felipe Nine LLC parcel, the existing group of legal non-conforming residential parcels, and the CALTRANS yard on the north side of N Chappell which are all immediately adjacent to identified High Density Residential zoning areas and lack any frontage on San Felipe making them viable for NG uses (See Exhibit A3). As an alternative to modifying the zoning, we request the City implement an overlay district that allows for High Density Residential within the NG zone.

ORG4-3
CONT.

ORG4-4
ORG4-5

4 Comment #5:

The EIR under the utilities section discusses stormwater. The City has recently pushed developers to implement underground stormwater retention / detention facilities that are extremely costly and have their own set of engineering issues. The EIR references the use of drainage ponds / on-grade detention / treatment facilities. We strongly encourage the City to allow the developer to decide which type of stormwater system is appropriate in complying with the stormwater codes while also being complementary to the project instead of a one type fits prescriptive approach. On-grade drainage pods and detention systems along with bioswales can be seamlessly integrated into landscape solutions and help reduce the excessive construction required (air quality impact), off-haul of spoils (more construction trip generation and air quality impacts), that underground systems generate.

Comment #9:

The EIR under the utilities section discusses electrical and gas services. It does not appear the EIR authors are aware of the current lack of infrastructure and extensive service deficiencies PG&E has in providing electric and gas service to the norther part of the City of Hollister.

Developers in northern part of Hollister have had to delay projects for over three (3) years due to the lack of available electric service. PG&E appears to be starting to investigate option for new substation and transmission lines but the timing and final implementation remain undetermined.

We look forward to continuing our engagement with the City of Hollister’s General Plan update process and will continue to respond to your request for input. Thank you for being responsive to all the input you are receiving from community members including residents, customers, business partners, employees, and property owners.

Sincerely,
Matt Nohr
Orosco Group & Associates
Cc: Patrick Orosco [email protected]
Chris Orosco [email protected]
Geary Coats [email protected]
Christy Hopper [email protected]
ORG4-6
ORG4-7
ORG4-8

5 Exhibit A1 - Figure LU-2 Land Use Map
ORG4-9

6 Exhibit A2 - Figure LU-2 Land Use Map
ORG4-10

7 Exhibit A3 - Proposed High Density Multi-family Residential Rezone or Overlay District ORG4-11

From: Carey Stone
To: Terri McCracken
Subject: FW: Groundwater Supply-Hollister GP Update Comment Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 4:45:01 PM
The 2020 GP claims groundwater overdraft for Hollister has been eliminated by the SBCWD.

Growth is dependent upon secure and long-lasting water supplies, and 73% of current Hollister water supply comes from groundwater.

Is the 2020 GP claim regarding groundwater supply as managed by SBCWD still accurate? Are any wells currently or historically showing signs of overdraft? How much groundwater is going to be available to Hollister over the next 20-50 years? Is long-term groundwater use analyzed and included in the climate adaptation section of the GP update?
Is the future status of water from the CVP included in long term hydrologic and climate change sections of the GP update?
Please confirm you’ve received these GP update comments.

Jim Safranek
8317137868
Sent from my iPad
PUB1-1
COMMENT LETTER PUB1

From:Christine Hopper
To:Alexander Sywak
Subject:RE: City VMT policy
Date:Friday, June 16, 2023 9:09:33 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Mr. Sywak,
I am forwarding your email to the General Plan team so that they can add it to the list of questions received on the General Plan. All comments are being documented and will be addressed in a consolidated document.

Thank you for your interest and participation in the process.

Christy Hopper
From: Alexander Sywak [ mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 8:00 AM
To: Christine Hopper
Cc: Jennifer P. Thompson ; Ingrid Sywak ; Planning Dept ; David Mirrione ; Carol Lenoir ; David
Huboi ; Steven Belong ; Kevin Henderson ; Luke
Corona ; David Early ; Carey Stone
Subject: City VMT policy
Dear Ms. Hopper, The PC is reviewing the EIR next Thursday. An important component is the City's Transportation and VMT policy.

Figure 4.16-2 references: Source: Kimley Horn, 2020. PlaceWorks, 2023. Kindly provide the link, or .pdf?

Guidelines, March 14. Kindly provide the link, or .pdf? You may know the City of San Jose next Tuesday will amend their VMT policy adopted February, 2018.

One of their VMT mitigations is project density. In essence, if a proposed project density is double the 1/2 mile areage density, the project can be presumed to reduce its designated VMT by 30%. Have attached the page reference from CSJ's Transportation Handbook and the cited 2002 study. Does the City of Hollister intend to include an equivalent mitigation as CSJ is adopting? Thank you for providing the above info requests,
Ingrid and Alex Sywak
COMMENT LETTER PUB2
PUB2-1
PUB2-2
PUB2-3
PUB2-4

MEMORANDUM
DATE November 22, 2024
TO City of Hollister City Council
FROM David Early and Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
SUBJECT Overview of Draft General Plan, Draft Climate Action Plan, Draft Agricultural Preservation Program, and Draft Environmental Impact Report
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the Draft General Plan, Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP), Draft Agricultural Preservation Program, and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for consideration at the December 3, 2024 City Council Study Session meeting. The documents are available for review at: https://hollister2040.org/ This memorandum includes the following components:
» Overview of the process to create the draft plans.
» Summary of the Revised General Plan.
» Summary of the Revised CAP.
» Summary of the Revised Agricultural Preservation Program. » Overview of community engagement process.
» Summary of community Input on the Revised Draft Plans. » Overview of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. » Next Steps.

UPDATE ON DRAFT GENERAL PLAN PROCESS
As a brief reminder, the process to update the General Plan included the phases discussed below:
» Existing Conditions: Researching and documenting baseline environmental conditions in Hollister and preparing a series of reports available on https://hollister2040.org/documents-past-meeting- materials/.
» Vision and Guiding Principles: Establishing a communitywide vision and supporting guiding principles. The General Plan Vision describes the future of Hollister as the community would like it to be in 2040. The Vision and Guiding Principles guided the development of the goals, policies, and actions and land use changes.
» Policy Development: Developing policy options for key issues identified through input given at the General Plan visioning workshops held in Summer 2020 and the three GPAC meetings held in Fall 2020. On June 22, 2021, the City Council provided final policy direction for the following topics:
o Parks
o New School Funding
o Farmland Mitigation
o Sensitive Habitats
o Heritage Trees
o Economic Development

November 13, 2024 | Page 2
o Retail Leakage
o Job Creation
o Industrial Uses
o Tourism
o Airport
o Complete Streets and Safe
Routes to School
o Level of Service
o Roundabouts
o Growth Management
o Special Planning Areas
o Residential Land Use
Designations
o Inclusionary Housing
o Historic and Cultural
Resources
o Coordination with Local
Tribes
o Environmental Justice
o Arts and Culture
o Climate Change,
Sustainability, and Natural
Hazards
» Draft General Plan: On April 4, 2023, the City published the Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, and Draft Agricultural Preservation Program for public review and comment. The Draft General Plan carries forward the majority of the existing General Plan goals, policies and actions along with the policy direction developed through the prior phases and City staff recommended updates all informed by feedback collected during community participation processes. » September 11, 2023 City Council Direction On September 11,2023, the City Council directed staff to revise the Draft General Plan to:
o Expand the Sphere of Influence.
o Include a total of five Specific Plan areas.
o Update the North Gateway Commercial designation to allow residential uses. o Add an action in the Arts Element to prepare a study for a potential public art fee. o Make targeted land use changes to sites on Buena Vista Road, Chappell Road/Santa Ana Road, Glenmore Drive, and in the Meridian Road Special Planning Area. o Update the agricultural land preservation requirement from preserving two acres of ag land for every acre disturbed to a 1:1 ratio.
» Revised General Plan. The City published the Revised General Plan on July 3, 2024 that incorporated Council direction from the September 11, 2023 meeting.
» Public Review and Adoption: Public review and Council consideration of final documents, including the General Plan, and the certification of the Environmental Impact Report are the remaining tasks of the General Plan update. This phase has consisted of approximately five months of public review of the Revised Draft General Plan, Revised Draft CAP, and Revised Draft Agricultural Preservation Program, and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), including a formal 45-day public comment period on the DEIR and preparation of a Final EIR.

As a part of the public review process, the Planning Commission met to review and receive comments on the entire package of documents at a meeting held on October 24, 2024. The

November 13, 2024 | Page 3
Commission received a presentation from David Early of PlaceWorks, asked questions, listened to all oral comments and then accepted all documents and moved them on to the City Council for action without recommending any changes to any part of the package.

SUMMARY OF THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN
The Revised General Plan includes an introductory chapter and vision chapter, as well as an individual chapter for each of the 10 General Plan elements that establish goals, policies, and actions for implementing the General Plan. The 10 elements include the eight-mandated topics required by California Government Code Section 65302 as well as two additional topics of particular interest to Hollister. The Revised General Plan includes the following elements:
 Land Use and Community Design Element. This element establishes the type, location, density and intensity of development activity in Hollister. It describes the goals and policies that will guide Hollister’s future growth patterns and development standards.  Circulation Element. This element describes the services, facilities, and capital improvements needed to facilitate vehicle, pedestrian, transit, bicycle, and emergency circulation.  Community Services and Facilities Element. This element describes the community facilities that are necessary in the provision of Hollister’s essential public services.  Economic Development Element. This is a new element as part of this update to the General Plan and establishes policy guidance to support and maintain an economically viable community.  Natural Resources and Conservation Element. This element outlines City policy for the preservation of natural resources and provision of outdoor recreation opportunities.  Health and Safety Element. This element covers two of the 8 State-mandated elements: safety and noise. The safety section of this element identifies and assesses hazards in the community and establishes the goals, policies, and actions necessary to ensure community safety and protection from noise.
 Open Space and Agriculture Element. This element outlines City policy for the preservation of open space and agricultural areas.
 Housing Element. This element identifies the housing needs of the city for all income levels and strategies and policies for providing housing to meet those needs. Since the Housing Element is updated more frequently than the other elements, as required by State law, it exists as its own document outside of the proposed 2040 General Plan and is therefore not part of the proposed project. The current Housing Element addresses housing needs in Hollister for the 2015 to 2023 housing cycle and is currently being updated by the City through a separate process.  Arts and Culture Element. This is a new element as part of this update to the General Plan and outlines City policy for creating a lively arts scene that encourages self-expression and ensures the representation of Hollister’s arts and cultural communities.

