Hollister City Council
June 2, 2025

General Plan and Zoning Designations.

Project Analysis: The project site is comprised of approximately 5.3 acres, located within the western portion of Runway 6 of the Hollister Municipal Airport (Accessor’s Parcel Number [APN]: 050-010-001-00), as shown in Figure 1, Local Vicinity Map, the project site is bound by the existing Hollister Municipal Airport to the east and south, and vacant undeveloped land and agricultural land to the north and west. The nearest major freeways to the project site include State Route (SR) 25, located approximately 0.5 miles to the west and SR 156, located approximately 1.3 miles to the north.

Figure 1: Local Vicinity Map

As shown in Figure 2, Conceptual Site Plan, the Project includes the demolition and removal of 4.8 acres of paved taxiway preceding Runway 6, and the construction of approximately 0.5 acres of taxiway to connect Runway 6 to the southern taxiway.

Pavement replacement of approximately 0.2 acres would occur within the construction limits, along with the installation of electrical improvements including 36 taxiway edge lights. Approximately 450 linear feet of directional boring, using a horizontal directional boring machine, would be required for new cabling. The Project would also include the installation of 28 runway edge lights placed in existing conduits, 16 runway end lights, 1 pair of runway end identifier lights, 4 runway identification signs, and approxi mately 1.9 acres of reseeding in areas adjacent to ground disturbance. Trenching is not anticipated to access the existing conduit or install the new electrical cabling; access is achieved through the existing runway edge light cans and existing handholes. The Project would include four new signs, which would be 24 inches in height and 84.6 inches in width. Two signs would be located along the runway and taxiway of Runway 6 and two signs would be located along the runway and taxiway of Runway 31. Project wo rk areas consist of

paved runways and taxiways, adjacent hardscape shoulder, and non -native annual grassland. The existing pavement section materials would be cold -milled or excavated, processed, and re-used on site. Export and stockpiling are not anticipated.

Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan

During construction, access to the project site would be provided via an access road located north of Aerostar Way. The nearest major freeways to the project site include SR 25, located approximately 0.5 miles to the west and SR 156, located approximately 1.3 miles to the north of the project site. The Project would ensure that emergency access via Aerostar Way would be maintained during construction activities. In addition, individual Project review by the City, including the City of Hollister Fire Department, would be required. The Project would incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the California Building and Fire Codes during construction activities.

The Project would update existing runway lighting upon the demolition of the existing taxiway. It is anticipated that the existing cabling will be replaced with new airfield lighting cabling, which would be installed on the entire length of Runway 6-24 using existing conduits. The Project would include 36 taxiway edge lights, 16 runway end lights, and one pair of runway end identifier lights. As the Project lighting is for aviation purposes, the Project is exempt from Section 17.16.090 of the Hollister Municipal Code. Additionally, the Project would include four new signs: two along Taxiway C and Runway 6 and two along the Taxiway C and Runway 31.

Biological Resources: The project site contains suitable habitat for three wildlife species that are federally or State-listed endangered or threated with the potential to occur within the project site: California tiger salamander, California red -legged frog, and San Joaquin kit fox.

Project construction would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.23 acres of non-native grassland and temporary impacts to approximately 0.31 acres of non-native grassland. Temporary impacts resulting from construction would be offset as the Project would remove 4.83 (or approximately 4.8) acres of hardscape and compacted gravel that would be restored with native vegetation resulting in a net gain of 4.6 acres of potential California tiger salamander upland habitat. To compensate for these impacts, the Project would comply with Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-5 through BIO-19, and BIO-20 which would reduce impacts to California tiger salamander to a less than significant level.

No suitable breeding habitat or records of the California red -legged frog are present with the maximum known movement ability of the species, and California red -legged frog are therefore not expected to occur within the project site. The San Joaquin kit fox is extremely unlikely to occur in the project site, therefore direct impacts on the San Joaquin kit fox or on its habitat are not expected to occur as a result of the Project. However , in the unlikely event that California red-legged frog are present in in the project site, or a San Joaquin kit fox enters the project area, the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-5 through BIO-19 would further reduce the potential for Project impacts on California red-legged frog and San Joaquin kit fox.

Conclusion: The Project proposes the demolition and removal of the approximately 4.8 acres of paved taxiway preceding Runway 6 and construction of an approximately 0.5 - acre perpendicular taxiway to connect Runway 6 and the western end of Taxiway C. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Designation and does not request any deviations. Additionally, the Project would comply with the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP prepared for the Project and included as Attachment.

General Information:

Applicant City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Property Owner City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Location/Address Western portion of Runway 6 of the Hollister Municipal Airport
Assessor Parcel Number(s) 050-010-001-00
General Plan Designation Airport
Zoning District Airport (A)

Surrounding Uses:

Location Zoning
Designation
General Plan
Land Use
Current Use of Property
Project Site A Airport Hollister Municipal Airport
North AS Airport
Support
Vacant undeveloped land and
agricultural land
South A Airport Hollister Municipal Airport
East A Airport Hollister Municipal Airport
West Industrial
Business Park
Industrial Vacant undeveloped land and
agricultural land

CEQA Timeline:

Item Dates
Draft IS/MND posted to State Clearinghouse
(SCH No: 2023090117) September 7, 2023
IS/MND Public Review Period September 7, 2023
through October 9, 2023
CDFW issues comment letter on IS/MND and ITP
application October 19, 2023
Final IS/MND City Council Consideration to Approve June 2, 2025

FISCAL IMPACT: The Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project total estimated cost is $3,805,000. Funding for this project is 90% FAA Grant, 5% State/Caltrans Match Grant (5% of FAA/Federal Amount) up to $150,000 and the remaining amount, approximately 6% Airport/City. To complete the filing of the report, there may be fees estimated to be less than $5,000.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION: At the special meeting of June 26, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023 -140, authorizing the Interim City Manager to accept FAA Grant Funding for the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Improvements Project.

CEQA: See discussion above.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. CDFW ITP Response to Comments Memo

3. CDFW Response Letter

4. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER

APPROVING THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR THE HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAY
6 SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

WHEREAS, at the special meeting of June 26, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-140, authorizing the Interim City Manager to accept FAA Grant Funding for the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project; and

WHEREAS, in July of 2023, the Airport/City received a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Grant, no. 3-06-0105-027-2023, for the Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project; and

WHEREAS, Runway 6 is the crosswind/east to west aligned runway. The project removed the unsafe Runway 6 and Taxiway C pavement, constructed and striped a new section of pavement connecting Taxiway C to the Runway 6 threshold, constructed drainage improvements, included electrical improvements , installed new LED Runway Edge Lights, and installed several Taxiway C LED Edge Lights in the area of new construction; and

WHEREAS, a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project by the City and its on-call airport consultants, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review between September 7, 2023 through October 9, 2023 , and no comments were received; and

WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the project application have been followed as required by state and local laws; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the entire administrative record, including application materials, staff report and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project would be based on its ability to make the applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mandatory Findings of Significance, as identified in Section 4.21 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project total estimated cost is $3,805,000. Funding for this project is 90% FAA Grant, 5% State/Caltrans Match Grant (5% of FAA/Federal Amount) up to $150,000 and the remaining amount, approximately 6% Airport/City. To complete filing of the report, there may be fees estimated to be less than $5,000.

Resolution No. 2025-XX

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby approve the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project and authorize the City Manager to take necessary actions and execute necessary documents related to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and filing of the report.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held on June 2, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

Roxanne Stephens, 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 certify that the attached Resolution No. 2025-XX 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 June 2, 2025, 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 June 2, 2025.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

December 5, 2023

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Central Region
Attention: Stephanie Manzo
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710

SUBJECT: Incidental Take Permit (ITP) Application for Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project (2081-2023-045-04) Response to Comments

Dear Ms. Manzo:

In response to the incomplete application letter dated October 23, 2023. the following supplemental information is being forwarded to assist you in the processing of the Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit for the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project.

3. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(3): This section requires a complete description of the project or activity for which the ITP is being sought. Please provide additional details as they relate to the items below:
a. The application states that demolition and removal of 3.91 acres of paved taxiway west of Runway 6 will occur.
i. Please describe how the paved taxiway will be demolished and removed from the site, and how the area will be restored. Please include the timing and sequence of each activity; methods, materials, and equipment; and quantities, dimensions, and volumes, where applicable.

Applicant Response: The existing taxiway pavement will be cold-milled with the resulting material processed for re-use as aggregate subbase on the project. The quantity to be cold-mill is 26,090 SY. Cold-milling duration is 1- week. Minor grading (750 cy) will be subsequently performed to bring the area to the FAA's Runway Safety Area standards. Grading duration is 1- week. The graded area will be stabilized by applying hydro-seed. Hydro- seed duration is 3-days.
ii. Please confirm whether the demolished materials will be immediately hauled off site or stockpiled on site. If the demolished materials will be stockpiled on site, please indicate the location and estimated length of time the materials will remain on site.

Applicant Response: The existing pavement section materials to be cold- milled or excavated, processed, and re-used on site. Export and stockpiling is not anticipated.

b. The application states that construction of a perpendicular taxiway connecting Runway 6 and Taxiway C will occur.
i. Please describe how the new taxiway will be constructed, including the timing and sequence of each activity; methods, materials, and equipment; and quantities, dimensions, and volumes, where applicable.

Applicant Response: Grading operation–with duration of 2-days–is performed using grader, backhoe, and compaction achieved using steel drum rollers (150 cy). This is followed by subgrade treatment–duration of 2- days–using soil stabilization mixer, grader and steel drum roller (3,890 sy).

Aggregate subbase and base (1,380 cy) is placed using a grader and steel drum roller with duration of 3-days. Asphalt pavement (704 tons) is placed with paving machine and steel drum rollers with duration of 2-days. c. The application states that grading will occur in the demolition area and in the area where the future taxiway will be constructed. Please identify the limits and acreages of the areas where grading will occur, including land cover types.

Applicant Response: Refer to applicant response 5a below, and Figure 4:

Conceptual Project Layout. Pavement removal encompasses approximately 4.83 acres (210,650 SF) and the proposed taxiway encompasses 0.47 acre totaling 5.30 acre. Existing land cover types include grassed airfield managed infields and safety areas and airfield pavements.
d. The application states that taxiway and runway lighting will be updated. It is anticipated that the existing cabling will be replaced with new airfield lighting cabling along the entire length of Runway 6-24 using existing conduits, and approximately 450 linear feet of directional boring will be required for new cabling (electrical improvement areas are shown in Figure 4 of the application). i. Please describe how the existing cabling will be replaced, including the timing and sequence of each activity; methods, materials, and equipment; and quantities, dimensions, and volumes, where applicable. Please provide a similar description for directional boring activities.

Applicant Response: The existing runway lighting cable is within a 2-inch PVC conduit buried approximately 24 inches below grade. This conduit can be accessed at each runway edge light location (light cans at 200-foot intervals) and all handhole locations (500-foot intervals). The intent is to remove the existing cables by a cable pulling wench and replace with new cabling using the same method. Directional boring is carried out using a horizontal directional boring machine. An approximately 5-foot by 5-foot bit pit is established from where the boring operation is started. A pilot hole is drilled with the 2-inch HDPE conduit pulling through during backreaming.

The cable pulling wench is used to install the new electrical cables in the new conduit. Total length of new cabling, including looping within handholds and light cans is approximately14,300-feet.
ii. If trenching will be required to access the existing conduit, please confirm the length, width, and depth of trenching, and the timing for completion of this work.

Applicant Response: Trenching is not anticipated to access the existing conduit. Access is achieved through the existing runway edge light cans and existing handholes.

4. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(4): This section requires the location where the project or activity will occur or be conducted. The Project location is not sufficient in detail for CDFW to make calculations of the area that will be disturbed. Therefore, the description of the project location is not complete. Please provide additional details as they relate to the items below:
a. The application lacks coordinates for the western- and eastern-most extents of the Project. In addition, the application lacks information regarding Assessors Parcel Numbers (APNs) impacted by the Project. Please provide the coordinates for the project and APNs.

Applicant Response:

Project Coordinates:

Western Extent: 36.889095°, -121.415799°
Eastern Extent: 36.892445°, -121.403125°
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 050-010-001-000
b. Please identify all temporary work areas such as access routes and materials/equipment staging areas and their associated acreages.

Applicant Response: The existing airport perimeter vehicle service road will be used as the construction access route and also used for staging of construction equipment. Stockpiling of demolished material or imported aggregated base is not anticipated. Construction trailers are not anticipated. c. Please provide the total size of the Project area.

Applicant Response: The project site is comprised of approximately 5.30 acres.

5. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(5): This section is incomplete. This section requires an analysis of whether and to what extent the project or activity for which the permit is sought could result in the taking of species to be covered by the permit. CDFW requires a complete project description and location to adequately evaluate this section and determine completeness. This section should be revised as needed to address the additional project description and location details provided in your response materials.

Please provide additional details as they relate to the items below:
a. According to the application, take of California tiger salamander could occur in paved areas during dispersal. Please confirm whether incidental take coverage is requested for electrical improvement activities outside of the ITP Coverage Area shown in Figure 2 of the application.

Applicant Response: Trenching is not anticipated to access the existing conduit or install the new cabling. Access is achieved through the existing runway edge light cans and existing handholes. Since no trenching will occur to replace the

new cabling, incidental take coverage is not being requested for electrical improvement activities.

However, as identified in Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan in the project’s Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), the project proposes an additional 0.92 acre of pavement removal along the edges of Runway 6 for a total of approximately 4.83 acres (210,650 SF) of pavement removal which was not reported in the initial ITP application materials (refer to updated Figure 2:

Project Site Aerial – ITP Coverage Map and updated Figure 4: Conceptual Project Layout located in the Revised Section 2081 ITP Application). Therefore, incidental take coverage is requested for the additional 0.92 acre of pavement removal along Runway 6. The additional 0.92 acre of pavement removal would not result in additional permanent (0.23 acre) or temporary (0.31 acre) impacts to non-native grassland (potential CTS upland habitat) as previously reported in the ITP application.

6. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(6): This section is incomplete. This section requires a species-specific analysis of the impact of the project when contrasted with the local and range-wide populations and rate of take. Elements of the analysis should be similar to those required in Section 783.2(a)(7). CDFW requires a complete project description and location to adequately evaluate this section and determine completeness. Although CDFW does not have specific comments at this time, this section should be revised as needed to address the additional project description and location details provided in your response materials.

Applicant Response: Please refer to Section 2.3 in the revised Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit Application for additional project description information as well as the responses provided above. Additional location details are provided in response 4(a).

7. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(7): This section is incomplete. This analysis is intended to determine whether the continued existence of the species for which take coverage is being requested will be in jeopardy as a result of your Project and should contrast the impact of your project on the species-wide population or locally critical populations. CDFW cannot complete its analysis without a complete project description, however, we do not request any additional information at this time. This section should be revised as needed to address the additional project description and location details provided in your response materials.

Applicant Response: Please refer to Section 2.3 in the revised Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit Application for additional project description information as well as the responses provided above. Additional location details are provided in response 4(a).

10. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(10): This section is incomplete. The application lacks the detail necessary to assure CDFW that money has been allocated to implement the minimization and mitigation measures. This section typically includes a budget to demonstrate that cost estimates for the above items have been considered.

Applicant Response: Please refer to the City of Hollister Resolution No. 2023-166 authorizing the City Manager to purchase California Tiger Salamander Upland Habitat mitigation credits from the Sparling Ranch Conservation Bank as required by CDFW located in Attachment 2.

11. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(11): This section is incomplete. This section requires certification in the following language: I certify that the information submitted in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that any false statement herein may subject me to suspension or revocation of this permit and to civil and criminal penalties under the laws of the State of California.

Please edit the language in the application to reflect the exact language in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (a)(11).

Applicant Response: Please refer to Section 8 in the revised Section 2081 ITP Application which provides the required certification language.

On behalf of the Applicant, I hope you find the information noted above useful for processing of the ITP Application. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (657) 208-6964 or [email protected] should you or your staff have any questions.

Sincerely,

Tim Tidwell
Regulatory Specialist

Attachments:

1. Revised Section 2081 ITP Application

2. Project Funding Documentation form the City of Hollister

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6
Safety Project
California Endangered Species Act
Application for an Incidental Take
Permit for State-listed Species
Prepared for
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4, Central Region
Updated November 2023
Prepared by
City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, California 95023

iii
Contents
Section Page
Contents ........................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. v Background .................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of this Application .............................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Applicant/Proposed Permittee Contact Information ...................................................... 1-2

1.4 Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act .................................................. 1-2

1.5 Species for Which Coverage is Requested ....................................................................... 1-3

1.5.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox ............................................................................................. 1-3

1.6 Biological Surveys Completed .......................................................................................... 1-4

2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Components and Construction ............................................................................ 2-1

2.4 Construction Impacts ....................................................................................................... 2-2

3.0 California Tiger Salamander Presence Determination ................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Presence Determination .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.1 Status and Distribution ....................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Assessment Results ............................................................................................. 3-2

4.0 Project Effects on California Tiger Salamander ........................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Direct Effects .................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Indirect Effects ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 4-1 Incidental Take Determinations and Jeopardy Analysis ................................................................... 5-1 Proposed Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 6-1

6.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Compensatory Mitigation ................................................................................................ 6-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting during Construction .............................................................. 7-1

7.1 Scope of Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 Conflict Resolution ........................................................................................................... 7-2

7.3 Reporting Responsibilities ............................................................................................... 7-2

7.3.1 Reporting of Injured Wildlife .............................................................................. 7-3

7.3.2 Spill Response Emergency Procedures ............................................................... 7-3

7.3.3 Post-construction Monitoring and Reporting Responsibilities ........................... 7-3

7.4 Implementation Monitoring/Verification Program ......................................................... 7-3 Certification ................................................................................................................................... 8-1 References ..................................................................................................................................... 9-1

CONTENTS
Section Page
iv
Appendices
A Figures
B Site Photos
C Biological Assessment
Tables
Table 1--1. Biological Resources Surveys .......................................................................................... 1-4 Table 7-1. Monitoring Tasks and Criteria that Determine Successful Implementation of Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 7-4

v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BMP best management practice
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CUP Conditional Use Permit
FCR field contact representative
ITP Incidental Take Permit
O&M operations and maintenance
Project Hollister Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program

SECTION 1
1-1
Background

1.1 Introduction (Updated November 2023)
The City of Hollister (City) is required by FAA regulations to make improvements to the Hollister Municipal Airport (CVH) by creating a new taxiway and modifying an existing runway. The proposed project includes two elements: 1) the demolition and removal of the approximately 4.83 acres of paved taxiway preceding (along and west of) Runway 6, and 2) construction of an approximately 0.23-acre perpendicular taxiway connecting Runway 6 and the southern taxiway. Work areas consist of paved runways and taxiways, adjacent hardscape shoulder, and non-native upland grassland.

