Hollister City Council
April 20, 2026

;
Familial Status
Under the FHA, housing providers e.g., landlords, property managers, real estate agents, or property owners) may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old, pregnant persons, or any persons in the process of securing legal custody of minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family (through birth, adoption, or custody), enforcing overly restrictive rules regarding children's use of common areas, requiring families with children to live on specific floors, buildings, or areas, charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children, advertising a preference for households without children, and lying about unit availability.

Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular consideration are female -headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two -parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.

Figure E-5 indicates that the percentage of children living in a married couple household decreases towards the central region of the City. Areas outside of the City limits generally have higher percentages of children in married couple households. Census tracts around the Hollister Municipal Airport and the southeast edge of the City near Ridgemark have the greatest percentages of children in married couple households.

Figure E-6 depicts the concentration of households headed by single mothers in the County by census tract. The map shows that census tracts in the eastern region of the City generally have higher rates of children in female -headed households with no spouse present. Outside of the City, census tracts in the region mostly have census tracts with less than 20 percent of its households consisting of children in female -headed households with no spouse present.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-12

Figure E-5: Distribution of Children in Married -Couple Households, Hollister (2021) 1/26/2024, 10:55:49 AM
0 City/Town Boundaries
Percent of Children in Married _Couple Househo'do 2017 ,2021 - Percent of Children in Married -Couple Householcs 40% - 604,0
NM 00% - 80%
al 80% -100„'/,
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
1:72,224
0 0.5
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
3 km
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-13

Figure E-6: Distribution of Children in Female -Headed Households, Hollister (2021) 1,,26 , 4. '1:0444 AM
f:h rrn 07 f .0 ihr I ate: ", 1 9f r ,J: vvv7,7prx.rve Prey rid a.AC 2 a r° :"03' : 1"ra;-t L::M5n tp:v.n
vww).--"vvvvc: -
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
1 v!.13.•'. 13
J.s :
r r ,'
m
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-14

;
Income Level
Each year, HUD receives American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HDU's programs (primarily 30 percent, 50 percent, and 80 percent of median income). HUD defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census track or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).

HUD's CHAS data, presented in Table E-3, shows Hollister's households by income and tenure. Based on the definition above, 41.2 percent of Hollister households are considered LMI as they earn less than 80 percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Roughly 62 percent of all renters are considered LMI, compared to only 27 percent of owner households.

Table E-3: Households by Income
Category and Tenure,
Hollister
Income Distribution
Owner
Renter
Total
Household Income 30% to 50% to 80% to 100% HAMFI

62.8%

24.2%

47.1%
Total Population
6,525
4,470
10,995
Source: HUD Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) CHAS Data; 2015-19 ACS Figure E-7 shows the LMI areas in the City by block group. The City has varying block groups from less than 25 percent reporting low- to moderate- incomes to between 75 and 100 percent reporting low- to moderate- incomes. Block groups in the central region of the City show the highest rates of low- to moderate- income while block groups on the eastern side of the City generally have lower rates of residents reporting low- to moderate- incomes.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-15

Figure E-7: Population with Low- to Moderate- Income Levels, Hollister 1/26/2024, 11:©6:38 AM
EJ City/Town Boundaries
(A) Low to Moderate Income Population (HUD) - Block Group <25%
25% - 50%
- 50% - 75%
- 75% - 100%
1:72,224
o o.s 1
r I
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
3 km
Bureau of land Management. Ern, HERE. Garmin, USGS EPA. 53S, Esc.

HERE. Gamain :7 Ctpe r3treetMap contriaulors, and the CIS or community Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-16

;

2. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract -based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward:

R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Neighborhoods of extreme poverty are defined as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line.

Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD also defines a neighborhood as a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three or more times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

Location can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. However, these areas may also provide different opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identity and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a city.

Figure E-8 shows there are no R/ECAPs located in Hollister, nor in the immediate surrounding communities. The closest R/ECAPs are located in Gilroy in the northwest and Salinas in the southwest.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-17

Figure E-8: R/ECAP in Hollister and Neighboring Communities 1/26/2024, 11:09:49 AM
Cily/Towri Boundaries
(R) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty "RJECAP'S (HUD, 2009 - 2013) - Tract 0 - No1 a R/ECAP
G711- RIECAP
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
0 2.5
0 4
1:375,565
5 l 1
8 10 mi
16 km
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-18

;

3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty are a long-standing, contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, the White population is the most severely insulated (separated from other racial groups). Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, education experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.

Data used in the analysis of Racial Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) is from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and measured at the census tract level. The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.

The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
• RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
• Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average, about 20 percent of a typical tract.
• RCAA tracts are more income homogeneous than R/ECAPs. • The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
• The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
• The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.

Overall, RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices.

Figure E-9 shows that there are no RCAAs located within the City's boundaries. However, there is an RCAA located just south of the City in the Ridgemark community. This community is home to the Ridgemark Golf & Country Club. Figure E-10 shows the white majority tracts within the area. The map illustrates that there is an area within the City that has a "slim" majority with a less than 10 percent between the white population and the next race. "Sizeable" (gap between 10 and 50 percent) and "Predominant" (gap greater than 50 percent) white majority gap tracts are located south of Hollister. Figure E-11 shows the median income by census tract in Hollister and neighboring communities. The map illustrates that a majority of the City's census tracts report incomes between $55,000 and the HCD 2021 State Median Income of $90,100. There are also several census tracts in the far western, northern, and southern portions of the City that report median incomes between $90,100 and $120,000. Conversely, there are three census tracts within the center of the City and one census tract at the southern portion of the City Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-19

that report median incomes below the HCD 2021 State Median Income of $90,100. Table E-4 identifies two census tracts (06069000400 and 06069000600) and their percent white population versus median income. 22.8 percent of residents in census tract 06069000400 are white and have a median income of $64,225. 34.70 percent of residents in census tract 06069000600 are white and have a median income of $91,935.

Table E-4: RCAAs — Median Household Income by Race by Census Tract Census Tract
06069000400
Percent Population White Median Income

22.80% $64,225
06069000600

34.70%
$91,935
Source: U.S. Census Bureau from HCD AFFH Data Viewer
Table E-5 shows that white households in Hollister have a higher median income ($99,755) than the City's median income as a whole ($87,761). Similarly, white households in San Benito County have a higher median income ($104,277) than the County's median income ($95,606).

Race
White
Table E-5: RCAAs — Median Household Income by Race
Hollister
Median Income Household
Percentage
$99,755

35.9%
San Benito County
Median Income Household
Percentage
$104,277 45.5%
All Households
$87,761
$95,606
Source: American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-20

Figure E-9: RCAA in Hollister and Neighboring Communities 1/26/2024, 11:12:51 AM
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence "RCAA" (ACS, 2015 -2019) - Tract 0 - Not a RCAA
RCAA
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
0 0.5
0 0/5
1:72,224
2 mi
3 km
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-21

Figure E-10: RCAA in Hollister and Neighboring Communities - White Majority 1/26/2024, 11:14:58 AM.

City/Town Boundaries
(R) Predominant Population - White Majority Tracts
Slim (gap 50%)
1:72,224
0 0.5 1
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
3 km
Bureau at Land Marragetnerd, Esri, HERE. Ganrun, USGS. EPA, NPS. Earl.

HERE. Garrnin. O onStneeMap contributors, and the GI5 user cornmunitp Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
CA HCR
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-22

Figure E-11: Median Income
1/2612024, 11:23:49 AM
0 City/Town Boundaries
Median_income Tract ACS 2017_2021_ - Median Income (Tract) - ACS (2017-2021) $55,000 - $90,100
S90,100 - $120,000
$120,000 - 5175,000
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
1:72,224
0 0.5 1
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
I
3 km
Bureau of Land Management. Esn, HERE, Garmin, LISGS, EPA, NPS Esri, HERE. Garrnin, Q OpenStreetMap coairibators. and the GIS user cornrnunity Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-23

;

4. Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Regional Opportunity Index (ROI)
The University of California, Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both people and place components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.

The ROI "People" is a relative measure of people's education, economic, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life opportunities and includes the following:
• Education: Assesses people's educational success in the form of higher education, elementary school achievement, and elementary school attendance.
• Economic: Measures a community's economic well-being in the form of employment and income level.
• Housing: Measures a community's relative residential stability, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
• Mobility/Transportation: Assesses a community's relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
• Health/Environment: Measures a community's health, particularly infant, teen, and general health.
• Civic Life: Assesses social and political engagement in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.

Table E-6 below displays opportunity indicators scores based on UC Davis's project. The indicators scores show that Hollister has a lower rate of college educated adults, teacher experience, job availability, vehicle availability, and air quality than the State. Conversely, the City has a higher high school graduation rate, job growth, homeownership rate, and voting rates than the State.

Figure E-12 illustrates the opportunity index scores throughout the region based on people. According to UC Davis, "people" is a relative measure of people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility and transportation, health and environment, and civic life. The City's opportunity index score ranges from "low opportunity" to "moderate to high opportunity." The region to the east of the City generally has higher opportunity indicators.

Figure E-13 also illustrates the opportunity index scores throughout the region based on place. According to UC Davis, "place" is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility and transportation, health and environment, and civic life. The map shows that a majority of the region scored in the low to moderate and lowest opportunity categories. Land north of the City generally has higher "place" opportunities than land towards the south.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-24

Table E-6: Opportunity Indicators, Hollister, and California o
u
V
uJ
W
Race
People
College Educated Adults
Hollister
Score

23.98 California
Score

38.01 Math Proficiency

61.36 70.06
English Proficiency
Elementary Truancy
Place

59.13 64.96

18.79 24.28
High School Graduation Rate
UC/CSU Eligibility
Teacher Experience

88.55 83.08

34.28 41.04

1.94 36.28
High School Discipline Rate
People

5.87 6.4
V
E
o
o
W
Employment Rate

88.59 89.43
Minimum Basic Income

64.90 63.52
Place
Job Availability
436.78
701.75
Job Growth

4.42 2.86
Job Quality

35.44 40.39
Bank Accessibility
People

0.20 0.24
Home Ownership

58.29 54.71
Housing Cost Burden
Place

49.79 51.61
Housing Adequacy

90.50 90.64
Housing Affordability

0.22 0.19
o
2 People
Vehicle Availability

1.31 86.35
Commute Time

52.54 59.91
Internet Access

4.43 4
Health/Environmental
Place
Infant Health

94.92 94.92
Birth to Teens

6.55 6.6
Years of Life Lost

26.20 29.84
Place
Air Quality

5.62 10.01
Prenatal Care

84.22 83.12
Access to Supermarket

39.81 53.28
Health Care Availability

1.31 1.76
v
U
'u
People
Voting Rates

36.84 30.60
English Speakers

86.14 88.11
Place
U.S. Citizenship

80.56 82.55
Neighborhood Stability

80.58 84.94
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014 For more information regarding the data, please visit
https/Linteract .region alcharige ucdavis.edu/rojpownioad pat a1PdiReportDescrptions,pol Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-25

Figure E-12: Regional Opportunity Index: People
Regional Opportunity Index: People, 2014
Descrilation
The Regional Opportunity Index ',ROD: People is a
relative measure of people's assets in education,
the economy,housing, mobility/transportation,
health/environment, and civic life.

Legend
Regional Opportunity Index.: People
SuitLt. data not axariaeIe
t_uwv ©xt Opportunity
dt
pportu nity
Date: 6/7/2 X23
12 https://i nteract_regionakitange,ucdavis.edu/roi/

CENTER FOR REGIONAL CHANGE
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-26

Figure E-13: Regional Opportunity Index: Place
Regional Opportunity Index: Place, 2014
Description
The Regional Opportunity IndexiROI): Place is a
relative measure of an area's assets in education„
the economy, housing. moDility,/tionsportation,
health/environment, and civic life.

Legend
Reganal Opportunity Index: Pile
Same data not avarlaule
Lowest Opportunity
It§gO Ost Opportunity
Date: 6/7/2023
http 51/int eract.regi o nalch an ge, uc d avi s.ed u/re i/ I
mm
12 CENTER FOR REGIONAL CHANGE
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-27

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC/HCD) Opp tunity Area Data HCD together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence -based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals as defined by HCD. The Task Force developed the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task Force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high education attainment, and good physical and mental health.

According to the Task Force's methodology, the tool allocates 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the "Highest Resource" designation and the next 20 percent to the "High Resource" designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total as "Highest" or "High" resource. These two categories are intended to help the State decision -makers identify tracts within each region where research suggests low-income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live —but might, if given choice.

TCAC/HC I I ata — Educational Opportunities
Figure E-14 shows the TCAC Opportunity Composite Scores for the City and surrounding region. As illustrated, the City is categorized as "low", "moderate", "high", and "highest" resource. This is generally consistent with the region. Areas in the south region of the City have the highest resources, areas in the central region of the City have "low", "moderate", and "high" resources, and the northern region has "high resources." Overall, future housing developments within the City will benefit from access to high levels of resources, bringing additional opportunities for future residents. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement.

Figure E-15 shows the TCAC Opportunity Education Scores for the City and surrounding region. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
• Math proficiency — Percentage of fourth graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards. • Reading proficiency — Percentage of fourth graders who meet or exceed reading proficiency standards.
• High school graduation rates — Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on times. • Student poverty rate — Percentage of Students not receiving free or reduced -priced lunch.

As illustrated in Figure E-15, the City has various scores ranging from "less positive education outcomes" to "more positive education outcomes." There is a concentration of "less positive education outcomes" on the east side of the City and a concentration of "more positive education outcomes" on the west side of the City. Opportunity maps of education outcomes display which areas may offer low-income children and adults the best chance at higher educational attainment. Areas with "less positive education outcomes" may have less access to educational opportunities, whereas areas with "high education Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-28

outcomes" may have greater access to educational opportunities. Outside of the City boundaries, there are a range of education scores with higher education scores to the north and lower education scores to the South. Specifically, the Ridgemark neighborhood just south of Hollister consists of "more positive education outcomes."
ROI indicators show Hollister trails the state on college educated adults and teacher experience but exceeds the state in high school graduation. Within the City, prior analysis notes less positive education outcomes on the east side and more positive outcomes in southeastern areas (e.g., Ridgemark vicinity), suggesting an east —west variation in opportunity that is monitored and considered when siting affordable housing and programming resident services.

As analyzed above, the City of Hollister's K-12 outcomes lag state averages on several measures. On the California School Dashboard, district and many Hollister schools score lower than statewide averages in academic indicators, such as ELA and math, and show elevated student needs (higher percentages of students eligible for free/reduced meals and a substantial English -learner population). Hollister High School and other K-8 Hollister schools show lower proficiency in math and below -state performance on some college -readiness measures. These outcomes are correlated with neighborhood differences in income, educational attainment and English -learner concentration. Central and lower -income neighborhoods have higher rates of low-income and English -learner students and correspondingly, lower test -scores and college -readiness metrics, while neighborhoods with higher adult educational attainment show relatively better school outcomes.

An analysis of travel modes and infrastructure shows a contrast in access to schools across Hollister. Many central neighborhoods are within walking distance of schools but may face sidewalk gaps and high -traffic crossings that can potentially limit safe walking and biking. Outer and newer subdivisions are generally farther from existing school sites and may depend on school bus service, but bus eligibility and routes are set by the district. Together, these conditions mean that lower -income central neighborhoods may face safety -related access barriers while some newer neighborhoods face distance -related access barriers, both of which can reduce reliable access to school, after -school programs and school choice. The City and district can address these disparities through targeted sidewalk and safety investments and consideration of school siting in new growth areas. The City will continue to implement capital projects intended to address neighborhood and school safety.

Recent residential growth in Hollister has primarily occurred through larger subdivisions at the City's edges rather than small-scale infill. While the City does not contain a single large master -planned community, newer subdivision areas function as coordinated growth areas with newer infrastructure but are generally located farther from existing school sites. As a result, students in newer neighborhoods typically rely on school bus service or vehicle trips to access schools. In contrast, older central neighborhoods are more closely integrated with established school campuses, offering shorter travel distances but serving higher -need student populations and, in some cases, facing aging pedestrian infrastructure. Schools serving newer areas may show modestly higher performance indicators, reflecting underlying socioeconomic differences, while schools in older neighborhoods serve a more diverse and Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-29

higher -need population. These patterns highlight differing access challenges by neighborhood and underscore the importance of coordinating housing growth, school planning, and transportation investments to ensure equitable access to educational opportunities citywide.

The City will prioritize projects that expand choice east of Memorial Drive while ensuring opportunity rich areas (Downtown, South Planning Area) include deeply affordable units and family units. These priorities are established in Policy Actions H4.1, H4.2, H4.7, and Table 2-1 Fair Housing Actions).

Figure E-16 shows the TCAC Opportunity Economic Scores for the City and surrounding Region. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following five factors:
• Poverty — Percent of population with income above 200 percent of federal poverty line. • Adult Education — Percent of adults with a bachelor's degree or above. • Employment — Percent of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces.
• Job Proximity — Number of jobs filled by workers with less than a Bachelor of Arts degree that fall within a given radius (determined by the typical commute distance of low -wage workers in each region) of each census tract population -weighted centroid. • Median Home Value — Value of owner -occupied units.

As shown in Figure E-16, the City has a mixture of economic outcomes ranging from "less positive economic outcomes" to "more positive economic outcomes." Economic outcomes are related to a census tract's characteristics, such as income or proximity to jobs and resources. These characteristics may influence which areas offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement.

The City has "less positive economic outcomes" within the western region while there are "more positive economic outcomes" in the southeastern and northern regions of the City. Overall, the highest economic outcomes in the region are found to the north of the City and to the southwest. Future development will add to opportunities for existing and future residents.

Figure E-17 shows the Job Proximity scores for the City and the Surrounding Region. Lower scores indicate longer distances between residents and jobs, while higher scores indicate that residents are within close proximity to jobs. Most of the City falls within Block Groups with the "furthest proximity" to jobs.

Although 91.6 percent of jobs in Hollister are within a 1/2 mile of transit, the City's AllTransit score is 2.7/10 and no low-income households live within a 1/2 mile of high frequency, full day transit. This indicates that while proximity exists, service frequency and network performance limit practical access, particularly for low-income workers. SBCOG, the County of San Benito, and the City of Hollister continue to coordinate with San Benito County Express to improve headways and span of service on job access routes serving the City and employment nodes.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-30

San Benito County Express provides fixed route "Tripper" service and dial a ride within Hollister, including access to emergency shelters and key services; fares are $1.00 (adult) and $0.50 (youth/senior/disabled).

