Agenda packet, regular meeting, first session — Hollister City Council, December 3, 2024 (part 1 of 16)

CITY OF HOLLISTER

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 4:00 p.m.

City Council Chamber, City Hall
375 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023

Mia Casey, Mayor David Mirrione, City Manager Rick Perez, Council Member, District 1 Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney Rolan Resendiz, Council Member, District 2
Dolores Morales, Council Member, District 3
Tim Burns, Council Member, District 4

Gordon Machado, City Treasurer

NOTICE TO PUBLIC
Persons who wish to address the City Council are asked to complete a speaker’s card and give it to the City Clerk before addressing the City Council. Those who wish to address the City Council on an agenda item will be heard when the presiding officer calls for comments from the audience. City related items not on the agenda will be heard under the Public Input section of the agenda. Following recognition, persons desiring to speak are requested to advance to the podium and state their name and address. If you are joining us by Zoom, please click on the bottom of your screen to raise your hand. If you are joining us by Zoom using a cell phone, please press *9. After hearing audience comments, the public portion of the meeting will be closed, and the matter brought to the City Council for discussion.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 375 Fifth Street, Hollister, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to noon, 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (City Hall is closed between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m.)

Requests to make presentations to the City Council should be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office at least ten days before the City Council meeting. It is customary for City staff members to review such matters before the formal presentation so that the City Council may have the benefit of all available data. PowerPoint presentations must be presented to the City Clerk by noon on the day of the City Council meeting.

The public may watch the meeting via live stream at:

City of Hollister Website
https://pub-hollister.escribemeetings.com/

Community Media Access Partnership (CMAP):
http://cmaptv.com/watch/

City of Hollister YouTube Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/@cityofhollistercalifornia1489

City of Hollister Facebook Live at:
https://www.facebook.com/cityofhollister

Public Participation:

The public may attend meetings.

NOTICE: The City Council will hold its public meetings in person, with a virtual option for public participation based on availability. The City of Hollister utilizes Zoom teleconferencing technology for virtual public participation; however, we make no representation or warranty of any kind, regarding the adequacy, reliability, or availability of the use of this platform in this manner. Participation by members of the public through this means is at their own risk. (Zoom teleconferencing may not be available at all meetings.)

If you wish to make a public comment remotely during the meeting, please use the zoom registration link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MNOr95ZCQrWzERqd5zRuwQ

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (831) 636-4300. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to attempt to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II].

Notice to anyone attending any public meeting: The meeting may be broadcast live on Cable Channel 17 and/or videotaped or photographed. Recent City Council meetings may also be viewed at www.CMAP.com and periodically on Cable Channel 17.

To access written translation during the meeting, please click this link:

Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace:

https://attend.wordly.ai/join/NLJC-7137
City of Hollister City Council Meeting

Page 2 of 2138 ends

1.CALL TO ORDER

2.ROLL CALL

3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4.CLOSED SESSION - REPORT OUT

5.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY

5.1 RECOGNITION OF PAUL DA SILVA IN HONOR OF HIS RETIREMENT

6.PUBLIC INPUT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the council. Speaker cards are available in the lobby, and are to be completed and given to the City Clerk before speaking. When the City Clerk calls your name, please come to the podium, state your name and city for the record, and speak to the City Council. If you are joining us by Zoom, please click on the bottom of your screen to raise your hand. If you are joining us by Zoom using a cell phone, please press *9.

Each speaker will be limited to three (3) minutes with a maximum of 30 minutes per subject.

Please note that state law prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking action on any item not on the agenda.

7.CONSENT ITEMS
All items listed under consent agenda will be enacted by one motion authorizing actions indicated for those items so designated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the City Council, a staff member, or a member of the public. There will be one public comment period for all items on the Consent Agenda.

7.1 ADOPT ORDINANCE 1254 AMENDING HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION

2.04 – COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt Ordinance 1254 amending Hollister Municipal Code Section 2.04

7.2 ADOPT ORDINANCE 1255 AMENDING HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION

3.06 – PROCEDURES FOR SUPPLIES, PROPERTY, AND SERVICES
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt Ordinance 1255 amending Article II (Purchasing) of Chapter 3.06 (Procedures for Supplies, Property, and Services) of the Hollister Municipal Code

8.PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.1 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AGRICULTURAL LANDS

PRESERVATION PROGRAM, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council take the following actions:

1. Hold a public hearing;

2. Adopt a resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, making Findings of Overriding Considerations relating to the Mitigation Measures and Project City of Hollister City Council Meeting

Page 3 of 2138 ends

Alternatives, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

3. Adopt a resolution adopting the 2040 General Plan;

4. Adopt a resolution adopting a Climate Action Plan;

5. Introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 17.28 Agricultural Lands Preservation Program to Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code, and schedule a second reading and adoption of the ordinance for the January 21, 2025 regular meeting of the City Council.

CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project.

9.INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of members of the City Council and staff; opportunity to refer public or Council questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Council on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Council.

9.1 COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Receive oral reports from members regarding the activities of various Ad Hoc and Standing City Council Committees.

9.2 COUNCIL REPORTS
Receive informational reports from the City Council

1.COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

9.3 CITY MANAGER REPORT

1.UPDATED CITY COUNCIL PROJECTS

10.ADJOURNMENT

11.VERIFICATION OF AGENDA POSTING
The agenda for the City Council of the City of Hollister regular meeting of December 3, 2024 was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall on November 26, 2024 per Government Code Section 54954.2.

City of Hollister City Council Meeting

Page 4 of 2138 ends

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION NOTICE
The public may attend meetings in person or watch meetings via live stream at:

City of Hollister Website:
http://hollisterca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx

Community Media Access Partnership (CMAP):
http://cmaptv.com/watch/

City of Hollister YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@cityofhollistercalifornia1489

City of Hollister Facebook Live at:
https://www.facebook.com/cityofhollister

If you wish to make a public comment remotely during the meeting, please use the zoom registration link below:

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MNOr95ZCQrWzERqd5zRuwQ

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (831) 636-4300. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to attempt to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II].

To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link | Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace:
https://attend.wordly.ai/join/NLJC-7137
Choose Language and Click Attend | Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir

Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device. | Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcripción en el dispositivo.

Page 5 of 2138 ends

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2024
REPORT # City Clerk-2024-51

AGENDA ITEM: ADOPT ORDINANCE 1254 AMENDING HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.04 – COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT

DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Jennifer Woodworth, City Clerk
STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lerner, City Attorney

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ordinance 1254 amending Hollister Municipal Code Section 2.04

DISCUSSION: Ordinance 1254 was introduced at the November 12, 2024, City Council meeting, where the City Council held a public hearing and introduced an ordinance Amending Hollister Municipal Code Section 2.04 – Council Code of Conduct. A second reading and adoption of the ordinance is required.

FISCAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION: Ordinance 1254 was introduced at the November 12, 2024, City Council meeting with the following vote: 4-1 (Councilmember Resendiz opposed).

CEQA: N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance 1254

Page 6 of 2138 ends

Page 1 of 5 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1254

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AMENDING SECTIONS

2.04.015.10 AND 2.04.030 OF CHAPTER 2.04 OF TITLE 2 OF THE

HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 2.04.015.10 (“Confidential Information”) of Chapter 2.04 (“City Council”) of Title 2 (“Administration and Personnel”) of the City of Hollister Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.04.015.10 Confidential Information.

Members must maintain the confidentiality of all written materials and verbal information provided to members, which is confidential or privileged. Members shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial, or other private interests. Members who disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization may be subject to those sanctions described in section 2.04.030 of this Code.

SECTION 2. Section 2.04.030 (“Sanctions”) of Chapter 2.04 (“City Council”) of Title 2 (“Administration and Personnel”) of the City of Hollister Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.04.030 Sanctions.

A. Acknowledge and Acceptance of the Provisions with Hollister Municipal Code, Chapter 2.04. Councilmembers who do not sign an acknowledgement that they have read, understand, and accept the provisions within Hollister Municipal Code, Chapter 2.04 shall be ineligible for intergovernmental assignments, council subcommittees, or to be appointed mayor pro tempore/vice mayor. Board, committee, and commission members who do not sign an acknowledgement that they have read, understand, and accept the provisions within Hollister Municipal Code, Chapter 2.04 are not eligible to hold office.

B. Ethics Training for Local Officials. Councilmembers, city treasurer, city clerk, board, committee, and commission members who are out of compliance with state or city mandated requirements for ethics training shall not represent the city on intergovernmental assignments or council subcommittees and may be subject to sanctions.

C. Behavior and Conduct. Hollister Municipal Code, Chapter 2.04 provides ethical and conduct standards for members of the Hollister city council, boards, committees, and commissions. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical and conduct standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. The chair of boards, committees and commissions, and the mayor

Page 7 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1254

Page 2 of 5 ends

2 and council have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Hollister Municipal Code, Chapter

2.04 are brought to their attention.

D. Actions Constituting Willful Disruption of a Council Meeting. The following is a non-exhaustive list of actions that constitute willful disruption of a council meeting: (1) addressing council without first being recognized; (2) repetitiously addressing the same subject; (3) failing to relinquish the podium and/or dais when directed to do so; (4) unruly applause, whistles, yelling, or raucous demonstrations; (5) repeated and intentional disregard of calls to order by the presiding officer; and (6) intentionally encouraging or inciting disruptive behavior by other councilmembers or attendees at a council meeting.

E. Sanctions will remain in place for one year.

F. The city will not represent a city councilmember who b rings action against the city in response to imposed sanctions.

Councilmembers. Councilmembers who intentionally fail to follow proper conduct standards, after reasonable warning and admonition, may be reprimanded or formally censured by the council, lose seniority or committee assignments (both within the city of Hollister and with intergovernmental agencies), lose the ability to be appointed as mayor pro tempore/vice mayor, or lose other privileges, such as the loss of travel and/or loss of the ability to allocate use of discretionary funds, afforded by the council. The discretionary funds of a councilmember who has lost the ability to allocate use of those funds will remain in the city budget, the use of which may be requested by a member of the community through another councilmember. The councilmember who receives the request for use of discretionary funds will bring the request to a future council meeting for approval by the remainder of the city council.

Serious actions that violate the code of ethics or code of conduct and which constitute a willful disruption of a council meeting or constitute a violation of section 2.04.015.10 of this code may lead to other sanctions including, but not limited to, a financial penalty. To provide notice of offending actions and allow a councilmember an opportunity to cease their conduct, the presiding officer shall immediately notify an offending councilmember that their actions may constitute a willful disruption of the council meeting and may lead to sanctions as a serious violation of the council's code of conduct. Assessment of a financial penalty for serious actions that willfully disrupt a council meeting must be approved by a four-fifths majority vote of the council.

The penalty amounts for serious actions that willfully disrupt a council meeting within a twelve-month period are:

First disciplinary action: $100.00
Second disciplinary action: $200.00

Page 8 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1254

Page 3 of 5 ends

3 Third disciplinary action: $500.00
Additional disciplinary actions: $500.00

Councilmembers assessed a financial penalty for conduct that willfully disrupts a council meeting and is deemed a serious violation of the council's code of conduct shall be entitled to appeal the penalty by requesting an impartial hearing before a neutral third-party hearing officer. During the hearing, the councilmember shall be given the opportunity to testify and to present evidence concerning the actions being penalized.

After considering all the oral and written evidence submitted at the hearing, the hearing officer shall issue a written decision to uphold or cancel the penalty and shall list the reasons for that decision. The decision of the hearing officer shall be final.

Individual councilmembers should point out the offending councilmember’s perceived violations of Hollister Municipal Code, Chapter 2.04. If the violations continue, the matter should be referred to the mayor in private. If the mayor is the individual whose actions are being questioned, then the matter should be referred to the vice mayor. It is the responsibility of the mayor (or vice mayor) to initiate action if a councilmember’s behavior may warrant sanction. If no action is taken by the mayor (or vice mayor), then the alleged violations(s) can be brought up with the full council.

Board, Committee, and Commission Members. Counseling, verbal reprimands, and written warnings may be administered by the mayor to board, committee, and commission members to comply with city policy. These lower levels of sanctions shall be kept private to the degree allowed by law. Copies of all written reprimands administered by the mayor shall be distributed in memo format to the chair of the respective board, committee, or commission, the city clerk, the city attorney, the city manager, and the city council.

The city council may impose sanctions on board, committee, and commission members whose conduct does not comply with the city's policies, up to and including removal from office. Any form of discipline imposed by council shall be determined by a majority vote of at least a quorum of the council at a noticed public meeting and such action shall be preceded by a report to council with supporting documentation.

When deemed warranted, the mayor or majority of council may call for an investigation of board, committee, or commission member conduct. Also, should the city manager or city attorney believe an investigation is warranted, they shall confer with the mayor or council. The mayor or council shall ask the city manager or the city attorney to investigate the allegation and report the findings.

When an investigation is called for by the mayor or a majority of council, the investigation shall be paid for with the discretionary funds of a councilmember as

Page 9 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1254

Page 4 of 5 ends

4 follows: If the final investigation does not include any sustained findings, the investigation shall be paid from the discretionary funds of the councilmember who made the motion to call for the investigation. If the investigation contains any sustained findings, the investigation shall be paid for with the discretionary funds of the councilmember who was the subject of the investigation. If the councilmember expected to pay for an investigation does not have sufficient discretionary funds in the current fiscal year, the councilmember will be required to pay from the discretionary funds in the following fiscal year, provided that councilmember discretionary funds are budgeted in the following fiscal year.

These sanctions are alternatives to any other remedy that might otherwise be available to remedy conduct that violates this code or state or federal law. In order to protect and preserve good government, any individual, including the city manager and the city attorney, after complying with rule 3-600(b) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, who knows or reasonably believes a member acts or intends or refuses to act in a manner that is or may be a violation of law reasonably imputable to the organization, or in a manner which is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, may report the violation to the appropriate governmental authorities.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this Ordinance is held invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage.

SECTION 5. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post a summary and certified copy of this ordinance in the city clerk’s office at least five (5) days prior to adoption and to publish a summary of the ordinance in the Free Lance, a newspaper of general circulation, within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

Page 10 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1254

Page 5 of 5 ends

5 INTRODUCED at a special City Council meeting on November 12, 2024 and adopted as an ordinance of the City of Hollister at a regular City Council meeting on December 3, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

________________________________
Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

______________________________ _______________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk Mary Lerner, City Attorney

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 1254 is an original ordinance, or true and correct copy of a City ordinance, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on December 3, 2024, at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Hollister on December 3, 2024.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

Page 11 of 2138 ends

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2024
REPORT # City Clerk-2024-53

AGENDA ITEM: ADOPT ORDINANCE 1255 AMENDING HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.06 – PROCEDURES FOR SUPPLIES, PROPERTY, AND

SERVICES

DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Jennifer Woodworth, City Clerk
STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lerner, City Attorney

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ordinance 1255 amending Article II (Purchasing) of Chapter 3.06 (Procedures for Supplies, Property, and Services) of the Hollister Municipal Code

DISCUSSION: Ordinance 1255 was introduced at the November 12, 2024, City Council meeting, where the City Council held a public hearing and introduced an ordinance Amending Hollister Municipal Code Section 3.06 – Purchasing. A second reading and adoption of the ordinance is required.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION: Ordinance 1255 was introduced at the November 12, 2024, City Council meeting with the following vote: 5-0.

CEQA: N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance 1255

Page 12 of 2138 ends

Page 1 of 7 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1255

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AMENDING ARTICLE II (PURCHASING) OF CHAPTER 3.06
(PROCEDURES FOR SUPPLIES, PROPERTY, AND SERVICES) OF THE

HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2023, the City of Hollister (“City”) adopted the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (“CUPCCAA”) to allow the City to utilize alternative informal procedures for bidding and contracting f or public projects; and

WHEREAS, on December 4, 2023, the City amended Chapter 3.06 of the City Municipal Code to codify the City’s adoption of CUPCCAA and make various other changes to the City’s purchasing policies; and

WHEREAS, the December 4, 2023, Chapter 3.06 amendment delegated authority to the City Manager to competitively negotiate purchases of less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), although implied the amendment did not clearly delegate authority to the City Manager to sign such contracts; and

WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2025, the CUPCCAA has increased public project bid limit dollar amounts; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the City Municipal Code to comply with these changes in state law, to provide additional clarity to Chapter 3.06 of the City Municipal Code, and to delegate authority to sign contracts within the City Manager’s purchasing authority.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 3.06.200 (“Authority, title, and purpose”) of Article II (“Purchasing”) of Chapter 3.06 (“Procedures for Supplies, Property, and Services”) of Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the City Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

This article is authorized by Title 5, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 7 of the California Government Code (section 54201, et seq.) and shall be known as the “City of Hollister Purchasing Ordinance.” It shall govern all purchasing activity of the City exce pt real property acquisition and disposition and as may otherwise be specifically provided in this code.

The City Manager is the city’s designated purchasing agent and is therefore authorized to make purchases of all goods and services needed by the city or enter into and sign contracts/agreements that obligate city funds and that are within the City Manager’s

Page 13 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1255

Page 2 of 7 ends

purchasing authority. The City Manager may delegate limited purchasing authority to department directors and/or city employees as may be required.

SECTION 2. Section 3.06.290 (“Public Works Contracts”) of Article II (“Purchasing”) of Chapter 3.06 (“Procedures for Supplies, Property, and Services”) of Title 3 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the City Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. This section is adopted to implement the procedures for contracting for public projects authorized by the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (Public Contract Code section 22000 et seq.)

B. Definitions: For the purposes of this section, unless otherwise apparent from context, certain words and phases used in this section are defined as follows:

1. “Commission” is the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission.

2. “Contractor’s list” shall mean a list of qualified contractors, identifie d according to categories of work. The minimum criteria for the development and maintenance of the list shall be determined by the Commission.

3. “Facility” is defined in Section 22002 of the Public Contracts Code, and means any plant, building, structure, ground facility, real property, streets and highways, or other public work improvement.

4. “Maintenance work” includes all the following:

a. Routine, recurring, and usual work for the preservation or protection of any publicly operated facility.

b. Minor repainting.

c. Resurfacing of streets and highways at less than one inch.

d. Landscape maintenance, including mowing, watering, trimming, pruning, planting, replacement of plants, and servicing of irrigation and sprinkler systems.

e. Work performed to keep, operate, and maintain publicly owned water, power, or waste disposal systems.

5. “Public project” is defined in section 22002 of the Public Contract Code, and means any of the following, but does not include maintenance work:

a. Construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition, and repair work involving any publicly owned, leased, or operated facility.

Page 14 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1255

Page 3 of 7 ends

b. Painting or repainting of any publicly owned, leased, or operated facility.

C. Contracting Procedures: The dollar amount thresholds provided in this chapter shall automatically adjust to the dollar amount thresholds provided under Public Contract Code section 22032 upon the effectiveness of any adjustment notification by the State Controller in accordance with Public Contract Code section 22020, without the necessity of amending this chapter or any section or subsection herein to reflect any such adjustment.