This project is located within the City of Hollister (City), in San Benito County (Figure 1), approximately 2.5 miles north of the city center.

All figures referenced in this application are provided in Appendix A, as follows:
 Figure 1: Regional Vicinity
 Figure 2: Project Site Aerial – ITP Coverage Map
 Figure 3: Surrounding Land Uses
 Figure 4: Conceptual Project Layout

1.2 Purpose of this Application
This permit application was prepared to support Hollister Airport’s request for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) in conformance with Section 2081 (b) of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). This permit application describes management actions that will be implemented to offset the effects of any incidental take on state- listed species associated with development of the Project. Sections 2081 (b) of the CESA allow the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to issue an ITP for a state-listed threatened or endangered species only if specific criteria are met. These issuance criteria are as follows:

1. The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity

2. The impacts of the authorized take are avoided where possible or minimized and fully mitigated

3. The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized actions meet the following objectives:
 Are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the taking on the species  Maintain Project objectives to the greatest extent possible (where various measures are available)  Are capable of successful implementation

4. Adequate funding is provided to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures and to monitor compliance with and the effectiveness of the measures In addition, Section 2081(c) prohibits the issuance of a permit if issuance of it would jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

SECTION 1— BACKGROUND
1-2

1.3 Applicant/Proposed Permittee Contact Information
City of Hollister
David Mirrione, City Manager
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Phone: (831) 636-4300
Email: [email protected]
Person responsible for the project or activity requiring the permit, President or Principal Officer, and Registered Agent for the Service of Process:

City of Hollister
David Mirrione, City Manager
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Phone: (831) 636-4300
Email: [email protected]

1.4 Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency, City of Hollister will be responsible for overseeing and ensuring compliance with the mitigation measures in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program upon adoption of the Project’s initial study and mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND).

Section 783.3(a) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) requires submittal of information by the City of Hollister showing compliance with CEQA requirements. The submission of compliance information need not be concurrent with the submission of the ITP application: “[t]he analysis and information required by this section shall be provided to the Department [CDFW] as soon as reasonably practicable following the submission of a permit application.” (14 CCR section 783.3(b)).

Pursuant to 14 CCR section 783.3(a), an applicant must submit the following information in addition to that information required by 14 CCR section 783.2. First, the applicant must provide the contact information for the lead agency contact person. Second, the applicant must provide a statement as to whether an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or initial study has been prepared or is being considered, or whether another document prepared pursuant to a regulatory program certified pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.5 (and listed in 14 CCR section 15251) has been prepared or is being considered. Third, at the option of the applicant, a notice of preparation, notice of determination, or draft or final environmental document may be attached.

The following information fulfills the requirements of 14 CCR section 783.3(a).

The lead agency contact person for the Project is:

City of Hollister, Development Services Department
Attn.: Christine Hopper, Development Services Director
339 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Phone: (831) 636-4360
Email: [email protected]

SECTION 1— BACKGROUND
1-3
A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is currently being circulated for public review ending on October 9, 2023.

1.5 Species for Which Coverage is Requested
Hollister Airport seeks authorization under Section 2081 (b) of the CESA for incidental take of one State-listed species that could potentially occur within the Project Site, California Tiger Salamander (CTS) (ambystoma califroniense). “Take” is defined by Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as “hunting, pursuing, catching, capturing, or killing an individual of a listed species, or to attempt any such act.” CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. A copy of the Biological Assessment is included in Appendix C.

Take authorization is not being sought for Federally Endangered and State Threatened species, San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) (Vulpes macrotis mutica), as further explained below. The determination of absence of SJKF is supported by focused surveys detailed in the Project’s Biological Assessment which is included in Appendix C.

1.5.1 San Joaquin Kit Fox

1.5.1.1 Status and Distribution
The SJKF is listed as federally endangered (USFWS 1967) and State threatened. Kit foxes are typically associated with arid lands with sparse or absent shrub cover, sparse ground cover, and short vegetation. They construct underground burrows and tend to occur in areas with sandy soils that are relatively stone-free to several feet below the surface. They are primarily nocturnal and are active throughout the year. Burrows suitable for use by SJKF are generally at least four to five inches in diameter at the surface and extend at least two feet below the surface without narrowing below four inches. Critical habitat has not been designated for the SJKF.

1.5.1.2 Assessment Results
Of the seven recorded observations of SJKF that occur within a 10-mile radius of the action area, none were recorded within the past 10 years, and most date from the 1970s (CNDDB 2020). The most recent record of SJKF was recorded in 1992 approximately 3.0 miles southwest of the action area, west of Highway 25. The record noted a female and three of her litter of four to five pups were found dead at this location. During field surveys no burrows large enough to support SJKF were observed within the action area, or within grasslands occurring within 250 feet of the action area. A series of culverts to the south and outside of the action area could provide marginally suitable denning habitat for the species in dry months, but no sign of occupancy by kit fox was observed during surveys. Because SJKF can travel over a wide variety of habitats, including across agricultural fields, highways and aqueducts, all habitats within the action area are suitable for kit fox dispersal.

1.5.1.3 Project Effects
No suitable den habitat was observed in the action area, or within 250 feet of proposed work areas. Although suitable dispersal habitat for the SJKF is present within the action area it is extremely unlikely that project impacts on kit foxes will occur. The project is located near the western extent of the species’ range and no recent sightings have been documented near the action area. If a potential SJKF den is present in the action area and cannot be avoided, the measures listed in Section 6, below, will be implemented to ensure that no impacts on SJKF will occur.

SECTION 1— BACKGROUND
1-4

1.6 Biological Surveys Completed
Hollister Airport biological consultants have conducted both reconnaissance-level and habitat-based surveys of the Project Site. Table 1-1 provides the dates, type of survey, and surveyor names for field surveys performed for the Project as of the filing date for this permit application.

Table 1--1. Biological Resources Surveys
Hollister Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Date Type of Survey Surveyor Name(s)
July 15, 2020 General Biological Resources
Assessment Reconnaissance Survey
Jeff Mitchell and Bridget Sousa (Swaim Biological, Inc.) July 15, 2020 Focused survey for San Joaquin Kit
Fox
Jeff Mitchell and Bridget Sousa (Swaim Biological, Inc.)

SECTION 2
2-1

2.0 Project Description
This section describes each facet of the Project, from the general (Section 2.1) to the detailed (Section 2.6).

2.1 Project Overview
The overall goal of the project is to comply with required airport design changes implemented by the FAA for safety of operations at the Hollister Municipal Airport. This project is located within the City of Hollister (City), in San Benito County (Figure 1), approximately 2.5 miles north of the city center. The proposed project includes two elements: 1) removal of the taxiway preceding (west of) Runway 6, and 2) construction of a perpendicular taxiway connecting Runway 6 and the southern taxiway. Removal of the taxiway west of Runway 6 will include the demolition and removal of paved areas and minor grading. Installation of the taxiway connecting Runway 6 and the south taxiway will include grading of non-native grassland habitat, paving, and installation of runway safety lighting and signage. Lighting and signage will conform to FAA safety standards.

The location of the Project is shown on Figures 1 and 2. Representative site photographs of the Project Site and surrounding area are shown in Appendix B.

2.2 Project Location
The project is located in the City of Hollister, in San Benito County Section 17, Township 12S, Range 5E of the USGS 7 ½ minute San Felipe Quadrangle. An overview of the project location is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Surrounding land consists primarily of agricultural fields. Industrial development occurs east of the airport, and a concrete facility is present immediately northwest of the action area. Please refer to Figure 3.

2.3 Project Components and Construction (Updated November 2023)
The Project includes the design and construction of approximately 23,000 SF of a connector perpendicular taxiway connecting Runway 6 and the parallel Taxiway ‘C’ southern taxiway. The taxiway is necessary to facilitate the elimination of the in-line taxiway and enhance safety.

The taxiway preceding Runway 6 will be demolished consistent with current FAA Guidelines and Standards. An adequate paved blast pad will remain, and approximately 170,000 SF of pavement being removed.

Taxiway and runway lighting will be updated as a part of this project to facilitate the new connector taxiway, the new Runway blast pad, and as needed to address maintenance needs. It is anticipated that the existing cabling will be replaced with new airfield lighting cabling will be installed on the entire length of RWY 6-24 using existing conduits, with the exception of and approximately 100-linear foot segment trenching will be required along the runway. Directional boring will be used to install new conduit in this area. It is anticipated a new constant current regulator will be installed in the electrical vault. No soil disturbance associated with the lighting maintenance is anticipated. Medium intensity lights will be installed at the new taxiway within the area of disturbance designated for the Runway improvements. An overview of the conceptual Project layout is shown on Figure 4.

Additional Project Description and Construction Information (Updated November 2023) Taxiway Removal and Restoration: The existing taxiway pavement will be cold-milled with the resulting material processed for re-use as aggregate subbase on the project. The quantity to be cold-mill is 26,090 SY. Cold-milling

SECTION 2— 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2-2
duration is 1-week. Minor grading (750 cy) will be subsequently performed to bring the area to the FAA's Runway Safety Area standards. Grading duration is approximately 1-week. The graded area will be stabilized by applying hydro-seed. Hydro-seed duration is approximately 3-days.

Taxiway Construction: Grading operations will occur over approximately 2-days will be performed using a grader, backhoe, and compaction achieved using steel drum rollers (150 cy). This is followed by subgrade treatment (duration of 2-days) using soil stabilization mixer, grader and steel drum roller (3,890 sy). Aggregate subbase and base (1,380 cy) will be placed using a grader and steel drum roller with duration of 3-days. Asphalt pavement (704 tons) will be placed with a paving machine and steel drum rollers with duration of 2-days.

Taxiway and Runway Lighting Improvements: The existing runway lighting cable is located within a 2-inch PVC conduit buried approximately 24-inches below grade. This conduit can be accessed at each runway edge light location (light cans occur at 200-foot intervals) and all handhole locations (500-foot intervals). The existing cables will be removed by a cable pulling wench and replaced with new cabling using the same method.

Directional boring will be carried out using a horizontal direction boring machine. A bit pit approximately 5-feet by 5-feet will be established from where the boring operation is started. A pilot hole is drilled with the 2-inch HDPE conduit pulling through during backreaming. The cable pulling wench will be used to install the new electrical cables in the new conduit. The total length of new cabling, including looping within handholds and light cans, is approximately 14,300 feet.

2.4 Construction Impacts (Updated November 2023)
The Project will result in permanent effects on approximately 0.23 acre of CTS upland habitat and temporary impacts to 0.31 acre of upland habitat. These effects will be offset by a total of 4.83 acres of hardscape and compacted gravel that will be removed and restored with vegetation as part of the proposed project, resulting in a net gain of 4.60 acres of upland habitat for the CTS. No impacts to breeding or non-breeding aquatic habitat for the CTS will occur.

SECTION 3
3-1

3.0 California Tiger Salamander Presence
Determination
This section provides a summary-level description of habitat types within the Project Site and existing survey data that supports, in the absence of Project-specific presence/absence protocol survey data, the presumed presence of the CTS on the Project Site. The City’s determination of presence of the CTS at the Project Site is based on reconnaissance level surveys conducted by Swaim Biologists.

3.1 Affected Environment
Two general land cover or habitat types were present within the action area. These are paved/hardscape and non-native annual grassland (Figure 2). Paved areas include the existing airport runway and taxiway, which are bordered by a graveled shoulder. Non-native annual grassland habitat borders the runways and taxiways and occurs between Runway 6 and the south taxiway. Grasslands throughout the airport are regularly mowed and may also be graded or tilled as part of the routine operations and maintenance of the airport. During the July field survey, dozens of pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were present throughout grassland habitats in the action area and approximately a dozen California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows also were present in the action area. Areas adjacent to the action area supported similar densities of small mammal burrows. A drainage ditch immediately south of the action area and adjacent to several structures owned by the airport conveys runoff through three concrete culverts, approximately one foot in diameter.

Wetland vegetation was not observed within or near the ditch. A wetland delineation of the airport conducted in 2011 concluded that the ditches drain only upland habitat and are not connected with any waters or wetlands (Analytical Environmental Services 2011). These ditches are not expected to pond water, except for short periods during heavy rain events (Analytical Environmental Services 2011).

3.2 Presence Determination

3.2.1 Status and Distribution
The central population of the CTS is listed as threatened under California State endangered species legislation.

Critical habitat was designated in 2005 (USFWS 2005). The project is located outside of designated critical habitat for the species. The nearest designated critical habitat unit is the Ana Creek Unit, located approximately

3.8 miles southeast of the action area.

The CTS is strongly associated with grassland habitat but also occurs in other habitat types, including oak savanna, the edges of mixed woodlands, and foothill coniferous forests (Stebbins 2003). Adults spend most of the year in underground retreats, particularly in burrows of California ground squirrels and pocket gopher, and occasionally are found in man-made structures. CTS make seasonal migrations from upland areas to breeding ponds starting with the onset of fall rains. Seasonal pools are most commonly used but CTS may also use permanent ponds if predatory fish are absent. After breeding, CTS adults return to their upland retreats after a few days or weeks. Juveniles require approximately 10-12 weeks to achieve metamorphosis. The juveniles then disperse to upland areas after spending a few hours or days near the edges of aquatic habitats.

SECTION 3— 3.0 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER PRESENCE DETERMINATION 3-2

3.2.2 Assessment Results
The nearest recorded observation of CTS is located immediately west of the action area within the Hollister Municipal Airport where a dead salamander was found outside of a burrow near Runway 6 during a survey in 2007 (CNDDB 2020). Based on the specimen size and location, it is believed that the salamander may have been a dispersing juvenile that desiccated prior to finding suitable aestivation habitat. The surveyor who recorded this occurrence noted that suitable breeding habitats were not present in areas directly surrounding the specimen (CNDDB 2020), however subsequent assessments identified multiple suitable breeding sites within the potential movement distance of the species (ESA 2018).

During a 2012 assessment, aquatic habitats that could potentially support CTS breeding were identified within about 1.3 miles of the proposed project site. These included a detention basin directly south of Runway 6 and several quarry ponds approximately 0.5 mile north of Runway 6 (ESA 2018). The detention basin holds water for at least part of the year and could support CTS breeding. The quarry ponds are subject to high levels of human disturbance associated with quarry operations and were not considered potential breeding habitat. Another assessment conducted in 2018 identified two additional features with potential to support CTS aquatic breeding, a 3.5-acre seasonal pond located 0.3 mile southwest of Runway 6, and a 2-acre ephemeral pool located near the intersection of McConnell Road and Hwy 25, about 0.3 mile west of Runway 6 (ESA 2018). Both features appeared to be surrounded by potential CTS upland habitat and may provide CTS aquatic breeding habitat when water persists long enough to support metamorphosis which typically occurs from May through July. These aquatic habitats are shown in Figure 5.

Grassland habitats in the action area contain low-growing vegetation and low densities of ground squirrel burrows that are suitable for use by CTS as underground retreats. No significant barriers to movement are present between the project area and nearby aquatic habitats that could support CTS breeding, therefore the portions of the action area containing grassland and small mammal burrows are suitable upland habitat for CTS.

The portions of the project area that do not contain small mammal burrows may serve as dispersal habitat by CTS, and during the breeding season CTS may pass through the project area as they make overland movements to and from nearby breeding sites. Dispersing CTS also may move through or into the project area during the spring months when breeding ponds dry and recently metamorphosed juveniles disperse into the surrounding upland areas.

SECTION 4
4-1

4.0 Project Effects on California Tiger
Salamander
This section presents an analysis of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the CTS resulting from the construction of the Project. Effects on individual CTS will be avoided and minimized by the measures described in Section 6.

4.1 Direct Effects
Direct effects are those that are caused by the Project action and occur at the same time and place. Direct effects are either temporary or permanent.

Project impacts on CTS could occur within portions of the action area containing grassland habitat as these areas provide suitable upland and dispersal habitat for the salamander. Small mammal burrows were present in the grassland habitat that will be affected by the project, and in these areas, CTS may be directly impacted in their underground retreats by earthmoving activities. In paved areas, CTS dispersal could be impacted by the presence of open excavations and obstacles (e.g., BMP fencing) that may impede salamander movements.

Migrating CTS that pass through the action area could become entrapped overnight or take cover under surface objects within the work area and be subject to injury or mortality. Project effects on CTS may therefore occur in all grasslands habitats that are temporarily or permanently impacted by the project. Project effects to CTS in the paved portions of the project area are only likely to occur if work occurs during rainy periods when salamanders are making breeding migrations or during the spring when metamorphosing juveniles leave breeding sites in search of suitable uplands.

Avoidance and minimization measures will be effective in reducing or eliminating direct mortality or injury to CTS that could enter the active construction site.

4.2 Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are those that are caused by, or result from, the proposed action and are later in time, but reasonably certain to occur. In contrast to direct effects, indirect effects are more subtle, and could affect individuals and populations and habitat quality over an extended period of time, long after construction activities have been completed.

Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur. The proposed project is not expected to increase traffic at or utilization of the Hollister Municipal Airport in any significant way. Therefore, no long-term effects on State protected wildlife populations near the action area are anticipated as a result of project activities. Once the project is completed, the temporarily affected habitat in the action area will be restored and it is expected to continue to provide suitable CTS upland habitat. Permanent impacts in the form of new hardscape features will be small in scale and will be entirely offset by the larger area of pavement and compacted gravel that will be demolished and revegetated. Therefore, no indirect effects to listed species or their habitats are expected to occur.

4.3 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are those resulting from the proposed action, together with future state and private activities, excluding federal activities that are reasonably foreseeable. No future State, Tribal, local or private

SECTION 4— 4.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ON CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER 4-2
actions were identified that are anticipated to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects arising from future non-state actions are anticipated. Future maintenance or construction at the airport that could impact State listed species would be subject to separate consultation under CESA.