Concentrating affordable units near Tripper stops and along 4th Street/San Felipe Road corridors improves reliable access for low-income households. Downtown transit proximity standards already shape SRO feasibility (SROs must be within 1/4 mile of a bus stop), which can be leveraged for affordable microunits. The City will use objective design standards and project conditions to require safe walk access such as lighting, crossings, and ADA curb ramps, between new affordable sites and nearest Tripper stops to enhance connectivity and accessibility.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-31

Figure E-14: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map
1/26/2024, 11:25:20 AM
0 City/Town Boundaries
1:72,224
0 0.5
2 mi
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity Map 2022 - Composite Score (Tract) 0 0.75 Highest Resource
`' High Resource
--� Moderate Resource
---.1 Low Resource
3 km
B neon of Lena Manayenient. E_si, HERE Gamin USGS, EPA, NPS. End HERE. GarrWn c? OpenStreetMap contributors, end the GIS riser community Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-32

Figure E-15: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map - Educational Opportunities 1/26/2024, 11:26:52 AM
City/Town Boundaries
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity Map 2022 - Education Score (Tract) < 0.25 (Less Positive Education Outcomes)
.25 — 0.5

0.5 - 0,75
IIIII .75 — 1 (More Positive Education Outcomes)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
0 0.5
I
© 0.75
1:72,224
2 ml
3 km
Bureau of Land Management. Esd, HERE Ga-min JRGS EPA NPR, Esri HERE. Ganmo, openStreelMap contributors, and the GIS use, community Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-33

Figure E-16: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map - Economic Opportunities 1/26/2024, 11:28:15 AM
(R) COG Geography TCAC Opportunity Map 2022 - Economic Score (Tract) < 0.25 (Less Positive Economic Outcomes)

0.25 - 0,5

0.5 - 0.75
NI .75 — 1 (More Positive Economic Outcomes)
City/Town Boundaries
1:72,224
0 0.5 1
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
t '
3 km
Bureau of Land Management, Esd, HERE.. Garmn, USGS. EPA NPS. Essii.

HERE. Garmin. ;g OpenStreeLM p contributors, and the {;FS user community Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-34

Figure E-17: Job Proximity Index
1/26/2024, 11:29:12 AM
0 City/Town Boundaries
(A) Jobs Proximity Index (HUD, 2014 - 2017) - Block Group 80 (Closest Proximity)
D 0.5
� 1 r
0 D.75
errla
x A ,,,nilr , ils�r
1:72,224
t5
2 mi
3 km
EL.. of Land Murragor,rout. Esri. HERE. Gurruin, USGS. EPA. NPS, Eon, HERE, Garminr. B-, OpenStreelMap contributors. and the GIS user community Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
CA HEP
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-35

Access to Transit
Access to transportation, specifically public transit, provides households with affordable and environmentally friendly commuting options. It can also increase accessibility to essential retail, such as grocers and markets, and recreational activities.

AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) works with data from transit agencies all across the US to compile metrics regarding jobs, economy, equity, health, transit quality, and mobility network. Hollister scored an AllTransit performance score of

2.7 out of 10 possible points, as shown in Figure E-18 illustrating a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible, meaning few people are able to take transit to work. AllTransit takes into consideration proximity to jobs, economy, health, equity, transit quality, and mobility in determining the AllTransit score. Additionally, AllTransit identified the following transit related statistics for Hollister:
• 91.6 percent of all jobs in Hollister are located within half mile of transit. According to AllTransit, approximately 5,164 jobs are located within half mile of transit. Transit options throughout the City include the San Benito County Express that runs through the City. • There are 5,693 customer households within a 30 -minute transit commute of local businesses. • 1.21 percent of workers in Hollister walk to work.
• 0.29 percent of workers in Hollister bike to work.
• No low-income households (earning under $50,000) live within a half a mile of high frequency full - day transit.

Within the City, currently the San Benito County Express provides affordable transportation service to Hollister on an on -call basis. The San Benito County Express also provides intercounty service to Gilroy's Caltrain and Greyhound Stations, and Gavilan College (Gilroy Campus) with connecting service to the Santa Clara VTA Bus System. Table E-7 shows Hollister AllTransit data compared to the County of San Benito. Although Hollister scores higher across most transit categories, a slightly higher percentage (0.53 percent) of commuters in San Benito use transit compared to Hollister (0.44 percent).

Hollister is framed by agricultural lands and foothills and connected regionally by Highways 25 and 156, with 4th Street as a key local transit corridor and the Municipal Airport imposing an Airport Overlay that limits residential use in runway protection and inner approach areas. These geographic/transportation features shape where housing can be built and how residents reach jobs (regional commutes to Silicon Valley/Monterey Bay), which is reflected in the City's low AllTransit score and low Jobs Proximity. Impact Fees may be higher in part because Hollister must help fund Caltrans corridor improvements, illustrating the community's role as a bedroom city —and the equity implications for lower -income commuters who spend more time and money on travel.

Access to transportation options in Hollister varies by neighborhood and is largely influenced by development era, street design, and proximity to activity centers. Walking and bicycling are feasible in many parts of the City, however, the quality and continuity of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure differ Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-36

across neighborhoods. Older, established neighborhoods in the center of the City generally feature shorter block lengths and closer proximity to schools, downtown services, and transit routes, which can support walking for daily needs. In these areas, however, pedestrian infrastructure may be incomplete, with sidewalk gaps, narrower sidewalks, older curb ramps, and limited bicycle facilities, reducing comfort and safety for walking and biking.

Newer subdivisions were constructed to modern standards and typically include continuous sidewalks, updated curb ramps, and traffic -calming features that improve pedestrian safety within neighborhoods.

However, these areas are often located farther from employment centers, schools, and commercial services, making longer walking or bicycling trips less practical and increasing reliance on vehicles, school buses, or transit.

Bicycle infrastructure in Hollister is primarily located along selected arterial and collector roadways and does not form a continuous citywide network. As a result, residents in some neighborhoods have more direct access to designated bicycle facilities, while others rely on shared use of local streets. Overall, differences in access to walking and bicycling options reflect the age and layout of development rather than disparities in basic transportation availability, and the City continues to pursue incremental improvements to expand safe pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout Hollister.

Table E-7: AllTransit Index
Transit Trips Per Commuters
Jurisdiction All Transit Week within Jobs Accessible Who Use Transit Routes Performance 1/2 Mile in 30 -min trip Transit within 1/2 Mile Hollister

2.7 166
5,813

0.44%
3 San Benito
County

1.7 110
4,149

0.53%
2 Source: AIITransit, Transit Scores
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-37

Figure E-18: AllTransit Performance Score - Hollister (2021) Source: AllTransit, 2021
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-38

CalEnvir Scre n Environmental Justice
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethnicities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants.

The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Model is made up of a suite of 20 statewide indicators of pollution burden and population characteristics associated with increased vulnerability to pollution's health effects. The model uses the following analysis and calculation to identify areas of health risk:
• Uses a weighted scoring system to derive average pollution burden and population characteristic scores for each census tract.
• Calculates a final CalEnviroScreen score for a given census tract relative to other tracts by multiplying the pollution burden and population characteristics components together. • Measures the relative pollution burdens and vulnerabilities in once census tract compared to others; the score is not a measure of health risk.

Figure E-19 displays mapped results of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 for the City and surrounding region.

Overall, the City has moderate to high pollution burdens with census tracts near Hollister Municipal Airport and the central region scoring between 61 and 70 percent. The southeast region of the City has lower pollution burdens compared to the rest of the City, and the Ridgemark community just outside of the City's boundaries have the lowest pollution burdens, between 1 and 10 percent. The region surrounding the City primarily contains census tracts that that have moderate to high pollution burdens between 51 and 70 percent. Tables E-8 and E-9 compare two census tracts with the highest and lowest pollution burdens in the City. As detailed, census tract 6069000400 reports a higher pollution burden and is considered moderate on the scale. The diesel particulate matter, cleanup sites, and lead from housing in this census tract is greater than that of census tract 60690000600. Cardiovascular disease rates in both census tracts are high at the 98th percentile.

With respect to environmental vulnerability, some older neighborhoods contain housing that may be more susceptible to environmental damage due to building age, older construction standards, or older infrastructure. These vulnerabilities may include reduced seismic resilience, aging roofing or drainage systems, and limited on -site stormwater management. In contrast, newer subdivisions are constructed to current building codes and generally incorporate improved drainage, fire-resistant materials, and updated design standards that reduce environmental risk.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-39

The City conducts defensible space inspections and fire -safety enforcement in accordance with state and local requirements, particularly in areas near open space or wildfire -prone locations. Additional environmental hazard prevention measures include stormwater system maintenance, drainage improvements identified through capital planning, and public education related to fire safety and emergency preparedness. While FEMAflood hazard areas are limited and mostly located outside the City's boundaries, localized flooding and ponding may occur during intense storm events in areas with older stormwater infrastructure, flatter topography, or lower soil permeability. These conditions are typically addressed through targeted drainage upgrades and maintenance programs identified in the City's capital improvement planning. Overall, environmental risk varies by neighborhood based on development era and infrastructure characteristics, and the City continues to address these conditions through ongoing infrastructure investment and hazard mitigation efforts.

Parks Cos.t As shown in Figures E-21 and E-22, the maps indicate elevated overpayment on the east side near Las Brisas Park and Veterans Memorial Park, highlighting neighborhoods where affordability stress coincides with recreation assets. This suggests that fair housing outcomes can be strengthened by co -locating affordable family housing with park access and coupling it with anti - displacement supports. The City will target voucher outreach and rehabilitation assistance east of Memorial Drive, paired with family unit production near parks (Policy Actions H5.6 and H2.4).

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-40

Figure E-19: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Hollister (2021)
1/26/2024, 11:32:06 AM
City/Town Boundaries
(A) CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021 - Tract
31 -40%
41 - 50%
1 - 10% (Lowest Scores) 51 - 60%
61 -70%
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
21 - 30%
1:72,224
o 0.5 1
I r ,I
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
3 km
Bureau of Land Management, Earl, HERE, Garmin USGS EPA. APS, Earl, HERE. GarmiIn, OpenStreelMan contrihuto^s. and the CIS user community Page E-41

Table E-8: CalEnviroScreen

4.0 — Highest
Scoring Census Tract (6069000400)
Pollutant
Percentile*
Health Risk/Burden
Percentile*
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
68 Pollution Burden
43 Ozone
21 Asthma
73 Particulate Matter 2.5
1 Low Birth Weight
37 Diesel Particulate Matter
78 Cardiovascular Rate
98 Toxic Releases
11 Education
76 Traffic
25 Linguistic Isolation
73 Drinking Water
42 Poverty
68 Lead from Housing
82 Unemployment
65 Cleanup Sites
70 Housing Burden
64 Groundwater Threats
14 -
-
Hazardous Waste
32 -
-
Impaired Water
51 -
-
Solid Waste
53 -
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Table E-9: CalEnviroScreen

4.0 — Lowest Scoring Census Tract (6069000600)
Pollutant
Percentile*
Health Risk/Burden
Percentile*
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
29 Pollution Burden
9 Ozone
21 Asthma
73 Particulate Matter 2.5
1 Low Birth Weight
28 Diesel Particulate Matter
33 Cardiovascular Rate
98 Toxic Releases
10 Education
46 Traffic
15 Linguistic Isolation
62 Drinking Water
50 Poverty
51 Lead from Housing
36 Unemployment
17 Cleanup Sites
58 Housing Burden
16 Groundwater Threats
0 -
-
Hazardous Waste
62 -
-
Impaired Water
51 -
-
Solid Waste
0 -
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Access to parks, outdoor spaces, community amenities, and shopping opportunities in Hollister varies by neighborhood and reflects the City's historical development patterns and recent growth areas. While residents throughout the City have access to high quality public parks and services, proximity, size of facilities, and ease of access differ across neighborhoods. Parks are equitably distributed throughout the City and residents often share their satisfaction with the abundance and quality of Hollister's parks. The City continously improves its parks and cannot identify differences in quality between its parks.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-42

Established and centrally located neighborhoods generally have closer access to community parks, schools with shared recreational facilities, downtown civic amenities, libraries, and public services. These areas benefit from shorter distances to neighborhood parks and community facilities but may rely on older or smaller park spaces that serve multiple surrounding neighborhoods. Newer subdivisions and growth areas, particularly at the City's edges, often include newer neighborhood parks or park dedications constructed as part of development approvals. These parks are typically well integrated into subdivision layouts but may be smaller in scale and primarily serve nearby residents. Larger community parks and regional recreational facilities are less frequently located within newer growth areas, requiring residents to travel longer distances for broader recreational opportunities.

Community amenities such as libraries, civic buildings, schools, and cultural facilities are primarily concentrated in central Hollister. As a result, residents in older neighborhoods generally have more walkable access to these amenities, while residents in newer subdivisions often depend on vehicle trips or transit to reach them. Access to shopping and food retail also varies by location. Central neighborhoods benefit from proximity to downtown businesses, grocery stores, and smaller neighborhood retail, which can support walking or short trips. In contrast, newer residential areas are typically farther from established commercial centers and grocery stores and are more dependent on automobile access. While the City contains multiple grocery stores that serve the broader community, access to healthy food options may be less convenient for households in outer residential areas without reliable transportation.

Overall, differences in access to parks, amenities, and shopping reflect development era and land use patterns rather than exclusion from services. The City continues to plan for equitable access by requiring parkland dedication in new developments, supporting infill and mixed -use development, and improving transportation connections between residential neighborhoods and key community destinations.

5. Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Hollister evaluated existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at risk of converting to market -rate.

Disproportionate housing needs refer to disparities in cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and displacement risk for special needs populations in comparison to the rest of the population. Housing needs are assessed by the HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), based on ACS data.

Housing problems and severe housing problems include the following elements:

Housing Problem Severe Housing Problem
• Incomplete kitchen facilities
• Incomplete plumbing facilities
• 1+ person per room
• Cost burden greater than 30 percent
• Incomplete kitchen facilities
• Incomplete plumbing facilities
• 1.5+ person per room
• Cost burden greater than 50 percent
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per room in a household, and severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates. It also Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-43

occurs when there are not enough size -appropriate housing options for large or multigenerational families.

Table E-10 displays data for overcrowding in the State, County, and City over time. The table shows that the City experiences higher rates of overcrowded households across all categories except severely overcrowded renters. Renter households in Hollister have particularly high overcrowding rates (4.5 percent), compared to the County (3.5 percent) and the State (3.5 percent). Owner households generally report lower overcrowding rates than renter households at the City, County, and State levels. According to the data, Hollister experienced increases for the following overcrowding rates since 2010: severely overcrowded owner households, overcrowded renter households, and severely overcrowded renter households. Figure E-18 also shows areas in the city that are experiencing elevated overcrowding rates.

Households on the western and eastern edges of the City are experiencing elevated overcrowding rates (between 12.01 percent and more than 20 percent) while households in the southeast region and northern region are experiencing lower overcrowding rates.

In 2023, the City opened 225 code enforcement cases and closed 191. Approximately 50 cases involved poor or substandard housing conditions, including illegally converted garages and occupied RVs/trailers — conditions that often correlate with overcrowding and cost pressures. The Policy Plan prioritizes rehabilitation funds to the greatest need areas. Substandard plumbing/kitchen facilities are rare in Hollister (0.1% and 0.6% respectively), but the age of the housing stock and the enforcement data above point to location specific rehabilitation needs not captured in federal datasets alone.

Table E-10: Overcrowding Change Over Time by Geography
Overcrowding
and Tenure City of Hollister San Benito County State of California 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020
Owner Households
Overcrowded (1.01 to 1.5 persons
per room)

2.8%

1.9%

2.5%
L4%

1.8%
L7%
Severely Overcrowded (1.51 or
more persons per room)
<1%

1.3%
<1%
L2%

0.5%

0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded (1.01 to 1.5 persons
per room)

4.4%

4.5%

3.5%

3.5%

3.5%

3.5%
Severely Overcrowded (1.51 or
more persons per room)

1.3%

2.1%

1.2%
L6%

2.2%

2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, 2010 and 2020.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-44

Figure E-20: Overcrowded Households, Hollister
1/26/2024, 11:33:34 AM
0 City/Town Boundaries
(R) Overcrowded Households (CHHS) - Tract
--' ≤ 8,2% (Statewide Average)

8.3% - 12%
"..;:..:..:. .-: 12.01% - 15%
> 20%
1:72,224
D 0.5 1
II
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
r �
3 km
Lf,.reau of Land Management. Esn, HERE. Garmin. USGS, EPA. NPS. Esri.

HERE. Gann GpenSlreeifvlap canInhutors. and the HIS user community Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
CA HCD
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-45

Cost Burden
A household paying more than 30 percent of its income for housing is considered to be cost burdened. A household paying 50 percent or more is considered severely cost burdened. Table E-11 shows that the City generally has lower cost burden rates than the County and State. The City, however, has a higher percentage of owner households (31.5 percent) dedicating more than 30 percent of their income to housing than the County (28.3 percent) and the State (22.2 percent). The data shows that owner households in Hollister are experience higher cost burdens than renters. Since 2010, owner households have seen a decrease in cost burden rates while renters have seen an increase in cost burden rates, underscoring renter vulnerability. The City will target voucher utilization and landlord outreach in higher opportunity tracts while aiming to expand rent restricted family units in areas with high renter burden (Table 2 -1; Policy H5.6).

Table E-11: Cost Burden Change Over Time by Geography (2017-2019) Overpayment/ Cost Burden
Owner
Cost Burden >30%
City of Hollister San Benito County State of California 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020

34.1%

31.5%

34.1%

28.3%

29.2%

22.2%
Cost Burden >50%

25.6%

12.7%

25.9%

14.4%

22.9%

15.7%
No Cost Burden

39.7%

55.3%

39.3%

56.9%

47.4%

61.6%
Not Computed
30%

5.3%

5.8%
53%

11.3%

8.1%

7.8%
Cost Burden >50%

1.2%

5.0%

6.0%

6.6%

6.4%

7.2%
No Cost Burden
93A%

88.3%

88.3%

81.3%

84.3%

83.6%
Not Computed
Source: American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, 2010 and 2020. 0%
<1%
<1%
<1%

1.1%

1.3%
Figures E-21 and E-22 illustrate overpayment for homeowners and renters throughout the City and neighboring communities. Homeowners in the eastern, western, and southern regions of the City have higher overpayment rates, while the central and northern regions have lower overpayment rates. Renters have especially high overpayment rates on the east side of Hollister near Las Brisas Park and Veterans Memorial Park. Renters in the western portion of the City are also experiencing moderate to high overpayment rates.