1. Public projects of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) or less may be performed by city employees by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order. Notwithstanding any provision in the City Municipal Code to the contrary, and provided the expenditure is within the budget limitation, the City Manager is authorized to approve the use of City employees for public projects and may approve and sign any contract or purchase order for public projects not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

2. Except as provided in subsection C.2.d. of this section, public projects of two hundred twenty thousand dollars ($220,000.00) or less may be let to contract by informal bidding procedures as follows:

a. Informal Bid Procedures: Public projects, in accordance with the limits listed in section 22032 of the Public Contracts Code, may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in section 22032 et seq. of the Public Contracts Code.

b. Contractors List: A list of qualified contractors shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 22034 of the Public Contract Code and criteria promulgated from time to time by the Commission.

c. Notice Inviting Informal Bids: A notice inviting informal bids shall be prepared, which notice shall describe the project in general terms, describe how to obtain more detailed information about the project, and state the time and place for the submission of bids. The notice shall be mailed, not less than ten (10) calendar days before bids are due, to either all contractors on the contractors list for the category of work to be bid, or to all construction trade journals as specified by the Commission in accordance with section 22036 of the Public Contract Code. Additional contractors and/or construction trade journals may be notified at the discretion of the department soliciting bids, provided, however:

Page 15 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1255

Page 4 of 7 ends

i. If there are no contractors list maintained by the City for the particular category of work to be performed, the notice shall be sent only to the construction trade journals specified by the Commission.

ii. If the product or service is proprietary in nature such that it can be obtained only from a certain contractor or contractors, the notice may be sent exclusively to such contractor or contractors.

d. Award of Contracts: Contracts for public projects in excess of seventy- five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) shall be awarded by the City Council. If all bids received are in excess of two hundred twenty thousand dollars ($220,000.00), the City Council may, by adoption of a resolution by four-fifths vote, award the contract, at two hundred thirty- five thousand dollars ($235,000.00) or less, to the lowest bidder, if the City Council determines the project cost estimate was reasonable.

3. Public projects of more than two hundred twenty thousand dollars ($220,000.00) shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, be let to contract by formal bidding procedure in accordance with applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code, including, but not limited to Public Contract Code section 22037.

D. Prevailing Wages: Contracts for City-funded public works projects shall require payment of prevailing wages in accordance with the requirements of the California Labor Code.

E. Project Labor Agreement: All projects that are estimated to cost in excess of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) will include a project labor agreement or community workforce agreement as part of the bid specifications.

F. Best Value Procurement for Design-Build Projects: Best value procurement is a procurement process for construction services whereby a design and contractor team is selected based on objective criteria to determine the best combination of price and qualifications. Best value procurement may only be used for projects that utilize the for design/build delivery method, as defined by the Public Contracts Code. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to solicit for Public Works Project estimated to cost more than or equal to one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) using a best value process under the following conditions:

1. Selection Process and Criteria.

The city shall first prepare a set of documents setting forth the scope and estimated price of the project, after which the city must prepare and issue a request for qualifications to pre-qualify the design-build teams.

Page 16 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1255

Page 5 of 7 ends

Based on the previously prepared set of documents, the city shall then prepare a request for proposals that invites the pre-qualified entities to submit competitive sealed proposals.

Best value specifications shall include, but not be limited to:

a. Criteria that the city will consider in evaluating bids.

b. The methodology and rating/weighting system that will be used to evaluate bids.

c. The relative importance or weight assigned to each criterion.

The city shall evaluate the qualifications of the bidders based solely on the criteria set forth in the solicitation documents. The selection criteria used to evaluate the bidder qualifications may include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Safety record: The prior history concerning the safe performance of construction contracts.

b. Past performance: The satisfactory performance on prior city contracts.

c. Labor compliance: The ability to comply with, and past performance compliance with, contract and stator requirements for the payment of wages and qualifications of the workforce.

d. Project agreements: Participation in Project Labor Agreements and/or Community Workforce Agreements favorable to the city.

e. Demonstrated management competence: The experience, competency, capability, and capacity of the specific project’s proposed management staffing to timely complete projects similar in size, scope, or complexity to the project under consideration.

f. Financial condition: The financial resources needed to perform the contract. At a minimum, the criteria shall include a bidder’s capacity to obtain all required bon ds and insurance.

g. Project cost: The total direct and indirect project costs; including labor, materials, equipment, overhead and profit.

h. Relevant experience: The experience, competency, capability, and capacity to timely complete projects of similar size, scope, or complexity.

2. Final Selection and Award.

Page 17 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1255

Page 6 of 7 ends

The city must award the contract to the lowest bidder that also meets the best value criteria.

The City Council retains the sole authority for approval and award of all best value procurements.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage.

SECTION 5. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post a summary and certified copy of this Ordinance in the City Clerk’s office at least five (5) days prior to adoption and to publish a summary of the Ordinance in the Free Lance, a newspaper of general circulation, within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

INTRODUCED at a special City Council meeting on November 12, 2024 and adopted as an ordinance of the City of Hollister at a regular City Council meeting on December 3, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

________________________________
Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

______________________________ _______________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk Mary Lerner, City Attorney

Page 18 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. 1255

Page 7 of 7 ends

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 1255 is an original ordinance, or true and correct copy of a City ordinance, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on December 3, 2024 at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Hollister on December 3, 2024.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

Page 19 of 2138 ends

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2024
REPORT # Community Development-2024-18

AGENDA ITEM: 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AGRICULTURAL

LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

DEPARTMENT: Community Development
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Rod Powell, Assistant City Manager
STAFF CONTACT: Eva Kelly, Planning Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council take the following actions:

1. Hold a public hearing;

2. Adopt a resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, making Findings of Overriding Considerations relating to the Mitigation Measures and Project Alternatives, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

3. Adopt a resolution adopting the 2040 General Plan;

4. Adopt a resolution adopting a Climate Action Plan;

CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project.

DISCUSSION: In 2020, the City of Hollister initiated the preparation of a comprehensive update to the City’s current 2005-2023 General Plan, a Climate Action Plan, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City has contracted with Placeworks, Inc. (“Placeworks”) under the guidance of David Early, FAICP, Principal, and Carey Stone, Project Manager, to prepare these policy documents. During the course of discussions on the project related to policy options, the City Council directed staff and Placeworks to draft an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP) alongside the General Plan (GP) and Climate Action Plan (CAP), which is an ordinance to require the dedication of agricultural conservation easements in a ratio of 1:1 acres of developed agricultural lands of importance. Together the GP, CAP, ALPP, and EIR constitute the “General Plan Update Project”.

The City published the Draft General Plan, Draft CAP, and Draft ALPP on April 4, 2023.

Following the publication of the draft plans, the City Council held a study session on September 11, 2023, where direction was given to staff and Placeworks to amend the Draft General Plan to include, among other things, an expansion of the Sphere of Influence, creation of five Specific Plan areas, an update to the North Gateway to allow for mixed-use, and an update the ALPP to preserve agricultural land at a ratio of 1:1 acres, rather than the previously drafted ratio of 2:1 acres.

Staff and Placeworks have revised the draft documents to reflect the September 11, 2023 direction and the revised General Plan was published on July 3, 2024.

Page 20 of 2138 ends

A detailed summary of the General Plan Update project process, summary of all documents, community engagement efforts on the General Plan Update, and community input received to date on the revised draft plans is attached herein as Attachment 11.

The final Hollister 2040 General Plan (Attachment 6), Climate Action Plan (Attachment 7), Chapter 17.28 Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (Attachment 8), and Final EIR (includes and incorporates the Draft EIR and all attachments, together the “Final EIR”; Attachments 9 & 10) are incorporated into this Staff Report.

FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council has previously entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Placeworks for the preparation of the Project. Certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program as recommended will have no additional financial impact and finalizing the documents is within the established scope of work.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION:

10/24/2024 – The City of Hollister Planning Commission held a public hearing at the regular meeting of October 24, 2024 to consider the FEIR, 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 2024-12 (Attachment 5), recommending to the City Council the certification and adoption of all documents with no changes.

CEQA: The City has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. Prior to approval of the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, or Chapter 17.28 Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, the City Council must certify the EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Resolution for Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report

2. City Council Resolution for Adoption of the 2040 General Plan

3. City Council Resolution for Adoption of a Climate Action Plan

4. City Council Ordinance for the approval of a Zoning Amendment to add Chapter

17.28, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program to the Zoning Ordinance

5. Planning Commission Resolution 2024-12

6. Hollister 2040 General Plan

7. Hollister Climate Action Plan

8. Chapter 17.28, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program

9. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

10. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
a. Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIR
b. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
c. Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments d. Appendix B: Revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data e. Appendix C: Biological Resources Data
f. Appendix D: Cultural Resources Data

Page 21 of 2138 ends

g. Appendix E: Revised Noise Data
h. Appendix F: Revised Transportation Data
i. Appendix G: Comment Letters

11. Memo from Placeworks – Overview of Project and Summary of Community Input on Revised Draft Plans

12. Attachment 1 to Memo from Placeworks – Public Comments Received

13. Presentation

Page 22 of 2138 ends

Page 1 of 52 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND
AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM; MAKING

FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE
MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES; AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATION AND MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

WHEREAS, in 2020 the City Council of the City of Hollister initiated preparation of a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300 et. seq.; and

WHEREAS, through the course of project development the City has also prepared a Climate Action Plan and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program; and

WHEREAS, the City of Hollister, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA guidelines, has caused to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which analyzes the impacts of the proposed project (SCH #2021040277); and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was released for public and agency review and comment on April 9, 2021 and a public scoping meeting to receive comments on topics and issues which should be evaluated in the Draft EIR was held by the City o n May 10, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the City of Hollister distributed a Notice of Availability for the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Draft EIR on May 17, 2023 which started the 45-day public review period, ending on June 22, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review; and

WHEREAS, following a study session on September 11, 2023, the City Council desired to make changes to the Draft General Plan which resulted in amendments to the project description and revisions to the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, the City of Hollister redistributed a Notice of Availability for the Revised 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Draft EIR on July 3, 2024 which started the 45 -day public review period ending on August 16, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the Revised Draft EIR was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review; and

Page 23 of 2138 ends

Page 2 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

WHEREAS, the City of Hollister held a duly noticed public meeting to solicit public comments on the Revised Draft EIR, 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program on July 16, 2024; and

WHEREAS, following the close of the 45-day public review period for the Revised Draft EIR on August 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2024 and recommended certification of the Final EIR, and adoption of the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program to the City Council of the City of Hollister; and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the City of Hollister Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, and Final EIR, and adopted Resolution 2024 -12 recommending to the City Council the adoption of the General Plan, Climate Actio n Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and the certification of the Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister held a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2024 to consider the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister reviewed all evidence presented both orally and in writing and intends to make certain findings in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which are more fully set forth below in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated in its entirety by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program; make all findings of fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to the EIR as more clearly identified in Exhibit A; and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Page 24 of 2138 ends

Page 3 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held on December 3, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

____
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

I, Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby ce rtify that the attached Resolution No. 2024-XXX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held on , 2024 at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Hollister on December 3, 2024.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

Page 25 of 2138 ends

Page 4 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

EXHIBIT A

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FINDINGS FOR THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND

AGRICULTRAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM
I. Certification
The City of Hollister (City) hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Hollister 2040 General Plan (2040 General Plan), Climate Action Plan (CAP), and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (ALPP), together herein referred to as the project. The complete and certified EIR consists of the Revised Draft EIR and the Final EIR, which includes the comment letters, responses to comments, text changes to the Revised Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), herein referred to as the “EIR”. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15090, the City, as Lead Agency for the project, certifies that:
 The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;  The project was adequately described, examined, and evaluated in the EIR, and no significant new information or changes in the environmental setting have occurred that would result in new or greater significant effects not studied in the EIR;  The EIR was adequately noticed and circulated for public review, and public comments were received and considered. The City distributed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all Responsible Agencies on April 9, 2021. Responses to the NOP were considered in the preparation of the EIR. The City distributed a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Revised Draft EIR with copies of the Revised Draft EIR, and posted the NOA at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the County Clerk of the County of San Benito. The City received comment letters from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Department of California Highway Patrol, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Benito High School District, and Monterey Bay Air Resources District and responded to the comments in the Final EIR, copies of which were provided to the commenters no less than ten days prior to EIR certification and project approvals;
 The EIR was presented to the City, and the City has received, reviewed, and considered the information contained in the EIR and in the administrative record prior to approving the project;
 The EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis;  Upon approval of the project analyzed in the EIR, the City will monitor the implementation of mitigation measures in accordance with the applicable MMRP.

The City further certifies that the EIR satisfies the requirements for a General Plan EIR prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.09 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15081.5(b). The City has exercised its independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in preparation of the EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.

Page 26 of 2138 ends

Page 5 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

In accordance with PRC Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the City has made one or more specific written findings regarding significant impacts associated with the project. Those findings are presented below, along with the rationale behind each of the findings. Concurrent with the adoption of these findings, the City adopts the MMRP and the Statement of Overriding Consid erations.

The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the project findings are based are at City of Hollister, 339 Fifth Street, Hollister, California 95023. The custodian for these documents is the City of Hollister, Development Service Department - Planning Division and can be contacted by phone at (831) 636-4360 or via email to: [email protected]. This information is provided in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).

II. Project Background
Project Description Summary
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 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 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 2040 General Plan by reference. The current Housing Element has already unde rgone 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 2040 General Plan, inclu ding the goals, policies, and actions, would require map and text amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map. The 2040 General Plan also includes 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 2040 General Plan.

While most of the amendments to the HMC would occur in the future through a separate process, the project includes an amendment to adopt the ALPP as HMC Chapter 17.28.

Additionally, concurrent with the 2040 General Plan, the City is preparing the City’s first CAP. The CAP is a strategic planning document that would provide policies and actions that would help the City and the community at large to reduce their greenhou se gas (GHG) emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change.

Page 27 of 2138 ends

Page 6 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

The EIR provides a program-level analysis of the overall development projections in the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan, like the current 2005 General Plan, does not commit the City to any specific project, but provides a strategic framework for decisions on those projects. The development program does, however, establish a maximum amount of net new growth for lands in the City’s jurisdiction during this time frame, which the City may not substantially exceed without amending the 2040 General Plan or conducting additional environmental review.

Project Objectives
The implementation of the 2040 General Plan is guided by the Vision and Values of Hollister, whereas the Vision describes the future of Hollister as the community would like it to be in 2040 and the Values provide direction for decision making as the General Plan is implemented over time. The primary purpose of the project is to plan for the growth and conservation of Hollister over an approximately 15-year time horizon while meeting the Vision and achieving the Values for a more equitable, diverse, innovative, and sustainable future for all residents. The project objectives to meet the Vision and Values are related specifically to growth and include focusing growth in the downtown, capitalizing on existing infrastructure, and streamlining future development that is consistent with the 2040 General Plan. This requires extending the buildout horizon to year 2040 and updating goals, policies, and actions so that they meet current state requirements and community priorities. Many issues not covered in earlier plans are addressed in the project. These include how to enhance the downtown as a vibrant center, build a diversified job base, provide sites for housing and mixed -use development, improve environmental justice and community health, and prepare for adaptation and resilience to a changing climate. As part of this process, the City has identified the following objectives, which build on the framework of the Vision and Values and reflect the community’s desires for the future of Hollister and will serve as the project objectives for the EIR.
 Provide for balanced and sustainable growth. Create and maintain a cohesive development pattern amidst the agriculture landscape, with clearly defined urban edges. The General Plan land use map 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.
 Create new jobs to develop the local economy. Strive for more local, high-quality jobs and an improved jobs/housing ratio.
 Integrate neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. Build quality neighborhoods and maintain a quality urban environment. Balanced neighborhoods include a mix of residential types and intensities at all levels of affordability and include activities and facilities that are used on a frequent basis—such as schools, stores, and parks. Land uses are designated to ensure balanced neighborhood development with a mix of uses and housing types, provision of parks and schools, and easy access to commercial activity centers.

Page 28 of 2138 ends

Page 7 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

 Create a network of parks and open space. In addition to neighborhood and community parks, create a network of trails.
 Create a safe, efficient, and equitable circulation system for all users. Establish a well-integrated and coordinated transit network and safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
 Provide ample retail and shopping opportunities. Create quality retail sites to ensure jobs and sales tax revenue that serve both local residents and a regional population.
 Plan for environmental justice. Senate Bill (SB) 1000, the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, was passed in 2016 and requires that General Plans address environmental justice for disadvantaged communities that exist within the planning area of the General Plan. California law defines “environmental justice” as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
 Respond to State law requirements. As previously described, the 2040 General Plan builds off the current General Plan by incorporating similar topics and revising or adding new goals, policies, and actions that are required by State law.

Environmental Review Process and Procedural Compliance with CEQA The CEQA environmental review process started on April 9, 2021, with issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR. A 30-day public comment period for the NOP ended on May 10, 2021. A virtual public scoping meeting was held on April 22, 2021, to accept public input on environmental topics to be analyzed in the EIR and approaches to the impact analyses. Written comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Revised Draft EIR. A copy of the NOP is also included in Appendix A of the Revised Draft EIR.

The 2023 Draft EIR for the project was issued on May 17, 2023, and was made available for a 45-day public review and comment period that ended on June 30, 2023.

A Draft EIR Public Hearing was held virtually on June 22, 2023, to receive input from agencies and the public. Copies of the 2023 Draft EIR were posted online on the City’s 2040 General Plan website ( https://hollister2040.org/) .

After preparation of the 2023 Draft EIR, but prior to its certification, the City made modifications to the project and evaluated those modifications and any subsequent residual impacts in response to written and verbal comment made during the 45 -day public review period for the 2023 Draft EIR. The 2023 Draft EIR was revised to include the new analysis.

The Revised Draft EIR for the modified project was recirculated on July 3, 2024, and was made available for a 45-day public review and comment period that ended on August 16, 2024. A Revised Draft EIR Public Hearing was held virtually on Ju ly 22, 2023, to receive input from agencies and the public. Copies of the Revised Draft EIR were posted online on the City’s 2040 General Plan website ( https://hollister2040.org/) .

Page 29 of 2138 ends

Page 8 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Comment letters received on the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR and comments read at the public hearing are provided in their entirety in Appendix G of the Final EIR. The City received a total of 16 comment letters, of which ten were from governmental agencies, four were from private organizations, and two were from members of the public.

The Final EIR was completed and published on October 18, 2024. The EIR consists of two documents: the Revised Draft EIR issued in July 2024 and the Final EIR issued in October 2024. Chapter 4 of the Final EIR consists of comments received during the public review period for the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR and provides responses to those comments. Chapter 5 of the Final EIR contains revisions to the Revised Draft EIR to clarify, amplify, or correct information in the Revised Draft EIR, and associated appendices.

III. Environmental Impacts and Findings
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the p roject is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.

The City has made one or more of these specific written findings regarding each significant impact associated with the project. Those findings are presented below, along with a presentation of facts in support of the findings.

These findings summarize the determinations of the Final EIR with respect to the project’s environmental impacts before and after mitigation and do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact considered in the Final EIR.

Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable and mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified in the EIR and adopted by the City for the 2040 General Plan, and state the City’s findings regarding the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted 2040 General Plan policies and actions.1 The EIR contains a full explanation of each impact,

1 Some 2040 General Plan policies and actions are required as means to mitigate environmental impacts under CEQA. These policies and actions are fully enforceable at the discretion of the decision -maker through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding i nstruments. These mitigating policies and actions use the imperative “shall,” include performance criteria, and are marked with an asterisk (*)

Page 30 of 2138 ends

Page 9 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

applicable and mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions, and the analysis that led the City to its conclusions on those impacts. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR, which supports the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the project’s environmental impacts and applicable and mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates by reference the EIR’s analysis, determinations, and conclusions relating to environmental impacts and applicable and mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

In adopting the 2040 General Plan, the City intends to adopt each of the applicable and mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions. Accordingly, in the event that a n applicable or mitigating 2040 General Plan policy or action has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, that policy or action is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in the findings. Additionally, in the event that the description of a 2040 General Plan policy or action set forth below fails accurately to capture the substance of a given 2040 General Plan policy or action due to a clerical error (as distinct from specific and express modification by the City through these findings), the language of the policy or action as set forth in the Final EIR shall govern.

