Hollister City Council
December 3, 2024

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-3
environment without substantial evidence based on facts to support the analysis would require a level of speculation that is inappropriate for an EIR.

CEQA Section 21082.2(a), Significant Effect on Environment; Determination; Environmental Impact Report Preparation, requires that the lead agency “shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(a), Substantial Evidence, clarifies that “‘substantial evidence’… means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment, does not constitute substantial evidence.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(b) goes on to state that “substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” Where there are no facts available to substantiate a commenter’s assertion that the physical environment could ultimately be significantly impacted as a result of the project, the City acting as the lead agency, is not required to analyze that effect, nor to mitigate for that effect. Section 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises reviewers that comments should be accompanied by factual support:

Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an environmental effect should be considered significant is reserved to the discretion of the lead agency based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The analysis of the Draft EIR is based on scientific and factual data, which has been reviewed by the lead agency and reflects its independent judgment and conclusions. CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in an EIR. As Section 15151, Standards for Adequacy of an EIR, of the CEQA Guidelines states, even “[d]isagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, Speculation, provides that:

If, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.

4.3 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
During the review period for the Revised Draft EIR, some commenters requested additional analysis, mitigation measures, or revisions that are not provided in this Final EIR for reasons more specifically addressed in the individual comments. As described above, Section 15204(a) of the CEQA Guidelines

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-4 OCTOBER 2024
provides that CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.

Section 15003, Policies, of the CEQA Guidelines, also explains the emphasis of CEQA upon good-faith efforts at full disclosure rather than technical perfection:
(i) CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692). (j) CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of U.C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 and Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553).

Sections 15204(a) and 15003 reflect judicial interpretation of CEQA. Under CEQA, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues, and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, so long as a good-faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

4.4 REVISIONS TO THE 2023 DRAFT EIR
This Final EIR addresses comments on both the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR. As described under Section 1.3.3, Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR, after preparation of the 2023 Draft EIR, the City made modifications to the proposed project and evaluated those modifications and subsequent residual impacts in response to comments made during the 45-day public review period for the 2023 Draft EIR. Accordingly, some comments submitted on the 2023 Draft EIR have been addressed in the Revised Draft EIR and do not warrant further response. Revisions made to the proposed project and the resulting environmental analysis updates are summarized in Section 1.3.3.1, Summary of Revisions, in Chapter 1 of the Revised Draft EIR, and described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR.

4.5 INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES
Responses to individual comments on the Draft EIR are presented in Table 4-1, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. Individual comments are reproduced from the original versions in Appendix G, Comment Letters, of this Final EIR, along with the comment numbers shown in Appendix G, followed by the response. Table 4-1 includes responses to comment letters received on both the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-5
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Government Organizations
GOV1 Heather Adamson, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, June 9, 2023 GOV1-1 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:

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

GOV1-2 Chapter 4. (Environmental Analysis)
• On page 4-8, the DIER [sic] states: “Land Use and Planning:

The geographic context for the cumulative land use and
planning effects considers im0pacts 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
The commenter’s requested revisions were made to Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of the 2023 Draft EIR. The updated text is presented in the Revised Draft EIR and changes are shown as follows.

The text on page 4-8 of Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to correct the title of the AMBAG document.
 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
2045 MTP/SCS.
 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 2045 MTP/SCS, and contiguous with

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-6 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Sustainability Program. 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 [sic] 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.
the service area boundaries of the service providers
evaluated in this section.

The text on page 4.8-25 of Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to correct the name of the AMBAG program.

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).

The text on page 4.8-26 of Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to correct the title and date of the AMBAG document.

The 2045 AMBAG 2045 RTPMTP/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.

Footnote 25. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 2020 2022, June. Monterey Bay 2045 Moving
Forward: 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).

The text on page 4.8-27 of Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to correct the title of the AMBAG document.

Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of AMBAG’s 2045 RTPMTP/SCS in concentrating new

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-7
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
• 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.” • 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
development in locations where there is existing infrastructure and transit (see Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning).

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 2045 RTPMTP/SCS.

The text on page 4.11-2 of Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to correct the title of the AMBAG document.

By considering the regional forecasts, and goals and policies of the AMBAG 2045 MTSMTP/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.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-8 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.” GOV1-3 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
As described under Impact Discussion POP-1 in Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing, of the Revised Draft EIR, the Council of San Benito County Governments issues the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to the City of Hollister. The City of Hollister’s RHNA of the 6th Cycle (2023 to 2013) is identified in the San Benito County Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan dated October 20, 2022 (see Table 1: 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation, by Income Level, for San Benito County, page 3).

While both regional forecasts and RHNA are discussed in the impact discussion, the City understands they are based on different assumptions and serve different purposes. The impact discussion is based on the City’s projected growth as compared to the regional projected growth. The RHNA projections are relevant to the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-9
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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 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 [sic] and prepares regional growth forecasts for the tricounty region. AMBAG is the Council of Governments for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counites [sic]. 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
discussion because the City’s growth projections accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA allocations.

Revisions were made to Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing, of the 2023 Draft EIR to provide clarifying information. The updated text is presented in the Revised Draft EIR and changes are shown as follows.

The text on page 4.14-1 of Chapter 4.14 of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to clarify the roles of AMBAG and SBCOG with respect to assigning regional housing needs allocation.

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 also the Council of Governments for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties and is responsible for taking determining the overall regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) using the regional housing need determination provided the by the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and preparing a formula for allocating that housing need by income level across its jurisdiction (Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties).

Council of San Benito County of Governments
The Council of San Benito County of Governments (SBCOG) has the responsibility for identifying the share of the housing needs for San Benito County, the City of Hollister, and the City of San Juan Bautista. In September 2021, HCD issued a Regional Housing Need Determination of 5,005 units to the SBCOG for the 6th Cycle planning period of June 30, 2023 to December 15, 2031. Senate Bill (SB) 375, passed into state law in 2008,

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-10 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
consider the 2023-2031 RHNA allocations, which were
finalized in 2022.2 [sic] 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.
requires the coordination of housing planning with regional transportation planning through the MTP/SCS. As stated
previously, this coordination requires consistency in growth projections for land use, housing, and transportation purposes.

The text on page 4.14-7 of the Chapter 4.14 of 2023 Draft EIR was revised to clarify the role of AMBAG as the Council of Governments for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties with respect to assigning regional housing needs allocation to those counties.

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 2022.1 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.

Footnote 2: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, February 2022, Frequently Asked Questions About RHNA,

1 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, February 2022, Frequently Asked Questions About RHNA, https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2022- 02/RHNA%20FAQs_February%202022_PDFA_0.pdf, accessed February 28, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-11
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2022-
02/RHNA%20FAQs_February%202022_PDFA_0.pdf, accessed
February 28, 2023.

GOV1-4 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 5 transit network, promote and improve active
transportation, and promote shared mobility.”
Revise the sentences to state “…the AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS.” The commenter’s requested revision was made to Chapter 4.16, Transportation, of the 2023 Draft EIR. The updated text is presented in the Revised Draft EIR and changes are shown as follows.

The text on page 4.16-30 of Chapter 4.16, Transportation, of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to correct the title of the AMBAG document.
 Implementation of AMBAG’s SB 375 Measures. Some of the key strategies identified in the AMBAG 2045 RTP MTP/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 transit network, promote and improve active transportation, and promote shared mobility.

GOV1-5 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
The commenter’s requested revision remove reference of AMBAG as the preparer of the RHNA for San Benito County has been made to Chapter 4.6, CEQA Required Assessment, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-12 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

GOV1-6 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.

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

GOV2 P. Cooper, Captain, Department of California Highway Patrol, June 21, 2023 GOV2-1 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.

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

GOV2-2 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 The commenter’s concern regarding the proposed bus-on-shoulder scenario is acknowledged for the record.

As described in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, on page 4.16-6 of the Revised Draft EIR, the bus-on shoulder scenario is one of three scenarios that was analyzed by the San Benito County Local Transportation Authority to improve transit options for those

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-13
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.
traveling between Hollister and areas to the north, including Gilroy and the Bay Area, using the State Route 25/rail corridor. The bus-on shoulder concept is not a City of Hollister project. As stated in the Draft EIR, at this time, there is no funding in place for these improvements. The Council of San Benito County Governments is currently pursuing grant funding opportunities to conduct a detailed operational analysis.

The SR-25 corridor study was completed in 2021 for San Benito Council of Governments to which the City of Hollister was a stakeholder. The findings in this study would be further analyzed by Council of San Benito County Governments. However, the comment period for this study has closed. The City of Hollister will pass the commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed bus-on-shoulder scenario onto SBCOG.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

GOV2-3 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.

The commenter’s recommendation for additional safety measures for the future bike path is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-14 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV3 Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, June 27, 2023 GOV3-1 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.

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.

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 This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-15
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

GOV3-2 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
The comment summarizes the proposed project. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-16 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
accommodate future housing sites and limited commercial development.

Location: City of Hollister, San Benito County.

Timeframe: 2040
GOV3-3 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(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 The proposed 2040 General Plan is a policy-level document that does not include any development projects. The certification of the EIR or the approval of the proposed 2040 General Plan does not approve or deny any potential future development in the City of Hollister or the EIR Study Area.

As described in Section 3.9, Intended Uses of the EIR, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, this EIR is intended to review potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project and determine corresponding mitigation measures, as necessary. This EIR is a program-level EIR and does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual developments that may occur under the buildout horizon of the proposed 2040 General Plan. Each specific future project will conduct separate project approval processes, including
environmental review as required by CEQA, to secure the necessary discretionary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered off this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address impacts of individual projects. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the 2040 General Plan and this EIR. Because this EIR is a program level evaluation, the specific details of future projects and the conditions at the time they are proposed are not known, it would be speculative to estimate any potential long-term or permanent changes, including those to the regulatory setting, and CEQA does not condone speculation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). See Section 4.2, Speculation without Substantial Evidence.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-17
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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 As described under Section 1.4.1.1, Base Resources for General Plan Implementation and Review of Future Development Projects, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR, when a new development project is filed with the City, it is reviewed for completeness and consistency with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and City codes and practices. Because City policies, actions, and codes, presented in this program EIR will minimize impacts, development projects will inherently implement these measures to: (a) mitigate environmental impacts and (b) achieve consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City codes.

Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, where the “project” subject to CEQA is a “plan, policy, regulation, or other public project,” the obligation to mitigate impacts can be effectuated “by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.” (Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4(a)(2)).