With respect to housing availability, certain types of housing are limited citywide. Smaller multifamily developments, entry-level ownership housing, and housing affordable to lower- and moderate -income households are less prevalent, particularly in newer subdivisions, which are dominated by single-family detached homes. Manufactured housing, ADUs, and smaller rental units are more commonly found in older neighborhoods, while newer areas generally offer fewer options for these housing types. Overall, differences in housing types and costs across neighborhoods reflect development era, zoning patterns, and market conditions rather than intentional exclusion, and the City continues to pursue policies to diversify housing opportunities across all areas.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-46

Housing prices and rents in newer subdivisions are generally higher than in older neighborhoods, reflecting newer construction, larger home sizes, and higher development costs. These newer areas are typically located farther from downtown, transit, and community amenities, while older neighborhoods offer more central locations and greater proximity to services but include older housing stock with more variable conditions and lower average rents and home values.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-47

Figure E-21: Overpayment by Homeowners, Hollister
a , . ) ;"WW1
payment by Ho l leovmets SAC S.. 2017-20.21) Tract
8(Y
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-48

Figure E-22: Overpayment by Renters, Hollister
-141
C)v rpavniern" b Reified (ACS 'U21 - Tract
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-49

Substandard Housing
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.

Substandard housing is defined by the U.S. Census as:
• Housing without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower; and • Households with kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator.

Table E-12 below shows substandard housing within the City, County, and State. The City is tied with the County with the lowest percentage of occupied housing units without plumbing facilities at 0.1 percent.

The City also saw the largest decrease in occupied without complete kitchen facilities from 2010 (1.3%) to 2020 (0.6%). The County also saw a decrease in occupied housing units without plumbing and kitchen facilities from 2010 to 2020. The State has remained relatively unchanged since 2010 in this regard.

Table E-12: Substandard
Housing Over Time by Geography
Factors
City of
2010
Hollister
2020
San Benito
2010
County
2020
State of
2010
California
2020
Total Occupied
Housing Units
10,586
11,438
16,812
18,389
12,807,387
13,103,114
Without Complete
Plumbing Facilities
o

0.3%
a

0.1%
o

0.3%
0 0.1%
0 0.4%
0 0.4%
Without Complete
Kitchen Facilities

1.3%

0.6%

0.9%

0.3%

1.2%

1.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, 2020 The current distribution of the age of homes in Hollister shows that more than 60 percent of the homes in the City were built prior to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which may result in a lack of accessible homes for those residents with a disability. The City's older housing stock also reflects a rapidly growing need to rehabilitate housing to meet minimum livability and quality requirements, which is a barrier to many homeowners and residents in the City who have a lower income or fixed income.

Over the past decade, residential development in Hollister has primarily occurred through new subdivisions at the City's periphery rather than through large-scale infill in established neighborhoods.

These newer subdivisions generally feature single-family detached homes on small to moderate -sized lots, consistent with contemporary development patterns and zoning standards. Lot sizes in recent developments are typically smaller than those found in older neighborhoods developed prior to the 1980s, reflecting changes in market demand, land costs, and subdivision design practices.

Compared to older areas of the City, newer subdivisions were constructed with modern infrastructure, including continuous sidewalks, updated street lighting, storm drainage, and utility systems. While Hollister does not contain a single large master -planned community with integrated commercial, civic, and school facilities, recent subdivisions function as coordinated growth areas with newer infrastructure but rely on existing off -site amenities and services. New homes in new neighborhoods often experience lower rates of substandard conditions.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-50

Displacement I sk
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower -income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley's Urban Displacement Project (UDP) states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low-income residents was above 20% in 2018 and the census tracts meets two of the following criteria:
(1) Share of renters above 40% in 2018; (2) Share of Non -White population above 50% in 2018; (3) Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2018; or (4) Nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures.

The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunities. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.

Housing costs in Hollister have increased over time, consistent with broader regional trends affecting inland and coastal -adjacent communities. Increases in rents and home sale prices have occurred citywide, with greater impacts in newer subdivisions at the City's edges and in centrally located neighborhoods experiencing reinvestment and housing turnover. While rising costs may contribute to housing instability for lower -income households, particularly renters, the City is not aware of neighborhood -specific displacement events or widespread evictions directly attributable to local policy actions, development or redevelopment projects. No major public infrastructure projects, urban renewal programs, or large-scale redevelopment initiatives have occurred in recent years that resulted in documented or known displacement of residents. Housing turnover appears to be driven primarily by market forces rather than local events or actions.

The U.C. Berkeley Urban Displacement Project developed a neighborhood change database to map neighborhood transformations and identify areas vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. This data was developed to assist local decision -makers and stakeholders to better plan for existing communities and provide additional resources to areas in need or at risk of displacement and gentrification.

Figure E-23 shows Census Tract 06069000702 (on the south edge of the City) and Census Tract 06069000400 (in the central part of the City) are both "At Risk of Displacement." Table E-13 identifies demographics for these two Census Tracts.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-51

Table E-13:

Areas At -Risk of Displacement
(2022)
Data
Census Tract 06069000702
Census Tract 06069000400 City -Wide
Demographics
.. ....
5,416
6,348
41,678
Population
Households
1,839
1,959
11,438
Renter Occupied

45.5%

54.7%

37.5%
Median Income
$89,281
$64,225
$80,670
Low -Income Households

40.5%

55.3%

41.8%
Speak English Less Than Very Well

10.3%

23.2%

19.7%1
Race/Ethnicity:

Latino -White
White

35.3%

22.8%

23.0%
Black

0.9%

0.3%

0.7%
Asian

5.4%
°

0.1/°
°

3.7/0
LatinX

55.0%

75.1%

68.9%
Other

3.4%

1.7%

3.7%
Housing
Median Rent
$1,484
$1,386
$1,505
Rent Gap
Tract is $44.77 lower than
nearby rents
Tract rent is $210.79 lower
than nearby
Hot Market2
No
Yes
-
Displacement Type
Elevated displacement for
very low-income households
(0% - 50% AMI)
At -risk of displacement
-

1. Average of City of Hollister census tracts.

2. "Hot market" is an indicator noted in HCD's AFFH Data Viewer. UC Berkeley's Urban Displacement Project refers to the term when a tract has experienced above regional median percent change in housing values or rents (otherwise known as a "hot market").

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development — AFFH Data Viewer Census Tract 06069000400 (shown in Figure E-23) includes the largest population of individuals who speak English "less than well," as well as a greater ratio of low-income households. Diversity across the City is fairly similar to that reported in the census tracts, aside from a higher percentage of the White population in census tract 06069000702. Census Tract 06069000400, which is identified as a "hot market," is currently at risk of displacing very low-income households; while the area offers lower median rents than census tract 06069000702 and the City as a whole, very low-income households are being priced out of the area and may need additional assistance to avoid displacement. The City is actively assisting in furthering the development of affordable housing and providing resources for the community and residents in need in these areas; additional information is provided in the Candidate Sites Analysis and Housing Resources appendices.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-52

Figure E-23: Displacement and Gentrification Around Hollister Region (2021) 1/26/2024, 11:38:47 AM
(R) Estimated Displacement Risk - Overall Displacement (UCB, Urban Displacement Project 2022) Lower Displacement Risk
• At Risk of Displacement
L=J City/Town Boundaries
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, HCD
1:72,224
0 0.5
t
i
0 0.75 1.5
2 mi
3 km
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-53

In addition to displacement and gentrification data, the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project also analyzes the occurrence of anti -displacement policies, as defined below:
• Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Just cause eviction statutes are laws that allow tenants to be evicted only for specific reasons. These "just causes" can include a failure to pay rent or violation of the lease terms.
• Rent Stabilization or Rent Control. Rent Control ordinances protect tenants from excessive rent increases, while allowing landlords a reasonable return on their investments. Such ordinances limit rent increase to certain percentages, but State law allows landlords to raise rents to the market rate once the unit becomes vacant.
• Rent Review Board and/or Mediation. Rent review boards mediate between tenants and landlords on issues related to rent increases and encourage them to come into voluntary agreement. As mediators, the board normally does not make binding decisions. • Mobile Home Rent Control. Mobile home rent control places specific rent increase restrictions on the land rented by mobile homeowners, or the mobile homes themselves. • SRO (Single -Room Occupancy) Preservation. Single room occupancies, also called residential hotels, house one or two people in individual rooms. Tenants typically share bathrooms and/or kitchens. These are often considered a form of permanent residence affordable for low-income individuals. SRO Preservation Ordinances help to preserve or create new SRO units. • Condominium Conversion Regulations. In addition to state laws regulating the conversion of mufti -family rental property into condominiums, many cities have enacted condominium conversion ordinances. These impose procedural restrictions and/or substantive restrictions on the ability to convert apartment units into condominiums to protect the supply of rental housing. • Foreclosure Assistance. Many cities and counties have local programs that assist homeowners when they are at risk of foreclosure. These programs may be funded with federal grants. • Jobs -Housing Linkage Fee or Affordable Housing Impact/Linkage Fee. Affordable housing impact/linkage fees are charges on developers of new market -rate residential developments.

They are based on the square footage or number of units in the developments and are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
• Commercial Linkage Fee/Program. Commercial linkage fees are charged to developers per square foot of new commercial development. Revenues are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
• Housing Trust Fund. A housing trust fund is a designated source of public funds —generated through various means —that is dedicated to creating affordable housing. • Inclusionary Zoning/Housing (Below Market Rate Housing). Inclusionary housing policies require market -rate developers of rental or for -sale housing to rent or sell a certain percentage of units at affordable prices. Some policies include a provision for developers to pay "in -lieu fees" in place of building the housing; this revenue is used to develop affordable units elsewhere. • Density Bonus Ordinance. Density bonuses allow developers of market -rate housing to build higher -density housing, in exchange for having a certain portion of their units offered at affordable prices. In this inventory, we only include a city as having this policy if they allow an additional density bonus beyond that mandated by the State.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-54

• Community Land Trusts. Community land trusts are nonprofit, community -based organizations whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land.
• First Source Hiring Ordinances. First Source hiring ordinances ensure that residents are given priority for new jobs created by municipal financing and development programs.

The City currently has Condominium Conversion Regulations in place as anti -displacement policies.

Units s t ..Ris ski, v. U 'A 2-�u.'a a.... � ,..., 3. ., ¢�-,�a '!' e Rate Hollister is required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government -assisted housing that is at risk of converting to market rate housing for ten years from the start of the planning period. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions.

Affordability covenants ensure that certain housing units remain affordable for an extended period of time. Covenants contribute to a more balanced housing market in a community and preserve additional affordable options to lower -income households. This section provides:
• An inventory of assisted housing units
• Identification of assisted units at risk of converting to market -rate housing in a 10 -year period from the start of the Housing Element planning period,
• Analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing these units, • Resources available to preserve at -risk units,
• Program efforts for preservation of at -risk housing units, and • Quantified objectives for the number of at -risk units to be preserved during the Housing Element planning period.

Table E-15 identifies deed -restricted, assisted rental properties within Hollister. There are 157 restricted homeownership units at -risk of converting from affordable to market -rate units between 2023 and 2031.

No rental restricted units are at -risk of converting. The City is committed to working with property owners and utilizing appropriate funds, as available, to review covenants set to expire for renewal.

Notably, assisted units are scattered across the City with no clear concentration in any quadrant of the City, though there are clusters of assisted units in the central and downtown areas. Multiple assisted properties are in, or adjacent to central and downtown neighborhoods (Vista Meadows, Park Street, the Prospect Villa cluster, Villa Luna are all in this part of the city). This represents notable clusters, but not a concentration of assisted units. There is a second, smaller cluster of assisted housing in the west side of the City (Westside Terrace and units near Nash Rd). The remainder of assisted properties are scattered, so while there are clusters (central and west), assisted housing is not only in a single neighborhood and this would not be categorized as true concentration.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-55

Table
Project Name
Senior and Disabled
Senior Sunrise
Apartments
560 Line Street
E-15: Assisted
Total
Units
49 Affordable
Assisted
Units
48 Housing
Type
Senior
and At -Risk Units
Financing
Program
LIHTC
in Hollister
Owner/
Operator
CHISPA, Inc.

Expiration
2071
Vista Meadows
108 E. Park Street
72 71
Senior
LIHTC
MidPen
Housing
2065
Prospect Villa
Apartments
998 Prospect Avenue
14 14
Senior/
Disability
LIHTC, Section
515 Rural Rental
Housing Program
AWI
Management
Corporation
2039
Prospect Ave
Apartments
190 E. Park Street
20 20
Senior/
Disability
Section 515 Rural
Housing
CBM Group,
Inc.
2041
Prospect Villa II
Apartments
970 Prospect Avenue
42 42
Senior/
Disability
LIHTC, Section
515 Rural Housing
CBM Group,
Inc.
2047
Prospect Villa III
Apartments
960 Prospect Ave
30 29
Senior/
Disability
LIHTC, Section
515 Rural Housing
CBM Group,
Inc.
2050
TOTAL
227
224
Income Based Rental
Gateway Palms
Apartments
355 Westside Blvd
31 30
Family
LIHTC
Eden Housing
2066
Buena Vista
890 Buena Vista Road
41 40
Family
LIHTC
CHISPA, Inc.
2069
Lado Del Rio
900 Del Rio Road
42 41
Family
LIHTC, Section
515 Rural Rental
Housing Program
CBM Group,
Inc.
2059
Park Street
110 East Park Street
40 40
Family
Section 515 Rural
Rental Housing
Program
Hollister
Investment
Group
2037
Westside Terrace
Apartments
1350 Westside Blvd
16 16
Family
Section 514 Off - Eden
Farm
Housing
2048
Villa Luna Apartments
850 Hillcrest Rd
116
48 Family
LMSA
Cesar Chavez
Foundation
2046
Rustic Gardens
Apartments
190 Sierra Court
19 19
Family
Eden Housing
2048
Rancho Park
1200 Rancho Drive
73 71
Family

LIHTC, RHCP
Eden Housing
2070
East Street
Apartments
35 East Street
6 6
Family
HOME
Community
Services
Development
Corporation
2056
Seventh Street
Apartments
632-646 Seventh
6 6
Family
HOME
Community
Services
Development
2056
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-56

Street
Corporation
Rustic Street Mobile
Homes
41 and 51 Rustic
Street
10 10
Family
RDA Loan
Community
Services
Development
Corporation
2041*
9 Rustic
9 Rustic Street
7 7
Family
RDA Loan
Community
Services
Development
Corporation
2041*
TOTAL
407
334
Agricultural Worker
Vista de Oro
1480 San Juan Road
80 79
Family
LIHTC, Section
514 Off -Farm
The Pacific
Companies
2074
TOTAL
80 79

RAND TOTAL
*Despite the expiration date within the next Planning Cycle, the developers intend to continue affordability and do not plan on converting the units to market rate.

Source: City of Hollister. Affordable Housing Map and Benefits Calculator, California Housing Partnership. sources
While there are a few options to preserve at -risk units including providing financial incentives to property owners to extend lower income use restrictions in exchange for City loan extensions, purchase of affordable housing units by a non-profit or public agency, or providing federal, State, or local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units, the City typically has been extending existing loans in exchange for an extended affordability use restriction.

The City can also consider the cost of rehabilitating the units or replacing the units with new constructions, especially if new zoning is in place that could allow for increased density. A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at -risk affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available:
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) — CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate -income persons. Eligible activities include administration, fair housing, energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements, and public services. • HOME Investment Partnership — Local jurisdictions can receive funds by formula from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower -income households.

Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance.
• Section 8 Rental Assistance Program — The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market -rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants, senior citizens, disabled persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing. • Section 202/811 — Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no -interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 Program for construction of very low- income rental housing with the availability of supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Page E-57

funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811 funds, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities, and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properties developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance. • California Housing Finance Agency (CALFHA) Multifamily Programs — The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multi -family affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
• California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) — The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multi -family affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
• Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) — This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
• Affordable Housing Ordinances —The City's Affordable Housing Ordinance requires a percentage of new homes and those where the developer and/or buyer received a City subsidy be affordable for very low to above moderate -income households. These homes are part of the City's Affordable Housing Program and may also be referred to as inclusionary or deed restricted units.

Li'
4 Entities to Preserve
The following organizations have the experience and capacity to potentially assist in preserving units at risk of converting to market -rate, as well as developing additional affordable units:
• Community Services Development • Santa Cruz Housing Authority Corporation • MidPen Housing
• Eden Housing • CHISPA, Inc.
• Cesar Chavez Foundation
State law requires that jurisdictions establish the maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. The City's goal is to preserve as many affordable units as possible, depending on available financing and owner willingness.

C. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing

1. Background
Hollister is the largest city in San Benito County with a population of 43,346. The City was established by farmers in 1872 and has grown into a thriving community of independence and charm. Hollister is located in central California and encircled almost entirely by agricultural land, hills, and mountains. The City is nestled in a small valley less than an hour from Silicon Valley and is considered the gateway to Pinnacles Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-58

National Park. The City is an ideal location for outdoor exploration and appreciation of nature. Although the City is growing quickly, it maintains the beauties and comforts of a small town, making it an ideal place to call home.

Hollister's land use pattern is shaped primarily by its flat valley topography, major roadway corridors, and historical development patterns rather than by significant natural barriers. The City is generally characterized by level terrain, which has facilitated outward residential growth and relatively uniform development across large portions of the City.

Major transportation corridors, including State Route 25 and key arterial roadways, function as organizing elements for land use and circulation. These corridors support regional connectivity and commercial, influencing traffic patterns, access to services, and development intensity. Though Hollister has a railroad corridor near downtown that is utilized part of the year by the industrial cannery, development patterns on either side of the railroad and access to services and employment centers across the rail line are generally consistent, and the railroad corridor would not be considered to bisect any existing residential neighborhoods. Additionally, no major waterways or steep topographic features act as hard barriers to development. As a result, socio-economic patterns are less strongly shaped by physical separation than in Cities with freeways, rail lines, or waterways dividing neighborhoods.

Differences in socio-economic patterns within the City are more closely associated with the age of development, housing type, and location relative to downtown and employment centers. Older, centrally located neighborhoods generally include a greater mix of housing types, lower housing costs, and higher renter concentrations, while newer subdivisions at the City's edges tend to consist primarily of single- family housing with higher prices and greater automobile dependence.