The EIR evaluation included a detailed analysis of impacts in eighteen (18) environmental disciplines or issues, analyzing the 2040 General Plan and alternatives to the 2040 General Plan, including a No Project Alternative. The EIR discloses the environmental impacts expected to result from the construction and operation of future development under the 2040 General Plan. Where possible, 2040 General Plan policies and actions were identified to avoid or minimize significant environmental effects. In addition, the City committed to implementing the identified mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions in order to reduce the direct and indirect impacts that will result from 2040 General Plan activities. The mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified in the EIR are proposed by the lead agency, responsible, or trustee agencies or other persons that were not included in the project, but could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(A).

A. Findings of Less-than-Significant Impacts
FINDING: Based on the issue area assessment in the EIR, the City has determined that the project will have no impact or less-than-significant impacts for several issues as summarized in Table 1, Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan. The rationale for the conclusion that no significant impact would occur in each of the issue areas in Table 1 is based on the discussion of these impacts in the detailed issue area and cumulative impacts analyses in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of the Revised Draft EIR that were found to have no impact or less-than- significant impacts. General Plan policies and actions are noted in parentheses, where relevant to impact determinations, based on the analyses in Chapter 4 of the Revised Draft EIR.

Page 31 of 2138 ends

Page 10 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Table 1: Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan Environmental Impacts
Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.1: Aesthetics
AES-1: Implementation of the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Policy LU-15.4; Policies OS-1.1, OS-1.2, OS-1.3, and OS-1.4; and Action OS-1.1).

AES-2: Implementation of the project would not, in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Policies and Actions listed in AES-1; Policies LU-15.2, LU-15.3, LU-15.10, LU-15.11; Actions LU-15.1 and LU-

15.2; and Policies LU-17.1 and LU-17.11).

AES-3: Implementation of the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Policies CSF-4.2, CSF-4.4, CSF-

4.6, CSF-4.7, and CSF-4.12; and Policy LU-15.2, LU-15.3, and LU-15.10).

AES-4: Implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to aesthetic resources (Policies and Actions listed in AES-1 through AES-3).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.2: Agricultural Resources
AG -3: Implementation of the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (Policy LU-2.13; Policies *OS-2.1, OS-2.2, OS-2.3, OS-2.4, and OS-2.5; and Actions *OS-2.1, OS-2.2, OS-2.3 and OS2.4).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.4: Biological Resources
BIO-4: Implementation of the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Policies *NRC-1.4, *NRC-1.5, *NRC-1.6, *NRC-1.7, *NRC-1.8, *NRC-1.9, *NRC-1.10, *NRC-1.13, and *NRC-1.14).

BIO-5: Implementation of the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Policies NRC-

1.17, NRC-1.18, NRC-1.19, NRC-1.20, NRC-1.21, NRC-1.22, and NRC-1.23; and Actions NRC-

1.1, NRC-1.2, NRC-1.3, and NRC-1.4).

BIO-6: Implementation of the project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources (Policies and Actions listed in BIO-1 through BIO-5).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources CUL-3: Implementation of the project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries (Policies LU-1.1, LU-1.5, and LU-1.9; Action LU-1.8; Policy LU-15.5; Policies OS-1.1, OS-1.3, OS-1.5, and OS-1.6; and *Policy NRC-2.3).

CUL-5: Implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to cultural and tribal cultural resources (Policies and Actions listed in CUL-1 through CUL-4).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.6: Energy
ENE-1: Implementation of the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation (Policies NRC-4.3 and NRC-4.8; Action NRC-4.2; Policies CSF-

4.1, CSF-4.2, CSF-4.3, CSF-4.4, CSF-4.5, CSF-4.6, CSF-4.7, CSF-4.8, CSF-4.10, CSF-4.12, CSF-4.13, and CSF-4.14; Action CSF-4.2; Policy HS-2.5; Policy LU-4.1; Policies C-1.1, *C-1.5, C-

1.6, and C-1.7; Action C1.1; Policies C-3.1, C-3.2, C-3.3, C-3.5, and C-3.6; Actions C-3.1, C-3.3, C-3.4, and C-3.5; and *Policy C-4.6).

ENE-2: Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Policies and Actions listed in ENE-1).

Page 32 of 2138 ends

Page 11 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Table 1: Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan Environmental Impacts
ENE-3: Implementation of the project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to energy (Polices and Actions listed in ENE-1 through ENE-2).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.7: Geology and Soils
GEO-2: Implementation of the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

GEO-3: Implementation of the project would not be on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse (Policies *HS-1.1 and *HS-1.2; Action HS-1.1; Policies HS-3.1, *HS-3.2, *HS-3-3, HS-3.4, and HS-3.5; and Actions HS-3.1 and HS-3.2).

GEO-4: Implementation of the project could be on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), but would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (Policies *HS-1.1 and *HS-1.2; Action HS-1.1; Policies HS-3.1, *HS-3.2, *HS-3-3, HS-

3.4, and HS-3.5; and Actions HS-3.1 and HS-3.2).

GEO-5: Implementation of the project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where soils would be incapable of adequately supporting in cases where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (Policy CSF-2.4).

GEO-6: Implementation of the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

GEO-7: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to geology and soils (Policies and Actions listed in GEO-1 through GEO-6).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1: Implementation of the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Policy LU-4.1; Policies C-1.1, *C-1.5, C-1.6, and C-1.7; Action C-1.1; Policies C-3.1, C-3.3, C-3.5, and C-3.6; Actions C-3.1, C-

3.3, and C-3.5; *Policy C-4.6; Policies CSF-4.1, CSF-4.2, CSF-4.3, CSF-4.4, CSF-4.5, CSF-4.6, CSF-4.7, CSF-4.8, CSF-4.9, CSF-4.10, CSF-4.12, CSF-4.13, and CSF-4.16; Action CSF-4.2; Policies CSF-5.2 and CSF-5.3; Actions CSF-5.1, CSF-5.2, and CSF-5.3; Policies NRC-3.8 and NRC-3.10; Action NRC-3.1, Policies NRC-4.1, NRC-4.2, NRC-4.3, NRC-4.4, NRC-4.5, NRC-4.6, NRC-4.7, NRC-4.8, and NRC-4.9; Actions NRC-4.1, NRC-4.2, NRC-4.3, and NRC-4.4; and Policy HS-2.5).

GHG-2: Implementation of the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions (Policies and Actions listed in GHG-1).

GHG-3: Implementation of the project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions (Policies and Actions listed in GHG-1 through GHG-2).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Implementation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Policies *HS-

1.2 and HS-1.3; Policies HS-7.1, HS-7.2, HS-7.3, and HS-7.4; and Actions HS-7.1 and HS-7.2).

HAZ-2: Implementation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Policies and Actions listed in HAZ-1).

Page 33 of 2138 ends

Page 12 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Table 1: Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan Environmental Impacts
HAZ-3: Implementation of the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school (Policies and Actions listed in HAZ-1 and HAZ-2; and Policies *NRC-3.14 and *NRC-3.15).

HAZ-4: Implementation of the project could be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Policies and Actions listed in HAZ-1).

HAZ-5: Implementation of the project could be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 but would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Policy HS-1.4; Action HS-1.2; Policy HS-8.6; and Policies HS-9.1 and HS-9.2).

HAZ-6: Implementation of the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Policies *HS-1.1 and HS-1.3; Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.3, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-6.6, HS-6.7, HS-6.8, HS-6.9, HS-

6.10, HS-6.11, and HS-6.12; and Actions HS-6.2, HS-6.3, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-6.6, HS-6.7, HS-

6.8, HS-6.9, HS-6.10, and HS-6.11).

HAZ-7: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to hazards and hazardous material (Policies and Actions listed in HAZ-1 through HAZ-6).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-1: Implementation of the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality (Policies CSF-1.3, CSF-1.6, CSF-1.7, and CSF-1.8; Policies CSF-3.1 and CSF-3.2; Actions CSF-

3.1 and CSF-3.2; Policies NRC-1.1, NRC-1.12, *NRC-1.13, and NRC-1.16; Policies NRC-5.1, NRC-5.2, NRC-5.3, and NRC-5.4; and Actions NRC-5.1, NRC-5.2, NRC-5.3, NRC-5.4, and NRC-

5.5).

HYD-2: Implementation of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (Policies and Actions listed in HYD-1; Policies CSF-2.2, CSF-2.4, CSF-2.5, CSF-2.6, CSF-2.7, CSF-2.8, CSF-2.9, CSF-2.10, CSF-2.11, and CSF-2.12; and Action CSF-2.1, CSF-2.2, CSF-2.3, CSF-2.4, CSF-2.5, CSF-2.7, and CSF-2.8).

HYD-3: Implementation of the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows (Policies and Actions listed in HYD-1; *Policy HS-1.1; Action HS-1.1; Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.3; Actions HS-

4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.3).

HYD-4: Implementation of the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation if in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones (Policies and Actions listed in HYD-1 and HYD-3).

HYD-5: Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Policies and Actions listed in HYD-1 and HYD-2).

HYD-6: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to hydrology and water quality (Policies and Actions listed in HYD-1 through HYD-5).

Page 34 of 2138 ends

Page 13 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Table 1: Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan Environmental Impacts
Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.11: Land Use and Planning
LU-1: Implementation of the project would not physically divide an established community (Policies LU-2.1, LU-2.2, LU-2.3, LU-2.6, and LU-2.11).

LU-2: Implementation of the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Policies LU-1.1, LU-1.2, LU-1.3, LU-1.4, LU-1.5, LU-1.6, LU-

1.7, LU-1.8, LU-1.9, and LU-11; Actions LU-1.2, LU-1.3, and LU-1.8; Policy LU-2.4; Policies LU-

3.1, LU-3.2, LU-3.4, and LU-3.5; Action LU-3.1; Policy LU-7.1; Policy HS-1.4; Action HS-1.2; Policy HS-8.6; and Policies HS-9.1 and HS-9.2).

LU-3: Implementation of the project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to land use and planning (Policies and Actions listed in LU-1 and LU-2).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.12: Mineral Resources
MIN-1: Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (Policies NRC-6.1, NRC-6.2, NRC-6.3, NRC-6.4, NRC-6.5, NRC-6.6, and NRC-6.7; and Action OS-2.3).

MIN-2: Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (Policies and Actions listed in MIN-1).

MIN-3: Implementation of the project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources (Policies and Actions listed in MIN-1 through MIN-2).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.13: Noise
NOI-3: Implementation of the project would not expose people residing or working within two miles of a private airstrip or airport to excessive noise levels (Policy HS-8.6) Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.14: Population and Housing
POP-1: Implementation of the project would not include substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (Policy LU-1.1, LU-1.2, LU-1.3, LU-

1.7, LU-1.11, and LU-1.12; Action LU-1.1, LU-1.3, and LU-1.8; Policy LU-2.1, LU-2.2, LU-2.3, and LU-2.4; Policy LU-3.1; and Action OS-2.3).

POP-2: Implementation of the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Policy LU-2.5; Policies LU-3.1 and LU-3.2; and Action LU-3.1).

POP-3: Implementation of the project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to population and housing. (Policies and Actions listed in POP-1)
Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.15: Public Services and Recreation PS-1: Implementation of the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives (Policies CSF-1.1, CSF-1.2, CSF-1.3, CSF-1.4, CSF-1.6, CSF-1.7, and CSF-1.8; Action CSG-1.2; Policies CSF-7.2, CSF-7.3, and CSF-7.4; Action CSF-7.1, CSF-7.2, CSF-7.3; Policies *HS-1.1 and HS_1.3; Policy HS-3.4; Policies HS-5.1, HS-5.2, HS-5.3, HS-5.4, HS_5.5, HS-5.6, HS-5.7, and HS-5.8; Actions HS-5.1, HS-5.2, HS-5.3, and HS-5.4; Policies HS-

6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.3, HS-6.6, HS-6.7, and HS-6.10; and Action HS-6.4; Also see the summary for

Page 35 of 2138 ends

Page 14 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Table 1: Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan Environmental Impacts
Chapter 4.18, Wildfire, below, for a listing of additional policies and actions that reduce impacts related to wildfire thus reducing demand of fire protection services).

PS-2: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to fire protection services (Policies and Actions listed in PS-1).

PS-3: Implementation of the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives (Policies CSF-1.1, CSF-1.2, CSF-1.3, CSF-1.4, CSF-1.6, CSF-1.7, and CSF-1.8; Action CSF-1.2; Policies CSF-7.1 and CSF-7.4; Actions CSF-7.1 and CSF-7.2; Policies *HS-1.1 and HS-1.3; Policy HS-

3.4; Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.3, HS-6.6, HS-6.7, and HS-6.10; Action HS-6.4).

PS-4: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to police services (Policies and Actions listed in PS-3).

PS-5: Implementation of the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives (Policy CSF-1.4; Policies CSF-8.1, CSF-8.2, CSF-8.3, CSF-8.4, CSF-8.5; and Policy HS-3.4).

PS-6: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to school services (Policies and Actions listed in PS-5).

PS-7: Implementation of the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives (Policy CSF-1.4; Policy CSF-

9.1; and Action CSF-9.1).

PS-8: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to libraries (Policies and Actions listed in PS-7).

PS-9: Implementation of the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered park facilities or other recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives (Policies CSF-1.3 and CSF-1.4; Policies CSF-6.1, CSF-6.2, CSF-6.3, CSF-6.4, CSF-

6.5, CSF-6.6, and CSF-6.7; Actions CSF-6.1, CSF-6.2, CSF-6.4, CSF-6.5, CSF-6.6, and CSF-6.7; Policies OS-1.1 and OS-1.5; Policy HS-4.2; and Action HS-4.3).

PS-10: Implementation of the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Policies and Actions listed in PS-9).

PS-11: Implementation of the project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (Policies and Actions listed in PS-9 through PS-10).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.16: Transportation
TRANS-1: Implementation of the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Policies LU-2.6. LU-2.7, and LU-2.11; Policies LU-4.1 and LU-4.2; Policies C-1.1, C-1.2, C-1.3, C-1.6, C-1.7, C-1.8, C-1.9, C-1.10, and C-1.11; Actions C-1.3, C-1.4 and C-1.5; Policies C-

2.1, C-2.2, C-2.3, C-2.4, C-2.5, C-2.6, and C-2.7; Actions C-2.1, C-2.2, C-2.3, C-2.4, and C-2.5; Policies C-3.1, C-3.2, C-3.3, C-3.4, C-3.5, C-3.6, and C-3.7; Actions , C-3.1, C-3.2, C-3.3, C-3.4,

Page 36 of 2138 ends

Page 15 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Table 1: Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan Environmental Impacts
C-3.5, and C-3.6; Policies C-5.1, C-5.2, and C-5.3; Actions C-5.1 and C-5.2; Policy ED-1.1; Action ED-1.1; Policies ED-2.1 and ED-2.2; Actions ED-2.1 and ED-2.2; Policies ED-3.1, ED-3.2, and ED-3.3; Actions ED-3.3 and ED-3.4; Policy ED-4.1; Action ED-4.1; and Actions ED-5.1, ED-5.2, and ED-5.3).

TRAN-3: Implementation of the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Policies C-1.2 and C-1.7; Action C-1.3; Policy C-3.2, C-3.3, C-3.4, and C-

3.5; Actions C-3.1, C-3.2, C-3.3, C-3.4, and C-3.6; Policies C-4.1, C-4.2, C-4.3, C-4.4, C-4.5, *C-

4.6, and C-4.7; and Action C-4.1).

TRAN-4: Implementation of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access (*Policy HS-1.1; Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, and HS-6.7; and Actions HS-6.3 and HS-6.4).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems UTIL-1: Implementation of the project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects (Policy LU-2.8, Policies CSF-1.1, CSF-1.2, CSF-1.3, CSF-1.4, CSF-1.6, CSF-1.7, and CSF-1.8; Action CSF-1.2; CSF-2.1, CSF-2.2, CSF-2.3, CSF-2.4, CSF-2.5, CSF-2.6, CSF-2.7, CSF-2.8, CSF-2.9, CSF-2.10, CSF-2.11, and CSF-2.12; Actions CSF-2.1, CSF-2.2, CSF-2.3, CSF-2.4, CSF-2.5, CSF-2.6, CSF-2.7, and CSF-2.8; Policies NRC-5.1 and NRC-5.3; and Actions NRC-5.1, NRC-5.2, NRC-5.3, NRC-5.4, and NRC-5.5).

UTIL-2: Implementation of the project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (Policies and Actions listed in UTIL-1).

UTIL-3: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to water supply and facilities (Policies and Actions listed in UTIL-1 through UTIL-2).

UTIL-4: Implementation of the project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects (Policy LU-2.8; Policies CSF-1.1, CSF-1.2, CSF-1.3, CSF-

1.4, CSF-1.6, CSF-1.7, and CSF-1.8; Action CSF-1.2; Policies CSF-2.1, CSF-2.2, CSF-2.3, CSF-

2.`0, CSF-2.13, CSF-2.14, CSF-2.15, and CSF-2.16; Actions CSF-2.5, CSF-2.6, CSF-2.9, CSF-

2.10, CSF-2.11 and CSF-2.12; Policies NRC-5.2 and NRC-5.3; and Action NRC-5.3).

UTIL-5: Implementation of the project would not result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (Policies and Actions listed in UTIL-4).

UTIL-6: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to wastewater facilities (Policies and Actions listed in UTIL-4 through UTIL-5).

UTIL-7: Implementation of the project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects (Policy LU-2.8; Policies CSF-1.1, CSF-1.2, CSF-1.3, CSF-

1.4, CSF-1.6, CSF-1.7, and CSF-1.8; Action CSF-1.2; Policies CSF-3.1 and CSF-3.2; and Actions CSF-3.1 and CSF-3.2).

UTIL-8: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to stormwater facilities (Policies and Actions listed in UTIL-7).

Page 37 of 2138 ends

Page 16 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Table 1: Summary of No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts for 2040 General Plan Environmental Impacts
UTIL-9: Implementation of the project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (Policy LU-2.8; Policies CSF-1.1, CSF-1.2, CSF-1.3, CSF-1.4, CSF-

1.6, CSF-1.7, and CSF-1.8; Action CSF-1.2; Policies CSF-5.1, CSF-5.2, CSF-5.3, CSF-5.4, and CSF-5.5; and Actions CSF-5.1, CSF-5.2, CSF-5.3, and CSF-5.4).

UTIL-10: Implementation of the project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

UTIL-11: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to solid waste (Policies and Actions listed in UTIL-9 through UTIL-10).

UTIL-12: Implementation of the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (Policy LU-2.8; Policies CSF-

1.4; CSF-1.5, and CSF-1.9; Action CSF-1.1; Policies CSF-4.1, CSF-4.2, CSF-4.3, CSF-4.4, CSF-

4.5, CSF-4.6, CSF-4.7, CSF-4.8, CSF-4.9, CSF-4.10, CSF-4.11, CSF-4.12, CSF-4.13, CSF-4.14, CSF-4.15, and CSF-4.16; Actions CSF-4.1, CSF-4.2, CSF-4.3, and CSF-4.4; Policies NRC-4.3 and NRC-4.8; Actions NRC-4.2 and NRC-4.4; and Policy HS-2.5).