November 13, 2024 | Page 4
 Environmental Justice Element. This is a new element as part of this update to the General Plan and identifies impacted communities and sets policy direction to minimize effects of environmental hazards on these communities, with an emphasis on pollution exposure, food access, and safe and sanitary homes.

Proposed Sphere of Influence Change
The Hollister Sphere of Influence (SOI) is defined and determined by San Benito County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), although the City can propose the area that it would like its SOI to include. Per the direction of the City Council, the City is proposing changes to the currently approved SOI as shown on Figure 1.

The current SOI is roughly 1,817 acres or about 2.8 square miles. The proposed SOI expansion would add about 2,423 acres (about 3.8 square miles) to increase the SOI to approximately 4,240 acres and

6.6 square miles. The proposed SOI would extend further west, south, and east of the existing SOI, but would remain contiguous with the existing SOI border in the northernmost part of the city. On the west side, the proposed SOI would expand northward to Wright Road and westward to SR 156, reaching close to Union Road. The southern portion of the proposed SOI would expand past Union Road to Enterprise Road. The proposed SOI would also expand along Mansfield Road in the east and along SR 25 to Best Road in the southeast. Most of the expansion areas would have a Specific Plan land use designation, and development in these expansion areas would be subject to specific guidelines for development, including the creation of a Specific Plan for proposed projects within each Specific Plan area.

Proposed Land Use Changes
The Revised General Plan land use map, as shown in Figure 2, carries forward the majority of existing designations. However, the land use map does propose targeted changes. A summary of the major land use changes as directed by the City Council include:
 Designate sufficient land as High Density Residential to utilize the Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c)(3)(B) default density standard provision which allows jurisdictions to identify Housing Element sites for lower income households without additional analysis such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower-income households. The California Department of Housing and Community Development, also referred to as HCD classifies Hollister as Metropolitan jurisdiction which requires a default density standard of a minimum of 30 dwelling units/acre.1 Note that the City of Hollister is not required to use the 30 du/ac default density standard. However, using the default density standard does make the process to identify the Housing Element sites inventory easier and less cumbersome.

1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element- memos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf

November 13, 2024 | Page 5
Also, subsequent to the June 22, 2021 Council direction, HCD released a memorandum on March 21, 2022 that changed Hollister’s classification from a Suburban jurisdiction to a Metropolitan jurisdiction. When Hollister was classified as a Suburban jurisdiction, the default density standard was 20 du/ac. As a Metropolitan jurisdiction, Hollister’s default density standard is 30 du/ac. Since Council direction was to apply the default density standard, City staff suggests the High Density Residential minimum density be 30 du/ac.  Apply Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential in the Meridian Street Extension Special Planning Area. Also apply the General Commercial designation in this area to improve access to commercial services on the east side of the city.  Apply a Specific Plan designation, as shown on Figure 3, to several areas outside the City Limits but within the proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion:
o Buena Vista Specific Plan Area
o Southwest Specific Plan Area
o Union Road Specific Plan Area
o East Side A Specific Plan Area
o East Side B Specific Plan Area
 For areas outside the SOI, the City Council directed staff to apply the Agricultural designation.

For already urbanized areas outside the SOI, the City Council directed staff to apply the land use designation that matched the existing use.

In addition, the Draft General Plan proposes residential density changes as summarized in Table 1. A summary of these changes includes:
 As discussed, the Revised General Plan increases the High Density Residential designation minimum density as directed by the City Council to meet the HCD default density standard. City staff also suggests this same minimum density be applied to the Mixed-Use, Downtown Mixed Use, and West Gateway Commercial and Mixed Use designations for the same reason.  As directed by the City Council, the Revised General Plan increases the upper range of the Downtown Mixed Use density to 125 du/ac because the small parcels in the Downtown limit what can actually be built. Raising the maximum residential density to 125 du/ac per acre could potentially encourage developers to add residential components to their mixed-use projects.  To better align with the High Density Residential density range, the Revised General Plan changes the Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential designation density ranges as shown in Table 1.
 The Revised General Plan also modifies the Medium Density Residential designation to preclude single family residential uses as an allowed use to increase the diversity of housing options in Hollister.

November 13, 2024 | Page 6
 As directed by the City Council, the Revised General Plan allows residential uses in the North Gateway Commercial designation with a density range of 30 to 65 du/ac.  As directed by the City Council, the Revised General Plan measures all densities based on gross acres instead of net acres.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION UPDATES Land Use Designation Existing GPLU Density Draft GPLU Density Residential Estate 1 du/5 ac 0.2 to 1 du /ac
Low Density Residential 1 to 8 du/ac 6 to 10 du/ac
Medium Density Residential 8 to 12 du/ac 11 to 29 du/ac High Density Residential 12 to 35 du/ac 30 to 65 du/ac
Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential 25 to 40 du/ac 30 to 65 du/ac Downtown Commercial and Mixed-Use 25 to 45 du/ac 30 to 125 du/ac West Gateway Commercial and Mixed-
Use
20 to 35 du/ac 30 to 65 du/ac
North Gateway Commercial n/a 30 to 65 du/ac
Home Office 8 to 12 du/ac 11 to 29 du/ac
Specific Plan n/a n/a

SUMMARY OF THE REVISED CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The Revised Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic plan that assesses and reduces Hollister’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, consistent with State targets and directions. It identifies Hollister’s current and projected future sources of GHG emissions, including electricity and natural gas use, vehicle travel, solid waste generation, and other activities. The CAP also includes a discussion of how climate change may affect Hollister by increasing the frequency and severity of flooding, drought, extreme heat, regional wildfires, and other natural hazards.

Like the previous draft CAP, the Revised CAP contains a comprehensive set of strategies that reduces these emissions 85 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2045. Key strategies in the CAP include:
 Encouraging community members to replace natural gas appliances with electric models.  Reducing vehicle travel through improved access to local and regional transit systems.  Increasing Hollister’s electric vehicle adoption rate.  Transitioning away from diesel-powered construction and landscaping equipment.  Decreasing the amount of waste sent to landfills.

When the General Plan was revised over the past year, the CAP was revised to reflect the new allowed land use pattern and quantities of development.

November 13, 2024 | Page 7
FIGURE 1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

November 13, 2024 | Page 8
FIGURE 2 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP

November 22, 2024 | Page 9
FIGURE 3 GENERAL PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS

November 22, 2024 | Page 10

REVISED AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM
The Revised Agricultural Land Preservation Program (ALPP) proposes a new addition to the Hollister Municipal Code (HMC) Title 17, Zoning. The proposed addition would be adopted and codified as new HMC 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. As directed by the City Council at the September 11, 2023 meeting, the Agricultural Preservation Program was updated to require the permanent preservation of one acre, instead of two acres, of agricultural land for every one acre of land that is converted to a non-agricultural use within the City Limits. The land that would be permanently preserved must occur within the Hollister Planning Area.

The ALPP applies to agricultural land within the City Limits that is proposed for conversion to a non- agricultural use and has one or more of the following qualities:
 Classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance per the State of California.  Class I or Class II soils (US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service classification).
 Rangelands that support at least one animal per acre (US Department of Agriculture classification).
 Orchards or vegetable farms which produce a minimum annual return of $200/acre.

OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
The Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, and Draft Agricultural Preservation Program were developed through a public process, consisting of issue exploration, visioning, and policy development as described above.

A General Plan Advisory Committee provided overall direction, with the assistance of citizen representatives who worked closely with the consultant team and City staff to guide the public process for updating the plan.

Table 2 summarizes the outreach events and Table 3 summarizes the meetings undertaken through May 2023. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in early 2020, the City collected community input primarily through virtual workshops and online activities. Although most of the workshops were virtual, they still allowed for dialogue and small group participation so community members could share ideas and hear feedback from their neighbors. Note that the original scope of work included a total of 22 meetings and events (excluding the adoption hearings) and the project team will have completed 30 meetings once the Council reviews the Revised Plans on November 19, 2024.

The public input received from the workshops, online activities, survey, and General Plan Advisory Committee meetings helped inform the development of the Draft Plans. The Revised Plans will be

November 22, 2024 | Page 11
reviewed in public discussion and finalized based on Council direction which will be provided on November 19, 2024.

The City is also collecting public comments via email and in writing. Attachment 1 includes the written public comments received through November 22, 2024.

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF OUTREACH EVENTS
# Meeting Date Topic # of Participants
Workshops
1 Saturday, June 27, 2020 Visioning Workshop 12
2 Tuesday, June 30, 2020 Visioning Workshop 18
3 Wednesday, July 8, 2020 Visioning Workshop 15
4 Thursday, July 9, 2020 Visioning Workshop 20
5 Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Policy Options Workshop 16
6 Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Policy Options Workshop 20
7 Thursday, May 6, 2021 Spanish Language Workshop 45
8 Wednesday, May 17, 2023
Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, and Draft
Agricultural Preservation Program- Farmers
Market Pop-up 71
9 Thursday, May 18, 2023 Draft General Plan and CAP - Virtual Workshop 15 10 Tuesday, July 16, 2024 Revised Draft EIR Public Meeting 5 Online Activities
1 Summer 2020 Visioning Online Engagement 47
2 Spring 2021 Policy Options Online Engagement 8
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.