The Revised Draft EIR states that mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations described under Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework, in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Revised Draft EIR, would reduce impacts to biological resources. The proposed 2040 General Plan also includes specific mandatory policies that would also reduce impacts to biological resources, including the State threatened and federally endangered species listed by the commenter, other special-status species, nesting birds, and sensitive habitat such as streams, creeks, and wetlands. These policies are based on the recommendations of professional biologists who were part of the 2040 General Plan team. Specific proposed 2040 General Plan policies that address potential impacts to biological resources, including those identified by the commenter, are identified under Section 4.4.3, Impact Discussion, in Chapter 4.4 of the Revised Draft EIR. Each of the proposed 2040 General Plan

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-18 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.
policies and actions identified require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources.

Many of the proposed policies are specifically in alignment with the comments provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Proposed Policy NRC-1.2 identifies and protects the habitats of special-status species and sensitive natural communities that may found within the Hollister Planning Area, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, through the review of development proposals for compliance with regulations of these agencies and the California Environmental Quality Act. Proposed Policy NRC-1.4 requires that sites with suitable natural habitat, including creek corridors through urbanized areas, be surveyed for special-status species and sensitive natural communities prior to development approval as part of the environmental review process. Such surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and occur prior to development-related vegetation removal. All surveys shall take place during appropriate seasons to determine presence or absence, including nesting or breeding occurrences, with a determination on whether the project site contains suitable habitat for such species and sensitive natural community types. These results would inform the site assessment and environmental review process for proposed developments and other activities that could adversely affect special-status species.

Proposed 2040 General Plan Policy NRC-1.7, Policy NRC-1.8, Policy NRC-1.9, and Policy NRC-1.10 require preconstruction surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, burrowing owls, and nesting birds, respectively.

GOV3-4 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 are determined to be less than significant with mitigation As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of the Revised Draft EIR, the cumulative impact analysis relies on a projections approach and takes into account growth from the proposed project within the EIR Study Area in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of San Benito County and the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-19
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.
surrounding region. The cumulative discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18 of the Revised Draft EIR explain the geographic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g., immediate project vicinity, county, watershed, or air basin). Impact Discussion BIO-6, in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Revised Draft EIR states that because the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to reduce any potential biological impacts within the EIR Study Area to a less-than-significant level, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated waters. As discussed in Response GOV3-3, the proposed 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources, which includes consideration of the cumulative context.

GOV3-5 CNDDB: Please note that the CNDDB is populated by and records voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present 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.

The commenter’s note regarding the reporting of species occurrences is acknowledged for the record. As described in Chapter

4.4, Biological Resources, on page 4.4-9 of the Revised Draft EIR, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is described as California’s primary inventory on the distribution of special-status species, which is maintained by the Biogeographic Data Branch of the CDFW; it provides the most comprehensive statewide
information on the location and distribution of special-status species and sensitive natural communities; occurrence data is obtained from a variety of scientific, academic, professional organizations, and private consulting firms; and occurrences of species of concern in a particular region is an indication that an additional population may occur at another location if habitat conditions are suitable. The Revised Draft EIR also describes that the absence of an occurrence in a particular location does not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the area in question, it only indicates that no data has been entered into the CNDDB inventory, and that detailed

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-20 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
field surveys are generally required to provide a conclusive determination on presence or absence of sensitive resources from a particular location, where there is evidence of potential occurrence.

As described in Chapter 4.4 of the Revised Draft EIR, and summarized in Response GOV3-3, proposed 2040 General Plan Policy NRC-1.5 requires biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by proposed development, shall provide an assessment of the potential impacts, and shall define measures for protecting the resource and surrounding buffer habitat, in compliance with City policy and state and federal laws.

Additionally, proposed 2040 General Plan Policy NRC-1.7, Policy NRC-

1.8, Policy NRC-1.9, and Policy NRC-1.10 requires preconstruction surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, burrowing owls, and nesting birds, respectively.

GOV3-6 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, The City of Hollister routinely complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of CDFW, and will continue this practice in the future.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-21
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
please contact our staff in the LSA Program at (559) 243-4593, or [email protected].

GOV3-7 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.

The City of Hollister complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of CDFW, and will continue this practice in the future.

GOV3-8 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].

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

The City appreciates the input from CDFW and will rely on their expertise if and when future development is proposed throughout implementation of the General Plan.

GOV4 Chris Bjornstad, California Department of Transportation, June 30, 2023 GOV4-1 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:

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-22 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV4-2 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.

The commenter’s encouragement of early coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is acknowledged for the record.

As described under Impact Discussion TRANS-1 in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, of the Revised Draft EIR, the proposed 2040 General Plan includes policies and actions that require coordination with Caltrans. Proposed Policy C-1.6 requires the City to cooperatively work with Council of San Benito County Governments, Caltrans, and San Benito County to develop, implement, and maintain public transit services. Proposed Policy C-1.9 requires the City to cooperatively work with Council of San Benito County Governments, Caltrans, and San Benito County to develop, implement and maintain park and ride facilities. Proposed Policy C-3.6 requires the City to cooperatively work with Council of San Benito County Governments, Caltrans, and San Benito County to develop, implement and maintain bicycle facilities providing direct access to major public facilities, schools and employment centers as described in the San Benito County Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan. Proposed Policy C-2.6 requires the City to cooperate with Caltrans, the Council of San Benito County Governments, the County of San Benito and any other regional transportation authorities to ensure the funding and implementation of the transportation improvements specified in the San Benito County Regional Transportation Plan and in the 2040 General Plan, particularly Table C-4. Proposed Action C-5.1 requires the City to develop truck routes in coordination with COG, Caltrans, and San Benito County and include enforcement mechanisms to encourage the appropriate routes. In addition to these policies and actions, the City of Hollister routinely complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of Caltrans, and will continue this practice in the future.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-23
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

GOV4-3 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.

The commenter ’s support for the proposed 2040 General Plan Goal C-1 is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

GOV4-4 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.

The commenter ’s support for the Predefined VMT Mitigation Bank is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

GOV4-5 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.

The commenter ’s suggestion on more useful transportation measures is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-24 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV4-6 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.

The City of Hollister complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of Caltrans, and will continue this practice in the future.

GOV4-7 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].

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

The City appreciates the input from Caltrans and will rely on their expertise if and when future development is proposed throughout implementation of the General Plan.

GOV5 Shawn Tennenbaum, San Benito High School District, June 30, 2023 GOV5-1 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.

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-25
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.)
GOV5-2 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 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 The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-26 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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 feet 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 to 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:

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-27
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response

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
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.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-28 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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 developers.
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.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-29
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response

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.

GOV5-3 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 The comment describes CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and
provides context of CEQA as defined by the Courts. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-30 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.)
GOV5-4 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.

The commenter incorrectly asserts that the CEQA required review period begins on the day the notice is received. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the Notice of Availability (NOA) shall disclose the starting and ending dates for the review period during which the lead agency will receive comments, and the manner in which the lead agency will receive those comments. The public review period is not based on when the commenter receives the notice, but rather the public review period starts when the notice was posted as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure Section 12.

As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR, the NOA for public and agency comment on the 2023 Draft EIR was issued on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 approximately 25 months from the date of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Friday, April 9, 2021).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), the 2023 Draft EIR was available for a 45-day public review period that ended on Friday, June 30, 2023. The NOA was posted pursuant to the standards of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and the CEQA

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-31
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15087) as amended by Assembly Bill 819, and included:
 Emailed distribution to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested notice. The City has maintained a notification list and noticed the project to this list throughout the General Plan process starting in 2020. Individuals subscribe to be on the email list or can be added by requesting to be on the list. The City’s records show that a user “Shawn
Tennenbaum” subscribed to be on the email notification list using the email address “[email protected]” on June 24, 2020 and was added to the email notification list by the City as part of a community stakeholder group. Accordingly, every email notification from June 24, 2020 has been emailed to the email address of “[email protected].”
 A notice in the newspaper: The Free Lance
 Posting to the City’s General Plan 2040 website:
https://hollister2040.org/
 Posting at the San Benito County Clerk (Filing No. NOT2023008)  Uploaded to CEQAnet: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021040277 The City’s email notification list tracking records show that the NOA for the 2023 Draft EIR was emailed to
[email protected] at the San Benito High School District via email on Wednesday, May 17, 2023. The City’s email list subscriber activity records show that the NOA for the 2023 Draft EIR email sent to [email protected] was opened 22 times between May 17, 2023, and May 22, 2023.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-32 OCTOBER 2024
GOV5-5 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 Planning 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.

The comment asserts there are inconsistencies between the maps provided in the Draft 2040 General Plan and the 2023 Draft EIR when compared to the existing 2005 General Plan maps but provides no specific details as to the asserted discrepancies.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, the proposed project includes changes to the SOI. Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed SOI boundary. See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. These changes are outlined in Figure 1-1, Areas of Change Between the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR.

The proposed 2040 General Plan proposes an expanded SOI boundary and increase the Hollister Planning Area when compared to the existing 2005 General Plan. The proposed change to the SOI increases the area of potential future annexations and therefore establishes the boundary for the EIR Study Area. Figure 3-7, Existing and Proposed Sphere of Influence, in Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR shows the proposed change to the existing SOI.

With respect to the Hollister Planning Area, as described in the Draft 2040 General Plan (page LU-2) and the Revised Draft EIR (page 3-6), State law refers to the Planning Area as “any land outside [the City] boundaries which in the [City’s] judgment bears relation to its planning” (Government Code, Title 7, Planning and Land Use, Division 1, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 3, Local Planning, Article 5, Authority for and Scope of General Plans, Section 65300). The Hollister Planning Area encompasses incorporated and
unincorporated territory and identifies the area where the City has an interest in land use. This boundary does not give the City any regulatory power, but it signals to San Benito County and other nearby local and regional authorities that Hollister recognizes that development within this area may have an impact on the city. The

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-33
City expanded this area, which it has the sole authority to do, to increase the area where the City has an interest in participating in land use decisions by other agencies. As described in Chapter 3 on page 3-6 of the Revised Draft EIR, City staff will review development proposals submitted to San Benito County for parcels inside the Planning Area for consistency with land use policies in the proposed 2040 General Plan. The Planning Area 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.

The specific figures identified by the commenter are not intended to be identical and represent different parts of the project and the project process, each of which are provided in the text that accompanies the figures. The figures in the Draft 2040 General Plan and the Revised Draft EIR were prepared using the same baseline GIS data source and therefore show the same boundaries in the context of the figure to the text in either document. With respect to the existing 2005 General Plan Land Use Map, it is copied as it was presented in the current General Plan and does not include the City Limit boundary.

A brief explanation of the differences between the figures in the Draft 2040 General Plan and Revised Draft EIR as noted by the commenter are provided as follows:
 Figure LU-2, Land Use Map, of the Draft 2040 General Plan includes the existing and the proposed SOI because, as
described in the Draft General Plan, the San Benito Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determines the SOI boundaries for Hollister and other jurisdictions agencies in San Benito County. Because the existing SOI will remain in effect until such an approval by San Benito LAFCO occurs, the Draft 2040 General Plan shows both boundaries on one map.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-34 OCTOBER 2024
 Figure 3-2, 2040 General Plan Planning Boundaries, presented under Section 3.4.1, Planning Boundaries, in Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR only includes the proposed SOI boundary as that is the boundary that was applied to the EIR Study Area.

