Hollister City Council
June 2, 2025

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 75

MINERAL RESOURCES

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

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
According to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975, Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) were designated based on regional or State-wide importance. As such, existing land uses are not considered in classifying MRZs, so a MRZ may be classified de spite already being developed for other uses even though this renders them unsuitable for mining. The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) establishes a priority list by the following classification criteria:

MRZ-1 Areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or that there is a small likelihood of the presence of mineral deposits;
MRZ-2 MRZ-2a: Areas where the available geologic data shows that there are significant measured or indicated deposits present, which means this land is of prime importance in mining, or
MRZ-2b: that there is an inferred likelihood of significant mineral deposits as indicated by limited sampling;
MRZ-3 MRZ-3a: Areas containing known mineral deposits that have moderate potential for mineral deposits and may be reclassified as MRZ-2;
MRZ-3b: Areas containing inferred mineral deposits based on plausible evidence of the geologic settings; and
MRZ-4 Areas where there is not enough geologic information available to determine the presence or absence of mineral resources. This indicated limited knowledge and it does not imply that there is a small likelihood of mineral deposits.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 76
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
and
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. According to the DOC Mineral Lands Classification map, the project site is classified as MRZ- 1, which identifies areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant construction aggregate resources.29 The project site is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport and is zoned Airport (A), which does not permit mineral extraction. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss availability of a known mineral resource of mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur.

29 California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2023c). CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Lands Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc . Accessed May 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 77
NOISE

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

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

X

Sound and Environmental Noise
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air) to human (or animal) ear. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).

Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. In acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a noise source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source, obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path, determine the perceived sound level and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal primarily with the propagation and control of sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady background noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micropascals (µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 78
practical range. The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

Noise Descriptors
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on peop le.

Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The equivalent noise level (Leq) represents the continuous sound pressure level over the measurement period, while the day-night noise level (Ldn) and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB weighted sound levels from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level (Leq) that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.

The A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time- varying events.

The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports.

A-Weighted Decibels
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values. There is a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the dBA has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of dBA, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

Addition of Decibels
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of

10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound and

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 79
twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dBA.

Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics. No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of

1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed.

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well- being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by weighted average noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 80
residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial. • A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Effects of Noise on People
Hearing Loss
While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion.

Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.

Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage of people begin to report annoyance.

Groundborne Vibration
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions). Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 81
vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal.

The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

Table 6: Human Reaction and Damage to
Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in Table 6 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.

Table 6: Human Reaction and Damage to
Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations Maximum
PPV
(in/sec)
Vibration
Annoyance
Potential
Criteria
Vibration
Damage
Potential
Threshold
Criteria
FTA Vibration
Damage
Criteria

0.008 --
Extremely fragile historic
buildings, ruins, ancient
monuments
--

0.01 Barely Perceptible -- --

0.04 Distinctly Perceptible -- --

0.10 Strongly Perceptible Fragile buildings --

0.12 -- --
Buildings extremely
susceptible to vibration
damage

0.2 -- -- Non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings

0.25 -- Historic and some old buildings --

0.3 -- Older residential structures Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)

0.4 Severe -- --

0.5 --
New residential structures,
Modern industrial/commercial
buildings
Reinforced-concrete, steel or
timber (no plaster)
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; FTA = Federal Transit Administration Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2020 and Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, 2018.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 82
Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur. However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earthmoving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

Airport Noise Standards
California Code of Regulations Title 21, Division 2.5, Subchapter 6, Airport Noise Standards, establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports. Noise-sensitive land uses in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL are generally incompatible, unless an aviation easement for aircraft noise has been acquired by the airport proprietor, or the residence is a high-rise apartment or condominium that has an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less in all habitable rooms despite aircraft noise and an air circulation or air conditioning system, as appropriate. Assembly Bill (AB) 2776 requires any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties within an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the property.

The City of Hollister does not have land use compatibility standards for noise and instead uses the State of California’s guidelines as a tool to gauge compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future noise levels. The City of Hollister Municipal Code includes various directive pertaining to noise and vibration.
• Chapter 8.28, Noise. This chapter provides general policies prohibiting noise sources, for the peace, health, comfort, safety and welfare of its citizens from excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noises and vibrations from any and all sources in the community.

Specific interior and exterior standards are not provided but exemptions to the standards within Chapter 8.28 are identified. The Noise Chapter generally prohibits any excessive, unnecessary or unusual loud noises from any person. Excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise is defined as a noise disturbance which occurs at any time of the day, and, because of volume, duration or character, annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, response, health, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area.

For any kind of noise regardless of the time of day in which it occurs, the standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation exists, may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
o The volume or intensity of the noise;
o Citizen complaints;

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 83
o The proximity of the noise to residential properties; o The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; o The time and/or day of the week the noise occurs;
o The duration of the noise;
o Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant; o Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity; and o A noise level in residential districts exceeding 55 dBA during daylight hours, and 50 dBA after sunset, measured at the property line of the complaining party or inside an affected multiple-dwelling unit.
• Chapter 17.10, Industrial/Manufacturing Zones, Section 040 - Industrial Zoning District Performance Standards. The volume of sound generated by or resulting from any land use (except motor vehicle operations), measured during calm air conditions, shall comply with the not exceed 65 dBA at the property line of the noise source. • Chapter 17.12, Performance Standards, Section 040 – Airport and Airport Support Zone.

This section provides standards to ensure land use compatibility with the Hollister Municipal Airport related to noise and vibration under parts D and G. Part D states that no approved land use shall generate vibration perceptible without instruments at any point along or outside of the property line of the use, except for operational motor vehicles. Part G states that office buildings, motels, hotels, and schools shall be designed to include noise attenuation measures to maintain an interior noise level not to exceed 55 dB CNEL.
• Chapter 17.16, Performance Standards, Section 100 - Noise. This section provides noise- related limits on commercial construction contiguous to residential properties to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and prohibited Sundays and federal holidays.

Noise-generating commercial landscaping activities with a duration of one-half hour or less, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and prohibited Sundays and federal holidays.

Noise-generating commercial landscaping activities with a duration of one hour or more, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays and prohibited Sundays and federal holidays.

Existing Noise Levels
The City is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the various land uses (e.g. industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential) throughout the City that generate

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 84
stationary-source noise. The existing mobile noise sources in the project site are generated by airplane operations at the project site, as well as motor vehicles traveling along SR 156 and San Felipe Road. The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are those associated with the surrounding commercial and industrial uses. Stationary noise sources associated with these land uses may include mechanical equipment (use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] units, etc.) and parking lot and loading activities (cars parking, open and closing doors, truck idling and back-up, etc.). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.

Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure targets than do other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 7: Sensitive Receptors. As shown in Table 7, the nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located to the east of the project site.

Table 7: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Approximate Distance and
Direction from the Project1
Single-Family Residences 0.47-miles east
Single-Family Residences 0.50-miles southwest
Single-Family Residences 0.60-miles east

1. Approximate distances measured from the nearest project site boundary to the property boundary of the identified sensitive receptor.

Source: Google Earth, 2023.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods near the construction site. The nearest sensitive receptors (i.e., single-family residences) are located to the east of the project site. Therefore, construction activities may occur as close as 0.47-miles (2,482 feet) from the nearest sensitive receptor. However, it is acknowledged that construction

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 85
activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the sensitive receptors.

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, and infrastructure improvements/paving. Such activities would require concrete saws, excavators, and dozers during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, dozers, and tractors during grading; and excavators, pavers, rollers, tractors, and paving equipment during paving and infrastructure improvements. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 8: Typical Construction Noise Levels.

Table 8: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise Level
(dBA) at 50 feet from
Source
Typical Noise
Level (dBA)
at 0.47-mile
from Source
Backhoe 80 46
Concrete Mixer 85 51
Concrete Pump 82 48
Concrete Vibrator 76 42
Dozer 85 51
Grader 85 51
Loader 80 46
Paver 85 51
Roller 85 51
Saw 76 42

1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2) Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

As shown in Table 8, exterior noise levels could affect the nearest existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Construction equipment would operate throughout the project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located 0.47-miles to the east of the project site. These sensitive receptors may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project construction.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 86
The City of Hollister does not have construction noise standards. As such, this analysis uses the FTA’s thresholds of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non- residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts. Table 8 shows that the maximum construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable FTA construction thresholds. The highest exterior noise level at residential receptors would occur during the Project grading and paving stages and would be 51 dBA which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold. Additionally, the highest exterior noise level at non-residential receptors would also occur during the Project grading and paving stages and would be 63 dBA which is below the FTA’s 90 dBA threshold.

Construction equipment would operate throughout the project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. In addition, construction activities would occur between the City’s allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. in accordance with the General Plan Construction Noise Policy (HS3.3).

Construction activities may also cause increased noise along site access routes due to movement of equipment and workers. However, compliance with the General Plan would minimize mobile traffic noise impacts during construction, as construction would be limited to daytime hours. By following the City’s standards, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
Noise from aircraft operations would be independent of the proposed Project. The Project would not result in any change in the number or type of aircraft operating at the airport in runway geometry, or in approach and departure flight paths. As such, the Project would not affect ambient noise levels at the airport during operations. Further, in 2012 the County of San Benito adopted the Hollister Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which was prepared to promote the compatibility between the airport and the surrounding land uses. Therefore, implementation of the Hollister Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would help reduce conflicts between operations of the airport and potentially sensitive land uses. Project impacts associated with operational noise would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact.

Once operational, the Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.

Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 87
human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural.

Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver.

In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment.

For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage. As the closest structures are the associated airport facilities, this evaluation conservatively uses the FTA architectural damage criterion of 0.20 in/sec PPV, refer to Table 6.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations.

Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical construction equipment. Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated Table 9, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.

Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at
25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity at
40 Feet (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.191
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.191
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.164
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.127
Jackhammer 0.035 0.075
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.006
Notes:

1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

The nearest structure to any construction activity is an associated airport building located approximately 15 feet to the south of proposed construction activities. Vibration velocities from construction equipment would range from 0.006 to 0.191 in/sec PPV at the nearest structure, which would not exceed FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure or sensitive receptor. After construction work is completed, no

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 88
groundborne vibrations would be generated. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport. The Project would not place any residents or occupants on or near the project site. Thus, the Project would not expose substantial numbers of people to excessive noise levels from airports and impacts would be less than significant.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 89

POPULATION AND HOUSING

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

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The Project includes improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6, as required by FAA regulations. The Project does not include the construction of new homes or infrastructure that could result in indirect population growth. The City’s population is 43,346 as of July 2021.30 The City’s current unemployment rate is 7.4 %31, which is higher than the State unemployment rate of 4.8 %.32 It is anticipated the construction workers would commute to the project site from within the City or surrounding areas and would not relocate. Therefore, construction of the Project would not generate a permanent increase in population within the Project area. Upon completion of construction, operation of Runway 6 would resume similar to existing conditions. No impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6.

The project site consists of previously disturbed and developed land within the Hollister

30 U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Quick Facts: Hollister city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hollistercitycalifornia/PST045221#PST045221 . 31 Employment Development Department (EDD). (April 2023a). Current Month Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/geography/sanbenito-county.html . 32 Employment Development Department (EDD). (April 2023b). Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf .

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 90
Municipal Airport property. As such, the Project would not result in the displacement of existing people or housing. No impact would occur.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 91

PUBLIC SERVICES

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

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
No Impact. The Hollister Fire Department provides fire protection services to the City. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station #3, located approximately 100 feet to the south and within Hollister Municipal Airport property. Upon completion of construction, operation of the runway would resume similar to existing conditions. As such, it is not anticipated that the Project would increase demand for fire protection services to the project site. No impact would occur.
ii) Police protection?
No Impact. The Hollister Police Department provides police protection services to the City. The police department is located at 395 Apollo Way, approximately 1.1 miles east of the project site.

The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6. Operation of

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 92
the runway would resume similar to existing conditions upon completion of construction. As such, the Project is not anticipated to increase demand in police protection services. No impact would occur.
iii) Schools?
No Impact. The project site is located within the Hollister School District. As discussed in Section 4, Population and Housing, the Project would not introduce any uses that would induce population growth. Construction workers are anticipated to commute to the project site from within the City and surrounding areas. As such, the Project would not induce population growth including school-age children, resulting in an increase in demand for school services. No impact would occur.
iv) Parks?
No Impact. Due to the nature of the Project, no new residents would be generated that would be likely to impact or create a need for additional local parks or other public facilities. The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6. The Project would not include new homes or infrastructure that would generate population growth that would increase demand for parks. No impact would occur.
v) Other public facilities?
No Impact. The Project would not result in or induce significant population growth because the Project does not propose residential units that could introduce new population in the area; therefore, no impacts to other public facilities would occur from Project implementation.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 93

RECREATION

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

16. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The Project includes improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6. As discussed in Section 4, Population and Housing, the Project would result in population growth.

As such, Project implementation would not increase the demand of existing neighborhood or regional parks, or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The Project does not involve construction of recreational facilities. The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6, which would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Thus, no impact would occur.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 94

TRANSPORTATION

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

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
a) Conflict with an program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact. The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6, as required by FAA regulations. The project site is located within Hollister Municipal Airport property. Short-term construction trips would include the transfer of equipment, construction worker trips, and hauling trips for construction materials. Construction activities would occur for 3 months and would not require public road closures. Upon completion of construction, operation of the runway would resume similar to existing conditions. As the Project is not anticipated to conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the City’s circulation system. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013. SB 743 required the Office of Planning and Research and the California Natural Resources Agency to develop alternative methods of measuring transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which included SB 743. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 provides that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the Project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 95
The Project includes improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6, as required by FAA regulations. Construction related truck trips could increase traffic on the ro adways within the Project area; however, impacts in this regard would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of construction. The Project is located within Hollister Municipal Airport property and would not require public road closures during operation. Therefore, because the Project would generate very minimal construction traffic and is not a land use that is associated with generating traffic, the Project would not create the potential for additional traffic and therefore would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The Project includes improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6, as required by FAA regulations. The purpose of the Project is to improve airport safety. As such, the Project does not include design features that would substantially increase hazards. No impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The project site is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport and would not require the full or partial closure of public roadways. Construction would not impede emergency access to the project site or surrounding area. No impact would occur.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 96

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

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

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
Sacred Land File Search
On May 18, 2023, results were received for the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The results were positive for an SLF on file for the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. The Lead Agency initiated Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation for the Project as described below.

Native American Outreach
On August 7, 2023, the City initiated tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent with AB 52. The City requested a 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. No response from any of the contacted Native American tribes has been received.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 97

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any structures that are recommended eligible for the CRHR or have been identified as a historical resources. No cultural resources were identified during the field survey conducted for the project site. The project site consists of paved and previously disturbed land within Hollister Municipal Airport property. Potentially significant impacts would occur in the event unknown cultural resources are unearthed during construction activities. Thus, to reduce potential impacts 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.

Further, pursuant to CGC § 21080.3.2(b) and § 21074(a)(1)(A)-(B) (AB 52) the City has provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives that have previously requested notification from the City regarding projects within the geographic area traditionally and culturally affiliated with tribe(s). Native American groups may have critical knowledge of local cultural resources in the regional vicinity and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC § 21074.

As noted above, the City commenced tribal notification in accordance with AB 52 on August 7, 2023. No response from any of the contacted Native American tribes has been received.

The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 is discussed in further detail in Section 4, Cultural Resources.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 98

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

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

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
Urban Water Management Plan
The California Water Code requires urban water suppliers within the State of California to prepare and adopt Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) that must satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) of 1983. An UWMP is a planning tool that generally guides the actions of urban water suppliers. The City has adopted the 2020 Hollister Urban Area Urban Water Management Plan.
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 99
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project includes improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6. The Project would update the existing runway lighting which will replace existing cabling with new airfield lighting cabling, which would be installed on the entire length of Runway 6-24 using existing conduits. Improvements to runway lighting would occur entirely within Hollister Municipal Airport property. Construction impacts of utility installation would be temporary and are not anticipated to result in significant environmental impacts as they would be within currently developed land. The Project would not require the expansion or relocation of water services, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s Utilities Division provides domestic water for the City.

The Project would include the demolition of 4.8 acres of pavement that would be replaced with non-native annual grassland. Water required for irrigation of the proposed revegetation would be minimal. It is anticipated the Utilities Division would have sufficient supplies to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The City’s Utilities Division is responsible for water and sewer treatment. Domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater is treated at the Water Reclamation Facility. The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 and does not involve wastewater. Therefore, the Project would not impact wastewater treatment capacity of the Water Reclamation Facility. No impact would occur.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served by John Smith Road Landfill (2650 John Smith Road), located approximately 6.5 miles southeast of the project site. The John Smith Road Landfill has a daily permitted throughput of 1,000 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 1,921,000 cubic yards. 33 Project construction would generate waste including construction materials, and general refuse, and these wastes would need to be disposed of in local or regional facilities. Waste generated from construction would include non-hazardous metal waste and

33 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2023). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2151?siteID=2583 Accessed May 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 100
non-hazardous non-metal waste (concrete rubble, broken asphalt, organic waste [vegetation], boxes and crates, refuse from construction workers). Non-hazardous metal and non-metal waste would be hauled to local disposal centers for recycling or taken to landfills. Milling of pavement demolition materials would occur on-site and would be reused to the maximum extent possible.

The disposal demand would be reasonable relative to the solid waste disposal capacities of area landfills, including the John Smith Road Landfill. The Project would not generate additional waste once completed. Therefore, the landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal need and impacts would be less than significant. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal services must follow federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to the collection of solid waste. As previously discussed, solid waste generated during construction activities would be disposed of at the John Smith Landfill.

Operational activities would not produce solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 101

WILDFIRE

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

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 4, Hazards and Hazards Materials, the City has adopted the County of San Benito Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (August 2005), to reduce the effects of man-made and natural hazards. Further, the City designates SR 25 and SR 156 as the City’s primary evacuation routes. The project site is located within the Hollister Municipal Airport and construction would not require the full or partial closure of public roadways. As such, the Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 102
No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Registry (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ within an LRA.34 The project site consists of previously developed land within the Hollister Municipal Airport property.

The Project would include improvements to Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6, as required by FAA regulations. Upon completion of construction, operation of the runway would resume similar to existing conditions. No impact would occur.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. As previously discussed, 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. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and consists of developed land within Hollister Municipal Airport property. As discussed in Section 4, Geology and Soils, the project site is not located within a landslide zone.35 No impact would occur.

34 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/l .

Accessed April 2023.
35 California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2023b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed April 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 103

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

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

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre-historical resources were evaluated as part of this Draft Final IS/MND. Throughout this Draft Final IS/MND, where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. Accordingly, with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended throughout this IS/MND, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and impacts would be less than significant.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 104
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are individually limited and may be cumulatively considerable in specific areas. In all instances where the Project has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce potential effects to less than significant levels. The Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. The Project would not conflict with any GHG reduction plans. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the project’s cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable. The Project would not result in operational impacts to traffic or transportation. Therefore, taken in sum with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, no cumulative impacts on traffic or transportation would result from implementation of the Project. The Project is not considered growth-inducing, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines ( http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/) . The potential cumulative environmental effects of implementing the Project would be less than considerable and thus, less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Draft Final IS/MND. With required implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Draft Final IS/MND, construction and operation of the Project would not involve any activities that would result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

As discussed in the respective sections, the Project would have no potentially significant impacts.

Therefore, impacts related to adverse effects on human beings would be less than significant.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 105

REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation (DOC). (2023a). California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ . Accessed April 2023. ----- (2023b). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/ . Accessed April 2023. ----- (2023c). CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc .

Accessed May 2023.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ . Accessed May 2023.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2023). SWIS Facility/Site activity Details.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2151?siteID=2583 .

Accessed May 2023. City of Hollister. (2005). City of Hollister General Plan. https://hollister.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Complete_General_Plan.pdf .

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). (2023). Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60003205 . Accessed May 2023.

California Employment Development Department (EDD). (2023a). Current Month Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places.
----- (2023b). Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties.
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur- 400c.pdf. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/geography/sanbenito-county.html .

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2023). Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqi d=5618207633&__cf_chl_tk=H2.kx_3keRryuY4ROpTlM3vJmEqY00iECxXM9p0NWbA- 1679416346-0-gaNycGzNDRA. Accessed May 2023.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2023). Flood Insurance Rate Maps. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=60%20Airport%20Dr%2C%20Hollist er%2C%20CA%2095023%20#searchresultsanchor. Accessed May 2023.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2023 Page 106
Hollister, City of. (2005a). City of Hollister General Plan. ----- (2005b). City of Hollister General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2004081147)
----- (2010). Storm Water Master Plan for Hollister Municipal Airport. ----- (2023). Municipal Code.

Kimley-Horn. (2023a). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. ----- (2023b). Energy Calculations.
----- (2023c). Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.

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.

San Benito County Water District. (2020). 2020 Hollister Urban Area Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.sunnyslopewater.org/files/abbc80336/Final+Approved+UWMP+2020.pdf Swaim Biological, Inc. (2020). Biological Assessment.

United States Census Bureau. (2021). Quick Facts: Hollister city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hollistercitycalifornia/PST045221#PST04 5221.

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 1
Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Biological Resources
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 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.

During Ground-Disturbing
Activities
Approval of Qualified
Biologist
Planning Department
Qualified Biologist

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 2
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.
24 Hours Prior to Ground-
Disturbing Activities
Completion of a
Preconstruction Survey

Planning Department
Qualified Biologist

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.
14 Days Prior to Ground-
Disturbing Activities
Completion of a
Preconstruction Survey
Planning Department
Qualified Biologist

MM BIO-4: Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds. If ground disturbing activities occur during the bird nesting season (February 1 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to 14 Days Prior to Construction
Activities, if Construction is
Completion of
Preconstruction Survey
Planning Department
Qualified Biologist

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 3
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests and conduct pre- construction surveys for active nests no more than one week prior to the start of ground disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. Surveys should cover a sufficient area around the work site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area 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.

Performed Between February
1 and August 31

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 4
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

Prior to Construction Activities Verify Attendance of
Employee Education
Training
Planning Department
Qualified Biologist

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.

Prior to Ground-Disturbing
Activities
Identification of Areas of
Disturbance Located in
Listed Species Habitat
Planning Division
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.

Prior to Construction Activities Flagging of Burrows
Suitable for CTS
Planning Division
Qualified Biologist

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 5
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

November 1 Through March
31 Completion of Survey to
Verify Presence and/or
Absence of Listed Species
Planning Division
Qualified Biologist

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.

November 1 Through March
31 Installation of Temporary
Wildlife Exclusion Fencing
Planning Division
Qualified Biologist

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.

During Construction Activities Restrict Project-Related Traffic to Designated Areas
Within Project Site
Planning Division
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 Prior to Construction Activities
During Construction Activities
Implementation of SWPPP Planning Division

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 6
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.
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.