Overall, while major roadways influence land use organization and access, Hollister's relatively flat topography and absence of major physical barriers have allowed development patterns to evolve incrementally over time. Socio-economic differences across neighborhoods reflect development era and market conditions rather than physical isolation or exclusion caused by topographic or infrastructure barriers.

2. Historical Background
A vital part of the community is the rich cultural history of Hollister. This history is evident in the architecture of its homes throughout downtown Hollister. Due to increase in development at various times such as the late 19th century and WWII, architectural styles in the City range from Craftsman, Neo- Classical Revival, Mission, Period, and Tudor among many others. As a result of the City's efforts in preserving and nurturing its history, it has become a popular tourist destination.

The modern history of Hollister can be traced back to 1853, when Colonel W.W. Hollister became one of the first men to drive a flock of sheep across the continent. Upon reaching the West, he acquired Spanish Land Grants in what is now San Benito and Santa Barbara Counties. The San Justo Homestead Association of farmers formed the town of Hollister in 1868 and incorporated into the City of Hollister in 1872. The City was established on the former Mexican land-grant Rancho San Justo. At the time, Hollister was Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PageadO639of 1664

located within Monterey County, until San Benito County was formed by the California Legislature in 1874 from portions of Monterey, Merced, and Santa Cruz counties. The original subdivision divided the town into 50 homestead lots, where downtown Hollister is located today. Approximately 12,000 acres were divided into 50 homestead lots of about 172 acres each; about 100 acres were reserved for the town itself and were bounded by North, East, West and South streets. About 8,500 acres were reserved for future sale and the remaining property was parceled out and sold as farm units. Since then, Hollister has continuously grown in size, both geographically and by population. In 1980, the census figures put the population of Hollister at 11,488. Hollister has more than tripled its population within the last quarter century.

Hollister is historically well-known for its agricultural and ranching history. Throughout the 1900's, a series of land annexations occurred in order to meet the demands of the growing population. Much of today's historic housing stock within the City belongs to the period following the turn of the century when farmers began to subdivide their land for residential development. This development created a modest housing stock directed towards middle-class residents. Like many cities in California, Hollister witnessed rapid population growth during the post -World War II era. In addition to rapid population growth, the town reacted similarly to the rest of nation's demand for housing by selling parcels of agricultural land that had diminished in value for the construction of more single-family homes. The significant amount of new development has resulted in the loss of agricultural land and has created severe constraints upon the City's infrastructure.

Developers in the City have developed almost exclusively single-family homes throughout the City's history. Many "legacy" housing developers continue to develop in the City and have been reluctant to offer varied housing types. As analyzed in the "Summary of Fair Housing Analysis" section below, the City has received community feedback citing a lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.

The housing market in the City has been historically geared towards single-family homes, and according to ACS 2021 data, approximately 8L5 percent of Hollister's housing units are detached single-family residences. The City is committed to updating its Municipal Code to facilitate strategic growth through higher density development in targeted areas of the City. This effort is intended to shift away from past development trends and transition into a new phase of Hollister's history.

Historical events have directly impacted development trends in Hollister and the region. The City bought the Hollister Water Company which facilitated growth within the City post -World War II. Infrastructure constraints have limited growth within the City throughout its history. Though infrastructure constraints have created challenges for growth, the City experienced consistent growth.

On October 17, 1989, the 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake shook the Bay Area and Central Coast, causing massive destruction in Hollister. No Hollister residents were killed in the quake, but the City was forever changed. The aftermath of the earthquake could still be seen in Hollister's downtown core until recently, where the previously vacant lot known as the 400 Block sat untouched for over 30 years. The lot was home to several businesses before the earthquake, but was destroyed as a result of the earthquake and remained vacant for three decades until it was redeveloped into a mixed -use development.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Pagead0b1 e f 1664

Like many California cities, Hollister's unreinforced masonry buildings fared the worst. The City is situated at the end of the Calaveras fault and close to the San Andreas Fault, which sent shock waves north and south from Loma Prieta in the Santa Cruz Mountains when it shifted in 1989. The 1989 earthquake caused an estimated $100 million worth of damage in San Benito County. In downtown Hollister, nine buildings were damaged and 15 businesses suffered losses. All were repaired or demolished. The downtown was also affected by fires in the years following the earthquake in some of the vacant spaces. The aftermath of the quake left broken water lines that flooded downtown streets, and homes knocked off foundations.

Residents in San Benito were without power for two days. Since then, the County has established a disaster response unit to limit the effects of a similar natural disaster. City officials and property owners quickly began rebuilding efforts after the earthquake. The rebuilding efforts in the early 1990s were successful; from 1994 to 1997, 90 percent of the storefronts in downtown Hollister were occupied. The 1989 earthquake had lasting effects on infrastructure, and the City saw average decrease in residential development throughout the 1990s as a direct result of the earthquake.

Just as the City was recovering from the 1989 earthquake, population changes in the Bay Area spilled over into San Benito County and the City of Hollister. Beginning in the mid -1990s, the "dot-com boom" changed the real estate market and local economy of the greater Bay Area region. As the internet became more widely adopted, many internet-based startup companies began establishing themselves in the Bay Area.

As the valuation of startups increased, so did the interest in real estate within the region. The City of Hollister experienced a small influx of higher -income households and an overall increase in housing costs as a result of various factors, including the "dot-com boom". Similarly, the City experienced a significant surge in housing costs during the COVID-19 pandemic. As employers transitioned to fully -remote work, households moved away from higher -cost cities in the Bay Area into lower cost communities such as Hollister. The influx of higher -income households, combined with lower interest rates, influenced the significant increase of housing costs throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

One of the most significant factors influencing development in Hollister within the last two decades are the various growth management practices placed on the City, initiated by voters, and adopted by the City.

On May 4, 2002, there was a 15 -million -gallon sewage spill at the City's wastewater treatment plant. In response, the Regional Water Quality Control Board imposed a building moratorium on the City until a new treatment plant was completed. On November 5, 2002, Hollister voters passed Measure U which set a residential growth limit of 244 units per year. In order to codify the voter -approved initiative, the Hollister City Council adopted an ordinance enacting the City's Growth Management Program.

The City's new wastewater treatment plant was completed, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board imposed building moratorium was lifted but development was still constrained by Measure U. Upon expiration of Measure U, the City readopted and modified the existing Growth Management Program to exempt very low- and lower -income affordable housing units and new dwelling units.

In 2019, the City Council passed amendments to the General Plan and Code of Ordinances Title 16, Section

16.64, Growth Management Program via Ordinance 1183 to establish a residential growth limit of 159 units per year. In the event that a future Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Pagead06-Zvf 1664

exceeded the five-year growth limit of 795 units for above moderate -income housing, the established Growth Limit would have increased to ensure compliance with the City's RHNA obligation. The amendments included exemptions that would not inhibit the construction of affordable housing projects in the City, compliant with State law at the time. The growth limits were set to expire upon adoption of an updated Housing Element anticipated in 2023. However, City Council suspended the ordinance in response to a 2020 letter from HCD which stated the growth cap was in violation of State law and SB 330.

A combination of the building moratorium and the City's Growth Management Program decreased housing growth in the City from 2001 to approximately 2020; the City is now committed to pivoting away from past development trends and transitioning into a new phase of Hollister's history.

Though housing growth decreased in the early 2000s as compared to previous decades, Hollister has been one of the fastest growing communities in California during the past decade and still maintains the quality of living that has attracted residents. Through natural disasters and tough economic times, the City of Hollister has shown resilience and will continue to provide current and future residents opportunities to thrive.

3. Investments
Capital Improvement Projects Program 2017-2022
The City evaluates infrastructure conditions and capital needs through its Capital Improvement Program, General Plan elements, and utility master planning documents. These engineering assessments identify differing types of capital improvement needs across the City, largely reflecting the age of development rather than differences in service availability. Older, established neighborhoods generally require sidewalk infill, ADA curb ramp upgrades, pavement rehabilitation, and storm drainage retrofits, while newer subdivisions were constructed to modern standards and focus primarily on growth -related roadway and utility improvements. Water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems are planned and operated on a citywide basis and do not exhibit systematic differences in access or reliability between neighborhoods.

Overall, the City's capital improvement planning process prioritizes projects based on safety, system condition, and performance, supporting equitable infrastructure investment and the accommodation of existing and future housing citywide.

The City maintains a mix of roadway conditions that generally reflect the age and design standards of surrounding development. Major arterials and collectors are paved, striped, and signalized where warranted, and traffic signals are present at key intersections throughout the City. Street lighting is provided along most arterial and collector roadways and within many residential neighborhoods, though lighting levels and fixture types vary, particularly between older and newer areas of the City.

A 2021 Pavement Condition Evaluation (PCE) found that the City's roadway network is in "Satisfactory" condition with an overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) value of 74. Approximately 23 percent of roads at the time were in "Poor" or worse condition, with a majority of those segments being located in the central area of the City. Since 2021, the City has improved virtually all segments that were in "Poor" or worse condition, and continues to improve the remaining segments.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Paglsa{10b$2f 1664

Older, established neighborhoods typically include narrower local streets and, in some locations, discontinuous sidewalks, limited bicycle facilities, and older street lighting infrastructure. These areas are often prioritized for pavement rehabilitation, sidewalk infill, curb ramp upgrades, and safety improvements through the City's Capital Improvement Program.

Newer subdivisions and growth areas at the City's edges were constructed to modern standards and generally feature wider streets, continuous sidewalks, updated street lighting, traffic calming features, and improved storm drainage. These areas are more likely to include striped bicycle lanes on adjacent collector or arterial streets, though the citywide bicycle network remains limited and continues to be expanded incrementally.

Overall, the City's roadway system provides adequate access throughout Hollister, with ongoing investments focused on improving pavement conditions, pedestrian safety, bicycle connectivity, and intersection operations across all neighborhoods. Differences in roadway features primarily reflect development era rather than disparities in access to transportation infrastructure.

The City defined a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) as any major improvement to City facilities or infrastructure. A CIP project must meet the criteria of a capital asset, which requires a cost of at least $20,000.

Recent priorities include West Gateway Beautification ($670,000), a Road Rehabilitation Program (approximately $1.7 million, bathroom installation at Valley View Park, Calaveras Park bathroom refurbishments, and a full renovation of McCarthy Park. These projects show targeted investments in the Downtown/West Gateway corridors and in specific park -serving neighborhoods, alongside citywide roadway maintenance. A 2019 development fee study also found several impact fee categories (e.g., parks, drainage, water) were not sufficient, and fees were increased; traffic impact fees are comparatively higher than some neighbors because Hollister must share costs for Highway 25/156 widening that serves regional commuters. Together, these point to active reinvestment and to corridor -level focus (West Gateway) that benefits adjacent neighborhoods.

Capital Project Funds account for resources used for the acquisition and construction of capital facilities by the City or the City's Enterprise Funds. Proposed Capital Improvement Projects are measured against an established set of criteria, which helps to determine project order in the five-year program. The criteria include consideration of health and safety issues, mandated projects, City Council goals, projects identified in master plans, funding availability and constraints, asset conditions and upgrades to increase longevity, project readiness and opportunities to bundle improvements, and identified opportunities for ongoing service enhancements, operational efficiencies, or future reduced costs resulting in long-term savings. The following are examples of CIPs throughout the City that have been prioritized in the five-year program:
• Bathroom installation at Valley View Park - $250,000
• Calaveras Park Refurbish bathrooms - $50,000
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Pagead06$3)f 1664

• McCarthy Park complete refurbishment
• West Gateway Beautification - $670,000
• Road Rehabilitation Program - $1.7 million
Major corridors such as San Felipe Rd, San Juan Rd, and Highway 156 structure retail and employment access and rezone opportunities (North/West Gateway mixed use), while water service split between the City and Sunnyslope CWD influences infrastructure phasing for infill projects.

4. Summary of Fair Housing Analysis
The City of Hollister is identified as a low to high resource area with a need for increased economic, civil life, health, affordable housing, and transit opportunities and access. Aside from an area of low-income households, the existing demographic of the community of Hollister consists of moderate- to high- income residents. The City is committed to creating channels that allow residents in surrounding communities to live or work in Hollister.

There are no racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) within Hollister identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This indicates that there are no census tracts within the City with a non-white population of 50 percent or more or any census tracts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three or more time the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area.

The City provides low to moderate transit trip opportunities. According to AllTransit, Hollister scored a 2.7 performance score, illustrating a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work. Hollister also scored low on the Jobs Proximity Index which means residents in the City are the furthest proximity from jobs.

The following lists a number of contributing factors to fair housing issues within the City of Hollister:

Disparities in Access to Public Transportation — As detailed above, Hollister scored a 2.7 AllTransit performance score, illustrating a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work. Hollister also scored low on the Jobs Proximity Index which means residents in the City are the furthest proximity from jobs. Access to transportation, specifically public transit, provides households with affordable and environmentally friendly commuting options — it is especially vital for low-income households. It can also increase accessibility to essential retail, such as grocers and markets, and recreational activities.

Lack of Infrastructure Due to Environmental Hazards — As discussed in Appendix C: Housing Constraints, earthquakes pose the greatest potential for far-reaching loss of life or property. Hollister is located within a 5 -mile radius of at least four major seismic faults and fault systems. The City also faces flood hazards along two existing creeks, Santa Ana Creek and San Benito River, which are included as flood hazard areas Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing PagleadONcf 1664

on existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps (Shown in Figure C-3: FEMA Flood Zones). The hazards create environmental constraints to the development of housing in the City.

Lack of Clarity with Assistance Programs and Affordable Housing — The City's website does not readily provide a list of active housing programs that assist low- and moderate- income prospective residents.

The City lacks a complete list of affordable housing units in the City and instead refers residents to the Santa Cruz Housing Authority which manages the City's Section 8 housing. Because the process and availability of assistance programs and affordable housing options are not clear, it might discourage prospective residents from attempting to navigate the process.

Lending Discrimination — As detailed earlier in this Appendix, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development determined that a group of California mortgage lenders discriminated against a Hispanic man in 2016 due to his national origin. The complaint was made against mortgage lenders American Financial Network, Benchmark Communities, and Brigantino Enterprise. As result of the investigation, American Financial Network agreed to pay the man $5,000 in a settlement and agreed to incorporate annual fair housing training for their employees. The City must continue to build partnerships with enforcement groups that can prevent this discrimination against residents and prospective residents.

Lack of Affordable, Accessible Housing in a Range of Unit Sizes — The City has not received many applications for affordable, multi -family housing projects. The housing market is currently geared towards single-family homes as households from the Bay Area move into the City due to remote jobs and cheaper housing costs. According to ACS 2021 data, approximately 81.5 percent of Hollister's housing units are detached single-family residences, while 14.3 percent are multi -family residences. In 2021, the median household income in Hollister was $87,761, while the average home value was $758,186. Given the current housing market trends, lower income households may feel at -risk of displacement. The City is currently updating its land use, specifically revitalizing the Downtown area to build affordable, multi- family housing. Revitalization of the Downtown area can increase a variety of housing opportunities for existing low-income households to prevent displacement.

Recent entitlements and pipeline activity demonstrate a pivot to infill and mixed -use in the Downtown Mixed -Use (DMU) and West Gateway (WG) areas. Building permit data (2015-2022) shows significant single-family production and emerging multifamily/ADU activity. The City's switch from net to gross density will reduce under -building and ensure minimum densities are met. Corridor amenity investments (e.g., West Gateway Beautification) and downtown transit/service proximity give infill areas better non -auto access than peripheral single-family tracts, increasing accessibility.

Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 6
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Appendix F), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. The analysis framework considers demographics, segregation and integration, race, income, Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Pagead06-t f 1664

racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, racially concentrated areas of affluence, urban displacement, and RHNA sites dispersal among AB 686 Planning Areas.

For the purpose of this analysis, the City established four planning areas; they are: Downtown, South, Northeast, and Northwest. The AB 686 Planning Areas are not established for zoning or regulatory purposes. The planning areas are bifurcated to assess the equitable distribution of the City's sites. The goal of the analysis is to ensure that the City's housing policy is consistent with AB 686 to intentionally further fair housing. In general, the siting of candidate sites improves all, or most, of the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (segregation and integration, access to opportunity).

The distribution of sites improves fair housing conditions with the intent of affirmatively furthering fair housing in Hollister.

As shown in Table E-16 below, units of all income categories are generally proportionately sited throughout the City. The City of Hollister is predominantly non-White with more than half of the population who identify as Hispanic/Latinx. Census tracts located in the Northwest planning area have higher rates of low to moderate income households and Hispanic populations, but at lower displacement risk. On the other hand, census tracts in the South planning area have lower rates of low to moderate income households and Hispanic populations but are considered at risk of displacement. While candidate sites are dispersed throughout the City, approximately 11.5 percent (879 units) are concentrated in the downtown area. Candidate sites in the downtown area will be rezoned to accommodate increased densities among all income categories to provide a variety of housing choices. This is consistent with the City's future development plans to revitalize the downtown area as outlined in the 2040 General Plan update.

Table E-16:

AB 686 Planning Area Summary Analysis
Planning Area
Census Tracts
RHNA Lower Income
RHNA Mod/Above Mod Income
Total RHNA
Downtown
1 261
618
879
South
5 563
2,211
2,774
Northeast
2 327
1,288
1,615
Northwest
2 507
1,858
2,365
Total RHNA
7,633*
*Does not include 177 projected ADU sites.

The City is not located in any TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty, RE/CAP, and RCAA areas.

However, the areas west of Prospect Avenue tend to experience higher levels of pollution, overcrowded households (north of Meridian/4th Streets), elevated displacement risks, and lower income households.

Although most census tracts are low to moderate income, resources are available Citywide to reduce displacement risk and promote integration into the community. The upcoming 2040 General Plan update prioritizes a vibrant city center, where 12 percent of the City's RHNA will be accommodated, to include a wide range of housing types for all income levels.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Pagead06,3®f 1664

Figure E-24: AB 686 Planning Areas — Site Candidates by Income Category Legend
Candidate Sites by
Income Category
* Low and Very Low
* Moderate
* Above Moderate
Planning Area
L:1 Downtown
South
,+ Northeast
r_41 Northwest
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PaglsadOE4Df 1664

Detailed AB 686 Analysis by Planning Area
Downtown Planning Area ("DPA")
Table E-17: AB 686 Planning Area Summary Analysis for Downtown Planning Area Downtown
Number of sites VL/Low Units Moderate Units
37 261
128
Above Mod
Units
490
Total RHNA
879
The Downtown Planning Area ("DPA") is located in one census tract (06069000400) and is generally bounded by Third Street to the north, Hawkins Street to the south, Sally Street to the east, and Monterey Street to the west. San Benito Street is the main corridor within Downtown Hollister, which is characterized by one- to four-story neighborhood retail stores, offices, residences, and upper story residences. The main downtown corridor is bounded by neighboring single family homes — many with accessory units — and light industrial uses. The area is zoned for high -density residential (R4), medium density residential (R3), home office (HO), neighborhood mixed -use (NMU) and downtown (DMU) mixed - use developments. As shown in Table E-17, there are 37 proposed sites, 261 of which are lower income units and 618 of which are moderate to above moderate units. The Downtown Planning Area contains approximately 12 percent of the City's total RHNA.