SECTION 5
5-1

5.0 Incidental Take Determinations and Jeopardy
Analysis
This analysis considers the species’ capability to survive and reproduce, and any adverse impacts to those abilities in light of: (1) known population trends, (2) known threats to the species, and (3) reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related Projects and activities.

The Central CTS is threatened primarily by the destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of upland and aquatic habitats, primarily resulting from the conversion of these habitats by urban, commercial, and intensive agricultural activities. Additional threats to the species include hybridization with introduced nonnative barred tiger salamanders (A. tigrinum mavortium), destructive rodent-control techniques (e.g., deep-ripping of burrow areas, use of fumigants), reduced survival due to the presence of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) (Leyse and Lawler 2000) and other introduced predators, and mortality on roads due to vehicles. Disease, particularly chytridiomycosis and ranaviruses, and the spread of disease by nonnative amphibians are discussed in the listing rule as additional threats to the species.

Construction activities would result in the permanent and temporary loss of a small amount of upland and dispersal habitat, generate temporary noise and vibration, and could impede movement of individuals to and from breeding ponds, potentially reducing reproduction. Construction activities would injure or kill CTS remaining in burrows or dispersing through the project area. The loss of reproductive individuals could temporarily lower the reproductive capacity of the local population, but the number of individuals affected is expected to be low because of the small size of the action area, limiting work to the dry season, and avoiding work during rain events which could stimulate salamander movements. The City would implement measures to limit the number of CTS that would be harmed by the project, such as using a Service-approved biologist to survey for and relocate CTS from work areas. In addition, the City proposes the purchase of 0.50 acre-credits of CTS upland habitat from the Sparling Ranch Conservation Bank and the project will result in a net gain of 4.60 acres of potential CTS upland habitat as described in Section 6.2 Compensatory Mitigation. Therefore, the Project would result in minimal impacts to CTS in or near the action area.

SECTION 6
6-1
Proposed Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation Measures
This section describes the measures proposed by Hollister Airport to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential adverse effects on CTS resulting from Project construction. An overriding objective of these measures is to reduce or eliminate lethal take of the listed species to the maximum extent possible.

6.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
 Approved Biological Monitor. A USFWS-approved biologist(s) will be onsite during all activities that may result in take of the California tiger salamander (CTS), including the initial ground disturbance in areas containing small mammal burrows. The qualifications of the biologist(s) will be submitted to the USFWS for review and written approval at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date ground disturbance is initiated at the project site.
 California Tiger Salamander Preconstruction Survey. No more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the date of initial ground disturbance, a preconstruction survey for the CTS will be conducted by a USFWS- approved biologist at the project site. The survey will include a visual examination of mammal burrows, such as California ground squirrels or gophers, to the extent feasible. If any CTS are found, the USFWS will be contacted to determine if moving any of the individuals is appropriate.  San Joaquin Kit Fox Preconstruction Survey. A USFWS-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey, within the limits of the proposed temporary and permanent impacts in grassland and ruderal habitat, no less than 14 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or other activity that could affect the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). If any potential kit fox dens are present, their disturbance and destruction will be avoided. If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, a qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using a remote camera, track plate, or other methodology coordinated with the USFWS. If unoccupied, the qualified biologist shall collapse these dens. If occupied, the biologist shall consult with USFWS regarding best practices for encouraging the SJKF(s) to move to alternate dens outside the work areas, including excavation or construction of artificial dens.  Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds. If construction must be performed in the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall survey the proposed project area for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. If active nests are observed, no-construction buffer zones shall be established around nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist in consultation with USFWS. Buffer zones shall be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned.
 Worker Training. The USFWS-approved biologist will conduct employee education training for employees working on earthmoving and/or construction activities. Personnel will be required to attend the presentation which will describe the CTS and SJKF, the avoidance and minimization measures being implemented to protect listed species, legal protection of the animals, and penalties for unauthorized take of listed species. All attendees will sign a training log with their printed name, and company or agency indicating that they have attended the training.  Minimize and Identify Project Footprint. The applicant will minimize adverse effects to listed species habitat by limiting, to the maximum extent possible, the extent of access routes, construction areas,

SECTION 6— PROPOSED AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 6-2
equipment staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas. Prior to the date of initial ground disturbance at the project site, any areas located in listed species habitat that may be disturbed will be identified and clearly marked in the field with wooden staking, high visibility flagging, or other methods.  Avoid Small Mammal Burrows. Prior to the start of construction, a USFWS-approved biologist will identify burrows suitable for use by CTS in the temporary work area and mark the burrows for avoidance using high visibility flagging or another similar method. The flagging will remain in place during project construction and the burrows will be avoided by heavy equipment and vehicle traffic to the extent feasible. After construction is completed, the flagging will be removed from the site.  Seasonal Work Restriction. To the extent practicable, project activities will be avoided between November 1 and March 31 because that is the time period when CTS are most likely to be moving through upland areas. When project activities must take place between November 1 and March 31, a USFWS-approved biologist will conduct a survey of the project area prior to the start of work to ensure no listed species are present.
 Wildlife Exclusion Fencing. If work must occur between November 1 and March 31, temporary wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed to enclose the project work areas. The fencing, which can be made of silt fence, wood, geotextile fabric, or other durable material, will be a minimum of two feet in height and will be buried at least six inches underground. Gates will be installed to allow vehicles to enter from access roads. These gates will be closed at the end of each workday. Exit funnels may be installed where appropriate to allow small vertebrates to leave the work area unharmed. The exclusion fencing will remain in place for the duration of the wet season (i.e., November 1 through March 31) while project activities are ongoing. A USFWS-approved biologist will regularly inspect the fence for proper functioning and the fence will be maintained in good working condition for the duration of the wet season. Wildlife exclusion fencing will be removed following project completion.  Use of Existing Roads. All project-related vehicle traffic will be restricted to established roads, paved or disturbed areas, or designated construction areas. Off-road vehicle use outside of designated project work areas will be prohibited.
 Stormwater Pollution Prevention. Stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) and erosion control BMPs will be developed and implemented to minimize any wind- or water-related erosion. The applicant will include provisions in construction contracts for measures to protect sensitive areas and prevent and minimize stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Protective measures will include, at a minimum, those listed below.
a. No discharge of pollutants from vehicle or equipment cleaning will be allowed into any storm drains, water courses, or drainage ditches.
b. Vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance operations will be at least 50 feet away from water courses, except at established vehicle maintenance facilities. c. Concrete waste and water from curing operations will be collected in washouts and will be disposed of and not allowed into water courses.
d. Spill containment kits will be maintained onsite at all times during construction operations and/or staging or fueling of equipment.
e. Dust control measures will be implemented in areas of ground disturbance and for temporary soil stockpiles when weather conditions require.
 Equipment Leaks. The applicant will maintain all construction equipment to prevent leaks of fuels, lubricants, or other fluids.

SECTION 6— PROPOSED AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 6-3
 Litter and Trash Management. All food scraps, wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash from the work area will be disposed of in closed trash containers. The trash containers will be removed from the project site on at least a weekly basis.
 Entrapment Hazards. Any pipes, conduits and other materials greater than one inch in diameter shall be capped if stored overnight, elevated above ground to reduce the potential for animals to climb into them, or thoroughly inspected before they are moved or buried. Excavations greater than one foot in depth that area left open overnight will include escape ramps set at an angle less than 33 degrees to ensure that wildlife can climb out.
 No Plastic Monofilament. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting or similar material in any form will not be used at the project site because CTS can become entangled and trapped in it.

Appropriate substitute materials may include burlap, coir fiber, or jute fiber netting,  Work During Dry Weather. To the maximum extent practicable, no construction activities will occur during rain events or within 24-hours following a rain event while wet conditions persist. Prior to construction activities resuming, a USFWS approved biologist will inspect the project area and all equipment/materials for the presence of listed species.  Work During Daytime Hours. To the maximum extent practicable, night-time construction will be minimized or avoided by the applicant. Earthmoving construction activities will cease no less than 30 minutes before sunset and will not begin again prior to no less than 30 minutes after sunrise. Except when necessary for safety, artificial lighting at the project site will be prohibited during the hours of darkness to the maximum extent practicable. Artificial lighting, if used, will be directed downward, and will only be used in the immediate workspace.
 Restore Disturbed Areas. Any grassland habitats temporarily disturbed by project construction shall be restored to pre-project conditions. To the extent practicable, topsoil will be salvaged for future replacement. Once grading and construction are complete, the salvaged topsoil will be distributed on the surface of the disturbed soil areas. Areas where hardscape is removed will be seeded with native California plants, or with a seed mix consistent with existing grassland vegetation.  Report Unanticipated Take. The applicant will report any information to the USFWS about take or suspected take of federally listed wildlife species. The USFWS will be notified via electronic mail and telephone within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the discovery. Notification will include the species, number of individuals, sex (if known), date, time, location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal, how the individual was taken, photographs of the animal, and names of the persons who observe the take and/or found the animal. The individual animal will be preserved, as appropriate, and held in a secure location until instructions are received from the USFWS regarding the disposition of the specimen or the USFWS takes custody of the specimen.

6.2 Compensatory Mitigation (Updated November 2023)
The Project will incorporate measures to avoid and minimize effects on listed species and their habitats. Effects on habitat will be minimized through the implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 6.1. Following the completion of project activities, all construction material and debris will be removed and disposed of appropriately. Unpaved work areas will be restored to conditions similar to those existing on adjacent areas.

The proposed project will result in permanent impacts to 0.23 acre and temporary impacts to 0.31 acre of CTS upland habitat. To compensate for permanent impacts to 0.23 acre of CTS upland habitat, the project proposes to purchase 0.50 acre-credits of CTS upland habitat from the Sparling Ranch Conservation Bank resulting in a

SECTION 6— PROPOSED AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 6-4

2.17 to 1 mitigation ratio (mitigated area: impacted area). To compensate for temporary impacts to 0.31 acre of CTS upland habitat, the proposes to remove approximately 4.83 acres of hardscape and compacted gravel that will be restored with native vegetation resulting in a net gain of approximately 4.60 acres of potential CTS upland habitat. No impacts to CTS breeding or non-breeding aquatic habitat will occur.

SECTION 7
7-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting during
Construction
This section contains a summary-level description of the scope of mitigation monitoring to be performed, the proposed approach to conflict resolution, and the reporting responsibilities of construction monitoring.

7.1 Scope of Monitoring
The intensity and frequency of monitoring depends on the biological resources in and near the work area, the kinds of activity underway, and CDFW requirements. When trenches and holes are open, large volumes of supplies are deployed for installation, construction traffic is very heavy, and sensitive resources are common in the area, full-time environmental compliance monitoring will be necessary. During such periods, daily or more frequent inspections will include the following:
 Evaluate the fencing and staking of exclusion zones protecting special-status species. No work activities will be conducted within the designated exclusion zones.
 Verify that straw wattles or silt fences are in place where appropriate.  Monitor to determine that disturbance or removal of vegetation within the work area will not exceed the minimum necessary. Precautions will be taken to avoid other damage to vegetation by people or equipment.
 Verify that fill will be limited to the minimum amount necessary to accomplish the activities. Excess fill will be moved offsite at Project completion.
 Confirm that raw cement, concrete, or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to fish or wildlife resulting from Project-related activities will be prevented from contaminating the soil or entering the offsite waterways.  Confirm that all Project-generated debris, building materials, and rubbish will be removed from areas where such materials could be washed offsite.
 Verify that any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated adjacent to waters of the State and staging/storage and refueling areas for equipment and materials will be located outside of the waterways.  Verify that all excess Project materials are removed from the Project site.  Confirm that all workers in the Project area have completed an employee orientation and WEAP Training will be provided at the start of work.
 Evaluate compliance with installation of escape ramps or covers to prevent entrapment of wildlife.  Confirm that construction personnel have inspected all trenches for entrapped wildlife each morning prior to onset of construction before such holes or trenches are filled. Any animals discovered will be allowed to escape voluntarily, without harassment, before construction activities resume, or will be removed from the trench or hole by the Biological Monitor and allowed to escape unimpeded. All handling of listed species will be done by biologists in possession of a valid 10(a)(1)(A) permit for that species as required, and/or as approved by CDFW.
 Confirm that ground-disturbing activities will be limited to daylight hours, unless otherwise authorized.

SECTION 7— MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING DURING CONSTRUCTION 7-2
 Verify that any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a listed species or who finds any such animal dead, injured, or entrapped, will be required to report the incident immediately to the Biological Monitor. In the case of entrapped listed animals, escape ramps or structures will be installed immediately, if possible, to allow the subject animal(s) to escape unimpeded.
 Contact CDFW following the resolution of any sensitive species emergency regarding appropriate protection measures for listed species and their habitat that will be implemented during cleanup activities. Hollister Airport will contact CDFW.

Although the inspections listed below will be performed whenever a Biological Monitor is in the construction area, inspections will be conducted at least once a week to confirm that the following are being performed:
 Weekly compliance inspection reports are maintained for review by CDFW upon request.  Exclusion zone flagging and fencing is in place where needed and has been removed in areas where construction is completed.
 Construction area boundaries are clearly delineated by fencing or staking and flagging and/or rope or cord.  Equipment storage and parking are confined to the designated areas.  All food-related trash items are being disposed of in closed containers and are being removed at least once a week from the site.
 Deliberate feeding of wildlife is not occurring.
 No firearms, except for those carried by security personnel, are on the Project site.  No pets are allowed on the Project site.

7.2 Conflict Resolution
Resolution of noncompliance issues will require the cooperation of the Biological Monitor, Environmental Compliance Manager, Resident Engineer, Construction Inspector, Contractor Supervisor, and Crew Foreman.

Through this cooperative effort, all involved parties will become aware of the issues, remediation measures, and reasons for future avoidance of similar and related noncompliance issues. To prioritize these issues, all incidences of noncompliance and other concerns that may become noncompliance issues will be discussed at the weekly project status meeting. Furthermore, the Biological Monitor will take every opportunity to discuss sensitive species biology and protection with contracting personnel.

7.3 Reporting Responsibilities
Monthly monitoring reports will be prepared by the Biological Monitor and will be submitted to the Hollister Airport Environmental Compliance Manager for transmittal to CDFW. The first monthly report will be prepared within 1 month of the beginning of surface-disturbing activities. Subsequent reports will be prepared for any month during which biological monitoring occurs. Each monthly compliance report will include the following information:
 Areas and activities monitored during the reporting month  Summary of the CTS protective measures that were implemented  Incident reports and resolution of each reported situation

SECTION 7— MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING DURING CONSTRUCTION 7-3
 Species relocated, killed, or injured during Project construction; the dates, times, and locations of capture, mortality, or injury; and descriptions of relocation sites  Construction and monitoring activities planned for the following month, along with anticipated problems  Methods used to resolve noncompliance issues, including agency and Hollister Airport personnel contacted

7.3.1 Reporting of Injured Wildlife
Any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a wildlife species, or who finds any animal either dead, injured, or entrapped, is required to report the incident immediately to the Biological Monitor. Injured special-status animals will be reported to CDFW within 24 hours. Hollister Airport will follow instructions that are provided by CDFW for special-status species. A local wildlife care center will be identified as the on-call wildlife rehabilitation center and/or veterinarian who can be contacted in the event that an injured animal needs care.

In the case of entrapped listed animals, escape ramps or structures will be installed immediately, if possible, to allow the subject animal(s) to escape unimpeded.

If an animal is found dead on the Project site and the species of animal is classified as threatened or endangered, Hollister Airport will immediately (within 24 hours) notify CDFW (CDFW Central Region 4 at 559- 243-4005 or the State Dispatch at 916-445-0045) by phone or in person and will document initial notification in writing within two working days of the finding of any such animal(s). Notification will include the date, time, location, species, and circumstances of the incident.

Any listed species found dead or injured will be delivered to CDFW or designated veterinarian immediately for care, analysis, or disposition.

7.3.2 Spill Response Emergency Procedures
In the event that a spill or accident occurs adjacent to or in a sensitive habitat and the Biological Monitor is not onsite, the following will occur:
 Construction activities in the immediate vicinity will halt  The site or area foreman will be notified of the incident  The Biological Monitor will be contacted immediately
The Biological Monitor will assess impacts to the site-specific sensitive resources, determine whether damage is significant, develop the necessary mitigation measures, and if the Biological Monitor deems necessary, Hollister Airport will contact the appropriate agencies responsible for consultation. The appropriate agencies will be notified every time a spill or accident occurs in or adjacent to a sensitive habitat.

7.3.3 Post-construction Monitoring and Reporting Responsibilities Within 60 days of completion of Project construction, Hollister Airport will provide to CDFW a written construction termination report. This report will identify how conditions of certification and protection measures for biological resources have been completed. The Biological Monitor will conduct a post-construction site visit once all demobilization and cleanup activities are complete to determine whether all implemented protection measures related to biological resources were successful. The results of the inspection will be included in the post-construction report.

7.4 Implementation Monitoring/Verification Program
Verification of mitigation will be documented on daily monitoring logs, in monthly compliance reports, and in the final post-construction report. Compliance of each mitigation measure will be monitored by the Biological

SECTION 7— MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING DURING CONSTRUCTION 7-4
Monitor according to the schedule in Table 7-1 and will be documented on compliance verification forms or daily logs for each site visit. The daily forms will record where, when, and how construction activities are performed and whether compliance was met. Monthly Compliance Reports will summarize the activities for each month. The summaries will include a discussion of whether the mitigation measures were successful, compared with the success criteria where applicable. The summaries will also include all plan modifications and remedial measures taken if the success criteria were not met during the mitigation monitoring process. Table 7- 1 outlines the performance standards or success criteria for each mitigation measure.

Table 7-1. Monitoring Tasks and Criteria that Determine Successful Implementation of Mitigation Measures Hollister Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Duration Monitoring Frequency Success Criteria Preconstruction surveys Direct observation Throughout
construction
As-needed Summary in monthly
compliance reports
Construction zone limits Direct observation Throughout
construction
As-needed No adverse effects to
surrounding habitats
Worker Environmental
Awareness Training
Direct observation of
attendance
Throughout
construction for new
employees
At start of Project
construction
Signed affidavits, to be
included with monthly
compliance reports
Special-status species
protection
Direct observation Throughout
construction
As-needed No adverse effects to
special-status species
Post-construction
demobilization and cleanup
Direct observation Throughout
construction
As work is completed Equipment and
materials no longer
needed for construction
are removed in a timely
manner

SECTION 9
9-1
References
Analytical Environmental Services. 2011. Wetland Delineation, City of Hollister, Hollister Municipal Airport.