During Construction Activities Verify Maintenance of
Construction Equipment
Planning Division

MM BIO-13: Litter and Trash Management. All food scraps, wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash from the work area will be During Construction Activities Verify Proper Disposal of Waste
Planning Division

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 7
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

During Construction Activities Verify Proper Overnight Storage of Pipes, Conduits,
or Other Materials Greater
Than One Inch in Diameter
Planning Division

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.

During Construction and
Activities
Prohibit Plastic
monofilament netting
Planning Division
Contractor

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.

During Rain Events or Within
24-Hours Following a Rain
Event
Inspection of Project Area
and Construction
Equipment and Materials
Planning Division
Qualified Biologist

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 necessary for safety, artificial lighting at the project site will be prohibited during the hours of darkness to the During Construction Activities
30 Minutes Prior to Sunset and
30 Minutes After Sunrise
Limit Night-Time
Construction
Planning Division

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 8
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

Prior to Construction Activities Verify Restoration of
Disturbed Grassland
Habitat
Planning Division
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.

During Construction Activities
Within 24 Hours of Discovery
of Suspected Take or Federally
Listed Wildlife Species
Notification of CDFW via
Electronic Mail and
Telephone
Planning Division
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 Prior to Construction Activities
During Construction Activities
Compliance with CTS
Related Mitigation
Measures
Planning Division
CDFW

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 9
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
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.

Cultural Resources
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 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.

Prior to Ground-Disturbing
Activities
Inform Construction
Personnel of Possibility of
Buried Cultural Resources
Planning Division
Construction Personnel

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 Upon the Discovery of Human
Remains
Significance of the
Remains Determined by
County Coroner
Contact Native American
Heritage Commission, if
Applicable
Planning Division
County Coroner

Hollister Municipal Airport Runway 6 Safety Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Hollister 10
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/ Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Geology and Soils
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.

Upon to the Discovery of
Unanticipated Paleontological
Resource
Significance of the Find
Documented by Qualified
Paleontologist
Planning Division
Qualified
Paleontologist

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025
REPORT # City Manager-2025-31

AGENDA ITEM: INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BUDGET PRIOR TO BUDGET HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 9, 2025.

DEPARTMENT: City Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD: David Mirrione, City Manager
STAFF CONTACT: David Mirrione, City Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive the informational report regarding the development of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 and provide direction to staff.

DISCUSSION: On May 19, 2025, the City Council received the FY 2024-25 Quarter 3 Budget Update and a preliminary update regarding the development of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget. At this meeting, the City Manager provided a recap of FY2024-25 budget activities from July 1, 2024 through March 31, 2025. Furthermore, the City Manager has been overseeing the Finance Department since the departure of the prior Administrative Services Director on May 2, 2025.

In addition to the FY2024-25 Quarter 3 Budget update, the City Manager provided an update regarding challenges, both existing and recently emerging, that negatively impact the development of the FY2025-26 budget. In the presentation, the impacts of the elimination of one-time revenue sources, multiple one-time expenses, and rising costs were discussed.

Additionally, the City Manager discussed the recent discovery of unposted Unfunded Accrued Liability expenses for FY2022-23 and FY2023-24 (posted May 19, 2025) in addition to shortfalls in FY2024-25. Furthermore, it was discovered that the FY2025-26 personnel cost projections provided to departments did not account for the total California Public Employee Retirement System (“CalPERS”) Unfunded Accrued Liability (“UAL”) expense which subsequently led to the need for additional budget reductions. When CalPERS does not have enough money saved to pay for all its obligations, this shortfall gap is referred to as the UAL. The City of Hollister, along with all other CalPERS agencies, is required to pay the UAL annually to cover the shortfall in addition to other pension costs. Overall, it is estimated that the negative impacts of the UAL discovery are approximately $4,000,000 which is no longer available for City use. For FY2025-26, budget projections have been adjusted by approximately $3,000,000 of additional expense to fund the UAL.

Unfunded Accrued Liability
Each Pension Plan offered by the City of Hollister is a multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan administered by CalPERS. All full-time and certain part-time City employees are eligible to participate in the CalPERS retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and death benefits offered to plan members and their beneficiaries.

CalPERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public

entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by state statute.

In order to fund its employees’ pension benefits, the City is required to make contributions (a portion of which may come from the employees) to CalPERS. CalPERS then invests these contributions to generate returns to help fund the pension benefits. The regular required contributions, known as the “normal cost,” are calculated as a percent of salaries and represent the annual cost of service accrual for the upcoming fiscal year for active employees. If, for any reason, the actual Pension Plan experien ce and investment performance fall short of the actuarial assumptions, the Pension Plan can become underfunded (i.e., the Pension Plan’s Normal Accrued Liability exceeds the Plan’s market value of assets). This shortfall is known as the Unfunded Accrued Li ability (the “UAL”) and usually has to be covered by the City through an annual UAL Payment, which are above and beyond the “normal cost” contributions. The UAL Payments are calculated in total dollar amounts, not as a percent of salaries.

The UAL can be caused by multiple factors, including but not limited to, changes to CalPERS’ actuarial amortization policy, retroactive pension benefit enhancements, investment underperformance, actuarial assumption changes, demographic factors, and discount rate reductions. The UAL balance at any given point in time is a debt of the City owed to CalPERS which is amortized over a set period of time with interest accruing at the then current CalPERS discount rate.

The City has identified that the root cause of the UAL issue began in FY2015-16 and was magnified by failing to update the employer-side payroll deductions since the inception of the UAL payment requirement in FY2015-16. An error that was compounded in subsequent years due to increasing UAL expenses and has contributed to the City’s current position. It should be noted that this internal control has been addressed and updated for the FY2025-26 budget year.

Please note that all required expenses were and continue to be paid on time and there are no impacts to retirees or employee retirement benefits.

In light of the financial outlook, the City Council directed staff to initiate discussions with employee associations and groups regarding potential cost saving measures. The priority is to preserve jobs as the City navigates current challenges. Staff delivered a transparent and fact-based presentation outlining the recently discovered UAL issue to the employee associations and groups. Concurrently, department heads and staff have been working tirelessly to identify additional savings above those proposed originally. To date, these measures are helping to reduce the projected FY 2025-26 General Fund budget shortfall.

Staff will provide a comprehensive presentation including the information provided to the employee associations and groups including the total impacts from the UAL matter, efforts made to address the FY2025-26 UAL expenses, an update on the budgetary constraints discussed at the May 19, 2025 City Council meeting, and the progress to date made by City Departments, Finance/HR/Payroll staff, and the City Manager to present a balanced budget, along with additional recommendations including those related to one-time expenses, existing vacancies, discretionary spending, and increasing revenue.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION: City Council received the FY 2024- 25 Quarter 3 Budget Update and a preliminary update regarding FY 2025-26 budget development on May 19, 2025.

CEQA: Not a project.

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025
REPORT # Community Development-2025-32

AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING A CANNABIS REGULATORY PERMIT FOR FAULTLINE MANUFACTURING AT 1785 SAN FELIPE ROAD

DEPARTMENT: Community Development
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Rod Powell, Assistant City Manager
STAFF CONTACT: Maria C Mendez, Cannabis Affairs Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the request for renewal, and provide direction to staff to return at a later meeting to either approve or deny the Cannabis Regulatory Permit for Faultline Manufacturing for the 2025- 2026 term.

DISCUSSION:

On June 18, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 2018-0156, granting Faultline Manufacturing a Cannabis Regulatory Permit to operate a cannabis manufacturing facility with the City of Hollister. Since the initial permit approval, Faultline diligently sought and received annual permit renewal from the City Council, but it most recent permit renewal expired on March 19, 2025, due to emerging code violations at its identified location and the City’s need to consult with the applicant, property owner, City Attorney, and other Departments and Divisions on determining a viable path forward for obtaining a desired renewal. Additionally, to date and over the course of several annual permit renewals, Faultline Manufacturing has yet to fully improve its permitted site to enable it to become an operational, revenue generating cannabis business.

There are currently no limitations as to the number of manufacturing cannabis regulatory permits. Pursuant to Section 5.42.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code (HMC), all cannabis regulatory permits are subject to renewal by the City Council. The City Council may approve or deny approval of a regulatory permit upon making any of the findings as required under HMC, § 5.42.070 (A).

Staff Analysis and Findings
In evaluating the proposed renewal, the City's ordinance requires the City Council to make specific findings when considering the denial of a Cannabis Regulatory Permit application. Per prior direction from Council, staff have consulted with various City Departments and Divisions and the following potential findings have been identified for the Council's consideration:

 Until its recent expiration, Faultline had possessed its current Cannabis Regulatory Permit since the inception of the City’s Cannabis Program in 2018.

Although it has diligently obtained annual renewals of the permit it has yet to achieve an operational, revenue generating status. In this regard, Faultline’s continued non-operation has correspondingly resulted in no associated revenues for the City.
 Faultline’s current location will be shared with two other cannabis regulatory permit

holders, a proposed dispensary owned by Monterey Bay Alternative Medicine Hollister Inc. and a cultivation operation proposed by L Plus L LLC. The owner of the property has expressed an intent to obtain necessary approvals from the City to create multiple units from the existing structures, but has yet to submit a complete project proposal and application to allow for Planning Commission consideration.
 Faultline’s current location at 1785 San Felipe Road remains largely unimproved and is currently subject to multiple code violations related to unpermitted construction, specifically:
o Violation of Section 105.1 of the California Building Code (CBC): This section mandates that a valid permit is required for any construction, alteration, or repair work.
o Violation of Section 8.32.060 of the Hollister Municipal Code: This section prohibits unpermitted or non-code-compliant activities. o Violation of Section 5.42.070(a)(4) of the Hollister Municipal Code: This section stipulates that a cannabis facility or its proposed location shall not be in violation of any building code.

Approval Considerations / Conditions of Approval:

Should the Council move to renew Faultline Manufacturing regulatory permit application, staff are requesting that the Council consider the incorporation of conditions of approval.

Recommended conditions of approval include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Operations of the permitted manufacturing facility shall commence within one (1) year of the date of Council approval of the Cannabis Regulatory Permit renewal.  All existing code violations at the new location of 1785 San Felipe Road shall be brought into compliance with provisions of both the City of Hollister Municipal Code and California Building Code no later than December 4, 2025.  Approval of the Cannabis Regulatory Permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 5.42.120 of the Hollister Municipal Code.  Any applicable land use and/or construction-related activities or tenant improvements to the property shall adhere to the applicable requirements set forth in both the City of Hollister Municipal Code and California Building Code.  All fees and taxes associated with operations of the permitted dispensary shall be paid in full and on time as prescribed by the City of Hollister and the State of California.

In consideration of the above information and anticipated discussion, it is staff’s intent to first seek Council direction to approve or deny Faultline Manufacturing’s application based upon findings and return with a corresponding final resolution for consent consideration at its June 16, 2025, regular meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Faultline Manufacturing remains non-operational since its initial permit approval in 2018 resulting in no associated revenues for the City of Hollister.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION:

The City Council last considered and renewed Faultline Manufacturing’s regulatory permit on February 5th, 2024 (Resolution 2024-06).

CEQA: Categorical Exemption – Existing Facilities (Class 1)

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 – Existing Facilities. The project involves the renewal of a regulatory permit for an existing business relocating to a previously developed commercial site with no expansion of use or significant alterations. The proposed activity does not involve any expansion of the existing or former use and will not result in any significant environmental impacts.

ATTACHMENTS:

Regulatory Permit Application
Photo 1 – 1785 San Felipe Road
Photo 2 – 1785 San Felipe Road
Photo 3 – 1785 San Felipe Road

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025
REPORT # Community Development-2025-35

AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING A CANNABIS REGULATORY PERMIT FOR HIGHER LEVEL OF CARE HOLLISTER DISPENSARY AT 1802 SHELTON DRIVE

DEPARTMENT: Community Development
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Rod Powell, Assistant City Manager
STAFF CONTACT: Maria C Mendez, Cannabis Affairs Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the request for renewal, and provide direction to staff to return at a later meeting to either approve or deny the Cannabis Regulatory Permit for Higher Level of Care Hollister for the 2025 - 2026 term

DISCUSSION:

Higher Level of Care Hollister currently holds one of only two cannabis dispensary permits authorized by the City of Hollister, making it one of just two dispensaries legally permitted and currently the only operable, revenue generating dispensary within the City of Hollister.

On March 18, 2019, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2019-58, granting Higher Level of Care Hollister a Cannabis Regulatory Permit to operate a cannabis retail dispensary within the City of Hollister. Since the initial permit approval, Higher Level of Care has diligently sought and received annual renewal of its permit from the City Co uncil.

Pursuant to Section 5.42.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code (HMC), all cannabis regulatory permits are subject to renewal by the City Council. The current permit is scheduled to expire on July 25, 2025.

Staff Analysis and Findings

In accordance with Hollister Municipal Code § 5.42.070(A), the City Council may reject a renewal application if certain findings are met. In considering the proposed renewal, staff have consulted with various Departments and Divisions and received external communication and perspective resulting in the identification of one potential finding relative to financial non-compliance for Council consideration.

More specifically, pursuant to HMC § 5.42.080(F), the "annual operating fee”, which covers the City’s cost of administering and enforcing this chapter, is due in four equal quarterly installments. These payments are due on April 30, July 31, October 31, and January 31, beginning from the date the City issues a regulatory permit.

Within the 2024-2025 operational period, Higher Level of Care has failed to make timely quarterly annual operating fee payments as required by the City’s code. To resolve this delinquency, Higher Level sought and received a payment plan arrangement for its outstanding cannabis business tax liabilities totaling $232,875.37 for the third and fourth

quarters of 2024. Although a complying initial $50,000 payment was made shortly after approval of the repayment plan, none of the remaining $25,000 per week payments have been made and a current remaining balance of $182,875.37 remains outstanding.

More recently, staff have also been notified that Higher Level of Care Hollister has entered receivership. Staff have had an opportunity to discuss Higher Level’s current financial non-compliance and its potential negative impact on the permit renewal with the appointed receiver.

As of now, Higher Level’s total outstanding balance to the City of Hollister is $275,209.32.

Approval Considerations / Conditions of Approval (if approved):

Should the City Council choose to approve Higher Level’s permit renewal, staff recommend the incorporation of the following conditions of approval:

Should the Council move to approve Higher Level’s permit renewal application, staff recommend that the Council consider the incorporation of conditions of approval.

Recommended conditions of approval include, but are not limited to, the following:

 All fees and taxes comprising the delinquent balance due of $275,209.23 shall be paid in full prior to the expiration date of the current permit on July 25, 2025.  All fees and taxes associated with operations of the permitted dispensary shall be paid in full and on time as prescribed by the City of Hollister and the State of California.
 Approval of the Cannabis Regulatory Permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 5.42.120 of the Hollister Municipal Code.

In consideration of the above information and anticipated discussion, it is staff’s intent to first seek Council direction to approve or deny Higher Level of Care’s renewal application based upon findings and return with a corresponding final resolution for consent consideration at the June 16, 2025, regular meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: Higher Level of Care Hollister currently owes the City a total of $275,209.23 in outstanding cannabis business tax liabilities and regulatory fees. This amount includes unpaid balances from the third and fourth quarters of 2024, as well as the first quarter of 2025. These funds are intended to offset the City’s costs associa ted with administering and enforcing its cannabis regulatory program.

Non-payment of these obligations directly impacts the City’s General Fund by reducing expected revenue from cannabis-related activities. If the permit is renewed without full repayment, it may set a precedent for non-compliance and further strain City resources.

Conversely, requiring full payment prior to renewal would recover costs already incurred by the City.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION: The City Council last considered and renewed Higher Level of Care Hollister regulatory permit at its May 21, 2024, meeting. (Resolution 2024-71).

CEQA: Categorical Exemption – Existing Facilities (Class 1)

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 – Existing Facilities. The project involves the renewal of a regulatory permit for an existing business relocating to a previously developed commercial site with no expansion of use or significant alterations. The proposed activity does not involve any expansion of the existing or former use and will not result in any significant environmental impacts.

ATTACHMENTS:

Regulatory Permit Application

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025
REPORT # Public Works-2025-32

AGENDA ITEM: A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AND APPROVING THE

BOUNDARY DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS, AND ORDERING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS OF LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 93-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026

DEPARTMENT: Public Works
DEPARTMENT HEAD: William Via, Public Works Director
STAFF CONTACT: Cristian Builes

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution approving the final engineer’s report, confirming the boundary and assessments, and ordering the levy and collection of assessments of Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

DISCUSSION: On July 16, 1993, the City Council of the City of Hollister adopted Resolution No. 93-111 which ordered the formation of Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1.

On April 21, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-51, which initiated the proceedings for the annual renewal of the Landscape and Lighting District 93-1 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

On May 5, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-56 approving the Draft Engineer’s Report. On May 19, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025 -64, a resolution of intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments and setting the public hearing for June 2, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of Hollister’s City Hall Council Chambers, 375 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95203 for the levy and collection of assessments of Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

At the public hearing, all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. The City Council shall consider all oral statements and written protests made or filed by any interested person.

The City Council may order changes in any of the matters provided in the report, including changes in the improvements, any zones within the assessment district, and the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment.

The City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessments, either as originally proposed or as changed by it. The adoption of the resolution constitutes the levy of assessments for Fiscal Year 2025 -2026.

Staff prepared the Final Engineer’s Report which includes the budget, boundary diagram, and collection rolls for Council consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Final Engineer’s Report for Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1 estimates the revenue for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 at $223,669.25. The budget reflects a zero carryover of unexpected funds from FY 2024-2025.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION: On May 19, 2025 the City Council adopted Resolution 2025- setting the public hearing.

CEQA: This action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and review under CEQA is not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Final Engineers Report

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER

CONFIRMING AND APPROVING THE BOUNDARY DIAGRAM AND

ASSESSMENTS, AND ORDERING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ASSESSMENTS OF LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 93 -1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026

WHEREAS, on July 16, 1993, the City Council of the City of Hollister adopted Resolution No. 93-111 which ordered the formation of Landscape and Lighting District No. 93 -1 (District).

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-51 initiating the proceedings for the annual renewal for the levy and collection of assessments of Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-56 approving the Draft Engineer’s Report without modifications; and

WHEREAS, on May 19, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-64 adopting the resolution of intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments and setting the public hearing for June 2, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of Hollister’s City Hall Council Chambers, 375 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95203 for the levy and collection of assessments of Landscape and Lighting District No. 93 -1 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, respectively.

WHEREAS, a notice for the June 2, 2025 , Public Hearing for the levy and collection of annual assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 was published in a newspaper of general circulation (Free Lance), no later than 10 days before the Public Hearing date p ursuant to California Government Code Section 22626(a); and

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2025, the City Council held a Public Hearing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final Engineer’s Report dated June 2, 2025, which includes the Boundary Diagram, Special Benefit Zones, a description of the work to be performed within each Special Benefit Zone, and the Collection Roll; and

WHEREAS, the City Council afforded all interested persons the opportunity to hear and be heard at the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister desires to levy and collect assessments against parcels in Landscape and Lighting District No. 93 -1 for the Fiscal Year 2025-2026, to pay for the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and

Resolution No. 2025-XX

servicing landscaping, lighting, and appurtenant facilities within Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby resolve as follows:

1. Confirms and approves the boundary diagram and assessments described in the Final Engineer’s Report dated June 2, 2025.

2. Orders the levy and collection of assessments of the parcels within the boundaries of Landscape and Lighting District No. 93 -1 for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 as described in the Final Engineer’s Report dated June 2, 2025.

3. Directs the City Manager to file a certified copy of the boundary and assessment with the San Benito County Auditor on or before August 10, 2025.

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

Resolution No. 2025-XX

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 th e 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, 20205.

Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister

LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 93-1
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 /2026

CITY OF HOLLISTER
FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT
June 2, 2025
____________________________________
Mark Falgout, P.E.

Acting City Engineer
PREPARED BY:

CITY OF HOLLISTER

PW- ENGINEERING DIVISION
339 5th Street
Hollister, California 95023
Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

2 INDEX

1. Executive Summary Statement

2. Introduction

3. District Boundaries

4. Special Benefit Zones

5. Description of Services, Operations and Maintenance

6. Plans and Modifications

7. Method of Apportionment

8. Basic Assessment Unit

9. Land Use Code Description

10. District Budget

11. Program

12. Senior Citizen Fee Reduction

13. No Bonded Indebtedness

14. Limitation on Increase of Annual Assessment

15. Collection Roll

Appendix:

1. Exhibit A (Map and list of Properties within the District)

2. Collection Roll (FY 2025 / 2026)

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATEMENT:

The City Engineer prepared this report, hereinafter known as the Report, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing with section 22500 et seq., hereinafter known as the Act. As instructed, the Report identifies and documents the services, boundary, estimate of costs, method of apportionment, collection roll, and presents the analysis for the 2025 / 2026 fiscal year for Landscaping and Lighting District No. 93-1, hereinafter known as the District.

The annual assessment proposed to be levied against parcels of land within the Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1 is not an increase from that of the 2024 / 2025 fiscal year. The general characterization of the nature, location, and extent of the improvements for Special Benefit Zones A, B, and C are included in this Report.

The Special Benefit Zones of the District are as follows:

Zone A: Street Lighting Operation, Maintenance, and Services The operation, maintenance, and services provided will be the energy cost and a replacement reserve for the street lights contained within noncontiguous development areas throughout the incorporated City limits. All of the properties in the District are included in this Zone. The boundary for Zone A is defined within Exhibit A of the Report.

Zone B: Landscaping Operation, Maintenance, and Services The operation, maintenance, and services for this zone are those required for the perimeter sound wall repair, landscape maintenance, plant replacement, pruning, trimming and preventive treatment for street trees, irrigation water, and electricity and maintenance for irrigation systems as applicable. All of the properties in the District are included in this zone except those parcels of land within Sunnyslope Villages.

The boundary for Zone B is defined within Exhibit A.

Zone C: Enhanced Landscaping (Sunnyslope Villages Only) The operation, maintenance, and services for this zone are those required for perimeter soundwall repair, landscape maintenance, plant replacement, shrubbery, pruning, trimming and preventive treatment for street trees, turf, irrigation water, electricity and maintenance for irrigation systems, entry monuments, hardscape, detention basin, walls, fencing, drainage detention facilities, drainage structures and appurtenant facilities. This Zone is for Sunnyslope Villages exclusively, and does not include any other area of the District. The lots or parcels within this zone will also be assessed for street lighting in Zone A. The boundary for Zone C is defined within Exhibit A.

2. INTRODUCTION

In compliance with the order of the Hollister City Council, and pursuant to the Act, this Report presents the analysis for the 2025 / 2026 fiscal year of the District.

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

4 The law allows the District, by direct benefit assessments, to provide funding for the installation, maintenance, operation, servicing, and administration of the following improvements:

A. The installation or construction of public lighting facilities including, but not limited to, street lighting and traffic signals;

B. The installation or planting of landscaping;

C. The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, or other ornamental structures and facilities;

D. The installation of park and recreational improvements;

E. The maintenance and/or servicing of the above;

F. The acquisition of land for park, recreational or open space purposes;

G. The installation or construction of facilities appurtenant to the above, or which are necessary, or convenient for the maintenance and servicing; and

H. Incidental expenses related to the District.

Section 22573 of the Act provides that assessments be apportioned with regard to benefit rather than according to assessed value. A portion of the Section is quoted as follows:

The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method, which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.