The DPA is a moderate resource area with lower displacement risk where 49 percent of households are lower income and over 90 percent non-White. Sites in the DPA will be rezoned to higher density mixed - use and residential to plan for approximately 12 percent of the City's total RHNA. A pipeline project (375 Fourth Street) includes 50 lower income units to provide affordable housing options in the area. The DPA is ideal for a variety of housing projects with mixed affordability since there are existing utilities for developers and nearby resources for residents. The DPA contains areas with supportive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income households due to its access and proximity to transportation, jobs, services, and other resources. The County Express is a County -operated public transit service that runs through Hollister and connects residents to the San Benito County region. Additionally, the DPA includes areas that Hollister Downtown Association, a community -based organization that focuses on revitalizing Downtown Hollister, are interested in and provides existing social, economic, cultural, education, and governmental support for the community. This includes family -friendly events such as youth activities, holiday community gatherings, parades, farmer's markets, and other activities.

Siting a variety of housing options in the Downtown area supports housing goals per the Housing Element Policy Plan to encourage a diversity of housing types and implement sustainable development (Policy Actions H3.1, H4.2, and H4.5).

South Planning Area ("SPA")
Table E-18: AB 686 Planning Area Summary Analysis for South Planning Area South
Number of sites VL/Low Units Moderate Units
33 563
299
Above Mod
Units
1,912
Total RHNA
2,774
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PageadOE%a f 1664

The South Planning Area ("SPA") is located across five census tracts (06069000600, 06069000400, 06069000702, 06069000701, and 06069000502) and generally represents areas south of Meridian Street/Fourth Street. The area is predominantly characterized by low -density residences and exhibits other uses such as parks, recreation centers, higher density residences, old town historic neighborhoods, schools, and light industrial manufacturers. As shown in Table E-18, there are 33 proposed sites, 563 of which are lower income units and 2,064 of which are moderate to above -moderate income units. The SPA contains approximately 36 percent of the City's total RHNA.

The SPA is a moderate to highest resource area with lower displacement risk and is located closest to a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA) in Ridgemark. Households within the SPA range from 33 to 66 percent lower income and are over 52 percent non-White. The SPA includes rezone sites (West Gateway Mixed -Use), vacant sites, and pipeline projects that are planned to meet approximately 36 percent of the City's total RHNA. Pipeline projects, Eden Housing and 1619 Fourth Street, will provide 120 lower income units throughout the SPA. Eden Housing is an active and effective affordable housing developer focusing on addressing housing needs for lower income families, seniors, veterans, individuals experiencing disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals in the Bay Area region. Rezone and existing capacity sites are also anticipated to provide 443 affordable units within the SPA. The Housing Plan includes policies and goals to incentivize, rehabilitate, and preserve affordable units through resale controls and inclusionary programs (Policy Actions H1.4, H1.5, H3.6, H4.1, H4.2, H4.3, and H4.5). Since the SPA consists of increased educational and economic outcomes compared to the remaining parts of the City, providing housing affordable to a mix of incomes would increase access to opportunity and fair housing choices that minimize segregation outcomes.

The Downtown Planning Area concentrates 12 percent of total RHNA in a moderate resource area with lower displacement risk but high services access, while the South Planning Area accounts for approximately 36 percent of RHNA and sits adjacent to a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence near Ridgemark. Aligning production targets, unit mix, and anti -displacement tools across these areas will expand choice and guard against involuntary displacement.

Northeast Planning Area ("NEPA")
Table E-19: AB 686 Planning Area Summary Analysis for Northeast Planning Area Northeast
Number of sites VL/Low Units Moderate Units
15 327
196
Above Mod
Units
1092
Total RHNA
1,615
The Northeast Planning Area ("NEPA") is located across two census tracts (06069000502 and 06069000100) and generally encompasses areas north of Meridian Street/4th Street and east of San Felipe Road towards the eastern City boundary. The area is characterized by mixes of low- and high -density residences, commercial retail plazas, industrial manufacturers, and County administrative buildings. As shown in Table E-19, there are 15 proposed sites, 327 of which are lower income units and 1,288 of which are moderate and above -moderate income units. The NEPA contains approximately 22 percent of the City's total RHNA.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing PageadO6Spf 1664

The NEPA is predominantly Hispanic with more than 52 percent Non -White populations and 32 to 52 percent lower income households. The NEPA exhibits lower displacement risk and is identified as a moderate resource area. The NEPA contains pipeline and rezone sites that will achieve about 21 percent of the City's total RHNA, including North Gateway Mixed -Use rezone and high -density residential sites.

The NEPA is located adjacent to County agricultural lands and open space that are further away from jobs, public transportation options, and other facilities. Three pipeline projects (PAD Investment Trust, DAL Properties, and Avalon Village) are parcels over 10 acres and contain 100 percent above moderate -income units within the NEPA. The provision of above moderate -income housing may increase resources and opportunities in an area with lower -than -average opportunity scores. Development in the surrounding County area east of the City is similar to those in Hollister city limits, where predominantly above - moderate housing projects are being developed on large lots (Santana Ranch, Fairview Corners, and Lands of Lee).

While large lot development is typically more expensive to construct, the projects will provide housing for residents in the City, and beyond that, aim to stimulate economic growth in the region. The Housing Plan includes strategies such as by -right project streamlining (Policy Action H1.4-1.5), objective design review (Policy Action H2.1), density bonus incentives (Policy Action H3.6), and inclusionary housing programs (Policy Action H4.1), among others, to further provide affordable units for rezone sites in the NEPA.

Northwest Planning Area ("NWPA")
Table E-20: AB 686 Planning Area Summary Analysis for Northwest Planning Area Northwest
Number of sites VL/Low Units Moderate Units
21 507
305
Above Mod
Units
1,553
Total RHNA
2,365
The Northwest Planning Area ("NWPA") is located across two census tracts (06069000300 and 06069000400) and generally represents areas north of Meridian Street/4th Street and west of San Felipe Road towards the western City boundary. The area contains the municipal airport, low- and high -density residences, gateway corridors, older historic neighborhoods, and industrial business areas. As shown in Table E-20, there are 23 proposed sites, 502 of which are lower income units and 1,714 of which are moderate and above -moderate income units. The NWPA contains approximately 30 percent of the City's total RHNA.

The NWPA is predominantly Hispanic with 52 to 90 percent Non -White populations and comprises 49 to 57 percent lower income households. The NWPA experiences lower displacement risk and is identified as a moderate resource area. The NWPA contains a census tract (06069000300) identified as a low resource area with less positive educational and economic outcomes. The NWPA contains pipeline, rezone, and existing capacity sites for high density residential development that will achieve approximately 31 percent of the City's total RHNA. Similar to NEPA, candidate sites are located adjacent to County agricultural lands and open space. A mix of affordable and market rate units will be provided on vacant lots along major roadways such as San Juan Road, San Felipe Road, and Buena Vista Road.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Pagead068®f 1664

Pipeline projects (1871 Buena Vista Rd and Woodle Subdivision) are proposed in areas identified as low resources. The provision of market rate housing projects can provide additional community resources and facilities in the NWPA that are typically provided through public -private partnerships. Rezone and existing capacity sites aim to target a mix of income groups that can provide a diversity of housing choices that are accessible throughout the NWPA. Location of mixed -income housing projects along major transportation corridors can provide access to other areas of the City and region, increasing mobility and proximity to job centers. The Housing Plan identifies strategies to promote a variety of affordable housing types, adequate water and sewer facilities, and resource conservation, among others, to promote high quality decent housing for residents within the City of Hollister.

Figures E-25 through E-30 below identify the sites to accommodate future housing, as identified in the adequate sites analysis, overlayed on demographic data using AFFH data layers for segregation and integration provided through HCD's AFFH data and mapping resources. • Figure E-25 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, Hispanic/Latino (2021) • Figure E-26 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, Non -White Population (2021) • Figure E-27 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, Low and Moderate Income • Figure E-28 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, R/ECAP Areas • Figure E-29 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, RCAA Areas • Figure E-30 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Figure E-25 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Hollister in relation to the location of residents of Hispanic origin. Figure E-25 shows the following findings:
• 10 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 826 potential units, or 10.8% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic less than 50 percent. Of those units, 155 (2.0% of the total RHNA) are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 81 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 4,885 potential units, or 64.0% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic 50 to 80 percent. Of those units, 1,107 (14.5% of the total RHNA) are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. • 14 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,922 potential units, or 25.2% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic greater than 80 percent. Of those units, 396 (5.2% of the total RHNA) are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.

Figure E-25 shows that a majority of the City's population identifies as Hispanic. One census area (Census Tract 3) located in the Northwest Planning Area has a higher rate of Hispanic populations than the rest of the City. This area contains 1,922 potential units or 25.2% of the City's total RHNA, 396 (5.2% of the total RHNA) of which are planned for lower income units. The census area is comprised of one-story single- family residences and is identified as having lower displacement risk with moderate resources available.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing PagEsad06- of 1664

A majority of the City's RHNA units are proposed in the Downtown Planning Area, where a moderate rate of Hispanic populations exist. Siting candidate sites within the Downtown Planning Area is intended to revitalize the urban center, consistent with the City's General Plan. The provision of mixed income units in the census tract, especially in the West Gateway zone along San Juan Road and in the Downtown Planning Area, allows for residents to live in proximity to resident -serving goods and services in commercial centers.

The remaining projected units are in areas where less than half of the population are Hispanic, including the airport to the north and residential suburbs southeast of the City. Similarly, a mix of housing units are provided to address the lack of housing supply in the City and further aims to provide a variety of housing choices for younger residents to stay in the City. By placing more affordable housing in predominantly Hispanic communities, housing issues such as overcrowding, overpayment, and lack of housing options can be alleviated where they are felt most.

Figure E-26 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Hollister in relation to the location of Non -White residents. Figure E-26 shows the following findings:
• 10 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 826 potential units, or 10.8% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts that have less than 60 percent Non - White population. Of those units, 155 (2.0% of total RHNA) are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 73 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 4,148 potential units, or 54.3% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts that have 60 to 80 percent Non -White populations. Of those units, 986 (12.9% of the total RHNA) are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 22 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 2,659 potential units, or 34.8% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts that have more than 80 percent non- White populations. Of those units, 517 (6.8% of the total RHNA) are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.

Figure E-26 shows the approximately 6,807 units, or 89.2 percent of all projected housing units, are within areas of the City where 60 percent or more of the population identifies as non-White. These projected units include approximately 1,503 lower income units that are located throughout the planning areas. The City as a whole is diverse and well -integrated, allowing residents to access a variety of housing choices throughout the City. Majority Non -White census tracts are also located in areas identified as low to moderate to high and highest resource areas. The Downtown Planning Area is identified as a highest resource area with populations at risk of displacement. Therefore, the Downtown Planning Area is an ideal location for the City to focus much of its future housing growth, especially of affordable housing, where existing resources and services exist for historically marginalized groups. Additionally, it is anticipated that accessory dwelling unit (ADU) growth, including growth for affordable ADUs, will occur in the southern suburbs of the City providing additional housing choices.

Figure E-27 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Hollister in relation to the location of low to moderate income households. Figure E-27 shows the following findings:

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing PagEsadO6.&if 1664

• 65 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 2,506 potential units, or 32.8% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts with less than 50 percent low to moderate income households. Of those units, 607 units or 7.9% of the total RHNA are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 39 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 5,127 potential units, or 67.2% of the total potential units) are located within census tracts with more than 50 percent low to moderate income households. Of those units, 1,051 units or 13.8% of the total RHNA are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.

Figure E-27 shows that the census tracts with majority (over 50 percent) low to moderate income households are located in the northeastern and northwestern boundaries of the City. These are low to moderate resource areas with both lower displacement risk and populations at risk of displacement. It's important to note that one of these census areas (Census Tract 3) contain large tracts of agricultural lands and open space outside of City boundaries that may skew the rate of low- and moderate -income households within the City. Nevertheless, these sites take into consideration available utilities and location along major roadways such as San Juan Road and San Felipe Road that make housing development feasible for developers. Additionally, the designation of candidate sites along major transit corridors and within census tracts with majority low/moderate households allows residents with limited resources to access jobs and other resident serving businesses. Transit -oriented development is a priority of the City that is further consistent with the 2040 General Plan update.

Figures E-28 and E-29 show proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA for Hollister in relation with data showing RE/CAP and RCAA areas within the City. RE/CAPs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; they are marked in red hatchings. The goal of the AB 686 analysis is to analyze how the sites identified to accommodate the RHNA allocation may exacerbate or mitigate existing fair housing issues.

On the other hand, RCAAs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence; they are identified as areas with a White Non -Hispanic population greater than 80 percent and a median household income greater than $125,000. Figures E-28 and E-29 show that there are no RE/CAPs and RCAAs in Hollister.

Figure E-30 shows that approximately 5,127 units (67.2 percent of the total RHNA) are located within areas of the City that are characterized as low- and moderate- opportunity. The projected units include approximately 1,051 lower income units (13.8 percent of the total RHNA) that are located throughout the City. The low resource areas tend to have lower displacement risks while moderate resource areas experience both ends of the displacement risk spectrum. Concentrating housing in areas with low and moderate resource designations has the potential to overburden these communities but may also bring much needed housing and improved infrastructure that increases access to opportunity.

Households located in moderate resource areas at risk of displacement are most vulnerable where less positive economic, educational, and health outcomes combined with income changes can result in homelessness, overcrowding (where families move in with others), and other forms of housing insecurity.

Such households are predominantly located in the South Planning Area (south of Meridian St/4th St). This area contains pipeline and rezone candidate sites with 737 proposed units, 121 of which are affordable for lower income households. These sites are vacant and planned to be rezoned for mixed -use and high - Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Pagead06,93f 1664

density residential development that take into consideration location and proximity near transit, resident - oriented services, and other existing development. Siting candidate sites in such areas can increase housing choices for residents and meaningfully advance fair housing throughout the City.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing PageadWW.Ocf 1664

Figure E-25: City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, Hispanic/Latino (2021) N
Legend
City of Hollister City
Limits
* Low and Very Low
.Moderate
* `Above Moderate
ercent Hispanic
I <50%
50% - 80%
0%
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PaglzsadOE 'mf 1664

Figure E-26 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, Non -White Population (2021) Legend
F--) City of Hollister City
Limits
* Low and Very Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Percent Non -White
% - 80%
0%
'a
nd
'an'd Counj�y".

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PageadOE-Uf 1664

Figure E-27 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, Low and Moderate Income CITY OF HPLLkk1EIW ,Cycle H©usin
Legend
City of Hollister City
Limits
Candidate Sites by
Income Category
LOw and Very Low
Moderate
* Above Moderate
Low to Moderate
Percent
50%
„ORS04004, *64144#^444,4d,
2 Miles
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Pagleada3Af 1664

Figure E-28 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, R/ECAP Areas City of Hollister City
units
Low and Very Low
Moderate
* Above Moderate
0 - Not a R/ECAP
///, 1 - R/ECAP Area
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PageadOE4gf 1664

Figure E-29 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, RCAA Areas Legend
r--1 City of Hollister City
Limits
Candidate Sites by
Income Category
Low and Very Low
Moderate
* Above Moderate
RCAA
0 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PageadOE59cif 1664

Figure E-30 — City of Hollister Proposed RHNA Sites, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Legend
City of Hollister City
Limits
* Moderate
y'S Low and Very Low
• ..*''.:Above Moderate
Resource Category
EN Highest Resource
�] High Resource
_f Moderate Resource
1 Low Resource
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
PageadOE-Eit®f 1664

iv, wks
Table E-21: Local Data & Knowledge
Where
(Neighborhood/Tract)
What it Means
Linked Program(s)
Geographic
Target
Metric/Timing
Local Observation
Renter
overpayment
clusters
East of Downtown
near Las Brisas
Park/Veterans
Memorial Park
High rent burden
for renters
H5.5 Voucher Acceptance (increase
o
10%, 5 landlords/yr outreach) +
Tenant education
East side
renter
clusters
Increase voucher
utilization by 10%; 5
owners/yr; report in
APR
Displacement risk
and code issues
Census Tract
06069000400
(central) and
06069000702 (south);
approximately 50
substandard cases
citywide in 2023
Preservation and
rehab focus; anti
displacement
H4.1 —H4.5
Preservation/Replacement/Relocation,
H2.4 Rehab Prioritization
Census
Tracts 400
& 702
priority
Units preserved,
rehab loans issued,
households assisted;
annual APR
Transit access and
special needs siting
DMU SRO (1/4 mile
stop), NG zoned
shelter areas served
by Tripper/dial a ride
Link
affordable/special
needs to transit
H5.6 transit coordination in Table 2-1;
H5.7 shelters; AB 2162 supportive by
right
Downtown
& NG
corridors
1 transit
coordination
meeting/yr; maintain
1/4 mile transit access
for SROs/shelters
Environmental
burden
(CalEnviroScreen)
Airport/central
corridors
Pair new
affordable with
mitigation;
prioritize rehab
H2.2 —H2.3 energy/green upgrades;
H4.5 replacement when demo
Central
burdened
tracts
units rehabbed with

healthy
homes/lead/filtration
measures
Sites distribution
to improve
integration
Downtown Planning
Area highest resource
w/ displacement risk
Disperse LI sites
into high
opportunity areas
H1.3 Rezone Strategy; Appendix F
distribution
DPA & key
corridors
Share of lower
income capacity in
high resource T/CAC
areas; tracked in APR
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Page E-81 Page 1077 of 1664

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis

A. Introduction

1. General Plan Consistency
The 2040 General Plan is currently in progress and is anticipated to be completed and adopted in April 2026. The City Council provided direction on the amendments and a public review draft was released in January 2026.