Technical Report prepared for C&S Engineers, Inc. May 2011.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2020. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp . Accessed July 2020.

Environmental Sciences Associates. 2018. California Tiger Salamander and Western Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment for the Runway/Taxiway Safety Project at the Hollister Municipal Airport (CVH). Technical Report.

Prepared for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Leyse, K., and S.P. Lawler. 2000. Effect of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) on California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) larvae in permanent ponds. Mosquito Control Research, annual report 2000.

Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003.

Swaim Biological Inc. July 2020. Hollister Municipal Airport Runway/Taxiway Safety Project Biological Assessment. Prepared for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Notices, Office of the Secretary, Native Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species. Federal Register 32:4001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for the California tiger salamander. Federal Register 70(162):49380-49458.

Appendix A
Figures

RESOLUTION NO.2023-166

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE 0.75 ACRE CREDITS OF

CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER UPLAND HABITAT AT THE SPARLING

RANCH AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND

WILDLIFE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT'S RUNWAY 6 SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS,the City of Hollister deems it necessary to improve the safety, and efficient operation of the Hollister Municipal Airport;and
WHEREAS, the City of Council of the City of Hollister accepted an FAA grant of 3,267,899.00 on June 26, 2023 for the Runway 6 Safety Improvement Project(AIP 3- 06-0105-026);and
WHEREAS, the USFWS Biological Opinion recommends compensatory mitigation to offset the effects of the proposed project but does not require mitigation;and WHEREAS,the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW)has indicated that the project will need to apply for take authorization from CDFW to comply with the California Endangered Species Act(CESA) and the California Fish and Game Code because the Biological Opinion does not covey take authorization for species listed pursuant to CESA:
and
WHEREAS, CDFW is requiring compensatory mitigation to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed taking of California Tiger Salamander(CTS)habitat;and WHEREAS,to compensate for permanent impacts to 0.23 acre of CTS upland habitat, the project proposes to purchase 0.50 acre-credits of CTS upland habitat from the Sparling Ranch Conservation Bank resulting in an approximate 2 to 1 mitigation ratio mitigated area:impacted area);and
WHEREAS, to compensate for temporary impacts to 0.31 acre of CTS upland habitat, the proposes to remove 3.91 acres of hardscape and compacted gravel that will be restored with native vegetation resulting in a net gain of 3.68 acres of potential CTS upland habitat;and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated CDFW will not require more than a 3:1 mitigation ratio for permanent impacts.Therefore,for conservative planning,the cost of 0.75 acre-credits of CTS upland habitat is $50,000 based on correspondence from the Sparling Ranch Conservation Bank.

NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hollister authorizes the City Manager to purchase up to 0.75-acre credits of California Tiger Salamander upland habitat at the Sparling Ranch at an amount not to exceed$50,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary agreements required to effectuate the purchase.

Resolution No.2023-166
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED,by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting held this 5th day of September,2023,by the following vote:

AYES:Councilmembers Perez, Resendiz, Morales, Burns,and Mayor Casey NOES: None
ABSTAINED:None
ABSENT: None
1t a`'`
fbha Ca , Mayo
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law
inn i i,ie t
l/ (z dretit1t 1
nnife odworth,MMC,City Clerk Mar F erner,City Attorney

Resolution No.2023-166
I,Jennifer Woodworth, MMC,City Clerk of the City of Hollister,do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No.2023-166 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 of said Council held on the 5th day of September, 2023, 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 this 5th day of September,2023.
e.('
W/' ,
Cre 12.i€.(°/3,,
ennifer oodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

kimley-horn.com 765 The City Drive, Suite 200, Orange, CA 92868 714-939-1030

MEMORANDUM
To: Christine Hopper, Development Services Director
From: Casey Schooner
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: December 7, 2023
Subject: Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project Responses to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment Letter The Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for public review from September 7, 2023 to October 6, 2023.

On October 3, 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requested an additional week (until October 13, 2023) to review the Draft IS/MND and provide comments. A comment letter was provided by CDFW on October 20, 2023. Responses follow the letter from CDFW. Comments made by CDFW do not identify any new significant environmental issues or impacts that were not already addressed in the IS/MND. Neither the comments nor the responses constitute new information requiring recirculation of the IS/MND or preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

kimley-horn.com 765 The City Drive, Suite 200, Orange, CA 92868 714-939-1030

Comment 1
The commenter acknowledges that the City has submitted a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application for incidental take of California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense, CTS), a State and federal threatened species. The commenter identified inconsistencies between the project description in the IS/MND and the ITP application, specifically related to Project boundaries and activities that differ from those shown in the ITP application. Specifically, the commenter identifies that a larger area is proposed for demolition and removal of pavement than in the ITP application ; that the IS/MND shows areas where electrical cabling will be replaced than are identified in the ITP application; and the ITP application proposes approximately 450 linear feet of directional boring for new cabling that the IS/MND does not identify.

Response 1
As identified in comment 1, the City has submitted an ITP application for incidental take of CTS.

CDFW reviewed the draft application and provided comments on October 23, 2023. The ITP application was revised to clarify any discrepancies and to reflect a consistent description of the project. Specifically, the ITP application has been updated to include a project description and exhibit consistent with the project description and conceptual site plan presented in the IS/MND.

The ITP application was revised and provided to the CDFW on December 5, 2023, along with letter responding to CDFW comments on the ITP application. Although electrical improvement areas are shown in Exhibit 3 of the IS/MND and discussed throughout the IS/MND, clarification was added to Section 2.6 of the IS/MND to identify that approximately 450 linear feet of directional boring, using a horizontal directional boring machine, would be required for new cabling.

Comment 2
The commenter asserts that the project footprint will cover more than a 5.3-acre area when accounting for the following temporary areas of disturbance: the areas adjacent to the demolition work that will be reseeded upon completion of the Project and the areas where electrical cabling will be placed within existing conduits if the conduits are located underground.

Response 2
Section 2.6 of the IS/MND identifies that approximately 1.9 acres of reseeding would occur in areas adjacent to ground disturbance. As identified in the IS/MND, reseeding areas are adjacent to demolition work and reseeding does not require ground disturbance. Further, reseeding areas adjacent to taxiways and runways is a common airport maintenance practice that is undertaken, without ground disturbance, on a regular basis.

As identified in Section 2.6 of the IS/MND, the Project would include the installation of runway edge lights placed in existing conduits. Section 2.6 of the IS/MND was revised to further clarify that

kimley-horn.com 765 The City Drive, Suite 200, Orange, CA 92868 714-939-1030

trenching is not anticipated to access the existing conduit or install the new electrical cabling; access is achieved through the existing runway edge light cans and existing handholes. Because no trenching would occur to replace the new cabling, the project footprint would not extend into this area. Accordingly, the 5.3-acre footprint remains accurate.

Comment 3
The commenter observes that the IS/MND identified 0.23 acres of permanent impact and 0.31 acres of temporary impact to CTS upland and dispersal habitat resulting from the proposed Project.

The commenter asserts that based on the Project site plan depicted in Exhibit 3 of the IS/MND, it appears that additional temporary impacts to CTS upland and dispersal habitat may occur.

Response 3
The ITP application previously identified 3.91 acres of pavement removal, but has been revised, consistent with the IS/MND, to identify approximately 4.83 (or approximately 4.8) acres of pavement removal. The additional 0.92 acres of pavement removal that was not previously identified in the ITP application would not result in additional permanent (0.23 acre) or temporary (0.31 acre) impacts to non-native grassland (potential CTS upland habitat) as previously reported in the ITP application. Further, as identified in the response to comment 2 above, reseeding of areas adjacent to ground disturbance and the installation of runway edge lights placed in existing conduits would not result in additional permanent or temporary impacts to non-native grassland.

Comment 4
The commenter notes that consistency between the ITP and the CEQA document is very important.

CDFW is the Responsible Agency for the purposes of issuing an ITP and, as a Responsible Agency, cannot authorize impacts that are greater than those disclosed and analyzed in the Project's IS/MND.

Response 4
As discussed in the responses to comments 1 to 3 above, inconsistencies between the ITP application and the IS/MND have been resolved. Thus, impacts identified in the ITP application are not greater than those disclosed and analyzed in the Project's IS/MND.

Comment 5
The commenter acknowledges that the CDFW must include additional mitigation measures in an ITP to meet the CESA permit issuance criteria, which is more strict than CEQA. The commenter recommends that some of the minimization and mitigation measures typically included in an ITP be included in the IS/MND.

Response 5
Applicable mitigation measures recommended by the commenter have been incorporated into the

kimley-horn.com 765 The City Drive, Suite 200, Orange, CA 92868 714-939-1030

IS/MND as further discussed in the responses to comments 6-10, below.

Comment 6
The commenter recommends a mitigation measure to require development of a CTS Mortality Reduction and Relocation Plan.

Response 6
IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been refined and includes the suggested CTS Mortality Reduction and Relocation Plan.

Comment 7
The commenter recommends a mitigation measure for best practices when stockpiling materials during construction activities.

Response 7
As discussed in Section 4.19 of the IS/MND, the milling of pavement demolition materials would occur on-site and would be reused to the maximum extent possible. Further clarification has been added to Section 2.6 of the IS/MND to identify that existing taxiway pavement will be cold-milled with the resulting material processed for re-use as aggregate subbase on the project; export and stockpiling is not anticipated.

Comment 8
The commenter recommends a CTS Stop Work Measure be included in the IS/MND.

Response 8
IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been refined and includes the suggested CTS Stop Work measure.

Comment 9
The commenter recommends a CTS Injury mitigation measure.

Response 9
IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been refined and includes the suggested CTS injury measure.

Comment 10
The commenter recommends revisions to the nesting bird mitigation measure.

Response 10
IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-4 has been refined and includes the suggested nesting bird measure. The IS/MND has also been revised to note that the breeding season generally ends September 15 (see Section 4.4, Threshold (d) of the IS/MND).

kimley-horn.com 765 The City Drive, Suite 200, Orange, CA 92868 714-939-1030

Comment 11
The commenter provides editorial comments and suggestions; specifically, that a lack of an occurrence record in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) does not mean a species is not present. The commenter notes that in order to adequately assess any potential Project- related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present at or near the Project site.

Response 11
As identified in Section 4.4 of the IS/MND, a Biological Assessment was prepared for the proposed project by Swaim Biological Inc., in July 2020. The Biological Assessment was conducted in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)). As identified in Appendix B of the IS/MND, a field survey was conducted by Swaim Biological Inc., and the results of that survey, in addition to literature review and database queries, informed their assessment of potential biological impacts that may result from the Project.

Comment 12
The commenter provides editorial comments and suggestions; specifically, recommends consulting with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding potential impacts to federally listed species including but not limited to CTS.

Response 12
At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project on August 26, 2021 and measures identified to reduce Project impacts were incorporated into the IS/MND.

Conclusion
We value the comments provided by the CDFW and have made applicable clarifications and refinements to the IS/MND; however, these comments do not identify any new significant environmental issues or impacts that were not already addressed in the IS/MND. Neither the comments nor the responses provided constitute new information requiring recirculation of the IS/MND or preparation of an EIR.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6
Safety Project
Final Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023

Prepared By:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
401 B Street, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92101

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study ..................................................................................... 1

1.4 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Environmental Resources Topics .............................................................................................. 2

1.6 Report Organization .................................................................................................................. 3

1.7 Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................... 3

1.8 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................. 3

1.9 Initial Study Review Process ...................................................................................................... 3

1.10 Project Applicant(s)/Sponsor(s) ................................................................................................ 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................................. 5

2.1 Regional Location ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Project Site Location .................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Project Background ................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Existing Site Conditions ............................................................................................................. 5

2.5 General Plan and Zoning Designations ...................................................................................... 6

2.6 Proposed Project Characteristics .............................................................................................. 6

2.7 Project Approvals ...................................................................................................................... 7 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................ 11 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project ....................................................................... 13 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................... 14 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 15 AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................................................... 15 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................................... 18 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................... 21 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 30 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................... 45 ENERGY ............................................................................................................................................ 49 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................................................... 56 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................ 62

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page ii
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................................ 66 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................ 70 LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................................. 74 MINERAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................................... 75 NOISE ............................................................................................................................................... 77 POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................................... 89 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................. 91 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................... 93 TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................................... 94 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 96 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 98 WILDFIRE ....................................................................................................................................... 101 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................... 103 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 105

Tables
Table 1: Project Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Construction-Related Emissions .................................................................................................... 23 Table 3: Special Status Species Potential to Occur ..................................................................................... 31 Table 4: Energy Use During Construction ................................................................................................... 51 Table 5: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................ 64 Table 6: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations .. ......................................................................................................................................................... 81 Table 7: Sensitive Receptors ....................................................................................................................... 84 Table 8: Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................. 85 Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ........................................................................ 87

Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 10

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page iii
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix B: Biological Assessment
Appendix C: Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Energy Calculations
Appendix E: Geotechnical Assessment

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 1

INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE

1.1 Project Overview
The Draft Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft Final IS/MND) was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn) for the City of Hollister (City) to assess whether there may be significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project (Project), located within the boundaries of the existing Hollister Municipal Airport, in the City of Hollister, California, within San Benito County. This Draft Final IS/MND was prepared consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may have significant environmental impacts on specific environmental areas. Where a potentially significant impact may occur, the most appropriate mitigation measure(s) have been identified and would be applied to avoid or mitigate the potential impact to a level less than significant.

1.2 Lead Agency
The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility for a proposed project. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA Guidelines §15051 establishes criteria for identifying the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b) (1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15367 and based on the criterion above, the City of Hollister is the lead agency for the Project.

1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
In accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, §15000 et seq.), this Draft Final IS/MND has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the Project.

Per State CEQA Guidelines §15070 a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or MND for a project subject to CEQA when:

The initial study shows no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 2
2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.4 Mitigation Measures
Per State CEQA Guidelines §15041 - Authority to Mitigate, a lead agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards. As defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15364, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal social, and technological factors. If significant impacts are identified, then mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 states that mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements, including the following:
• There must be an essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation measure and legitimate governmental interest.
• The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project.

There are several forms of mitigation under CEQA (see State CEQA Guidelines §15370). These are summarized below.
• Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
• Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment.

Avoiding impacts is the preferred form of mitigation, followed by minimizing or compensating the impact to less than significant levels. Compensating for impacts would only be used when the other mitigation measures are not feasible.

1.5 Environmental Resources Topics
This Draft Final IS/MND evaluates the Project’s impacts on the following resource topics:

• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 3
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• Mandatory Findings of Significance

1.6 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the Initial Study.

Section 2.0 – Project Description. This section identifies key project characteristics and includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.

Section 3.0 – Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation.

Section 4.0 – Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist.

Section 5.0 – References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.

1.7 Required Permits and Approvals
The following permits, agreements, and regulatory review processes must be approved by the City before any construction or operation of the Project, as proposed, is permitted:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife: California Endangered Species Act Application for an Incidental Take Permit for State-listed Species

1.8 Summary of Findings
Section 3.0 of this document contains the Environmental Checklist that was prepared for the Project pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Environmental Checklist indicates that the Project would not result in significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures, as identified where applicable throughout this document.

1.9 Initial Study Review Process
The IS and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 20-day public review period.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 4
Written comments regarding this MND should be addressed to:

David Mirrione, City Manager
City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
(831) 636 4340 and [email protected]
Comments submitted to the City during the 20-day public review period will be considered and addressed prior to the adoption of the MND by the City.

1.10 Project Applicant(s)/Sponsor(s)
Project Applicant and Property Owner:

City of Hollister
David Mirrione
City Manager
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
(831) 636 4340
[email protected]

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 5

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

2.1 Regional Location
The City is located within the northern portion of San Benito County. The City is surrounded by Hollister Hills to the west and Diablo Range to the east. The project site is located within the northern portion of the City, approximately 2.5 miles north of the City center. The City is surrounded by the unincorporated cities of San Benito County. Refer to Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map.

2.2 Project Site Location
The project site is comprised of approximately 5.3 acres, located within the western portion of Runway 6 of the Hollister Municipal Airport (Accessor’s Parcel Number [APN]: 050-010-001-00).

The project site is bound by the existing Hollister Municipal Airport to the east and south, and vacant undeveloped land and agricultural land to the north and west; refer to Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map. The nearest major freeways to the project site include State Route (SR) 25, located approximately 0.5 miles to the west and SR 156, located approximately 1.3 miles to the north.

2.3 Project Background
The City of Hollister is required by the Federal Aviation Association regulations to make improvements to the Hollister Municipal Airport by constructing a new taxiway and modifying an existing runway. The Project proposes the demolition and removal of the approximately 4.8 acres of paved taxiway preceding and construction of an approximately 0.5-acre perpendicular taxiway to connect Runway 6 and the southern taxiway and would be compatible and consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Designations.

2.4 Existing Site Conditions
The project site is comprised of a portion of the existing Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6.

The project site consists of flat, developed land, at an elevation of 225 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Per the Storm Water Master Plan prepared for the Hollister Municipal Airport, run-off form the portion of the Hollister Municipal Airport in which the project site is located, generally flows to the southeast.1
According to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), the project site is not located within a designated flood hazard zone.2 The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Series Topographic Map, San Felipe, California Quadrangle.

1 Hollister, City of. (2010) Storm Water Master Plan for the Hollister Municipal Airport. 2 FEMA (2022). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=turlock%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor . Accessed April 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 6

2.5 General Plan and Zoning Designations
The City of Hollister Zoning Map depicts the City’s zoning and indicates that the project site is within the Airport (A) zone.3 The City’s General Plan Land Use Map depicts the City’s land use designations and indicates the project site has an Airport land use designation.4 The Airport land use designation allows for airport operations and support facilities. The development standards for the Airport (A) zone are included in Section 17.12.040 of the Hollister Municipal Code.