The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 [commencing with Section 5000]).

The Act also provides for the classification of various areas within an assessment district into different zones. Section 22574 states that where,

Because of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements. A zone shall consist of all territory, which will receive substantially the same degree of benefit from the improvements.

The assessments are levied based on benefit, are therefore not a tax, and are not regulated by Article XIIIA of the Constitution of the State of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

5 3. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

The boundaries of the District are as set by Exhibit A within the City limits of the City of Hollister.

The boundaries of the District are more particularly described in maps on file in the office of the San Benito County Recorder and/or County Assessor. Such maps are made a part of this report by reference. All lots and parcels of real property affected are listed on the Collection Roll, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hollister. The lots and parcels are more particularly described in maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which are on file in the office of the San Benito County Assessor. Such maps are made part of this report by reference.

4. SPECIAL BENEFIT ZONES:

Certain areas within the District receive differing degrees of benefit from certain improvements.

Zones of benefit have been established for parcels within these areas and are listed as follows:

Zone A: Street Lighting Operation, Maintenance, and Services

Zone B: Landscaping Operation, Maintenance, and Services

Zone C: Enhanced Landscaping Operation, Maintenance, and Services

5. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES, OPERATIONS, & MAINTENANCE

The Services to be provided to the special benefit zones are as follows:

Improvements consisting of landscaping, irrigation systems, street paving, curb, and median repair; the landscaping includes, but is not limited to, maintenance personnel to perform pruning, cutting, trimming, fertilizing, and replacing of plant materials; supplying water and maintaining the irrigation systems in good, effective order; and supplying electricity for automatic meters and valves.

Services mean the furnishing of water for irrigation of landscaping, electricity, and the maintenance of any of the appurtenant facilities.

The landscaping and lighting operations, maintenance, and services to be provided within the special benefit zones will be located within public easement areas in connection with the boundary of Zone A, separately within Zone B and Zone C.

Zone A: Street Lighting Operation, Maintenance, and Services The services provided will be the energy cost and a replacement reserve for all of the street lights contained within noncontiguous development areas (Exhibit A) throughout the incorporated City limits. Eligible costs include, but are not limited to, poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, metering devices, anchors, posts and pedestals, guy wires and appurtenant facilities as required to provide lighting services.

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

6 Zone B: Landscaping Operation, Maintenance, and Services Operation, maintenance, and services required for the perimeter soundwall repair, landscaping maintenance, plant replacement, pruning, trimming and preventive treatment for street trees, irrigation water, electricity, and maintenance for irrigation systems, and all appurtenant structures as applicable.

Zone C: Enhanced Landscaping Operation, Maintenance, and Services Landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, turf, irrigation systems, entry monuments, hardscapes, detention basin, walls, fencing, drainage detention facilities, drainage structures, and appurtenant facilities.

6. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS:

Plans and specifications for the improvements to be installed, maintained, operated, and serviced through the District are on file in the office of the Engineering Department of the City of Hollister.

7. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT:

In accordance with the Act, the net amount to be assessed upon lots or parcels within special benefit Zone A, Zone B, and Zone C are apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance, servicing and operation of public landscaping and lighting within their respective boundary.

The maintenance, servicing, operation, and improvements are contained solely within public rights-of-way and dedicated public easements to the City of Hollister, and provide a special benefit received by each lot or parcel within the respective special benefit zone boundary, tending to enhance their value.

Special benefit zone establishment, pursuant to the Act, provides that for equal benefits and services received by lots or parcels within a district, groupings (zones) may be created which allow the costs to be levied only upon those lots or parcels receiving that specific service.

Public Lighting Installation, Maintenance, Operation, and Servicing Assessment

The intensity or degree of illumination, of street lights can have an effect on traffic movement and security awareness of properties or property improvements. Thus, the maintenance, operation, and servicing of public lighting within the City provide a special benefit to the lots or parcels, tending to enhance property value.

The primary benefits of public lighting are:

A. Improved ingress and egress from lots or parcels in the District; and

B. Improved security or protection of property, property improvements, and goods.

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

7 Proper roadway lighting improves ingress and egress from lots or parcels by illuminating access location after sunset. Likewise, street lighting provides a heightened sense of security for property owners by improving night time visibility of such lots or parcels, and the access of emergency vehicles thereto.

Also, in the case of commercial lots or parcels, such lighting improves ingress, egress, and better facilities for the opening and operation of businesses after sunset.

The assessment formula recognizes that special benefits received from public lighting are based on the following criteria:

1. Property Related – Traffic Circulation

A. An improved ingress to and egress from lots or parcels within the District.

B. An improved ingress to and egress from commercial lots or parcels and corresponding promotion of business during nighttime hours.

2. Property Related – Security

A. Improved illumination after sunset and a corresponding reduction in vandalism and other criminal acts and damage to improvements.

B. Improved illumination after sunset and a corresponding improvement in the access of emergency vehicles to such parcels.

C. Improved illumination after sunset and a corresponding reduction in illegal dumping on vacant land.

3. Property Related – Intensity

A. Intensity or degree of illumination provided on adjacent streets varies with the type of street and the use of the adjacent property.

Public Landscaping (and related improvements) Installation, Maintenance, Operation, and Servicing Assessment

Proper maintenance, operation, and servicing of landscaping, street trees, sidewalks, pedestrian furniture and related amenities are beneficial to any urban environment and enhance property values. Similarly, landscaping along major streets and preventive care of street trees serve to create a more pleasant environment for motorists, residents and pedestrians, as well as an attractive buffer for occupants of adjacent properties. Such areas significantly enhance the value of the properties in the entire City and enhance the image of the City as a whole. The landscaping attributes are Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

8 related to each lot or parcel within the special benefit Zone B for all nonexempt parcels, excepting Zone C, which will address only the landscaping services benefitting Sunnyslope Village.

8. BASIC ASSESSMENT UNIT:

The basic assessment unit for this formula is the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), which is represented by the single family residence where the Traffic Circulation benefits are assigned one- half and security and intensity benefits are assigned one-quarter units each, for a total of one unit or EDU.

Traffic Circulation benefits for multiple family residences are determined on a decreasing scale with one and one-quarter units assigned for each dwelling unit up to four dwelling units. For five or more dwelling units, the total numbers of units are assigned one-half of a unit for each dwelling unit plus one and one-quarter units for Security and Intensity.

A weighted factor has been assigned to each Land Use Code, as coded by the Assessor’s Office of the County of San Benito, for the application of the fee to each lot or parcel. This formula prescribes equivalency factors proceeding from the base EDU Single Family Residential to all other eligible land use codes.

The following listing identifies the weight assignment for the respective land use codes:

9. LAND USE CODE DESCRIPTION: EDU Assignment

Agriculture 0.25 EDU / Acre with 0.25 EDU minimum

Single Family Res: Vacant 0.50 EDU / Acre with 0.50 EDU minimum Single Family Residential 1.00 EDU / Home
Condominium / PUD 0.90 EDU / Condo

Multi-Family Res: Vacant 0.50 EDU / Acre with 0.50 EDU minimum Multi-Family Duplex 1.75 EDU / Parcel
Multi-Family Triplex 2.50 EDU / Parcel
Multi-Family Fourplex 3.25 EDU / Parcel
Multi-Family Five Units or More [(total units x 0.50) + 1.25] x 1.00 EDU

Commercial / Industrial – Group 1 2.00 EDU / Parcel

Church
Parking Lots

Commercial / Industrial – Group 2 3.00 EDU / Parcel

Bank
Machine / Welding
Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

9 Office Facilities
Repair Garage
Veterinary

Commercial / Industrial – Group 3 4.00 EDU / Parcel

Auto Parts Medical or Dental Office
Clubhouse and Lodges School or Day Care
Stores Retail Service Station
Funeral Home

Commercial / Industrial – Group 4 5.00 EDU / Parcel

Hotel Liquor Store Industrial
Auto Dealer Lumber Yard Cannery
Bar Motel Food Processing
Bowling Alley Mini Storage
Bulk Paint Restaurant
Car Wash Small Food & Gas
Cold Storage Small Food Store
Fast Food Restaurant Theater
Farm Supply / Equipment
Laundry

Commercial / Industrial – Group 5 5.00 EDU / Acre

Manufacturing
Mobile Home Park
Sand and Gravel
Shopping Center
Supermarket
Truck Facility
Warehouse
Winery

10. DISTRICT BUDGET:

The Fiscal Year 2025/2026 budget reflects administration, collection, maintenance, and operation expenses.

Zone A Budget Amount
Legal Counsel $500.00
Professional Accounting Services $2,000.00
Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

10 Report Preparation and Administration $10,000.00
Street Pole Replacement $1,940.00
Energy Lamp Cost $70,528.47
Subtotal $84,968.47

Plus Carry-Over Surplus/Deficit $0.00
Fiscal Year 2025 / 2026 Total $84,968.47

Units (EDU to Assess) 3,510.78
Yearly Assessment per EDU $24.20

Zone B Budget Amount
Legal Counsel $400.00
Professional Accounting Services $100.00
Report Preparation and Administration $1,270.00
Detention Pond $2,400.00
Streetscape Maintenance $17,913.00
Street Trees $21,550.00
Irrigation Water and Power $10,450.00
Chemicals $5,000.00
Sound Wall Maintenance $22,000.00
Plant Replacement $2,100.00
Subtotal $83,183.50

Plus Carry-Over Surplus/Deficit $0.00
Fiscal Year 2025 / 2026 Total $83,183.50

Units (EDU to Assess) 3,076.78
Yearly Assessment per EDU $27.04

Zone C Budget Amount
Professional Accounting Services $350.00
Report Preparation and Administration $100.00
Streetscape Maintenance $10,000.00
Street Trees $9,635.00
Irrigation Water and Power $15,290.00
Chemicals $3,000.00
Sound Wall Maintenance $6,091.28
Plant Replacement $1,100.00
Detention Basin/Park $9,951.00
City Contributions $0.00
Subtotal $55,517.28

Plus Carry-Over Surplus/Deficit $0.00
Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

11 Fiscal Year 2025 / 2026 Total $55,517.28

Units (EDU to Assess) 434.00
Yearly Assessment per EDU $127.92

TOTAL OF ALL ZONES FISCAL YEAR $223,669.25
2025 / 2026 ASSESSMENT

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Anticipate receiving approximately $223,669.25 in assessment revenue.

11. PROGRAM:

ZONE A: Street Lighting Operation and Maintenance
The total Zone A budget will be levied upon all nonexempt lots or parcels (EDU Formula) resulting in an equal dollar per home with equated benefits to all land use codes as assigned by the County of San Benito.

ZONE B: Street Tree Trimming, Parks, and Landscape Maintenance The total Zone B budget will be assessed upon all nonexempt lots or parcels (EDU Formula) resulting in an equal dollar per home with equated benefits to all land use codes as assigned by the County of San Benito.

ZONE C: Enhanced Landscaping Operation, Maintenance, and Service The total Zone C budget will be assessed upon all nonexempt lots or parcels (EDU Formula) resulting in an equal dollar per home with equated benefits to all land use codes as applicable, excluding lots and parcels within Zone C.

12. SENIOR CITIZEN FEE REDUCTION

The City Council has directed that a fifty percent (50%) reduction in the District Fee be offered to senior citizens. To be eligible for this reduction, a senior citizen must be sixty-two years of age or older and be a resident owner of the property. The request for reduction must be made in person, with proof of qualification and property information. It must be filed in the Finance Department of the City of Hollister every year that the District Fee is levied.

13. NO BONDED INDEBTEDNESS:

The City Council has declared that this District will not pursue Bonded Indebtedness to provide Service, Maintenance, and Operation requirements.

14. LIMITATION ON INCREASE OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT:

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

12 The City Council will comply with legal requirements to order the preparation of a Report and to conduct a public meeting and public hearing annually concerning the levy of assessments for the District in accordance with the Act.

15. COLLECTION ROLL:

The individual fee by special benefit zone, ordered and tabulated by Assessor Parcel Numbers, as assigned by the County of San Benito Assessor’s Office, is shown on the Collection Roll within the Appendix of this Report.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________________________________ Mark Falgout, P.E., Acting City Engineer

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

2025/2026
Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

2025/2026
Docusign Envelope ID: FCBFE3AC-664D-47FD-B88B-1796CE538990

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025
REPORT # Community Development-2025-31

AGENDA ITEM: APPEAL 2025-2 ALEXANDER SYWAK REGARDING THE

LOCATION OF FENCING IN THE FARMSTEAD SUBDIVISION

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, affirm the Planning Commission’s determination, and direct the applicant to revise the building permit applications to demonstrate the location of the rear yard fences of Lots 1 and 2 no closer than 5.5 feet from the northern property line.

CEQA: The appeal is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as it does not have any potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

DISCUSSION: Alexander Sywak (“Applicant”) has filed an appeal (Attachment 2, Appeal Application) in accordance with Section 17.24.140 Appeals of the Hollister Municipal Code related to the Planning Commission’s denial of Appeal 2024 -3 related to an administrative determination of the residential fence location on Lots 1 and 2 (1000 and 1010 Patrick Drive) in the Farmstead Subdivision (Tentative Map 2015-9, Conditional Use Permit 2016-3 for a Planned Unit Development). The Farmstead Subdivision consists of 13 single family residential lots located at the southwest corner of Westside Boulevard and South Street.

Figure 1. Property Location

Figure 2. Farmstead Subdivision (Tract No. 345, Book 16 of Maps Page 68)

BACKGROUND: On July 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted a building permit application for Lot 1 (1000 Patrick Drive) and Lot 2 (1010 Patrick Drive) in the Farmstead Subdivision. Lots 1 and 2 are oriented with the frontage of the property facing south toward Patrick Drive, while the rear of each property abuts South Street to the north.

The review of a building permit application for lots within a tract subdivision includes the review of the “plot plan” of the building placement upon the lot for compliance with setbacks, lot coverage, lot variation, conformance with public utility and other easements and other code compliance issues, prio r to issuance of a building permit.

Typically, and as is the case for this subdivision, tract projects will submit a “Master Plan” for review separately by the Building Department, and individual building permits for new homes will refer to the approved Master Plan, which will be repeated throughout the subdivision on multiple lots. Presently, the Applicant has been issued approved Master Plans for this project, however a revision was submitted which is currently under review.

Upon review of the submitted building permit applications for Lots 1 and 2 in July, the Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions reviewed the proposals for code compliance and returned comments on July 26, 2024. The consolidated comments provided to the Applicant are included in Attachment 4. One comment, which is the subject of this appeal, was related to identifying the location of the fencing on the plans for Lots 1 and 2. Staff indicated that the plans must be revised to indicate the location of fences, and it was noted that fencing located within the 10-foot street side setback is subject to Engineering approval, and the Engineering Division provided a comment that fencing shall not be located within the Public Utility Easement (P.U.E.). Figures 2 and 3 below are the submitted plot plans for Lot 1 and Lot 2, respectively. To date, the Applicant has not resubmitted either of the building permit applications in response to the City’s July 26, 2024 comments for Lots 1 and 2.

Figure 3. July 8, 2024 Building Permit Submittal – Lot 1 Farmstead

Figure 4. July 8, 2024 Building Permit Submittal – Lot 2 Farmstead

The notes provided to the applicant regarding the placement of residential fencing are based on the following two adopted City codes and policies:

1. Section 17.16.050 Fencing, screening and walls, Table 17.16-1 Maximum Height of Fences and Walls, which allows for a maximum fence height of three feet for any fence located within the street side setback of any lot, with an allowance for the City Engineer to approve a fence up to six feet in height provided that it does not present a safety hazard and complies with any easements and rights-of-way.

Figure 5. Table 17.16-1 Maximum Height of Fences and Walls

Location Maximum Height
Within street side setback/corner lot Three feet. An exception to allow a fence height up to six feet in the ten-
foot setback on the street side of a
corner lot may be allowed with
administrative approval from the City
Engineer which does not create a
safety hazard and is consistent with
easements and rights-of-way.

2. The City’s adopted Engineering Standards and Specifications (November 2019 Update), prohibit the location of fencing and soundwalls within public easements.

See Attachment 4, Excerpt from Standard Specifications and Plans.

Following the return of comments to the Applicant by the Building Division, the Applicant had a series of phone and email communications with the Engineering Division (see Attachment 5), which resulted in the Engineering Division proposing an acceptable exception for the applicant to allow the fence to be placed within the P.U.E. but remaining 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk on South Street, rather than located 10 feet from the back of the property line. In this location, there is a 4.5 -foot landscape strip located between the property line (and outer boundary of the P.U.E.) and the back of the city sidewalk, both of which are within the established right -of-way of South Street.

The Engineering Division reviewed the adjacent lot to the west of Lot 2 (see Figure 6), and found that the existing fence is also located 10-feet from the back of the sidewalk, so this determination would allow the Farmstead lot fences to be aligned with the neighboring fence as well.

Figure 6. Engineering Division Approved Exception Diagram

Si
d
e
w
a
l
k

Property Line

4. 5
’
-wi
d
e

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

S
t
r
i
p

Proposed Fence Location
10’
South Street
centerline
10’ PUE

Figure 7. Adjacent Fencing to Lot 2

Following the Engineering Division’s compromise proposal, the Applicant contacted the Assistant City Manager/Acting Community Development Director, Rod Powell, to request a different determination regarding the fence location on Lots 1 and 2. Assistant City Manager (ACM) Powell and the Applicant had several written and verbal conversations, and on September 6, 2024 ACM Powell determined to be in agreement with staff’s interpretation of Section 17.16.050 of the Municipal Code and found the Engineering Division’s proposal to allow the placement of the fence within the 10 -foot P.U.E. but no closer than 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk to be acceptable, stating

“…I have completed an assessment of the information, materials, and perspective provided, to include several staff discussions and a site visit.

With this in mind, I am in agreement with staff in their application of MC

17.16.050 and that the applicable fencing for lots 1 & 2 should be constructed within the City’s codified requirement of no closer than the 10’ back of walk requirement.

While I can appreciate the perspective you’ve offered indicating a desire to offer larger yard space for prospective residents, the lots in question are prominent in the neighborhood, the standard recognizes an existing public utilities easement, and the City simply does not want to perpetuate residential fence lines that abut sidewalks. Additionally, I would also call out that this is something that should have been considered in the design process to ensure that the footprint of a

proposed residence would allow for the space that is desired.

In an effort to provide some accommodation to your request, the City is amenable to a prior suggestion from staff that fencing along South Street could be placed within PUE while still satisfying the 10’ BOW requirement. Based upon a review of applicable plot plans, the 10’ PUE adjacent to lots 1 & 2 actually begins 4.5’ from BOW. In this particular situation, the City is open to the placement of fencing along South Street to 5.5’ from the property line within the PUE as long as other required setbacks are maintained on each lot. This allowance would satisfy the 10’ BOW requirement and create additional yard space, but would also require that any prospective buyers/owner of the home receive form notification of the potential need for fence relocation in the future at their expense.”

The complete communication to the Applicant can be found in Attachment 6.

APPEAL: On September 17, 2024 the Applicant filed a timely appeal of th e Assistant City Manager’s determination in regard to the fence location and interpretation of the City’s Municipal Code. The Applicant has stated the following:

1. “Lots 1 & 2 of Farmstead have been completed. The Applicant understood that their rear fences along South Street would be located along their property lines.”

Staff Response: The final map for the Farmstead Subdivision, Tract 345, was recorded on June 19, 2020 by the San Benito County Recorder, creating legal lots of record for the described Lots 1 (1000 Patrick Drive) and 2 (1010 Patrick Drive) (Attachment 7). The signed “Statement of the Owners” on the recorded Final Map indicates as follows:

“…The real property described below is dedicated as easements for public purposes…those certain strips of land designated as ‘Public Utilities Easements’…as shown on said map within said subdivision. Such strips are to be kept clear of buildings and structures of any kind except utility company or drainage structures and lawful fences.”

On August 6, 2019 the City of Hollister Engineering Division provided the Applicant’s Engineer of Record the following comment on the third review of the improvement plans for the project (Attachment 8): “Additionally, please remove the fence from the PUE on the improvement plans for lots 1 and 2. Once the plot plans for these lots are submitted, we will revisit the fence location for proper approval. Please add a note on the improvement plans explaining this situation.”

Note 21 of the approved improvement plans for the subd ivision (Attachment 9) states as follows: “Residential fencing shall be installed or replaced along the project’s boundary in accordance with City standards. Residential fencing shall be approved by the City Planning Division prior to installation. Residen tial fencing on interior lots shall comply with the City of Hollister Municipal Code. Double fencing shall not be allowed.” Note 21 is a restatement of the requirements of Condition 18 of PC Resolution 2016-11 approving Tentative Map 2015-9 for the

Farmstead Subdivision (Attachment 10), which is a standard condition of approval for residential subdivisions.

The Applicant has been notified at multiple stages of the development process that residential fencing must be approved in compliance with the City of Hollister Municipal Code and other applicable City standards. Section 17.16.050 of the Municipal Code was last amended in 2014, prior to the project entitlement. No fencing standards have been changed since the approval of the project. The final location of fencing is approved on the plot plan as part of the building permit approval. The Applicant has not received approval for issuance of a building permit on Lot 1 or 2, or any other lot, within the Farmstead Subdivision. The Applicant has not responded to the comments provided by the City on the first review of the Lot 1 and 2 plot plans, which included the comment made regarding fencing, as well as multiple other comments related to missing information and inconsistency with code requirements. Lots 1 and 2 are currently vacant, undeveloped parcels.

2. “The Development Services Director has determined that the rear fence for these lots is to be located 5.5 feet from their rear property lines, resulting in a taking of the rear 5.5 feet from each lot.

Owners of these 2 lots will be required to be notified that the rear fences could be required to be moved an additional 4.5 feet into the property at their expense, increasing the taking to a total of 10 feet of the backyard.”

Staff Response: The Applicant prepared, signed, and executed the recording of a Final Map for the creation of the Farmstead Subdivision which includes a 10 - foot Public Utilities Easement on Lots 1 and 2 along the South Street frontage of the parcels (this same 10’ easement is also a dedicated Tree Planting and Maintenance Easement, and a Sidewalk Easement). The location of this P.U.E. is recorded on the title of property, on file with the San Benito County Recorder’s Office, and must be included on the application for a b uilding permit for development on these lots. All documents recorded on the property must be disclosed to a potential buyer as part of their purchase agreements. As indicated on the Final Map, these easements are for public purposes, which includes any need for access to any such public utilities or facilities for purposes of maintenance, upgrades, installation, etc. The Applicant and future owners are advised that the easement must be kept clear of all structures with the exception of lawful fences. Should any such structure – including a lawful fence – prohibit the City or any other public agency or utility from accessing the public facilities within the easement, the obstructive structures may be removed by the public agency at the expense of the property owner to ensure that the rights of the easement are maintained. This is a standard acknowledgement of the dedication of public access and maintenance easements. A dedicated easement by the lawful property owner as part of their proposed and approved entit lement does not constitute a “taking” of private property.