UTIL-13: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities (Policies and Actions listed in UTIL-12).

Revised Draft EIR Chapter 4.18: Wildfire
FIRE-1: Implementation of the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Policy HS-5.4; Policies HS-6.4 and HS-6.7; and Actions HS-6.3 and HS-6.9).

FIRE-2: Implementation of the project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire (Policies HS-5.1, HS-5.3, and HS-5.6; and Actions HS-5.1 and HS-5.2).

FIRE-3: Implementation of the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) but would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ong oing impacts to the environment (Policy HS-1.5; Action HS-1.3; and Policies HS-5.2, HS-5.4 and HS-5.6).

FIRE-4: Implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes (Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.3; Actions HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.3).

FIRE-5: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to wildfire impacts (Policies and Actions listed in FIRE-1 through FIRE-4).

Page 38 of 2138 ends

Page 17 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

B. Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Reduced to a Less-than-Significant Level
FINDING: The City finds that the following environmental impacts can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance based upon the implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified in the EIR. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in the detailed issue area and cumulative impact analyses in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, Chapter 4.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Chapter 4.7, Geology and Soils, and Chapter 4.13, Noise, of the Revised Draft EIR. An explanation of the rationale for each finding is presented below.

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

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion BIO -1 (pages 4.4-26 through 4.4-30) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact BIO-1 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact BIO-1 to a less- than-significant level.

Rationale: The 2040 General Plan policies and actions would mitigate impacts to special-status species by requiring that detailed surveys and assessments be completed as part of future project approval and/or environmental review, when applicable, to identify occurrences of special-status species and minimize adverse impacts on any species identified as an endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, or special-status species and their habitat. Where natural habitat remains that could support special-status species, wetlands, and other sensitive resources, further detailed studies and assessment would be performed to verify presence or absence.

Specifically, 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-1.4 requires surveys and project-specific mitigation for sites known to support special-status species; *Policy NRC-1.5 requires the preparation of biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters; *Policy NRC-1.6 requires that potential significant impacts on special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters be minimized through adjustments and controls on the design, construction, and operations of a proposed projec t; *Policy NRC-

1.7, *Policy NRC-1.8, *Policy NRC-1.9, *Policy NRC-1.10, all require surveys and project-specific mitigation; and *Policy NRC-1.13 and *Policy NRC-1.14 require the protection of wetlands through surveys and project -specific mitigation measures.

Additionally, future development on parcels with a proposed Specific Plan land use designation would be subject to additional site-specific policies to guide development and protect sensitive natural communities in these areas. Furthermore, the location and nature of future development considered would be guided by the 2040 General Plan and the HMC. Future development would continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA review, where applicable, to ensure consistency with local, state, and federal regulations and 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions

Page 39 of 2138 ends

Page 18 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

intended to protect sensitive biological resources. Therefore, potential impacts on special-status species would be less than significant.

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

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion BIO-2 (pages 4.4-31 through 4.4-34) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact BIO-2 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact BIO-2 to a less- than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed would serve to ensure that occurrences of sensitive natural communities are identified, avoided, or adequately mitigated. Specifically, 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-1.4, *Policy NRC-1.5, and *Policy NRC-1.6 would mitigate impacts through site surveys and project-specific mitigation measures. Additionally, future development within the SOI on parcels with a proposed Specific Plan land use designation would be subject to additional site-specific policies to guide development and protect sensitive natural communities in these areas. Therefore, potential impacts on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.

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

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion BIO -3 (pages 4.4-34 through 4.4-37) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact BIO-3 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact BIO-3 to a less- than-significant level.

Rationale: The 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would serve to ensure that wetlands and regulated waters are identified, avoided, or adequately mitigated.

Specifically, 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-1.5 requires the preparation of biological resource assessment for proposed development on sites with natural habitat conditions that may support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters; *Policy NRC-1.6 requires that potential significant impacts on special-status species, occurrences of sensitive natural communities, or regulated wetlands and waters be minimized through adjustments and controls on the design, construction, and operations of a proposed project; and *Policy NRC-1.13 and *Policy NRC-1.14 require the protection of wetlands through surveys and project -specific mitigation measures. Additionally, future development within the SOI on parcels with a proposed Specific Plan Area land use designatio n would be subject to additional site- specific policies to guide development in these areas. Therefore, potential impacts on wetlands and regulated waters would be less than significant.

Page 40 of 2138 ends

Page 19 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Impacts to known or yet to be classified historic buildings or structures could occur from potential future development under the 2040 General Plan.

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion CUL-1 (pages 4.5-15 through 4.5-19) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact CUL-1 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact CUL-1 to a less- than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development and exterior remodels are compatible with cultural and historic resources; that landmarks and historic treasures would be preserved, enhanced, and rehabilitated; and that cultural and historic resources in the EIR Study Area would be protected and restored. Specifically, *Policy LU-19.1 would mitigate potential impacts by requiring the City to promote preservation, renovation and rehabilitation of historic structures that conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures and the California Historical Building Code and require project applicants to demonstrate compliance with these standards when proposing new or redevelopment that could affect historic structures in Hollister, and *Policy LU-19.5 would require that prior to approving alteration (including demolition) of historically significant buildings, the City shall require the evaluation of alternatives, including structural preservation, relocation or other mitigation, and demonstrate that financing has been secured for replacement use. Demolition of historically significant buildings shall only be considered after all other options have been thoroughly reviewed and exhausted. Additionally, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would require the formation of a historic resources commission whose function would be to evaluate the proposed demolition or alteration of historic buildings or cultural resources to minimize development impact.

Furthermore, HMC Section 15.04.050 adopts the California State Historic Building Code, which provides regulations for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, related construction, change of use, or continued use of a qualified historical building or structure. Section 15.16.060 of the HMC outlines the responsibilities of the Historic Resources Commission, including establishing criteria to conduct a comprehensive survey in conformance with federal and state survey standards and guidelines of historic resources; maintaining a local register of historic resources; and reviewing and commenting on the conduct of land use, housing and redevelopment, municipal improvement, and other types of planning and programs as they relate to the survey results and historic resources. Additionally, any permits for work for or on a designated historic resource are to be reviewed and approved by the commission staff, as outlined in HMC Section 15.16.090. HMC Section

17.16.030 establishes the procedure in the event of discovery of a historic resource during construction. Construction activities are to cease, and the City’s Planning Department is to be notified so that a qualified historian may record the extent and location of discovered materials. Additionally, the City’s Downtown Des ign Guidelines contain design guidelines for new development projects as well as downtown projects that involve renovating or modifying historic buildings (as determined by the National Register or local equivalent). These guidelines also apply to property owners who wish

Page 41 of 2138 ends

Page 20 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

to maintain the historical integrity of a building. The Downtown Design Guidelines include standards for renovating or modifying historic buildings and addresses roofs, building façades, projecting façade elements, landscaping, and mechanical equipment.

The Downtown Design Guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the guidelines for the appropriate building types (i.e., main street commercial building, apartment flat building, townhouse building, or detached house building) and other re sources, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. Finally, CEQA would require that future potential projects permitted under the 2040 General Plan with the potential to significantly impact historical resources be subject to project-level CEQA review wherein the future potential project’s potential to affect the significance of a surrounding historical resource would be evaluated and mitigated to the extent feasible. The requirement for subsequent CEQA review, pursuant to state law, would minimize the potential for new development to indirectly affect the significance of existing historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. Potential impacts from future development on historical resources could lead to (1) demolition, which by definition results in the material impairment of a resource’s ability to convey its significance; (2) inappropriate modification, which may use incompatible materials, designs, or construction techniques in a manner that alters character-defining features; and (3) inappropriate new construction, which could introduce incompatible new buildings that clash with an established architectural context. While any of these scenarios, especially demolition and alteration, have the potential to change the historic fabric or se tting of an architectural resource such that the resource’s ability to convey its significance may be materially impaired, adherence to the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, specifically, *Policy LU-19.1, *Policy LU-19.5, and HMC regulations identified, and compliance with federal and state laws, would ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion CUL-2 (pages 4.5-20 through 4.5-23) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact CUL-2 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact CUL-2 to a less- than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development in the EIR Study Area reduces potential impacts to archeological resources. Specifically, *Policy NRC-2.3 would mitigate impacts from potential future development by requiring future project applicants to comply with state and federal standards to evaluate and mitigate impacts to archeological resources, including requiring that project areas found to contain significant archaeological resources be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist with recommendations for protection and preservation. Additionally, the City plans to actively encourage infill development through the implementation of the 2040 General Plan to focus new residential and job-generating uses in the downtown and on residential and mixed -use infill sites where development already occurs and is in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services. The City does not support new urban development outside

Page 42 of 2138 ends

Page 21 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

the SOI and will work with the County to focus future development in already urbanized areas, thereby reducing the potential for unearthing archaeological resources on undeveloped lands. Specifically, Policy LU-1.1 requires the City to maintain a well- defined compact urban form that prioritizes infill development over the annexation of properties, thus reducing potential impacts to development in undisturbed lands which are more likely to contain unknown archaeological resources. Where development is considered outside of the SOI, future development with a proposed Specific Plan land use designation would be subject to additional site -specific policies to guide development and protect potential archeological resources in these areas. As demonstrated, the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions encourage infill development, adaptive reuse of structures, development on underutilized land, and the protection of open spaces, and specifically *Policy NRC-2.3 requires the City to evaluate and mitigate project-specific impacts to archeological resources, which would reduce the potential for disturbing archaeological deposits since ground -disturbing activities have already taken place in developed areas. As further shown in Impact Discussion CUL-4, the 2040 General Plan also promotes the registration of historic sites in the National and California Register and requires applicants of major development projects to consult with Native American representatives regarding cultural resources to identify locations of importance to Native Americans, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. Compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed previously, would protect recorded and unrecorded archaeological deposits in the greater EIR Study Area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation would ensure that potential impacts from implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Impact CUL-4: Impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs) could occur from potential future development under the 2040 General Plan.

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion CUL-4 (pages 4.5-25 through 4.5-27) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact CUL-4 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact CUL-4 to a less- than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development in the EIR Study Area reduces potential impacts to TCRs.

Specifically, 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-2.3 would mitigate impacts from potential future development by requiring future project applicants to comply with state and federal standards to evaluate and mitigate impacts to archeological resources; *Policy NRC-2.4 would mitigate impacts by requiring the developer of a proposed project that could impact a TCR to contact an appropriate tribal representative to train co nstruction workers on appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, requirements for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment, other applicable regulations, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations; and *Policy NRC-2.5 would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare preconstruction investigations of potential TCRs and on-site mitigation for all developments.

Page 43 of 2138 ends

Page 22 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Implementation of these mitigating policies and compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed here and under Impact Discussion CUL-2 would protect unrecorded TCRs in the EIR Study Area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would result in a less- than-significant impact on TCRs.

Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: Impacts from potential future development under the 2040 General Plan where there are known geological hazards could occur over the buildout horizon of the project.

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion GEO-1 (pages 4.7-15 through 4.7-18) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact GEO-1 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact GEO-1 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the goals, policies, and actions of the 2040 General Plan would reduce potential impacts from development in geologically hazardous areas.

Specifically, 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-1.1 would mitigate impacts by permitting development only in areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the community can be adequately mitigated. This includes prohibiting development that would be subject to severe flood damage or geological hazard due to its location and/or design and that cannot be mitigated to safe levels; *Policy HS-1.2 would mitigate impacts by requiring require project applicants to prepare appropriate studies to assess identified hazards and ensure that impacts are adequately mitigated prior to project approval; *Policy HS-3.2 would mitigate impacts by requiring that all geologic hazards be adequately addressed and mitigated through project development. Development proposed within areas of potential geological hazards shall not be endangered by, nor contribute to, the hazardous conditions on the site or on adjoining properties, and *Policy HS-3.3 would mitigate impacts by requiring engineering tests for those development projects that may be exposed to impacts associated with expansive soils, so that building foundation footings, utility lines, roadways, and sidewalks can be designed to accept the estimated degree of soil contraction, expansion and settlement, according to the standards of the Uniform Building Code. Implementation of these goals, policies, and actions, and specifically *Policy HS-1.1, *Policy HS-1.2,*Policy HS-

3.2, and *Policy HS-3.3 of the 2040 General Plan, as well as compliance with state, regional, and local regulations pertaining to structural safety regarding fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, would ensure that potential future development that results from implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 44 of 2138 ends

Page 23 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

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

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion NOI-2 (pages 4.13-37 through 4.13-40) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact NOI-2.1 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact NOI -

2.1 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of 2040 General Plan Policy HS-8.3 requires the City to regulate construction activity to reduce noise as established in the Hollister Noise Ordinance, which prohibits noise sources from excessive or unusually loud noises and vibrations from any and all sources in the community. *Action HS-8.1 requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds. *Action HS-8.8 requires the City to adopt vibration thresholds based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment and should the FTA criteria be exceeded, a list of alternate methods/equipment shall be established, as provided above. This would ensure that construction vibration impacts would remain less than significant bec ause alternate methods/equipment with less or no vibration, such as those shown in Table 4.13 -14, would meet the thresholds. As part of the project approval process, future project applicants would be required to comply with these new standards in the HMC pursuant to *Action HS-8.6 which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Furthermore, HMC Section 17.10.040 requires the City to not approve any land use that genera tes ground vibration perceptible without instruments at any point along or outside the property line of the use, except for motor vehicle operations. Therefore, the temporary program -level construction vibration impacts associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan are considered less than significant.

Impact NOI-2.2: Operational activities associated with potential future development under the 2040 General Plan could generate excessive long-term vibration levels.

Finding: The City finds that implementation of the mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion NOI-2 (pages 4.13-40 through 4.13-41) of the Revised Draft EIR would mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact NOI-2.2 and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects from Impact NOI-

2.2 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of 2040 General Plan *Action HS-8.8 requires the City to adopt vibration thresholds based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) crit eria.

The FTA establishes vibration limits from operational activities in order for impacts to be less than significant on a project-by-project basis. For vibration annoyance from operational sources, the FTA recommends the following criteria for frequent events: 65 Vibration Decibel (VdB) for highly sensitive uses with vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., microscopes in hospitals and research facilities) and 72 VdB for residences. As part of the project approval process, future project applicants would be required to

Page 45 of 2138 ends

Page 24 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

comply with these new standards in the HMC pursuant to *Action HS-8.6 which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Furthermore, *Action HS-8.1 requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not significantly increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds. Therefore, with implementation of the 2040 General Plan *Action HS -8.1, *Action HS-8.6, and *Action HS-8.8, vibration from operation impacts is considered less than significant.

C. Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided or Reduced to a Less-Than-Significant Level
FINDING: Based on the issue area assessment in the EIR, the City has determined that the 2040 General Plan will have significant impacts in the resource areas discussed below, and that these impacts cannot be avoided or reduced despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in the detailed issue area analyses and cumulative impacts in Chapter 4.2, Agricultural Resources; Chapter 4.3, Air Quality; Chapter 4.13, Noise; and Chapter

4.16, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. For each significant and unavoidable impact identified below, the City has made a finding(s) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. An explanation of the rationale for each finding is also presented below.

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

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and action, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion AG-1 (pages 4.2-9 through 4.2-14) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy OS-2.1: Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land. Require that all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for preservation of the same amount agricultural land in perpetuity.
 *Action OS-2.1: Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion. Require the creation and adoption of an agricultural preservation program to address the conversion of land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City Limits and Sphere of Influence to nonagricultural uses.

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and action is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AG-1. However, even with implementation of these policy and action, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AG-1 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: In compliance with CEQA, “each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of the project it carries out or approves whenever

Page 46 of 2138 ends

Page 25 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

it is feasible to do so.”2 The term “feasible” is defined in CEQA to mean, “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.”3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 defines “mitigation” as: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The following is a brief discussion of the mitigation measures considered for mitigating or avoiding the impact of the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses and their infeasibility. However, as shown, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the agricultural resource im pact to less-than-significant levels.
 Replacement of Agricultural Resources. This measure would replace the existing agricultural use with the same use on other property that is not currently used for agriculture. From a statewide perspective, the replacement of farmland means that there will be no net loss of farmland in the state. However, qualified Farmlands would still be developed. There is limited undeveloped land within the SOI of the EIR Study Area that is not currently designated as agricultural, restricting the amount of agricultural land that would be able to be replaced elsewhere in the area, and thus conversion of these lands would be insufficient to achieve no net loss. Moreover, even if adequate land could be identified to achieve no net loss, the challenges of creating the soil, irrigation, climatic, and economic conditions that are required for productive farmland (i.e., that achieves the same Important Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland status) are significant and there would be no guarantee that replacement land could be successfully farmed. In addition, replacing existing undeveloped areas with active agriculture could trigger a range of negative environmental impacts, including increased groundwater consumption, habitat destruction, erosion, air quality impacts, and herbicide and pesticide application. As such, the replacement of the existing agricultural uses on other properties within the SOI is infeasible.
 Transfer of Development Rights. Transferring development rights would involve the purchasing of the right to develop land from a currently undeveloped piece of land and transferring those rights to farmland within the city. Thus, this option is also infeasible because there would still be a net loss of farmland (i.e., the farmland preserved would still likely be preserved anyhow). Even if farmland would be preserved elsewhere in San Benito County, the qualified Farmland in the city would be developed, resulting in a net loss of Farmland. Therefore, for the reasons outlined previously, and in this paragraph, it would not prevent significant impacts from occurring in the city and it would not be an effective CEQA mitigation measure, nor is this mitigation measure feasible from an economic perspective within this region.

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

Page 47 of 2138 ends

Page 26 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

 Relocation of Prime Farmland Topsoil. This measure would remove the top 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from affected areas and haul this soil to a farm site or several farm sites that have lower-quality soils. The Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland soils may assist in increasing crop yield at the relocated site. This measure would have its own environmental impacts, including increased truck traffic on local roadways from both hauling soil off -site and replacement of soil on-site, increased diesel truck emissions, construction noise, and increased duration of construction. The relocation of prime farmland soils on another active farm would increase other environmental impacts and is therefore considered infeasible.