2.6 Proposed Project Characteristics
As shown on Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan, the Project would include the demolition and removal of 4.8 acres of paved taxiway preceding Runway 6, and the construction of approximately 0.5 acres of taxiway to connect Runway 6 to the southern taxiway; refer to Table 1: Project Summary. Pavement replacement of approximately 0.2 acres would occur within the construction limits, along with the installation of electrical improvements including 36 taxiway edge lights. Approximately 450 linear feet of directional boring, using a horizontal directional boring machine, would be required for new cabling. The Project would also include the installation of 28 runway edge lights placed in existing conduits, 16 runway end lights, 1 pair of runway end identifier lights, 4 runway identification signs, and approximately 1.9 acres of reseeding in areas adjacent to ground disturbance. Trenching is not anticipated to access the existing conduit or install the new electrical cabling; access is achieved through the existing runway edge light cans and existing handholes. The Project would include four new signs, which would be 24 inches in height and 84.6 inches in width. Two signs would be located along the runway and taxiway of Runway 6 and two signs would be located along the runway and taxiway of Runway 3. Project work areas consist of paved runways and taxiways, adjacent hardscape shoulder, and non-native annual grassland. The existing pavement section materials to be cold- milled or excavated, processed, and re-used on site. Export and stockpiling is not anticipated.

Table 1: Project Summary
Project Element Proposed Project
Existing Uses Hollister Municipal Airport
Site Area 5.3 acres
Proposed Paved Area 0.5 acres
Existing Zoning Airport (A)
Existing Land Use Airport
Proposed Zoning No Change
Proposed Land Use No Change

3 Hollister, City of. (2018). City of Hollister Zoning Map. https://hollister.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Zoning-Map.pdf . 4 Hollister, City of. (2005a). City of Hollister General Plan. https://hollister.ca.gov/government/city-departments/development- services/general-plan/.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 7
Site Access
During construction, access to the project site would be provided via an access road located north of Aerostar Way. The nearest major freeways to the project site include SR 25, located approximately 0.5 miles to the west and SR 156, located approximately 1.3 miles to the north of the project site. The Project would ensure that emergency access via Aerostar Way would be maintained during construction activities. In addition, individual Project review by the City including the City of Hollister Fire Department would also be required. The Project would incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the California Building and Fire Codes during construction activities.

Lighting and Signage
The Project would update existing runway lighting upon the demolition of the existing taxiway.

It is anticipated that the existing cabling will be replaced with new airfield lighting cabling, which would be installed on the entire length of Runway 6-24 using existing conduits. The Project would include 36 taxiway edge lights, 16 runway end lights, and one pair of runway end identifier lights.

As the Project lighting is for aviation purposes, the Project is exempt from Section 17.16.090 of the Hollister Municipal Code. Additionally, the Project would include four new signs: two along the taxiway and runway of Runway 6 and two along the taxiway and Runway of Runway 3.

2.7 Project Approvals
The City of Hollister is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and approving the Draft Final IS/MND. California Department of Fish and Wildlife will consider the approval of an Incidental Take Permit for State-listed Species. Additional permits may be required upon review of construction documents.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Hollister, CA
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2023
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map

SANTA CRUZSANTA CRUZ

GILROYGILROY

WATSONVILLEWATSONVILLE

HOLLISTERHOLLISTER

SALINASSALINAS

SCOTTS VALLEYSCOTTS VALLEY

PRUNEDALEPRUNEDALE
101
1 PROJECT

LOCATION

Source: ArcGIS
Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Hollister, CA
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map
AI
R
W
A
Y

D
R
AI
R
W
A
Y

D
R
Hollister Municipal AirportHollister Municipal Airport
FLYN
N

R
D
FLYN
N

R
D
SA
N

F
E
L
I
P
E

R
D
SA
N

F
E
L
I
P
E

R
D
AE
R
O
S
T
A
R

W
A
Y
AE
R
O
S
T
A
R

W
A
Y
25 PROJECT

LOCATION

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Hollister, CA
Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan
NORTH

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 11

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

1. Project title:

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023

3. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number:

David Mirrione, Acting City Manager
(831) 636 4340

4. Project location:

The project site is located within the eastern portion of the Hollister Municipal Airport.

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

City of Hollister
375 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023

6. General plan designation:

Airport

7. Zoning:

Airport (A)

8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The City of Hollister is required by FAA regulations to make necessary improvements to the Hollister Municipal Airport, by constructing a new taxiway and improving an existing taxiway. The Project proposes the demolition and removal of approximately 4.8 acres of paved taxiway preceding (west of) Runway 6, and the construction of an approximately 0.5- acre perpendicular taxiway connecting Runway 6 and the southern taxiway.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 12

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:

The project site is located within the General Plan land use designation of Airport and a zoning designation of Airport (A). The project site is surrounded by land zoned as Airport (A) to the north, Airport (A) and Airport Support (AS) to the east, and Industrial Business Park (IBP) to the west.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife: California Endangered Species Act Application for an Incidental Take Permit for State-listed Species

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
On August 7, 2023, the City initiated tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The City requested consultation from the following tribes which have previously requested consultation: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Castanoan, Wuksache Indian Tribe/ Eshorn Valley Band, and the Xolon-Salinan Tribe.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 13

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

CERTIFICATION:

___________________________________________ _________________________ Signature Date

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 14

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
6) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 15

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The City’s General Plan does not identify designated scenic vistas. Prominent views within the vicinity of the project site include Hollister Hills to the west and Diablo Range to the east. In the existing condition, the project site does not obstruct views of these scenic resources.

The Project would include ground-level improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 including the construction of an approximately 0.5-acre taxiway. Upon completion of construction, operation of Runway 6 would resume similar to existing conditions and would not include the construction of structures that would obstruct public views of prominent views.

Further, the proposed signs would be 24 inches in height and would only be visible to airport users. As such, upon completion of construction, views of Hollister Hills and Diablo Range from the site would be consistent with existing condition. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 16
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings located on the project site. According to the Caltrans California State Scenic Highway System Map , the project site is not located within a designated state scenic highway.5 The nearest designated state scenic highway is the segment of SR 156 between SR 83 and SR 101, located approximately 21.1 miles west of the project site. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is SR 25, located approximately

0.5 miles to the west of the project site. Therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site and its surroundings because the Project proposes to demolish the paved taxiway preceding Runway 6 and construct a perpendicular taxiway connecting runway 6 to the southern taxiway. As such, visual character and quality of public views of the project site would be similar to existing conditions upon completion of construction.

Short-term construction impacts would include the demolition of the existing taxiway preceding Runway 6, typical heavy construction equipment and machinery (e.g., grading) and staging of the machinery. Construction equipment would be staged within the project site and would not be visible from public viewpoints. Construction impacts would be temporary and would cease upon Project completion. Thus, visual character of the project site would be similar to existing conditions upon completion of construction. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6. Project construction would require 30 days of nighttime work. Construction lighting would be directed downward to minimize light spill-over onto adjacent properties. The

5 Caltrans. (2023). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa . Accessed April 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 17
project site is not located adjacent to sensitive land uses such as residential or school. The project site is located within Hollister Municipal Airport property. Light sources associated with the Hollister Municipal Airport include nighttime lighting, runway lighting, and airflight operations.

Additionally, materials required for Project construction include materials that are not reflective by nature (e.g., asphalt, paint) and as such, would not result in a new source of glare.

The Project would update runway lighting as a component of the proposed taxiway. Upon completion of construction, the proposed lighting would be similar to existing runway lighting.

As such, impacts associated with lighting and glare would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 18

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 19
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. According to the Department of Conservation (DOC) California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is designated Urban and Built-Up land.6 The project site is located adjacent to Prime Farmland to the north and Farmland of Local Importance to the south. Howe ver, the project site is located within the existing Hollister Municipal Airport, and construction staging would occur within project site. Project implementation would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Threshold 4.2 a), the project site is designated Urban and built-Up Land. It is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under an active Williamson act contract. 7 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The project site is zoned Airport (A) and is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport. No existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production occurs within the City. Further, there are no forest of timberland resources on the project site and the proposed zoning would not permit such uses. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As discussed above in response to Threshold 4.2 c), the project site is not zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Further, no existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production occurs within the City. As such, the Project would not result

6 California Department of Conservation. (2023a). California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ .

Accessed April 2023.
7 California Department of Conservation (2017). State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. Available at https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/Attachment%20B%20References/Califor nia%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 20
in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project site is zoned Airport (A), which allows for airport operations and supporting facilities. As discussed in response to Threshold 4.2 a) and d), the project site would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 21

AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
X
Air Quality data was prepared for the proposed Project by Kimley-Horn in June 2023 and is included as Appendix A. The results of the Air Quality data is summarized in the following discussion.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) (formerly the Monterey Unified Air Pollution Control District) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout the NCCAB. The MBARD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 22
pollutants for which the NCCAB is in nonattainment. The MBARD’s 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides criteria for determining cumulative impacts and consistency. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines note that a project which is inconsistent with an Air Quality Plan would have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. The Project’s construction and operation emissions would not exceed the MBARD thresholds as noted below. The NCCAB is currently in non-attainment for State ozone and particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10) standards which represents an existing cumulatively significant impact within the NCCAB. Ozone precursors include reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). The Project would not exceed quantitative thresholds for either of these ozone precursors. Similarly, PM10 thresholds also would not be exceeded for construction of the Project. The Project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region. Therefore, the Project would not make a considerable contribution to this existing, cumulatively significant impact. This is a less than significant impact.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions
Emissions produced during grading and construction activities are “short-term” because they would cease following completion of the initial development. Construction emissions would include the generation of fugitive dust, on-site generation of construction equipment exhaust emissions, and the off-site generation of mobile source emissions related to construction traffic.

Construction for the Project is anticipated to begin in the Fall 2023 and last approximately three months. Demolition, site preparation, and grading would occur first. The Project would require approximately 12,597 tons of demolition for the existing pavement on-site. The proposed Project would require grading of the project site over a period of approximately two months. CalEEMod estimates that the Project would generate up to 10 worker trips and 2 hauling trips per day for demolition. During the site preparation and grading phase there would be approximately 10 daily worker trips (5 worker trips during site preparation and 5 worker trips for grading). Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill operations, demolition, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Dust emissions also vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions.

Fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity.

Fugitive dust from grading and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease following completion of the initial development. Additionally, most of this material is inert

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 23
silicates and is less harmful to health than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources. Dust (larger than ten microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions.

Particulate Matter
MBARD CEQA Guidelines state that construction activities (e.g. excavation, grading, on-site vehicles), which emit 82 pounds per day or more of PM10, would have a significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. Based on this emission threshold, construction activity occurring on more than 2.2 acres per day may result in significant PM10 emissions. The Basin is currently in non-attainment of the State PM10 standard.

The Basin designation of non-attainment is based on exceedances measured at the Davenport, Moss Landing, Salinas, and King City monitoring stations.

As shown in Table 2: Construction-Related Emissions, construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the 82 lbs/day threshold of significance for PM10 during the mass grading phase of construction activities.

Table 2: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Pounds per Day
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
2023 1.31 12.61 11.63 0.02 79.60 8.24
2024 1.21 11.41 10.96 0.02 39.62 5.15
Maximum Emissions 1.31 12.61 11.63 0.02 79.60 8.24
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less Notes: The reduction/credits for construction emission measures are based on measures included in CalEEMod and as typically required by the MBARD (Basic Control Measures). The measures includes the following: replace ground cover on disturbed areas quickly, water exposed surfaces twice daily, and proper loading/unloading of mobile and other construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.13. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Given the proximity of sensitive receptors to the project site, implementation of the following standard conditions per MBARD CEQA guidelines would further ensure impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level for all construction activities on the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 24
Standard Condition
SC AQ-1 Reduce Fugitive Dust. The Project applicant shall implement the following measures to minimize nuisance impacts and to significantly reduce fugitive dust emissions, and the Project applicant shall require all of the following measures to be shown on grading and building plans:
• Limit grading to 8.1 acres per day, and grading and excavation to 2.2 acres per day.
• Water graded/excavated areas and active unpaved roadways, unpaved staging areas, and unpaved parking areas at least twice daily or apply non‐toxic chemical soil stabilization materials per manufacturer’s recommendations.

Frequency should be based on the type of operations, soil and wind exposure. • Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (more than 15 mph). • Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).
• Stabilize all disturbed soil areas not subject to using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or gravel for temporary roads and any other me thods approved in advance by the MBARD.
• Sow exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading with a fast germinating, non‐invasive grass seed, and water until vegetation is established.
• Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. • Use street sweepers, water trucks, or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Reclaimed (non‐potable) water should be used whenever possible;
• Spray dirt stockpile areas daily as needed.
• Place gravel on all roadways and driveways as soon as possible after grading.

In addition, construct building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding, soil binders, or frequent water application are used. • Not exceed a 15 mph vehicle speed for all construction vehicles on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
• Cover or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) on all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
• Limit unpaved road travel to the extent possible, for example, by limiting the travel to and from unpaved areas, by coordinating movement between work

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 25
areas rather than to central staging areas, and by busing workers where feasible.
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site, and inspect vehicle tires to ensure free of soil prior to carry‐out to paved roadways. • Sweep streets at the end of each day, or as needed, if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible.

Operational Emissions
As discussed above, the Project would have minimal influence on operational air pollution emissions associated with airport traffic. Airport traffic is a potential source of operational emissions through the combustion of aircraft fuel. While the proposed improvements of th e Project would support the airport traffic and circulation at the site, airport traffic is more substantially influenced by other factors independent of the Project improvements such as increases in population and increase in business that use airport transportation for supplies and shipments. As such, the Project would not increase airport capacity and would not result in increases in local traffic as described in the Transportation Section below. Therefore, the Project would have at most a minimal influence on operational-related emissions and would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As a result, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The Basin is currently in non-attainment for State ozone and PM10 standards which represents an existing cumulatively significant impact within the Basin. As discussed above, the Project’s construction-related emissions by themselves would not have the potential to exceed the MBARD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.

Since these thresholds indicate whether an individual project’s emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the Project-related construction emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The Project would implement SC AQ-1 to reduce PM10 emissions consistent with MBARD recommendations. With implementation of MBARD construction-related mitigation requirements, Project emissions would be below thresholds and would not result in cumulative impacts at a Basin-wide level. As a result, construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 26
Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
MBARD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. MBARD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds MBARD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As discussed above, the Project would result in negligible operational emissions and would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact.

Sensitive land uses are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences approximately 0.47 miles (2,482 feet) to the east.

Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off -road diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e. potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short-term health effects from DPM.

Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 27
Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel PM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions.

Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of DPM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited.

Therefore, considering the distance to sensitive receptors, the relatively short duration of DPM - emitting construction activity at any one location, and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The Project will not create a significant hazard to surrounding residents and other sensitive receptors through exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations such as particulate matter during construction activities and/or other toxic air contaminants (TACs).

Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of air emissions could adversely affect the use of the land. Typical sensitive receptors include residents, schoolchildren, hospital patients, and the elderly. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 0.47 miles west of the project site. However, the Project will not produce concentrations of TACs; therefore, there will be no impact regarding stationary or mobile TACs.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Local air quality is a major concern along roadways. CO is a primary pollutant, and unlike ozone, is directly emitted from a variety of sources. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of its impacts upon the local air quality. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create “pockets” of CO called “hot spots.” These pockets have the potential to exceed the 1-hour CAAQS of 20 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour CAAQS of 9 ppm.

To identify CO hotspots, MBARD criterion recommends performing a CO hotspot analysis when • Intersections or road segments that operate at LOS D or better that would operate at LOS E or F with the Project's traffic,
• Intersections or road segments that operate at LOS E or F where the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio would increase 0.05 or more with the Project’s traffic,

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 28
• Intersections that operate at LOS E or F where delay would increase by 10 seconds or more with the Project’s traffic,
• Unsignalized intersections which operate at LOS E or F where the reserve capacity would decrease by 50 or more with the Project’s traffic. This criterion is based on the turning movement with the worst reserve capacity, or
• Project would generate substantial heavy duty truck traffic or generate substantial traffic along urban street canyons or near a major stationary source of CO.

As discussed above, while the proposed improvements of the Project would support the airport traffic and circulation at the site, airport traffic is more substantially influenced by other factors independent of the Project improvements such as increases in population and increase in business that use airport transportation for supplies and shipments. As such, the proposed Project would not increase airport capacity and would not result in increases in local traffic as described in the Transportation Section below. Therefore, impacts related to carbon monoxide would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
According to the MBARD, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The Project does not include any uses identified by the MBARD as being associated with odors.

Construction activities associated with the Project may generate detectable odors from heavy duty equipment (i.e., diesel exhaust), as well as from architectural coatings and asphalt off - gassing. Odors generated from the referenced sources are common in the man-made environment and are not known to be substantially offensive to nearby receptors. Any construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon Project completion.

As a result, impacts to existing adjacent land uses from construction-related odors would be short-term in duration and therefore would be less than significant.

Operations
The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can still be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 29
governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to violate the MBARD standards.

MBARD enforces permit and nuisance rules to control odorous emissions from stationary sources. For instance, MBARD Rule 402 (Nuisances) prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable numbers of persons. Given these regulations there would be a less than significant impact.

Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal facilities, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Agricultural and industrial uses are located near the project site. As the Project would introduce any new uses into the surrounding area and would be required to comply with MBARD Rules, impacts would be less than significant.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 30

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
X
d) 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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
The following is based on information in the Biological Assessment prepared by Swaim Biological Inc., in July 2020 and is included as Appendix B to this MND. The Project would be expected to comply with existing regulations, including, but not limited to the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1978, the California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and game Code (FGC), Native Plant Protection Act, and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1987.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 31
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The potential for special-status species to occur within the project site is based on habitat suitability and documented occurrences (e.g., California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB] and United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] records). Table 3: Special Status Species Potential to Occur, identifies eight federally listed wildlife species and one federally listed plant species as having the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. However, there is suitable habitat in the project site for three wildlife species that are federally or State-listed endangered or threated with the potential to occur within the project site: California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii), and San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) (Vulpes macrotis mutica).

Table 3: Special Status Species Potential to Occur
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Listing Status1:

Federal/State/Other Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence Plants
Marsh sandwort
(Arenaria
paludicola)
FE/SE Occurs in freshwater marshes and
swamps. In California, known to
occur in only two natural and two
reintroduced locations in San Luis
Obispo County.

None. Suitable marsh habitat is
absent from the project site and
the species is not known to occur
in San Benito County.