The City of Hollister’s adopted engineering standards prohibit the location of fences within dedicated Public Utilities Easements. However, Section 17.16.050

does allow the City Engineer, or their designee, discretion to approve a six-foot tall fence within the 10-foot setback of a street side yard provided that it does not create a safety hazard and is consistent with easements and rights -of-way. The Engineering Division has reviewed the unique circumstances of these lots, which abut South Street as the rear yard of each property, along with the location of public utilities within the established P.U.E., the location of the existing fence on the neighboring parcel to the west, and sight distance re quirements for vehicles traveling on South Street, Westside Boulevard, and Brennan Way – the three roadways/intersections in the immediate vicinity of the proposed fences – and has determined that they will allow a six-foot residential rear yard fence to be located at 5.5-feet from the property line, within the 10-foot street side fence setback and within the P.U.E. on Lots 1 and 2. The Engineering Division is not in agreement with allowing the fence to be located any closer to the property line as it would be in conflict the with the P.U.E. and could create potential safety hazards for vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the street and adjacent intersections. The proposed fence location at 5.5 -feet from the property line will establish the fence location at 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk on South Street.

Though not noted in the appeal application, the Applicant has indicated in various communications with City staff that the rear yard of the proposed residential units would be very small if the fence is not permitted to be placed on the property line of Lots 1 and 2. Staff notes for the record that the design of the proposed single family homes is wholly the discretion of the developer and their design team. The Applicant has designed the footprint of the homes, and has the discretion to revise their proposed floor plans if they would like to establish a larger rear yard on these parcels. The Applicant requested and received approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PC Resolution 2016-10, Attachment 11), whereby they established reduced setbacks for the Farmstead Subdivision, including a rear yard setback of 10 feet. Setbacks are a minimum requirement for the distance between the main unit and the property line; the developer may choose to design the unit to be set back further than the established minimum setback. The City of Hollister does not have any minimum requirement for the distance between the main unit and a fence line – only setbacks from property line to the main structure, and setbacks from the property line to residential fences (greater than three feet in height) within front, street side, and corner yards. Fences of three feet in height or shorter may be placed within front, street side, and corner yards without need for additional approval by the Engineering Division, subject to Section 17.16.050.

CEQA: The location of fencing which is the subject of the appeal is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

CONCLUSION: Staff have reviewed the Applicant’s request for placement of the rear yard fence of Lots 1 and 2 in the Farmstead Subdivision on the northern property line, within the 10-foot street side setback of the lots and within the established P.U.E., and pursuant to Section 17.16.050 have determined that placement of the fence on the property line would create potential safety hazards and is inconsistent with the P.U.E.

dedicated on the properties. However, the Engineering Division has proposed that it would be acceptable for the fence to be placed 5.5 -feet from the property line, within the 10-foot setback, and within the P.U.E. on these properties, as that location would not be in conflict with the constructed public utilities within the P.U.E. and would not create safety hazards at the adjacent intersections and roadways. The Assistant City Manager and Acting Community Development Director has reviewed the materials provided by the Applicant and staff’s justifications and has determined that setting the fences at 5.5 feet would be consistent with the Municipal Code.

The Applicant has appealed this request and asks the Planning Commission to overturn the Assistant City Manager’s determination and allow a six-foot residential fence to be placed on the northern property line of Lots 1 and 2 of the Farmstead Subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.16.050.

Under the provisions of Section 17.24.140 Appeals, the Planning Commission may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision or determination that is the subject of the appeal.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, affirm staff’s determination and interpretation of the Municipal Code regarding the location of fencing, and direct the Applicant to revise their building permit applications for Lots 1 and 2 t o include a response to all comments provided by the City including identifying the location of the rear yard fences to be placed no closer than 5.5 feet from the northern property line.

FISCAL IMPACT:

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION:

CEQA:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution of Denial for Appeal 2025-2

2. Appeal 2025-2 Application

3. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-5_Denying Appeal 2024-3

4. Planning Commission Record

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DENYING APPEAL 2025-2, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF APPEAL 2024-3 AND DIRECTING THE

APPLICANT TO REVISE THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR LOT 1 (1000 PATRICK DRIVE) AND LOT 2 (1010 PATRICK DRIVE) TO

DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION OF THE REAR YARD FENCES TO BE
NO CLOSER THAN 5.5 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE (ALEXANDER SYWAK) APNS 058-060-081 & 058-060-082

WHEREAS, on July 8, 2024 Alexander Sywak (the Applicant) submitted a building per mit application for the development of single family residential homes on Lots 1 and 2 in the Farmstead Subdivision (Tentative Map 2015 -9, Conditional Use Permit 2016-3 for a Planned Unit Development); and

WHEREAS, on July 26, 2024 the City of Hollister Building Division returned comments to the Applicant on the building permit applications, requesting additional information and advising of various inconsistencies with code requirements; and

WHEREAS, one of the comments provided on the building permit applications was that the location of the proposed residential fences must be shown on the plans, and the applicant was advised that the fences must be located outside of the dedicated 10-foot Public Utilities Easement (P.U.E.) on the properties, and that any fence located within 10 feet of the property line on a street side yard must be approved by the Engineering Division in accordance with Section 17.16.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, following the City’s comments, the Applicant requested the Engineering Division to consider allowing a six-foot residential fence to be located on the northern property lines of Lots 1 and 2, directly abutting the public right -of-way of South Street, within the 10-foot P.U.E. and within the 10-foot setback; and

WHEREAS, the Engineering Division considered the Applicant’s request and determined that the fence should not be located on the northern property line as it would conflict with the P.U.E. and therefore would not be consistent with Section 17.16.050, which requires the fence to both not conflict with any P.U.E. nor to create safety hazards; and

WHEREAS, the Engineering Division did however propose that the fences could be located as close as 5.5 feet from the property line, within the P.U.E. and within the 10 - foot setback, which would not be in conflict with the existing public unities located within the easement and would not create safety hazards, and that this location would establish the fences at a 10-foot setback from the back of the existing sidewalk, consistent with the neighboring parcel to the west’s fence line; and

WHEREAS, following the determination of the Engineering Division, the Applicant requesed the Assistant City Manager/Acting Community Development Director to

Resolution No. 2025-XX

reconsider the Engineering Division’s interpretation of the Hollister Municipal Code and determination on the location of the fencing for Lots 1 and 2; and

WHEREAS, the Assistant City Manager considered the Applicant’s request, submitted materials, the determination and justification of staff, and completed a site visit, and on September 6, 2024 determined that he was in concurrence with the determination of staff and that the fences should be placed no closer than 5.5 feet from the northern property line in accordance with Section 17.16.050; and

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2024 in accordance with Section 17.24.140 Appeals of the Hollister Municipal Code, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Assistant City Manager’s determination with the Planning Division to request the Planning Commission overturn the determination and allow the location of a six-foot residential fence on the northern property line of Lots 1 and 2 of the Farmstead Subdivision within the P.U.E. and within the 10-foot street side fence setback; and

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2025 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request (Appeal 2024-3), and following the public hearing determined to adopt Resolution 2025-5 denying the appeal, affirming staff’s determination and interpretation of the Municipal Code, and directing the applicant to revise the building permit applications to demonstrate the fence location no closer than 5.5 feet to the property line; and

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025 in accordance with Section 17.24.140 Appeals of the Hollister Municipal Code, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Appeal 2024-3 to request the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s denial and to allow the location of a six-foot residential fence on the northern property line of Lots 1 and 2 of the Farmstead Subdivision within the P.U.E. and within the 10 -foot street side fence setback; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 2025 to consider the Applicant’s request, review the City staff report, and receive written and oral testimony for and against the appeal; and

WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing, the City Council deliberated and determined to deny the appeal in accordance with Section 17.24.140 and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of Appeal 2024-3.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby deny Appeal 2025-2, upholding the Planning Commission’s denial of Appeal 2024-3 (PC Resolution 2025-5) based on the following findings:

1. Lot 1 (1000 Patrick Drive) and Lot 2 (1010 Patrick Drive) of the recorded Farmstead Subdivision (Tract 345) each have a dedicated 10 -foot Public Utilities Easement, Tree Planting and Maintenance Easement, and Sidewalk Easement located on the northern property line (along South Street). Pursuant to the adopted Engineering

Resolution No. 2025-XX

Standard Specifications and Plans, fences and soundwalls shall not be permitted to be placed within any public easement.

2. Pursuant to Section 17.16.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code, fences greater than 3 feet in height that are proposed to be placed within the 10 -foot setback on a street side yard must first be approved by the Engineering Division to ensure that they are not in conflict with any easements, nor would they create any public safety hazards.

3. The Applicant has been made aware that fences for the subdivision must be proposed in compliance with the Municipal Code as is indicated by the conditions on the Tentative Map entitlement, comments provided by the Engineering Division during the review of the proposed Subdivision Improvement Plans, notes established on the approved Subdivision Improvement Plans and Final Map, and the comments provided by the City in response to the building permit submittal.

4. The dedication of the P.U.E. on Lots 1 and 2 was proposed by the Applicant as part of the entitlement request and approval and is recorded on the Final Map which was signed by the Applicant who is the original (at time of entitlement) and current property owner.

5. The Applicant has requested to place the six-foot residential rear yard fence for Lots 1 and 2 on the northern property line; which upon review of the P.U.E., existing public utilities within the P.U.E., line of sight requirements for vehicles and pedestrians at the adjacent intersections of South Street and Westside Boulevard and Brennan Way, and consistency with neighboring parcels, has been determined to present conflicts with the established easements.

6. In accordance with Section 17.16.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code, an exception for the location of fences within the 10-foot street side setback may be approved by the Engineering Division, and while the placement of fences directly on the property line is inconsistent with the easements and safety needs of the locations, it has been determined that an exception to allow the fences to be placed up to 5.5 back from the property line, within the P.U.E. and within the 10 -foot setback, would eliminate conflicts with the easement and any potential safety hazards for vehicles or pedestrians, and therefore can be permitted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the Applicant to revise their building permit applications for Lot 1 and 2 to address the comments provided by the City and to demonstrate the location of the fences on the lots no closer than 5.5. feet from the northern property line prior to issuance of any building permits for these lots.

Resolution No. 2025-XX

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

ATTACHMENT 4.

APPEAL 2025-2

PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD: APPEAL 2024-3

February 6, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachments, and Written Public Comments Received

Also available online at:
https://pub-hollister.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=9a46991a-094b-46fd-80f1- 21a70b16970b&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=13&Tab=attachments

February 27, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachments, and Written Public Comments Received

NOTE: Attachment 2. “2025.02.06_Appeal 2024-3_Staff Report w Attachments.pdf” is removed as it is duplicitous with the attachments above.

Also available online (including Attachment 2) at:
https://pub-hollister.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=35806028-5a94-4888-bf50- d313bef92b3a&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English

STAFF REPORT

HOLLISTER PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2025
REPORT # Community Development-2025-01

AGENDA ITEM: APPEAL 2024-3 ALEXANDER SYWAK REGARDING THE

LOCATION OF FENCING IN THE FARMSTEAD SUBDIVISION

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the appeal, affirm staff’s determination, and direct the applicant to revise the building permit applications to demonstrate the location of the rear yard fences of Lots 1 and 2 no closer than 5.5 feet from the northern property line.

CEQA: The appeal is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as it does not have any potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alexander Sywak (“Applicant”) has filed an appeal (Attachment 2, Appeal Application) in accordance with Section 17.24.140 Appeals of the Hollister Municipal Code related to the administrative determination of the residential fence location on Lots 1 and 2 (1000 and 1010 Patrick Drive) in the Farmstead Subdivision (Tentative Map 2015-9, Conditional Use Permit 2016-3 for a Planned Unit Development). The Farmstead Subdivision consists of 13 single family residential lots located at the southwest corner of Westside Boulevard and South Street.

Figure 1. Property Location

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

Figure 2. Farmstead Subdivision (Tract No. 345, Book 16 of Maps Page 68)

BACKGROUND: On July 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted a building permit application for Lot 1 (1000 Patrick Drive) and Lot 2 (1010 Patrick Drive) in the Farmstead Subdivision. Lots 1 and 2 are oriented with the frontage of the property facing south toward Patrick Drive, while the rear of each property abuts South Street to the north.

The review of a building permit application for lots within a tract subdivision includes the review of the “plot plan” of the building placement upon the lot for compliance with setbacks, lot coverage, lot variation, conformance with public utility and other easements and other code compliance issues, prior to issuance of a building permit.

Typically, and as is the case for this subdivision, tract projects will submit a “Master Plan” for review separately by the Building Department, and individual building permits for new homes will refer to the approved Master Plan, which will be repeated throughout the subdivision on multiple lots. Presently, the Applicant has been issued approved Master Plans for this project, however a revision was submitted which is currently under review.

Upon review of the submitted building permit applications for Lots 1 and 2 in July, the Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions reviewed the proposals for code compliance and returned comments on July 26, 2024. The consolidated comments provided to the Applicant are attached as Attachment 3. One comment, which is the subject of this appeal, was related to identifying the location of the fencing on the plans for Lots 1 and 2. Staff indicated that the plans must be revised to indicate the location of fences, and it was noted that fencing located within the 10-foot street side setback is subject to Engineering approval, and the Engineering Division provided a comment that

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

fencing shall not be located within the Public Utility Easement (P.U.E.). Figures 2 and 3 below are the submitted plot plans for Lot 1 and Lot 2, respectively. To date, the Applicant has not resubmitted either of the building permit applications in response to the City’s July 26, 2024 comments for Lots 1 and 2.

Figure 3. July 8, 2024 Building Permit Submittal – Lot 1 Farmstead

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

Figure 4. July 8, 2024 Building Permit Submittal – Lot 2 Farmstead

The notes provided to the applicant regarding the placement of residential fencing are based on the following two adopted City codes and policies:

1. Section 17.16.050 Fencing, screening and walls, Table 17.16-1 Maximum Height of Fences and Walls, which allows for a maximum fence height of three feet for any fence located within the street side setback of any lot, with an allowance for the City Engineer to approve a fence up to six feet in height provided that it does not present a safety hazard and complies with any easements and rights-of-way.

Figure 5. Table 17.16-1 Maximum Height of Fences and Walls

Location Maximum Height
Within street side setback/corner lot Three feet. An exception to allow a fence height up to six feet in the ten-
foot setback on the street side of a
corner lot may be allowed with an
administrative approval from the City
Engineer which does not create a
safety hazard and is consistent with
easements and rights-of-way.

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

2. The City’s adopted Engineering Standards and Specifications (November 2019 Update), prohibit the location of fencing and soundwalls within public easements.

See Attachment 4, Excerpt from Standard Specifications and Plans.

Following the return of comments to the Applicant by the Building Division, the Applicant had a series of phone and email communications with the Engineering Division (see Attachment 5), which resulted in the Engineering Division proposing an acceptable exception for the applicant to allow the fence to be placed within the P.U.E. but remaining 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk on South Street, rather than located 10 feet from the back of the property line. In this location, there is a 4.5 -foot landscape strip located between the property line (and outer boundary of the P.U.E.) and the back of the city sidewalk, both of which are within the established right -of-way of South Street.

The Engineering Division reviewed the adjacent lot to the west of Lot 2 (see Figure 6), and found that the existing fence is also located 10-feet from the back of the sidewalk, so this determination would allow the Farmstead lot fences to be in alignment with the neighboring fence as well.

Figure 6. Engineering Division Approved Exception Diagram

Si
d
e
w
a
l
k

Property Line

4. 5
’
-wi
d
e

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

S
t
r
i
p

Proposed Fence Location
10’
South Street
centerline
10’ PUE

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

Figure 7. Adjacent Fencing to Lot 2

Following the Engineering Division’s compromise proposal, the Applicant contacted the Assistant City Manager/Acting Community Development Director, Rod Powell, to request a different determination regarding the fence location on Lots 1 and 2. Assistant City Manager (ACM) Powell and the Applicant had several written and verbal conversations, and on September 6, 2024 ACM Powell determined to be in agreement with staff’s interpretation of Section 17.16.050 of the Municipal Code and found the Engineering Division’s proposal to allow the placement of the fence within the 10 -foot P.U.E. but no closer than 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk to be acceptable, stating

“…I have completed an assessment of the information, materials, and perspective provided, to include several staff discussions and a site visit.

With this in mind, I am in agreement with staff in their application of MC

17.16.050 and that the applicable fencing for lots 1 & 2 should be constructed within the City’s codified requirement of no closer than the 10’ back of walk requirement.

While I can appreciate the perspective you’ve offered indicating a desire to offer larger yard space for prospective residents, the lots in question are prominent in the neighborhood, the standard recognizes an existing public utilities easement, and the City simply does not want to perpetuate residential fence lines that abut

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

sidewalks. Additionally, I would also call out that this is something that should have been considered in the design process to ensure that the footprint of a proposed residence would allow for the space that is desired.

In an effort to provide some accommodation to your request, the City is amenable to a prior suggestion from staff that fencing along South Street could be placed within PUE while still satisfying the 10’ BOW requirement. Based upon a review of applicable plot plans, the 10’ PUE adjacent to lots 1 & 2 actually begins 4.5’ from BOW. In this particular situation, the City is open to the placement of fencing along South Street to 5.5’ from the property line within the PUE as long as other required setbacks are maintained on each lot. This allowance would satisfy the 10’ BOW requirement and create additional yard space, but would also require that any prospective buyers/owner of the home receive form notification of the potential need for fence relocation in the future at their expense.”

The complete communication to the Applicant can be found in Attachment 6.

APPEAL: On September 17, 2024 the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Assistant City Manager’s determination in regard to the fence location and interpretation of the City’s Municipal Code. The Applicant has stated the following:

1. “Lots 1 & 2 of Farmstead have been completed. The Applicant understood that their rear fences along South Street would be located along their property lines.”

Staff Response: The final map for the Farmstead Subdivision, Tract 345, was recorded on June 19, 2020 by the San Benito County Recorder, creating legal lots of record for the described Lots 1 (1000 Patrick Drive) and 2 (1010 Patrick Drive) (Attachment 7). The signed “Statement of the Owners” on the recorded Final Map indicates as follows:

“…The real property described below is dedicated as easements for public purposes…those certain strips of land designated as ‘Public Utilities Easements’…as shown on said map within said subdivision. Such strips are to be kept clear of buildings and structures of any kind except utility company or drainage structures and lawful fences.”

On August 6, 2019 the City of Hollister Engineering Division provided the Applicant’s Engineer of Record the following comment on the third review of the improvement plans for the project (Attachment 8): “Additionally, please remove the fence from the PUE on the improvement plans for lots 1 and 2. Once the plot plans for these lots are submitted, we will revisit the fence location for proper approval. Please add a note on the improvement plans explaining this situation.”

Note 21 of the approved improvement plans for the subdivision (Attachment 9) states as follows: “Residential fencing shall be installed or replaced along the project’s boundary in accordance with City standards. Residential fencing shall

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

be approved by the City Planning Division prior to installation. Residential fencing on interior lots shall comply with the City of Hollister Municipal Code. Double fencing shall not be allowed.” Note 21 is a restatement of the requirements of Condition 18 of PC Resolution 2016-11 approving Tentative Map 2015-9 for the Farmstead Subdivision (Attachment 10), which is a standard condition of approval for residential subdivisions.

The Applicant has been notified at multiple stages of the development process that residential fencing must be approved in compliance with the City of Hollister Municipal Code and other applicable City standards. Section 17.16.050 of the Municipal Code was last amended in 2014, prior to the project entitlement. No fencing standards have been changed since the approval of the project. The final location of fencing is approved on the plot plan as part of the building permit approval. The Applicant has not received approval for issuance of a building permit on Lot 1 or 2, or any other lot, within the Farmstead Subdivision. The Applicant has not responded to the comments provided by the City on the first review of the Lot 1 and 2 plot plans, which included the comment made regarding fencing, as well as multiple other comments related to missing information and inconsistency with code requirements. Lots 1 and 2 are currently vacant, undeveloped parcels.

2. “The Development Services Director has determined that the rear fence for these lots is to be located 5.5 feet from their rear property lines, resulting in a taking of the rear 5.5 feet from each lot.

Owners of these 2 lots will be required to be notified that the rear fences could be required to be moved an additional 4.5 feet into the property at their expense, increasing the taking to a total of 10 feet of the backyard.”

Staff Response: The Applicant prepared, signed, and executed the recording of a Final Map for the creation of the Farmstead Subdivision which includes a 10 - foot Public Utilities Easement on Lots 1 and 2 along the South Street frontage of the parcels (this same 10’ easement is also a dedicated Tree Planting and Maintenance Easement, and a Sidewalk Easement). The location of this P.U.E. is recorded on the title of property, on file with the San Benito County Recorder’s Office, and must be included on the application for a building permit for development on these lots. All documents recorded on the property must be disclosed to a potential buyer as part of their purchase agreements. As indicated on the Final Map, these easements are for public purposes, which includes any need for access to any such public utilities or facilities for purposes of maintenance, upgrades, installation, etc. The Applicant and future owners are advised that the easement must be kept clear of all structures with the exception of lawful fences. Should any such structure – including a lawful fence – prohibit the City or any other public agency or utility from accessing the public facilities within the easement, the obstructive structures may be removed by the public agency at the expense of the property owner to ensure that the rights of the easement are maintained. This is a standard acknowledgement of the dedication

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

of public access and maintenance easements. A dedicated easement by the lawful property owner as part of their proposed and approved entitlement does not constitute a “taking” of private property.

The City of Hollister’s adopted engineering standards prohibit the location of fences within dedicated Public Utilities Easements. However, Section 17.16.050 does allow the City Engineer, or their designee, discretion to approve a six-foot tall fence within the 10-foot setback of a street side yard provided that it does not create a safety hazard and is consistent with easements and rights -of-way. The Engineering Division has reviewed the unique circumstances of these lots, which abut South Street as the rear yard of each property, along with the location of public utilities within the established P.U.E., the location of the existing fence on the neighboring parcel to the west, and sight distance requirements for vehicles traveling on South Street, Westside Boulevard, and Brennan Way – the three roadways/intersections in the immediate vicinity of the proposed fences – and has determined that they will allow a six-foot residential rear yard fence to be located at 5.5-feet from the property line, within the 10-foot street side fence setback and within the P.U.E. on Lots 1 and 2. The Engineering Division is not in agreement with allowing the fence to be located any closer to the property line as it would be in conflict the with the P.U.E. and could create potential safety hazards for vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the street and adjacent intersections. The proposed fence location at 5.5 -feet from the property line will establish the fence location at 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk on South Street.