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

As discussed previously, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would designate qualified Farmland as nonagricultural land uses. Through the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions, and the ALPP, impacts related to the conversion of qualifying agricultural lands would be reduced, but not to a less -than-significant level. The 2040 General Plan contains a policy and action to mitigate and reduce the conversion of qualifying agricultural lands. Specifically, *Policy OS-2.1 and *Action OS-2.1 requiring all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for the preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, which are being implemented via the ALPP. *Policy OS-2.1,*Action OS-2.1, and the ALPP, would not reduce the amount of acreage converted under buildout of the 2040 General Plan; however, they would forestall development of the best agricultural land within the EIR Study Area. While these efforts and other mitigation measures were considered, such as preserving agricultural uses in the EIR Study Area, replacement of agricultural resources by replacing lost agricultural uses to other areas of the city, and relocation of Prime Farmland topsoil to other areas, these mitigations are not feasible. While these efforts and other mitigating efforts, such as Policy OS-2.3 encouraging San Benito County to focus future development within the areas identified for development; Policy OS-2.4 requiring coordination with the County of San Benito in efforts to maintain prime farmlands, unique farmlands, and farmlands of statewide significance in active agricultural use; and Action OS-2.3 to establish and maintain an Urban Growth Boundary that delineates future urbanization areas from areas in which urbanization will not occur, work to mitigate impacts, the only way to fully avoid the agricultural impact from implementation of the project is to not allow the conversion of state-designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland to nonagricultural land uses, thereby eliminating the agricultural impact. However, doing so is not feasible or practical as the City has a responsibility to meet other conflicting obligations, including increases in the number and type of jobs available in Hollister and to reduce the need for residents to commute to high-quality jobs. These measures are

Page 48 of 2138 ends

Page 27 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

critical to reducing single-occupant vehicle travel to and from Hollister and meeting State targets for greenhouse gas reduction. The City needs to promote both economic development and corresponding residential development, as required by State housing law, within its City Limits. While possible forms of mitigation for, or avoidance of, conservation of agricultural lands in the EIR Study Area would be implemented by the City through *Policy OS-2.1,*Action OS-2.1, and the ALPP, doing so to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level would be infeasible and inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact AG-2: Implementation of the project would result in the loss of agricultural land under the Williamson Act.

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and action, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion AG-2 (pages 4.2-15 through 4.2-16) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy OS-2.1: Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land. Require that all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for preservation of the same amount agricultural land in perpetuity.
 *Action OS-2.1: Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion. Require the creation and adoption of an agricultural preservation program to address the conversion of land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City Limits and Sphere of Influence to nonagricultural uses.

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and action is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AG-2. However, even with implementation of these policy and action, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AG-2 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: As described under Impact Discussion AG-1, pursuant to CEQA, the City has considered mitigation to reduce impacts from implementation of the project that could conflict with lands under a Williamson Act contract. However, as shown, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the agricultural resource impact to less-than-significant levels. Specifically, the City considered a measure that would result in the replacement of Williamson Act contract farmland that would place other farmland under Williamson Act contract. Even if feasible, the placing of alternative farmland under Williamson Act contract would establish a commitment to retain that alternative farmland for agricultural use. The length of time that the alternative land will remain in agricultural use would depend on the terms of the Williamson Act contract.

However, the Williamson Act contract will only reduce the potential that the alternative land will convert to nonagricultural use. The individual and cumulative loss of agricultural land caused by the project would still occur. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not reduce impacts on agriculture to below the level of significance. For these reasons, placing alternative privately held land unde r permanent restriction through Williamson Act contracts is considered infeasible. As described under Impact Discussion AG-1, the 2040 General Plan includes a policy and action to mitigate and reduce the conversion of qualifying agricultural lands. *Policy OS-2.1 and *Action OS-

Page 49 of 2138 ends

Page 28 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

2.1 requiring all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for the preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, which are being implemented via the ALPP. *Policy OS-2.1, *Action OS-2.1, and the ALPP would also minimize impacts from conflicts with Williamson Act lands and reduce the likelihood of premature contract cancellations by the property owners of the Williamson Act parcels in the EIR Study Area. Additional mitigation for this impact was considered, including the placement of other farmland under Williamson Act contract. However, the individual and cumulative loss of agricultural land under the Williamson Act caused by the project would still occur.

Given that CEQA does not require that the proje ct be changed to avoid an impact, and no additional mitigation is available, this would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AG-4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to the conversion of farmland of concern under CEQA and Williamson Act properties to nonagricultural uses.

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and action, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion AG-4 (pages 4.2-18 through 4.2-19) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy OS-2.1: Offsets for Loss of Agricultural Land. Require that all new developments that convert agricultural land to urban uses provide for preservation of the same amount agricultural land in perpetuity.
 *Action OS-2.1: Offsets for Agricultural Land Conversion. Require the creation and adoption of an agricultural preservation program to address the conversion of land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City Limits and Sphere of Influence to nonagricultural uses.

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and action is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AG-4. However, even with implementation of these policies and actions, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described b elow. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AG-4 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: As described previously, implementation of the project would result in significant impacts related to the conversion of qualified Farmland under CEQA and Williamson Act properties to nonagricultural uses. As such, the project would contribute to the cumulative impact described in the San Benito County General Plan Update EIR.

Although the 2040 General Plan *Policy OS-2.1, *Action OS-2.1, and the ALPP would reduce and partially offset regional agricultural impacts, as well as consideration of mitigation measures to avoid conversion, the only way to fully avoid the agricultural impact of the project is to not allow development on state -designated farmland.

However, this would be infeasible and inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives. Further, the amount of growth foreseen in the region and the decisions of San Benito County and other surrounding counties regarding conversion of agricultural land are outside the control of the City of Hollister. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Page 50 of 2138 ends

Page 29 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

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

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion AIR-1 (pages 4.3-34 through 4.3-37) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities.

The City finds that implementation of this mitigating 2040 General Plan policy is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AIR-1. However, even with implementation of this policy, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AIR-1 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: The various goals, policies, and actions of the 2040 General Plan identified under Impact Discussions AIR-1 and AIR-2, in addition to applicable MBARD rules and regulations, would reduce operational (long-term) criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Specifically, *Policy NRC-3.6 would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts and submit to the City of Hollister for review and approval. Pursuant to *Policy NRC-3.6, the evaluations must be prepared in conformance with MBARD criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts.

Where the technical assessment finds that air pollutants have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, the technical assessment shall identify project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. Examples of types of project -specific mitigation measures that are available to future projects in Hollister are listed in Impact Discussion AIR-2. However, because of the magnitude and intensity of development accommodated by the 2040 General Plan, as well as regional air quality influences beyond the control of Hollister, impacts associated with consistency with the MBARD would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures or mitigating policies at the program level would ensure consistency of the project with the

Page 51 of 2138 ends

Page 30 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

MBARD’s AQMP. The identification of this program -level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable project-level thresholds of significance.

Impact AIR-2a: Operation of development projects that could occur from implementation of the project would generate emissions that would exceed MBARD’s regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO.

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion AIR-2 (pages 4.3-38 through 4.3-46) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities.

The City finds that implementation of this mitigating 2040 General Plan policy is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AIR-2a. However, even with implementation of this policy, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AIR-2a to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Long-term emissions for VOC that could occur over the buildout horizon of the 2040 General Plan would exceed MBARD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designation of the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The goals, policies, and actions of the 2040 General Plan, and implementation of MBARD Rule 207, Review of New or Modified Sources, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Specifically, *Policy NRC-3.6 would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval. Pursuant to *Policy NRC-3.6, the evaluations must be prepared in conformance with MBARD criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. Where the technical assessment finds that air pollutants have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, the technical assessment shall identify project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. Possible mitigation measures for potential future project-specific developments to reduce operational (long- term) emissions can include, but are not limited to the following:
 Provide preferential carpool/vanpool parking spaces
 Implement a parking surcharge for single occupant vehicles  Provide for shuttle/mini-bus service

Page 52 of 2138 ends

Page 31 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

 Provide bicycle storage/parking facilities and bicycle paths within major subdivisions that link to an external network
 Provide shower/locker facilities
 Provide onsite child care centers
 Provide transit design features within the development  Develop park-and-ride lots
 Off-site mitigation
 Employ a transportation/rideshare coordinator
 Implement a rideshare program
 Provide incentives to employees to rideshare or take public transportation  Implement flexible work schedules that do not reduce transit ridership  Implement compressed work schedules
 Implement telecommuting program
 Provide pedestrian facilities within major subdivisions The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase b uilding energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants within the city. However, operational (long-term) emissions would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in VOCs from residential development and increase in NOX and CO from mobile sources associated with the project.

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

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

Similarly, the two amicus briefs filed by the air districts on the Friant Ranch case describe two positions regarding CEQA requirements, modeling feasibility, variables, and reliability of results for determining specific health risks associated with criteria air pollutants. The discussions also include the distinction between criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs with respect to health risks. Additionally, the MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines demonstrate the infeasibility based on the current guidance/methodologies. The following summarizes major points about the infeasibility of assessing health risks of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs associated with implementation of a general plan. The white paper and amicus briefs are provided in Appendix B, Revised Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of the Revised Draft EIR.

Page 53 of 2138 ends

Page 32 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

To achieve and maintain air quality standards, the MBARD has established numerical emission indicators of significance for regional and localized air quality impacts for both construction and operational phases of a local plan or project. MBARD has established criteria for Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and EIRs which can be used by lead agencies as a checklist to determine a project’s significance on air quality.4 The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the NCCAB is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health. The thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a plan or project that are expected not to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable nationa l or state ambient air quality standard. By analyzing the plan’s emissions against the thresholds, an EIR assesses whether these emissions directly contribute to any regional or local exceedances of the applicable ambient air quality standards and exposure levels.

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

Ozone concentrations depend on a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Secondary formation of particulate matter (PM) and ozone can occur far from sources as a result of regional transport due to wind and topography (e.g., low-level jet stream). Photochemical modeling depends on all emission sources in the entire domain (i.e., modeling grid).

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

Current models used in CEQA air quality analyses are designed to estimate potential project construction and operation emissions for defined projects. The estimated emissions are compared to significance thresholds, which are keyed to reducing emissions to levels that will not interfere with the region’s ability to attain the he alth- based standards. This serves to protect public health in the overall region, but there is

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

Page 54 of 2138 ends

Page 33 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

currently no CEQA methodology to determine the impact of emissions (e.g., pounds per day) on future concentration levels (e.g., parts per million or micrograms p er cubic meter) in specific geographic areas. CEQA thresholds, therefore, are not specifically tied to potential health outcomes in the region.

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

The EIR must provide an analysis that is understandable for decision making and public disclosure. Regional-scale modeling may provide a technical method for this type of analysis, but it does not necessarily provide a meaningful way to connect the magnitude of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions to health effects without speculation.

Additionally, this type of analysis is not feasible at a general plan level because the location of emissions sources and quantity of emissions are not known.

In summary, as described above, implementation of the project would generate emissions that would exceed MBARD’s regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO. The 2040 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce these long-term regional criteria air pollutant emissions. *Policy NCR-3.6 requires potential future development in Hollister to prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval by the City. Whe re the technical assessment determines the MBARD-adopted thresholds are exceeded, the applicants for new development projects would be required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. Due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, no additional mitigation measures or mitigating policies are available, and the impact is found to be significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than- significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

Impact AIR-2b: Construction activities that could occur over the buildout horizon of the 2040 General Plan would generate substantial short-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed MBARD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulative contribute to the nonattainment designations of the NCCAB.

Page 55 of 2138 ends

Page 34 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion AIR-2 (pages 4.3-46 through 4.3-49) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities.

The City finds that implementation of this mitigating 2040 General Plan policy is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AIR-2b. However, even with implementation of this policy, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AIR-2b to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the project would occur over a period of 15 years or longer. Construction activities associated with development that could occur u nder the project could generate short-term emissions that exceed the MBARD’s significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the NCCAB. Implementation of applicable regulatory measures (e.g., MBARD Rule 400, Visible Emissions, Rule 402, Nuisances, and Rule 426, Architectural Coatings) and the 2040 General Plan goals and policies identified under Impact Discussion AIR-2 (pages 4.3-46 through 4.3-49) of the Revised Draft EIR would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible and may result in reducing construction-related regional air quality impacts of subsequent individual projects to less than significant. Specifically, *Policy NRC-3.6 would mitigate impacts by requiring project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval. Pursuant to *Policy NRC-3.6, the evaluations must be prepared in conformance with MBARD criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. Where the technical assessment finds that air pollutants have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, the technical assessment shall identify project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities. Future project -specific mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
 Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim (model year 2008 or newer) or higher emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower. A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor on-site, which shall be available for City review upon request.

Page 56 of 2138 ends

Page 35 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

 Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Use of alternative-fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment, if available and feasible.
 Clearly posted signs that require operators of trucks and construction equipment to minimize idling time (e.g., five-minute maximum).
 Preparation and implementation of a fugitive dust control plan that may include the following measures:
 Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.  Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 miles per hour).  Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).  Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.
 Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet and zero inches of freeboard.  Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials.  Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects, if adjacent to open land.
 Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.  Cover inactive storage piles.
 Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks.  Pave all roads on construction sites.
 Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.  Post a publicly visible sign which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the MBARD shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisances).  Limit the area under construction at any one time.

However, due to the programmatic nature of the project, construction time frames and equipment for individual site-specific projects are not available and there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to *Policy NRC-3.6 and due to the programmatic nature of the project, no additional mitigation measures or mitigating policies are available, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

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

Page 57 of 2138 ends

Page 36 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion AIR-3 (pages 4.3-50 through 4.3-54) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy NRC-3.15: Operational Health Risk Assessment. Require project applicants of discretionary projects to prepare an operational health risk assessment (HRA) for industrial or warehousing land uses and commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day based on the California Air Resources Board recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) prior to project approval. The operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the operational HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD, the City shall require the project applicant to identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level.

The City finds that implementation of this mitigating 2040 General Plan policy is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AIR-3a. However, even with implementation of this policy, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AIR-3a to a less-than-significant level.

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

Page 58 of 2138 ends

Page 37 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

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

Implementation of *Policy NRC-3.15 would ensure mobile sources of emissions not covered under MBARD permits are considered and mitigated during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Hollister. Potential future development projects in the city that have the potential to generate potentially significant risks associated with the release of TACs are required to undergo an analysis of their potential health risks associated with (toxic air contaminants) TACs based upon the specific details of each individual project. Though individual projects would be required to have less-than-significant impacts, cumulative development in the City would result in an increase in DPM concentrations and could increase the environmental burden on sensitive populations, including environmental justice communities, in the NCCAB.

Overall, because there are no specific development projects identified or approved under the 2040 General Plan and the location and exact nature of future development projects are unknown, determining health risk at this time is considered speculative pursuant to Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines. Health risk impacts from development of industrial and commercial land uses are considered a significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impact. However, the identification of this program - level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

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

Page 59 of 2138 ends

Page 38 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

homes, etc.), as measured from the property line of the project, that utilize off-road equipment of 50 horsepower or more, and that occur for more than 12 months of active construction (i.e., exclusive of interior renovations) to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the construction HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policies is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AIR-3b. However, even with implementation of these policies, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AIR-3b to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the project would occur over a period of 15 years or longer. Construction activities associated with potential future development over the buildout horizon of the 2040 General Plan could expose air q uality sensitive receptors to short-term construction emissions. Implementation of 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-

3.14, would mitigate impacts by requiring subsequent project -specific evaluation of qualifying future development projects to assess potential impacts and mitigate those impacts to acceptable levels. *Policy NRC-3.14 would require new sources of air pollution that will generate new air quality impacts or expose to harmful emissions of toxic air pollutants to prepare a construction HRA in alignment with the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

The construction HRA shall be submitted to the City of Hollister for review and approval and shall identify project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities such as the use of construction equipment with United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4-rated (or higher) engines.

Implementation of *Policy NRC-3.6, in addition to applicable regulatory measures, would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction -related activities to the extent feasible and may result in reducing construction-related regional air quality impacts of subsequent individual projects to a less-than-significant level. However, due to the programmatic nature of the project, construction time frames and equipment for individual site-specific projects are not available and there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction- related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to *Policy NRC -3.6, due to the programmatic nature of the project, no additional mitigation measures or mitigating policies are available, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than- significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable thresholds of significance.

Page 60 of 2138 ends

Page 39 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Impact AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout horizon of the 2040 General Plan could generate a substantial increase in emissions that exceeds the MBARD’s significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations and health risk in the NCCAB.

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policies, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussions AIR-1 through AIR-4 of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy NRC-3.6: Technical Assessments. Require project applicants to prepare technical assessments evaluating potential project construction and operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Hollister for review and approval prior to project approval. Such evaluations shall be prepared in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) criteria and methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If air pollutants are found to have the potential to exceed the MBARD-adopted thresholds of significance, ensure mitigation measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, are incorporated to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction or operational activities.
 *Policy NRC-3.14: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Require project applicants of discretionary projects on sites greater than one acre, within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, day care facilities, and nursing homes, etc.), as measured from the property line of the project, that utilize off-road equipment of 50 horsepower or more, and that occur for more than 12 months of active construction (i.e., exclusive of interior renovations) to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the construction HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds

1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD, require the project applicant to identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level.
 *Policy NRC-3.15: Operational Health Risk Assessment. Require project applicants of discretionary projects to prepare an operational health risk assessment (HRA) for industrial or warehousing land uses and commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day based on the California Air Resources Board recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) prior to project approval. The operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). If the operational HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0; or the thresholds as determined by the MBARD, the City shall require the project applicant to identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level.

Page 61 of 2138 ends

Page 40 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policies is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact AIR-5. However, even with implementation of these policies, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact AIR-5 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Criteria air pollutant emissions generated by land uses of the 2040 General Plan could exceed the MBARD regional thresholds (see Impact Discussions AIR-2 and AIR-3). Air quality impacts identified in the discussion under Impact AIR-2a, AIR-2b, AIR-3a, and AIR-3b constitute the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts in the NCCAB. 2040 General Plan *Policy NRC-3.6, *Policy NRC-3.14, and *Policy NRC-3.15, identified previously to mitigate impacts by reducing project-related emissions, would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Due to the programmatic nature of the project, no additional mitigation measures are available. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts and remain significant and unavoidable at the program level. The identification of this program-level cumulative impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant cumulative impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

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

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan actions, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion NOI-1 (pages 4.13-24 through 4.13-28) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Action HS-8.1: Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts. Require review of all development proposals prior to project approval to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds and that it would not generate noise that would be incompatible with existing uses in the vicinity of the proposed development. (Implementation Measure HS.T)
 *Action HS-8.6: Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance. Require the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan and to develop a procedure for handling noise complaints. (Implementation Measure HS.O)
 *Action HS-8.8: Noise and Vibration Thresholds. Require adoption of the noise and vibration thresholds applied in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance. For noise thresholds, this shall include the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise as well as Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

Page 62 of 2138 ends

Page 41 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

 For vibration thresholds, this shall include FTA criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration during operation of commercial or industrial uses and groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment. If vibration levels exceed the FTA limits for construction, alternative methods/equipment shall be used.  *Action HS-8.9: Construction Best Management Practices. Require the adoption of the construction best management practices outlined in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report to be incorporated into the Noise Ordinance to minimize construction noise to the extent feasible.

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan action s is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact NOI-1.1. However, even with implementation of these actions, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact NOI-1.1 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: In most cases, construction of individual developments associated with implementation of the General Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each individual project, potentially affecting existing and future nearby sensitive uses. The policies and actions of the 2040 General Plan would minimize the effects of construction noise. Specifically, implementation of the *Action HS-8.8 and *Action HS-8.9 would mitigate noise impacts by requiring the City to adopt noise and vibration thresholds based on the Federal Transit Authority criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise applied in this analysis (i.e., 80 dB(A) L eq(8hr), the Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor, and the construction best management practices outlined above. As part of the project approval process, f uture project applicants would be required to comply with these new standards in the HMC pursuant to *Action HS-8.6 which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Policy HS-8.3 is required to regulate construction activity to reduce noise as established in the Hollister Noise Ordinance, which prohibits excessive or unusually loud noises and vibrations from any and all sources in the community. Furthermore, *Action HS-8.1 requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not significantly increase noise beyond the City’s established thresholds. However, because construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because—depending on the project type, equipment list, time of day, phasing and overall construction durations—noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time, during the more sensitive nighttime hours, or may exceed 80 dB(A) Leq(8hr) even with future project-level mitigation, construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the project are considered significant and unavoidable. Due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, project-level conclusions of construction noise would be speculative; however, the identification of this program - level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level that do not exceed the noise thresholds.