Section 3.4.1 in Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR explains the planning boundaries referenced in the proposed 2040 General Plan and their relationship to the EIR Study Area. This section of the Draft EIR describes the location and names of the planning boundaries and provides a description for each boundary. Figure 3-7, Existing and Proposed Sphere of Influence, presented under Section 3.7, Project Components, in Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR shows the proposed change to the SOI because this is the section of the project description where the proposed project is described in detail.
 With respect to the City’s 2005 General Plan Land Use Map, it does not include the City Limits boundary, which is included in Draft 2040 General Plan Figure LU-2 and Revised Draft EIR Figure 3-2. Figure 3-4, 2005 Existing General Plan Land Use Map, in Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR shows the map as it was created by the City at that time.

Revisions were made to Chapter 3 of the 2023 Draft EIR to provide clarifying information. The updated text is presented in the Revised Draft EIR and changes are shown as follows.

The text on page 3-12 of Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR was revised to clarify the expansion of the Planning Area boundary.

As part of the proposed project, the City is proposing changes to the currently adopted General Plan land use map. The current 2005 General Plan land use map and the proposed 2040
General Plan land use map are shown on Figure 3-4, 2005 General Plan Land Use Map, and Figure 3-5, 2040 General Plan Land Use Map, respectively. The City has increased the Planning

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-35
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Area, which it has the sole authority to do, to increase the area where the City has an interest in participating in land use decisions by other agencies. As described in Section 3.4.1.4, Planning Area, this boundary does not give the City any regulatory power, but it signals to San Benito County and other nearby local and regional authorities that Hollister recognizes that development within this area may have an impact on the city. The General Plan land use designations would establish the uses, density ranges, and development intensities allowed on each parcel of land. In general, standards of building intensity for residential uses are stated as the allowable range of dwelling units per gross acre and standards for nonresidential uses are stated as maximum floor-area ratios (FAR) based on net acreage.

GOV5-6 • 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-
The comment correctly cites where the Planning Area is discussed in the Draft General Plan and the 2023 Draft EIR but fails to provide the full context of the discussions in the two documents.

As described in Response GOV5-5 and in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, the Planning Area that is designated outside of the Hollister City Limits is an area where the City does not have any regulatory power, but instead the area between the City Limit and the Planning Area boundary establishes an area around City Limit and SOI to signal to San Benito County and other nearby local and regional authorities that Hollister recognizes that development within this area may have an impact on the city.

Neither Resolution No. 2023-133, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hollister Adopting a Wastewater Treatment Services Agreement Between the City of Hollister And San Juan Oaks Mutual Water Company, signed June 20, 2023, nor Resolution No. 2015-232, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hollister authorizing the city to provide sewer service outside of its jurisdictional boundaries to the property located south of highwway [sic] 156 and west of union

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-36 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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
outside the City of Hollister 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.

road. APNs 018-190-023, 033, 034; 018-200-056, 057, 058; 021-140- 046, 053, 054; 021-190-006, 017, 030, 031, 032; and 023-010-074, and directing staff to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for services, signed December 21, 2015, authorized the expansion of the Hollister Service Area boundary.

As described in Resolution No. 2015-232, the approval to provide the sewer services to the San Juan Oaks project requires the approval of the San Benito LAFCO. It is unclear why Resolution No. 2015-232 states the San Juan Oaks project is within the Hollister Service Area because as shown in the Hollister Urban Area Urban Water Management Plan dated July 2016, the San Juan Oaks project is not within the Hollister Urban Area shown on Figure 1-1, Location Map Hollister Urban Area. Addressing comments on Resolution No. 2015- 232 is outside the scope of this EIR.

The San Juan Oaks project is not in the City of Hollister, nor is it proposed to be annexed into the City of Hollister. As described in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Revised Draft EIR, in 2004, the City of Hollister, County of San Benito, and San Benito County Water District (SBCWD) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to coordinate and address water and wastewater management. In 2008, the MOU was updated, and the Sunnyslope County Water District also became a partner in the agreement. A new MOU was issued in 2021, which now includes the City of San Juan Bautista, to prepare a water supply master plan update to ensure the successful development and implementation of future water projects in San Benito County (City of Hollister, 2021.

Resolution No. 2021-162. Memorandum of Understanding, San Benito County Urban Area Water Supply Master Plan). SBCWD will continue to be the lead agency responsible for providing water supply to meet future urban demands. The Hollister Urban Area

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-37
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
boundary has never been expanded by resolution or study to include the San Juan Oaks Subdivision and the maps contained within the EIR accurately demonstrate the current boundary.

GOV5-7 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.

The EIR Study Area is the boundary where there is the potential for a physical impact on the environment related to the implementation of the proposed project which is limited to the City’s jurisdictional authority. This includes the lands within the Hollister City Limit where the City has jurisdiction to approve potential future development and the lands within the proposed SOI where there is the likelihood that lands may be annexed into to the City’s jurisdictional boundary (the City Limit) over the 20-year buildout horizon of the General Plan. However, this does not mean that the potential for impacts caused by the implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan are limited to the EIR Study Area. As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of the Revised Draft EIR, the cumulative impact discussions provided in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18 of the Draft EIR explain the geographic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g., immediate project vicinity, county, watershed, or air basin). The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends on the impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing macro-scale air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative impact. In assessing aesthetic impacts, on the other hand, only development within the local area of change would contribute to a cumulative visual effect since the area of change is only visible in its vicinity. The commenter is directed to Section 4.1.7, Cumulative Impact Analysis, in Chapter 4 of the Revised Draft EIR for a description of the cumulative setting for the analysis, which does consider areas outside of the EIR Study

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-38 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Area when reasonable to do so depending on the environmental topic.

With respect to the comment about known and anticipated pockets of development, see Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR, regarding the expansion of the proposed SOI boundary.

GOV5-8 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.

The comment misunderstands the use of the term “Planning Area” as presented in the proposed General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and actions. As described in Response GOV5-5, State law refers to the Planning Area as “any land outside [the City] boundaries which in the [City’s] judgment bears relation to its planning” (Government Code, Title 7, Planning and Land Use, Division 1, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 3, Local Planning, Article 5, Authority for and Scope of General Plans, Section 65300). As discussed under Section 3.4.1.4, Planning Area, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, the Hollister Planning Area encompasses incorporated and unincorporated territory and identifies the area where the City has an interest in land use. Furthermore, as stated under Section 3.4.2, EIR Study Area, in Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR, the Planning Area lands between the Planning Area boundary and the SOI are not in the EIR Study Area because the City does not foresee future annexations of these unincorporated areas. The Hollister General Plan goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts from potential future growth only apply to the lands where the City has jurisdiction.

Accordingly, where a goal, policy, or action references the Planning Area, this is limited to the land in the City Limits. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions that support orderly growth and sustainable development patterns would, as discussed throughout the Revised Draft EIR, minimize potential adverse impacts on future growth in the City’s jurisdiction.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-39
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV5-9 • 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.

Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed SOI boundary. See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. These changes are outlined in Figure 1-1, Areas of Change Between the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR.

GOV5-10 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.

As described in Chapter 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, on page 4.15-25 of the Revised Draft EIR, the Hollister Municipal Code includes various directives to ensure public schools are adequate to serve school-age children in Hollister. Most provisions related to public schools are included in Title 16, Subdivisions. As described under Section 1.2, EIR Scope, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR, on page 1-2, the proposed project consists of a long-term plan and set of regulatory changes that would be implemented over time as policy documents and regulations guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the proposed project.

Therefore, the EIR is a program-level EIR that analyzes the potential environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed project. As a program EIR, it does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be proposed in the future. If and when the San Benito High School District proposes a subdivision, then the provisions of Title 16, Subdivisions, of the Hollister Municipal Code would take effect and lands can be reserved in accordance with the provisions of the HMC.

Revisions were made to Chapter 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, of the 2023 Draft EIR to provide clarifying information.

The updated text is presented in the Revised Draft EIR and changes are shown as follows.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-40 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
The text on page 4.15-25 of Chapter 4.15 of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to reference Hollister Municipal Code Chapter 16.48, Site Reservations.

Section 16.48.010, Site Reservations Requirements, states that as a condition of approval of a map, the subdivider shall reserve sites appropriate in area and location for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or other public uses, according to the standards and formula contained in this chapter. Section

16.48.020, Standards and formula for reservation of land, states that where a park, recreational facility, fire station, library or other public use is shown on an adopted specific plan or adopted general plan containing community facilities element, recreation and parks element and/or a public building element, subdivider may be required by the city to reserve sites as so determined by the city in accordance with the definite
principles and standards contained in the above specific plan or general plan. The reserved area must be of such size and shape as to permit the balance of the property within which the reservation is located to develop in an orderly and efficient manner. The amount of land to be reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the subdivider economically infeasible. The reserved area shall conform to the adopted specific plan or general plan and shall be in such multiples of streets and parcels as to permit an efficient division of the reserved area in the event that it is not acquired within the prescribed period. Section 16.48.030, Procedure, states that the public agency for whose benefit an area has been reserved shall at the time of approval of the final map or parcel map enter into a binding agreement to acquire such reserved area within two years after the completion and acceptance of all

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-41
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
improvements, unless such period of time is extended by mutual agreement.

The text on page 4.15-30 of Chapter 4.15 of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to update the Hollister Municipal Code standards to include other public uses, which includes the San Benito High School District.

Additionally, in the case of proposed subdivisions, which tend to generate families with school-aged children, HMC Section

16.48.010, Site Reservations Requirements, requires that as a condition of approval of a map, the subdivider shall reserve sites appropriate in area and location for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or other public uses, which would include high schools, and HMC Section 16.56.010, Condition of Approval of Final Map, requires that as a condition of approval of the final map, a subdivider who develops or completes the development of one or more subdivisions within the HSD shall dedicate to the school district such lands as the council shall deem to be necessary for the purpose of constructing hereon schools necessary to assure the residents of the subdivision adequate elementary school service.

GOV5-11 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 it 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.