Though not noted in the appeal application, the Applicant has indicated in various communications with City staff that the rear yard of the proposed residential units would be very small if the fence is not permitted to be placed on the prope rty line of Lots 1 and 2. Staff notes for the record that the design of the proposed single family homes is wholly the discretion of the developer and their design team. The Applicant has designed the footprint of the homes, and has the discretion to revise their proposed floor plans if they would like to establish a larger rear yard on these parcels. The Applicant requested and received approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PC Resolution 2016-10, Attachment 11), whereby they established reduced setbacks for the Farmstead Subdivision, including a rear yard setback of 10 feet. Setbacks are a minimum requirement for the distance between the main unit and the property line; the developer may choose to design the unit to be set back further than the established minimum setback. The City of Hollister does not have any minimum requirement for the distance between the main unit and a fence line – only setbacks from property line to the main structure, and setbacks from the property line to residential fences (greater than three feet in height) within front, street side, and corner yards. Fences of three feet in height or shorter may be placed within front, street side, and corner yards without need for additional approva l by the Engineering Division, subject to Section 17.16.050.

CEQA: The location of fencing which is the subject of the appeal is exempt from CEQA

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

CONCLUSION: Staff have reviewed the Applicant’s request for placement of the rear yard fence of Lots 1 and 2 in the Farmstead Subdivision on the northern property line, within the 10-foot street side setback of the lots and within the established P.U.E., and pursuant to Section 17.16.050 have determined that placement of the fence on the property line would create potential safety hazards and is inconsistent with the P.U.E. dedicated on the properties. However, the Engineering Division has proposed that it would be acceptable for the fence to be placed 5.5 -feet from the property line, within the 10-foot setback, and within the P.U.E. on these properties, as that location would not be in conflict with the constructed public utilities within the P.U.E. and would not create safety hazards at the adjacent intersections and roadways. The Assistant City Manager and Acting Community Development Director has reviewed the materials provided by the Applicant and staff’s justifications and has determined that setting the fences at 5.5 feet would be consistent with the Municipal Code.

The Applicant has appealed this request and asks the Planning Commission to overturn the Assistant City Manager’s determination and allow a six-foot residential fence to be placed on the northern property line of Lots 1 and 2 of the Farmstead Subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.16.050.

Under the provisions of Section 17.24.140 Appeals, the Planning Commission may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision or determination that is the subject of the appeal.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, affirm staff’s determination and interpretation of the Municipal Code regarding the location of fencing, and direct the Applicant to revise their building permit applications for Lots 1 and 2 t o include a response to all comments provided by the City including identifying the location of the rear yard fences to be placed no closer than 5.5 feet from the northern property line.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL OR COMMISSION ACTION:

1/28/2016 – Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2016-10 and Resolution 2016-11 approving Conditional Use Permit 2016-3 for a Planned Unit Development and Tentative Map 2015-9 (the Farmstead Subdivision)

12/21/2017 – Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2017-31 approving a one-year extension of the tentative map and conditional use permit through 1/28/2019

1/22/2019 – City Council adopted Resolution 2019-7 approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the Farmstead Subdivision

9/7/2021 – City Council denied appeal filed by Alexander Sywak requesting to remove Condition 55 of the project, which required an emergency access to be installed as part

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

of the project

PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS:

The Planning Commission have the following options regarding the Appeal:

1. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal 2024-3 based on the findings as contained in the draft resolution;

2. Adopt a resolution approving the Appeal and reversing the determination of staff based on findings established by the Planning Commission;

3. Continue the item and request additional information or clarification from staff.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission selection Option 1 for this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution denying the appeal

2. Appeal Application

3. July 26, 2024 – City of Hollister comments on Plot Plans for Lots 1, 2, 12, & 13

4. Excerpt from Standard Specifications and Plans (November 2019 Update)

5. Engineering Division communication with Applicant

6. ACM Powell communication with Applicant, including September 6, 2024 determination

7. Recorded Final Map, Farmstead Subdivision Tract 345

8. August 6, 2019 Engineering Division Improvement Plan Comment Letter

9. Approved Improvement Plans, Farmstead Subdivision

10. PC Resolution 2016-11 approving TM 2015-9

11. PC Resolution 2016-10 approving CUP 2016-3 for PUD

Staff Report
Appeal 2024-3
Farmstead Subdivision Fence Lots 1 & 2

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Applicant Alexander Sywak
Property Owner Alexander Sywak
Location/Address Farmstead Subdivision Lots 1 & 2 (1000 & 1010 Patrick Drive)
Assessor Parcel Number(s) 058-060-081 & 058-060-082
General Plan Designation Low Density Residential
Zoning District Low Density Residential Performance Overlay (R1-L/PZ)

SURROUNDING USES:

Location Zoning
Designation
General Plan Land Use Current Use of Property
Project Site R1-L/PZ Low Density Residential Vacant – Approved Farmstead Subdivision
North R1 Low Density Residential Residential
South R1-L/PZ Low Density Residential Vacant – Approved Farmstead Subdivision
East R1 Low Density Residential Westside
Boulevard/Residential
West R1-L/PZ Low Density Residential Residential

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DENYING APPEAL 2024-3,

AFFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF STAFF, AND DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR LOT 1 (1000 PATRICK DRIVE) AND LOT 2 (1010 PATRICK DRIVE) TO DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION OF THE REAR YARD FENCES TO BE NO CLOSER THAN 5.5 FEET FROM THE

NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE
(ALEXANDER SYWAK)
APNS 058-060-081 & 058-060-082

WHEREAS, on July 8, 2024 Alexander Sywak (the Applicant) submitted a building permit application for the development of single family residential homes on Lots 1 and 2 in the Farmstead Subdivision (Tentative Map 2015-9, Conditional Use Permit 2016-3 for a Planned Unit Development); and

WHEREAS, on July 26, 2024 the City of Hollister Building Division returned comments to the Applicant on the building permit applications, requesting additional information and advising of various inconsistencies with code requirements; and

WHEREAS, one of the comments provided on the building permit applications was that the location of the proposed residential fences must be shown on the plans, and the applicant was advised that the fences must be located outside of the dedicated 10-foot Public Utilities Easement (P.U.E.) on the properties, and that any fence located within 10 feet of the property line on a street side yard must be approved by the Engineering Division in accordance with Section 17.16.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, following the City’s comments the Applicant requested the Engineering Division to consider allowing a six foot residential fence to be located on the northern property lines of Lots 1 and 2, directly abutting the public right-of-way of South Street, within the 10-foot P.U.E. and within the 10-foot setback; and

WHEREAS, the Engineering Division considered the Applicant’s request and determined that the fence should not be located on the northern property lines as it would conflict with the P.U.E. and potentially create sight-distance safety hazards for vehicles and pedestrians on the adjacent streets; and

WHEREAS, the Engineering Division did however propose that the fences could be located as close as

5.5 feet from the property line, within the P.U.E. and within the 10-foot setback, which would not be in conflict with the existing public utilities located within the easement and would not create safety hazards, and that this location would establish the fences at a 10-foot setback from the back of the existing sidewalk, consistent with the neighboring parcel to the west’s fence line; and

WHEREAS, following the determination of the Engineering Division, the Applicant requested the Assistant City Manager/Acting Community Development Director to reconsider the Engineering Division’s interpretation of the Hollister Municipal Code and determination on the location of the fencing for Lots 1 and 2; and

WHEREAS, the Assistant City Manager considered the Applicant’s request, submitted materials, the determination and justification of staff, and completed a site visit, and on September 6, 2024 determined that he was in concurrence with the determination of staff and that the fences should be placed no closer than 5.5 feet from the northern property line in accordance with Section 17.16.050; and

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2024 in accordance with Section 17.24.140 Appeals of the Hollister Municipal Code, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Assistant City Manager’s determination with the Planning Division to request the Planning Commission overturn the determination and allow the location of a Page 136 of 305Page 496 of 757

PC Resolution 2025-
Appeal 2024-3/ Sywak Farmstead Fencing

six-foot residential fence on the northern property line of Lots 1 and 2 of the Farmstead Subdivision within the P.U.E and within the 10-foot street side fence setback; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedures established in Section 17.24.140 of the Hollister Municipal Code, a staff report was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 6, 2025 to consider the Applicant’s request, review the City staff report, and receive written and oral testimony for and against the appeal; and

WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and determined to deny the appeal in accordance with Section 17.24.140, and affirm the Assistant City Manager/Acting Community Development Director’s determination that the placement of a six-foot residential fence on the northern property lines of Lots 1 and 2 of the Farmstead Subdivision within the P.U.E. and within the 10-foot street side setback is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 17.16.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code and the adopted engineering Standard Specifications, though the placement of the fence at least 5.5 feet from the property line (10 feet from the back of the sidewalk) can be permitted on these parcels pursuant to the same.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hollister does hereby deny Appeal 2024-3, and affirm staff’s determination regarding the placement of the fencing based on the following findings:

1. Lot 1 (1000 Patrick Drive) and Lot 2 (1010 Patrick Drive) of the recorded Farmstead Subdivision (Tract 345) each have a dedicated 10-foot Public Utilities Easement, Tree Planting and Maintenance Easement, and Sidewalk Easement, located on the northern property line (along South Street).

Pursuant to the adopted engineering Standard Specifications and Plans, fences and soundwalls shall not be permitted to be placed within any public easement.

2. Pursuant to Section 17.16.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code, fences greater than 3 feet in height that are proposed to be placed within the 10-foot setback on a street side yard must first be approved by the Engineering Division to ensure that they are not in conflict with any easements , nor would they create any public safety hazards.

3. The Applicant has been made aware that the fences for the subdivision must be proposed in compliance with the Municipal Code as is indicated by the conditions on the Tentative Map entitlement, comments provided by the Engineering Division during the review of the proposed Subdivision Improvement Plans, notes established on the approved Subdivision Improvement Plans, and the comments provided by the City in response to the building permit submittal.

4. The dedication of the P.U.E. on Lots 1 and 2 was proposed by the Applicant as part of the entitlement request and approval and is recorded on the Final Map which was signed by the Applicant who is the original (at time of entitlement) and current property owner.

5. The Applicant has requested to place the six-foot residential rear yard fence for Lots 1 and 2 on the northern property line; which upon review of the P.U.E., existing public utilities within the P.U.E., line of sight requirements for vehicles and pedestrians at the adjacent intersections of South Street and Westside Boulevard and Brennan Way, and consistency with neighboring parcels has been determined to present a safety hazard and conflicts with the established easements.

PC Resolution 2025-
Appeal 2024-3/ Sywak Farmstead Fencing

6. In accordance with Section 17.16.050 of the Hollister Municipal Code, an exception for the location of fences within the 10-foot street side setback may be approved by the Engineering Division, and while the placement of the fences directly on the property is inconsistent with the easements and safety needs of the location, it has been determined that an exception to allow the fences to be placed up to 5.5 back from the property line, within the P.U.E. and within the 10-foot setback, would eliminate conflicts with the easement and any potential safety hazards for vehicles or pedestrians and can therefore be permitted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs the Applicant to revise their building permit applications for Lot 1 and Lot 2 to address the comments provided by the City and to demonstrate the location of the fences on the lots no closer than 5.5 feet from the northern property line prior to issuance of any building permits for these lots.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a special meeting of the City of Hollister Planning Commission held on February 6, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Chairperson of the Planning Commission
of the City of Hollister

ATTEST:

Eva Kelly, Secretary

20 drainage features, removing and replacement of amended soil and improving the basin to perform as designed.

5. Ponds shall comply with the hydraulic requirements as stated in this section and as modified in Section 4.03, D.

6. All ponds having outflow shall not exceed the pre-development rates or the capacity of the natural channels that the flow will be conveyed in: whichever is less.

B. Subdivision Lot Grading

All Grading shall conform to the “Grading and Best Management Practices Control Ordinance” HMMC 15.24 Ordinance and Building Code.

1. For the purposes of providing positive drainage on and from the subdivision lots to the streets minimum slopes shall be held for these areas:

a. Right-of-ways shall have a constant 2% slope from the center line of the street to the lip of gutter of the street. The 2% grading shall extend from the top of curb to the property line.

b. Subdivision Lots shall have a minimum of 1% slope from the furthest rear lot corner to the front lot corner with a maximum slope of 2:1 (or as recommended by the project geotechnical engineer) in any portion of the front yard setback. Rear and side yards shall have a maximum slope of 2:1 (or as recommended by the project geotechnical engineer).

The toe of slope shall be at the setback from the proposed building to provide the required usable yard. Slopes shall be overbuilt by 1 foot to allow for fence construction and prevent lot to lot drainage.

c. Where building pads are higher than rear lot corners the slope from said `pad' to the rear property line shall not exceed the slope of the rear to front property line. In no case will drainage be allowed to drain from one private lot to another. Overland drainage shall be provided for each lot.

d. Where sound walls and landscaping is required the allowable slopes are; 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) maximum from back of sidewalk to the sound wall.

e. Where the sound wall is in a rear yard and the building pad is at a higher elevation than the toe of wall the sound wall the maximum rear yard slope shall be 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) for any portion of the rear yard. When this occurs, every effort shall be made to drain the rear yard to the street frontage in front of the building unless approved by the City Engineer. Where the toe of the sound wall is higher than the building pad the typical rear yard grading requirements shall apply.

f. Soundwalls and lot fencing shall not be allowed in any public easement.

C. Easements

From: Dillon Albert
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 4:09 PM
To: Alexander Sywak
Cc: William Allen; Mitch Burley; COH Building Dept; Tammy Jackson; Ingrid Sywak Subject: RE: Sheet 3 update

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your email. This response is specifically regarding the location of the rear yard fence for Lots 1 and 2. I’ve coordinated with Planning as well and the consensus is as follows:

· Since there isn’t a definitive example specific to the scenario for Lots 1 and 2 (rear yard abutting the streetside), City staff have used the following references for the interpretation. · The fence location is required to conform to City Municipal Code to be considered a “Lawful Fence”.
· Table 17.16-1 “An exception to allow a fence height up to six feet in the ten-foot setback on the street side of a corner lot may be allowed with an administrative approval from the City Engineer which does not create a safety hazard and is consistent with easements and rights-of- way.”
o The placement of the fence as proposed would not be consistent with easements and rights-of-way.
· Figure 17.16-1 identifies the requirement for a maximum 6’ height if setback is 10’ from corner side property line.
· The neighboring subdivision was required to maintain a 10’ setback from the back of walk (parcel to the west of Lot 2).

The fence location for Lots 1 and 2 are required to be setback a minimum of 10’ from the back of walk.

The alignment of the fence is to be consistent with the neighboring parcel to the west of Lot 2, which is also setback 10’ from the back of walk.

If you have any questions or concerns you can reach me via email, or directly at (831) 636-4340 ext. 1227.

Thank you,

Dillon Albert, Assistant Engineer
City of Hollister | Engineering Department
Address 339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023
Phone (831) 636-4340; ext. 1227
Email [email protected]

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 4:11 PM
To: Dillon Albert
Cc: William Allen ; Mitch Burley ; COH Building

Dept ; Tammy Jackson ; Ingrid Sywak

Subject: Re: Sheet 3 update

Hi Dillon, Thx for adding context.

Will review in detail over weekend. May need to call you on Monday to make sure we cover all bases.

Alex

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 4:04 PM Dillon Albert wrote:

Good Morning,

The Master Plan 3 submittals have already been approved by Engineering and PW. The comments that require revisions to the Improvement Plans are for the Production Home Batch Permits (Plot/Drainage Plans). Please reference the comments letter that Building provided you from Engineering (date on the memo is 7/18/2024), as well as the attached redline comments. The revisions that you sent do not address all the comments that were provided.

Please see attached for the following:
· Building Router Memorandum from Engineering.
· Redline comments for Farmstead Improvement Plans.
o All sheets affected by the changes should be revised for consistency and accuracy. · Redline comments for revised Sheet C3 that you provided. · Redline comments for the Pad Certification that was provided.

If you have any questions or concerns you can reach me via email, or directly at (831) 636-4340 ext. 1227.

Thank you,

Dillon Albert, Assistant Engineer
City of Hollister | Engineering Department
Address 339 Fifth Street, Hollister, CA 95023

Phone (831) 636-4340; ext. 1227
Email [email protected]

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 7:45 AM
To: Dillon Albert ; William Allen
Cc: Mitch Burley ; COH Building Dept ; Tammy Jackson
; Ingrid Sywak
Subject: Re: Sheet 3 update

Good morning,

Have attached BKF's C3 sheet certifying Farmstead's pad elevations.

Let me know if Engineering needs additional information to clear the approval of the Master Plan 3 submittals.

Regards, Alex Sywak

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 10:47 AM Alexander Sywak wrote:
7/19/24

Dear Messrs. Albert and Allen,

Thank you for discussing on site the impact of the PGE easement along South Street on the rear yards of Farmstead lots 1 and 2.

The recorded easement provides that the northerly 10 feet of both lots are subject to the listed exceptions. “Lawful fences” are permitted within the easement area.

With the drainage of both lots now being routed to the front of each lot, the rear fence of each lot is permitted to be erected along its property line.

Happy to discuss this further.

Thx, Alex Sywak

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:00 AM Alexander Sywak wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Alexander Sywak
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:56 AM
Subject: Sheet 3 update
To: Mitch Burley
Cc: Ingrid Sywak

7/18/24

Hi Mitch,

I happened to meet with Mr. Dillon Albert (Engineering) and Mr. Will Allen (Public Works) yesterday at the Farmstead site and discussed a number of items.

The immediate issue is revision of Sheet 3 of the Improvement Plans. Although you had provided stamped pad certifications for individual lots 1, 2, 12 and 13, Mr.

Albert is requiring that Sheet 3 be updated and stamped to show the revised pad elevations for all lots, 1 thru 13. Your note of May 2, 2024 was requested to be referenced on the Sheet as well. Once revised Sheet 3 is provided, Engineering will allow the issuance of building permits for all lots, particularly the above four siting Master Plan 3 homes.

Have attached Landset’s pad certification; Sheet 3 approved by the City (stamped by Pete Smith); May 2 note; and a Sheet 3 ready for you to reflect the pad elevations as shown in Landset’s survey.

Let me know if you need clarification, or additional information.

Thx, Alex

From:Rod Powell
To:Eva Kelly; Ambur Cameron; Dillon Albert; Mark Falgout Subject:FW: Contact Request
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 3:10:16 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
FYI - Rod

From: Rod Powell
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 3:09 PM
To: Alexander Sywak
Cc: Ingrid Sywak
Subject: RE: Contact Request

Good afternoon Mr. Sywak,

References and the basis for determining the compliant placement of fencing for the applicable Farmstead lots has been previously discussed with staff and myself on multiple occasions and a reasonable accommodation has also been offered.

As described in my prior email, the process of arriving at the position shared was extensive and considerate of the materials and perspective you previously provided. With this in mind, I do not believe that an additional meeting is necessary or that such a meeting would change the determination that has been made.

As always, staff remain ready to assist in moving the Farmstead project forward with adherence to the previously provided guidance.

Best regards,

Rod Powell
Assistant City Manager
Interim Community Development Director
City of Hollister
375 5th Street | Hollister, CA 95025
Cell: (831) 673-6287
[email protected]
www.hollister.ca.gov

From: Alexander Sywak

Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 1:23 PM
To: Rod Powell
Cc: Delia Ramon ; Ingrid Sywak
Subject: Re: Contact Request

September 16, 2024

Dear Mr. Powell,

We have requested on several occasions to meet with Staff and/or you to discuss the location of the rear fence for Farmstead’s lots 1 and 2. We have provided data that question Staff’s and your determination that the rear fences have to cutoff 5.5 feet from those rear yards.

We have never been given an opportunity to meet with Staff or you. As the City’s Interim Development Services Director, we again request an in- person meeting with Staff and/or you to present why we believe those rear fences should be permitted at their property lines.

Please provide a suitable time for the requested meeting.

If you believe such a meeting would not be fruitful, please provide the evidence and findings that are the basis for your determination of September 6.[1]

We would appreciate a response in the next days.

Regards,

Ingrid and Alex Sywak (408) 309-9253

[1] Email from Mr. Powell dated September 6, 2024.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:21 PM Alexander Sywak wrote:

September 11, 2024
Dear Mr. Powell,

This note is in response to your email of September 6, in which you agreed with Staff that pursuant to MC 17.16.050, the rear fences of Farmstead lots 1 and 2 are required to be setback 10 feet from the back of sidewalk (BOW). Since the rear property line of both lots is 4.5 feet from the BOW, each lot will lose the use of

5.5 feet of their rear yards.

It appears Staff and you base your interpretation on dimensions noted in Muni.

Code Figure 17.16-1, which require that a six feet high fence be setback 10 feet from BOW for side yards on a corner lot. The same Figure requires no setback for a rear fence from its rear property line. Since lots 1 and 2 are not corner lots as define in Figure 17.16-1, the side yard fence setback requirement of 10 feet from BOW in that Figure is inapplicable to the rear yard fence setbacks of lots 1 and 2.

MC 17.16.050(E)(6) addresses the location of rear retaining walls … There is no minimum setback requirement for a retaining wall located in a rear yard… Since fences are permitted to be sited on retaining walls, allowing a retaining wall to be located in rear yards with no setback, permits a rear fence to be located with no setback from its rear property line.

It should be noted, the existing fence between Farmstead lot 2 and the adjacent home, extends to within 5 feet from BOW along South Street, to both lots’ rear property lines.[1] However, the rear fence of the adjacent home is setback 10 feet from BOW. The fact that the City required the existing fence along lot 2 be extended to lot 2’s rear property line, confirms that the City intended the future rear fences of lots 1 and 2 be located along their rear property lines, in line with the end of the existing fence and 4.5 feet from BOW, as we are requesting.

Adjacent to the project, and throughout the City, existing fence and sound walls on parcels that back up to public streets and corners are located along their rear property lines. The following APNs demonstrate that their rear fences and sound walls are located along rear property lines, about 4.5 feet from BOW:
052-290-026; 052-290-012[2]
058-060-034[3]
058-050-051[4]
056-410-102; 056-410-103[5]

MC 17.02.050(A) grants you authority to interpret the Zoning Ordinance, and MC

17.02.060(B)(1) requires the interpretations be … In writing, and shall quote the

provisions of this Zoning Ordinance being interpreted, and explain their meaning or applicability in the particular or general circumstances that caused the need for the interpretation.

I had earlier requested to meet with Staff and/or you to discuss this matter, but to date have been given no opportunity to do so. I would appreciate understanding why my interpretations are incorrect and why prior exactly similar projects have been allowed to be constructed with their rear fences 4.5 feet from BOW.

Hopefully you will reconsider and allow us to place the fences in question along their property lines, 4.5 feet from BOW.

Please let us know.

Regards,

Ingrid and Alex Sywak
[1] Rear fence for neighbor home, 1050 Patrick Drive.[2] APNs: 052-290-026; 052-290-012.[3] APN: 058-060-034.[4] APN: 058-050-051.[5] APNs: 056-410-102; 056-410-103.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 9:28 AM Alexander Sywak wrote:

Thanks very much for allowing us to move forward on lots 12 and 13.

We will today request a submission date for Building permits for those 2 lots, and may need to attach your letter if need be.