November 22, 2024 | Page 12
TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF MEETINGS
# Meeting Date Topic
GPAC Meetings
1 Thursday, June 4, 2020 General Plan Kick-off
2 Tuesday, October 6, 2020 Visioning
3 Tuesday, November 17, 2020 Existing Conditions
4 Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Policy Options
5 Tuesday, March 30, 2021 Policy Options
6 Tuesday, April 6, 2021 Policy Options
7 Tuesday, April 13, 2021 Policy Options
8 Tuesday, April 27, 2021 Policy Options
Planning Commission Meetings
1 Thursday, April 22, 2021 EIR Scoping Meeting
2 Monday, May 24, 2021 Draft Vision Statement and Policy Options 3 Thursday, August 10, 2023 Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, Draft Agricultural Preservation Program, and Draft EIR
4 Thursday, October 23, 2024 Revised General Plan, CAP, Agricultural Preservation Program and FEIR
City Council Meetings
1 Monday, April 6, 2020 GPAC Formation
2 Monday, March 1, 2021 Project Update
3 Tuesday, June 22, 2021 Draft Vision Statement and Policy Options 4 Tuesday, January 18, 2022 Project Update
5 Monday, September 11, 2023 Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, Draft Agricultural Preservation Program, and Draft EIR
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024.

COMMUNITY INPUT ON THE REVISED PLANS
This section includes a summary of the community feedback collected on the revised Draft Plans from July 3, 2024 through November 22, 2024 via the July 16, 2024 Revised Draft EIR public hearing and emails sent to City staff:
» Revised Draft General Plan 2040
o General comment letter – did not request specific changes. o Change designation at the northwest corner of Hillcrest and Fairview Roads to mixed- use instead of Commercial.
 Staff response: The Planning Commission and City Council felt it was important to provide commercial services to this side of the city as the east side of town grows.

November 22, 2024 | Page 13
o Concern that a Specific Plan designation delays the ability of the property owner to develop their parcel(s) and increases the development costs.  Staff response: The Planning Commission and City Council previously concluded that Specific Plans should be required so as to ensure well- coordinated, high-quality development in new growth areas. o Policy LU-1.5 is against State law. Gov. Code Section 66454 permits any applicant to file a tentative map for property that is adjacent to the City.  Staff response: Recommend revising this policy as follows: Policy LU-1.5 The City shall not accept approve an application for any projects (subdivision, grading, development, etc.) for any land that has not been annexed into the City Limits.
o Policy LU-1.6 Policy LU-1.7 may be against State law. By requiring applicants for annexation of properties adjacent to the City to do so only when other properties are included is against the intent of Gov. Code Section 66454, which does not include such a condition.
 Policy LU-1.6: Coordinated Annexation Requests. Encourage coordinated annexation of contiguous properties.
 Policy LU-1.7 Ensure the orderly development of large areas of land proposed for annexation through Specific Plans. Require a Specific Plan for annexation requests that are over 20 acres in size or include nonresidential uses regardless of size. This requirement covers, but is not limited to, the five Specific Plan Areas called out in Section 3.4 [of the General Plan].  Staff response: Although Section 66454 does not specifically require coordinated annexation of contiguous properties, nothing in State law prohibits the City from encouraging such coordination or from requiring Specific Plan preparation as a condition for annexation. o Part of Policy LU-1.9 is too vague and very dependent on how “irregular” is to be interpreted.
 Policy LU-1.9 Prohibit any annexations of land that are not contiguous to City Limits. Annexation of land that would result in formation of a County “island” or irregular city boundary shall not be permitted.
 Staff response: Many General Plan policies include language that will require interpretation by City staff and officials as they are implemented. o Action LU-1.1 is not necessary until the parcels currently within the SOI are annexed.  Action LU-1.1 Work with the San Benito County Local Agency Formation Commission to amend the Sphere of Influence as proposed in this General Plan.

November 22, 2024 | Page 14
 Staff response: The City’s SOI must be expanded before the City can make annexation requests, so this action is necessary to allow for General Plan implementation.
o Infeasible to designate densities up to 60 units per acre in the Hillcrest area; should remain at 8 to 10 units/acre.
 Staff response: The Planning Commission and City Council have previously reviewed this site, and found that a high-density designation is appropriate due to the location of this site next to a proposed shopping center and in order to meet the City’s housing needs.
o Ensure that Policy OS 2.2 Agricultural Buffers, which requires a 200-foot buffer adjacent to agricultural practices, would apply the parcel being developed and not to the adjacent parcel(s) that would continue in agricultural uses.  Staff Response: Policy OS 2.2 requires “developers of all new developments adjoining agricultural land provide a 200-foot buffer.” The agricultural landowner would not have to set aside a buffer.
o A minimum density of 30 du/ac will make it difficult to build housing; 30 units an acre would result in 6 to 10 story residential tower. The City should request that HCD change Hollister’s classification as a Metropolitan jurisdiction (with a minimum density of 30 dua/ac) to a Suburban jurisdiction (with a minimum density of 20 du/ac).  Staff response: As noted above, HCD classifies Hollister as Metropolitan jurisdiction which requires a default density standard of a minimum of 30 dwelling units/acre. The City of Hollister is not required to use the 30 du/ac default density standard, but using this default density standard makes the process to identify the Housing Element sites easier and less cumbersome. In addition, it would be unusual for a 30 du/ac project to be 6 to 10 stories; projects at this density are typically 3 to 5 stories depending on the unit and parcel size. For these reasons, staff does not recommend any changes in response to this comment.
o San Benito County requested clarification and made comments on several policies, asked for adjustments to the Specific Plan concept figures, stated a desire that the City of Hollister would become a partner in the San Benito County Conservation Plan to allow for ease in receiving needed take permits, suggested the City and County work together in regard to any County identified housing sites that are annexed into the City and that the City assume responsibility for the County’s assigned RHNA that was assigned to those sites in the County Housing Element, requested a reduced Planning Area boundary, has concerns about impacts to County roads impacted by the SOI expansion, has concerns about agricultural land mitigation policies, invites the City to collaborate on CAP strategies, and would like to coordinate in more detail about the Specific Plans before the General Plan is adopted. Please see the letter in Attachment 1 for the complete details of this comment.

November 22, 2024 | Page 15
 Staff response: The City of Hollister coordinated with the County during the preparation of this General Plan and will continue to coordinate with the County after adoption.
o The General Plan should address living wage employment.  Staff response: The Economic Development Element is focused on business attraction and job creation, providing high level policy direction to guide future City efforts.
» Agricultural Land Preservation Program
o Extend the boundary of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program from the Hollister Planning Area to the San Benito County boundary.
 Staff Response: The City Council has previously considered this request and elected to maintain the boundary at the edge of the Hollister Planning Area so as to preserve and enhance agricultural uses in close proximity to the city.

OVERVIEW OF THE REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the environmental effects associated with adoption and implementation of the Revised Draft General Plan. Because of the long-term planning horizon of the proposed project and the permitting, planning, and development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions for implementation, the revised Draft EIR was prepared as a program EIR, pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The CEQA environmental review process for the project as a whole started on April 9, 2021, with issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR. A 30-day public comment period for the NOP ended on May 10, 2021. A virtual public scoping meeting was held on April 22, 2021, to accept public input on environmental topics to be analyzed in the EIR and approaches to the impact analyses. During this time, the City received comment letters from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Native American Heritage Commission, and San Benito High School District. Issues of particular concern to agencies during the environmental review process included:
 Potential impacts to biological resources.
 Tribal consultation and compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.  Cumulative impact on the capacity to serve future students at San Benito High School.

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the previous Draft EIR was issued on May 17, 2023, for a 45-day public review and comment period that ended on June 30, 2023. After preparation of the 2023 Draft EIR, but prior to its certification, the City made modifications to the project and created a revised Draft EIR to the revised project. The Revised Draft EIR and a new NOA were issued on July 3, 2024, for a 45- day public review and comment period that ended on August 16, 2024.

November 22, 2024 | Page 16
Both the 2023 Draft EIR and the 2024 Revised Draft EIR were distributed to local, regional, and State agencies, and the general public was advised of the availability of the Draft EIR each time it was published. The 2023 Draft EIR and the 2024 Revised Draft EIR were made available for review to interested parties on the project website at www.hollister2040.org .