As described under Section 1.3.1, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR, in compliance with CEQA Section 21080.4, the City circulated the NOP of an EIR for the proposed project to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse (SCH) and interested agencies and persons on April 9, 2021. The enrollment projections provided by the commenter were not available at the time the 2023 Draft EIR was being prepared and therefore, no changes to Table 4.15-1, Hollister School Districts and Schools, of the 2023 Draft EIR were warranted. As described in Chapter 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, on page 4.15-28 of the Revised Draft EIR, the San Benito

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-42 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
High School District reports that new facilities will need to be constructed to accommodate additional students beyond the 2022- 2023 school year. The City recognizes that changes to the San Benito High School District as well as other environmental setting conditions will continue to evolve as the project process continues. As described in Chapter 4.15 on page 4.15-30 of the Revised Draft EIR, the proposed 2040 General Plan forecasts student population increases over the next 20 years. As a program-level EIR for a long- range plan, the General Plan goals, policies, and actions are intended to minimize impacts over the course of the General Plan buildout horizon year 2040. The updated enrollment projections are acknowledged for the record. The requested change would not change the outcome of the conclusions of the Revised Draft EIR and is not warranted. See Section 4.3, Additional Analysis.

GOV5-12 • 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).

See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR, regarding modifications to the proposed project and analysis of subsequent residual impacts.

GOV5-13 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 The commenter’s suggestion regarding traffic east of Hollister High School is acknowledged for the record.

As described in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, of the Revised Draft EIR, with the passage of Senate Bill 743 (September 2013), which was codified in Public Resources Code Section 21099, and the subsequent adoption of revised CEQA Guidelines (December 2018), level of service, also referred to as LOS, can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA. As concluded under Impact Discussion TRANS- 1, in Chapter 4.16 of the Revised Draft EIR, impacts related to bicycle

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-43
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
improvements that would allow the intersection to function in a manner consistent with the rest of the Cty’s [sic] infrastructure. Improvements could be developed in
coordination with the District and could include
modifications at the intersection and/or improvements to parallel routes.
and pedestrian facilities were found to be less than significant with implementation of identified proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would support the design of a transportation system that is safe for all modes of travel.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

GOV5-14 • 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 commenter expresses an opinion regarding the proposed General Plan and the VMT impacts yet provides no substantial evidence to support their opinion. See Section 4.2, Speculation without Substantial Evidence.

As described under Section 4.16.3, Impact Discussion, in Chapter

4.16, Transportation, of the Revised Draft EIR, the proposed Circulation (C) Element contains goals, policies, and actions that require local planning and development decisions to consider VMT, including infill development. For a complete list of General Plan goals, policies, and actions, that encourage infill please see Impact Discussion TRANS-1 and TRANS-2 in Chapter 4.16 of the Revised Draft EIR. Furthermore, as described in Chapter 4.16 of the Revised Draft EIR, the significant and unavoidable conclusion is based on the fact that the analysis has been prepared at the program level. Given the lack of specifics that are available for the program-level EIR, it is not possible to fully account for the effect of specific design principles, policies, and improvements that will reduce VMT as part of this analysis. It is reasonable to conclude that the findings of this analysis reflect a worst-case scenario for the program EIR. The program-level land use impact for VMT does not preclude the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-44 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent development projects that achieve applicable VMT thresholds of significance.

The commenter’s suggestion encouraging development in infill portions of the City that would yield more positive VMT outcomes is acknowledged for the record, as is the request for the City to work with the San Benito High School District to improve access to existing school facilities.

GOV5-15 • 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:
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 level of service identified in the DEIR at the intersection of San Benito The commenter’s requested revision to the policy related to coordination with local schools is acknowledged for the record.

Though the commenter references the Draft EIR, the comment addresses policy decisions that the City has made as part of the General Plan update. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-45
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

GOV5-16 • 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 this 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, Goals 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.

The commenter’s request for a commitment from the City to seek funding for and to implement roadway safety improvements that benefit the San Benito High School District is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-46 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV5-17 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 baseline 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” cleanup appears to be inaccurate or mislabeled on Figure 4.9-1. Clean-up of this site is
anticipated to commence in the Fall.

As described in Chapter 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on page 4.9-11 of the Revised Draft EIR, a search of the databases as of February 13, 2024, identified four EnviroStor sites and four GeoTracker sites within the EIR Study Area that have not been fully remediated or closed. These sites are listed in Table 4.9-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites in the EIR Study Area, and shown on Figure

4.9-1, Hazardous Materials Sites, in Chapter 4.9 of the Revised Draft EIR.

Revisions were made to include active hazardous materials sites in the expanded proposed SOI boundary and correct the mislabeling of Site 3. The updated text is presented in the Revised Draft EIR and changes are shown as follows.

The text on pages 4.9-11 of Chapter 4.9 of the Revised Draft EIR was revised to update the list of hazardous materials sites and location of sites.

A search of the online databases on May 1, 2020 February 13, 2024, identified four EnviroStor sites and four GeoTracker sites within the EIR Study Area that have not been fully remediated or closed. (footnote 11: Sites that are no longer active and that have a status type of “Certified,” “No Further Action,” “No Action Required,” “No Action,” and “Completed-Case Closed” were not included in this search.) The complete list and location of active cleanup sites within the EIR Study Area is shown in Table 4.9-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites in the EIR Study Area, and on Figure 4.9-1, Hazardous Materials Sites.

Table 4.9-1 of Chapter 4.9 of the Revised Draft EIR was revised to update the list of hazardous materials sites and location of sites.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-47
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
TABLE 4.9-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES IN THE EIR STUDY AREA ID
Number Site Name Address Site Type Status Type
1 Cerrato Property 510 Hillcrest
Road
Voluntary
Cleanup
Certified O&M-
Land Use
Restriction Only
2 Rancho Santana
School AKA
Proposed New
Hollister School Site
1454 Santana
Ranch Drive
School
Cleanup
Active Certified
O&M
3 San Benito High
School
Modernization
Project
1220 Monterey
Street
School
Cleanup Active
4 Sunnyside Estates 2780 Southside
Road
Voluntary
Cleanup Active
5 Crop Production
Services, Inc. -
Hollister
1901 Shelton
Drive
Cleanup
Program
Site
Open –
Verification
Monitoring
6 Pacific Scientific
Energetic Materials
Company (PSEMC)
(former PacSci)
2751 San Juan
Road
Cleanup
Program
Site
Open – Site
Assessment
7 Whittaker Ordnance
Cleanup
Program
Site
Open –
Remediation
and Land Use
Restrictions
8 Wilbur-Elis (former
SoilServe) Hollister
Cleanup
Program
Site
Open –
Verification
Monitoring
Note: Sites 6 and 7 are listed as having the same address but are shown as two different locations on the Geotracker website
Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ , accessed May 2, 2020February 13, 2024; State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/ , accessed February 13, 2024.

Figure 4.9-1 of Chapter 4.9 of the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to correct the mislabeling of Site 3 and include active hazardous materials sites in the expanded proposed SOI boundary.

GOV5-18 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 the The comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR does not meet CEQA’s requirement for a “reasonable range of alternatives.” As described in Chapter 5, Alternatives, on page 5-1 of the Revised Draft EIR, a reasonable range of alternatives is governed by the “rule

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-48 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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. of reason,” which requires the EIR to describe and consider only those alternatives necessary to permit informed public participation and an informed and reasoned choice by the decision-making body (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), (f)). Accordingly, there is no “typical” alternative as incorrectly asserted by the commenter. The Revised Draft EIR analyzes one “no project” alternative and one additional alternative that, in comparison to the proposed project, reduces the significant impacts of the proposed project and meets the project objectives. As described in Chapter 5 of the Revised Draft EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of taking no action or not approving the proposed project. The No Project alternative must be evaluated whether or not it is feasible.

GOV5-19 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
As described under Section 3.4.1.1, City Limits, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR and further explained in Response GOV5-5, the City of Hollister only has jurisdiction for activities that occur in the Hollister City Limits. Further, as described under Section 3.4.2, EIR Study Areas, in Chapter 3 of the Revised Draft EIR, the EIR Study Area includes all land within the Hollister City Limits and the existing and proposed SOI. This is because the Hollister SOI is the area surrounding the City Limits designated by the San Benito LAFCO to indicate land that that has the potential to be annexed into the city during the 2040 General Plan buildout horizon. The Planning Area lands between the Planning Area boundary and the SOI are not in the EIR Study Area because the City does not foresee future annexations of these unincorporated areas.

This does not mean that these areas would not be developed as asserted by the commenter, it means that they would not be developed by the City of Hollister, nor would the City of Hollister have the authority to approve any development of lands outside of

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-49
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.
their jurisdiction. Therefore, it is reasonable and practical for the City’s evaluation of alternative scenarios to the proposed project to include the same jurisdictional boundaries.

GOV5-20 ▪ 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, 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.

With respect to cumulative impacts, as described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of the Revised Draft EIR, the cumulative discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.18 of the Revised Draft EIR explain the geographic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g., immediate project vicinity, county, watershed, or air basin). The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends on the impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing macro-scale air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative impact. In assessing aesthetic impacts, on the other hand, only development within the local area of change would contribute to a cumulative visual effect since the area of change is only visible in its vicinity. The commenter is directed to Section 4.1.7, Cumulative Impact Analysis, in Chapter 4 of the Revised Draft EIR for a description of the cumulative setting for the analysis, which does consider areas outside of the EIR Study Area when reasonable to do so depending on the environmental topic.

The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR assumes that development outside of the City’s jurisdiction would “cease” outside of the current SOI. The Revised Draft EIR evaluates the impacts from implementation of the City of Hollister 2040 General Plan by the City of Hollister, which can only occur in the City’s jurisdiction. The Revised Draft EIR, as described in the cumulative impact discussion, considers impacts from projected growth of the City of Hollister in conjunction with growth in the region.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-50 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV5-21 ▪ 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.

Revisions were made to Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the 2023 Draft EIR to provide clarifying information on the proposed SOI boundary.

The updated text is presented in the Revised Draft EIR and changes are shown as follows.

The text on page 5-20 of Chapter 5 of the Revised Draft EIR was revised to clarify that the EIR Study Area for Alternative B does not include the proposed SOI expansion and Alternative B would adopt the proposed CAP and ALPP.

Alternative B assumes the same amount of households,
residential units, population, and jobs would occur as under the proposed project, but would allow for more dense housing in parcels within the Medium-Density Residential, High-Density Residential, Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential, and
Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations and also increase the maximum floor-area ratios (FAR)2 in the Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential and Downtown
Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations when
compared to the proposed project. In addition, Alternative B would maintain the currently adopted SOI thus encouraging more development and redevelopment in the City Limits and less growth on undeveloped land. As such the EIR Study Area referenced in this discussion includes the current City Limits and the existing SOI. Alternative B does not include expansion into the proposed SOI. Alternative B would also adopt the proposed CAP and the proposed ALPP as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR.

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

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-51
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
As previously described, the purpose of this alternative is to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with agricultural resources (AG), air quality (AIR), noise (NOI), and transportation (TRANS).