On September 11, 2023, City Council instructed Staff to move forward with the assumptions made as part of the Land Use update for the Housing Element update — including rezone options for consideration in meeting the 6th Cycle RHNA. As a result, analysis in this appendix is based on the land uses included in the Draft 2040 General Plan to ensure consistency between both documents moving forward concurrently.

2. Zoning Consistency
Due to the concurrent 2040 General Plan update, candidate sites identified in this appendix may not be consistent with the City's existing Zoning Code. A program is included in the Policy Plan to update the Zoning Code to ensure consistency with the 2040 General Plan.

3. CEQA Streamlining
Candidate housing sites that are consistent with the existing zoning and the City's objective design standards are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

As part of the 2040 General Plan update, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (SCH # 2021040227) in December 2024 to evaluate the impacts of new residential units through 2040.

However, in March 2025, following a referendum, the City Council repealed the adopted 2040 General Plan. The City Council has provided direction to modify the 2040 General Plan, with adoption anticipated in April 2026. The amended 2040 General Plan also includes the preparation of an Addendum to the Final EIR to account for the proposed changes to the 2040 General Plan document.

The modifications to the 2040 General Plan affect the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City, but do not propose changes to the land use designations or densities previously identified. The amended 2040 General Plan will continue to be consistent with this Housing Element and the rezoning areas identified for candidate sites.

The proposed 2040 General Plan Land Use Map includes the candidate housing sites for the 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated increases in zoning density (rezone sites) that would provide sufficient land designated for housing to fulfill the City's 2023-2031 RHNA, as well as future buffer sites pursuant to SB 166 identified as part of the Housing Element update. Additionally, the proposed General Plan 2040 Land Use (LU) Element includes goals, policies, and actions that require decision makers to support adequate housing in Hollister.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-2

Accordingly, the proposed 2040 General Plan would not conflict with or be inconsistent with state Housing Law resulting in a significant environmental impact.

Due to City Council direction regarding changes to parcels located in the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the EIR addendum has not yet been certified by the Hollister City Council, nor the 2040 General Plan amendments adopted. However, these changes will not affect parcels within the City limits, nor the candidate housing sites for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. These SOI changes will result in the issuance of a revised Draft EIR in 2026and the Final EIR is anticipated to be certified by the City Council (along with adoption of the 2040 General Plan) by April 2026.

4. Access to Transportation
Current transportation programs, services, and improvements support the proposed units of this 6th Cycle Housing Element. The City will continue to work with the San Benito County Local Transportation Authority to ensure that new residential developments are adequately served.

5. Infrastructure and Public Services Capacity
As described in the Hollister 2040 General Plan Final EIR (December 2024), the City has sufficient infrastructure and public services to accommodate future development, including development required to fulfill the City's 2023-2031 RHNA housing allocation.

Candidate housing sites identified in this Appendix are in areas that are adequately served by existing and planned infrastructure and public services. The Policy Plan establishes requirements for adequate infrastructure and public services for developments that include affordable housing units.

6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
The City has identified candidate sites to accommodate future housing growth based on existing access to community resources, services, and public transportation, while also considering the availability of land, developer interest, and general likelihood that the sites would develop residential uses over the next eight years. Appendix E details how the Candidate Sites Inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing.

7. Candidate Sites Analysis
Table F-1 shows the City's ability to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA by income category through a variety of methods, including those listed below, also shown in Table F-1: 6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory Analysis.
• Projects currently in the City's review pipeline;
• Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections;
• Existing capacity in residential and mixed -use zones; and, • Rezone strategies to accommodate the remaining RHNA. The rezone strategy assumes the following income breakdown:

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-3

o Lower -Income: 20%, though 100% affordable assumption is made on vacant, publicly -owned sites.
o Moderate -Income: 20%
o Above Moderate -Income: 60%
Table F-1:

RHNA (2022-2030)
Projected ADU Construction
6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory
Very Low- Low-
Income Income
846 678
Analysis
Moderate-
Income
826
50 Above
Moderate-
Income
1,813
17 Total
4,163
167
Existing Capacity
100
Pipeline Projects
175
5 1,555
1,735
Residential Zones
67 52
87 206
Mixed -Use Zones
47 29
137
213
Total Capacity
389
136
1,796
2,321
Remaining Need
1,135
690
17 1,842
Rezone Strategies
Downtown Mixed -Use
154
151
450
755
High Density Residential
657
407
1,202
2,266
Mixed -Use
236
239
707
1,182
West Gateway Mixed -Use
173
177
521
871
North Gateway Mixed -Use
193
198
578
969
Total Rezone
1,413
1,172
3,458
6,043
Total Development Capacity
1,914
1,048
5,402
8,364
Surplus Units Over RHNA
278
482
3,441
4,201
Surplus % Over RHNA

18.2%

58.4%
189.8%
100.9%
*Lower -income buffer exceeds 18% - buffers will be preserved via conservative capacity factors and by carrying surplus sites pursuant to No -Net -Loss.

B. Development Analysis

1. Development Trends and Demand
Housing Stock Characteristics
As described in the Market Demand Analysis (November 2020), prepared by Bae Urban Economics for the City of Hollister 2040 General Plan update, approximately 80 percent of the housing stock in Hollister is single-family units, the majority of which are detached units. This concentration is notably higher than the percentages of single-family units within the AMBAG Region and California, where single-family units account for 71.4 percent and 65.0 percent, respectively. Consistent with this, Hollister contains a relatively low supply of multifamily units, accounting for just 17.2 percent of the Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-4

total housing stock. Additionally, of the multifamily inventory in Hollister, most are in smaller structures with two to four units, whereas most of the multifamily units in the AMBAG Region and California are in larger complexes with five or more units. This under -supply of multifamily units within Hollister may be excluding certain household types and income levels from finding suitable and affordable housing within the city. In fact, local stakeholders highlighted the significant need for a more diverse housing stock to accommodate varying households, including younger households interested in Hollister and service workers who are currently priced out of the market. Providing a more diverse housing stock may also result in an improved jobs/employed residents balance by providing housing for existing workers who are commuting in from more affordable locations.

Development Trends
Table F-2: Residential Building
Permit Data
Issues Permits (# of Units)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Total
Single Family Detached
104
267
375
229
353
253
308
220
2,109
Single Family Attached
17 19
13 49
Multi -family — 2 to 4 units
6 2
4 3
5 16
73 2
111
Multi -family — 5+ units
87 49
22 158
ADUs
1 3
4 11
13 32
Total
110
356
379
282
378
292
427
235
2,459
Final
(#
Single
Occupancy Permits
of Units)
Family Attached
2015
47 2016
146
2017
317
2018
325
2019
312
2020
234
2021
368
2022
194
Total
1,943
Multi -family — 2 to 4 units
19 17
13 49
Multi -family — 5+ units
4 4
3 1
1 43
37 93
ADUs
7 129
136
Single Family Attached
2 1
6 10
19 Total
47 150
328
328
444
255
434
254
2,240
Source: City of Hollister, 2023.

Nearly half of Hollister's housing stock was built between 1980 and 1999, with the 1990s representing the largest proportion of unit deliveries, at roughly 27.7 percent of all Hollister residential units. The spike in development during this period far outpaced the development in the comparison geographies in any other given time frame. For the AMBAG Region and California, the highest concentration of units by year built is between 1970 and 1979, though these units only make up 19.7 percent and 17.7 percent of their overall housing stock, respectively. Notably, the City of Hollister did not experience much of a decrease in residential development output from 2000 to 2009, which includes the entirety of the development moratorium that was in place from 2002 to 2008 during the development of a new wastewater treatment facility. This, however, may be due to significant housing construction prior to the moratorium in 2002 and the completion of pending projects already under construction.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-5

As shown in Table F-2: Residential Building Permit Data, the City has issued residential building permits for 2,459 units between 2015 and 2022. Of these, final occupancy permits have been issued for 2,240 constructed residential units.

The uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have lingering effect on building permit activity. Economic factors such as high cost of construction along with supply -chain issues in 2021 continued to affect building permit activity. Investment in affordable housing from local and federal funding sources has helped sustain affordable housing permit activity. Overall, the City continues to be well ahead in its market -rate housing permits, although it remains behind in its affordable housing permits.

Residential Land Use Designations
The 2005 General Plan establishes the minimum and maximum densities for the residential land use designations using net acres. On September 19, 2022, the City amended the General Plan and adopted an ordinance on October 3, 2022, that amends the zoning ordinance to change to gross density. This means the total allowed density is based on the total area of the parcel.

Prior to changing to gross density, the City was operating on net density, which has caused many issues of under -development of residential and mixed -use sites. In Hollister, using net density has obscured the project review process and has not produced the types of housing products envisioned by the General Plan. Project applicants cannot achieve the net density limits because the roadways and topography of a site reduce the area that could accommodate housing. Allowing projects to use gross density provides project applicants with certainty on what could be built and would accommodate a wider range of housing types. For example, although the Medium Density Residential designation allows for duplexes and triplexes at 8 to 12 units per net acre, Hollister developers can rarely propose projects that include these products because the net density has resulted in lower density projects at 5 to 9 dwelling units per gross acre. Basing the residential land use densities on gross acreage would provide project applicants with more certainty because densities would not change based on the roadway network. In addition, it could encourage new housing types in Hollister that would be affordable to lower incomes.

California Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)8 requires housing elements to include an analysis of identified housing sites to demonstrate how the jurisdiction can accommodate their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for lower -income households. The analysis must consider factors such as financial feasibility, market demand, and how the identified residential zones have previously accommodated housing for lower -income households.

The City needs to demonstrate that proposed residential projects are built at the higher end of the allowed density range, which has not historically been the case in Hollister. In addition, although Hollister has enough vacant residential and mixed -use land to accommodate more than 2,000 residential units, more than half of the available land supply is designated as mixed -use, however, few projects have been developed due to the existing lower -density requirements.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-6

However, the State provides an option, known as the "default density option," to bypass this analysis if jurisdictions choose housing sites that meet the State's minimum density requirement. The City of Hollister is a part of the San Jose — Sunnyvale — Santa Clara Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In 2020, the population for this MSA had surpassed 2 million, raising the minimum residential density for the incorporated Cities in the MSA to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), as the MSA is deemed "metropolitan". Recent 2022 data reflects that the MSA has dropped just below the 2 million population threshold, which means that per the State, Hollister would need to establish a minimum residential density of 20 du/ac, a "suburban" designation. However, it is noted that due to the fluctuation of the MSA at the edge of the population threshold from suburban to metropolitan, Hollister's rezoning strategies as well as the draft 2040 General Plan densities reflect the 30 du/ac minimum density. This accommodates the possibility that with a new data set, the population is likely to rise again, crossing back into the metropolitan MSA designation.

The 2005 General Plan includes a High -Density Residential land use designation that allows residential development at a density range of 12 to 35 du/ac. The Hollister Municipal Code includes a High - Density Multifamily Residential (R4-20) zoning designation that allows multifamily residential development from 20 to 35 du/ac and a maximum building height of 45 feet. However, the R4-20 zoning designation is not currently applied to any parcels within the city.

As described below in the Projected Development section and to accommodate more affordable housing development and a variety of housing types, the City has revised the density limits for the Downtown Commercial and Mixed -Use zone, several Low -Density Residential designated properties in the downtown, a number of High -Density Residential and mixed -use parcels, and redesignated several parcels in the North Gateway Commercial to allow high -density residential development.

Vacant Sites
As described in the Existing Conditions Report: Land Use and Planning prepared for the City's General Plan 2040 (Placeworks, 2020), as of 2020, there were approximately 65 acres of land with an existing General Plan land use designation suitable for accommodating multi -family housing. Much of this vacant land has been or is currently (2025) under construction.

Of the remaining available suitable vacant parcels, 37 parcels on 74 acres are being proposed for rezoning at higher densities to accommodate a greater number of affordable housing units and types (See Rezones for the Remaining Need, below). The City has accommodated 64.2 percent of its lower income RHNA on existing vacant parcels.

Narnvacant Sites
The City has identified non -vacant sites to accommodate a portion of the lower income allocation.

The non -vacant sites identified present opportunities for future residential development in key areas within the City. These are sites covering over 45 total acres, accommodating 503 lower income units.

The City has evaluated recent projects, within the 5th Cycle planning period, which have included the development of residential units on non -vacant sites. As part of the site selection process, the City Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-7

analyzed existing residentially zoned parcels that have propensity to develop at their existing densities and opportunities to rezone at higher densities.

To justify housing opportunity sites included in the Candidate Sites Inventory, example developments have been identified in the City to demonstrate infill development trends and the feasibility of the trend continuing in the 6th Cycle (Table F-3). Recycling land is desirable to help achieve the Legislature's goal of alleviating California's identified housing crisis. According to HCD, during the last ten years, housing production averaged fewer than 80,000 new homes each year, and ongoing production continues to fall far below the projected need of 180,000 additional homes annually. The lack of supply and high rent costs suggests that land recycling activities is a method to consider when addressing housing needs.

Identified projects in Table F-3 share similar or identical characteristics with selected opportunity sites found in Table F-12, including zoning, lot size, previous use, geographic location, and potential for lot consolidation. Many of the candidate sites are aging and underutilized, making redevelopment an attractive option for both current owners and future developers. These projects show strong trends for converting the following uses to high -density residential:
• Multi -tenant commercial buildings with parking
• One- and two-story commercial buildings
• Older single-family dwellings on parcels that are a majority vacant • Agricultural land
Historically, the City has been a significant agricultural area for the region. However, as the City's population has continued to grow, converted of previously designated agricultural land to development and encroachment upon agricultural land property boundaries. In addition, in recent years, more urbanized development has occurred outside the City's jurisdiction, on what was previously designated agricultural land.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-8

Table
F-3: Example Development
of Non -Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
Project
Address/
APN
Dweling
Units
Density
(du/acre)
Zoning
Size
(Acres)
Use Prior to
Housing
Project Analysis
500 San Benito
St
12 120
DMU

0.10 Commercial
Ground floor commercial
remained unchanged;
three upper floors
converted from office
uses to residential units.

APN:
054-080-090
375 Fourth St
52 84
DMU

0.62 Existing
Parking Lot
100% Affordable Project;
Lot merger of two
parcels. Mixed -Use
component (4,628 SF
Commercial).

APNs:
054-110-001,
054-110-002
169 East St
2 16.7
R4

0.18 Commercial
Commercial buildings
converted into two units,
one existing unit
remained (3 units total).

Lower income units.

APN:
054-230-023
1070 Buena
Vista Rd
100
11 R3-
M/PZ

9.33 Residential
One existing single-family
dwelling, to be
demolished as part of
project.

APN:
019-120-005
125 Hawkins
Alley
2 22
DMU

0.09 Residential
New duplex on rear
parcel; Subdivided from
parcel with One existing
single-family dwelling.

APNs:
054-152-008
390 West St
2 11
OT(M)

0.18 Commercial/
Office
Commercial office
converted into a duplex.

A further ADU has been
added in addition to the
duplex as well.

APNs:
053-190-017
Table F-3 above shows that there is interest in redevelopment of non -vacant sites within the City of Hollister, and the City believes this trend will continue throughout the 6th Cycle planning period. Many of the candidate housing sites within the inventory are similar to those analyzed above, as they primarily consist of commercial or low -density residential land uses. Additionally, nearly all development in the City has occurred on land that transitioned from nonresidential (agricultural) to residential. Many of the candidate housing sites are near other residential uses, which makes them more compatible for additional residential development as there are already neighborhood communities in the vicinity. All sites in the candidate housing site inventory have been chosen based on their redevelopment potential and their beneficial locations within the City.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-9

Recur rir g Non -Vacant Site Typlogies in Hollister's Candidate Sites Inventory Below are the five most common patterns or typologies repeated across the City's Candidate Sites Inventory — each aligns with real -world redevelopment examples (Local Precedents):

1. Vacant or largely vacant tracts (Gateways, Hillside, and Downtown infill) • Typical conditions: raw or mostly open land, occasional SFD or outbuildings; many are the North/West Gateway assemblages and Park Hill slopes. • Representative F-11 sites: RZ-N-1 to RZ-N-5 (vacant North Gateway parcels), RZ-W-2 to RZ-W-5 (vacant West Gateway parcels), RZ-H-2 to RZ-H-9 (vacant or mostly vacant hillside parcels), plus downtown infill like RZ-D-24 (vacant).

2. Multi -tenant commercial buildings with surface parking (strip/pad clusters, small centers) • Typical conditions: one-story or two-story commercial with on -site lots; often partially vacant.
• Representative F-11 sites: RZ-D-5, -6, -7, -8, -9, -10, -12, -13, -20, -21, -22, -25, -27, - 28, -30, -31, -33, -36 — all described as multi -tenant with underutilized parking fields (some are partially vacant).

3. Legacy "main street" shopfronts (single- or two-story commercial/mixed-use on shallow lots)
• Typical conditions: small footprints along San Benito & side streets; one-off structures with limited parking.
• Representative F-11 sites: RZ-D-15 (two-story commercial), RZ-D-16 (two-story commercial), RZ-D-17 (single -story commercial), RZ-D-18 (two-story mixed -use), RZ- D-19 (single -story commercial).

4. Auto-, convenience-, yard/storage—oriented pads
• Typical conditions: gas/mini-mart pads, convenience retail, lumber/yard uses; typically low FAR, generous curb cuts, and corner prominence. • Representative F-11 sites: RZ-D-32 & RZ-D-34 (convenience store + parking), RZ-D-14 (lumber yard).

5. Institutional / medical pads and standalone surface parking • Typical conditions: churches, funeral homes, medical offices, or parcels functioning primarily as parking lots for other uses — good candidates for full conversion. • Representative F-11 sites: RZ-D-4 (church), RZ-D-11 & RZ-D-37 (funeral home), RZ-W- 6 (medical center), RZ-D-38 (standalone parking lot for commercial).

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-10

Local Precedents
Below are precedent projects in the region that each show a like -for -like evolution from the existing condition to higher -density housing, signaling feasibility for similar projects in Hollister.