Crustaceans
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
lynchi)
FT/-- Vernal and ephemeral freshwater
pools in the San Francisco Bay
Area and Central Valley.

None. Suitable habitat is absent
from the project site.

Amphibians
California red-
legged frog
(Rana draytonii)
FT/SSC Still or slow-moving water with
emergent or riparian vegetation
(breeding). Cool, moist areas with
adequate cover (non- breeding).

Requires barrier-free areas to
allow movement between
breeding and upland habitats.

Unlikely to occur. Marginally
suitable aquatic non-breeding
habitat is present within potential
movement distance. Suitable
upland dispersal habitat is
present, but provides few foraging
or refugial opportunities. No
known occurrences of the species
have been recorded within the
maximum movement distance of
the species.

California tiger FT/ST Breeds in ponds and vernal pools May occur. Marginally suitable

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 32
Table 3: Special Status Species Potential to Occur
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Listing Status1:

Federal/State/Other Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
in grasslands and oak woodlands.

Uses small mammal burrows in
grasslands for upland habitat.
breeding habitat occurs within
potential dispersal distance of the
project site and a record of
occurrence is present just west of
the airport.

Suitable upland habitat is
present in the project site.

Reptiles
Blunt-nosed
leopard lizard
(Gambelia silus)
FE/SE Expansive, arid areas with
scattered vegetation; nonnative
grassland and alkali sink scrub
communities In the foothills of the
southern San Joaquin Valley and
Carrizo Plain; they occur in the
chenopod community which is
associated with nonalkaline;
sandy soils.

None. Suitable habitat is absent
from the project site and the
project site is outside of the
known range of the species.

Birds
California condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)
FE/SE/FP Prefers mountains; gorges; and
hillsides; which create updrafts;
thus providing favorable soaring
conditions. Foraging habitat
consists mainly of open foothill
grassland areas and oak
savannah foothills that support
populations of deer and cattle.

Nests in caves or clefts among
boulders on cliffs or hillsides.

None. Suitable habitat is absent
from the project site.

Least bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii
pusillus)
FE/SE Inhabits riparian areas during
breeding season. Typically
inhabits structurally diverse
woodlands along watercourses;
including cottonwood-willow
forests; oak woodlands and mule
fat scrub. Winters in southern
Baja California in Mexico.

None. Suitable riparian habitat is
absent from the project site.

Southwest willow
Flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii
extimus)
FE/SE In California, breeding range from
Santa Ynez River south; breeds in
dense riparian habitats along
rivers, streams, other wetlands;
vegetation dominated by dense
growths of willows, seepwillow,
other shrubs; presence of dense
vegetation is most important
through all vegetation layers;
within close proximity of water.

None. Suitable habitat is absent
from the project site.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 33
Table 3: Special Status Species Potential to Occur
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Listing Status1:

Federal/State/Other Associated Habitats Potential for Occurrence Mammals
San Joaquin kit
fox

(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE/ST Grasslands and scrublands and
agricultural mosaics of row crops;
irrigated pastures; orchards;
vineyards; and grazed annual
grasslands
Unlikely to Occur. Suitable den
sites are absent from the project
site and areas within 250 feet.

Agricultural fields surrounding
the project site act as a barrier to
movement between the project
site and suitable habitats in the
Hollister area. Further, high levels
of human disturbance associated
with airport operations are likely
to deter kit fox from using
habitats within the project site.

Thus, the species is not expected
to occur within the project site,
except as a rare transient.

Notes:

1. Status codes are defined as follows:

Federal status: USFWS Listing
FE = Listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act FT = Listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act California State Status: CDFW Listing
SE = Listed as endangered under California Endangered Species Act ST = Listed as threatened under California Endangered Species Act SSC = Species of Special Concern
FP = Fully protected
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
California Tiger Salamander
The central population of the CTS is listed as threatened under both federal and California State endangered species legislation. Critical habitat was designated in 2005. The project site is located outside of designated critical habitat for the species. The nearest designated critical habitat unit is the Ana Creek Unit, located approximately 3.8 miles southeast of the project site.

The CTS is strongly associated with grassland habitat but also occurs in other habitat types, including oak savanna, the edges of mixed woodlands, and foothill coniferous forests. Adults spend most of the year in underground retreats, particularly in burrows of California ground squirrels and pocket gopher, and occasionally are found in man-made structures. CTS make seasonal migrations from upland areas to breeding ponds starting with the onset of fall rains.

Seasonal pools are most commonly used but CTS may also use permanent ponds if predatory fish are absent. After breeding, CTS adults return to their upland retreats after a few days or weeks.

Juveniles require approximately 10-12 weeks to achieve metamorphosis. The juveniles then disperse to upland areas after spending a few hours or days near the edges of aquatic habitats.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 34
The nearest recorded observation of CTS is located immediately west of the project site within the Hollister Municipal Airport where a dead salamander was found outside of a burrow near Runway 6 during a survey in 2007. Based on the specimen size and location, it is believed that the salamander may have been a dispersing juvenile that desiccated prior to finding suitable aestivation habitat. The surveyor who recorded this occurrence noted that suitable breeding habitats were not present in areas directly surrounding the specimen, however subsequent assessments identified multiple suitable breeding sites within the potential movement distance of the species.

During a 2012 assessment, aquatic habitats that could potentially support CTS breeding were identified within about 1.3 miles of the proposed project site. These included a detention basin directly south of Runway 6 and several quarry ponds approximately 0.5 mile north of Runway 6.

The detention basin holds water for at least part of the year and could support CTS breeding. The quarry ponds are subject to high levels of human disturbance associated with quarry operations and were not considered potential breeding habitat. Another assessment conducted in 2018 identified two additional features with potential to support CTS aquatic breeding, a 3.5-acre seasonal pond located 0.3 mile southwest of Runway 6, and a 2-acre ephemeral pool located near the intersection of McConnell Road and Hwy 25, about 0.3 mile west of Runway 6. Both features appeared to be surrounded by potential CTS upland habitat and may provide CTS aquatic breeding habitat when water persists long enough to support metamorphosis which typically occurs from May through July.

Grassland habitats in the project site contain low-growing vegetation and low densities of ground squirrel burrows that are suitable for use by CTS as underground retreats. No significant barriers to movement are present between the project site and nearby aquatic habitats that could support CTS breeding, therefore the portions of the project site containing grassland and small mammal burrows are suitable upland habitat for CTS. The portions of the project site that do not contain small mammal burrows may serve as dispersal habitat by CTS, and during the breeding season CTS may pass through the project site as they make overland movements to and from nearby breeding sites. Dispersing CTS also may move through or into the project site during the spring months when breeding ponds dry and recently metamorphosed juveniles disperse into the surrounding upland areas.

Project impacts on CTS could occur within portions of the project site containing grassland habitat, as these areas provide suitable upland and dispersal habitat for the salamander. Small mammal burrows were present in the grassland habitat that will be affected by the Project, and in these areas, CTS may be directly impacted in their underground retreats by earthmoving activities. In paved areas, CTS dispersal could be impacted by the presence of open excavations and obstacles (e.g. BMP fencing) that may impede salamander movements. Migrating CTS that pass through the project site could become entrapped overnight or take cover under surface

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 35
objects within the work area and be subject to injury or mortality. Project impacts on CTS may therefore occur in all grasslands habitats that are temporarily or permanently impacted by Project construction or operations. Project impacts to CTS in the paved portions of the project site are only likely to occur if work occurs during rainy periods when salamanders are making breeding migrations or during the spring when metamorphosing juveniles leave breeding sites in search of suitable uplands.

Impacts on habitat for the CTS would be limited to upland and dispersal habitat. Within the project site, CTS may occur in non-native grasslands where small mammal burrows are present.

Because of their small size and cryptic nature, impacts to individual CTS that occupy the project site may not be detected, but ground disturbing activities could result in significant impacts to individuals.

Project construction would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.23 acres of non - native grassland and temporary impacts to approximately 0.31 acres of non-native grassland; no impacts to CTS breeding or non-breeding aquatic habitat would occur. Temporary impacts resulting from construction would be offset as the Project would remove 3.91 4.83 (or approximately 4.8) acres of hardscape and compacted gravel that would be restored with native vegetation resulting in a net gain of 3.68 4.6 acres of potential CTS upland habitat. To compensate for permanent impacts to 0.23 acre of CTS upland habitat, the Project would comply with Mitigation Measure BIO-20, which requires the Project obtain a CDFW Incidental Take Permit for State-listed Species. As a requirement of this permit, it is likely that CDFW will require the purchase of 5.0 0.5 acres-credits of CTS upland habitat through a mitigation bank at a ratio of at least 1:1 (replacement to impacts).

The installation of a perpendicular taxiway and removal of existing hardscape would result in a net increase in grassland habitat, and small mammals from adjacent grasslands are expected to begin to colonize the area soon after Project completion. Thus, Project implementation is not expected to affect the ability of CTS to use the project site for upland and dispersal habitat after construction is complete. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-5 through BIO-19, and BIO-20, impacts to CTS would be reduced to a less than significant level.

California Red-Legged Frog
The CRLF is listed as federally threatened and is considered a Species of Special Concern by CDFW.

Critical habitat was designated in 2006 and revised in 2010. The Project is located outside of designated critical habitat for the CRLF. The nearest designated critical habitat unit is located approximately 4.4 miles north of the project site.

The CRLF breeds in wetlands, lakes, ponds, and other still or slow-moving sources of water that remain inundated long enough for larvae to complete metamorphosis, which typically occurs from 11–20 weeks after hatching. During summer months, CRLF may take refuge in cool, moist

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 36
areas, including small mammal burrows and soil crevices within a few hundred feet of aquatic habitats. Adult CRLF tend to be most active at night during wet weather, but they may make forays through upland areas at any time during the year.

The nearest recorded observation of CRLF in the CNDDB consists of three juveniles observed in shallow construction pools in 1997, approximately 3.3 miles southeast of the project site. Other nearby records include observations of adult CRLF associated with pitfall trapping in the Flint Hills, 4.2 miles northeast of the project site; tadpoles observed within a pool in Pacheco Creek,

4.1 miles northeast of the project site; and adults observed in Tequisquita Slough, approximately

4.2 miles north of the project site. Observations of CRLF at these locations occurred between 1990 and 2006. No other extant records are known within a distance of five miles of the project site.

CRLF have been recorded dispersing as far as two miles from their breeding ponds (Bulger et al. 2003). Several areas that could provide CRLF non-breeding aquatic habitat were identified within two miles of the project site, however aerial imagery indicates that the ephemeral pond and seasonal wetland do not maintain a sufficient hydroperiod to support CRLF breeding. None of the aquatic features located within potential movement distance of CRLF contain emergent or bankside vegetation necessary to support CRLF egg mass attachment and provide cover from predators. The nearest known CRLF breeding ponds are located more than four miles from the project site.

Adult and juvenile CRLF spend the majority of their time either in close proximity to their breeding habitat or in other moist habitats, although they are known to disperse across a variety of upland habitats, including grasslands and agricultural lands. The non-native annual grassland habitat in and adjacent to the project site could provide suitable dispersal habitat for CRLF if aquatic breeding habitat were present nearby, however no suitable breeding habitat was identified within at least two miles of the project site.

No suitable breeding habitat or records of the CRLF are present with the maximum known movement ability of the species, and CRLF are therefore not expected to occur within the project site. In the unlikely event that CRLF are present within aquatic sites near in the project site, the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-5 through BIO-19, which require measures such as preconstruction surveys, biological monitoring, and limiting work to periods of dry weather, would further reduce the potential for Project impacts on CRLF.

The CRLF is extremely unlikely to occur in the project site, therefore significant impacts on the CRLF or on its habitat are not expected to occur as a result of the Project. The installation of the perpendicular taxiway and removal of existing hardscape would result in a net increase in grassland habitat which could serve as dispersal habitat for the CRLF if a population becomes

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 37
established in the area in the future. Accordingly, implementation of mitigation would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Joaquin Kit Fox
The SJKF is listed as federally endangered and State threatened. Kit foxes are typically associated with arid lands with sparse or absent shrub cover, sparse ground cover, and short vegetation.

They construct underground burrows and tend to occur in areas with sandy soils that are relatively stone-free to several feet below the surface. They are primarily nocturnal and are active throughout the year. Burrows suitable for use by SJKF are generally at least four to five inches in diameter at the surface and extend at least two feet below the surface without narrowing below four inches. Critical habitat has not been designated for the SJKF.

Of the seven recorded observations of SJKF that occur within a 10-mile radius of the project site, none were recorded within the past 10 years, and most date from the 1970s. The most recent record of SJKF was recorded in 1992 approximately 3.0 miles southwest of the project site, west of Highway 25. The record noted a female and three of her litter of four to five pups were found dead at this location.

During field surveys no burrows large enough to support SJKF were observed within the project site, or within grasslands occurring within 250 feet of the project site. A series of culverts to the south and outside of the project site could provide marginally suitable denning habitat for the species in dry months, but no sign of occupancy by kit fox was observed during surveys. Because SJKF can travel over a wide variety of habitats, including across agricultural fields, highways and aqueducts, all habitats within the project site are suitable for kit fox dispersal.

No suitable den habitat was observed in the project site, or within 250 feet of proposed work areas. Although suitable dispersal habitat for the SJKF is present within the project site it is extremely unlikely that project impacts on kit foxes will occur. The project site is located near the western extent of the species’ range and no recent sightings have been documented near the project site. If a potential SJKF den is present in the project site and cannot be avoided, the mitigation measures identified below would be implemented to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The SJKF is extremely unlikely to occur in the project site, therefore direct impacts on the SJKF or on its habitat are not expected to occur as a result of the Project. If present in the project vicinity, the installation of additional hardscape, and net increase in grassland habitat would not affect the ability of SJKF to disperse across the project site after construction is complete. In the unlikely event that a kit fox enters the project area, implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-5 through BIO-19 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 38
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. According to the Biological Assessment, land covers and habitats present within the project site include paved/hardscape and non-native annual grassland. No potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources are present within the project site. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features, subject to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), State Fish and Game Code (FGC), of Porter-Cologne act occur on-site. No impact would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological?
No Impact. As discussed above in response to Threshold 4.4 b), there are no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features on-site that would meet any criteria subject to the CWA of FGC. No aspect of the project site presents any evidence or riparian vegetation, wetlands, marsh, vernal pools, of coastal vegetation. No impact would occur. d) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A wildlife corridor can be defined as a physical feature that links wildlife habitat, often consisting of native vegetation that joins two or more larger areas of similar wildlife habitat. Corridors enable migration, colonization, and genetic diversity through interbreeding and are therefore critical for the movement of animals and the continuation of viable populations. As previously discussed, the project site consists of paved/hardscape and non-native annual grassland and is within an active airport facility. As such, the project site is not likely to facilitate migratory wildlife corridors for California tiger salamander or other wildlife species.

Potential impacts to nesting birds could occur if construction, such as ground disturbing activities or vegetation clearing is undertaken during the breeding season. To avoid potential impacts on nesting birds, removal of habitat should occur outside of the breeding season (generally February 1 to September 15 August 31). If vegetation/habitat removal cannot occur outside of the breeding season, a qualified biologist should survey the area prior to construction initiation. If active nests are found, active construction in that area plus an appropriate buffer (determined by the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW) should be avoided until nestlings have fledged and the nest becomes inactive. With the implementation of the pre-construction nesting bird surveys and avoidance measures as identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-4, take of avian

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 39
nests would be avoided and potential impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan includes goals associated with natural resources and conservation. Specifically, Goal NRC1: Assure enhanced habitat for native plants and animals, and special protection for threatened or endangered species.8 The project site consists of developed land and non-native annual grass, which provides upland habitat for California tiger salamander. Construction impacts to non-native annual grassland would be offset through the proposed 4.8 acres of revegetation. The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Further, the Project would not include the removal of trees. As such, the Project would not conflict with local regulations related to biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport. The project site is not within a functioning wildlife corridor, or an active of planned Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Approved Biological Monitor. A CDFW-approved biologist(s) shall be onsite during all activities that may result in take of California tiger salamander (CTS), including the initial ground disturbance in areas containing small mammal burrows. The qualifications of the biologist(s) will be submitted to the CDFW for review and written approval at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date ground disturbance is initiated at the project site. The approved biologist(s) shall develop a CTS Mortality and Reduction Plan with best management practices to avoid and minimize impacts to CTS. Best Management Practices would include, but are not limited to:
a. During construction, any workers shall inform the CDFW-approved biologist(s) if CTS are observed. If this occurs, work in the vicinity of the observed CTS shall

8 Hollister, City of. (2005a). City of Hollister General Plan. https://hollister.ca.gov/government/city-departments/development- services/general-plan/.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 40
cease immediately until it moves from the project site of its own accord or the CDFW approved biologist relocates the CTS following the CDFW approved CTS Mortality Reduction and Relocation Plan.
b. If CTS are injured due to project-related activities, the CDFW approved biologist shall immediately take it to a CDFW approved wildlife rehabilitation or veterinary facility. Applicant share bear costs associated with care or treatment of such injured CTS. Applicant shall notify CDFW of injury immediately by telephone and e-mail followed by a written incident report.

Notification shall include the name of the facility where the animal was taken.

MM BIO-2 California Tiger Salamander Preconstruction Survey. No more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the date of initial ground disturbance, a preconstruction survey for the CTS will be conducted by a CDFW-approved biologist at the project site.

The survey will include a visual examination of mammal burrows, such as California ground squirrels or gophers, to the extent feasible. If any CTS are found, the CDFW will be contacted to determine if moving any of the individuals is appropriate.

MM BIO-3 San Joaquin Kit Fox Preconstruction Survey. A CDFW-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey, within the limits of the proposed temporary and permanent impacts in grassland and ruderal habitat, no less than 14 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or other activity that could affect the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). If any potential kit fox dens are present, their disturbance and destruction will be avoided. If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, a qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using a remote camera, track plate, or other methodology coordinated with the CDFW.

If unoccupied, the qualified biologist shall collapse these dens. If occupied, the biologist shall consult with CDFW regarding best practices for encouraging the SJKF(s) to move to alternate dens outside the work areas, including excavation or construction of artificial dens.