The EIR evaluation included a detailed analysis of impacts in eighteen (18) environmental topics, analyzing the Draft General Plan 2040, and alternatives to the General Plan 2040, including a No Project Alternative. The EIR discloses the environmental impacts expected to result from implementation of the General Plan 2040 including the effects of potential future buildout during both construction and operational phases. Impacts under the following environmental topics were determined to be less than significant with implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions. • Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
The Revised Draft EIR identified the following impacts, which can be mitigated by General Plan policies and actions, but which would not be able to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and would therefore remain significant and unavoidable at the program level. The identification of these significant and unavoidable impacts does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts at the project level for future development over the General Plan buildout horizon. • Impact AG-1: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland land (together referred to as “qualified Farmland”) to nonagricultural land uses.
• Impact AG-2: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of agricultural land under the Williamson Act.
• Impact AG-4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland land (together referred to as “qualified Farmland”) under CEQA and Williamson Act properties to nonagricultural uses. • Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of substantial operational (long-term) criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD’s) regional significance threshold for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) and would; therefore, not be considered consistent with the existing Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

November 22, 2024 | Page 17
• Impact AIR-2a: Operation of development projects that could occur from implementation of the project would generate emissions that would exceed Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD’s) regional significance thresholds for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO).
• Impact AIR-2b: Construction activities that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed 2040 General Plan would generate substantial short-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD’s) regional significance thresholds and cumulative contribute to the nonattainment designations of the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB).
• Impact AIR-3a: Implementation of the proposed project could expose air quality sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations from non-permitted sources during operation. • Impact AIR-3b: Construction activities associated with potential future development could expose nearby air quality sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants during construction.
• Impact AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed 2040 General Plan could generate a substantial increase in emissions that exceeds the Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD’s) significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations and health risk in the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). • Impact NOI-1.1: Construction activities associated with potential future development under the proposed 2040 General Plan could expose sensitive receptors in close proximity to a construction site to excessive noise from construction equipment.
• Impact NOI-1.2: Operational vehicle traffic noise increases would exceed the City’s significance thresholds with implementation of the proposed project. • Impact NOI-4: Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan could contribute to an increase in cumulative construction noise and operational vehicle noise. • Impact TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan would result in a significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact for VMT per Capita (Residential) and Retail VMT over 50,000 square feet, due to forecasted land use growth through 2040, based on a comparison of the VMT rate increment for VMT to the corresponding average baseline rates for the San Benito County region.
• Impact TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan would cumulatively contribute to regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Where possible, mitigating General Plan 2040 policies and actions were identified to avoid or minimize each of these significant environmental effects. In addition, the City committed to implementing measures in order to reduce the direct and indirect impacts that will result from Draft General Plan 2040 activities.

November 22, 2024 | Page 18
A total of 21 comment letters were received on the original and Revised Draft EIRs combined, 10 of which were from public agencies. The City and PlaceWorks have issued a proposed Final EIR that responds to all of these comments (on both Draft EIRs) and makes necessary changes to the text of the Revised Draft EIR to address these comments.

NEXT STEPS
If the Council adopts the General Plan at its December 3, 2024 meeting, PlaceWorks will then create a final version of the adopted document and the project will be completed. City staff will then commence steps to implement the Plan, likely including preparation of a Municipal Services Review (MSR) for the San Benito Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), a targeted Zoning Code Update to reflect the updated General Plan land use map, and preparation of a checklist to ensure compliance with the Climate Action Plan.

State of California -- Transportation Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency 740 Renz Lane
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 427-0700
(800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD)
(800) 735-2922 (Voice)
July 29, 2024
File No.: 725.15606
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Subject: SCH 2021040277
The California Highway Patrol, Hollister-Gilroy Area received the Revised July 2024 – Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program – Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearing House (SCH) number 2021040277. After review, we have some concerns as previously described in a June 2023 response letter from this command, see enclosed for reference.

Our concern relates to the lack of detail provided for the proposed Bus-On-Shoulder concept, see draft page 586. Without the opportunity to: review details regarding the specific location(s) and day(s)/time(s) for planned use; evaluate plans for traffic control devices to be installed; and assess plans for motorist education to ensure safe implementation of the concept, none of which are described in the revised draft, the previously articulated concerns offered by this command remain.

Should you have any questions regarding these concerns, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Captain Noel Coady at (408) 427-0700.

Sincerely,
N. C. COADY, Captain
Commander
Enclosure
cc: Coastal Division

State of California—Business, Transportation and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency

Hollister-Gilroy Area
740 Renz Lane
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 427-0700

June 21, 2023

File No.: 725.14548.17803

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

SCH: 2021040277

I was recently requested to review the Notice of Environmental Impact document from the State Clearinghouse (SCH) related to the Hollister 2040 General Plan. After reviewing SCH# 2021040277, as well as the information and procedures outlined in General Order 41.2, Environmental Impact Documents, the Hollister-Gilroy Area does not believe the addition of bicycle paths within the City of Hollister will adversely affect traffic-related matters in the area.

The Hollister-Gilroy Area is opposed to the bus-on-shoulder concept of this project. Motorists involved in traffic crashes, experiencing medical emergencies, or who have mechanical troubles, are instructed to move to the shoulder and out of the traffic lanes. Peace officers respond to these incidents make all efforts to move the involved vehicles off the freeway or to the right shoulder to minimize secondary traffic crashes and the associated risks. When officers make traffic stops on the freeway, drivers pull to the shoulder and stop, as they are instructed to do in driving classes and per California Vehicle Code §21806. Based on past experiences in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, if busses (or other vehicles) are allowed to drive on the shoulder, other motorists will undoubtedly follow suit, creating an additional lane and removing the availability of the shoulder for true emergencies. Busses driving on the shoulders, and the inevitable vehicles which follow them, may cause confusion for other motorists and result in an increase of traffic related crashes in the area. Additionally, Appendix F, exhibit 5, identifies a Class III Bicycle Path along SR-25. These scenarios have the potential of making the roadways more dangerous and increasing liability for the State and all involved government agencies.

Authorizing any vehicle to drive on the shoulder will cause an undue safety hazard to the motoring public, road workers, and peace officers working in the area. If the bus-on-shoulder program were to progress, additional discussion would be needed to develop proper procedures regulating specific times or scenarios which would allow busses to use the shoulder as well as the speeds at which they would be allowed to travel. The Hollister-Gilroy CHP Area has concerns with this overall project.

City of Hollister

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

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

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

Sincerely,

P. COOPER, Captain
Commander

From: Braucher, Annika@CalOES
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 12:52 PM
To: Eva Kelly
Cc: CalOES Mitigation Planning ; LaMar-Haas,
Victoria@CalOES ; Raether,
Constantin@CalOES
Subject: City of Hollister 2040 General Plan

Good afternoon,

The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team has taken the time to review the proposed updates/changes to your General Plan. Government Code 65302(g)(8) states “before preparing or revising its Safety Element, each city and county shall consult…. the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department.”

The Cal OES Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team reviews and compares your current Safety Element hazards against those listed in the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved San Benito County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP).

Our office has reviewed your proposed Safety Element and found no substantive changes to your hazard profiles when compared against the most recent FEMA approved County of San Benito MJHMP.

Please reach out to you our office at [email protected] if you have any further questions or need additional assistance.

Thank you,
Annika Braucher
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Annika Braucher, Environmental Planner
Local Mitigation Planning | Recovery Directorate
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
(916) 639-3619|[email protected]

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
August 21, 2024

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
(831) 636-4360
[email protected]

Subject: Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (Plan)
Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
SCH No.: 2021040277

Dear Eva Kelly:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Revised EIR (REIR) from the City of Hollister for the above-referenced Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW respectfully requests that the City of Hollister still consider our comments.

CDFW previously provided comments and recommendations to the City of Hollister during circulation of the Plan’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 10, 2021, and Draft EIR (DEIR) on June 27, 2023 (Attachment 1). Within these letters, CDFW provided a list of special-status species to be evaluated as part of the Plan’s DEIR and recommended measures be incorporated for projects tiered from this Plan, including habitat assessments, protocol surveys, and a robust analysis on cumulative impacts to

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
August 21, 2024

biological resources. CDFW recommends that the comments and recommendations provided in CDFW’s DEIR comment letter for the Plan be incorporated as part of the REIR and that recommended measures be carried forward into the Final EIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data . The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals .

FILING FEES

If it is determined that the Project has the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees will be necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project and to assist the City of Hollister in identifying and mitigating the Plan’s impacts on biological resources.

If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3194, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager

Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
August 21, 2024

ec: State Clearinghouse,
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]

CDFW LSA/1600; [email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
August 21, 2024

Attachment 1
Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

May 10, 2021

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
[email protected]

Subject: Hollister General Plan Update 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Sphere of Influence Amendments and Annexations Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Project (Project)
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
SCH No.: 2021040277

Dear Mr. Prado:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a NOP from the City of Hollister for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE

CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Ga me Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

Proponent: City of Hollister

Objective: The City of Hollister’s existing General Plan was adopted in 2005, with a horizon year of 2023. Since the horizon year is approaching, the City is now updating its plan to extend the planning period to 2040. The Hollister General Plan Update will build off the current General Plan and provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the year 2040. The proposed General Plan will direct future growth within the EIR Study Area and address the city’s vulnerability to environmental challenges such as earthquakes, wildland fires, and other hazards identified in the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Action Plan to be completed concurrently with the General Plan Update. The General Plan is intended to respond to local and regional housing needs, foster economic growth and local job creation, enhance civic identity and placemaking, and protect sensitive natural resources. The proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) will identify strategies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by existing and potential future uses in Hollister. The General Plan Update could potentially lead to Sphere of Influence (SOI) amendments and annexations that would accommodate future housing sites and limited commercial development.

Location: The Project encompasses the Hollister City Limits, the SOI, Urban Service Area, and Planning Area located in San Benito County, also referred to as the EIR Study Area.

Timeframe: The proposed project would extend its planning period to 2040.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The NOP indicates that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project will describe existing environmental conditions in the Project area, and analyze potential impacts resulting from Project activities. The EIR will also identify and evaluate alternatives to the proposed project.

When an EIR is prepared, the specifics of mitigation measures may be deferred, provided the lead agency commits to mitigation and establishes performance standards for implementation. There are numerous special-status species that have been documented in the Project vicinity (CDFW 2021) that may be present at individual Project sites in the Project area. These resources need to be addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities or land use changes to adequately assess potential impacts. CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to, the State and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and the steelhead south-central California Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9); the State and federally threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense); the Federally threatened and State Species of Concern California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii); the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelauis tricolor); the State species of special concern burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), San Joaquin Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki) and American badger (Taxidea taxus).

CDFW also recommends consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to, San Joaquin kit fox, vernal pool fairy shrimp, steelhead, California tiger salamander, and California red-legged frog. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS and NMFS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities.