Page 63 of 2138 ends

Page 42 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

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

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and actions, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion NOI-1 (pages 4.13-28 through 4.13-34) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy HS-8.1: Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels. Protect the noise environment in existing residential areas by requiring mitigation measures be identified prior to project approval for the operational phase of projects under the following circumstances: (a) the project would cause the day- night average sound level (Ldn) to increase 5 dB(A) where ambient noise is below 60 dB(A); (b) the project would cause the Ldn to increase 3 dB(A) where ambient noise is between 60 dB(A) and 70 dB(A); or (c) the project would cause the L dn to increase

1.5 dB(A) where ambient noise is 70 dB(A) or greater. (Policy HS3.1)  *Action HS-8.1: Review New Development for Potential Noise Impacts. Require review all development proposals prior to project approval to verify that the proposed development would not increase noise beyond the City’s estab lished thresholds and that it would not generate noise that would be incompatible with existing uses in the vicinity of the proposed development. (Implementation Measure HS.T)  *Action HS-8.6: Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance. Require the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan and to develop a procedure for handling noise complaints. (Implementation Measure HS.O)
The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and actions is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact NOI-1.2. However, even with implementation of these policy and actions, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact NOI-1.2 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-8.1 requires the City to protect the noise environment where there are uses that are sensitive to noise (e.g., residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes) by requiring the evaluation of mitigation measures for the operational phase of projects that exceed the City’s established noise thresholds. As part of the project approval process, future project applicants would be required to comply with these new standards in the HMC pursuant to *Action HS-8.6 which requires the City to revise the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan. Policy HS-8.5 and Policy HS-8.7 would reduce impacts from traffic through site design such as installing earth berms, increasing the distance between the receptor and the noise source, using non -sensitive structures as shields, and the use roadway design. Roadway design could include installing and maintaining noise barriers and/or rubberized or special asphalt paving such as open grade asphalt concrete along roadway segments with significant noise increases that are adjacent to sensitive receptors, and working with the State to address noise impacts from highway traffic. Roadway design could include installing and maintaining noise barriers and/or

Page 64 of 2138 ends

Page 43 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

rubberized or special asphalt paving, such as open grade asphalt concrete, along roadway segments with significant noise increases that are adjacent to sensitive receptors. Notable reductions in tire noise have been achieved via the implementation of special paving materials, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays. For example, Caltrans conducted a study of pavement noise along I -80 in Davis, California, and found an average improvement of 6 to 7 dB(A) compared to conventional asphalt overlay with only minimal noise increases over a ten-year period.5 These quieter pavement types can be used alone or in combination with noise barriers, which are common throughout the city. However, barriers may not be feasible in all cases if they would prevent access to driveways or properties. Further, *Action HS -8.1 requires the City to review all development proposals to verify that the proposed development would not exceed the City’s established thresholds and Action HS-8.5 requires the City to continue to enforce City Ordinances that restrict through truck traffic to approved truck routes only and prohibit the parking and maintenance of trucks in residential districts to reduce traffic noise from trucks. Since project-specific details are unknown and noise barriers and/or quieter pavement technologies may not be fe asible or reduce vehicle traffic noise below significance thresholds in all cases, this impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level that do not exceed the noise thresholds.

Impact NOI-4: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan could contribute to an increase in cumulative construction noise and operational vehicle noise.

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and actions, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussions NOI-1 through NOI-3 of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy HS-8.1: Protect Noise Sensitive Areas from Unacceptable Traffic Noise Levels. Protect the noise environment in existing residential areas by requiring mitigation measures be identified prior to project approval for the operational phase of projects under the following circumstances: (a) the project would cause the day- night average sound level (Ldn) to increase 5 dB(A) where ambient noise is below 60 dB(A); (b) the project would cause the Ldn to increase 3 dB(A) where ambient noise is between 60 dB(A) and 70 dB(A); or (c) the project would cause the L dn to increase

5 California Department of Transportation, May 13, 2011, I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study:

Traffic Noise Levels Associated With Aging Open Grade Asphalt Concrete Overlay .

Page 65 of 2138 ends

Page 44 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

 *Action HS-8.6: Periodic Updates to Noise Ordinance. Require the Noise Ordinance to incorporate the noise-related policies presented in the Hollister General Plan and to develop a procedure for handling noise complaints. (Implementation Measure HS.O)
 *Action HS-8.8: Noise and Vibration Thresholds. Require adoption of the noise and vibration thresholds applied in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance. For noise thresholds, this shall include the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of construction noise as well as Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

For vibration thresholds, this shall include FTA criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration during operation of commercial or industrial uses and groundborne vibration for various types of construction equipment. If vibration levels exceed the FTA limits for construction, alternative methods/equipment shall be used.  *Action HS-8.9: Construction Best Management Practices. Require the adoption of the construction best management practices outlined in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report into the Noise Ordinance to minimize construction noise to the extent feasible.

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policy and actions is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact NOI-4. However, even with implementation of these policy and actions, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as describe d below. Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact NOI-4 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Because construction details are unknown, potential future development under the 2040 General Plan could exceed the City’s significance threshold for construction noise. Even with 2040 General Plan Policy HS-8.3, *Action HS-8.1, *Action HS-8.6, *Action HS-8.8, and *Action HS-8.9 described under Impact Discussion NOI-1, because construction details are unknown at the time and construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise -sensitive receptors, noise disturbances may exceed the City’s significance thresholds even with future project-level mitigation.

In addition, operational vehicle noise generated under the project would exceed the City’s significance threshold. Even with 2040 General Plan *Policy HS-8.1, *Action HS-

8.1, and *Action HS-8.6 described under Impact Discussion NOI-1, the effectiveness of traffic noise-reduction strategies is not certain.

Due to the programmatic nature of the project, no additional mitigation measures are available. Construction noise and operational vehicle noise associated with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise impacts and remain significant and unavoidable at the program level. The identification of this program -level cumulative impact does not preclude the finding of less -than-significant cumulative impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level .

Page 66 of 2138 ends

Page 45 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Transportation
Impact TRANS-2: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would result in a significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact for VMT per Capita (Residential) and Retail VMT over 50,000 square feet, due to forecasted land use growth through 2040, based on a comparison of the VMT rate increment for VMT to the corresponding average baseline rates for the San Benito County region.

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussion TRANS-2 (pages 4.16-28 through 4.16- 33) of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy C-1.5: Transportation Demand Management. Require new development to reduce single-occupant vehicle usage using Transportation Demand Management strategies prior to project approval.
 *Action C-1.1: Performance and Monitoring. Require the monitoring of the City's mode split progress on reducing VMT and reducing GHG emissions from VMT, as data is available.
 *Action C-1.2: VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program. Require the establishment of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Banking Fee Program. This program shall fund the construction of facilities throughout Hollister that support active transportation (cycling and walking) and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development.
 *Policy C-4.6: Transportation Demand Management Requirements. Require new or existing developments that meet specific size, capacity, and/or context conditions to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies and other single- occupancy vehicle reduction methodologies. Require new developments to comply with tiered trip reduction and VMT reduction targets and monitoring that are consistent with the targets of the City’s VMT CEQA thresholds prior to project approval.

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact TRANS-2. However, even with implementation of these policies and actions, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below.

Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact TRANS -2 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions would mitigate VMT impacts to the degree feasible. *Policy C-1.5 requires the City to reduce single-occupant vehicle usage using Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. *Action C-1.1 requires the City to monitor mode split progress on reducing VMT, and reducing GHG emissions from VMT, as data is available. *Action C-1.2 requires the City to establish a VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program to fund the construction of facilities that support active transportation and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development. *Policy C-4.6 requires new or existing developments that meet specific size, capacity, and/or context conditions to implement

Page 67 of 2138 ends

Page 46 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

TDM strategies and other single-occupancy vehicle reduction methodologies.

Compliance with tiered trip reduction and VMT reduction targets and monitoring that are consistent with the targets of the City’s VMT CEQA thresholds is also required. In addition, as listed under Impact Discussion TRANS-1, the City has numerous policies to promote safe and user-friendly transit and improve the bicycle and pedestrian network in Hollister, all which would serve to promote alternative forms of transportation and reduce VMT. Furthermore, as previously described, given the lack of specifics that are available for this program-level EIR, it is not possible to fully account for the effect of specific design principles, policies, and improvements that will reduce VMT as part of this analysis. Although many of the VMT-reducing design principles, policies, and improvements that are described in the prior section may ultimately mitigate and/or potentially reduce the VMT impacts outlined in this evaluation, necessary details to ensure implementation and appropriately evaluate their effect are not yet available.

While some of the approaches to VMT reduction described in the prior section are supportive of existing City policies and guidelines, the VMT -reducing approaches cited would require further planning and development as well as committed funding sources, including those from participants in the development community (many of which may not be identified yet as large areas of land may be further subdivided into specific projects and developments). As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the findings of this analysis reflect a worst-case scenario for this program EIR. This program-level land use impact for VMT does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent development projects that achieve applicable VMT thresholds of significance. However, due to the programmatic nature of the 2040 General Plan, no additional mitigation measures are available, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Impact TRANS-5: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would cumulatively contribute to regional VMT.

Finding: As part of the project, the City will implement the following mitigating 2040 General Plan policies and actions, in addition to the other 2040 General Plan policies and actions identified under Impact Discussions TRANS-1 through TRANS-4 of the Revised Draft EIR:
 *Policy C-1.5: Transportation Demand Management. Require new development to reduce single-occupant vehicle usage using Transportation Demand Management strategies prior to project approval.
 *Action C-1.1: Performance and Monitoring. Require the monitoring of the City's mode split progress on reducing VMT and reducing GHG emissions from VMT, as data is available.
 *Action C-1.2: VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program. Require the establishment of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Banking Fee Program. This program shall fund the construction of facilities throughout Hollister that support active transportation (cycling and walking) and transit ridership to mitigate VMT impacts from new development.
 *Policy C-4.6: Transportation Demand Management Requirements. Require new or existing developments that meet specific size, capacity, and/or context conditions to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies and other single-

Page 68 of 2138 ends

Page 47 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

occupancy vehicle reduction methodologies. Require new developments to comply with tiered trip reduction and VMT reduction targets and monitoring that are consistent with the targets of the City’s VMT CEQA thresholds prior to project approval.

The City finds that implementation of these mitigating 2040 General Plan policie s and actions is feasible and is hereby adopted to mitigate significant effects on the environment from Impact TRANS-5. However, even with implementation of these policies and actions, significant unavoidable impacts will occur as described below.

Therefore, the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make it infeasible to reduce Impact TRANS -5 to a less-than-significant level.

Rationale: Even with 2040 General Plan *Policy C -1.5, *Action C-1.1, *Action C-1.2, and *Policy C-4.6 described under Impact Discussion TRANS-2 to mitigate the impacts related to VMT, the effectiveness of the VMT-reduction strategies is not certain. As such, the cumulative impact on VMT is considered significant and unavoidable. The identification of this program-level cumulative impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant cumulative impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

D. Findings on Project Alternatives
Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR
In compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the 2040 General Plan. The EIR’s analysis examined the potential feasibility of each alternative, its environmental effects, and its ability to meet the project objectives. The alternatives analysis included analysis of a no-project alternative and identified the environmentally superior alternative. Chapter 5 , Alternatives, of the Revised Draft EIR evaluated two alternatives to the project:

Alternative A: No Project and Alternative B: Focused Growth.

Brief summaries of these alternatives and findings are provided below.

Alternative A: No Project
The No Project Alternative assumes continued implementation of the current 2005 General Plan, and the existing goals, policies, and actions. The No Project Alternative would not incorporate new topics that are now required by State law, such as environmental justice, and would not revise relevant policies and actions to meet those requirements. Future development permitted under the No Project Alternative would not increase development potential in Hollister beyond what was considered in the existing 2005 General Plan and analyzed in the associated EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2004081147), but rather assumes the remaining development growth, which could result in increases in households (5,723), residential units (5,845), population (20,779), and jobs (8,970). Potential future development in Hollister would continue to be subject to existing policies, regulations, development standards, and land use designations of the existing 2005 General Plan. The City would not adopt the CAP or amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the ALPP.

Page 69 of 2138 ends

Page 48 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including failure to meet project objectives, render the No Project Alternative infeasible. This alternative would not avoid or lessen significant impacts from the 2040 General Plan, including effects related to the agricultural resources, air quality, noise, and transportation. The No Project Alternative would not accomplish the basic project objectives for the 2040 General Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative would increase impacts from the 2040 General Plan in the environmental topic areas of biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, transportation, and wildfire. The City therefore rejects this alternative as unrealistic and infeasible for the reasons listed above and as stated in the EIR. (Section

5.4, Alternative A: No Project, in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Revised Draft EIR).

Alternative B: Focused Growth
The Focused Growth Alternative would include the new 2040 General Plan goals, policies, and actions and incorporate new topics that are now required by State law, such as environmental justice, and would revise relevant policies and actions to meet those requirements. Future development under the Focused Growth Alternative would be the same as the project, which could result in increases in households (10,160), residential units (10,530), population (31,575), and jobs (11,170). The Focused Growth Alternative would CAP and amend the Zoning Ordinance to include the ALPP. The Focused Growth Alternative would maintain the current Hollister Sphere of Influence that was approved and adopted by San Benito County LAFCO in 2019. The Focused Growth Alternative 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)6 in the Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential and Downtown Commercial and Mixed Use land use designations when compared to the project.

Finding: Pursuant to Public PRC 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including failure to meet project objectives, render the Focused Growth Alternative infeasible. This alternative would avoid or lessen significant impacts from the 2040 General Plan, including effects related to related to agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy, GHG emissions, mineral resources, noise, transportation, and wildfire; however, it would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, noise, and transportation. Because Alternative B would increase opportunities for infill development to support the reduction of VMT and GHG emissions and reduce the amount of qualifying agricultural lands that could be converted to non -

6 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.

Page 70 of 2138 ends

Page 49 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

agricultural uses, Alternative B would meet all of the project objectives ; however, not to the same degree as the project. Specifically, Alternative B would allow for more high- density infill housing and would therefore not provide the same balanced neighborhoods and mix of residential types and intensities as the project. The City therefore rejects this alternative as unrealistic and infeasible for the reasons listed above and as stated in the EIR. (Section 5.5, Alternative B: Focused Growth, in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Revised Draft EIR).

E. Other Findings
Revisions to the Project
Chapter 4, Comments and Responses, of the Final EIR includes the comments received on both the 2023 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. The focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues as raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a).

Following publication of the 2023 Draft EIR and in response to comments received on the 2023 Draft EIR, the project was revised as described under Section 1.3.3, Revised Draft EIR, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Revised Draft EIR. Revisions to the 2040 General Plan included changes to the land use designations and expansion of the SOI boundary. Subsequently, potential buildout estimates increased, and the CAP was revised to reflect changes to the 2040 General Plan land designations, modified proposed SOI boundary, and buildout projections. The ALPP was also revised to reduce the rate of land dedication from two acres to one acres of Agricultural Land for each one acre of Agricultural Land to be converted. With the revisions to the project, the 2023 Draft EIR was revised to include the new environmental analysis. The changes to the project constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation and accordingly, the Revised Draft EIR was circulated for public review.

Following publication of the Revised Draft EIR, Policy LU-1.5 was revised to use more appropriate language. This does not represent a substantial change to the project description that would require revision of analysis in the Revised Draft EIR. The revised Policy LU-1.5 is listed in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of the Final EIR to reflect this change. The revised policy would continue to support avoidance of impacts to cultural resources and land use and planning, as analyzed in the Revised Draft EIR. Because the revision to Policy LU-1.5 would continue to discourage development on lands that have not been annexed into City Limits, the change to the project does not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification.

Absence of Significant New Information – No Recirculation Required CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR for additional review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after the public comment period but before certification of the EIR. Such information can

Page 71 of 2138 ends

Page 50 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

include changes in the project or environmental setting, but that information is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a manner that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponent declines to implement.

Chapter 5, Revisions to the Revised Draft EIR, of the Final EIR contains text revisions to the Revised Draft EIR that were made in response to comments from agencies and organizations, as well as staff -directed changes. These text revisions include typographical corrections, insignificant modifications, and amplifications and clarifications of the Revised Draft EIR. None of the minor text changes or classifications substantially alters the analysis in the Revised Draft EIR, and they do not trigger the criteria for recirculation.

The City finds that no significant new information was added to the Revised Draft EIR after the public review period. The City specifically finds that: no new significant environmental impact would result from the 2040 General Plan or from the implementation of a mitigation measure; no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact previously found to be significant would result; the City has not declined to adopt any feasible project alternative or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the 2040 General Plan; and the Revised Draft EIR is not so fundamentally and basically inadequate in nature that it precluded meaningful public review.

Having reviewed the information in the Revised Draft EIR, Final EIR, and administrative record, as well as the requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and interpretive judicial authority regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, the City finds that no new significant information was added to the EIR following public review, and recirculation of the EIR is therefore unnecessary and not required by CEQA.

Differences of Opinion Regarding the 2040 General Plan’s Impacts In making its determination to certify the Final EIR and to approve the 2040 General Plan, the City recognizes that the 2040 General Plan involves several controversial issues and that a range of opinions exists with respect to these issues. Through its review of the Final EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments, and the whole of the administrative record, the City has acquired a comprehensive understanding of the scope of such issues. This has enabled the City to make fully informed and thoroughly considered decisions after taking into account the various viewpoints on the important environmental issues involved in the 2040 General Plan’s implementation. Considering the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR and the administrative record as a whole, the City finds that the findings herein are based on a full appraisal of all viewpoints expressed throughout the CEQA review process, as well as other relevant information contained in the administrative record.

Page 72 of 2138 ends

Page 51 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

IV. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to app rove the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.)
Having (i) adopted all General Plan policies and actions, and feasible mitigation measures, (ii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iii) balanced the benefits of the 2040 General Plan against its significant and unavoidable impacts, the City finds that the 2040 General Plan’s benefits outweigh and override its significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the 2040 General Plan, independent of the other benefits, despite each and every unavoidable impact.

The benefits of the project include the following:
 The project will maintain a concentrated growth area to protect surrounding lands from sprawl and reduce the cost of extending infrastructure.  The project will encourage sustained economic growth recognizing the importance of economic generators, job generators and a better balance between jobs and housing.
 The project will provide for a fiscally sound city with an emphasis on sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues.
 The project will guide balanced neighborhood development with a mix of uses and housing types, provision of parks and schools, and easy access to commercial activity centers.
 The project will facilitate efficient transportation and infrastructure planning in the city.
 The project will improve safety, enhance accessibility, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles.
 The project will establish allowed density ranges that will accommodate a variety of housing types conducive to all socio-economic sectors of the community and will help the City meet legal requirements to respond to regional housing needs.  The project will support and enhance Downtown as the civic and cultural heart of the City.
 The project will encourage economic growth within the City's industrial areas.  The project will provide for the systematic, continual upgrade and improvement of City infrastructure and ensure developments pay for their share of infrastructure, public facilities, and any environmental costs.