1. Typology 1— Vacant/largely vacant parcels
• Hollister and San Benito County — Many of the City and County's housing development has occurred on vacant or largely vacant lots. This pattern continues to this day. Various Pipeline Projects and projects in Table F-5 are located on vacant parcels. • The Dunes on Monterey Bay (Marina) — Former Fort Ord land transitioned into 300+ acres of mixed -use with housing, retail, hotel, cinema in a multi -phase build -out. • Campus Town (Seaside) — Former Fort Ord acreage proposing up to 1,485 homes, hotel, and over 200,000 square feet of nonresidential in a mixed -use plan. • 558 Main St (Watsonville) — Long -vacant downtown lot that developed into a 4 -story, 50 -unit mixed -use project (restaurant at grade).
• 6630-6730 Monterey Rd (Gilroy) — Infill parcel along commercial corridor with 94 affordable units in four 3 -story buildings.
• Los Gatos— North 40 (Phase I/Bellaterra): Multi -acre orchard/vacant land that developed into village -scaled housing/mixed-use.
• Morgan Hill — Depot Street Mixed -Use ("Lumberyard/Latala" block): Assemblage including underutilized land that transitioned into 49 townhomes/condominiums and offices along a realigned street grid.

2. Typology 2 — Multi -tenant commercial centers with parking • Hollister — 390 West St: Commercial office converted into a duplex (Table F-5). A further ADU has been constructed on the site in addition to the duplex conversion. • San Jose — Cambrian Park Plaza: 1950s strip center that is approved for mixed -use with housing, retail, and open space.
• San Jose — El Paseo de Saratoga: Auto -oriented retail center that has been entitled for a new urban housing/retail district.
• West Broadway Urban Village (Seaside): Specific Plan framework replacing one-story commercial & lots with mixed -use. Examples include buildings with ground -floor commercial and apartments above.
• Downtown Salinas (Vibrancy Plan): Policy explicitly repurposes underutilized surface lots to development sites with structured parking — a model playbook for converting parking - dominant blocks.

3. Typology 3 — Legacy main -street shopfronts (downtown infill) • Hollister — 500 San Benito St: Commercial building converted to a mixed -use development with the ground floor commercial remaining unchanged and three upper floors converted from office uses to residential units. • Sunsweet (Morgan Hill, Depot/3rd-4th): Under-utilized cannery block converted to a 5 - story mixed -use development with on -site structured parking.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-11

• Santa Cruz — Front Street/Riverfront Project: Replacement of low -scale downtown commercial with mixed -use housing.
• Santa Cruz — Pacific Station North (333 & 423 Front St): Demolition of older buildings for a 94 -unit 100% affordable mixed -use project in the CBD. • Holman Building (Pacific Grove): Historic department store shell converted to 3 levels of condominiums over retail (mixed -use retrofit).

4. Typology 4 — Auto/convenience/yard pads
• The Cannery (Gilroy, Lewis St) — Former cannery/industrial yards converted to district - scale housing including affordable housing. Final phases delivered by Meta Housing. • Mountain View — 334 San Antonio Rd: Former gas station pad converted into 100% affordable supportive studios.
• Santa Cruz — "Andy's Auto Supply" site (Pacific Ave): Auto supply/warehouse operations converted to mixed -use housing/retail infill.

5. Typology 5 — Institutional/medical pads & standalone parking lots • San Jose —Tamien Station (VTA): Park -and -ride surface lots converted to 555 -unit transit - oriented housing on public land.
• San Jose — Faith -based housing (Immanuel-Sobrato; Cathedral of Faith): Church campus/parking converted to supportive and affordable housing (108 units at Immanuel; 237 units at Cathedral of Faith).

Realistic Capacity
Tables F-3 and F-5 show that recent DMU projects have been approved or developed at 76-120 du/ac even when the base cap was 45 du/ac. Some of those examples required exceptions, which is precisely why the City proposed the DMU rezone to 125 du/ac. With the higher base in place, those same built outcomes now sit within base zoning, so the City's Candidate Sites Inventory capacity assumptions do not rely on concessions, waivers, or Density Bonus to hit DMU 70% realization (87.5 du/ac).

For Mixed -Use (NMU/WG/NMU) and HDR areas proposed at 65 du/ac, the City maintains a 70% realization (-45.5 du/ac) for MU and 80% (= 52 du/ac) for HDR, reflecting:

1. Parcel sizes in the inventory (2-7 acres in many MU/HDR cases yield efficient, surface/limited- podium formats),

2. The City's recent experience facilitating multifamily developments, and

3. The City's shift from net to gross density, which materially improves base yield without exceptions. Where historic small-scale conversions (e.g., duplexes) built below new base, those are not determinative of capacity on larger, purpose-built pads in the same zones.

The City's per -zone realization factors are anchored in base standards only and do not assume exceptions, waivers, or bonus. Any bonus granted will produce surplus capacity beyond what is counted here. In addition, the City will establish appropriate development standards that facilitate Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-12

maximum densities without exceptions. Minimum densities will ensure development capacities meet or exceed the estimates in this Appendix.

The City compiled recent development outcomes (Table F-4) showing zones, allowable densities (at time of approval), built densities, restricted affordability, and whether exceptions were used. The City then set per -zone realization factors that do not presume exceptions or bonus: DMU 70% of 125 du/ac (= 87.5 du/ac), MU (Downtown MU/West Gateway/North Gateway/Neighborhood MU) 70% of 65 du/ac (= 45.5 du/ac), and HDR 80% of 65 du/ac (= 52 du/ac). These realizations reflect:

1. Demonstrated local feasibility at mid -rise, mixed -use, and garden/podium formats,

2. The City's shift to gross density and adoption of objective design standards (predictable outcomes), and

3. Typical builder geometry on inventoried pads.

The City explicitly excludes any Density Bonus or waiver increases from the base assumptions. If a project uses a bonus or waiver, those units are extra beyond the counted capacity.

Finally, the analysis segments performance by zone and site size (small downtown lots vs. multi -acre MU/HDR pads) to avoid over -generalizing duplex or ADU conversions to larger multifamily sites. The City's zone -specific realization factors are based solely on base standards, with no presumed concessions, waivers, or bonus. Any use of the Density Bonus would increase built units beyond the counts assumed here. Hollister will track these assumptions annually in the APR and will adjust within one year if realized densities deviate materially (>10%) by zone.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-13

Project
Address
375 Fourth
St
Table
Zone
DMU
F-4: Recent
Max Density
(Pre -Rezone)
45 du/ac
Development
Built
Units
52 Benchmarking
Acres

0.62 by
Built
Zone
Recorded
Affordability
100%
affordable
Exceptions/
Bonus Used
Yes
Density
(du/ac)
84 400 San
Benito St
DMU
45 du/ac
22 0.29
76 2 VLI, 2 LI
Yes
500 San
Benito St
DMU
45 du/ac
12 0.10
120
--
Yes
125
Hawkins
Alley
DMU
45 du/ac
2 0.09
22 --
--
114 Fourth
St
DMU
45 du/ac
2 0.09
22 --
--
221
Hawkins St
DMU
45 du/ac
2 0.10
20 --
--
814
Prospect
Ave
NMU
40 du/ac
4 0.20
20 --
--
169 East St
R4
(High-
Density)
35 du/ac
2 (plus 1
retained)

0.18 16.7
LI Units
1070 Buena
Vista Rd
R3-
M/PZ
12 du/ac
100

9.33 11
--
--
In the DMU zone, recent small -lot projects reached 76-120 du/ac, and two delivered on -site affordability (375 Fourth: 100% affordable and 400 San Benito: 2 VLI/2 LI), indicating that base DMU at 125 du/ac supports mixed -income outcomes without assuming exceptions. In MU/HDR areas, smaller "conversion" projects (e.g., duplex add-ons) understandably sit below the new base, while multi -acre MU/HDR inventory pads (2-7+ acres) are expected to realize 45-55 du/ac with surface/limited-podium solutions that deliver larger unit counts and, for inclusionary projects, deed - restricted units, at base. Thus, capacity estimates scale with site size and zone, not with outlier low - yield conversions.

On projects in the DMU, the median built density for projects larger than 10 units is approximately 84 du/ac (projects at 76, 84, 120 du/ac), which equals 67 percent of the proposed maximum density of 125 du/ac. The City therefore sets DMU realistic capacity at 70 percent of 125 (=87.5 du/ac) without assuming exceptions.

MU/HDR local samples are limited and skewed to micro -conversions but for purpose-built projects on 2-7+ acre pads, the City applies 70 percent of the maximum density of 65 du/ac (=45.5 du/ac) in MU and 80 percent of 65 du/ac (=52 du/ac) in HDR, reflecting objective standards, the shift to gross density, Housing Element Programs and Actions, and typical garden/podium feasibility. Any density bonus yields will be surplus beyond counted capacity. Additionally, for MU zones, capacity assumes at least 50 percent residential floor area by objective standard and allows 100 percent residential by Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-14

right. If an approval proposes a smaller residential share, the City will reduce capacity credited for that site accordingly and restore capacity within 180 days if there is a net loss. These zone -specific factors are based on as -of -right standards only and the City does not assume density bonus, concessions, or waivers to reach them. The City will monitor outcomes by zone and project size to verify realized densities align with these assumptions.

Identification of Small and Large Parcels
AB 1397 identifies parcels measuring between half an acre and ten acres to be appropriate for the development of affordable housing units. Parcels that are less than half an acre ("smaller") or above 10 acres ("larger") are not deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing needs unless past performance shows a tendency for affordable housing projects to develop on smaller or larger sites. The City has identified 39 "smaller" and two "larger" parcels to accommodate lower income units. A majority of the small sites identified are in the downtown core and are adjacent to each other.

Many of the adjacent parcels share common ownership which may increase the feasibility of lot consolidation. The City has existing lot consolidation/merger procedures and a history of densifying housing on parcels less than a half an acre. Table F-5 shows that the City has a history of development on parcels smaller than half an acre. While the City understands that it does not have an extensive history of affordable development on small sites, the City has adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Policy Action H4.1) as a mechanism to ensure the development of affordable units. Policy Action H3.2 and 4.6 also supports the development of small sites through lot consolidation incentives and streamlining.

Small Sites
Hollister's recent infill record shows that very small DMU parcels can and do produce multi -family housing, including restricted affordable units and projects that consolidate multiple small parcels.

Illustrative examples include 375 Fourth St, a two -parcel merger (0.62 acres) that delivered 52 units at 84 du/ac as a 100% affordable mixed -use project. Another example includes 400 San Benito St, with 22 units at 76 du/ac with 2 Very -Low and 2 Low-income units, and well as 500 San Benito St, with 12 units at 120 du/ac via adaptive reuse above ground -floor retail. Smaller two -unit and duplex/ADU projects (114 Fourth St, 221 Hawkins St) and adaptive reuse (390 West St) exhibit this trending pattern. These projects document parcel merger, adaptive reuse, and affordability on sites less than

0.5 acre, exactly the prototype HCD asks jurisdictions to link to their small -site inventory.

The Site Inventory's small sites are clustered in Downtown and along San Benito/Fourth/Sixth, often adjacent to one another with shared rear access/parking fields and repetitive shallow -lot shapes, conditions that make two -to -four -parcel consolidation straightforward. The Sites Inventory explicitly notes adjacency and common ownership among many of the downtown small parcels, and the Housing Element highlights the City's existing merger/lot-line procedures and a history of densifying sub -0.5 -acre lots, showing the realistic potential of small sites in the City.

The downtown San Benito/Washington/Hawkins/South St cluster (RZ-D-29 through RZ-D-38) lines up multiple 0.05 -0.76 -acre lots that are contiguous or across alleys, with similar existing uses such as Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-15

older commercial pads, parking lots, small buildings. These sites will be rezoned to DMU at up to 125 du/ac (70% realization assumed in Appendix F), specifically to make parcel -scale projects pencil and to enable mergers where helpful to achieve workable building footprints, shared access, or single structured parking solutions.

Four local conditions make consolidation probable:

1. Common ownership and adjacency;

2. Common rear or side -yard access/parking along San Benito/Washington corridors;

3. Simple rectangular lots that assemble into cohesive 0.4 -1.0 -acre pads (ideal for podium or wrap typologies at 65-125 du/ac); and

4. Ministerial, 60 -day lot -line adjustments for four or fewer lots. On top of that, the City will update its Lot Consolidation ordinance to add incentives (e.g., flexible setbacks/height/parking, fee reductions, and streamlined processing) and is committed to outreach to property owners on inventoried small lots so that owners with limited access/irregular shapes/remnant parcels can see the benefit of combining.

Hollister has adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the Housing Element has a quantified objective to produce at least 150 inclusionary units during the cycle. For small -site multi -family in DMU/WG/NMU/HDR, inclusionary requirements, paired with AB 2345 density bonus (up to 80% with 2-4 concessions), are expected to generate on -site restricted units or equivalent affordable outcomes. Where a small -parcel project proposes at least 20% lower -income units, the City's by -right program applies (Government Code §65583.2(c)), further increasing feasibility.

The examples above (375 Fourth, 400 San Benito, 500 San Benito, etc.) directly mirror the size, location, zoning, and building form of the inventoried small -site clusters, and two of them delivered affordability on -site.

If any inventoried small site lacks a plausible consolidation partner (no adjacency/common ownership), lacks safe access (no alley or street frontage for consolidated loading/parking), or is an irregular remnant that cannot meet objective standards, even with incentives, the City will rely on its Sites Monitoring/No-Net-Loss programs to swap in higher -performing sites within 180 days, protecting the lower -income capacity of the inventory.

Small -site development in Hollister has repeatedly occurred at high densities with affordability, including parcel mergers on less than 0.5 -acre lots (375 Fourth St, 400 San Benito St). These outcomes are replicable on inventoried downtown clusters given adjacency and common ownership, DMU zoning to 125 du/ac, ministerial lot -line consolidation, and inclusionary + density bonus incentives.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-16

Table F-5: Example Development of Small
Parcels to Residential Uses
Project Address/
APN
Dwelling
Units
Density
Zoning
Size
(Acres)
Use Prior
Housing
to
Project Analysis
(du/acre)
500 San Benito St
12 120
DMU

0.10 Commercial
Ground floor commercial
remained unchanged; three upper
floors converted from office uses
to residential units.

APN:
054-080-090
375 Fourth St
52 84
DMU

0.23 Existing
Parking Lot
100% Affordable Project; Lot
merger of two parcels. Mixed -Use
component (4,628 SF
Commercial).

APNs:
054-110-001,
054-110-002

0.39 430 San Benito St
22 76
DMU

0.29 Vacant
Mixed -Use development with
ground floor commercial and 22
units. 2 Very -Low Income and 2
Low -Income units.

APN:
054-110-036
221 Hawkins St
2 20
DMU

0.10 Vacant
Duplex and 2 ADUs
APN:
056-091-002
114 Fourth St
2 22
DMU

0.09 Residential
New duplex on rear parcel;
Subdivided from parcel with One
existing single-family dwelling.

APN:
054-015-005
390 West St
2 11
OT(M)

0.18 Commercial/
Office
Commercial office converted into
a duplex. Further, an ADU was
constructed in addition to the
duplex on this site.

APN:
053-190-017
814 Prospect
Ave
4 20
NMU

0.20 Vacant
Two duplexes
APN:
054-151-009
Small Site Suitability & Affordability Summary
• Hollister's recent infill pattern demonstrates that small downtown parcels (≤0.5-1.0 ac) can produce multi -family, at times via 2-4 parcel mergers, with restricted affordable units. The inventory lists small sites in walkable mixed -use districts where adjacency, common or compatible ownership, shared/alley access, and simple lot shapes create cohesive pads suitable for podium/stacked-flat formats at the allowed small -site densities. • Consolidation is realistic because the City already processes ministerial lot line adjustments (≤4 lots) in 60 days and will advertise and enhance a Lot Consolidation Incentives program (flexible setbacks/height/parking, density on merged parcels, fee reductions, streamlined permit steps).
• The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, adopted in 2024, applies to small -site multi -family.

When paired with AB 2345 density bonus (up to 80% with 2-4 concessions) and by -right processing for projects that propose at least 20% lower -income units are proposed, small -site developments can reliably include on -site deed -restricted units. The City's objective design standards will ensure that requirements remain feasible and predictable.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-17

• Through the Sites/No-Net-Loss monitoring programs in Chapter 2, if a small site proves unlikely to yield units or affordability, the City will replace it within 180 days to preserve lower -income capacity.

Large Sites
The City has routinely entitled and built on large sites, from 10-55 acres and up to 121 acres (West Fairview Road Specific Plan). This established practice of breaking large holdings into mapped neighborhoods undercuts the notion that a "large site" may be infeasible in Hollister.

The City's inventory includes two large parcels:
• RZ-H-11 (APN 053-380-004, 17.16 ac, Bolsa Rd): Rezoning from North Gateway Commercial to High -Density Residential (max 65 du/ac) with an 80% realization factor yields 892 total units, including 178 Very-Low/Low, 179 Moderate, and 535 Above Moderate. This is a purely residential rezone intended to deliver appropriately sized multi -family pads through future subdivision and parcel maps, as well as site planning, with objective standards ensuring feasible building envelopes.
• RZ-N-1 (APN 051-100-049, 13.99 ac, Pacific Way): Rezoning from North Gateway Commercial to North Gateway Mixed -Use (max 65 du/ac) with a 70% realization factor yields 636 total units, including 127 Very-Low/Low, 127 Moderate, and 382 Above Moderate. As part of the North Gateway MU area (21 ac across seven parcels), this site benefits from phased parceling and coordinated site planning to create appropriately sized development pads timed with market interest.

The City's rezoning strategy establishes minimum densities and minimum units per site, and commits to objective design standards to guide block structure, frontage, and access, so large holdings may be subdivided/parcel-mapped into buildable 2 -5 -acre pads sized for garden, podium, and mixed -use multi -family formats. Where at least 20% lower -income units is proposed, by -right processing applies; and fully affordable proposals may also qualify for SB 35 streamlining. The City will also give priority water/sewer service to developments with affordable units, important for large, phased projects, and will offer density bonus and fee considerations to promote affordability. Together, these actions address potential constraints that lead to appropriately sized, financeable projects on the large sites.

The City's Inclusionary Ordinance, Density Bonus, by -right incentives, SB 35, and priority utilities align these large -site rezonings with clear, feasible pathways to lower -income unit delivery. On large sites, applicants may phase subdivision and parcel maps consistent with objective design standards, apply by-right/SB 35 where eligible, and leverage inclusionary, density bonus, fee relief, and priority utilities to facilitate lower -income production on the two large sites.