In addition to potential species impacts, it is likely that some Project activities that will be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. If a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) is needed, CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance or the renewal of a LSAA. Therefore, for efficiency in environmental compliance, we recommend that any potential lake or stream disturbance that may result from Project activities be described, and mitigation for the DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

disturbance be developed as part of the EIR. This will reduce the need for the CDFW to require extensive additional environmental review for a LSAA in the future. If inadequate, or no environmental review, has occurred, for the Project activities that are subject to notification under Fish and Game Code section 1602, CDFW will not be able to issue the Final LSAA until CEQA analysis for the project is complete. This may lead to considerable Project delays.

CDFW is available to meet with you ahead of draft EIR preparation to discuss potential impacts and possible mitigation measures for some or all of the resources that may be analyzed in the draft EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager

ec: Leilani Takano
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
[email protected]

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DE for
Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado
City of Hollister
May 10, 2021

Literature Cited
CDFW. 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS . Accessed May 1, 2021.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 76DA7B80-56E2-4BAB-8117-F764F4EB65DEDocusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 27, 2023
Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023
(831) 636-4360
[email protected]
Subject: Hollister General Plan Update 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Sphere of Influence Amendments and Annexations Program Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Project (Project)
SCH No.: 2021040277
Dear Abraham Prado:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Hollister for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Hollister
Objective: The existing General Plan for the City of Hollister (City) was adopted in 2005, with a horizon year of 2023. The City is now updating its plan to extend the planning period to 2040. The Hollister General Plan Update will build off the current General Plan and provide a framework for land use, transportation, and conservation decisions through the year 2040. The proposed General Plan will direct future growth within the EIR Study Area and address the City’s vulnerability to environmental challenges such as earthquakes, wildland fires, and other hazards identified in the proposed Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Climate Action Plan, which is to be completed concurrently with the General Plan Update. The General Plan is intended to respond to local and regional housing needs, foster economic growth and local job creation, enhance civic identity and placemaking, and protect sensitive natural resources. The proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) will identify strategies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by existing and potential future uses in the City. The General Plan Update could potentially lead to Sphere of Influence amendments and annexations that would accommodate future housing sites and limited commercial development.

Location: City of Hollister, San Benito County.

Timeframe: 2040

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Special-Status Species: Given the City-wide nature of the Project, there is the potential for the Project to impact State-listed species. Records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) show that the following special-status species, including CESA-listed species (CDFW 2023) could be impacted: the State endangered (SE) and federally endangered (FE) San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), the federally threatened (FT) vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), the FT and State threatened (ST) California tiger salamander-central population (Ambystoma californiense), the State candidate-listed endangered (SCE) Crotch bumblebee DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

(Bombus crotchii), the ST Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelauis tricolor), the FT and State species of special concern (SSC) California red-legged frog, the FT steelhead, south/central California coast (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), and the SSC burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), Monterey hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), and the 1B.2 plant rank (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere) San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana) and Hall’s tarplant (Deinandra halliana). Along with the species listed above that have been observed within the Project limits, there was a 2021 sighting of the SE and FE California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately two miles northeast of the proposed Project site near the John Smith Landfill, as well as a 2023 sighting of the fully protected (FP) golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) just north of the landfill site (CDFW 2023).

The primary purpose of a DEIR is to consider all the potential impacts associated with the suite of projects that would eventually tier from the EIR over time. As such, the DEIR should serve primarily as a planning level EIR and consider, in detail, the cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable projects on the environment, and on the species CDFW has identified in this comment letter. CDFW recommends that habitat assessments be conducted in and surrounding all locations for planned work/ground disturbance in the DEIR and identify all the potential plant, animal, invertebrate, and fish species that could be present. Then, for those species, CDFW recommends a robust analysis of cumulative impacts for each of those species along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that could be implemented on each project to reduce harm. For many species, subsequent protocol level surveys may be required during biological studies conducted in support of the future CEQA documents that will be tiered from the Final EIR and, depending on the results, avoidance and minimization measures, permits, and mitigation may be required.

CDFW recommends that survey-level protocols be conducted for these species as part of the biological technical studies prepared in support of each future CEQA document tiered from the Final EIR, with conclusions of those studies summarized therein and repeated as necessary prior to Project ground-disturbing activities. For all future projects tiered from the EIR, CDFW recommends that focused surveys be conducted by qualified biologists familiar with the appropriate survey protocols per individual species.

In the future CEQA documents tiered from the EIR, CDFW advises that special status species be addressed with appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. If take could occur as a result of Project implementation, consultation with CDFW would be warranted.

Cumulative Impacts: CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the Project, including those whose impacts DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the Project, even if those impacts are relatively small (i.e. less than significant). CDFW recommends cumulative impacts be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the Project. An appropriate resource study area identified and utilized for this analysis is advised. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA and we recommend that the City reach out to CDFW to discuss various methodologies and strategies for an analysis of this type for CDFW trustee agency resources.

CNDDB: Please note that the CNDDB is populated by and records voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be pre sent in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present at or near the Project area.

Lake and Stream Alteration: The Projects that tier from the EIR may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires the project proponent to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the LSA Program at (559) 243-4593, or [email protected].

Federally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to, the San Joaquin kit fox, the vernal pool fairy shrimp, the California tiger salamander, the California red-legged frog, and the south/central California coast steelhead. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

CDFW is available to meet with you ahead of Final EIR preparation to discuss potential impacts and possible mitigation measures for some or all of the resources that were or should be analyzed in the EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3194, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Patricia Cole; [email protected]
State Clearinghouse, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [email protected]
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW LSA/1600; [email protected]
Kelley Nelson; [email protected]

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

Abraham Prado, Interim Development Services Director
City of Hollister
June 27, 2023

LITERATURE CITED
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS . Accessed May 17, 2023.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4C0EBB65-1628-4AC1-A949-1816A1BD18B7Docusign Envelope ID: ADBA0097-6FD7-49BF-9ED9-17C28405B0CC

August 5, 2024

Eva Kelly
Planning Manager
Development Service Department -Planning Division
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023

RE: Comments on City of Hollister’s GP 2040, CAP, and ALPP Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2021040277)

Dear Ms. Kelly:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Hollister’s General Plan 2040, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The following comments are offered for your consideration:
• Page 4.8-1 states, “The analysis in this chapter is based on buildout of the proposed project, as modeled using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Emissions Factor Model (EMFAC2021), the Off-Road Emissions Factor Model (OFFROAD2021, version

1.0.2), energy use provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE), solid waste disposal from Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)…”

AMBAG is not responsible for solid waste disposal, so this sentence is incorrect. Please revise.

• Page 4.8-28 states, “Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in AMBAG’s 2045 RTP/SCS and impacts would be less than significant.”

Revise sentence to state “…AMBAG’s 2045 MTP/SCS…”

• Page 4.11-2 states, “The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the federally designated MPO and Council of Governments (COG) for Monterey County, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County.”

2 AMBAG is not the Council of Governments for San Benito County; instead, it is the Council of San Benito County Governments (San Benito COG).

• Page 4.11-2 states, “The 2045 MTP/SCS is the long-range SCS and RTP for the three counties and 18 local jurisdictions within the tri-county Monterey Bay region, including the City of Hollister.”

Revise sentence to state, “The 2045 MTP/SCS is the long-range SCS and Metropolitan Transportation Plan…”

• Page 4.14-2 states, “The 2045 MTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is the long- range SCS and regional transportation plan for the 3 counties and 18 local jurisdictions in the Monterey Bay Region, including the City of Hollister.”

Revise sentence to state, “The 2045 MTP/SCS is the long-range SCS and Metropolitan Transportation Plan…”

• Starting on the bottom of Page 5.6, it states, “Implementation of the No Project Alternative assumes that development growth throughout the city would remain unchanged until the buildout horizon year 2040, which is consistent with other regional plans, including Association of Monterey Bay Area Government’s (AMBAG) 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan & the Sustainable Communities Strategy (2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS).”

Revise the sentence to state “… (AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS).”

• Page 5-29 states, “However, implementation of the proposed project was found to have a less-than-significant impact due to the focus on infill development, which is in alignment with the regional planning framework of the 2045 AMBAG MTP/SCS.”

Revise the sentence to state “… the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.”

• Page 6-5 state, “State law requires the City to promote the production of housing to meet its fair share of the regional housing needs distribution made by AMBAG.”

The Council of San Benito County Governments (San Benito COG) is responsible for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process for San Benito County. AMBAG is responsible for RHNA for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties only.

3 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Revised DEIR for the General Plan 2040. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (831) 264-5086 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Heather Adamson
Director of Planning

24580 Silver Cloud Court
Monterey, CA 93940
PHONE: (831) 647-9411 • FAX: (831) 647-8501
Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer

August 16, 2024

Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
City of Hollister
Development Services Department- Planning Division
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Submitted via email: [email protected]

Re: Hollister GPU 2040, CAP and ALPP Revised EIR

Dear Ms. Kelly,

Thank you for providing the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) with the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft EIR for the Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Land Preservation Program. MBARD has reviewed the EIR and has the following comments:

Rule 424 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) On page 4.3-13, MBARD rules and regulations that are applicable to the Plan are listed. Please add MBARD Rule 424 NESHAP. Rule 424 states that, “All suspect building materials, in each building, that will be disturbed by planned demolition or renovation activities shall be sampled and analyzed for asbestos using the method specified in Appendix E, Subpart E, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 763, Section 1 (Polarized Light Microscopy) or assumed to be asbestos containing. Suspect materials include, friable asbestos-containing material, Category I nonfriable asbestos-containing material, Category II nonfriable asbestos-containing material or any other material that may contain asbestos, based on past manufacturing practices or use”. Additionally, MBARD requires a “written building survey report be submitted along with notification for each demolition project and for asbestos removal projects that will disturb building materials”.

Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) and Other Asbestos Piping Infrastructure MBARD has prior experience with abatement of asbestos cement pipe (ACP) and other asbestos utility infrastructure components within the City of Hollister. Proper procedures must be followed during construction activities when encountering active or abandoned ACP or other asbestos-containing subsurface infrastructure.

MBARD Attainment Status
Table 4.3-4: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the NCCAB on page 4.3-18 reports the NCCAB is in nonattainment for ozone regarding the state standard. The NCCAB has been in attainment since September 2021 for the State’s 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. Please visit the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) State and Federal Area Designations webpage for more details- State and Federal Area Designations | California Air Resources Board.

Furthermore, impact AIR-2 “Implementation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard”, on page 4.3-38, should be reassessed. As stated above, MBARD is in attainment for ozone, therefore conclusions regarding air quality impacts should reflect this fact. The general plan, when fully implemented, will exceed the threshold for VOCs, NOx and CO. MBARD would like to see more

Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer
approaches to reduce emissions from transportation, such as construction and installation of public electric vehicle infrastructure.

Engine Permitting
If a generator, boiler, or another stationary source of air pollutants is needed to support the construction process or will be installed for use in the operation of the project, a permit may be required. Per Rule 201, any stationary piston-type internal combustion engine of greater than or equal to 50 brake horsepower (bhp) requires a permit.

Please contact MBARD’s Engineering Division if there are any questions regarding the permitting process.

Portable Equipment Registration Program
If project construction uses portable equipment registered with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP), MBARD must be notified within two working days of commencing operations when a registered unit will be at a location for more than five days. Portable equipment not registered with CARB may be subject to MBARD permit requirements.

VOC Emissions

consumer products (Table 4.2-7). Therefore, a reference to the state consumer products regulation should be added to the discussion. This regulation was recently updated and should result in emissions reductions by the proposed project buildout year of 2040. The updated regulations are reported to achieve statewide VOC reductions of 3.00 tons per day (tpd) in 2023 and 9.80 tpd in 2031. Therefore, the emissions reported in Table 4.2-7 should reflect these reductions in the consumer products category.

products, MBARD recommends adding a sentence to the discussion of this policy that consumer product regulation updates and consumer product emission calculation tools should be reviewed. The EIR does not reflect emissions reductions in this category which may be required in the future.

Odors

odors due to the additional infrastructure needed to support these land uses such as expansion of wastewater treatment plants or sewer lines. MBARD suggests adding language to explain these potential indirect odor sources from future residential or other land use development projects.

MBARD appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft EIR for the Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Please let me know if you have any questions. I may be reached at (831) 718-8030 or [email protected].

Regards,

Edward Ballaron
Air Quality Planner I

cc: Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer David Frisbey, Planning and Air Monitoring Manager
Shawn Boyle, Planning and Air Monitoring Supervisor

From:Eva Kelly
To:Carey Stone
Cc:David Early; Ambur Cameron
Subject:FW: Hollister General Plan: Revised EIR, Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, and Draft ALPP Date:Friday, July 5, 2024 9:45:42 AM
Attachments:CogRejectsCaltrain.pdf
COGUMHG02-24.pdf
FALSEGODSOCIALISM.pdf
GOVERNANCE ABUSE IN SBC 2017.pdf
L51.COGsPOLICYFLAWS.pdf
L167.BiggestPolicyFlaw.pdf
L178.COGsPOLICYFLAWS2009.pdf
L182.COGsPOLICYFLAWSDejaVu-4nd.pdf
L189.ABOLISHCOG100811.pdf
L191.DirtyGovt021513.pdf
L192.COGsRevenueII.pdf
LESSON16tofcCOFC.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image009.png
Good morning Carey,

We received the below (and attached) comments in response to the General Plan. The same person also sent a follow up, so I will forward that as well.

Best,
Eva

Eva Kelly
Planning Manager
City of Hollister | Development Services Dept.
339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
[email protected]
(831) 636-4360 x 1225

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments.

From: Joseph P Thompson
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2024 10:33 AM
To: generalplan ; SBC Board of Supervisors ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor Bea Gonzales ; Supervisors ; [email protected]; Angela Curro ; Sanbenitocog Info ; Roxy Montana
; [email protected]; Coh.CityClerk ; Michael
Moore

View this email in your browser
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hollister has prepared a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Hollister 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and
Agricultural Lands Preservation Program
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Subject: Fw: Hollister General Plan: Revised EIR, Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, and Draft ALPP

PUBLIC COMMENT: NEXT MEETING; REAL OR VIRTUAL; REGULAR OR SPECIAL; STUDY SESSION, OR PRIVATE RETREAT, OR PUBLIC WORKSHOP; AND ESPECIALLY
THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL "MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP" VTA-COG
Dear Friends,
Thank you for inviting public comment. I now repeat my comment sent previously during other planning episodes in SBC. See attached.

Please see that your staff includes this for the official record of proceedings, so that future generations will know that you were warned. As we
see radical socialism infecting and ruining California, my personal observation of governance abuses in SBC as I previously said to you, and
others in local, State and Federal government, goes double today. Your policy and governance abuse have us on the Road to Serfdom,
same route taken by the USSR. I urge you to reject the quicksand of socialism, and build our children's future on the bedrock of capitalism.

Thank you.

Joseph P. Thompson, Esq.

Past-Chair, Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn.

Past-President 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn.

Charter Member, SBCCOG Citizens Transit Task Force
Charter Member, SBCCOG Citizens Rail Advisory Committee Post-Doc student, transport law & policy, Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies, SJSU;
Transportation Research Board, Georgetown U.; and Library of Congress (408) 848-5506
E-Mail: [email protected]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: City of Hollister
To: "[email protected]"
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 at 02:47:51 PM PDT
Subject: Hollister General Plan: Revised EIR, Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, and Draft ALPP

New documents are available!

Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (proposed project), which will help guide future development, conservation, economic development, and policy direction in the City over the buildout horizon of the General Plan. The Revised Draft EIR addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project as revised at a programmatic level.

The City is requesting comments on the content of the Revised Draft EIR from interested public agencies, organizations, and individuals. A public meeting to accept verbal comments on the Revised Draft EIR will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.

Public Meeting on Revised Draft EIR
Tuesday, July 16, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.
-
In person: City Hall Council Chambers
375 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
-
Remotely: via the Zoom platform
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_O9HCwqNTRrKcbyZtAJ2XPQ The City will also be accepting written comments on the Revised Draft EIR until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 16, 2024. Written comments may be emailed to [email protected] with “Hollister GPU 2040, CAP, and ALPP Revised EIR” as the subject line, or mailed to:

City of Hollister Development Services Department – Planning Division ATTN: Eva Kelly, Planning Manager
339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
Information regarding the proposed project can be accessed at: https://hollister2040.org/ .

Public comments may also be sent to City staff ([email protected]) prior to the meeting or afterwards.

Draft Plans Available for Public Review!
In 2020, the City of Hollister kicked-off the General Plan Update, a document that serves as the blueprint for the City’s growth and development over the next 20 years. The Draft 2040

General Plan addresses topics that shape City decisions about land use, environmental justice, housing, economics, arts and culture, transportation, conservation, open space, public services, safety, and noise. Creating the Draft 2040 General Plan relied on community feedback, input from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), recommendations from the Planning Commission, and direction from the City Council to ensure that the community’s vision and priorities are correctly captured.

In September 2023, the City Council provided feedback to add new planning areas to the proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI). The SOI indicates land that is likely to be annexed into the City in the future. Any proposed amendment to the SOI must be approved by the San Benito County Local Agency Formation Commission. The updated Draft 2040 General Plan incorporates Council direction, but is largely the same as the draft published in April 2023.

In tandem with the General Plan Update, the City of Hollister is also developing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and foster a more sustainable community through 2045 and beyond. The Draft CAP helps implement the community’s General Plan 2040 vision, goals, and policies. Topics in the Draft CAP include the causes and impacts of climate change, the community’s existing GHG emissions and projected future emissions, and strategies for reducing GHG emissions. The City updated the Draft CAP to align with the revised proposed Sphere of Influence and the associated growth that could occur in these areas.

Another consideration for the future of Hollister as the city grows is the preservation of agricultural land. To preserve agricultural land as more housing, jobs, and public services are added to the city, the City prepared a Draft Agricultural Preservation Program. In September 2023, the City Council provided direction to update the Draft Agricultural Preservation Program to require land preservation offsets for the loss of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio instead of a 2:1 ratio. For future development that converts agricultural to urban uses, the developer would be required to preserve the same area of agricultural land developed through a conservation easement (1 acre of land preserved for every 1 acre developed).

The Draft Plans will be considered for adoption in Fall 2024. A subsequent email with the public hearing dates will be sent out in advance of these meetings.

Have a comment or question? Please email: [email protected].

For questions and comments, contact:

City of Hollister Planning Division
[email protected]
(831) 636-4360

Copyright © 2024 City of Hollister, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:

City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

This email was sent to [email protected]
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences City of Hollister · 375 Fifth Street · Hollister, CA 95023 · USA Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp

July 8, 2024
City of Hollister
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023

To: Whom it may concern

As a prelude to this letter, I would like to inform the reader of past events to add some meaningful information. Around March of 2016 the Churchill family had entered an Option Contract with the KMS Company, owned by Mr. Shawn Milligan. His proposal at the time of the contract termination is shown on figure 1 of the next page. The layout had just been modified to show an area dedicated to Multi- Family-Housing at the request of one Abrham Prado, a Senior Planner for the City of Hollister.