Page 73 of 2138 ends

Page 52 of 52 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

 The project will address environmental justice for disadvantaged communities that exist within the planning area of the General Plan.
 The project will ensure that the City’s General Plan is legally adequate.

When compared to the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR (including the No Project Alternative), the 2040 General Plan provides the best available balance between maximizing attainment of the project objectives and minimizing significant environmental impacts.

V. Approvals
The City hereby takes the following actions:
 Certify the Final EIR as described in Section I (Certification), above.  Adopt, as conditions of approval of the 2040 General Plan, all Mitigation Measures and policies and actions within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City.  Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2040 General Plan.  Adopt the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2040 General Plan.

Page 74 of 2138 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ADOPTING THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN

WHEREAS, through the course of project development the City has also prepared a Climate Action Plan and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program; and

WHEREAS, full public involvement in the preparation of the Draft 2040 General Plan has been ensured through public workshops, General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, online activities, Planning Commission study sessions, and City Council Study Sessions throughout the drafting process; and

WHEREAS, the City has maintained a website, Hollister2040.org, dedicated to the General Plan Update process, including the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program throughout the course of the project, where information on any upcoming activities or meetings, as well as all information from past public meetings and workshops related to the project could be reviewed; and

WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan has been published for public review and referred to other public agencies for review and comment as required by State law; and

WHEREAS, the Safety Element of the General Plan integrates and incorporates by reference the current San Benito County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including the City of Hollister Annex, approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 8685.9, 65302, and 65302.6.

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the City of Hollister Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, and Final EIR, and adopted Resolution 2024 -12 recommending to the City Council the adoption of the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and the certification of the Final EIR; and

Page 75 of 2138 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

WHEREAS, following the public hearing the City Council of the City of Hollister determined that the Final Environmental Impact Report provides a complete and adequate assessment of the potential impacts of implementing the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, and adopted a resolution certifying the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program on December 3, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which states the City’s reasons for accepting various significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from implementing the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister held a duly noticed public hearing also on December 3, 2024 to receive all public testimony and to consider the adoption of the 2040 General Plan; and

WHEREAS, following the public hearing the City Council deliberated and determined to adopt the 2040 General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby adopt the 2040 General Plan (Exhibit A).

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held on December 3, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

____
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

Page 76 of 2138 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

I, Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2024-XXX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held on December 3, 2024 at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Hollister on December 3, 2024.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

Page 77 of 2138 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

EXHIBIT A

City of Hollister

2040 GENERAL PLAN

Page 78 of 2138 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER

ADOPTING A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

WHEREAS, through the course of project development the City has also prepared a Climate Action Plan and an Agricultural Lands Preservation Program; and

WHEREAS, full public involvement in the preparation of the Draft Climate Action Plan has been ensured through public workshops, General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, online activities, Planning Commission study sessions, and City Council Study Sessions throughout the drafting process; and

WHEREAS, the Draft Climate Action Plan has been published for public review and referred to other public agencies for review and comment as required by State law; and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the City of Hollister Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Agric ultural Lands Preservation Program, and Final EIR, and adopted Resolution 2024 -12 recommending to the City Council the adoption of the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and the certification of the Final EIR; an d

Page 79 of 2138 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

resolution certifying the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program on December 3, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister held a duly noticed public hearing also on December 3, 2024 to receive all public testimony and to consider the adoption of a Climate Action Plan; and

WHEREAS, following the public hearing the City Co uncil deliberated and determined to adopt a Climate Action Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby adopt a Climate Action Plan (Exhibit A).

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held on December 3, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

____
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney

Page 80 of 2138 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

I, Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2024-XXX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held on December 3, 2024 at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Hollister on December 3, 2024.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

Page 81 of 2138 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

Resolution No. 2024-XXX

EXHIBIT A

City of Hollister

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

Page 82 of 2138 ends

Page 1 of 10 ends

ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING A
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CHAPTER 17.28

AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM

WHEREAS, through the course of project development the City has also prepared a Climate Action Plan and an Agricultural Lands Preservation P rogram; and

WHEREAS, full public involvement in the preparation of the Draft Agricultural Lands Preservation Program has been ensured through public workshops, General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, online activities, Planning Commission study sessions, and City Council Study Sessions throughout the drafting process; and

WHEREAS, the City has maintained a website, Hollister2040.org, dedicated to the General Plan Update process, including the preparation of the Environmen tal Impact Report, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program throughout the course of the project, where information on any upcoming activities or meetings, as well as all information from past public meetings and workshops related t o the project could be reviewed; and

WHEREAS, the Draft Agricultural Lands Preservation Program (Chapter 17.28) has been published for public review and referred to other public agencies for review and comment as required by State law; and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the City of Hollister Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, and Final EIR, and adopted Resolution 2024 -12 recommending to the City Council the adoption of the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and the certification of the Final EIR; and

Page 83 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 2 of 10 ends

resolution certifying the Final EIR for the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Agricultural Lands Preservation Program on December 3, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister held a duly noticed public hearing also on December 3, 2024 to receive all public testimony and to consider the adoption of Chapter 17.28, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program; and

WHEREAS, following the public hearing the City Council deliberated and determined to adopt Chapter 17.28, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program as recommended by the Planning Commission.

NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Title 17 is amended to add Chapter 17.28, Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, to read as follows:

CHAPTER 17.28 – AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION PROGRAM

17.28.010 – Chapter Title.

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

17.28.020 – Purpose.

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

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

17.28.030 – Definitions.

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

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

Page 84 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 3 of 10 ends

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

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

3. All lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) on the most recently published map of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Agricultural Lands developed for non-agricultural use prior to the adoption of this Program are not included in this definition. The four (4) classifications of farmland referenced above are defined by the DOC as follows:
a. Prime Farmland. Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Prime Farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture needed to produce sustained high yields. In order to qualify as Prime Farmland, land must meet the specific soil criteria required by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Service (NRCS.)
b. Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. To qualify as Farmland of Statewide Importance, land must meet the specific soil criteria required USDA NRCS. c. Unique Farmland. Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. d. Farmland of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county’s local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of

Page 85 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 4 of 10 ends

Supervisors. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing or has the capability of production; but does not meet the criteria of Prime, Statewide or Unique Farmland. For the purposes of this ordinance and as adopted by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, Farmland of Local Importance is defined as land cultivated as dry cropland for wheat, barley, oats, safflower and grain hay, as well as orchards affected by boron within the area specified in San Benito County Resolution Number 84-3. If the County of San Benito expands the definition of Farmland of Local Importance to include more lands, such lands shall also be considered to be Farmland of Local Importance under this ordinance.

4. All lands which in the reasonable judgment of the City of Hollister have the physical characteristics and yield potential to qualify as one of the classifications in Section 17.28.030.B.2 above. Whether or not the land under consideration is currently used for agricult ural production shall not be a criterion in this determination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City will consider the following criteria when selecting an Easement Holder:

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

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

Page 86 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 5 of 10 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17.28.040 – Applicability.

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

17.28.050 – Overall Requirement.

Before any Development Project that involves conversion of one (1) acre or more of Agricultural Land to uses other than Agricultural Uses may occur, Agricultural Conservation Easements on other Agricultural Lands that comply with criteria established in Section 17.28.090 shall be dedicated to the City of Hollister or to an Easement Holder selected by the City of Hollister, at a rate of at least one (1) acre of Agricultural Land for each one (1) acre of Agricultural Land to be converted [1:1 ratio].

Page 87 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 6 of 10 ends

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

17.28.060 – Timing.

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

17.28.070 – Program Mechanism.

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

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

1. The location and characteristics of all lands acquired for Agricultural Conservation Easements shall comply with the eligibility requirements established in Section 17.28.090 and Section 17.28.100.

2. A Developer dedicating the Agricultural Conservation Easement(s) shall pay the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee as described in Section 17.28.110.A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 88 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 7 of 10 ends

recommended by the Planning Commission. The peer review shall be paid for by the Developer.

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

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

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

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

17.28.110.A.

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

A. Program Administration.

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

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

B. In-Lieu Fee Administration.

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

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

17.28.090 – Eligible Lands.

To achieve the purpose of this chapter, lands proposed for acquisitio n of Agricultural Conservation Easements shall share the characteristics of Agricultural Land and meet the following criteria:

A. The lands shall be located in the City of Hollister Planning Area, as defined in the City of Hollister General Plan.

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

Page 89 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 8 of 10 ends

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

D. Where a dedication of twenty (20) or more acres is required, lands shall be composed of legal parcel(s) of twenty (20) net acres or more in size. Parcels less than twenty (20) net acres in size shall only be allowed for dedication if merged to meet the minimum size requirement prior to execution of the Agricultural Conservation Easement.

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

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

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

17.28.100 – Ineligible lands.

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

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

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

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

17.28.110 – Agricultural Lands Preservation Program Administration Fee.

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

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

Page 90 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 9 of 10 ends

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 Transacti on and/or were acquired more than one-year prior to dedication to the City of Hollister, the value of the easements on which the Administration Fee shall be based will be determined by the City Council after review of a report prepared by a real estate appraiser certified in agricultural conservation easement appraisals and licensed in California, and paid for by the Developer, which shall be peer reviewed by a consultant selected by the City and Program Manager and reviewed by the Planning Commission.

The appraisal and peer review shall both be paid for by the Developer.

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

17.28.120 – Monitoring, Enforcing and Reporting.

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

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

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

C. Reporting. The Program Manager shall provide to the City Development Services Director an annual report delineating the activities undertaken pursuant to the requirements of these guidelines and assessment of these activities. The report shall describe the status of all lands and easements acquired in accordance with this Chapter, including a summary of all enforcement actions (if any), a detailed statement of financial activities, and the status of all easements acquired via the provisions of this ordinance.

SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this Ordinance is held invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

Page 91 of 2138 ends

Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 10 of 10 ends

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage.

SECTION 4. PUBLICATION. Within fifteen (15) days after passage, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

INTRODUCED at a regular City Council meeting on December 3, 2024 and ADOPTED as an ordinance of the City of Hollister at a regular City Council meeting on _________ __, 20XX by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

________________________________
Mia Casey, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law

______________________________ _______________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk Mary Lerner, City Attorney

I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. XXXX is an original ordinance, or true and correct copy of a City ordinance, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on ________ __, 20XX at which meeting a quorum was present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Hollister on _____________ __, 20XX.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

Page 92 of 2138 ends

Page 93 of 2138 ends

Page 94 of 2138 ends

Page 95 of 2138 ends

Page 96 of 2138 ends

October 2024

Page 97 of 2138 ends

Cover Photo Credits:

From left to right: 1) PlaceWorks 2) David Mirrione 3) Michael Grzan 4) PlaceWorks.

Page 98 of 2138 ends

October 2024

CITY OF HOLLISTER

Page 99 of 2138 ends

Page 100 of 2138 ends

Page 101 of 2138 ends

Page 102 of 2138 ends

iii

Page 103 of 2138 ends

Page 104 of 2138 ends

I-1

1.1 GENERAL PLAN PURPOSE

1.2 PLANNING CONTEXT

Page 105 of 2138 ends

I-2 Page 106 of 2138

I-3

1.3 GENERAL PLAN SCOPE

Page 107 of 2138 ends

I-4

Page 108 of 2138 ends

I-5

1.4 IMPACT OF PLAN ADOPTION

Page 109 of 2138 ends

I-6

1.5 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THIS GENERAL PLAN





Page 110 of 2138 ends

I-7

1.6 UPDATING THE GENERAL PLAN

Page 111 of 2138 ends

I-8





Page 112 of 2138 ends

I-9

1.7 GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS




Page 113 of 2138 ends

I-10 Page 114 of 2138

V-1
2040 VISION
Hollister is the heart of San Benito County, a welcoming place where people come to live, work, and play. People choose to live here because of the strong sense of community, diversity, and the wide range of housing types for all income levels. Framed by the Diablo and Gabilan ranges and surrounding agricultural landscape, Hollister preserves its historic past and ensures that new development complements the small-town charm. High-quality design and strong architectural character attract people to retail areas and contribute to a sense of place.

Known as an innovation hub, Hollister attracts businesses to its downtown, its industrial parks, and its airport so that they can collaborate with each other and benefit from the diverse labor pool. Tourists add to Hollister’s economic diversity by dining, shopping, and staying in Hollister while en route to Pinnacles National Park, Hollister Hills State Vehicular Recreation Area, and the surrounding wineries. The availability of high-quality jobs means that residents can work locally, freeing up time that might otherwise be spent commuting.

Traveling by car, bus, bicycle, or on foot are all easy in Hollister. Neighborhoods, schools, shops, jobs, healthcare, and public services are connected by bikeways, walkways, and bus and rail lines.

Community life flourishes in Hollister. A vibrant, historic downtown, lively arts scene, inviting parks and public spaces, and activities and services for people of all ages help forge self- expression, connection, and well-being.

New growth is primarily focused in existing urban areas or adjacent to existing development, to enhance connectedness and preserve active agricultural uses and open space areas.

The City coordinates with the County of San Benito and other local agencies to ensure growth is well-planned, sustainable, and citizens are provided with needed services and resources.

Hollister is a unique and diverse city that is, and will remain, a place to call home for generations to come.

Page 115 of 2138 ends

V-2
VALUES

Page 116 of 2138 ends

3. LU-1

Page 117 of 2138 ends

LU-2

3.1 HOLLISTER TODAY

Page 118 of 2138 ends

LU-3

Page 119 of 2138 ends

LU-4

3.2 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP



Page 120 of 2138 ends

LU-5

Page 121 of 2138 ends

LU-6

Page 122 of 2138 ends

LU-7

3.3 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Page 123 of 2138 ends

LU-8

Page 124 of 2138 ends

LU-9

Page 125 of 2138 ends

LU-10

Page 126 of 2138 ends

LU-11

3.4 SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS

Page 127 of 2138 ends

LU-12

Page 128 of 2138 ends

LU-13

Page 129 of 2138 ends

LU-14





Page 130 of 2138 ends

LU-15

Page 131 of 2138 ends

LU-16 Page 132 of 2138

LU-17 Page 133 of 2138

LU-18 Page 134 of 2138

LU-19 Page 135 of 2138

LU-20

3.5 SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS




Page 136 of 2138 ends

LU-21

Page 137 of 2138 ends

LU-22

Page 138 of 2138 ends

LU-23

3.6 INFILL DEVELOPMENT

Page 139 of 2138 ends

LU-24

3.7 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT

GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS

Policy LU-1.1
Policy LU-1.2
Policy LU-1.3




Page 140 of 2138 ends

LU-25
Policy LU-1.4
Policy LU-1.5
Policy LU-1.6
Policy LU-1.7
Policy LU-1.8
Policy LU-1.9
Policy LU-1.10
Policy LU-1.11

Page 141 of 2138 ends

LU-26
Policy LU-1.12
Policy LU-1.13
Action LU-1.1
Action LU-1.2
Action LU-1.3
Action LU-1.4



Page 142 of 2138 ends

LU-27
Action LU-1.5
Action LU-1.6
Action LU-1.7
Action LU-1.8
Action LU-1.9

Policy LU-2.1
Policy LU-2.2

Page 143 of 2138 ends

LU-28
Policy LU-2.3
Policy LU-2.4
Policy LU-2.5

Page 144 of 2138 ends

LU-29
Policy LU-2.6
Policy LU-2.7
Policy LU-2.8
Policy LU-2.9
Policy LU-2.10
Policy LU-2.11
Policy LU-2.12
Policy LU-2.13

Page 145 of 2138 ends

LU-30

Policy LU-3.1
Policy LU-3.2
Policy LU-3.3
Policy LU-3.4
Policy LU-3.5
Policy LU-3.6
Policy LU-3.7
Policy LU-3.8

Page 146 of 2138 ends

LU-31
Policy LU-3.9
Policy LU-3.10
Policy LU-3.11
Action LU-3.1
Action LU-3.2
Action LU-3.3
Action LU-3.4
Action LU-3.5

Page 147 of 2138 ends

LU-32

Policy LU-4.1
Policy LU-4.2
Action LU-4.1

Policy LU-5.1
Policy LU-5.2

Page 148 of 2138 ends

LU-33
Policy LU-5.3
Policy LU-5.4
Policy LU-5.5
Policy LU-5.6

Policy LU-6.1
Policy LU-6.2
Policy LU-6.3
Policy LU-6.4

Page 149 of 2138 ends

LU-34
Policy LU-6.5
Policy LU-6.6
Action LU-6.1
Action LU-6.2
Action LU-6.3
Action LU-6.4

Policy LU-7.1

Page 150 of 2138 ends

LU-35
Policy LU-7.2

Policy LU-8.1
Policy LU-8.2
Policy LU-8.3
Action LU-8.1

Page 151 of 2138 ends

LU-36

Policy LU-9.1
Policy LU-9.2
Policy LU-9.3
Policy LU-9.4
Policy LU-9.5
Policy LU-9.6

Page 152 of 2138 ends

LU-37
Policy LU-9.7
Action LU-9.1

Policy LU-10.1
Policy LU-10.2
Policy LU-10.3
Policy LU-10.4

Page 153 of 2138 ends

LU-38
Policy LU-10.5
Policy LU-10.6
Policy LU-10.7
Policy LU-10.8
Policy LU-10.9
Policy LU-10.10
Policy LU-10.11
Policy LU-10.12
Policy LU-10.13
Action LU-10.1

Page 154 of 2138 ends

LU-39
Action LU-10.2
Action LU-10.3
Action LU-10.4

Policy LU-11.1
Policy LU-11.2

Page 155 of 2138 ends

LU-40

Policy LU-12.1
Policy LU-12.2
Policy LU-12.3
Policy LU-12.4
Policy LU-12.5
Policy LU-12.6
Policy LU-12.7

Page 156 of 2138 ends

LU-41

Policy LU-13.1
Policy LU-13.2
Policy LU-13.3
Policy LU-13.4
Action LU-13.1

Page 157 of 2138 ends

LU-42
Action LU-13.2

Policy LU-14.1
Policy LU-14.2
Action LU-14.1

Page 158 of 2138 ends

LU-43

Policy LU-15.1
Policy LU-15.2
Policy LU-15.3
Policy LU-15.4
Policy LU-15.5
Policy LU-15.6
Policy LU-15.7

Page 159 of 2138 ends

LU-44
Policy LU-15.8
Policy LU-15.9
Policy LU-15.10
Policy LU-15.11
Action LU-15.1

Page 160 of 2138 ends

LU-45
Action LU-15.2
Action LU-15.3
Action LU-15.4
Action LU-15.5

Policy LU-16.1
Policy LU-16.2

Page 161 of 2138 ends

LU-46
Policy LU-16.3
Policy LU-16.4
Policy LU-16.5
Policy LU-16.6
Action LU-16.1

Policy LU-17.1

Page 162 of 2138 ends

LU-47
Policy LU-17.2
Policy LU-17.3
Policy LU-17.4
Policy LU-17.5
Policy LU-17.6
Policy LU-17.7
Policy LU-17.8
Policy LU-17.9

Page 163 of 2138 ends

LU-48
Policy LU-17.10
Policy LU-17.11
Policy LU-17.12
Action LU-17.1
Action LU-17.2
Action LU-17.3
Action LU-17.4

Page 164 of 2138 ends

LU-49

Policy LU-18.1
Policy LU-18.2
Policy LU-18.3
Policy LU-18.4
Policy LU-18.5
Action LU-18.1
Action LU-18.2
Action LU-18.3

Page 165 of 2138 ends

LU-50

Policy LU-19.1
Policy LU-19.2
Policy LU-19.3
Policy LU-19.4
Policy LU-19.5

Page 166 of 2138 ends

LU-51
Policy LU-19.6
Action LU-19.1
Action LU-19.2
Action LU-19.3
Action LU-19.4
Action LU-19.5

Page 167 of 2138 ends

LU-52 Page 168 of 2138

4. C-1

4.1 HOLLISTER TODAY

Page 169 of 2138 ends

C-2






Page 170 of 2138 ends

C-3

Page 171 of 2138 ends

C-4

Page 172 of 2138 ends

C-5

Page 173 of 2138 ends

C-6

Page 174 of 2138 ends

C-7
ii.