As described in Chapter 4.2, Agricultural Resources, the conversion of lands designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, and lands under Williamson Act contracts to non-agricultural uses is a significant impact under CEQA. Accordingly, to reduce the potential for the conversion of agricultural lands, Alternative B would not propose to change the SOI as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, but instead would maintain the current Hollister SOI. The current SOI is roughly 1,817 acres or about 2.8 square miles. As shown on Figure 3-7, Existing and Proposed Sphere of Influence, in Chapter 3, the proposed SOI would extend further north and west, south, and east of the existing SOI but would remain contiguous with the existing SOI border to the east and west north. The proposed SOI would expand to Union Road between San Benito Street and Southside Road and to
Enterprise Road between Southside Road and SR 25. On the west side, the proposed SOI would expand northward to Wright Road and westward to SR 156, reaching close to Union Road.

The southern portion of the proposed SOI would expand past Union Road to Enterprise Road. The proposed SOI would also expand along Mansfield Road in the east and along SR 26 to Best Road in the southeast. As shown on Figure 4.2-1, Important Farmland and Williamson Act Contracts, in Chapter 4.2,
Agricultural Resources, there is land designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique
Farmland in this area. Therefore, when compared to the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-52 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
proposed SOI Alternative B would reduce the SOI where
qualified farmland is located.

GOV5-22 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, under
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 significant
environmental advantages.

With respect to a third alternative as requested by the commenter, the requested alternative to expand the SOI would not eliminate or reduce any of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. As described in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Revised Draft EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that the EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) requires that the EIR’s discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

Here, the further expansion of the SOI as requested by the commenter would not reduce any of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project because it would be a larger area and would not meet the project objective to create and maintain a cohesive development pattern amidst the agriculture landscape, with clearly defined urban edges. The General Plan land use map focuses urban development within the SOI and protects Hollister’s surrounding lands from sprawl, reduces the cost of extending costly infrastructure, and enhances the visual character of the city’s edge.

Land use policies are enacted to reduce incompatible land uses and ensure developments pay for their share of infrastructure, public facilities, and any environmental costs they might impose.

Accordingly, the Revised Draft EIR does not need to include the third alternative as suggested by the commenter.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-53
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV5-23 • 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).) [sic] Such discussion is absent from the DEIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), there is no requirement to discuss alternatives to the proposed project that were considered and found to be infeasible. Doing so is relevant when the lead agency concludes that there are no feasible alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) generally defines “feasible” to mean an alternative that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period, considering economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. In addition, the following may be taken into consideration when assessing the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and the ability of the proponent to attain site control.

Here, the City has made no conclusion that either alternative would be infeasible, and as analyzed in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Revised Draft EIR, Alternative B would, in comparison to the proposed project, result in reduced environmental impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, GHG emissions, noise, transportation, and wildfire, and would meet all of the project objectives.

Accordingly, Alternative B is a feasible alternative to the proposed project. While Alternative A (No Project) would not meet the project objectives, it is a CEQA mandated alternative, and it is feasible for the City to continue implementing the current General Plan. See Section 4.3, Additional Analysis.

GOV5-24 • 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, “Alternative B would not See Response GOV5-21 for revisions to Alternative B that clarifies that the proposed SOI expansion would not occur under Alternative B and that the proposed CAP and ALPP would be included under Alterative B.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-54 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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, it 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.

GOV5-25 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 provide me with a copy of any future notices issued for the proposed Project.

The City of Hollister routinely complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including future notices issued for the proposed project, and will continue this practice in the future. The San Benito High School District has been on the City’s email notification list for the proposed project since June 24, 2020, and has been and will continue to be issued every notice of the project process to date.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-55
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV5-26 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. 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.

This comment serves as a summary of previous comments and a closing remark. No further response is required.

GOV5-27 Attachment:

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
The attachment is an email from the San Benito County Business Council with a summary of the Hollister City Council meeting dated June 21, 2023. The attachment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project and EIR. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-56 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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,

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-57
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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
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

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-58 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
[email protected]
(831) 537-7271
Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or further information.

GOV6 N.C. Coady, Captain Commander, Department of California Highway Patrol, July 29, 2024 GOV6-1 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.

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

GOV6-2 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.

The commenter’s concern regarding the proposed bus-on-shoulder scenario is acknowledged for the record. Please also see Response GOV-2-2.

As described in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, on page 4.16-6 of the Revised Draft EIR, the bus-on shoulder scenario is one of three scenarios that was analyzed by the San Benito County Local Transportation Authority to improve transit options for those traveling between Hollister and areas to the north, including Gilroy and the Bay Area, using the State Route 25/rail corridor. The bus-on shoulder concept is not a City of Hollister project. As stated in the Draft EIR, at this time, there is no funding in place for these improvements. The Council of San Benito County Governments is currently pursuing grant funding opportunities to conduct a detailed operational analysis.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-59
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

GOV6-3 Should you have any questions regarding these concerns, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Captain Noel Coady at (408) 427-0700.

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

GOV6-4 Attachment:

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 The attachment is a resubmittal of Comment Letter GOV2. See Responses to Comment Letter GOV2.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-60 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

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.

GOV7 Heather Anderson, Director of Planning, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, August 5, 2024 GOV7-1 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:

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

GOV7-2 • 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, version1.0.2), 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.

The commenter’s requested revision to remove reference of AMBAG as the agency responsible for solid waste disposal has been made to Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-61
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV7-3 • 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…”
The commenter’s requested revision to correct the plan name has been made to Chapter 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR.

Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV7-4 • 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.”
AMBAG is not the Council of Governments for San Benito
County; instead, it is the Council of San Benito County Governments (San Benito COG).

The commenter’s requested revision remove reference of AMBAG as the COG has been made to Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR.

Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV7-5 • 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…”
The commenter’s requested revision to correct the referenced plan type has been made to Chapter 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR.

Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV7-6 • 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.”
The commenter’s requested revision to correct the referenced plan type has been made to Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR.

Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-62 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Revise sentence to state, “The 2045 MTP/SCS is the long- range SCS and Metropolitan Transportation Plan…”
GOV7-7 • 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)
2045Metropolitan Transportation Plan & the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2045 AMBAGMTP/SCS).”
Revise the sentence to state “… (AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS).”
The commenter’s requested revision to correct the plan name has been made to Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV7-8 • 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.” The commenter’s requested revision to correct the plan name has been made to Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV7-9 • 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.

The commenter’s requested revision remove reference of AMBAG as the preparer of the RHNA for San Benito County has been made to Chapter 4.6, CEQA Required Assessment, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-63
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV7-10 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.

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

GOV8 Edward Ballaron, Air Quality Planner I, Monterey Bay Air Resources District, August 16, 2024 GOV8-1 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:

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

GOV8-2 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”.

The commenter’s requested addition of MBARD Rule 424 has been added to Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR.

These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV8-3 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 The commenter’s note about prior experience with abatement of ACP and other asbestos utility infrastructure components is acknowledged for the record. The City of Hollister routinely complies

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-64 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.
with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of MBARD, and will continue this practice in the future.

GOV8-4 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.

The commenter’s requested revision to the NCCAB attainment status for ozone has been made to Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV8-5 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 approaches to reduce emissions from transportation, such as construction and installation of public electric vehicle infrastructure.

The analysis included in the Revised Draft EIR is more conservative based on that recommended by MBARD. As noted in Response GOV8-4, the attainment designations for the NCCAB have been updated to reflect the current attainment status. While the Air Basin is in attainment for ozone, the analysis provided under Impact Discussion AIR-2 in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR conservatively identifies impacts as significant and unavoidable.

Therefore, no changes to the EIR are needed.

The proposed 2040 General Plan includes policies in the Natural Resources and Conservation Element and the Circulation Element that are focused on reducing VMT and associated emissions from the transportation sector, which are identified under Impact Discussion AIR-2 in Chapter 4.3 of the Revised Draft EIR (see Policies C-3.1 through C-3.6, Actions C-3.1 through C-3.5, Policy C-4.6, Policy NRC-3.10 through NRC-3.12, and Action NRC-3.1). New development in the City is also required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. Hollister has 31 publicly accessible EV charging

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-65
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
stations. The proposed CAP includes actions for installation of EV charging stations. The proposed CAP aims to reduce transportation emissions by promoting EV adoption through municipal fleet electrification, community-wide EV charging stations, and rebates for EV purchases, as well as promoting public transit, carpooling, and active transportation. As these measures are integrated into the proposed CAP, no additional measures are needed.

GOV8-6 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.

The City of Hollister complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of MBARD, and will continue this practice in the future.

GOV8-7 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.

The City of Hollister complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of MBARD, and will continue this practice in the future.

GOV8-8 VOC Emissions

VOC emissions attributed to the project are from 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 The commenter’s requested revision to reference the recently adopted Consumer Product Regulation has been made to Chapter

4.3, Air Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification. As the emissions

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-66 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.
analysis in the Revised Draft EIR is conservative, no change to the modeling is warranted.

GOV8-9 Page 4.3-24 Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Since the majority of the VOC emissions are from consumer 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.

The commenter’s requested revision to reference the state consumer product regulation has been made to Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV8-10 Odors

Land Uses. A variety of land uses can contribute to 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.

The commenter’s requested revision to reference indirect effects has been made to Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR, as shown in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations in the Revised Draft EIR. Therefore, no recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

GOV8-11 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].

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

The City appreciates the input from MBARD and will rely on their expertise if and when future development is proposed throughout implementation of the General Plan.

GOV9 Shawn Tannenbaum, San Benito High School District, August 16, 2024 GOV9-1 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 This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-67
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

GOV9-2 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.

The commenter’s note about the increase in projected residents resulting in an increase in projected students served by the District is acknowledged for the record.

As described under Impact Discussion PS-5 in Chapter 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, of the Revised Draft EIR, with the required payment of developer impact fees for new development pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995 (Senate Bill 50) and the implementation of the proposed 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions that support school facilities in the EIR Study Area, impacts to the public school districts that serve the EIR Study Area would be less than significant.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

GOV9-3 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 The commenter’s request for the District to be involved in the process of expanding the City's SOI to include the Buena Vista area is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-68 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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 reflects both the District’s and City’s shared vision to create a walkable community that promoted 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.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-69
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-70 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
adequacy of education facilities, traffic congestion, circulation, parking, noise, and air quality.

GOV9-4 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 capacity and enrollment number for the District listed Table

4.15-1, EIR Study Area School Districts and Schools, in Chapter 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, of the Revised Draft EIR reflect the most recent data available at the time the Notice of Preparation was published (April 2021). Therefore, no revisions to the Revised Draft EIR are required. The commenter’s note about the District’s 2023- 2024 enrollment number is acknowledged for the record.

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.

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

GOV10 Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, August 21, 2024 GOV10-1 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.

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 This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-71
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

GOV10-2 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 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.