Regards,

Ingrid and Alex Sywak

On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 9:01 AM Rod Powell wrote:

Good morning Mr. Sywak,

I am not involved in the day-to-day processes related to projects unless they are elevated to

my attention or require a higher level of review and decision making. To that end, if Farmstead lots 12 and 13 have approved plans that have satisfied all required conditions you should be able to coordinate accordingly with Building staff to pull applicable permits and move forward.

Best regards, Rod

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 3:27 PM
To: Rod Powell
Cc: Ingrid Sywak ; Delia Ramon
Subject: Re: Contact Request

September 6, 2024

Dear Mr. Powell,

Thank you for responding today to our fence issue re lots 1 and 2.

Since Staff has no issues with our proposed setbacks on lots 12 and 13, could you allow the building permit applications for those two lots to move forward? As mentioned earlier, it would be a great benefit to us and the neighborhood if those foundations could be completed before the wet season arrives.

Call any time to discuss further. We would very much appreciate you allowing lots 12 and 13 to commence their processing.

Regards,

Ingrid and Alex Sywak.

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 11:09 AM Rod Powell wrote:

Good morning Mr. Sywak,

I apologize for the delayed response, but several emergent assignments and matters have recently arisen impacting my ability to devote adequate time necessary to fully understand the situation involving fence placements at lots 1and 2 of your Farmstead development.

That said, I have completed an assessment of the information, materials, and perspective provided, to include several staff discussions and a site visit.

With this in mind, I am in agreement with staff in their application of MC 17.16.050 and that the applicable fencing for lots 1 & 2 should be constructed within the City's codified requirement of no closer than the 10’ back of walk requirement.

While I can appreciate the perspective you’ve offered indicating a desire to offer larger yard space for prospective residents, the lots in question are prominent in the neighborhood, the standard recognizes an existing public utilities easement, and the City simply does not want to perpetuate residential fence lines that abut sidewalks. Additionally, I would also call out that this is something that should have been considered in the design process to ensure that the footprint of a proposed residence would allow for the space that is desired.

In an effort to provide some accommodation to your request, the City is amenable to a prior suggestion from staff that fencing along South Street could be placed within PUE while still satisfying the 10’ BOW requirement. Based upon a review of applicable plot plans, the 10’ PUE adjacent to lots 1 & 2 actually begins 4.5’ from BOW. In this particular situation, the City is open to the placement of fencing along South Street to 5.5’ from the property line within the PUE as long as other required setbacks are maintained on each lot. This allowance would satisfy the 10’ BOW requirement and create additional yard space, but would also require that any prospective buyers/owner of the home receive formal notification of the potential need for fence relocation in the future at their expense.

To facilitate forward movement of your project, I’ve included both Planning and Engineering staff in this message so that they may incorporate this guidance/allowance into their overall consideration of the project.

Thank you again for your patience,

Rod Powell
Assistant City Manager
Interim Community Development Director
City of Hollister
375 5th Street | Hollister, CA 95025
Cell: (831) 673-6287
[email protected]
www.hollister.ca.gov

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 9:41 AM
To: Rod Powell
Cc: Mitch Burley ; Ingrid Sywak
Subject: Re: Contact Request

Dear Mr. Powell,

Thx for responding last Friday, which for some reason I missed. But I will keep in mind your phrase gentle reminder. Understood.

Last Wednesday, our civil Mr. Burley forwarded his revisions to Mr.

Albert. I believe they have a call scheduled today @ 2pm, which was offered to be in person, as Mr. Burley lives in Hollister.

Hopefully today, the issues to allow lots 12 & 13 can be cleared, and those permits be issued.

We would then request your help to discuss how the fence lines approved for lots 1 & 2 in the Improvement Plans and PGE plans can be confirmed.

Appreciate your responsiveness.

Regards, Alex Sywak.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:32 PM Rod Powell wrote:

Good morning Mr. Sywak,

Unfortunately, I’ve had little time to look into the matter. My hope is that I can find some time to look into your request for lots 1 & 2 later this afternoon or Monday morning. As a gentle reminder, the permit status of lots 12 & 13 are still pending a responsive submission to recently provided comments.

Best, Rod

From: Alexander Sywak
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 9:44 AM
To: Rod Powell
Cc: Ingrid Sywak
Subject: Re: Contact Request

Dear Mr.Powell,

Wondering if you have had a chance to review the above from several days ago.

We are dead in the water and need your supervisory input to resolve.

Please call to discuss so we can at least pull permits for lots 12 & 13, which do not have the setback issues raised by Staff for lots 1 & 2.

Thx, Alex Sywak (408) 309-9253.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:52 AM Alexander Sywak
wrote:
8/7/24
Dear Mr. Powell,
We understand you are the acting Development Services
Director as well as assistant City Manager. We need your help to resolve the fence issues related to Farmstead which were first brought to our attention two weeks ago, after first being submitted to Staff in April. It is the final straw holding up issuance of building permits.

Staff (Engineering and Planning) is requiring that fencing on Farmstead lots be installed no closer than 10’ from back of sidewalks, which would reduce the rear yards of lots 1 & 2 from a depth of 10’ to 4.5’, as well as reduce the easterly side yard of lot 1 from 10’ to 4.5’.[1] Homeowners upon exiting their back door would run into a fence.[2]
The existing home at 1030 Patrick Drive (adjoining lot 2) has its rear fence set 10’ from the back of the sidewalk of South Street, losing 5.5’ of its rear property.[3] Note that the fence shared with lot 2 is 6’ high (set on a retaining wall), and extends to its property line, ending 4.5’ from the back of walk.[4] By designating the existing home a corner lot, Staff justifies such taking of its rear yard based on their interpretation of the intent of Muni Code 17.16.050.[5]
We believe Staff is misapplying the code, and fencing along the property lines of lots 1 and 2 should be permitted. Points to consider are:.

a) This question was addressed several years ago when Staff allowed the retaining wall and fence to be installed along the westerly property line of lot 2, ending within 4.5’ of back of walk. The current Staff would require the fence to end 10’ from back of walk.
b) Lot 2 is not a corner lot and MC 17.16.050 should not apply to it.
c) Engineering admits there is no definitive development standard/example for rear yards abutting streetside. Staff equates side yard setbacks with rear yard, and invokes MC

17.16.050. However, Staff overlooks that this issue was determined earlier when the adjacent development was
constructed, the Cottages. The side fence of the home on 895 Brennan Way (a corner lot adjacent to lot 11) is 5’ from the back of walk.[6] The side fence of the home on 815 Brennan Way (a corner lot adjacent to lot 3) is only 3.5’ from the back of walk.[7] d) The real intent of MC 17.16.050 is to disallow the side fence of a corner lot to extend past and overshadow the front wall line of an adjacent home, which typically setbacks 10’ from its front property line.
e) Staff is allowing the metal fence along Westside Blvd., which is setback 4.5’ from back of walk to remain, but the wood fence along the easterly side of lot 1 is being required to be setback an additional 5.5’, losing use of that width of its property. Since the intent of the MC section is to not overshadow the frontage of an adjacent home by the side fence on a corner lot, with no home being adjacent to lot 1 along Westside Blvd., the MC re corner lots is not applicable.
f) Engineering is allowing the easterly fence of lot 13 to be along its property line, based on lot 13 not being a corner lot. The same reasoning should be applied to lot 2’s rear fence placement, allowing its fence to be placed on its property line.
g) In many developments throughout the city, sound walls have been erected along ROW limits, with no additional setback of private property being required for lots that backup to those soundwalls.
h) Staff further attempts to justify their setback requirement based on encroachment over PUEs. However, such encroachment was allowed in the adjacent development. The existing fence along the westerly side of lot 12 extends to within 5’ of back of walk and overlies all 10’ of PUE.[8] The fences depicted earlier for 815 and

895 Brennan Way, and 1030 Patrick Drive, all overlay the full widths of their respective PUEs.
i) Staff overlooks that fences for lots 1 and 2 were sited along their rear and side property lines in multiple sheets of the approved Improvement Plans, with no additional setback required. j) The composite trench submission for the project approved by PGE shows the rear fence line of lots 1 and 2 being at the property line, extending over the whole width of PUE.[9] k) Staff argues what “lawful” means in the easement we granted to PGE in 2018.[10] Our intent for that term related to the standards the fence had to meet as described in M.C. 17.16.050 (C), (E)(7), for the fence to be “lawful”. To claim that any fence within the PUE automatically makes it unlawful, does not make sense, nor fit with the above noted instances were fences were approved over PUEs.

The MC allows Engineering to issue administrative
approvals. We request a meeting to discuss the above points and to allow the fences to be approved as submitted.

Let me know when you have a window to discuss, or need more info.

Thanks for your help.

Ingrid and Alex Sywak (408) 309-9253
[1] Farmstead site plan.
[2] Email from Engineering, July 29, 2024.
[3] Photo of rear fence of 1030 Patrick Drive fronting South Street. [4] Photo of side fence of 1030 Patrick Drive fronting South Street. [5] Muni Code 17.16.050.
[6] Photo of 895 Brennan Way fence.
[7] Photo of 815 Brennan Way fence.
[8] Photo of front fence of 1011 Amore Street.
[9] PGE’s Trenching Composite for Farmstead.
[10] PGE Easement recorded 2018.

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:35 AM Alexander Sywak
wrote:
8/5/24

Dear Mr. Powell,
We did not get a chance to talk on Friday. Our Master Plan #3 was approved last week and we would like to pull permits for at least 2 of the 4 lots that Plan #3 applies to.

Since it takes a week to get an appointment and two weeks to have the submittals reviewed, would appreciate help with the timeline.

There are fence placement issues with lots 1 & 2 (previous email) which will take a little time to work through.

But lots 12 & 13 are straight forward and have attached their plot plans. The only wrinkle with lot 13 is that staff is requiring its future home’s fence to be setback 10’ from its property line, along the PUE margin. The attached PGE trenching plan
shows that there are no utilities in that portion of PUE that staff is protecting. It is a PUE “to nowhere” and will never be used.

Would appreciate your help to move things along.

Call anytime to discuss. Happy to come down if that works better to meet with you and staff to get this done.

Thx,
Alex Sywak (408) 309-9253

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 4:06 PM Alexander Sywak
wrote:

Dear Mr. Powell, Thx for offering to help.

The immediate issue relates to the location of lot fences in several PUE areas of the project. These locations were approved by the City Engineer when the Improvement Plans were signed and stamped .

Staff is now wanting to relocate certain fence portions from their approved locations along property lines, which would severely reduce to an unusable degree the back and side yards of several lots, many of which were cramped to begin with. The CUP allowed rear yards to be down to 10' deep, which are provided. The required relocations would result in some rear yards being down to 4' deep. On opening the back door, a person would run into the rear fence. The 6' of private property on the other side of the

fence, would not be accessible by the homeowner, and would not be able to be maintained by the owner, who literally would have to walk around the block to reach it.

The easement we granted to PGE in 2021 specifically excepted standard good nbor fences as being allowed to be constructed within the PUEs.

Would appreciate being able to discuss further by phone at your convenience tomorrow, and supply additional information. There are several possible simple solutions. Installation of the PGE conduits and lines was completed in 2021. The gas lines run in the street ROW and not in the PUEs. This item should be the last issue for this development.

Thx for responding, Alex Sywak (408) 309-9253.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:45 PM Rod Powell
wrote:

Good afternoon Mr. Sywak,

I am following up on a note from staff that you would like to meet regarding your Farmstead Project. I do have some limited availability tomorrow (8/2) in the late morning and could look at reserving that time if you’re able to provide some additional context and specifics as to what you’d like to discuss so that I can prepare accordingly. Thanks,

Rod Powell
Assistant City Manager
Interim Community Development Director
City of Hollister
375 5th Street | Hollister, CA 95025
Cell: (831) 673-6287
[email protected]
www.hollister.ca.gov

GENERAL NOTES:

1. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE TO THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DESIGN STANDARDS,

STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS ARE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ALL APPLICABLE

CODES AND ORDINANCES, ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY

ENGINEER AND ANY REQUIRED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ARE TO BE ADHERED TO; AND ALL APPLICABLE FEES REQUIRED FOR SAME SHALL BE PAID.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH THE CITY OF HOLLISTER AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO STATE OF CONSTRUCTION. 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED ON ALL INSPECTIONS. INSPECTION REQUESTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO NORMAL CITY BUSINESS HOURS: 8:00 AM TO 5:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. ARRANGEMENTS FOR ANY OVERTIME INSPECTION SERVICES SHOULD BE MADE 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AND ARE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AVAILABILITY AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE ALL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SITE

INSPECTIONS AND INSURE THAT ALL CURRENT STANDARDS FOR THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ARE FOLLOV\/ED PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION \I\KlRK.

4. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 7:00 AM TO 6:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND 8:00 AM TO 6:00 PM ON SATURDAY. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL TAKE PLACE ON SUNDAYS. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND ACTIVITIES SHALL USE NOISE SUPPRESSION DEVICESAAND TECHNIQUES.

5. THE OVVNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGEMENTS TO PAY FOR ALL MATERIAL TESTING REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC \I\KlRKS INSPECTOR. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT ALL TESTING REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC \I\KlRKS INSPECTOR IS PERFORMED. ANY RETESTING REQUIRED DUE TO FAILURE OF THE INITIAL TEST IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

6. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPACTION OF ALL UTILITY TRENCHES INCLUDING PG&E AND FOR THE SPOILS GENERAlED BY SAID UTILITY TRENCHES.

7. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL U.SA 1 (800) 642-2444 AND CITY OF HOLLISTER SERVICE DEPARTMENT (831) 636-4370 & (831) 636-43n 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING.

8. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT EXISTING PIPES AND

UTILITIES EXPOSED OR NEAR THE WORK THE PROPERTY OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL

REPLACE ANY STREET OR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS OR UTILITY SERVICES THAT

ARE REMOVED OR DAMAGED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THIS COULD INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO,

PERMEABLE PAVING, PCC CURBS, GUTTERS,SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTING, SIGNING

AND STRIPING, ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SANITARY SEV\IER, GAS, ELECTRICAL, lELEPHONE, AND WAlER AND FIRE SERVICE

LINES, AND ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO BRING THE RIGHT OF WAY INTO FULL CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS. ALL CONSTRUCTION IN THE

RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING APPROVAL

9. THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PERMITS AND ASSOCIATED FEES.

10. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL UTILITY COMPANY \I\KlRK

11. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH SUBMITTALS AND TEST REPORTS ON ALL PIPES, VALVES, FlmNGS AND OTHER INTEGRAL ITEMS TO THE CITY.

12. CONTRACTOR. IS REQUIRED TO CLEAN THE EXISTING IMPROVED STREETS AT THE

END OF EACH VVORKING DAY AND ANY OTHER TIMES AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

13. ALL UTILITIES MUST BE UNDERGROUND, INCLUDING ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES ALONG THE PROJECT FRONTAGE.

14. ALL BURIED METALLIC PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE PROTEClED AGAINST EXTERNAL CORROSION AS PER THE CITY OF HOLLISTER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

15. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE A DETAILED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE &

TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.

TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL ADDRESS CONSTRUCTION SIGNING AWAY FROM THE SITE,

STORM DRAIN CROSSINGS, SPOILS HANDLING, UTILITIES, PAVING OPERATIONS AND

BUSINESS NOTIFICATIONS OF INTERRUPTIONS
( WHICH SHALL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM).

16. ANY IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUClED WITHOUT INSPECTION AS PROVIDED ABOVE

OR CONSTRUCTED CONTRARY TO THE ORDER OR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CITY

ENGINEER WILL BE DEEMED AS NOT COMPLYING WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF HOLLISTER FOR MAINTENANCE

PURPOSES, AND MAY CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF A CORRECTION NOTICE OR STOP WORK ORDER.

17. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER RECEMNG THE REQUEST FOR FINAL INSPECTION, THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AND CONSULTING

ENGINEER WILL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING AS TO ANY PARTICULAR DEFECTS OR DEFICIENCIES TO BE REMEDIED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROCEED TO CORRECT ANY PARTICULAR DEFECTS OR DEFICIENCIES AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. AT

SUCH TIME AS TI-IE WORK HAS BEEN COMPLIED, A SECOND INSPECTION SHALL BE

MADE BY THE CITY ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED DEFECTS HAVE BEEN REPAIRED, AL TE RED, AND COMPLElED. THE CONTRACTOR AND

CONSULTING ENGINEER WILL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING AS TO THE DATE OF FINAL APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE.

18. THE CITY WILL ENSURE THAT TI-IE PROVISIONS OF THE APPROVED PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS ARE COMPLIED WITH, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO TI-IE QUALITY OF \I\KlRKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS.

19. ALL VI/ORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITI-1 ACCEPTED WORKMANSHIP PRACTICE AND THESE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. ANY WORK NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CITY SHALL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE UNTIL COMPLIANCE WllH THESE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS IS ACHIEVED. ORDERS GIVEN BY THE CITY

RELATING TO QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH PROMPTLY BY THE CONTRACTOR.

20. ALL MATERIALS ARE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY PRIOR TO BEING CONSTRUClED. THE DEPARTMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM

ANY TESTING DEEMED NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE MATERIALS COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT TO REJECT WORK OR

MATERIALS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT

BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLY THEIR ACCEPTANCE SHOULD THEIR INFERIORITY BECOME EVIDENT AT ANY TIME. MATERIALS REJEClED BY THE CITY SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE JOB SllE.

21. RESIDENTIAL FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED OR REPLACED ALONG THE PROJECTS BOUNDARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. RESIDENTIAL

FENCING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING DMSION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. RESIDENTIAL FENCING ON INTERIOR LOTS SHALL COMPLY Win-I THE CITY OF HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE. DOUBLE FENCING SHALL NOT BE ALLOVVED.

22. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IN POSSESSION OF PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

23. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO BEGINNING VVORK.

24. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING

MONUMENTS AND SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER OF ANY DAMAGED OR REMOVED CITY, STATE OR BUREAU MONUMENTS.

25. THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONTINUALLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT FREE OF TRASH AND CLUTTER. OUTDOOR STORAGE OF ANY AND ALL MAlERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

SHALL BE LOCATED BEHIND A STRUCTURE, VEGETATION, OR A SOLID VVOOO FENCE THAT PROVIDES SCREENING FROM PUBLIC VIEW. SOLID WASlE SHALL BE STORED IN

CLOSED CONTAINERS, WHICH WILL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND TRANSPORlED TO AN APPROVED DUMPSllE ON A REGULAR BASIS. COVER ALL TRUCKS HAULING DEBRIS FROM THE SllE.

26. IF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF HUMAN REMAINS ARE DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION, WORK SHALL BE HALlED WITHIN 50 METERS (150 FEETI OF THE FIND UNTIL A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST CAN EVALUATE IT. IF THE FIND

IS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT, APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE FORMULATED AND IMPLEMENlED.

GRADING NOTES:

1. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING ACTIVITES, A GRADING

PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED.

GRADING PERMIT NUMBER:--------

2. DUST CONTROL DURING THE GRADING PROCESS IS THE
RESPONSIBIL TY OF THE CONTRACTOR. WATER ALL ACTIVE
CONSTRUCTION AREAS AT LEAST TWICE DAILY TO MINIMIZE DUST.

FREQUENCY SHOULD BE BASED ON TYPE OF OPERATION, SOIL AND WIND EXPOSURE. WATERING SHALL BE USED TO CONTROL DUST
DURING LOADING MATERIALS ONTO TRUCKS.

3. WATER FOR DUST CONTROL AND USE FOR COMPACTION MAY BE

PURCHASED FROM THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY \I\KlRK

4. GRADING ACTIVITIES ARE PROHIBITED DURING PERIODS \M-IEN THE WINDS ARE OVER 15 MILES PER HOUR.

5. COVER ALL TRUCKS HAULING DIRT, SAND OR LOOSE MATERIALS OR MAINTAIN AT LEAST 2 FEET OF FREEBOARD. COVER ALL INACTIVE STORAGE PILES.

6. PLANT VEGETATION GROUND COVER IN DISTURBED AREAS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

7. APPLY CHEMICAL STABILIZERS ON INACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AREAS (DISTURBED LANDS) WITHIN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT ARE UNUSED FOR AT LEAST FOUR CONSECl/TIVE DAYS.

8. A PUBLICLY VISIBLE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ON WESTSIDE

BOULEVARD THAT ADVISES TI-IE PUBLIC WITH DUST COMPLAINTS TO

CONTACT THE CITY OF HOLLISTER CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AT (831) 636-4356 AND THE NUMBER OF THE MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (831) 647-S411.

9. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE DESIGN

ENGINEER OF ANY ANTICIPATED SOILS IMBALANCE SO GRADES CAN BE ADJUSTED. ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY

ENGINEER

10. PADS SHALL BE GRADED WllHIN 0.1' +-.

11. THE SUBGRADE UNDER PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHALL BE
COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM RELATIVE COMPACTION OF 95% AT 3% ABOVE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT FOR A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.

12. ROOTS WITHIN 12'' OF SUB GRADE ARE TO BE REMOVED.

13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY ENGINEER WITH A COPY OF ALL CUT SHEETS.

WATER NOTE:

1. SAND BEDDING FOR ALL PIPES SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION.

2. ALL ENDS, BENDS, AND TEES ON WATER LINES MUST HAVE
ADEQUATE THRUST BLOCKS CALCULAlED FROM THE CITY STANDARD B-9.

3. CITY OF HOLLISTER WILL OPERATE ALL EXISTING WATER VALVES.

CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE
WITH THE CITY OF HOLLISTER.

4. ALL WATER MAINS TO HAVE A MINIMUM 36'' COVER AND SHALL BE D.I.P. OR P.V.C. (AWIVA C-900) WITH #10 INSULATED WIRE. COMPLETED

WATER SYSTEM MUST PASS HYDROSTATIC AND LEAKAGE TESTS, AND CONTINUITY TESTS FOR TRACER WIRE.

5. WATER SERVICE MATERIAL SHALL BE POLYETHYLENE SDR 9 (ASTM D-2737) WITH CONNECTION MADE TO MAINS PER CITY OF HOLLISTER STANDARD B-3-1.

6. ALL WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1" AND HAVE A HAND TAMPED SAND BEDDING 6" BENEATH TUBING, SHALL HAVE 6'' MINIMUM CLEARANCE ON EACH SIDE, AND 12'' MINIMUM SAND COVER.

7. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST BE CLOW 865 UNITS ONLY WITH EITHER CLOW CW50 OR EQUIVALENT LONGBEACH BREAKAWAY SPOOURISERS AND
SHUTOFF VALVES.

8. A THREE VALVE CLUSlER CONNECTION MUST BE INSTALLED WllH

EACH NEW FIRE HYDRANT AND LATERAL

9. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SHALL PROCESS APPLICATIONS

FOR NEW WATER METER BOXES FOR IRRIGATION AND POTABLE
WATER.