Page 175 of 2138 ends

C-8
ii.
i.

Page 176 of 2138 ends

C-9
ii.

Page 177 of 2138 ends

C-10
ii.

Page 178 of 2138 ends

C-11

Page 179 of 2138 ends

C-12
1 




Page 180 of 2138 ends

C-13






Page 181 of 2138 ends

C-14

Page 182 of 2138 ends

C-15 Page 183 of 2138

C-16

Page 184 of 2138 ends

C-17

Page 185 of 2138 ends

C-18

Page 186 of 2138 ends

C-19

Page 187 of 2138 ends

C-20






Page 188 of 2138 ends

C-21

Page 189 of 2138 ends

C-22



Page 190 of 2138 ends

C-23




Page 191 of 2138 ends

C-24

4.2 PLANNED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS

Page 192 of 2138 ends

C-25 Page 193 of 2138

C-26

Page 194 of 2138 ends

C-27 Page 195 of 2138

C-28 Page 196 of 2138

C-29

Page 197 of 2138 ends

C-30 Page 198 of 2138

C-31

4.3 CIRCULATION ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND

ACTIONS

Policy C-1.1
Policy C-1.2
Policy C-1.3
Policy C-1.4
Policy C-1.5

Page 199 of 2138 ends

C-32
Policy C-1.6
Policy C-1.7
Policy C-1.8
Policy C-1.9
Policy C-1.10
Policy C-1.11
Policy C-1.12
Policy C-1.13

Page 200 of 2138 ends

C-33
Action C-1.1
Action C-1.2
Action C-1.3
Action C-1.4
Action C-1.5
Action C-1.6
Action C-1.7
Action C-1.8

Page 201 of 2138 ends

C-34

Policy C-2.1
Policy C-2.2
Policy C-2.3
Policy C-2.4
Policy C-2.5
Policy C-2.6
Policy C-2.7

Page 202 of 2138 ends

C-35
Action C-2.1
Action C-2.2
Action C-2.3
Action C-2.4
Action C-2.5

Policy C-3.1

Page 203 of 2138 ends

C-36
Policy C-3.2
Policy C-3.3
Policy C-3.4
Policy C-3.5
Policy C-3.6
Policy C-3.7

Page 204 of 2138 ends

C-37
Action C-3.1
Action C-3.2
Action C-3.3
Action C-3.4
Action C-3.5
Action C-3.6

Policy C-4.1

Page 205 of 2138 ends

C-38
Policy C-4.2




Policy C-4.3
Policy C-4.4
Policy C-4.5

Page 206 of 2138 ends

C-39

Page 207 of 2138 ends

C-40

Page 208 of 2138 ends

C-41
Policy C-4.6
Policy C-4.7
Action C-4.1

Policy C-5.1
Policy C-5.2
Policy C-5.3

Page 209 of 2138 ends

C-42
Action C-5.1
Action C-5.2

Page 210 of 2138 ends

5. CSF-1

5.1 HOLLISTER TODAY

Page 211 of 2138 ends

CSF-2

Page 212 of 2138 ends

CSF-3

Page 213 of 2138 ends

CSF-4 Page 214 of 2138

CSF-5

Page 215 of 2138 ends

CSF-6 Page 216 of 2138

CSF-7

Page 217 of 2138 ends

CSF-8

5.2 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS

Policy CSF-1.1

Page 218 of 2138 ends

CSF-9
Policy CSF-1.2
Policy CSF-1.3
Policy CSF-1.4

Page 219 of 2138 ends

CSF-10

Policy CSF-1.5
Policy CSF-1.6
Policy CSF-1.7

Page 220 of 2138 ends

CSF-11
Policy CSF-1.8
Policy CSF-1.9
Action CSF-1.1
Action CSF-1.2

Policy CSF-2.1
Policy CSF-2.2
Policy CSF-2.3

Page 221 of 2138 ends

CSF-12
Policy CSF-2.4
Policy CSF-2.5
Policy CSF-2.6
Policy CSF-2.7
Policy CSF-2.8
Policy CSF-2.9
Policy CSF-2.10
Policy CSF-2.11

Page 222 of 2138 ends

CSF-13
Policy CSF-2.12
Policy CSF-2.13
Policy CSF-2.14
Policy CSF-2.15
Policy CSF-2.16
Action CSF-2.1

Page 223 of 2138 ends

CSF-14
Action CSF-2.2

Action CSF-2.3
Action CSF-2.4
Action CSF-2.5
Action CSF-2.6

Page 224 of 2138 ends

CSF-15
Action CSF-2.7
Action CSF-2.8
Action CSF-2.9
Action CSF-2.10
Action CSF-2.11
Action CSF-2.12

Page 225 of 2138 ends

CSF-16

Policy CSF-3.1
Policy CSF-3.2
Action CSF-3.1

Action CSF-3.2

Page 226 of 2138 ends

CSF-17

Policy CSF-4.1
Policy CSF-4.2




Policy CSF-4.3
Policy CSF-4.4

Page 227 of 2138 ends

CSF-18
Policy CSF-4.5
Policy CSF-4.6
Policy CSF-4.7
Policy CSF-4.8
Policy CSF-4.9
Policy CSF-4.10
Policy CSF-4.11
Policy CSF-4.12

Page 228 of 2138 ends

CSF-19
Policy CSF-4.13
Policy CSF-4.14
Policy CSF-4.15
Policy CSF-4.16
Action CSF-4.1
Action CSF-4.2
Action CSF-4.3

Page 229 of 2138 ends

CSF-20
Action CSF-4.4

Policy CSF-5.1
Policy CSF-5.2
Policy CSF-5.3
Policy CSF-5.4
Policy CSF-5.5

Page 230 of 2138 ends

CSF-21
Action CSF-5.1
Action CSF-5.2
Action CSF-5.3
Action CSF-5.4

Policy CSF-6.1

Page 231 of 2138 ends

CSF-22
Policy CSF-6.2
Policy CSF-6.3
Policy CSF-6.4
Policy CSF-6.5
Policy CSF-6.6
Policy CSF-6.7
Action CSF-6.1
Action CSF-6.2

Page 232 of 2138 ends

CSF-23
Action CSF-6.3
Action CSF-6.4
Action CSF-6.5
Action CSF-6.6
Action CSF-6.7

Policy CSF-7.1
Policy CSF-7.2
Policy CSF-7.3

Page 233 of 2138 ends

CSF-24
Policy CSF-7.4
Action CSF-7.1
Action CSF-7.2
Action CSF-7.3

Policy CSF-8.1

Page 234 of 2138 ends

CSF-25
Policy CSF-8.2
Policy CSF-8.3
Policy CSF-8.4
Policy CSF-8.5

Policy CSF-9.1
Action CSF-9.1

Page 235 of 2138 ends

CSF-26 Page 236 of 2138

6. ED-1

6.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Page 237 of 2138 ends

ED-2

Page 238 of 2138 ends

ED-3

6.2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT GOALS,

POLICIES, AND ACTIONS







Page 239 of 2138 ends

ED-4

Policy ED-1.1



Policy ED-1.2
Policy ED-1.3
Policy ED-1.4
Action ED-1.1
Action ED-1.2
Action ED-1.3

Page 240 of 2138 ends

ED-5
Action ED-1.4
Action ED-1.5
Action ED-1.6

Policy ED-2.1
Policy ED-2.2
Action ED-2.1






Page 241 of 2138 ends

ED-6
Action ED-2.2





Policy ED-3.1
Policy ED-3.2
Policy ED-3.3
Action ED-3.1
Action ED-3.2

Page 242 of 2138 ends

ED-7
Action ED-3.3
Action ED-3.4
Action ED-3.5

Policy ED-4.1
Policy ED-4.2
Policy ED-4.3
Policy ED-4.4

Page 243 of 2138 ends

ED-8
Action ED-4.1
Action ED-4.2
Action ED-4.3

Policy ED-5.1
Action ED-5.1
Action ED-5.2
Action ED-5.3

Page 244 of 2138 ends

ED-9
Action ED-5.4
Action ED-5.5

Policy ED-6.1
Policy ED-6.2
Policy ED-6.3
Policy ED-6.4
Action ED-6.1

Page 245 of 2138 ends

ED-10
Action ED-6.2
Action ED-6.3
Action ED-6.4
Action ED-6.5
Action ED-6.6

Policy ED-7.1
Action ED-7.1

Page 246 of 2138 ends

ED-11
Action ED-7.2

Policy ED-8.1
Action ED-8.1
Action ED-8.2

Policy ED-9.1

Page 247 of 2138 ends

ED-12
Action ED-9.1
Action ED-9.2

Policy ED-10.1
Policy ED-10.2
Policy ED-10.3
Action ED-10.1

Page 248 of 2138 ends

7. NRC-1

7.1 HOLLISTER TODAY

1 1

Page 249 of 2138 ends

NRC-2

Page 250 of 2138 ends

NRC-3

Page 251 of 2138 ends

NRC-4

Page 252 of 2138 ends

NRC-5

Page 253 of 2138 ends

NRC-6

Page 254 of 2138 ends

NRC-7

Page 255 of 2138 ends

NRC-8

Page 256 of 2138 ends

NRC-9

Page 257 of 2138 ends

NRC-10

Page 258 of 2138 ends

NRC-11

Page 259 of 2138 ends

NRC-12

Page 260 of 2138 ends

NRC-13

Page 261 of 2138 ends

NRC-14

Page 262 of 2138 ends

NRC-15

Page 263 of 2138 ends

NRC-16

Page 264 of 2138 ends

NRC-17

7.2 NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS

Policy NRC-1.1
Policy NRC-1.2
Policy NRC-1.3
Policy NRC-1.4

Page 265 of 2138 ends

NRC-18
Policy NRC-1.5
Policy NRC-1.6

Page 266 of 2138 ends

NRC-19
Policy NRC-1.7
Policy NRC-1.8
Policy NRC-1.9

Page 267 of 2138 ends

NRC-20
Policy NRC-1.10
Policy NRC-1.11
Policy NRC-1.12
Policy NRC-1.13
Policy NRC-1.14

Page 268 of 2138 ends

NRC-21
Policy NRC-1.15
Policy NRC-1.16
Policy NRC-1.17
Policy NRC-1.18
Policy NRC-1.19
Policy NRC-1.20
Policy NRC-1.21

Page 269 of 2138 ends

NRC-22
Policy NRC-1.22
Policy NRC-1.23
Action NRC-1.1
Action NRC-1.2






Action NRC-1.3
Action NRC-1.4

Page 270 of 2138 ends

NRC-23

Policy NRC-2.1
Policy NRC-2.2
Policy NRC-2.3
Policy NRC-2.4

Page 271 of 2138 ends

NRC-24
Policy NRC-2.5

Policy NRC-3.1
Policy NRC-3.2
Policy NRC-3.3
Policy NRC-3.4
Policy NRC-3.5
Policy NRC-3.6

Page 272 of 2138 ends

NRC-25
Policy NRC-3.7
Policy NRC-3.8






Policy NRC-3.9

Page 273 of 2138 ends

NRC-26
Policy NRC-3.10
Policy NRC-3.11
Policy NRC-3.12
Policy NRC-3.13
Policy NRC-3.14

Page 274 of 2138 ends

NRC-27
Policy NRC-3.15
Policy NRC-3.16
Action NRC-3.1

Page 275 of 2138 ends

NRC-28

Policy NRC-4.1
Policy NRC-4.2
Policy NRC-4.3
Policy NRC-4.4
Policy NRC-4.5
Policy NRC-4.6
Policy NRC-4.7

Page 276 of 2138 ends

NRC-29
Policy NRC-4.8
Policy NRC-4.9
Action NRC-4.1
Action NRC-4.2
Action NRC-4.3
Action NRC-4.4

Page 277 of 2138 ends

NRC-30

Policy NRC-5.1
Policy NRC-5.2
Policy NRC-5.3
Policy NRC-5.4
Action NRC-5.1
Action NRC-5.2
Action NRC-5.3

Page 278 of 2138 ends

NRC-31
Action NRC-5.4
Action NRC-5.5

Policy NRC-6.1
Policy NRC-6.2
Policy NRC-6.3

Page 279 of 2138 ends

NRC-32
Policy NRC-6.4





Policy NRC-6.5
Policy NRC-6.6
Policy NRC-6.7

Page 280 of 2138 ends

8. HS-1

Page 281 of 2138 ends

HS-2







Page 282 of 2138 ends

HS-3

8.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY CONDITIONS IN HOLLISTER
TODAY

Page 283 of 2138 ends

HS-4
1 


1

Page 284 of 2138 ends

HS-5




Page 285 of 2138 ends

HS-6


Page 286 of 2138 ends

HS-7

Page 287 of 2138 ends

HS-8






Page 288 of 2138 ends

HS-9

Page 289 of 2138 ends

HS-10

Page 290 of 2138 ends

HS-11

Page 291 of 2138 ends

HS-12

Page 292 of 2138 ends

HS-13

Page 293 of 2138 ends

HS-14







Page 294 of 2138 ends

HS-15

Page 295 of 2138 ends

HS-16


Page 296 of 2138 ends

HS-17






Page 297 of 2138 ends

HS-18

Page 298 of 2138 ends

HS-19

Page 299 of 2138 ends

HS-20

Page 300 of 2138 ends

HS-21

Page 301 of 2138 ends

HS-22

Page 302 of 2138 ends

HS-23

Page 303 of 2138 ends

HS-24

Page 304 of 2138 ends

HS-25

Page 305 of 2138 ends

HS-26

Page 306 of 2138 ends

HS-27

Page 307 of 2138 ends

HS-28

Page 308 of 2138 ends

HS-29

Page 309 of 2138 ends

HS-30

8.2 Health and Safety Element
Goals, Policies, and Actions

Policy HS-1.1
Policy HS-1.2
Policy HS-1.3
Policy HS-1.4
Policy HS-1.5

Page 310 of 2138 ends

HS-31
Action HS-1.1
Action HS-1.2
Action HS-1.3
Action HS-1.4

Policy HS-2.1
Policy HS-2.2

Page 311 of 2138 ends

HS-32
Policy HS-2.3
Policy HS-2.4
Policy HS-2.5
Policy HS-2.6
‐
Policy HS-2.7
Policy HS-2.8
Policy HS-2.9

Page 312 of 2138 ends

HS-33
Policy HS-2.10
‐‐
Policy HS-2.11
Policy HS-2.12
Policy HS-2.13
Policy HS-2.14
Action HS-2.1

Page 313 of 2138 ends

HS-34

Policy HS-3.1
Policy HS-3.2
Policy HS-3.3
Policy HS-3.4

Page 314 of 2138 ends

HS-35
Policy HS-3.5
Action HS-3.1
Action HS-3.2

Policy HS-4.1
Policy HS-4.2
Policy HS-4.3

Page 315 of 2138 ends

HS-36
Action HS-4.1
Action HS-4.2
Action HS-4.3

Policy HS-5.1
Policy HS-5.2
Policy HS-5.3
Policy HS-5.4

Page 316 of 2138 ends

HS-37
Policy HS-5.5
Policy HS-5.6
Policy HS-5.7
Policy HS-5.8
Action HS-5.1
Action HS-5.2
Action HS-5.3

Page 317 of 2138 ends

HS-38
Action HS-5.4

Policy HS-6.1
Policy HS-6.2
Policy HS-6.3
Policy HS-6.4

Page 318 of 2138 ends

HS-39
Policy HS-6.5
Policy HS-6.6
Policy HS-6.7
Policy HS-6.8
Policy HS-6.9
Policy HS-6.10
Policy HS-6.11

Page 319 of 2138 ends

HS-40
Policy HS-6.12
Action HS-6.1
Action HS-6.2
Action HS-6.3
Action HS-6.4
Action HS-6.5
Action HS-6.6

Page 320 of 2138 ends

HS-41
Action HS-6.7
Action HS-6.8
Action HS-6.9
Action HS-6.10
Action HS-6.11
Action HS-6.12

Policy HS-7.1

Page 321 of 2138 ends

HS-42
Policy HS-7.2
Policy HS-7.3
Policy HS-7.4
Action HS-7.1
Action HS-7.2

Page 322 of 2138 ends

HS-43

Policy HS-8.1
Policy HS-8.2
Policy HS-8.3
Policy HS-8.4
Policy HS-8.5

Page 323 of 2138 ends

HS-44
Policy HS-8.6
Policy HS-8.7
Policy HS-8.8
Action HS-8.1
Action HS-8.2
Action HS-8.3

Page 324 of 2138 ends

HS-45
Action HS-8.4
Action HS-8.5
Action HS-8.6
Action HS-8.7
Action HS-8.8
Action HS-8.9

Page 325 of 2138 ends

HS-46

Policy HS-9.1
Policy HS-9.2

Page 326 of 2138 ends

9. OS-1

9.1 HOLLISTER TODAY

Page 327 of 2138 ends

OS-2

Page 328 of 2138 ends

OS-3




Page 329 of 2138 ends

OS-4 Page 330 of 2138

OS-5

9.2 OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE ELEMENT GOALS,

POLICIES, AND ACTIONS

Policy OS-1.1
Policy OS-1.2
Policy OS-1.3
Policy OS-1.4

Page 331 of 2138 ends

OS-6
Policy OS-1.5
Policy OS-1.6
Policy OS-1.7
Policy OS-1.8
Action OS-1.1







Page 332 of 2138 ends

OS-7

Policy OS-2.1
Policy OS-2.2
Policy OS-2.3
Policy OS-2.4
Policy OS-2.5

Page 333 of 2138 ends

OS-8
Action OS-2.1
Action OS-2.2








Page 334 of 2138 ends

OS-9
Action OS-2.3
Action OS-2.4

Page 335 of 2138 ends

OS-10 Page 336 of 2138

AC-1

10.1 HOLLISTER TODAY

Page 337 of 2138 ends

AC-2








Page 338 of 2138 ends

AC-3

10.2 ARTS AND CULTURE ELEMENT

GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS

Policy AC-1.1
Policy AC-1.2
Action AC-1.1

Page 339 of 2138 ends

AC-4
Action AC-1.2

Policy AC-2.1
Policy AC-2.2
Policy AC-2.3
Policy AC-2.4

Policy AC-3.1

Page 340 of 2138 ends

AC-5
Action AC-3.1

Policy AC-4.1
Policy AC-4.2
Policy AC-4.3
Policy AC-4.4
Policy AC-4.5
Policy AC-4.6
Policy AC-4.7

Page 341 of 2138 ends

AC-6
Action AC-4.1
Action AC-4.2
Action AC-4.3
Action AC-4.4

Policy AC-5.1
Policy AC-5.2

Page 342 of 2138 ends

Hollister City CouncilDecember 3, 2024

Hollister City Council
December 3, 2024