See responses to Comment Letter GOV3 regarding CDFW’s previous comments submitted on the 2023 Draft EIR.

GOV10-3 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.

The City of Hollister complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of CDFW, and will continue this practice in the future.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-72 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
GOV10-4 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).

The City of Hollister routinely complies with all required federal, State, and local regulations, including those of CDFW, and will continue this practice in the future.

GOV10-5 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].

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

The City appreciates the input from CDFW and will rely on their expertise if and when future development is proposed throughout implementation of the General Plan.

Private Organizations
ORG1 Dennis Martin, Building Industry Association of the Bay Area ORG1-1 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.

The comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

ORG1-2 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 The commenter’s concern regarding housing production is acknowledged for the record.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-73
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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:
• Constrained Land Supply – Plan for sufficient land to accommodate housing production necessitated by the
City’s 6th Cycle RHNA and additional land requirements; As discussed under Impact Discussion POP-1 in Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing, of the Revised Draft EIR, the approximately 40 percent of the projected residential growth for the proposed project comes from the City’s 2023–2031 RHNA (6th Cycle) allocation of 4,163 units. The proposed land use map, as shown in Figure 3-5, 2040 General Plan Land Use Map, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR includes enough land designated for housing to fulfill the City’s 2023–2031 RHNA as well as future buffer sites identified through the upcoming Housing Element update.

Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed SOI boundary and the proposed ALPP.

See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. Changes to the proposed SOI boundary are outlined in Figure 1-1, Areas of Change Between the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR. The proposed ALPP was also revised to reduce the rate of land dedication from two acres to one acre of Agricultural Land for each one acre of Agricultural Land to be converted.

Additionally, some goals, policies, and actions have been revised, including the Inclusionary Housing requirement referenced by the commenter. The inclusionary affordable housing requirement has been reduced from 20 percent to 15 percent, as noted in proposed 2040 General Plan Action LU-3.1 (previously Action LU-2.1).

The commenter’s opinion on the proposed 2040 General Plan VMT policies and the inclusionary zoning policy is acknowledged for the record.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-74 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
• 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.

ORG1-3 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.

Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed SOI boundary. See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. These changes are outlined in Figure 1-1, Areas of Change Between the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-75
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
ORG1-4 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 4,000 residential units just for the City of Hollister’s future RHNA See Response ORG1-2 regarding the consideration of the upcoming RHNA cycle in the proposed project buildout projections and the Revised Draft EIR.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-76 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
and other units that the City may need to absorb from the County.

ORG1-5 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.

The commenter’s concern about feasibility is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG1-6 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.

The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed high density residential zoning is acknowledged for the record . The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG1-7 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 Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed SOI boundary. See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. These changes are outlined in Figure 1-1, Areas of Change Between the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR. As

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-77
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
supply available for residential capacity must be revised to increase the residential capacity through 2040.
discussed in Section 1.3.3.1, Summary of Revision, in Chapter 1 of the Revised Draft EIR, the potential buildout estimates have subsequently increased from what was proposed in the 2023 Draft EIR as follows: from 6,455 to 10,530 new housing units; from 21,635 to 31,575 new residents; and from 5,755 to 11,170 new jobs by 2040.

ORG1-8 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.

The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed high density residential zoning is acknowledged for the record . The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG1-9 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.

See Response ORG1-2 regarding inclusionary housing requirements.

ORG1-10 Open Space and Agricultural Element
Policy OS-2.1. Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land. Requiring 2:1 offset of any agricultural land used for development is may [sic] represent a loss of developable land that could result in a severe Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed ALPP. See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. The proposed ALPP was also revised to reduce the

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-78 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.
rate of land dedication from two acres to one acre of Agricultural Land for each one acre of Agricultural Land to be converted.

ORG1-11 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:

The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed agricultural buffer zones is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-79
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

ORG1-12 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.

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.

As described under Section 4.16.2.1, City of Hollister VMT Significance Criteria, in Chapter 4.16, Transportation¸ of the Revised Draft EIR, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA advises jurisdictions to set VMT thresholds at 15 percent below the average for the defining area. Pursuant to the City’s DRAFT SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, the defining area is San Benito County.

Accordingly, the analysis in the Revised Draft EIR was prepared to meet the City’s VMT thresholds to achieve a 15 percent VMT reduction relative to existing county-wide average VMT levels. No additional analysis is required to meet the CEQA requirements for the proposed 2040 General Plan. See Section 4.3, Additional Analysis.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-80 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
ORG1-13 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.

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

ORG2 Matt Nohr, Orosco Group
ORG2-1 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:

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

ORG2-2 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 The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-81
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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
• 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.

ORG2-3 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 The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-82 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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
ORG2-4 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
The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG2-5 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 between McCloskey to North Chappell that have no frontage along San Felipe to Industrial zoning.

The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-83
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
ORG2-6 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.

The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG2-7 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.

The commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG2-8 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 The commenter’s concern regarding the stormwater systems and application of stormwater retention methods on a project-by-project basis is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-84 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

ORG2-9 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.

Future upgrades to energy infrastructure in the EIR Study Area would be under the purview of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). As described in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Services Systems, of the Revised Draft EIR, PG&E is responsible for maintaining transmission lines in the EIR Study Area and energy services would be provided to future development through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. The City is aware of the current work that Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is conducting to upgrade the Hollister substation to increase capacity for their customers in the EIR Study Area. Implementation of proposed 2040 General Plan Policy CSF-1.5 requires that the City coordinate land use planning activities with the PG&E, San Benito County, internet, and other utility providers to ensure that utility systems are available for new development and are installed to meet the needs of new residents and promote the availability and adequate delivery of reliable, modern, and competitively priced utilities necessary for businesses to prosper. Proposed 2040 General Plan Policy CSF-4.14, Policy CSF-4.15, and Policy CSF-4.16 also requires that the City coordinate with PG&E on energy technology, future growth projections, and peak energy demand calculations of large-scale projects.

ORG2-10 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
This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-85
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
responsive to all the input you are receiving from community members including residents, customers, business partners, employees, and property owners.

ORG3 Kristina Chaves Wyatt, San Benito County Business Council ORG3-1 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.

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-86 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
ORG3-2 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
As described under Section 3.5, Planning Process Summary, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Revised Draft EIR, there has been a much greater outreach effort than asserted by the commenter. Outreach efforts are summarized as follows:
 The process to update the existing 2005 General Plan began in 2019.
 A General Plan Advisory Committee provided overall direction, with assistance from citizen representatives, who worked closely with the consultant team and City staff to guide the public process for updating the existing General Plan.
 The public process included community engagement and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in early 2020, the City collected community input through virtual workshops and online activities.
 The City sought feedback from the community, property owners, business owners, and Planning Commissioners and City
Councilmembers.
 The working draft 2040 General Plan was reviewed in public discussion and hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council.

The City created a General Plan website at www.hollister2040.org to enhance and inform the public process. The website provides all of the documents, maps, and meeting agendas, which are available for public download. The website offers information in both English and Spanish and provides the contact information for City staff so that members of the public can send their thoughts and questions about Hollister and the 2040 General Plan throughout the process.

With respect to the community outreach for the proposed project, the commenter is directed to the Hollister General Plan Update 2040 website and specifically the page on Public Engagement:

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-87
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
http://hollister2040.org/public-engagement/ . To date, an overall count of 30 meetings and events have been conducted over the planning process for the General Plan update and EIR.

ORG3-3 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.

The commenter ’s request for additional public meetings and outreach on the Draft General Plan and EIR is acknowledged for the record. The City finds there are no exceptional or unusual circumstances in the project process that warrant extending the project process timeline or hosting additional meetings. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

ORG3-4 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.

The comment expresses a concern about the environmental review process. There is no requirement under CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines for the General Plan update to be final prior to the commencement or completion of the environmental analysis for the proposed project. The City will consider all comments on the Draft General Plan and will make any revisions to the Revised Draft EIR as needed. Please see Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of this Final EIR for any revisions to the Revised Draft EIR based on ■

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-88 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
comments received during the 45-day public review period of the Revised Draft EIR.

With respect to extending the timeline of the project, there is no statute or case law that compels the extension of the public comment period upon request; the decision regarding whether to extend the review period is at the discretion of the lead agency. As stated in Response ORG3-3, the City finds there are no exceptional or unusual circumstances in the project process that warrant an extension of the 45-day public review period to provide comments on the adequacy of the 2023 Draft EIR or Revised Draft EIR.

ORG3-5 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.

The commenter’s suggestion about habitat conservation is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG3-6 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 [sic] apply City codes and standards for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, roads and parks.

Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed SOI boundary. See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. These changes are outlined in Figure 1-1, Areas of Change Between the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR.

ORG3-7 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.

Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, there were further modifications to the proposed ALPP. See Section 4.4, Revisions to the 2023 Draft EIR. The proposed ALPP was also revised to reduce the rate of land dedication from two acres to one acre of Agricultural Land for each one acre of Agricultural Land to be converted.

The commenter’s concerns about agricultural production and buffer requirements are acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-89
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.”
will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG3-8 Local job creation reduces commuting and reduces/eliminates traffic.

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

The commenter’s suggestions about North Gateway Special Planning Area are acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG3-9 Evaluate the opportunities and implications of the California Opportunity Zone and high-wage job creation in 3.4.2 West Gateway Special Planning Area.

The commenter’s suggestions about West Gateway Special Planning Area are acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG3-10 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.

The commenter’s suggestions about the Buena Vista Road Special Planning Area are acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG3-11 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and for your consideration of our questions, concerns and ideas.

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-90 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Please don’t hesitate to reply with any questions, concerns or needs.

ORG4 Matt Nohr, Orosco Group
ORG4-1 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.

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

Note that this is the second of two comment letters provided by the Orosco Group. The first comment letter is numbered ORG2 and responses to that letter are provided in Responses ORG2-1 through ORG2-10.

ORG4-2 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 The commenter’s suggestion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-91
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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, 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 [sic] North Gateway district, this proposal create [sic] 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

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-92 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
(commuting), improve air quality (reduced length of trips), and make the City a further desirable place to live.

ORG4-3 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 [sic] North Gateway district, this proposal create [sic] 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 The commenter’s suggestion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-93
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
(commuting), improve air quality (reduced length of trips), and make the City a further desirable place to live.Comment #3: [sic] ORG4-4 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 exces sive 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 [sic] 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
The commenter’s suggestion regarding the proposed North Gateway zoning is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG4-5 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 The commenter’s suggestion for an overlay district is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-94 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
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.

4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

ORG4-6 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 The commenter’s concern regarding the stormwater systems and application of stormwater retention methods on a project-by-project basis is acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-95
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
construction trip generation and air quality impacts), that underground systems generate.