It was around this time that Mr. Milligan was informed there was a breeding pond of the California Tiger Salamander (CTS) within 0.50 miles of the Churchill property. The CTS is an endangered species. The cost of mitigation was $2.1 Mil. Shawn Milligan elected to terminate the contract with the Churchill family.

It is noted the Breeding Pond was washed out due to a severe rainstorm in 1996. Attempts were made to correct the situation. However, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Guerra of the Santana Development, did not want to help and quoting “We don’t want any competition” and “It will be a cold day in Hell when I will allow a Biologist on my proptrty”. Later in time the cost was changed to $ 56,000 per ac.

After the ground was disturbed (2021), the site was determined not to be a CTS breeding pond.

In 2021 the City of Hollister imposed a freeze on any new housing projects and then we had to wait for the new 20-40 plan to be approved. At present the plan is not expected to be approved until late in 2024 at best.

I’m telling you this as the Churchill’s don’t want to lose our place in line for continuation of approvals.

1. The 2005 General Plan For all practical purposes, Churchill's 2005 plan was complete.

Abraham Prado had verbally approved our tentative map with the addition of LLA providing low cost rental units. As I recall there was enough acreage for 41 completed units. The 20-40 plan has put the Churchill property in a special district called the Meridian Street Extension Special Planning Area. The entire area, not in the City of Hollister SOI, has been Designated as General Commercial. Most of the properties in the special planning area consist of 1 ac parcels. We draw to attention to the fact that Churchill’s do not have any legal means to persuade any annexation. I have tried to contact them by phone from CO but to no avail. (more suggestions later in another comment EIR comment).

2. Mixed-Use. As testified at Hollister CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Special Meeting September 11, 2023, my daughter, Jennifer Churchill, requested the Land Use Designation be changed from Commercial to Mixed-Use. The reason for the request is to bring to light several phone conversations Mr. Churchill had with Commercial Developers. I also contacted existing comments from current “Barnyards” or “Community Centers”. In summary, they all informed me a Community Center would not be viable for the City of Hollister at least for 30-40 years.

They said it was due to demographics and the lack of affluence in the surrounding area. Not any of the contacts would put their responses in writing. The City Council asked the planning group present for a recommendation and the request was denied.

2.a After a preliminary look at the 23 acreage it appears there is room to provide the following:
● 212 low-cost affordable apartments consisting of 15 handicap (lower level) + 2 & 3 bedrooms.
● 600 three-bedroom Condominiums and 230 garage type storage units and 2 meeting facilities. There is room for at least 2-3 playgrounds. 2.7 ac will be designated as Commercial.

2 Design Intention for the Project Site. The Churchills have determined the site to be much more viable to Hollister as a Mixed-Use rather than a Community Center as autos are not allowed and have a variety of restaurants. Please see paragraph 2. And 2.a. above.

3 2018 Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan Update (SSCSMP). At the time when the SSCSMP was updated in 2018 I spoke with Mr. Nicholson of LAFCO, who employed the City of Hollister. I told him we were in the SOI. Nicholson told me that if the Churchills were in the SOI that we would qualify for sewer service. He stated the City of Hollister had to give Churchill’s Sewer Service. I remember my satisfaction at his answer. Churchill’s desire to be included in the next study. Let it be known that the Churchill property wants to be in the next Sewer System Study.

4 Timing. Because LAFCO is presently non-existent in San Benito County, I would like to object to any unnecessary delays in the hiring process. One year is not acceptable. I was pleased to hear the process is progressing. And LAFCO is now in existence in San Benito County and Hollister.

5 General Plan EIR. We expect to provide an appropriate EIR. This was dependent on the acceptance of the Churchill property to be designated as “Mixed-Use”.

6 PG&E. I have just recently read where PG&E will be talking about this subject on February 8, at 10 AM at the Veterans building in Hollister. I intend to be represented. And we want power soon. I have been told by Planning that they have not been able to contact PG&E.

7 Traffic Analysis. Will comply.

8 Meridian Street Bridge. There are no bridge cost estimates currently. Therefore, there is no agreement. However, if we do receive the Mixed-Use designation, there could be two entries/exits onto Hillcrest Rd. If an agreement to participate in the cost can be reached, the property could connect to Meridian Street.

9 Annexation Area As previously stated, the Churchill family has no legal right to enforce the annexation of APN’s 025-350-0320 and 025-250-034.

10 The correct PN’s for the Churchill properties are 025-350-067-000 and 025-350-069-000.

Thank you for your patience in this matter, and the Churchill family sincerely hopes you can concur with this request for a new land designation or Mixed Use.

Jim Churchill, part owner and Trustee of the James Kenneth Churchill Revocable Trust.

John Churchill, part owner and Trustee of the John Robert Churchill Revocable Trust Jennifer Churchill, Heir
Dr. Christopher Churchill, Trustee of the William A. Churchill and Carol Nelson Churchill Revocable Trust Cathy Churchill Collins, Heir
Leslie Churchill Grannaman, Heir

From: Eva Kelly
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 12:22 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: land preservation in the City of Hollister

Good afternoon Graham,

Thank you for your question. As drafted, the Agricultural Preservation Program does allow for land to be preserved in the unincorporated County. However, the program does not allow for the land to be anywhere in the entire county, but rather within the General Plan Planning Area. This is the largest area (all of the colored land) shown on our General Plan Land Use Map. The Planning Area is much larger than the current City limit and the proposed Sphere of Influence (potential land that the city might annex), but is not the entire county. The reason that the Planning Area was proposed as the boundary for the Ag. Preservation program for several reasons, including the following:

- Preserving land nearer to the City limits supports other policy direction and goals to preserve the small town, agricultural community feel of Hollister - A significant portion of the highest quality agricultural lands already exist in the relatively- immediate surrounds of the City; particularly to the northwest of the City, and are already located within the General Plan Planning Area
- If lands were preserved further away from the City, the benefits of preservation would be less impactful
o Lands which are not nearby to existing urban development are already unlikely to be developed, and thus are at much less risk of being lost than lands nearer to urban development – even without a program for conservation in place. The program is intended to preserve a portion of lands that may have otherwise been lost to urban development – i.e. lands which exist closer to urban development already. o Lands which are further from urban development that do not have an urban land use designation typically have less land value, so there would be a financial incentive for lands to be purchase farther away from the city, which again would lessen the impact of the preservation program

As you mentioned, there are very few properties within the City limits which would meet the requirements of the program, and also would therefore be required to purchase conservation easements under the program. The program is likely to mostly apply to proposed development on parcels which are currently located in the County and are annexed into the City as part of the development process. The review of preservation requirements would occur during the annexation phase of any proposed development. This will allow the City to continue orderly growth as proposed within the Sphere of Influence on parcels that are currently very close to the City’s existing urban development and therefore may be less viable for agricultural uses, but will allow for nearby-but-not- immediately-adjacent preservation of existing agricultural lands as well. The draft General Plan also includes policies to support the continued use of those agricultural uses, such as a buffer between new development and agriculture, to ensure that both uses remain viable for the City/County in the future.

For your information, I’ve copied two maps below which show the city limits and planning area, and then also the planning area in comparison to the entire county boundary.

I hope this helps to answer your questions. Please feel welcome to reach out to us if you have any other questions or comments on the General Plan, Ag Preservation Program, or other draft documents.

Best,
Eva

Eva Kelly
Planning Manager
City of Hollister | Community Development Department
339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
[email protected]
(831) 636-4360

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 11:42 AM
To: generalplan
Subject: land preservation in the City of Hollister

Eva, my question applies to Agriculture Land Preservation in the city of Hollister.

If a land owner in the city of Hollister applies for development, does the applicant have to preserve land within the city or can the land be in the County of San Benito.

The reasons behind the questions.

1. Available land within the City is limited.

2. Land that is placed in an agriculture preserve over a longer period of time could be 50%, which would eventually limit the amount of housing and commercial space available, pushing development in to the county, which would not be undesirable.

3. Smaller areas, say 10 acres held in Agriculture Preserve in the City, would not be too desirable for Agriculture due to economics, water supply and environmental/ development setbacks.

I would like the City to consider allowing preserved land to be out in San Benito County. Thank you Graham Mackie, concerned citizen.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 8:00 AM
To: Eva Kelly
Cc: Rod Powell ; Delia Ramon
; Planning ; generalplan
; Ingrid Sywak
Subject: Re: GIS Plan 2040 parcel designations
Dear Ms. Kelly,
I had occasion to speak with Mr. Powell yesterday re the above GIS link and understood that it was a County administered data system with no definite date for it to be up and running. Since adjacent APNs appear to have radical differences in densities, interpreting proposed densities from a one page color map of the City may be inaccurate. The proposed densities per APN have to be available before meaningful comments to the GP can be made.

Presumably, the underlying information for the GIS color map is based on a data file of proposed density by APN. Given that comments to the GP are due in the next two weeks, and no APN based proposed density is publically available, the underlying data file by APN number should be made available to the public prior to the comment period being closed on August 16.

Specifically, I am requesting the proposed densities in the GP for the following APNs:

1. 055-220-038-000

2. 055-220-039-000

3. 020-080-022-000

4. 020-040-059-000

5. 020-040-061-000
Please advise when you expect this data will be made available.

Regards,
Alex Sywak
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:06 AM Alexander Sywak wrote:

Thx. Let me know when up and running.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:42 AM Eva Kelly wrote:

Good morning Mr. Sywak,
Apparently the GIS link was taken down in the website update with the revised draft plan release. I’ve reached out to our project team and requested it be re-linked to the project website and they are working on my request. I will follow up when I have additional information. I apologize for the misleading information, I did not realize the link had been removed.

Best,
Eva

Eva Kelly
Planning Manager
City of Hollister | Community Development
Dept.
339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
[email protected]
(831) 636-4360 x 1225

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments.