SANITARY SEWER NOTE:

1. ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS TO BE P .V.C. SEWER PIPE SOR 26, ASTM D-3034) AND IS SUBJECT TO MANDREL TEST FOR 5% DEFLECTION, A

LOW PRESSURE AIR TEST, AND AN INSTALLATION TELEVISION
INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HOLLISTER STANDARDS.

THE CITY MUST INSPECT ALL LATERALS, THE MAIN SANITATION

COLLECTION SYSTEM, THE CONNECTION TO THE CITY'S MAIN SANITARY

COLLECTION SYSTEM AND INTERCEPTOR INSTALLATION PRIOR TO BURIAL.

2. SEWER SERVICE FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO BE A MINIMUM 4" PIPE AND MUST BE MARKED WITH AN ~S'' ON THE CURB FACE.

3. SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE P.V.C. SDR 26 OR AB.S. (SCH 40) PER CITY STANDARD C-2-1, INCLUDING BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE.

SWPPPNOTE:

THIS PROJECT REQUIRES A STATE WATER BOARD CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL PERMIT. A SWPPP PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED QSDJQSP

SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT. A WDID NUMBER SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE STATE WAlER BOARD AND PROVIDED TO THE CITY. A QSD/QSP SHALL BE RETAINED FOR THE

DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO COORDINAlE AND COMPLY WITl-1 REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGIONAL

QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, TO FILE OF NOTICE OF INTENT PER
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT ORDER NO. 2009-0009-~ AND TO

MONITOR THE PROJECT AS TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNTIL ITS COMPLETION.

LRP: Alex Sywak
QSO/QSP: QSD: Peter Smith, QSP: ____ _

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS

FARMSTEAD
~
1 r I I I
Ii
Ii
I
I
I
TRACT NO. 345
;

HOLLISTER, CA
Spri' flt
iS
ff3SA:St
i! !s,
I I
I
--{J -
i ([J)
I
-~
'
SmrthSt
SITE

VICNITYMAP
NTS
_L
I
' ' T
i I ' --, _, -, ..
@) ® ®
Ni St
iJi
C s
El
El
I
~
;;
""RO
',,"Elem
QHollislt'
0 WAY
I i I '
' '
1 ... L ,.-"
®
u
1--
I
.rh -
® ©
~ --·---

LINDSEY LANE
'
~ · .. -~----·-·-.

I
. ·-
-

WESTSIDE BOULEVARD
10 30 50 p tfi}j ¢4,1 j49414 M @ . ¥¥ i 4&¼44
0 20 40 100

GRAPHIC SCALE
1· = 60'
150
"'1

FIRE CHIEF'S APPROVAL
I
I
J
Q)
:':;-J,
• '
1, ' i !
I I!
I I
11 -,-
~
0 ~ !
Jo..
/,
AC = ASPHALT CONCRETE
BC = BEGIN CURVE
BOW = BACK OF WALK
BVC = BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE
BW = BOTTOM OF WALL
CB = CATCH BASIN
CL = CENTERLINE
CO = CLEANOIJT
DWAY = DRIVEWAY
EC = END CURVE
EC = EXISTING GROUND
ELEV = ELEVATION
EVC = END VERTICAL CURVE
EX = EXISTING
F /C = FACE OF CURB
FF = FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
FG = FLAT GRATE INLET
FH = FIRE HYDRANT
FL = FLOW LINE
GB = GRADE BREAK
GFF = GARAGE FINISH FLOOR
HP = HIGH POINT
/NV= INVERT
LP = LOW POINT
PAD = PAD ELEVATION
PCC = PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
PL = PROPERTY LINE
PV = PAVEMENT GRADE
PVC = POLWINYL CHLORIDE PIPE
PVI = POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION
RCP = REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
ROW= RIGHT OF WAY
S=.004> SLOPE
SD = STORM DRAIN
SDMH = STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
SL = STREffi/GHT
SS = SANITARY SEWER
SSFI = SANITARY SEWER FLUSHING INLET
SSMH = SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
STA = STATION
TC = TOP OF CURB
TBA = TO BE ABANDONED
TF = TOP OF FENCE
7W = TOP OF WALL
VCP = VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE
WM = WATER METER
WV = WATER VALVE
' Jl
I' !I
li
I lu
0 '
) I
I~
(J) I
~Pl
_/ " _,.,.~

BENCHMARK

FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS AND FIRE ACCESS APPROVED AS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. APPROVAL OF FIRE ACCESS AND

HYDRANT LOCATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF FIRE
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.

BM#22 281.706
2 ~" BRASS DISC STAMPED "CITY OF HOLLISTER
BENCHMARK NO. 22", SET AT THE TOP OF CURB, LOCATED

AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF

SOUTH STREET AND SUMMER DRIVE, ADJACENT TO A
FIRE HYDRANT AT THE EAST END OF THE RETURN 02012_3 c)

FIRE CHIEF DATE

CITY OF HOLLISTER
LEGEND:

DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LINE

LIMITS OF WORK OR BOUNDARY

CENTERLINE

CURB AND GUTTER

SIDEWALK

STANDARD CITY BARRICADE

STANDARD HOODED INLET
ALlERNAlE DRAINAGE INLETS (TYPE AS NOlID)

CITY SURVEY MONUMENT

FIRE HYDRANTS
ELEClROLIER
ELECTROLIER {REMOVED/RELOCATED)

PULL BOX

P G & E SERVICE POINT

SANITARY SEWER

STORM SEWER
WATER
GAS

SANITARY MANHOLE

SANITARY CLEANOUT

STORM MANHOLE

ELECTRICAL CONDUIT

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

DRIVEWAY

HANDICAP RAMP

PAVING CONFORM OR OVERLAY TO FORM
SMOOTH A.C. lRANSITION

NEW AC PAVEMENT

KEY TO CHANGES
SlREET lREES

WOOD FENCE

TUBE STEEL FENCE

RETAINING WALL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SHEET
C1
C2

DESCRIPTION

TITLE SHEET

SITE PLAN
TO BE CONST.
t----
I • • • "" I ----.A. @LARGE (3'X3')
•• GOL
Ill
A
:®:0------
■
CI!
• • @
--I f----l 1--
~
••:,cili ·3 ·1 j), ..... .a::::.µ-V •.
(:Iii()~
"Q_jJ_7
1:-:-:-:::-:-: :-: : :: :: : I
◊
-<>---
-0----0---

EXISTING
t
-----
---------
u UP LI

6. @LARGE
f,l::,, GOL
!II
A
Du--o
V-./ 'v--./
I \ r L_ ... r, >--<. J--Z. ~
□
OSI
----
------
-G--G-
0 0
@
----,';"----,,/~
_.A,__A.._A_
A I K
~
--x--
-·0-----0---
C3
C4

GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

UTILITY PLAN
cs PLAN AND PROFILE -LINDSEY LANE
C6
C7

PLAN AND PROFILE -PATRICK DR AND AMORE ST

STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
CB
C9
L1
L2

EROSION CONTROL PLAN

SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN

IRRIGATION PLAN

LANDSCAPE PLAN

CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL

APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT RELEASE THE

DEVELOPER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTIONS OF
MISTAKES, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED HEREIN. IF,

DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THESE

IMPROVEMENTS, PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES A MODIFICATION

OF OR DEPARTURE FROM THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS OF THESE

IMPROVEMENT PLANS, THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL HAVE THE

AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE SUCH MODIFICATIONS OF DEPARTURE

AND TO SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SAME IS TO BE
MADE. AL THOUGH THE PLANS WITHIN APPEAR TO MEET MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ORDINANCES, THIS APPROVAL

DOES NOT CERTIFY SOIL OR SLOPE STABILITY, ADEQUACY OF

SURFACE OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CONTROLS, OR THAT

SLIDES, SLOPE FAILURE, OR OTHER SOIL OR WATER RELATED
DAMAGE WILL NOT OCCUR.
.
~ \,, ll-01;
i
No. C70647
xp. __ _
DATE
~FESS/
B
~ C
(/) z
Q
(/)
G'.i a::
0, 0 -0 <D
N II
"' • N -t;
0 (J) z
:5 a..
1--z w
~ w
6 a:: a..
~
(/)
CD
C.
1-w w
I
{/)
w
.....J
1--I-
JOB NO.
1962
SHEET
C1
OF 11

Curve#
Cl
C2

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
0 0
CONSTRUCT SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY DETAILS A-16

CONSTRUCT STREET LIGHT PER CITY STANDARD DETAILS
F-1-1, F-1-2, AND F-1-3
0 0
0 ©
0 0
CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK PER CITY DETAILS A-10
CONSTRUCT STREET NAME SIGN PER CITY DETAIL A-13
TRUCK TURNING TEMPLAT£ INSIDE RADIUS 30'
TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATE. OUTSIDE RADIUS 50'
CONSTRUCT 4' CROSS GUTTER PER CITY DETAIL A-8-1 AND A-8-2 INFILTRATION TRENCH SEE SHEET Cl
Curve Tobie: Centerline
Length Delta

59.85 090· 14' 39"

59.53 089' 45' 21 •
Curve Tobie: Curb &-PL
Radius

38.00 38.00
I
L.
3256SF
@
I
l
i
I !
l I-
Curve# Length Delta Radius
C3
C4
cs
C6
Cl
CB

31.50 90· 14' 39•

63.00 90· 14' 39•

40.68 49· 35' 16"

31.33 a9· 45' 21·

62.66 a9· 45• 21 •

40.51 49· 22' 54•
4 PL

4.00' I
STA 1+73.19

33.12' R
STA 1+76.86

29.08' R
-i--
t 11
!
I-
t!::
~
V)
~ :::, a
V)

SIDEWALK LAYOUT DETAIL
1 "=10'
STA 6+91.47

26.38' L
I
I
/
SEE SHEET C3

FOR ELEYATIONS

AND SLOPES
STA 7+16.68

25.00' R

5.00 BEGIN 4'
SIDEWALK ?'. Oo
1· = 30'
4 ----+--4.00'

4.oo,
STA 6+76.12

33.22' R
STA 6+72.49

29.13' R
en z
Q en
G'i "'
JOB NO.
1962
SHEET
C2
OF 11

~
i
HOUSE
1 I ~
~I I ~1 i

SIDEWALK
STREET
TYPE II A" LOT DRAINAGE
N. T.S.
• 2% xHP -• AD 2% AD
~1
t t
~ ~ HOUSE 1.0' TO
& & "' "'
~ ~i ~ ~ -
i I~ ~
I ~

SIDEWALK

SECT/ONA
P.L
PL
I

BRENNAN WAY
SEE SECnON AT RIGHT FOR
ADD!nONAL DETAILS
SWALE SEE SHEET Cl
) ))
_/ I

WESTSIDE BOULEVARD

SECTJONC
1L
ti I
r.5 ! I
C::: I
c:,'
C)'
C)' ,. :
> l/. ;,· '.
,Q
_l jQ)
_/ 1)
==:".:~
2 , -\--

WESTSIDE BOULEVARD
IONF
l!ll .. G
10 30 50
0 20 40 100
GRAPHIC ~CAI.~
1" = 30'

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
0 0
0 0
28'
CONSTRUCT CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY DETAILS A-8-1
AND A-8-2

CONSTRUCT VERTICAL CURB PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET

CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK
PER DETAIL A-10 CASE II
CONSTRUCT STREET, 3• AC OVER 8" AB PER DETAIL A-1
I 28' ~s'j
20' 20· ts·--l 5;,. 2F 2% 2:r5' I-
I I
I Lf~~ ~CC/6"AEJ··•· . ' ""'" ,:;:,;-_,, -·--~ ,, ',," ·•, . • 6" ABI -3" AC/8';\B -6" COMPACTED SUBGRADE • 12 COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1------------56'
-UNDER
MIN.

CURB

AND WTTER
PATRICK DRIVE AND AMORE STR ·
No~
OF
I i.(nfl'\
~ 15' ~
2%7'--E 2;. -==l 1-1.00'
I
2· _, ,_ I 4" PCC/6"AB • • 1 1
6" COMPACTED SUBGRADE 3 AC/B 'AB INFILTRATION
12" COMPACTED SUBGRADE SEE 1ftff!' Cl
1------------59' ------+------!
6" AB MIN.

LINDSEY LANE UNDER CURB

AND GUTTER

SWALE SEE
P.1-t SHE:, C~l
--J 5.5'
1 -
/ii
m
Cl w
w z "" w ...J ~ [ii !;:, < u I
Cl en Cl u

8+00

BUBBLE UP DETAIL
~
1 • ·wA TER SVC
STA 1+03.08
@
STA 1+34.59
4• SS LAT
CO /NV 274.34
0 _.--NOS POL YOLEFIN POP-UP

DRAINAGE EMITTER WITH
U.V. INHIBITOR.
_--NDS1/4BENDSEWER
DRAIN ELBOW.
,....---114" LEACH HOLE

1.1..-~SEWER & DRAIN PIPE
I l
I l
I
I i
i i
I
I
i
i I ,, '
,~,
!
I
\ l~'-
~
'
EXSSMH2
~-l---RIM 281.84 y
I /NV 272.88 OUT
~
' i r . cc
---
I~ ~ ...,
c:5 . q::

II I V)
; .... " @ § -:;i
-f-
lil>
>-. I Q::
;:!;
~
~ I • 0:,
t;; LC) -...... -~ ;:!; ::s~~ V) ~"' . ~ +::,,,. '
:i ">
~ " • 0 0 ,.. -_, 0) .... -f-
0) ..., V)
.
~-: "
,. . . . " ,.
_JI. I i,0_. 0_ 1-. -__: -.11:=:E ~-..Yf&E.R~ SANITAIRY !!_S~0.35%_ G;;~t.b~ . '· ---X / 8 ,:t
4 I
I 10
j"' 11 I
( 4' 4 kiM& ➔
" I : I / o-fO _J_ / I! I __ ., 'I
I
=='.'.'.'.•./.:;,,· I
------~2 -f-EXSSMH1
t· ,.__--RIM 280.54 y
1 /NV 271.11 OUT
I ~ ~
II
I
ADS
I RIM 281.32
I /NV 277.67 OUT
i 1" WAIFR SVC
• a STA 7+46.01 .
~ 0 ..., . c:5
cl\
,.
' .
• ,
-
I-
~
~
V)
I ~
I. -.

I ! -.I Q I 1 8 V1
\ \ 'i-t~ ~07
i I RIM 281.19
0 20
I . ;, /NV 277.42 OUT 4• SS LAT©
lil> STA 7+14.52 5
>-. CO /NV 272.57
Q::
~
~

0 I -0 BUB1
RIM277.50
/NV 276.50 OUT 0
AD3
RIM279.36
/NV 276.69 OUT
1" WATER SVC
STA 6+67.29
AD9-
RIM 280_43
/NV 277.01 OUT
/

SLOPE RECTANGULAR STEEL TUBING
TOWARD INFILTRATION TRENCH. MITER

END TO MATCH SLOPE
NOTE: THRU CURB DRAIN TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY
STANDARD DETAIL D-6 WITH THE MODIRCATIONS SHOWN ABOVE

THRU CURB DRAIN DETAIL
/
/
/
~
AD4
+~ ® ...,
AD10
RIM280.70
/NV 277.12 OUT
RIM279.75 ;
/NV 276.97 OUT
I
I
I "'

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
0 0
0 0
0 ©
0 0
0 ®
CONSTRUCT ARE HYDRANT PER CITY DETAILS 8-1-1
AND 8-1-2
CONSTRUCT WATER VALVES PER CITY DETAIL 8-2
CONSTRUCT WATER SERVICE PER CITY DETAIL 8-3-1, TYPICAL
CONSTRUCT TYPE 1 SANITARY MANHOLE PER CITY DETAILS
C-1-1, C-1-3, AND C-1-4

CONSTRUCT SANITARY LATERAL ANO CLEANOUT PER CITY
DETAILS C-2-1 ANO C-2-2, TYPICAL
CONSTRUCT FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE. SEE SHEET Cl

CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PIPE PER CITY DETAIL
D-6 MOD/RED TO SLOPE AWAY FROM THE STREET AT 2%
CONSTRUCT 6" PVC LANDSCAPE DRAIN AT 0.5%

CONSTRUCT BUBBLE UP PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET

CONSTRUCT LANDSCAPE DRAIN PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET

ALL PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH BACKFIL TO FOLLOW CITY
DETAILS E-3-1 AND E-3-2
C/) z
0 C/)
~
"'
"' 0 C/) -I') a,
0 II ll. N •
oti -
N
t
0 ii;
w z
w ....I ~ !.c c)
0 C/) 0
JOB NO.
1962
SHEET
C4
OF 11
ii;
fil "' 0 w
I
0

------------
® ® 0 0 ® . 0
' ' "" t
I
l'\ -~~--Hl------+-tt-EC 6+91.59
SSMH 3
1+77.25, 14.45 R----------,
,...
.., r--Z
\-
GENERAL NOTES:

1. CONTRACTOR TO EXPOSE EXISTING SEWERS AND CHECK /INERTS BEFORE CONSTRUCT/NG NEW SEWERS.

POTHOLE EXISTING UTILITIES TO VERIFY CROSSINGS, INVERTS AND LOCATIONS. NOTIFY ENGINEER 24 HOURS PRIOR TO EXPOSING SEWERS.

2. ALL JOINT TRENCH UTILITY WORK REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT PROPOSED ELECTRICAL, GAS, TELEPHONE, CABLE AND JOINT TRENCH SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SEE JOINT TRENCH PLANS ... ', . . t .. 0 •• :,·
INALTRATION TRENCH SEE SHEET C7~

14.26 R
0 \_ SEE UTILITY PLAN SHEET C4 L SEE UTILITY PLAN SHEET C4 10 30 50
0 20 40

PROFILE VIEW
GRAPHIC S~E
1 -20
~ ~ f--+----j--++---t---ti't µ:s,e--+-- c't·~---+---+--+----+---,---Hld--l--"t--+---+--+--+----jf--+----+--+---+--+--+----j-+-+--+'----l ~ ~gj ~~ ~~ "-' 50.00, "-l 1 Q;j ~ I "-l 1 60.00
c=::::::::6-.~J-------+---+----+"".: l _ ""l
• 1/) ,,.... ~ cc
~ .u a.
~ -
t3
0 100 ------
JOB NO.
1962
SHEET
cs
OF 11

·----------------------------------~ ----------------------------- 111
II
11 11
11 I
11 111. I I I
~4 0
II
6)._~

V) I
0,5Q?'_. ' .. -. -
28 ~· . __ T ___ \ I 0.50, I T
r11 7 -
,n '--!-1---+---l_
! , I ' STA 6~91.58 _/ \ . I I
1! \ ELEV 280.67
\I
1:
'
II ' i I I ., ' i'
1! ' ' '
!I 1/i iNSTALL AiR RELEASE
Ir VAL VE" AT Pd,JNT Of l1
1i CONNECTION.[ ' " V ' !
ii
I
' I
I
r 1! 92 fL 8" .EX WA('ER 93! FT 8" IWAID" •
0 fi -I I _ _/ I IN 1 275.d ±
I'
' I r CONNc.,CT TO EX.

SEWER MAIN 1
27,
11 I /NV 71.37~
II
~ -. .. =·
I ! I '\' ' I =0.35%
ii
' I 82 FT 8" SANITARY@
74 FT I 8" EX SANITARY I !
F -~ F 4 , i, i ~
! Cl,..._. ' c,. ~ !I I -~J1 I -::cj "' ;:;j
' ci ! I
_, I
n ~'.ct I ~ S=1%> TC 282_ 13 , y °"In 280.64'
TC 282.59' TC 282.44'
GB tr 94 FT 8" WATER_GB ______ -.,.-__ ~
1+00 ----1ac 184-58.;
~ 84 FT 8" SANITARY Cl 282.11'
TC 282.59' __ .,,GR_ S=0.5%>
TC 282.44' EVC
BVC TC 281.97'
,
..
'
•
1" WATER SVC
STA 1+81.93
100

PROFILE VIEW
SSMH 3
1+77.25, 14.45 R
1+58.21
' i I ~~~'."
I "i • "'
+----1---t--r-t----r--1--+--+--+--+--+--!---l--+---l---_j--L~~.N~ .... I ! I ~.: -· l?\,j---C\f---... ·----+--+---1 • ' -::;; ..... '-I I Q: :j :::, "' t--i,--t, --jr-t---t--J--t--+--+--+--+--i---f--+---l---_j--L~-l-:i'i~0 -tc·~--+---+----+----1 i ! ~"'" , I , i:,:::,.;!::
r------t,--t--+--t--t-,: --J--+--+--+--+--+--+--f----l---l---_j __ _j_l;j,Vi~--~ ~ ;q;: ! i : V)•--+---+--+---1 I
!
"" 1)l ~ "-i
: !
I i .. -"" ~ id "' ~ C,
' , 40.00' I
C, f--+-----+. _ _j_---i
·f--=--+-----1---'~ -·~·-+-111='£.~RT.~--fCCCU-'CR~I-E+-;«>,.:.. g'---+-+---l---~-",~ "1----+-----l C,
ci
S'
-
I ~~ ~·-~: ~~
-C"\i C'\1-1. ....
1-----r--t---i--t--+---+--+--+--J.--µ--+'--+--..l--~ I <;:, • • I j:5 c::t td ~ ~ lJ.J '• ~
V)
I V) V) (62
i I I
I: i 1 1 l0.50% i I , g--+-----1
I i _,Q.pO~~-----.--.....;..: ' 1 I -1-
• I -.,_ ~ -----·· --i--+----I ~
t----·-----... '_-_--+-! ---...,-------+---+--+--+--+--i---1\-'----+l __ c..l ---+ -1 ~ •• J_ -cc!---f-'---+----l. ~"'----+-- rl \ L--:--....1. __ l. ___ /: !-----~ f20%1 ti < I I \ I I I ~--4--•--~ a I I I : I -i ~ "--= i 11·. \ I • 7 -i:-, .
1 1 ;STA 1-lr58.21_' I
r-I _1 ,, !1ELEV 2
1 82.11 i,· 1
:.:::C:28':;°1-T-tt-t'11-t-· --1,-t----t--+--f---t-++-+--~-+-+-+-_jf----l-\+---+-+---.j~_j_ ~ I ! -280 I.J.J I
-.J i
I
,I
I.J.J 1 ' :
11 1 7
1 INSTALL AIR RELEAS
i /J 1 VALVEIAT POINT OF I
j---+----t+-·t--+--+--+--!--+---l------+'--l/.J.~i.·r;oNNECTl"'ON"'.+1--+------+l--+----+-+-l ---+------+--+----l ! I II V ·'
' '--~--l---+---t-::-:-::1--::::-~-;;;;-i i
,-f--::--+r--+--"i __ .,..,93 FTI 8. FT!EX WATER 1 1 :
:,4 if7 8 WA7FR
I
(\ ' -+-'
: i .