ORG4-7 Comment #9 [sic]:

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.

See Response ORG2-9 regarding PG&E infrastructure and
coordination.

ORG4-8 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.

This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

GOV4-9 Exhibit A1 - Figure LU-2 Land Use Map Exhibit A1 is the land use map presented as Figure LU-2 in the proposed 2040 General Plan. The exhibit is acknowledged for the record. The exhibit does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

GOV4-10 Exhibit A2 - Figure LU-2 Land Use Map Exhibit A2 is a zoomed in extent of the land use map presented as Figure LU-2 in the proposed 2040 General Plan calling out the Hollister-Forever 116 LLC Property, Wright 13 LLC Property, and Felipe Nine LLC Property. The exhibit is acknowledged for the record.

The exhibit does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

GOV4-11 Exhibit A3 - Proposed High Density Multi-family Residential Rezone or Overlay District
Exhibit A3 is a zoomed in extent of the land use map presented as Figure LU-2 in the proposed 2040 General Plan. The exhibit outlines the area requested to be rezoned to High Density Multi-Family

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-96 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
Residential or Overlay District that allows for High Density Residential within the North Gateway Zone. The exhibit is acknowledged for the record. The exhibit does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

Members of the Public
PUB1 Jim Safranek
PUB1-1 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.

The commenter’s questions about groundwater are acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section

4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision- making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

With respect to the analysis regarding groundwater-related impacts, please see Chapter 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Revised Draft EIR.

PUB2 Ingrid and Alex Sywak
PUB2-1 Dear Ms. Hopper, The PC is reviewing the EIR next Thursday. An important component is the City's Transportation and VMT policy.

This comment serves as an opening remark. No response is required.

PUB2-2 Figure 4.16-2 references: Source: Kimley Horn, 2020.

PlaceWorks, 2023. Kindly provide the link, or .pdf?

2023. DRAFT SB 743 Implementation Guidelines, March 14.

Kindly provide the link, or .pdf?
The commenter is requesting a link to the sources listed on Figure

4.16-2, County Express Fixed Route Map, shown in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. Kimley Horn and Associates is a consulting firm that prepared the transportation background and analysis provided in the Draft EIR and PlaceWorks is the consulting

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-97
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
firm that prepared the Draft EIR. Information about Kimley Horn and PlaceWorks can be found on their company websites:
 https://www.kimley-horn.com/
 https://placeworks.com/
Since publication of the 2023 Draft EIR, Figure 4.16-2, County Express Tripper Transit Route, in Chapter 4.16, Transportation, of the Revised Draft EIR has been revised to show the most recent County Express Tripper routes. The source for the figure can be found on the San Benito County Express website:
http://gocountyexpress.org/tripper/ .

As described under Section 4.16.2.1, City of Hollister VMT Significance Criteria, in Chapter 4.16 of the Revised Draft EIR, the SB 743 Implementation Guidelines that was prepared for the City by Kimley Horn, was updated in March 2023. The SB 743
Implementation Guidelines can be found in Appendix F, Revised Transportation Data, of the Revised Draft EIR.

PUB2-3 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 [sic] 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? The commenter’s suggestion on including a mitigation like San Jose’s VMT policy acknowledged for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

PUB2-4 Thank you for providing the above info requests This comment serves as a closing remark. No response is required.

Public Hearing
PH1 Jeffrey Small, July 16, 2024
PH1-1 Expresses appreciation and support of the 2040 General Plan goals and policies on behalf of the San Benito High School District. Requests more time to go over details of policies to The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
4-98 OCTOBER 2024
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
ensure that the second high school the District is planning will have access to municipal services.
bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

PH2 Alexander Sywak, July 16, 2024
PH2-1 Asserts that proposed 2040 General Plan Policy LU-1.5 is contrary to State Law.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

PH2-2 Notes that a number of parcels that are proposed to undergo land use designation changes have already undergone a series of changes and asserts that Planning Commissioners were not familiar with topography and VMT generated by the parcels.

Requests the documentation of land use changes and that the APNs of parcels are made available in GIS.

Previous Planning Commission meeting agendas and agenda packets can be accessed here:
https://hollister.ca.gov/government/commissions/planning_commiss ion.php
Previous City Council meeting agendas and agenda packets can be accessed here: / https://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx The Draft General Plan 2040 Land Use Map can be accessed online here:
https://cosb.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b2 ffdd03d63749bcbd1da3c810eece3e
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

PH3 Dennis Martin, July 16, 2024
PH3-1 Notes that State law determines the mitigations for school facilities through Senate Bill 50 and the City cannot impose additional mitigation measure on development projects.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-99
TABLE 4-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment # Comment Response
PH3-2 Expresses concerns about land use density designations in residential zoning districts, especially mixed-use, on behalf of Building Industry Association. Asserts that the City has never proven that they can develop at these densities. Encourages the City to revisit designation and density requirements of these districts, especially in the Downtown mixed-use districts, to allow for lower density developments.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

PH4 Victor Gomez, July 16, 2024
PH4-1 Expresses concern about the mixed-use and high-density requirements. Asserts that the California Department of Housing and Community Development should have categorized the
City/County as a suburban jurisdiction and the City should write a letter to express their opposition to the current designation.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

PH5 Dennis Martin, July 16, 2024
PH5-1 Notes previous concerns about the cost of updating the General Plan. Points out that every development project is required to pay a General Plan Update fee and asserts that the City needs to revisit the fee requirements to ensure it covers the cost of updating the General Plan.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Revised Draft EIR, and no further response is required. See Section 4.1, Project Merits. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of this Final EIR for their consideration in reviewing the project.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 4-100
This page intentionally left blank.

PLACEWORKS 5-1
Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR
This chapter includes text revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, including the goals, policies, and actions in the Draft General Plan 2040, that were made in response to agency and organization comments, as well as staff-directed changes. These text revisions include typographical corrections, insignificant modifications, amplifications and clarifications of the Revised Draft EIR. In each case, the revised page and location on the page is presented, followed by the textual, tabular, or graphical revision. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough represents language that has been deleted from the Revised Draft EIR. None of the revisions to the Revised Draft EIR constitutes significant new information as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; therefore, the Revised Draft EIR does not need to be recirculated.

CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION
The text under the “Revisions to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program” subheading in Section

1.3.3.1, Summary of Revisions, on page 1-6 of the Revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

The proposed revisions are limited to reducing the rate of land dedication from two acres to one acre of Agricultural Land for each one acre of Agricultural Land to be converted. This change is shown as follows:

Section 17.1328.050, Overall Requirement. Before any Development Project that involves conversion of one (1) acre or more of Agricultural Land to uses other than Agricultural Uses may occur, Agricultural Conservation Easements on other Agricultural Lands that comply with criteria established in Section

17.1328.090 shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder selected by the City of Hollister, at a rate of at least two one (21) acres of Agricultural Land for each one (1) acre of Agricultural Land to be converted [21:1 ratio].

CHAPTER 2, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Please see Chapter 2 of this Final EIR for revisions to the executive summary.

5.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
5-2 OCTOBER 2024
CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The first paragraph under Section 3.2, Overview, on page 3-2 of the Revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

The existing 2005 General Plan was comprehensively adopted in 2005 and includes a horizon year of 2023. A number of state and federal laws guiding general plan policies have also been updated during this time. As such, there is a need to take stock of the existing situation and plan for sustainable development in line with an updated vision for Hollister. The proposed 2040 General Plan focuses on meeting current community requirements and future needs. Accordingly, the City is undertaking a comprehensive update to the 2005 General Plan. The proposed 2040 General Plan guides the city’s economic and physical growth as well as preservation of natural and agricultural resources over an approximately 15-year buildout horizon and replaces the City’s existing 2005 General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element. The City’s Housing Element (2015 to 2023) was adopted in 2016 and is incorporated into the proposed 2040 General Plan by reference. The current Housing Element has already undergone separate environmental review as part of its adoption process; however, the residential development that could occur under the Housing Element is incorporated into the residential development analyzed as part of this EIR. The proposed 2040 General Plan, including the goals, policies, and actions, would require map and text amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed 2040 General Plan also includes proposed amendments to the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) to plan for projected growth and to improve City services. In conjunction with these General Plan amendments, Title 17, Zoning, of the Hollister Municipal Code (HMC), would be amended for consistency with the proposed 2040 General Plan. While most of the amendments to the HMC would occur in the future through a separate process, the proposed project includes an amendment to adopt the proposed ALPP as HMC Chapter 17.1328.

The third bullet point of the bulleted list under Section 3.7.1.3, General Plan Land Use Designations, on page 3-15 of the Revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Medium-Density Residential (11 to 19 29 units/gross acre). This land use designation accommodates more intensive forms of residential development. Medium-Density Residential land uses provide greater housing choices in the city for different family sizes and incomes (examples include duplexes and triplexes). In the Medium Density Residential land use designation, new single-family detached residential development is not a permitted use. Existing Medium-Density Residential land uses are close to the community and retail services downtown, and future Medium-Density Residential uses are intended to be located near other services, such as neighborhood shopping centers, parks and open spaces areas, and near minor and major collector streets where sufficient access can be provided.

The ninth bullet point of the bulleted list under Section 3.7.1.3, General Plan Land Use Designations, on page 3-16 of the Revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 North Gateway Commercial (30 to 65 units/gross acre; 2.0 FAR). This land use designation is intended to foster an attractive entry to the city by featuring commercial and service-oriented businesses along with high-employment uses such as office parks. The guidelines described in the “Special Planning

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

PLACEWORKS 5-3
Areas” section of the proposed Land Use and Community Design Element stipulates additional criteria that development within the North Gateway Special Planning Area must meet.

The text under Section 3.7.3, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, on page 3-24 of the Revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

The proposed project includes a new addition to the HMC Title 17, Zoning. The proposed addition would be adopted and codified as new HMC Chapter 17.1328, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to non- agricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed chapter is as follows.

Chapter 17.1328, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program.  Section 17.1328.010, Chapter Title. The ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “A gricultural Lands Preservation Program” of the City of Hollister.  Section 17.1328.020, Purpose. Due to favorable soil and topographical and climatic conditions, the City of Hollister contains large areas of local, State and Federal classified agricultural lands. These lands are environmental and economic assets that contribute to local quality of life. The purpose of this Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to urban uses directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements.  Section 17.1328.030, Definitions.
 Agricultural Conservation Easement. An Agricultural Conservation Easement is a legally binding deed limitation which has been executed voluntarily by the owner of the land subject to the easement, the purpose of which is to retain the land in its agricultural condition. The terms of the easement remain binding even when the land is sold or passed to heirs.  Agricultural Lands. Agricultural Lands subject to this Program are defined as:

1. All lands defined as Prime Agricultural Land per California Government Code 51201. These include the following:
a. All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications.
b. Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. c. Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture.
d. Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. e. Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
5-4 OCTOBER 2024

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

3. All lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) on the most recently published map of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).