MM BIO-4 Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction must be performed in the bird nesting season (February 1 through September 15 August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests and conduct pre-construction surveys for active nests survey the proposed project area for nesting birds no more than one week 14 days prior to the start of ground disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. construction activities. Surveys should cover a sufficient area around the work site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 41
potentially affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, if active nests are observed, no-construction buffer zones shall be established around nests, with a buffer size established by the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.

Buffer zones shall be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned.

Once construction begins, a qualified biologist shall continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, work causing that change shall cease and CDFW shall be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures. If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no- disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors shall be established.

These buffers shall remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Variance from these no- disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction area would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

MM BIO-5 Worker Training. The CDFW-approved biologist will conduct employee education training for employees working on earthmoving and/or construction activities.

Personnel will be required to attend the presentation which will describe the CTS, CRLF, and SJKF, the avoidance and minimization measures being implemented to protect listed species, legal protection of the animals, and penalties for unauthorized take of listed species. All attendees will sign a training log with their printed name, and company or agency indicating that they have attended the training.

MM BIO-6 Minimize and Identify Project Footprint. The applicant will minimize adverse effects to listed species habitat by limiting, to the maximum extent possible, the extent of access routes, construction areas, equipment staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas. Prior to the date of initial ground disturbance at the project site, any areas located in listed species habitat that may be disturbed will be identified and clearly marked in the field with wooden staking, high visibility flagging, or other methods.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 42
MM BIO-7 Avoid Small Mammal Burrows. Prior to the start of construction, a CDFW- approved biologist will identify burrows suitable for use by CTS in the temporary work area and mark the burrows for avoidance using high visibility flagging or another similar method. The flagging will remain in place during project construction and the burrows will be avoided by heavy equipment and vehicle traffic to the extent feasible. After construction is completed the flagging will be removed from the site.

MM BIO-8 Seasonal Work Restriction. To the extent practicable, project activities will be avoided between November 1 and March 31 because that is the time period when CTS are most likely to be moving through upland areas. When project activities must take place between November 1 and March 31, a CDFW-approved biologist will conduct a survey of the project area prior to the start of work to ensure no listed species are present.

MM BIO-9 Wildlife Exclusion Fencing. If work must occur between November 1 and March 31, temporary wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed to enclose the project work areas. The fencing, which can be made of silt fence, wood, geotextile fabric, or other durable material, will be a minimum of two feet in height and will be buried at least six inches underground. Gates will be installed to allow vehicles to enter from access roads. These gates will be closed at the end of each workday.

Exit funnels may be installed where appropriate to allow small vertebrates to leave the work area unharmed. The exclusion fencing will remain in place for the duration of the wet season (i.e., November 1 through March 31) while project activities are ongoing. A CDFW-approved biologist will regularly inspect the fence for proper functioning and the fence will be maintained in good working condition for the duration of the wet season. Wildlife exclusion fencing will be removed following project completion.

MM BIO-10 Use of Existing Roads. All project-related vehicle traffic will be restricted to established roads, paved or disturbed areas, or designated construction areas.

Off-road vehicle use outside of designated project work areas will be prohibited.

MM BIO-11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention. Stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) and erosion control BMPs will be developed and implemented to minimize any wind- or water-related erosion. The applicant will include provisions in construction contracts for measures to protect sensitive areas and prevent and minimize stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Protective measures will include, at a minimum, those listed below.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 43
c. No discharge of pollutants from vehicle or equipment cleaning will be allowed into any storm drains, water courses, or drainage ditches. d. Vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance operations will be at least 50 feet away from water courses, except at established vehicle maintenance facilities.
e. Concrete waste and water from curing operations will be collected in washouts and will be disposed of and not allowed into water courses. f. Spill containment kits will be maintained onsite at all times during construction operations and/or staging or fueling of equipment. g. Dust control measures will be implemented in areas of ground disturbance and for temporary soil stockpiles when weather conditions require.

MM BIO-12 Equipment Leaks. The applicant will maintain all construction equipment to prevent leaks of fuels, lubricants, or other fluids.

MM BIO-13 Litter and Trash Management. All food scraps, wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash from the work area will be disposed of in closed trash containers. The trash containers will be removed from the project site on at least a weekly basis.

MM BIO-14 Entrapment Hazards. Any pipes, conduits and other materials greater than one inch in diameter shall be capped if stored overnight, elevated above ground to reduce the potential for animals to climb into them, or thoroughly inspected before they are moved or buried. Excavations greater than one foot in depth that area left open overnight will include escape ramps set at an angle less than 33 degrees to ensure that wildlife can climb out.

MM BIO-15 No Plastic Monofilament. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting or similar material in any form will not be used at the project site because CTS can become entangled and trapped in it. Appropriate substitute materials may include burlap, coir fiber, or jute fiber netting.

MM BIO-16 Work During Dry Weather. To the maximum extent practicable, no construction activities will occur during rain events or within 24-hours following a rain event while wet conditions persist. Prior to construction activities resuming, a CDFW approved biologist will inspect the project area and all equipment/materials for the presence of listed species.

MM BIO-17 Work During Daytime Hours. To the maximum extent practicable, night-time construction will be minimized or avoided by the applicant. Earthmoving construction activities will cease no less than 30 minutes before sunset and will not begin again prior to no less than 30 minutes after sunrise. Except when

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 44
necessary for safety, artificial lighting at the project site will be prohibited during the hours of darkness to the maximum extent practicable. Artificial lighting, if used, will be directed downward, and will only be used in the immediate workspace.

MM BIO-18 Restore Disturbed Areas. Any grassland habitats temporarily disturbed by project construction shall be restored to pre-project conditions. To the extent practicable, topsoil will be salvaged for future replacement. Once grading and construction are complete, the salvaged topsoil will be distributed on the surface of the disturbed soil areas. Areas where hardscape is removed will be seeded with native California plants, or with a seed mix consistent with existing grassland vegetation.

MM BIO-19 Report Unanticipated Take. The applicant will report any information to the CDFW about take or suspected take of federally listed wildlife species. The CDFW will be notified via electronic mail and telephone within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the discovery. Notification will include the species, number of individuals, sex (if known), date, time, location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal, how the individual was taken, photographs of the animal, and names of the persons who observe the take and/or found the animal.

The individual animal will be preserved, as appropriate, and held in a secure location until instructions are received from the CDFW regarding the disposition of the specimen or the CDFW takes custody of the specimen.

MM BIO-20 Obtain CDFW Incidental Take Permit for State-listed Species. The Applicant is in the process of obtaining a CDFW Incidental Take Permit for State-listed Species to minimize impacts to habitat for the California tiger salamander (CTS). The Applicant shall be obligated to implement/comply with the mitigation measures required by the CDFW regarding impacts to the California tiger salamander (CTS).

As a requirement of this permit, it is likely that CDFW will require compensation through a mitigation bank for permanent impacts to CTS upland habitat at a ratio (replacement to impacts) of at least 1:1.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 45

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment has been prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (June 2023). The report is included as Appendix C to this IS/MND. The report and research were completed pursuant to CEQA, the PRC §21082, §21083.2, and §21084 and CCR Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, §15064.5.

Methodology
Records Search
Prior to fieldwork, a cultural records search was conducted by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to identify previously recorded cultural resources and studies located within the vicinity of the project site. This included a review of all recorded cultural resources and previous cultural resources reports generated from projects within the surrounding area.

Results of a records search for the Project were provided by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) on May 1, 2023. According to the records search, one previous cultural resource survey intersects a portion of the project site, which yielded negative results for cultural resources. The records search identified one historic structure, Hollister Airport Hangar #6, which is located adjacent to the project site. However, this historic resource was determined ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and remains unevaluated for potential listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

Field Survey
An field survey of the project site was conducted on May 17, 2023. Historical site indicators may include fence lines, ditches, standing buildings, objects or structures such as sheds, or concentrations of materials at least 45 years in age, such as domestic refuse (e.g., glass bottles, ceramics, toys, buttons or leather shoes), refuse from other pursuits such as agriculture (e.g.,

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 46
metal tanks, farm machinery parts, horseshoes) or structural materials (e.g., nails, glass window panes, corrugated metal, wood posts or planks, metal pipes and fittings, railroad spurs, etc.).

Prehistoric site indicators may include areas of darker soil with concentrations of ash, charcoal, bits of animal bone (burned or unburned), shell, flaked stone, ground stone, or even human bone.

The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart and carefully examining all surface exposures for evidence of cultural resources. The majority of the project site consists of paved and previously disturbed land. As such, ground visibility was determined to be approximately 10 percent. Results of the field survey concluded negative results for surface cultural resources. Although the project site is within the footprint of the Hollister Municipal Airport when it was built in 1912, the existing taxiway has been maintained, including reconstruction and re-pavement, and thus does not meet age criteria to be considered historic. Additionally, the project site has been subjected to extensive ground disturbance due to prior development. As such, the project site has a low probability for unknown cultural resources.

Significance Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources. The CRHR criteria are based on NRHP criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR, one or more of the following criteria must be met:

1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR require that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). The CRHR also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
a ) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. The records search from the NWIC revealed that one previous cultural resources survey overlaps a portion of the project site. However, the survey yielded

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 47
negative for cultural resources. Further, the records search identified one historic structure, Hollister Airport Hangar #6, is located adjacent to the project site. However, this historic resource was determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP and remains unevaluated for potential listing in the CRHR. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact on historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The field survey conducted for the project site did not identify any surface cultural resources. The records search from the NWIC revealed that one previous cultural resources survey overlaps a portion of the project site, which yielded negative results for cultural resources. The project site mainly consists of paved and previously disturbed land within Hollister Municipal Airport Property. As such, the potential for unknown cultural resources to occur on-site is considered low. However, ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface during previous surveys. For this reason, the Project would implement MM CUL-1, which would require archaeological resources that may be found on the site are properly identified and protected.

Implementation of MM CUL-1 would reduce any potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological resources due to accidental discovery to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No formal cemeteries are located within or near the project site. The project site consists of developed and previously disturbed land within Hollister Municipal Airport Property. As such, it is unlikely that ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project would exceed depths of previous disturbance. However, subsurface construction activities associated with the Project, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains.

The Project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC as set forth in Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-2. In accordance with MM CUL-2, should any human remains be uncovered, all construction activities must cease, and the County Coroner be immediately contacted. With the implementation of MM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1 Prior to initiating ground disturbing activities within the Project area, construction personnel should be alerted to the possibility of encountering buried prehistoric or historic period cultural remains. Personnel should be advised that upon discovery of buried archaeological deposits, work in the immediate vicinity of the

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 48
find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted immediately.

Once the find has been identified, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find shall be developed if it is found to be Native American in origin or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

MM CUL-2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has investigated the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 49
ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?

X

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Energy calculations were prepared for the proposed Project by Kimley-Horn in June 2023 and are included as Appendix D. The results of the Energy calculations are summarized in the following discussion.

Building Energy Conservation Standards9
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. Among other updates like strengthened ventilation standards for gas cooking appliances, the 2022 Energy Code includes updated standards in three major areas:
• New electric heat pump requirements for residential uses, schools, offices, banks, libraries, retail, and grocery stores.
• The promotion of electric-ready requirements for new homes including the addition of circuitry for electric appliances, battery storage panels, and dedicated infrastructure to allow for the conversion from natural gas to electricity.

9 The emissions model uses 2016 building code energy consumption rates. The Project would be subject to the 2019 code. The adjustments are incorporated in the mitigation module of CalEEMod to meet current regulatory standards. As these are adjustments to be consistent with current code requirements, they are not mitigation or design features.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 50
• The expansion of solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards to additional land uses including high-rise multifamily residences, hotels and motels, tenant spaces, offices, (including medical offices and clinics), retail and grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and civic uses (including theaters auditoriums, and convention centers).

The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code was adopted in 2019 and went into effect January 1, 2020. The CEC has approved the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code and it will take effect January 1, 2023. Projects whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code. 10
Renewable Portfolio Standard
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program with the goal of increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix by the equivalent of at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 percent by 2017. The California Public Utilities Commission subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code Section 399.15(b)(1)). Then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020.

In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which directs the California Air Resources Board under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the State meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, the California Air Resources Board adopted its Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all of the State’s load-serving entities to meet this target. In October 2015, then-Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill 350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. Signed in 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31,

10 California Energy Commission (CEC). (2022). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, http://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency, accessed April 2022.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 51
2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction-Related Energy
The energy associated with Project construction includes electricity use associated with water utilized for dust control; diesel fuel from on-road hauling trips, vendor trips, and off-road construction diesel equipment; and gasoline fuel from on-road worker commute trips. Because construction activities typically do not require natural gas, it is not included in the following discussion. The methodology for each category is discussed below. This analysis relies on the construction equipment list and operational characteristics from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix D of this Draft Final IS/MND. Energy consumption associated with the proposed Project is summarized in Table 4: Energy Use During Construction.

Table 4: Energy Use During Construction
Project Source
Total Construction
Energy4
San Benito County
Annual Energy
Consumption
Percentage
Increase
Countywide
Electricity Use
Water1 0.008 GWh 400.92 GWh 0.002%
Diesel Use
On-Road Construction Trips2 3,113 gallons
22,875,674 gallons

0.0136%
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 49 gallons 0.0002%
Construction Diesel Total 3,163 gallons 0.0138%
Gasoline Use
On-Road Construction Trips 30 gallons 27,139,820 gallons 0.0001% Notes:
1 Construction water use based on acres disturbed per day during grading and site preparation and estimated water use per acre. 2 On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 in San Benito County for construction year 2023. 3 Construction fuel use was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. 4 Total Construction Energy is the combined energy usage over approximately 3 months of construction.

Refer to Appendix D: Energy Data for assumptions used in this analysis.

Electricity
Water for Construction Dust Control
Electricity use associated with water use for construction dust control is calculated based on total water use and the energy intensity for supply, distribution, and treatment of water. The total

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 52
number of gallons of water used is calculated based on acreage disturbed during grading and site preparation, as well as the daily watering rate per acre disturbed. The total acres disturbed are calculated using the methodology described in Chapter 4.2 of Appendix C of the CalEEMod 2022 User’s Guide.

The energy intensity value is based on the CalEEMod default energy intensity per gallon of water for San Benito County. As summarized in Table 4, the total electricity demand associated with water use for construction dust control for the Project would be approximately 0.008 GWh over the duration of construction.

Petroleum Fuel
On-Road Diesel Construction Trips
The diesel fuel associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default diesel fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon (MPG). VMT for the entire Project construction period is calculated based on the number of trips multiplied by the trip lengths for each phase shown in CalEEMod. Construction fuel was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. In summary, the total diesel fuel associated with on-road construction trips would be approximately 3,113 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project; refer to Table 4.

Off-Road Diesel Construction Equipment
Similarly, the construction diesel fuel associated with the off-road construction equipment is calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. The total diesel fuel associated with off-road construction equipment is approximately 49 gallons for duration of buildout of the Project; refer to Table 4.

On-Road Gasoline Construction Trips
The gasoline fuel associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on VMT from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default gasoline fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in MPG using the same methodology as the construction on-road trip diesel fuel calculation discussed above. The total gasoline fuel associated with on- road construction trips would be approximately 30 gallons over the duration of buildout of the Project; refer to Table 4.

Construction Energy Use Conclusion
In total, construction of the Project would use approximately 0.008 GWh of electricity, 30 gallons of gasoline, and 3,163 gallons of diesel. In 2021, San Benito County used 401 GWh of electricity.

Project construction electricity use would represent less than 0.01 percent of the current

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 53
electricity use in San Benito County. In 2023, the year Project construction is anticipated to commence, San Benito County is anticipated to use approximately 27,139,820 gallons of gasoline and approximately 22,875,674 gallons of diesel fuel. During construction, gasoline fuel consumption would increase 0.0001 percent over average annual gasoline usage in the County and diesel fuel consumption would increase 0.0138 percent over average annual diesel used in the County. Based on the total Project’s relatively low construction fuel use proportional to annual County use, the Project would not substantially affect existing energy fuel supplies or resources. New capacity or additional sources of construction fuel are not anticipated to be required.

Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption. As such, it is expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction demand.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides electricity to the Project area. Electricity is currently used by the existing operations on the project site. The project site is expected to continue to be served by the existing PG&E electrical facilities. Total electricity demand in PG&E’s service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,000 GWh—or 12 billion kWh—between 2016 and 2028.11 The Project’s anticipated electricity demand is approximately 0.008 GWh. Therefore, it is anticipated that PG&E’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s temporary construction electricity demand.

Furthermore, there are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. In addition, some energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use.

The Project would have construction activities that would use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel PM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment

11 California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, Figure 49 Historical and Projected Baseline Consumption PG&E Planning Area, April 2018.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 54
to no more than five minutes. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, energy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.

Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices. Substantial reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non-recycled materials. The Project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the costs of business.

As described above, the Project’s fuel from the entire construction period would increase fuel use in the County by less than one percent. It should be noted that the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and Appendix F criteria require the Project’s effects on local and regional energy supplies and on the requirements for additional capacity to be addressed. A less than one percent increase in construction fuel demand is not anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity.

Additionally, use of construction fuel would be temporary and would cease once the Project is fully developed. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies.

As stated above, there are no unusual characteristics that necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel use associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant Operational Energy
Project operations are expected to use minimal energy, mainly lighting for navigational purposes.

The new proposed lighting is not anticipated to substantially increase energy use from the existing conditions at the project site. Thus, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient,

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 55
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings based on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning.

Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 per state regulations. Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11 mandatory compliance, the Applicant would have (a) 50 percent of its construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; (c) low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and particle boards; and (d) a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. Compliance with these mandatory measures would decrease the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum.

The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, state, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur. Therefore, impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be considered less than significant.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 56

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located 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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 57
The following is based on the Geotechnical Investigation for the project site prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (November 2022) (Appendix E).

Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
As identified in the City of Hollister General Plan EIR, the City is located within a seismically active area, which must be considered during new developments and design standards. Specifically, the City is located within the vicinity of four fault zones: the San Andreas Fault, Quien Sabe Fault, the Tres Pinos Faults, and the Calaveras Faults.12 The Hollister Municipal Airport is located adjacent to the Calaveras Fault.13 All Project components would be constructed to the latest California Building Code (CBC) standards and would be designed in conformance with all applicable standards to lessen potential seismic ground shaking impacts.

Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction, Surface Rupture Potential, and Settlement The City has been historically susceptible to ground rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction.

Ground shaking is considered the primary seismic hazard considering the multiple faults located within the vicinity of the City. Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed soils become saturated with groundwater and lose their strength as a result of strong ground shaking. Groundwater ten to 30 feet below the surface is considered to have a moderately high to moderate susceptibility.

Groundwater 30 to 50 feet deep can create a moderate to low susceptibility to liquefaction. Thus, due to the City’s alluvial soils and perched water table, liquefaction is expected to occur. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. As identified within the City’s General Plan, the City is located within a seismically active area. Specifically, the Calaveras Fault zone traverses the City east to west. The project site is located immediately adjacent to the Calaveras Fault zone.14 Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture within the project site is considered high. The Project would adhere to all applicable regulations in the CBC that is approved at the time of development.

Impacts would be less than significant.

12 Hollister, City of. (2005b). City of Hollister General Plan Final Program EIR. 13 California Department of Conservation. (2023b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/ . Accessed May 2023. 14 California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2023b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/.Accessed April 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 58

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project site is located adjacent to the Calaveras Fault zone. Thus, the Project would be subject to intense seismic ground shaking during a seismic event. Ground shaking could result in ground failure, resulting in a hazard during Project operation. The Project would be required to be in conformance with the latest CBC, City regulations, and other applicable seismic standards. The current CBC design standards correspond to the level of seismic risk in each location and are intended primarily to protect public safety and secondly to minimize property damage. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria established in the current CBC, would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils undergo a temporary loss of strength during severe ground shaking and acquire a degree of mobility sufficient to permit ground deformation. In extreme cases, the soil particles can become suspended in groundwater, resulting in the soil deposit becoming mobile and fluid-like.

Liquefaction is generally considered to occur primarily in loose to medium dense deposits of saturated soils. Thus, three conditions are required for liquefaction to occur: (1) a cohesionless soil of loose to medium density; (2) a saturated condition; and (3) rapid large strain, cyclic loading, normally provided by earthquake motions.

The project site is not located within a designated liquefaction zone. 15 Further, the Project would comply with the latest CBC seismic design parameters and the City’s General Plan policies HS1.4 and HS1.5 to reduce potential seismic impacts. Policy HS1.4 requires new development to comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Policy HS1.5 requires adequate mitigation for all geologic hazards associated with a proposed development. With adherence to the latest CBC and the City’s General Plan, impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and consists of previously developed land. No substantial slopes or hillsides occur within the Project vicinity. As such, the potential for landslides to occur is considered minimal. Additionally, the DOC Earthquake Zones of Required

15 California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2023b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/.Accessed April 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 59
Investigation map, indicates that the project site is not within a designated landslide zone.16 Further, the Project would be required to comply with the CBC, as well as the geotechnical exploration conducted for the Project, thereby further reducing any direct or indirect impacts associated with landslides. Thus, no impact associated with landslides would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by water or wind. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope (as water moves faster, it gains momentum to carry more debris), the narrowing of runoff channels (which increases the velocity of water), and by the removal of groundcover (which leaves the soil exposed to erosive forces). Surface improvements, such as paved roads and buildings, decrease the potential for erosion on-site, but can increase the rate and volume of runoff, potentially causing off-site erosion.

Grading activities during Project construction would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. However, erosion and loss of topsoil would be controlled using standard erosion control practices during construction. Accordingly, the Project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize stormwater runoff during construction. Adherence to the SWPPP with the recommendations of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the Project would reduce possible impacts related to the erosion to a less than significant level.
c) Be located 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site consists of previously disturbed land within Hollister Municipal Airport property. According to the Geological Investigation, soils present within project site consist of stiff clay, clayey sands, and medium dense to loose, silty sands. The project site is relatively flat and is not located within a designated landslide, liquefaction, or fault zone. Nevertheless, the Project would be required to be in conformance with the latest CBC and City regulations. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of unstable soils to a less than significant level.

16 California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2023b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/.Accessed April 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 60
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. When certain soil types are exposed to water, mainly those with moderate to high clay content, they can deform and either shrink or swell, depending on their particular physical characteristics. Such soils can expose overlying buildings to differential settlement and other structural damage.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, soils present within project site consist of stiff clay, clayey sands, and medium dense to loose, silty sands. A Plasticity Index (PI) test was performed for the project site. Results of the PI test concluded a PI of 50, which indicates a very high expansion potential (Appendix E). To reduce potential impacts associated with soil expansion, the Project would incorporate design recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation. Further, the Project would be required to be in conformance with the latest CBC standards. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the potential for substantial risks to life or property as a result of the soil types located on the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The Project would include improvements to the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway

6. The Project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project does not identify the presence of any unique geological features on the project site. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan does not identify any unique geological features within the City. No paleontological resources are known to be on or adjacent to the project site.

It is assumed that if these resources were located in these areas, they would have been discovered during original or subsequent ground disturbing activities for the Hollister Municipal Airport. The Project would be required to comply with the federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, which provides protocols for the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils, including limitation the collection to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency. Further, PRC Section 5097 prohibits the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency. Should evidence of paleontological resources be

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 61
encountered during grading and construction, operations would be required to cease, and the City of Hollister would be required to be contacted for determination of appropriate procedures.

While fossils are not expected to be discovered during construction, it is possible that significant fossils could be discovered during construction activities, even in areas with a low likelihood of occurrence. Fossils encountered during construction could be inadvertently damaged. If a unique paleontological resource is discovered, the impact to the resource could be significant.

To reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level, all construction related impacts of fossils or fossil-bearing deposits shall be conducted in accordance with MM GEO-1, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works/Engineering Department. With the implementation of MM GEO-1 impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
MM GEO-1 In the event an unanticipated paleontological resource in unearthed during construction, ground disturbing activities within a 50-foot buffer of the find shall halt until a City-approved qualified paleontologist determines the significance of the find. The qualified paleontologist shall document the find in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, evaluate the find, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15604.5. The appropriate agencies shall be notified of the find by the qualified paleontologist to determine the appropriate procedures before construction activities within the 50-foot buffer of the find can resume. If avoidance of the find is not feasible, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the construction activities on the find. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 62

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions data was prepared for the Project by Kimley-Horn in June 2023 and is included as Appendix A. The results of the Air Quality data and Greenhouse Gas Emissions data are summarized in the following discussion.

Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower- frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately one day), GHGs have long

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 63
atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration.

Addressing GHG generation impacts requires an agency to make a determination as to what constitutes a significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine if a project’s GHG emissions would have a significant impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the development’s GHG emissions (14 CCR Section 15064.4[a]). Determining a threshold of significance for climate change impacts poses a special difficulty for lead agencies. Much of the science in this area is new and is evolving constantly. At the same time, neither the State nor local agencies are specialized in this area, and there are currently no local, regional, or state thresholds for determining whether a residential development has a significant impact on climate change. The CEQA Amendments do not prescribe specific significance thresholds but instead leave considerable discretion to lead agencies to develop appropriate thresholds to apply to projects within their jurisdiction.

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 is a legal mandate requiring that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. In adopting AB 32, the legislature determined the necessary GHG reductions for the State to make to sufficiently offset its contribution to cumulative climate change to reach 1990 levels. AB 32 is the only legally mandated requirement for the reduction of GHGs. As such, compliance with AB 32 is the adopted basis on which the agency can base its significance threshold for evaluating GHG impacts.

AB 1279 establishes the policy of the State to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels.

The bill requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies. CARB released the third update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279.

Additionally, signed into Law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 64
As discussed in Air Quality, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) has primary responsibility for developing and implementing rules and regulations to maintain the national ambient air quality standards and attain the California ambient air quality standards, permitting new or modified sources, developing air quality management plans, and adopting and enforcing air pollution regulations for all projects in the North Central Coast Air Basin. The AB 32 Scoping Plan does not specify an explicit role for local air districts with respect to implementing AB 32, but it does state that CARB will work actively with air districts in coordinating emissions reporting, encouraging and coordinating GHG reductions, and providing technical assistance in quantifying reductions. The ability of air districts to control emissions (both criteria pollutants and GHGs) is provided primarily through permitting, but also via their role as a CEQA lead or commenting agency, the establishment of CEQA thresholds, and the development of analytical requirements for CEQA documents. The MBARD drafted potential quantitative thresholds for projects undergoing CEQA review in February 2014. The draft thresholds include an annual threshold of 10,000 metric tons for stationary sources and a tiered approach for land use projects, whereby one of the following is applied: a bright-line (numeric) threshold of 2,000 metric tons annually; or compliance with an adopted climate action plan. However, the MBARD has not formally adopted these thresholds, and they remain in draft form. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the Project is depicted in Table 5: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Table 5: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
Construction 405.90
30-Year Amortized Construction 13.53
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.13. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

As shown in Table 5, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 405.90 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e)17 over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30-year period, then added to the operational

17 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is the number of metric tons of CO2 emissions with the same global warming potential as one metric ton of another GHG.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 65
emissions.18 The amortized Project construction emissions would be 13.53 MTCO2e per year.

Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as on-site combustion of aircraft fuel. While the proposed improvements of the Project would support the airport traffic and circulation at the site, airport traffic is more substantially influenced by other factors independent of the Project improvements such as increases in population and increase in business that use airport transportation for supplies and shipments. The Project would have minimal influence on GHG emissions associated with airport traffic, as the Project would not increase airport capacity and would not result in increases in local traffic. Therefore, project impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. While California has adopted several policies and regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, the City of Hollister does not currently have an adopted Climate Action Plan. The Project’s potential impacts and mitigation in response to current plans and policies are described above. There would be no impact beyond the assessment in this section. Impacts would be less than significant.

18 The amortization period of 30-years is based on the standard assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 66

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) 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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would include improvements to the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6. Operation of the Project would be similar to operation of the existing Runway 6 runway and taxiway, which does not involve the use of hazardous or toxic materials.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 67
Potentially hazardous and toxic materials such as solvents, paint products, lubricants, fuels, and cleaning products may be transported, used and/or stored on-site during construction. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of the Project would be conducted and kept in accordance with all applicable State, local and Federal regulations.

Further, Given the project would disturb over one acre, a SWPPP would be developed and implemented under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Implementation of the SWPPP would reduce the potential for hazardous materials releases to occur during construction and would reduce the potential for spills to impact sensitive habitat or human health, to less than significant. Thus, compliance with all applicable laws and regulations would reduce the potential impact associated with the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required. b) 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?
No Impact. Kimley-Horn performed a regulatory database search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor and the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Geotracker website on June 5, 2023 to identify hazardous material regulated facilities within or proximate to the project site.

Kimley-Horn’s review of the referenced databases also considered the potential or likelihood of contamination from adjoining and nearby sites. To evaluate which of the adjoining and nearby sites identified in the regulatory database search present an environmental risk to the subject property, Kimley-Horn considered the following criteria:
• The topographic position of the property relative to the subject property; • The direction and distance of the identified facility from the subject property; • The status of the respective regulatory agency-required investigations and/or cleanup associated with the identified facility; and
• Surface and subsurface obstructions and diversions (e.g., buildings, roads, sewer systems, utility service lines, rivers, lakes, and ditches) located between the identified site and the subject property.

Only those sites that are judged to present a potential environmental risk to the subject property and/or warrant additional clarification are further evaluated. Using the referenced criteria and based upon a review of readily available information contained within the regulatory database search, Kimley-Horn did not identify adjoining (i.e., bordering) or nearby sites (e.g., properties within a 0.25-mile radius) listed in the regulatory database report that were judged to present a potential environmental risk to the subject property.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 68
Review of both the DTSC Envirostor and the SWRCB Geotracker concluded that no active regulated sites are located within 1-mile of the project site. This database review did not identify any potential environmental concerns for the site.

Upon completion of construction, hazardous materials would be limited to those associated with use and maintenance of the taxiway. These include paints, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Because these materials are used in very limited quantities, they are not considered a hazard to the public. Adherence to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements regarding these substances would preclude potential impacts. No mitigation is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the project site is Calaveras Elementary School (1151 Buena Vista Road), located approximately 2.2 miles to the south. As such, there are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions of handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within, one-quarter mile of on existing or proposed school. Thus, no impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous waste sites (Cortese List) compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 19 Additionally, the project site is not located within an active cleanup program site under SWRCB’s Geotracker.20 Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the p roject result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant Impact. The Hollister Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was last updated in June 2012. The purpose of the ALUCP is to ensure compatibility between the Hollister Municipal Airport and surrounding land uses and protect public health, safety, and

19 DTSC. (2023). Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60003205 . Accessed May 2023. 20 California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2023). Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=5618207633&__cf_chl_ tk=H2.kx_3keRryuY4ROpTlM3vJmEqY00iECxXM9p0NWbA-1679416346-0-gaNycGzNDRA. Accessed May 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 69
welfare.21 To achieve this goal, the ALUCP includes a set of compatibility criteria which are applicable to new development in the vicinity of the Hollister Municipal Airport. The Project would include improvements to the Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6, which are required by FAA regulations to ensure airport safety. As such, the Project would not conflict with the Hollister Municipal Airport ALUCP. No impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The City has adopted the County of San Benito Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (August 2015), which includes the framework to reduce the effects of man-made and natural hazards. Additionally, the City has identified SR 25 and SR 156 as the City’s primary evacuation routes.22 The project site, including the staging area, is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport property. Project construction would not require the full or partial closure of public roadways. Project implementation would not interfere with emergency access to the site or surrounding area. No impact would occur. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA).23 The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6. Upon completion of construction, operation of the runway would resume similar to existing conditions.

No impact would occur.

21 San Benito County Airport Land Use Commission. (2012). Hollister Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. http://www.sanbenitocog.org/pdf/ADOPTED%20%20ALUCP%20-June%202012.pdf . 22 Hollister, City of. (2005a). City of Hollister General Plan. https://hollister.ca.gov/government/city-departments/development- services/general-plan/.
23 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ .

Accessed May 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 70

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) 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?
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
X
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?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
Water Providers
The 2020 Hollister Urban Area (HUA) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was prepared in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act to guide the HUA’s future water

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 71
management efforts.24 The UWMP was prepared for various agencies, including the City’s Utilities Division, which provides water to the project site.

Groundwater
The City’s Utilities District provides domestic water to a portion of the City. Water is provided for residential, commercial, industrial, and landscaping purposes. According to the HUA UWMP, groundwater is a major source of supply for the City from wells located within the HUA.

Flooding
According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is not located within a designated flood hazard zone.25
Hydrology
Under existing conditions, the project site drains to the southeast, and runoff enters an existing drainage channel located along the eastern boundary of the Hollister Municipal Airport.26 A shallow swale is located between Runway 6 and the adjacent taxiway for drainage conveyance purposes.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Project development would disturb more than one acre of land surface and would, therefore, be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES stormwater program. To minimize water quality impacts during construction, construction activities would be required to comply with a SWPPP. The SWPPP identifies erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. Typical BMPs include but are not limited to construction scheduling, proper construction equipment staging, hydroseeding, straw mulch, sandbags, and silt fences. These requirements would ensure that potential Project impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation remain less than significant and avoid violation to any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Upon completion of construction, operation of Runway 6 would

24 Hollister Urban Area. (2020). 2020 Hollister Urban Area Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.sunnyslopewater.org/files/abbc80336/Final+Approved+UWMP+2020.pdf 25 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=60%20Airport%20Dr%2C%20Hollister%2C%20CA%2095023%20#searchresultsanchor .

Accessed May 2023.
26 Hollister, City of. (2010). Storm Water Master Plan for the Hollister Municipal Airport.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 72
resume similar to existing conditions. Runoff would be conveyed to a shallow swale to meet FAA safety regulations.27 Impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, groundwater does not occur within the project site. Native soils present on-site have very low infiltration and permeability rates. Further, the Project would not require groundwater for Project development. No impact would occur. c) 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not include any streams or rivers which could be altered by the Project. The Project-specific SWPPP would include erosion and sedimentation control BMPs to reduce potential impacts on- or off-site. Upon completion of construction, drainage patterns of the project site would be similar to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the project site does not include any streams or rivers which could be altered by the Project development. Further, the project site is not located within a designated flood hazard zone. The Project would include the demolition of approximately 4.8 acres of existing taxiway and the construction of an approximately 0.5-acre perpendicular taxiway to connect Runway 6 and the southern taxiway. Thus, development would result in a decrease of 4.3 acres of impervious surface on-site. There would not be an increase in the existing discharge from the project site. The drainage pattern on-site would resume a pattern similar to existing conditions upon completion of construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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?

27 Hollister, City of. (2010). Storm Water Master Plan for the Hollister Municipal Airport.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 73
No Impact. As previously discussed, the Project development would result in a decrease in impervious surface on-site and would not result in an increase in in the existing discharge from the project site. As such, runoff from the project site would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. No impact would occur. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. According to the FEMA FIRM, the project site is not located within a designated flood hazard zone.28 Upon completion of construction, the drainage pattern of the project site would resume similar to existing conditions. No impact would occur. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 21.6 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Given the distance from the coast, the potential for the project site to be inundated by a tsunami is extremely low. Additionally, no large water bodies are located within the Project area to inundate the project site as a result of a seiche. No impact would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project’s potable water supply would be served by the City’s Utilities Division, which obtains its water supply from local groundwater and imported water from the Central Valley Project (CVP). The Project does not include any uses which involve potable groundwater wells. As previously discussed, the Project’s water demand is not anticipated to result in significant groundwater impacts. Additionally, the Project is anticipated to result in less than significant water quality impacts and would not conflict with the HUA.

28 FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=60%20Airport%20Dr%2C%20Hollister%2C%20CA%2095023%20#searchresultsanchor .

Accessed May 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 74

LAND USE AND PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) 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?
X
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The Project would include the demolition and removal of the paved taxiway preceding Runway 6 and the construction of a perpendicular taxiway connecting Runway 6 to the southern taxiway. The project site is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport. As such, Project implementation would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) 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? No Impact. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations. The project site is zoned Airport (A) which allows for airport operations and supporting facilities. The Project proposes to demolish the paved taxiway preceding Runway 6 and construct a perpendicular taxiway connecting Runway 6 to the southern taxiway. As such, the Project would be consistent with the Airport zone and would not conflict with the City’s General Plan. No impact would occur.