I'
j I
\.../NV !2 77. 0 lt
I i
l
i \_/NV 276.34
J Ii ,'w 213!14_/ •• \l \ I 1
!
' , CQNN.fCT JO]EX. ! ' [ SEWER MAIN! ~,----t---t---t----t--1 --+---+--t----1 ! I
C--+---+--1--+--+--+---l------i----+-~ ::,. I I I «) 1:iJ ----J----t---+----+--,;;,:lG'l,---+-----+--+---+--t----1---l "';:;j I ~r:-l I
1;;J •,i I "<,~ I
2T~-t:----'-•--L-----'---'--~--_J._ _ _L _ _c __ .L_----'~~<3[___j_ __ L_Ji __ L~~i·1dl..__J_ __ L_J1 __ L_-l-_-1 __ l 0+00 -270 1+00 2+00 2 20
Station +
II I
!I
II
• ;,i i
"· I i
."! i
• I I
. '
II
H 11
II I
I I
I
I
"' z
0 iii
~
"'
JOB NO.
1962
SHEET
C6
OF 1 1
.J

STORMWATER TREATMENT SUMMARY

DMA TOTAL

AREA SF

ROOF SF DRIVEWAVSF SIDEWALKSF STREETSF TOTAL

IMPERVIOUS SF

LANDSCAPE SF TCM VOLUME VOLUME

REQUIRED PROVIDED
_l 85056 -17195 3328 7799
-
. -·-:

I'
-25443 53765 31291
J_ _L

BRENNAN WAY
' '-'. ~, ,' •· 1:~-
ff -
T T
:--~T~'-~~:
' -
I
' •
-.
.. •· ,-_~ : ~," ~ ·j'.·.·~-~ "'.,·,.
1 _/);
-~ ---
CF
1669
CF
'2562
-·--------------
l' ~
~\
,,
I
!
,Q
=--=
T T
J... . ' ...,....J. ' ,'-,-'-
. .
1-.-J -,l, • ; =~-•
•
• • ' -' -. ' I
I L
i 11
I
'
-.
1-----------------------305' ----------------------1
7+00 6+00

TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH INFILTRATION TRENCH
PL
--------------15' _____________ __,
4' 12· ----------8' --------+--1'
2'
EL 279.0 MIN
EL 274.0
RLTER FABRIC MIRAR 1100 N OR EQUAL
t---+----6' __ ........,_..,
5+00

CLASS II PERMEABLE ROCK NO COMPACTION BELOW INFILTRATION TRENCH 4+00 3+00

WESTSIDE BOULEVARD

FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE
YEAR 278.47
YEAR 278.25
RIM 278.95
i-,--1----+;.f'--TWO 5•x12· OPENININGS /NV 278.35

LANDSCAPE DRAIN
SEE SHEET C4

ONE ON NORTH AND ONE ON SOUTH SIDE
..__--J-a-+---1 • DIA. ORIFICE /NV 277.58
•
4 -15" STORM DRAIN
'---------'-.L..OJNV 274.29
I
_l
r
I !
2+00
•
10 ~
30 ,}&@' ,. ;; a
0 20 40

GRAPHIC SCALE
1" = 30'
I I '~)'
__) 1/
/,... _/
~ ~
~
l ['
i

LANDSCAPE DRAIN SYSTEM
SEE SHEET C4
PL
I
=
I I
C)
C)
-1--
C)
C)
i ~
@
I
I
i
I
I "'
100
SOUTH ST. SWALE SECTION
----4.50' ----------5.50' _____ _,
SOUTH ST. SWALE DETAIL
1 "=10'
/
/
I I
i------1
I
/
/
/
®
I
I
~1
,:
, I ~
~I
""' {:; I
I
I
I ~,
" I' _JLG 2 80.43'
/
Ll
L
<J
Li
4-
<J-
,i -
LJ G 28D.2
--
<J
"'
.,.,,---c 280.02
A
<I
4 <!
,_ G 279.89'
'1 _.,,
a
1_
A
Ll
~-
G
I
279.72'
<2%
C)
Ii')
-Ll <ti
ryw, •
12/ 17( ,q
w '< 0
(J) z
0 (J)
c:;
a:
0, 0 (J) -"' a,
0 II a. "' • ,...; -"' ...= u
0 i'ii
~ 0
~ z
tS !
(J) 0
,
JOB NO.
1962
SHEET
Cl
OF 11
i'ii
0 w "' &l :c: u

I
i
-~i!
LEGEND

PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

SITE BOUNDARY

IF THE STREET IS NOT PAVED SEE THE INLET

PROTECTION DETAIL ON THIS SHEET , IF THE
STREET IS PAVED USE MODIFIED SILT SACK.
(SEE DETAIL ON THIS SHEET)

ALTERNATE FIBER ROLL INLET PROTECTION
(SEE DETAIL ON THIS SHEET)

STANDARD INLET

FLAT GRATE INLET

AREA DRAIN INLET

FLOW DIVERSION BERM
SILT FENCE AND 10" FIBER

ROLL ALONG PERIMETER
1--
r((7 I I t:::

STABILIZED I , f::
l I V')
CONSTRUCT/ON ..... 11 I
ENTRANCE ct:
0 ::E I I I q: I I L
,.

BRENNAN WAY
7 PERIMETER SILT FENCE
I I
I I
,-.., j ' /'""i
@ ® 0

LINDSEY LANE
1 PERIMETER SILT FENCE
DOWNSTREAM SAMPLING 7.

LOCATION: EXISTING
-0\ I STABILIZED 1 ]'1

CONSTRUCTION I I

ENTRANCE ' I
11 I I II
0 Q)
/
!

INLET PROTECTION
CONCRf;Tt TRUCK
GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES:

1. OWNER:

ALEXANDER Sl'WAK, M.D., INC.
12860 STAR RIDGE COURT
SARATOGA, CA 95070
{408) 309-9253
CONTRACTOR:

TBD

IT SHALL BE THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCT/ON OPERATION AND TO KEEP THE ENTIRE SITE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOIL EROSION CONTROL PLAN.

2. CIVIL ENGINEER: CHARLES W. DAVIDSON CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 255 W. JULIAN STREET, SUITE 200, SAN JOSE, CA 9511 D
PHONE: (408) 295-9162
J. CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT:
24 HR. PHONE:

GRADING CONTRACTOR:

4. THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TD BE USED FOR INTERIM EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR FINAL ELEVATIONS OR PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS.

5. DEVELOPER WILL SUBMIT TD THE CITY MONTHLY (AT THE FIRST OF EACH MONTH BETWEEN OCTOBER 1st AND APRIL 30th) CERTIFICATIONS THAT ALL EROSION/SEDIMENT MEASURES IDENTIFIED ON THE APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN ARE IN PLACE. IF MEASURES ARE NOT IN PLACE, DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF WHY THE MEASURE IS NOT IN PLACE AND WHAT Will BE DONE TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION.

6. OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FDR MONITORING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PRIOR, DURING, ANO AFTER STORM EVENTS.

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

WITH TIRE WASH
3"-6" ROCK (MIN) @---UPSTREAM SAMPLING LOCATION:

MANHOLE AT INTERSECTION OF

WESTS/OE ANO STEINBECK
-----CATCH8AS!N ON ----
WESTSIDE BLVD. WESTSIDE BOULEVARD
---W,-'ASHOFF rREA I

7. REASONABLE CARE SHALL BE TAKEN WHEN HAULING ANY EARTH, SAND, GRAVEL, STONE DEBRIS,

PAPER OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE OVER ANY PUBLIC STREET, ALLEY OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE

SHOULD ANY BLOW, SPILL, DR TRACK OVER AND UPON SAID PUBLIC OR ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY, IMMEDIATE REMEDY SHALL OCCUR.

INLET W/ GRATE
GRAVEL (3/4"-1/2';
2:1 SLOPE

CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOFF AREA

CONTRACTOR CAN MOVE LOCATION

AS NEEDED

FIBER ROLL

BLOCK & GRAVEL INLET PROTECTION

BEFORE STREETS ARE PAVED
N.T.S.

CORRUGATED STEEL PANELS
12" MIN. 3"-6" CRUSHED AGGREGATE
i--------+---50' MIN---,1---+-----i
'-'1 -
2" X 4" WOOD STAKE STANDARD OR BETTER OR

EQUAL ALTERNATE STEEL FENCE STAKE
FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 60" WIDE ROLLS.

USE SlABLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTATCH
FABRIC TO WIR£

BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL
IN 8" X 12" TRENCH
2"X2" 14 GA. WIRE
FABRIC OR EQUIV.
i------6' MAX----i
2" x 2" 14 GA WIRE
FABRIC OR EQUIV.

FILTER FABRIC

BACKFILL ANO COMPACT

THE EXCAVATED SOIL IN

TRENCH ANDON BOTH SIDES
OF FILTER FENCE FABRIC 8"
t

BMP CATEGORY

EROSION CONTROL

SEDIMENT CONTROL

GOOD SITE MANAGEMENT

NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

RUN-ON AND RUN-OFF CONTROL

ACTIVE TREATEMENT SYSTEMS
INSTALL 5
STAKES TYP.

FILTER FABRIC

PLAN VIEW

BMP SUMMARY TABLE

BMPUSED

WIND EROSION CONTROL

CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

OUTLET PROETECTION/ VELOCITY DISSIPATION DEVICES

SILT FENCE STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION

STABIUZED CONSTRUCTION ROADWAY FIBER ROLLS

STREET SWEEPING AND VACCUUMING

STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

APPLICATION AND STORAGE OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS

MANAGEMENT OF WAS/IS AND WASTE MATERIALS ON SITE

WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES

ILLEGAL DUMPING REPORTING

VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

STABILIZED ENTRANCE, FIBER ROLLS, SILTFENCE

NOT APPLICABLE
10• STl?AW WATTLE

REBAR TO EXTEND BEYOND

INLET THROAT
••• 4,
·•"
' . • ••
•. .4 ·,"'.d • .4 . . . H.·~ • 11 •. • . 4 . ·• . ' '
2" x 4" WOOD STAKE
ALT: STEEL FENCE STAKES '-'1 10• STl?AW WATTLE

SILT FENCE DETAIL

0.75" X 0.75" STAKE . 4 ••
N.T.S.
• A•,
• . ·

8. SANITARY FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON THE SITE.

9. OUR/NG THE RAINY SEASON, All PAVED AREAS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF EARTH MATERIAL AND DEBRIS. THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED SO AS TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT LADEN RUNOFF TO ANY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, INCLUDING EXISTING DRAINAGE SWALES AND WATER COURSES.

10. CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT EROSION AND WATER POLLUTION WILL BE MINIMIZED. STATE AND LOCAL LAWS CONCERNING POLLUTION ABATEMENT SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH.

11. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DUST CONTROL AS REQUIRED BY THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES:

1. THE PROJECT STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) SHALL BE KEPT ONSITE AT ALL TIMES. IF THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION TRAILER, THE SITE SUPERINTENDENT SHALL KEEP A COPY OF THE SWPPP IN THEIR VEHICLE. THE SWPPP SHALL BE THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES. THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES {BMPS} MAY BE MODIFIED TO ADJUST TO CHANGING SITE CONDITIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF THE QSP AND QSD FOR THE PROJECT.

2. PERIMETER SILT FENCE OR FIBER ROLLS TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING AND MAINTAINED UNTIL PROJECT IS COMPLETE.

J. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING. ALL

CONSTRUCT/ON TRAFFIC ENTERING ONTO THE PAVED ROADS MUST CROSS THE STABILIZED CON- STRUCTION ENTRANCE WAYS. {ALSO INCLUDE THIS NOTE ON GRADING PLANS.}

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN STABILIZED ENTRANCE AT EACH VEHICLE ACCESS POINT TO EXISTING PAVED STREETS. ANY MUD OR DEBRIS TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE REMOVED DAILY AND AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.

5. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT OPEN INLETS TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. INLETS NOT USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EROSION CONTROL ARE TO BE BLOCKED TO PREVENT ENTRY OF SEDIMENT.

MAINTENANCE NOTES:

1. MAINTENANCE IS TO BE PERFORMED AS FOLLOWS:

A. REPAIR DAMAGES CAUSED BY SOIL EROSION OR CONSTRUCTION AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.

B. SWALES SHALL BE INSPECTED PERIODICALLY AND MAINTAINED AS NEEDED.

C. SEDIMENT TRAPS, BERMS, AND SWALES ARE TO BE INSPECTED AFTER EACH STORM AND REPAIRS MADE AS NEEDED.

D. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED AND SEDIMENT TRAP RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS WHEN SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED TO A DEPTH OF 1 FOOT.
£ SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM TRAP SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN A SUITABLE AREA AND IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT WILL NOT £ROD£
F. RILLS AND GULLIES MUST BE REPAIRED.

2. SAND BAG INLET PROTECTIONS SHALL BE CLEANED OUT WHENEVER SEDIMENT DEPTH THE HEIGHT OF ONE SAND BAG. E
No.,!1!225
.... 144(.

SLOPE AWAY / PUBLIC
/ _ RIGHT-OF-WAY
EXCAVATE 4• DEEP/

CUP FOR CIRCUIAR
WATTLE TO SIT IN ORNE STAKE 18"

BELOW GROUND

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED SILT SACK
REED &: GRAHAM, INC. (OR EQUAL)

AFTER STREETS ARE PAVED
'""TT' -ITT JT _, ·-
-1 11 111= ··•-11
.
c::, ---, I
500X MIRAFI (OR EQUAL)
ON EXISTING GROUND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION--~

BUWEEN STABIUZED CONSTRUCTION

ENTRANCE AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
,p/. O,
i----------50' MIN-------~-....,fl

WASH RACK
000
0 0 0 PUBLIC
0 0 RIGHT-OF-WA
*STONES TO BE J"-6" CRUSHED AGGREGATE
MAINTENANCE:

0.75" X 0.75" STAKE
TOP OF
SLOPE
INLET
£CT/ON
!1QJI;_ LANDSCAPE INLETS THAT ARE

NOT PROTECTED MUST BE CAPPED
TO PREVENT ANY UNTREATED Fl.OW

ENTERING THE INLET

ALTERNATE FIBER ROLL INLET PROTECTION

MAY BE USED IN LANDSCAPE AREA DRAINS
N.T.S.

TOE OF
SLOPE
DRIVE STAKE_/°
18" BELOW ROLL
I VERTICAL SPACING MEASURED ALONG THE FACE I-OF THE SLOPE VARIES BETWEEN 5' ANO 10'. 4' o.c.

EXCAVA7F 4" DEEP CUP

FOR CIRCULAR ROLL TO
SIT IN

FIBER ROLL

INSTALLATION DETAIL

PLASTIC TARP
-----8.0'-----i ---l l--1.0·

CONTROLS

STABILIZED

CONSTRUCTION

ENTRANCE
, (r1(1q

TENTATIVE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION
UNDERGROUND UT!LmES COMPLETED

PAVING COMPLETED
_/_/._ _/_/_
-/.-/.-

MAINTENANCE MEASURES

INSPECTION FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE/REPAIR MEASURES
WEEKLY AND 2 BUSINESS DAY.5' REPLACE GRAVEL MATERIAL WHEN VOIDS ARE PRESENT (24 HOURS) AFTER QUALIFYING RAIN REMOVE ALL SEDIMENT DEPOSITED ON PAVED ROADWAYS WITHIN 24 HOURS REMOVE GRAVEL AT COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING 1 1 '[ SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL 1 "f STONE AS CONDfflONS DEMAND, AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. STAKED IN l~~~I 1.5' l~~_;;::_~1 STAKED IN JUTE: MAT WEEKLY AND 2 BUSINESS DAYS REPAIR WHENEVER JUTE MAT IS DAMAGED {24 HOURS) AFTER QUALIFYING RAIN REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN IT REACHES 1/3 THE DEPTH OF THE JUTE MAT

ESPECIALLY IF HEAVY RAINS ARE EXPECTED
w ti:

Q
(J) z
0 (J)
~ a::
"' ~ (J) -!D 0 ,11 Cl. "" .-; -"" t
0 w ~ ti: 0
Q (J)
~1J ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALJ. BE REMOVED 1/("(~A %~"( "',=~'77"7'77'7'717'77'7'7-;=;,;,'77"n'c'7'7n'c'c'7,#;, 1/(_~~~"( ~-I IMMEDIATELY. >j,'V» '-0/>0;;;~ Y/;V,7» /;y¾~ ! '.(("<A'-/, /, /..'-('.(('-('.(('-('.(('-(/(<(/('-(/('</(v;::.,,_v;::.,,_~'y<.,_'-(/('-< 1/• ,, /..'\(A,'<!: JOB NO.

S WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC FIBER ROLLS WEEKLY AND 2 BUSINESS DAYS REPAIR WHENEVER FIBER ROLL IS DAMAGED ;'[ RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS SHALL BE DONE AT AN AREA STABIUZED WITH CRUSHED STONE, WHICH DRAINS EARTHEN DIKE EARTHEN DIKE 1962 al!! INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT BASIN. II SHEET ~f STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOFF AREA CB ~:,;-N.T.S. OF 11
-L,._ ________________ N __ .r._;,.s_. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...1.....;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.J (24 HOURS) AFTER QUALIFYING RAIN REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN IT REACHES 1/3 THE HEIGHT OF THE FIBER ROLL

ESPECIALLY IF HEAVY RAINS ARE EXPECTED
STORM DRAIN INLET WEEKLY AND 2 BUSINESS DAYS REPLACE CLOGGED FILTER FABRIC IMMEDIATELY PROTECTION (24 HOURS) AFTER QUALIFYING RAIN REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN THE DEPTH EXCEEDS 2/3 THE HEIGHT OF THE FILTER

t !
8-fOO
I
~
I
i
!
!f
~H
I ~ •
i I
I ;
I
I
11'
IH-t+---56 0
--40. 0
1--
Lu
Lu
~
I.I)
Lu cc
0 ~ q:
' •
C
~ I ,~
\ '--
'~
rr
I
l I ~ -
, ..
' @
' .
' '
,-'. . ~ "
. ' .,, ,
'd. ·~ • ' ,, J'
J_ _L I _J_
~-""""'"""'=

BRENNAN WAY
I ' I
' -· I -~ ,, ., -
@ ®
' ' , ' '
' • I • " . j_' ,. •. : ,__,._ .,, .... -:,· .-' J •• ·" . & I.~· . ., l' '
, '.
' ~ --+---
I
7-fOO 6-fOO
_)j t\
~. ~ A
T i
I I I I I ' u r.:· .. , ~ ~ ' ,-, -,. ~ ,, . -'""" "
® 0 ® ®
., ' ,·, ' ' . .,;·L-.· '. ' ·, I J ·';j ..,._ "l J' : ,. I. . ' ' • I ' .., '. .. .. , . ' ' ' . • .; ~ ---j • ' __ 4+.,..pa _fa D

LINDSEY LANE

EXISTING BIKE LANE STRIPING
5-fOO 4-fOO

WESTSIDE BOULEVARD
~
0 ' . ' ,· ', • . '
L --6
Lu :::::,; -cc
i C
I I K I --' ' ~ '
' ~ ® '
''
56 ' 40
C,
' i
' a " Q, I• """
,'
'' ' ,· .... -~---,. • , l -: 'A,: ·--4. ', '
/
--'6-++fc..c.O _ ______.-X'
3-fOO
10 30 50
0 20 40

GRAPHIC SCALE
1" = 30'
~
2 -------P-i, -
~~ r ~ i I I •
ij JJ
f EX BIKE LANE STRIPING
i I-1rp)oo' ;. -Ilk R l ,
. !i ~ i: 0.00

5. ' I
I 0 ~ C,
' C,
" 'f-"' '

0. -H.::1"'11 0 l o· 0
r
2-fOO
I
4 I ' ,,
. ' I
0 5 rt-r+
' .1
' I)

CONSTRUCT/ON NOTES
0 INSTALL STREET NAME SIGN PER CITY OF HOLLISTER DETAIL A-13 0 RESTORE EXISTING "STOP" PER CITY OF HOLLISTER DETAIL A-14-2 0 RESTORE EXISTING CROSSWALK LIMIT LINES PER CITY OF HOLLISTER DETAIL A-14-1 0 INSTALL CL. II BIKE LANE MARKINGS PER CALTRANS DETAIL 39 © INSTALL CL. II BIKE LANE MARKINGS PER CALTRANS DETAIL 39A © INSTALL BLUE PAVEMENT MARKER PER CITY OF HOLLISTER DETAIL 8-1-2 0 BIKE LANE ARROW AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS PER MUTCD
100
V) z
0 ;;;
G'.i
0::

O> • Vl ..-~ m a II~ "' .
n am
s~
;i;f 1962
iii iii SHEET
ii C9 ~,
.,_ OF 11 ~~L----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-..;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.J Page 177 of 305Page 537 of 757

I
!!]
f
I ~I l'l ~ 11
!I ~~
ii
ii ~,
:;i • . . . .
..
•
•
.•
·.
. ·• ..
••
' . • '
b ""' .
.•
'_' ..... t; .
.. ·,, ,., ·•1. . ,._ . L~·-. -~, •. · .. 1, ... . ,· •-.... _~ :" •_l,. --~ '1. ;.. 4 . I. ·l .' I· I. .. : J: ., _"'· "l-•· ·.t ·, -: :· .. l .-_ -.1, ... •.• ..... " ,1 .•. _~;-; ··1: ·:_ .... :,j..'' . .;.: ·.:.r ,· .. •--..... -.. 1~--' : ; .1--_· ,• __ • -.. ~-.. -,r ... .. .,. .... -, . . .. ·-.. r ' •• @) '-.. J... --·· /
I
'>--....__ .1' _IL _J .II _ L .I.,__/ -------------------------------. ~.

PIPE SLEEVE
SEE IRRIGATION _ .. ' _,. ... • . .• ... ,. .. ' . ~ • . . . •.-• . :··.• ..... '· ·-..• -·. • ... -.• • -.-; .• ' . ' . ' ,· . ;.. . .. •. C • • • ·• .... •• -. . ; ..... --. ·. . _ • . ~ -· •·· • .. ~._ . ·• :~._ ~-.•111 _ ... " .• ...... . .

SCHEDULE
\.. / I I I -I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I " / = " " N""' --A ~ -~ ~ / I ~ -' -' ' ~ ' '~ 1 ' -' 1 ~ .., 1 ~ • -·-• • • • • • • • --.. ·: ... • '
.. l

STORM DRAIN CROSSING
~ +
10 30 50
0 20 40
GRAPHIC SCALE , .. = 30'
--'· I i "
I
•
I • 0 I '•
I I I
I -I .

I •
L ~ ....

I -T I • • l I . I
•· '· I ' ' I -0 I I
'--. I
I
.

J ._.,
• ~ / --,
-
•. ~
.
• . ,.
.• ..
_, ·_
.
• ... ·, .
'
I ..
•
• 4 ~ . '.
•
100
w < C
w w ~ < C
fu
z
I
tJ w
0:::

Iii
JOB NO.
1962
SHEET
L1
Of 11
fu
C w
"' u w
I u
L------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..1.....;;;;;;=..I /
i
\_