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

4. All lands which in the reasonable judgment of the City of Hollister have the physical characteristics and yield potential to qualify as one of the classifications in Section

17.1328.030.B.2 above. Whether or not the land under consideration is currently used for agricultural production shall not be a criterion in this determination.  Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee. The Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee (also referred to as the Administration Fee) refers to a fee paid to the City of Hollister which will be credited to a City fund and used by the City and/or transferred to the Program Manager for the purpose of administering the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and/or to cover ongoing management and monitoring of the Agricultural Conservation Easements.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

PLACEWORKS 5-5
 Agricultural Use. Agricultural Use means the use of land, including for greenhouses, for the purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes, per California Government Code 51201.
 Arm's Length Transaction. An Arm's Length Transaction is a business deal in which buyers and sellers act independently without one party influencing the other.  Developer. A Developer is a person or entity who files an application to develop land under the jurisdiction of the City of Hollister.
 Development Project. A Development Project is a project to convert the use of land that is subject to an application under the jurisdiction of the City of Hollister.  Easement Holder. An Easement Holder is a government entity or 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit corporation that takes ownership of, or authority over, real property and/or Agricultural Conservation Easements at the behest of an owner. The City will consider the following criteria when selecting an Easement Holder:

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

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

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

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

An Easement Holder may also serve as the Program Manager. The City of Hollister may also serve as an Easement Holder.
 Highest and Best Use. Highest and Best Use refers to the legal use of vacant or improved land that is physically possible and financially feasible, and that results in the highest value.  Legal Parcel. A Legal Parcel is a portion of land separated from another parcel or portion of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. A separate Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) alone shall not constitute a legal parcel.
 Program Manager. The Program Manager is a government entity or Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization selected by and accountable to the City of Hollister to serve as the manager of the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The City will consider the following criteria when selecting the Program Manager:

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

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

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

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

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

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
5-6 OCTOBER 2024
 Section 17.1328.040, Applicability. The regulations and provisions of this chapter shall apply to all public and private Development Projects under the jurisdiction of the City of Hollister, which would result in the conversion of at least one (1) acre of Agricultural Land for uses other than Agricultural Uses.
 Section 17.1328.050, Overall Requirement. Before any Development Project that involves conversion of one (1) acre or more of Agricultural Land to uses other than Agricultural Uses may occur, Agricultural Conservation Easements on other Agricultural Lands that comply with criteria established in Section 17.1328.090 shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder selected by the City of Hollister, at a rate of at least one (1) acre of Agricultural Land for each one (1) acre of Agricultural Land to be converted [1:1 ratio].

The total acreage for which Agricultural Conservation Easements are dedicated shall be calculated based on the total acreage subject to conversion, not the total size of the Legal Parcel(s) on which the development is to be located, unless the total size of the area of the subject Legal Parcel(s) not subject to conversion is ten (10) acres or less, in which case the total acreage for which Agricultural Conservation Easements are dedicated shall be calculated based on the total size of the subject Legal Parcel(s).
 Section 17.1328.060, Timing . Agricultural Conservation Easements shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder specified by the City of Hollister prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits that would result in the conversion of Agricultural Land.  Section 17.1328.070, Program Mechanism. The requirements of this Agricultural Lands Preservation Program may be satisfied in one of the following two ways:
 Dedication of Agricultural Conservation Easement(s). The Developer shall dedicate Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) to either the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder specified by the City of Hollister, subject to the following provisions:

1. The location and characteristics of all lands acquired for Agricultural Conservation Easements shall comply with the eligibility requirements established in Section 17.1328.090 and Section 17.1328.100.

2. A Developer dedicating the Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) shall pay the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee as described in Section 17.1328.110.A.

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

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

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

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

PLACEWORKS 5-7
 Payment of In-Lieu Fees. The payment of an Agricultural Conservation Easement in-lieu fee is subject to the following provisions:

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

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

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

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

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

6. A Developer paying an in-lieu fee instead of dedicating Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) shall also pay the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee as described in Section 17.1328.110.A.
 Section 17.1328.080, Administration of the Overall Program and In-Lieu Fees.  Program Administration.

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

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

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

2. In-lieu fees shall be used to acquire Agricultural Conservation Easements on eligible Agricultural Lands, which shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or an Easement Holder approved by the City of Hollister under the terms of this ordinance, and shall be recorded in San Benito County.
 Section 17.1328.090, Eligible Lands. To achieve the purpose of this chapter, lands proposed for acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements shall share the characteristics of Agricultural Land and meet the following criteria:
 The lands shall be located in the City of Hollister Planning Area, as defined in the City of Hollister General Plan.

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
5-8 OCTOBER 2024
 The farmland classification shall be equal to or better than the classification of the land converted.
 The lands shall support an active Agriculture Use at the time that easements are acquired or shall be capable of supporting an Agricultural Use within one (1) year as determined by the Program Manager. Lands not actively supporting an Agricultural Use shall be brought into Agricultural Use by the Program Manager, using funds paid for by the Developer, in excess of other funds required by this Program, within one (1) year of dedication. The amount of funds to be paid to bring the land into Agricultural Use shall be agreed upon by the Developer, Program Manager and City in advance of the acceptance of the easement and approval of the Development Project.  Where a dedication of twenty (20) or more acres is required, lands shall be composed of legal parcel(s) of twenty (20) net acres or more in size. Parcels less than twenty (20) net acres in size shall only be allowed for dedication if merged to meet the minimum size requirement prior to execution of the Agricultural Conservation Easement.
 Where a dedication of less than 20 acres is required, lands shall be composed of a single legal parcel. In this case, multiple parcels shall only be allowed for dedication if merged to meet the minimum size requirement prior to execution of the Agricultural Conservation Easement.  The lands shall be served by a water supply adequate to support Agricultural Use of the land, and the water rights on the lands proposed for acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements shall be protected in the Agricultural Conservation Easement in accordance with State water rights law.
 The dedication shall be consistent with a plan for overall acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements in the City of Hollister Planning Area if such a plan is adopted by the City of Hollister.  Section 17.1328.100, Ineligible lands. A property is ineligible for acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements if it does not meet the requirements of Section 17.1328.090 or if any of the circumstances below apply:
 The property is currently encumbered by any conservation, flood or other easement that cannot be subordinated to the Agricultural Conservation Easement.  The property is under public ownership at the time of the proposed acquisition of the Agricultural Conservation Easement.
 The property is subject to conditions that practicably prevent utilizing the property for a viable Agricultural Use.
 Section 17.1328.110, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee. The Developer shall pay a one-time Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee to cover the cost of stewardship and administration of the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program by the City and Program Manager, which shall be calculated as follows:
 Dedicated lands. If the Developer dedicates existing Agricultural Conservation Easement(s), the fee shall be ten percent (10%) of the value of the easements dedicated.

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

2. If the easements were not acquired through an Arm’s Length Transaction and/or were acquired more than one-year prior to dedication to the City of Hollister, the value of the easements on which the Administration Fee shall be based will be determined by the City

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

PLACEWORKS 5-9
Council after review of a report prepared by a real estate appraiser certified in agricultural conservation easement appraisals and licensed in California, and paid for by the Developer, which shall be peer reviewed by a consultant selected by the City and Program Manager and reviewed by the Planning Commission. The appraisal and peer review shall both be paid for by the Developer.
 In-lieu fees. If the Developer pays an in-lieu fee, the Administration Fee shall be ten percent (10%) of the in-lieu fee.
 Section 17.1328.120, Monitoring, Enforcing and Reporting . Easements acquired in accordance with this Chapter shall be monitored and enforced in compliance with the following provisions:
 Monitoring. The Program Manager shall annually monitor all easements acquired in accordance with these regulations and shall review and monitor the implementation of all management and maintenance plans for these lands and easement areas.
 Enforcing. The Program Manager shall enforce compliance with the terms of the Agricultural Conservation Easement. Any costs incurred in enforcing the terms of the Agricultural Conservation Easement, including costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by the Developer’s violation of the terms of the Agricultural Conservation Easement (including costs of routine monitoring compliance) from such time as the violation was first identified through completion, to the satisfaction of the Program Manager, of any required restoration, shall be borne by the Developer.
 Reporting. The Program Manager shall provide to the City Development Services Director an annual report delineating the activities undertaken pursuant to the requirements of these guidelines and assessment of these activities. The report shall describe the status of all lands and easements acquired in accordance with this Chapter, including a summary of all enforcement actions (if any), a detailed statement of financial activities, and the status of all easements acquired via the provisions of this ordinance.

CHAPTER 4.2, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The first paragraph after the bulleted list of proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions that would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on agricultural resources in Impact Discussion AG-1 on page

4.2-11 of the Revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Revised Draft EIR, in addition to the proposed 2040 General Plan, the proposed project includes a new addition to the HMC Title 17, Zoning. The proposed addition would be adopted and codified as new HMC Chapter 17.1328, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The purpose of the proposed Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP) is to ensure the benefits of agricultural activities are maintained by requiring that activities that convert existing agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses (i.e., urban uses) directly address that loss through a program that funds agricultural conservation easements. The proposed ALLP would serve to be beneficial to agricultural resources by minimizing the negative effects of agricultural land conversion. The proposed ALPP would apply to all public and private development projects under the jurisdiction of the City that would result in the conversion of at least one acre of agricultural land for uses other than agricultural

HOLLISTER 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM FINAL EIR

CITY OF HOLLISTER

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
5-10 OCTOBER 2024
uses. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits for such development projects, eligible agricultural conservation easements on other agricultural lands shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or to an easement holder selected by the City, at a rate of at least one acre of agricultural land for each one acre of agricultural land to be converted (1:1 ratio).

CHAPTER 4.3, AIR QUALITY
The bulleted list under the “Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants” subheading in Section 4.3.2.3, Regulatory Framework, on page 4.3-10 of the Revised Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards. Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025.
 Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation. The tractors and trailers subject to this regulation must either use USEPA SmartWay-certified tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay-verified technologies. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry-van and refrigerated-van trailers, and owners of the heavy- duty tractors that pull them on California highways. These owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling-resistance tires. Sleeper-cab tractors model year 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay-verified low-rolling-resistance tires. This rule has criteria air pollutant co-benefits.  Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and SB 107: Renewables Portfolio Standards. A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard established under SBs 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under this standard, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010.
 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR 1601–1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. This code reduces natural gas use from appliances.  24 CCR, Part 6: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977. This code reduces natural gas use from buildings.
 24 CCR, Part 11: Green Building Standards Code. Establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. This code reduces natural gas use from buildings.