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:00 AM
To: Eva Kelly

Cc: Planning ; Delia Ramon
; Ingrid Sywak
Subject: GIS Plan 2040 parcel designations
Dear Ms. Kelly,
At the GP update meeting last week, you mentioned there is an interactive GIS based map that designates the new GP's density range for each APN.

I have not been able to find this website.

Please forward the link to access what you described.

Thx, Alex Sywak

August 15, 2024
Comments re the 2040 Hollister Draft General Plan
Dear Personnel,
My name is Alex Sywak. I attended the July 16, 2024 Public Comment meeting for the 2040 Hollister Draft General Plan. At that meeting I raised that certain proposed (new) land use policies are against state law and that proposed density designations for many parcels are not consistent with state law, are impossible to achieve due to their topography and contradict tenets of VMT policies.

I spoke at the August 7, 2023 Planning Commission meeting re the new GP, and provided written comments to the Commissioners.1,2 The Commissioners reversed the density designation for an 8 acre parcel in the middle of town surrounded by single family homes built over 40 years ago (#4 on the attached map) from a proposed maximum of 60 units/acre to remain at 8-10 units/acre. Conditions for infill development, Muni Code 17.16.070, would have had to be completely disregarded if the up-zoning stayed. Fortunately, one of the Commissioners drove by that site and realized how ridiculous it would be to erect a 4-5 story building in that neighborhood to achieve the proposed density. However, no Commissioners drove by the parcels labelled #1 in our email. Even though those parcels are currently designated single family, 8 units/acre and have a recorded Deferred Improvement Agreement with the City at that density, Planning had proposed that the Commission downgrade those parcels to a density of 1 unit per 1-5 acres. At the end of the hearing, the only vocal Commissioner, now retired and moved to Oregon, arbitrarily and without any apparent consideration, increased the density from 1 unit per 1-5 acres, to 60 units/acre, a factor of 300.

Comments that the terrain to achieve that density was unsuitable and such density did not comport with VMT tenets were ignored.

Other comments at the August 7, 2023 hearing were unsettling. Even though the City is opposed to annexations, the Commissioners recommended the SOI be dramatically expanded, not to have more lands available for annexation, but rather to restrict County development of those lands.

Policy LU-1.5 is against state law. Gov. Code section 66454 permits any applicant to file a tentative map for property that is adjacent to the City. The Superior Court of California County of San Benito in Tentative Decisions for June 26, 2024 upheld that the City cannot refuse to accept the filing of a tentative map for properties adjacent to the City.3 Policy LU-1.6 may also be against state law. By requiring applicants for annexation of properties adjacent to the City to do so only when other properties are included is against the intent of Gov. Code section 66454, which does not include such a condition.

Policy LU-1.7 may also be against state law. Gov. Code section 66454, does not include such a condition. The Density Bonus Law, the Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act all

1 Email to Planning Commissioners for August 7, 2023 PC Hearing. 2 Written Comments emailed to the Planning Commissioners for the August 7, 2023 PC Hearing. 3 Superior Court of California County of San Benito Tentative Decisions for June 26, 2024, from bottom of Page 3.

base their applications on whatever is the designation and density of parcels in the GP.

Requiring parcels to perform specific plans prior to annexation is not a condition of Gov. Code section 66454.

The second portion of Policy LU-1.9 is too vague and very dependent on how “irregular” is to be interpreted. As recounted below, the shape of an annexation was approved for anything but being “regular” in shape.

Action LU-1.1 is not necessary until the parcels currently within the SOI are annexed. With the City’s demonstrated opposition to annexation, the only stated purpose in expanding the SOI is to prevent projects from being approved in the County.

Action LU-1.2 is necessary, but will require a complete reversal of the City’s current attitude to annexation. The two properties in the above June 26, 2024 Tentative Ruling are County islands surrounded by the City. Both have been pre-zoned and one has a recorded Deferred Improvement Agreement with the City. Those conditions were known to the City when in 2021 Planning opposed their annexation until the new GP was adopted.4 Demanding that properties wait until a new GP is adopted is illegal. We corrected Planning’s misconception several days later, with no response.5 City attorneys encouraged that we pursue annexation of both properties by petition as provided by LAFCO statutes.6,7 Our LAFCO applications were completed and the Glenmore annexation (#4 parcel) was scheduled for the February 2024 hearing.8 Planning opposed both annexations.9,10 At the last minute the City informed LAFCO that the current Tax-Sharing Agreement (TSA) only applied if the City initiated the annexation by resolution. LAFCO tabled our applications. The County has no objection to applying the terms of the TSA to our parcels. We understand the City objected because the City wants to determine what is annexed, not LAFCO. Such posture is against state land use law and LAFCO statutes. And ultimately, the City does have control anyway. Once annexed, for the property to be developed, all City ordinances would apply to any development planned.

The proposed land use policies will not improve current abuses. The applicably of the City’s convoluted approach to annexation is illustrated by PZ 2021-2.11 The applicant requested that only their 3 acres be annexed. Staff recommended that the surrounding 15 acres be included.

Knowing that the other owners would protest and negate the annexation, Council approved the middle-finger shaped very “irregular” annexation as applied for.

Proposed density designations need consider the topography of affected parcels. Parcels on the north side of Hillcrest Road east of the creek12, are steeper in places than areas of Santa Ranch, with their known amount of grading necessary to attain just 5-6 units per acre.13 It is

4 Planning response dated November 23, 2021.
5 Response to Planning dated November 26, 2021.
6 Email from City attorney, February 2, 2023 re Glenmore (last paragraph). 7 Email from City attorney, February 2, 2023 re Hillcrest (last paragraph). 8 LAFCO February 8, 2024 Notice of Public Hearing.
9 Planning response to Glenmore annexation.
10 Planning response to Hillcrest annexation.
11 PZ 2021-2.
12 Hillcrest area topography.
13 Santa Ranch topography.

infeasible to designate densities upto 60 units per acre in the Hillcrest areas. No thoughtful person could have driven by and concluded that 60 units/acre was feasible on the Hillcrest hillsides. In the same stroke, the proposed designation for APN 019-370-009, which is almost completely flat, is designated the lowest density, upto 10 units per acre. The Hillcrest parcels up-zoned to 60 units per acre, should remain at 8-10 units per acre.

One of the main goals of VMT policy, is to have higher density projects locate within walking distance of household amenities. The Hillcrest parcels are way out from the City hub.

Designating that highest density projects be located furthest from day to day necessities would surely increase immitigable GHG production and thwart all purposes of VMT policy.

We offer these comments in good faith and because we have lived them. Please advise if you need any clarification or additional information.

Regards,
Ingrid and Alex Sywak. (408) 309-9253

To: Alexander Sywak
Cc: Mitch Burley , Ingrid Sywak , Mieka Sywak
,
Tania Gonzalez , Abraham Prado
Good afternoon Mr. Sywak,
Gmail - PD application forms 10/8/22, 11:09 AM

PD application forms
Alexander Sywak Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 8:00 AM To: Planning Dept

Cc: Mitch Burley , Mieka Sywak , Tania Gonzalez
, Abraham Prado , Ingrid Sywak
, Eva Kelly

If the parcels which you would like to develop are the three that we are aware of which are located in unincorporated San Benito County, you may submit an application for the initiation of prezone for future annexation for the properties, which is the first step. I have attached the application for prezone and initiation of prezone to this email. There was a previous version of the application which is available on the website, but it does not include the most current fees. I just updated this version of the application that is attached for you, and it should be updated on our website soon as well. A development application cannot be submitted to the City for properties which are not currently in the incorporated City limits. I do understand that there was possibly a prezoning of those parcels in the 1990s. However, that prezone would no longer be valid, as the zoning designation to which it was prezoned was under a previous general plan and zoning ordinance, and the prezone process would need to be reinitiated to updated designations.

Also, in accordance with the letter provided to you on June 22, 2018, attached for your reference, further environmental work pursuant to CEQA would need to be completed for the annexation of these parcels and the recommended annexation area would encompass not only your parcels north of Hillcrest Road, but also the peninsula to the south of the site and the parcels west of the west up to the current city limits.

Importantly I would also note that the City is currently in the process of updating our General Plan and it is possible that the designation of the parcels may change from what they are designated in the current 2005-2023 General Plan. Staff’s recommendation would be that the initiation of prezone not be approved until the general plan update is adopted and the new designations for parcels are determined, and that the initiation of prezone be in line with the adopted general plan. The City anticipates a public draft of the general plan to be released in the spring of 2022, and we would encourage you to participate in the public review and provide any Alexander Sywak
PD application forms
Planning Dept Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:45 PM

comments on the plan during that time. Pending the comments that are received on the draft, we are anticipating adoption of the plan in the Fall of 2022 at this time.

You may still apply for initiation of prezone if you wish, as the decision will ultimately lie with the City Council on the approval of the initiation, but it is important to know staff’s recommendation would not be for approval at this time due to the General Plan Update being under way.

To your question regarding SB 330, the City does not have an application which satisfies the requirements for a complete preliminary application under the law. The state provides an application form which can be used for that purpose on their website. Please note again, that SB 330 would not be applicable to the request to initiate prezoning. It would be applicable for a preliminary housing development application for a site which is located within the City limits.

If you would like to set up a preliminary application meeting for this or another development project, we can do so. However, there is a fee which was adopted by the City Council of $1,026.98 for this service. We request that you provide preliminary project plans for the meeting participants to review and provide comment on, and bring any specific questions you have for the various departments (engineering, police, fire, planning, building) during a preliminary review meeting. The Development Services Department Support Services Assistant, Tania Gonzalez, can assist in setting up a preliminary meeting if you would like to do so.

Best,
Eva Kelly
Associate Planner