The City of Hollister has facilitated the subdivision and development of many larger parcels, considers them common, and does not see larger parcels as a constraint to development of housing. Recent developments on larger parcels include, but are not limited to:

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-18

• Orchard Park (10 acres)
• Meridian Village (12.8 acres)
• Everglen (13.8 acres)
• Kramer Commons (18.2 acres)
• Ladd Ranch (19.5 acres)
The City identifies two larger parcels in its site inventory:

1. APN: 053380004000 (17.16 acres); and

2. APN: 051100049000 (13.99 acres).
• Willow Landing (23.5 acres)
• The Villages (32.4 acres)
• Roberts Ranch (54.9 acres)
• West Fairview Road Specific Plan
(121.3 acres)
This history of development, combined with additional policy programs to increase density, incentive programs targeting small sites and promoting small lot consolidation, and the implementation of an inclusionary policy serves as the basis of justification for the inclusion of small sites in the sites inventory for Low and Very Low incomes within identified sites.

Large Sites Summary
• The inventory includes two large sites that may be developed as large developments or subdivided/parcel-mapped and site -planned into appropriately sized pads so multiple garden/podium buildings can proceed in phases. The rezones require minimum densities and minimum units per site, and objective design standards will control block structure, access and frontage, ensuring buildable, financeable pads. • Affordability is advanced by the Inclusionary Ordinance, Density Bonus, by-right/SB 35 streamlining where eligible, priority water/sewer service procedures for affordable developments, and fee considerations. These tools collectively encourage and facilitate lower -income production as the large sites are phased. • The City will facilitate and encourage development through rezoning with standards that do not constrain development, water/sewer priority procedures, objective standards, and annual APR tracking of approvals/permits ensure large -site capacity turns into units. If production on any large site lags, No -Net -Loss remedies may be triggered within 180 days.

Small & Large Sites Suitability
Consistent with Government Code §65583.2 and HCD guidance, Hollister demonstrates that small sites in the inventory are suitable for lower -income housing by linking recent, local projects, including parcel consolidations with documented affordability (375 Fourth St, 400 San Benito St), to today's downtown small -site clusters that share adjacency, common ownership, and shared access, now in higher -density zones and backed by ministerial lot consolidation and targeted incentives. For large sites, the inventory identifies two specific parcels with rezoned capacities and income splits, and explains how they may be subdivided/parcel-mapped into appropriately sized pads under objective standards, with by-right/SB 35, inclusionary, density bonus, fee relief, and priority utilities to encourage and facilitate delivery of lower -income units. The City will monitor and, if necessary, Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-19

replace any non -performing sites within 180 days to maintain adequate lower -income capacity through the planning period.

Inclusionary (H4.1), Density Bonus (H3.6), Fee Relief (H3.3), By -Right (H1.4), SB 35 Procedures (H1.5), Water/Sewer Priority (H1.6), Objective Design Standards (H2.1), Lot Consolidation Incentives & ministerial lot -line (H4.6), and No-Net-Loss/Monitoring (H1.3/H3.5/H1.7) are the operative programs enabling affordability and right -sizing on inventoried parcels.

C. Projected Development

1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
HCD has supported a strategy for estimating future development of ADUs based on the average number of ADUs from past performance as reported annually through the Annual Progress Report (APR). As shown in Table F-6: Past Performance and Projection of ADU Development, the City has experienced a gradual increase in ADU applications since new ADU laws went into effect in 2020. In the prior 5th Cycle planning period, the City updated its Municipal Code to comply with State ADU laws. In the 6th Cycle, the City is committed to streamlining the ADU application and development process to encourage ADU development.

From 2021 to 2024, the City experienced an average yearly increase of 22.5 percent for ADU production. The City anticipates that falling interest rates and development costs, coupled with the City's commitments to streamline ADU development, will contribute to a continued pattern of increasing ADU production. In its ADU projections and calculated based on ADU development from 2021-2024, the City estimates that ADU production will average approximately 20 units yearly throughout the 6th Cycle planning period.

Policy Action H3.4: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the Policy Plan describes the City's commitment to streamline ADU development in the 6th Cycle. The City plans to develop permit -ready ADU plans to minimize design costs, streamline permit processing, and provide development certainty. The City anticipates that permit -ready ADU plans will contribute to increased development of ADUs.

Using a conservative estimate of 20 ADUs developed per year, the City anticipates a total of 167 new ADUs in the 6th Cycle planning period. The estimates are consistent with the City's most recent ADU trends and are reflective of the changes in State law and the City's recent and future efforts to promote, streamline review, and incentivize ADU production.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-20

Table F-6 Past Performance and Projection
of ADU Development
Year
ADU Permitted and Projected
2021
8 2022
10 2023
37 2024
27 Annual Projections
2024
27*
2025
20 2026
20 2027
20 2028
20 2029
20 2030
20 2031
20 Projection Period Total
167
*Based on 2024 APR
For the purposes of Sites Inventory, the City assumes a percentage of ADUs will be affordable based on the Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, produced by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG's analysis consisted of the following steps:
• Calculated maximum rent limits for RHNA income categories for one -person and two person households by county;
• Surveyed rents for ADUs in the region;
• Used survey data to determine proportion of ADUs within each income category; and • Created assumption of how many persons will occupy each ADU, finalize proportions.

Using ABAG's analysis, Table F-7 shows estimated ADU projections for the City of Hollister by income category.

Table F-7: ADU Projections
by Income Category
Income Category
Percentage
Units
Low- and Very Low -Income
60%
100 units
Moderate -Income
30%
50units
Above Moderate -Income
10%
17 units
Total
167 units
As described in Chapter 2: Policy Plan, Policy Action H3.4: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Policy Action H3.5: Accessory Dwelling Units Monitoring Program, the City will establish an ADU Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-21

monitoring program and will assess trends biennially; if gaps are identified between what is anticipated in this analysis and what is built, the City will implement changes within a year.

Per Government Code section 65852.2, ADUs must be permitted in any residential or mixed -use zone — any zone where residential uses are permitted by right or by conditional use. Additionally, State law states that local governments cannot preclude the creation of ADUs, and any limitations should be accompanied by detailed findings of fact explaining why ADU limitations are required and consistent with these factors.

2. Pipeline Projects
"Projects in the pipeline" are defined as projects that have applied for entitlements, have recently received Planning approval, and/or have submitted for building permits that have not yet been approved and issued. Projects in the pipeline range from the addition of a single unit to an existing building to new multi -family residential with dozens of units. The pipeline includes both market -rate and affordable developments.

As shown in Table F-8: Pipeline Projects, there are currently 26 projects in the pipeline that will provide an estimated total of 1,735 residential units towards meeting the City's 6th Cycle RHNA requirements. These include 175 Very Low/Low, 5 Moderate and 1,735 Above Moderate rate units.

The location of these Pipeline Projects is shown in Figure F-1: Pipeline Projects.

Hollister's residential development pipeline includes many projects in various stages of the housing development process, including projects that have received approvals from City Council, Planning Commission and/or Planning Division, or projects that are awaiting Planning approvals or that have filed for building permits. Projects listed as "Approved" are approved but awaiting permit issuance. "Under Review" refers to projects that have been formally submitted to the City and entitlements are under review. At present, these Pipeline Projects do not have any known barriers or phasing requirements and therefore should move forward without delay, depending on market conditions.

The affordability levels for the units are determined by the project description in each planning permit issued and planning permit application submitted. The projects that are identified as affordable have recorded deed -restrictions (regulatory agreement) on the property. Any project that is not identified as affordable is assumed to be above moderate -income.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-22

Table
F-8: Pipeline
Projects
Project / Address
Very Low /
Low
Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Units
Status
Woodle Subdivision/ Aspen
Park
100
100
Under Construction
Avalon Village/Willow
Landing
144
144
Under Construction
Everglen Subdivision
98 98
Under Construction
Kramer Commons
91 91
Approved — Civil Review
San Juan Apartments - 1550
San Juan Rd
8 149
157
Approved
4th St Apartments
17 17
Approved
NWC 4th St/Westside Blvd
84 84
Approved
1871 Buena Vista Rd
3 3
Approved
Meridian Village
206
206
Under Review
South St Townhomes
14 14
Approved
Annotti Landing
28 28
Under Construction
Eden Housing
100
100
Approved
1620 Buena Vista Rd
130
130
Approved
Farmstead
13 13
Under Construction
West of Fairview Phase 3
47 47
Approved — Civil Review
375 Fourth St.
50 1
51 Approved
San Juan Crossings
132
132
Approved
Intravia/The Heights
25 25
Under Review
400 Block
2 2
Under Construction
500 San Benito St
12 12
Under Construction
Bhandal Apartments/650
Central Ave
1 1
Approved
West of Fairview Phase 2
4 157
161
Under Construction
221 Hawkins St
4 4
Approved
Los Pinars Apartments
47 47
Twin Oaks
61 61
Under Construction
Everglen 2
1 6
7 Approved
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-23

Figure F-1: Pipeline Projects
Legend
:3 Pipeline Parcels

0.4 0.8 1.5 Miles

3. Existing Residential Capacity
Existing residential capacity includes those vacant parcels that are currently zoned for multi -family residential development and are not proposed to be rezoned (either a designation change and/or a change in density). This includes Medium- and High -Density Residential and Mixed -Use designated parcels.

As shown in Table F-9: Existing Capacity, there is an estimated existing residential capacity of 419 residential units (114 Very Low / Low, 81 Moderate, and 224 Above Moderate. To be conservative, a development capacity of 70 to 80 percent was applied to the Mixed -Use and High Density Residential designated parcels, respectively. This includes three parcels that are currently zoned High Density Residential, and one parcel designated Medium Density Residential, and six parcels designated Neighborhood Mixed -Use, and one parcel designated West Gateway Mixed -Use.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-24

Address
1371 Sunnyslope
Rd
Table F-9: Existing
Zoning
High Density Residential
Capacity
Low
Net Units
11 Mod.
by
Category
6 Above
Mod.
ncome
26 Comments / Status
Single family
residence on largely
vacant parcel
(approximately 75%
vacant)
1001 Nash Rd
High Density Residential
4 3
10 Church
1573 Valley View
Rd #A
High Density Residential
22 13
51 Mostly vacant with
some structures
North St
Medium Density Residential
30 30
0 Vacant
1220 Fourth St
West Gateway Mixed -Use
10 6
23 Multi -tenant
commercial building
with parking. Partially
vacant parcel.

Ladd Lane
Apartments
Neighborhood Mixed -Use
0 0
28 Vacant
262 Hillock Dr
Neighborhood Mixed -Use
6 4
14 Vacant
242 Hillock Dr
Neighborhood Mixed -Use
6 4
14 Vacant
1561 Cushman St
Neighborhood Mixed -Use
9 5
21 Vacant
0 Cushman St
Neighborhood Mixed -Use
8 5
20 Vacant
391 Hillock Dr
Neighborhood Mixed -Use
8 5
17 Vacant
Residential
67 52
87 Mixed -Use
47 29
137
Total
114
81 224
The development capacity assumed in Table F-9: Existing Capacity was developed by analyzing development capacity of higher density developments in the 5th Cycle planning period. Additionally, the City's 6th Cycle Policy Plan implements various programs meant to incentivize and facilitate higher density development which can contribute to development capacities greater than the assumptions in Table F-9: Existing Capacity. The location of these residential and mixed -use parcels is shown in Figure F-2: Existing Capacity.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-25

Figure F-2: Existing Capacity
Legend
Existing Sites
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-26

4. Rezones for Remaining Need
Methodology for Identification of ''ezoine Sites
Consistent with the ongoing 2040 General Plan update process, the City focused the identification of sites in the City limits which are planned to accommodate the majority of the City's jobs and housing growth and are generally served by existing transit service and support the City's goal to focus development within the downtown and existing urban areas. These include the following existing General Plan Land Use designated areas that could be rezoned to allow residential development or "upzoned" to allow greater residential density, and thereby have a high -potential solution to address meeting the remaining housing needs. These are: 1) Downtown Commercial and Mixed -Use, 2) High - Density Residential, 3) Mixed -Use, 4) West Gateway Mixed -Use, and 5) North Gateway Mixed -Use.

As noted above, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (SCH # 2021040227) adopted in December 2024 to evaluate the impacts of new residential units through 2040. The proposed land use map, as shown in the Draft EIR Figure 3-5, 2040 General Plan Land Use Map, in Chapter 3, Project Description, includes the candidate housing sites for the 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated increases in zoning density (rezone sites) that would provide sufficient land designated for housing to fulfill the City's 2023-2031 RHNA, as well as future buffer sites pursuant to SB 166 identified as part of the Housing Element update. Additionally, the proposed General Plan 2040 Land Use (LU) Element includes goals, policies, and actions that require decision -makers to support adequate housing in Hollister.

Due to the high and increasing demand for residential development and a decline in demand for brick - and -mortar commercial development, the current market is heavily skewed towards residential development. As stated in the proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan update, a major goal for the downtown area is the facilitation of housing production. A large portion of the downtown area is made up of existing residential neighborhoods, and the City aims to preserve that character and enhance it.

To be conservative, a development capacity of 70 to 80 percent was applied to the Mixed -Use and High Density Residential Rezone designated parcels, respectively. For Mixed -Use areas such as the Downtown Mixed -Use Rezone, the City is assuming a 70 percent development capacity which would be equal to 87.5 du/acre. As shown in Tables F-3 and F-5, the City has facilitated development at densities within the range assumed in Table F-11: Rezone Sites. Three recent examples show that the development at higher densities in the Downtown Mixed -Use (DMU) area is not only feasible but required and requested by applicants. Exceptions were required in these examples, directly influencing the City's consideration of increasing density to make higher density development more feasible.

To estimate assumed capacity for the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period, sites deemed to be most likely to develop during the planning period were identified. To determine the estimated densities, a survey of recent development within the proposed rezone areas was conducted to identify Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-27

trends in actual built densities. Based on this, the City has determined the densities of recently built projects average approximately 70 to 80 percent of the maximum permitted. This average was used to project out development potential on all identified Housing Element opportunity sites. However, due to the many identified parcels being infill sites in the downtown area, only 70 percent of the assumed density was used to calculate the potential capacity. Additional affordable and market -rate units will be added through density bonus incentives and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Past performance shows that the City has had great success in facilitating higher density and affordable housing developments in the City; the rezones will continue to further this effort in combination with new commercial resources, employment opportunities, and the creation of new thriving communities.

Key influencing factors supporting develop ent in Mixed -Use and High Density Areas The following key influencing factors contribute to and support the development of housing in the Mixed -Use and High Density areas. The policy and regulations in the Policy Plan and proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan Update are supported and reinforced by the behaviors of the market. • The downtown area had historically struggled to compete regionally with other commercial areas and has experienced higher retail and commercial vacancy rates than other commercial areas in the City. The new policy commitments in the Policy Plan and proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan update have the potential to reshape the downtown area and make it a more attractive regional investment opportunity for both commercial and residential development. • The adoption of the proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan Update is expected to result in significant interest from private developers for new mixed -use and residential development.

There has been growing interest in the downtown area in recent years that has already resulted in built projects and the Policy Plan and proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan Update will support this trend by creating a flexible and streamlined environment for the development of new mixed -use and residential project during the Planning Period. • Median home prices are lower and more affordable in Hollister compared to neighboring cities and cities of similar size in the region. This creates greater opportunities to develop a wide range of housing types at different affordability levels. • Public and stakeholder participation in the development of the Housing Element has indicated a strong desire to increase housing opportunities and willingness to invest in the downtown. • The proposed Hollister 2040 General Plan Update has specific policies and regulations supporting residential development opportunities in the downtown area. The land use plan and policies prioritize infill development, reuse of underutilized parcels, mixed -use design, and preservation of key elements that make downtown unique. New development is prioritized where existing roads, water, sewer, and other utilities are in place and in a manner that minimizes the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services. • Recent infill development in the downtown, as shown in Tables F-3 and F-5 has shown strong market support.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-28

When comparing residential real estate downtown versus the City as a whole, residential stock citywide is overwhelmingly single-family while the majority of the City's multifamily housing stock is downtown.

Through its 2040 General Plan Update and 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City is intentionally pivoting from past development trends in an effort to forge new trends in the community and the housing market. Past trends and strategies in the City have not met the City's RHNA needs, nor the City's housing needs as a community generally, and that the goal of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, 2040 General Plan Update, and zoning efforts is to forge a new path so that the City and housing market align with community needs and goals.

While the utilization of past trends may be helpful for some jurisdictions, the City of Hollister does not believe past trends are indicative of future trends in the City. For example, most of the projects considered by the City during this Housing Element cycle were under previous zoning and General Plan definitions which utilized net density, rather than gross density calculations. In addition to net density generally resulting in lower project density overall, the City also did not have a standard procedure of calculating "net" density. As a result, approved project densities vary significantly for previous projects. In October 2023, the City Council amended the General Plan and zoning ordinance to require a gross density calculation for projects, meaning that moving forward, the City will have a more consistent ability to ensure that development is properly and adequately meeting densities identified in the General Plan. However, this policy is too recent to have had any meaningful effect on the development trend. It was adopted after to most of the Pipeline Projects had either been approved or were vested to previous calculations. It is anticipated to have a significant impact moving forward, because the City will ensure developments are being proposed and approved at appropriate densities.

While the City does include sites in the inventory in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses, the City does not consider this a constraint to residential development and is committed to ensuring residential development is required as a component of any development on mixed -use parcels. The City has received only one application for a nonresidential -only development in a mixed -use zoning district throughout the entirety of the 5th Housing Element Cycle, and that development proposed use on only a portion of the existing site, creating a remainder parcel dedicated for residential use. The remainder parcel is identified as candidate site P-8, which is under the ownership of an affordable housing developer interested in bringing additional low-income units to the community.

All other recent applications for development within all of the City's mixed -use zones have either included both residential and non-residential uses, or have been 100 percent residential proposals.

Policy Action H1.3: 6th Cycle RHNA Strategy includes a commitment to allow 100 percent residential use on parcels that permit mixed -uses, and will require residential uses occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of any mixed -use project. Two recent mixed -use examples listed in Table F-5, 375 Fourth St. and 430 San Benito St., are mixed -use projects that were over 70 percent residential. Through the Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-29

proposed zoning code amendments, the City will ensure similar mixed -use development patterns on future proposed development on mixed -use parcels.

Table F-11: Rezone Sites, which is included at the end of this appendix, identifies the development potential assumed for this Capacity Analysis. The proposed rezones create a significant amount of residential development and redevelopment opportunity throughout the 6th Cycle planning period.

The City utilized the HCD "Default Density Standard Option" to determine the development capacity of rezoned sites. Similarly to development capacity assumptions of sites assumed in Table F-11, the City analyzed development capacity of higher density developments in the 5th Cycle planning period.

The City's 6th Cycle Policy Plan implements various programs meant to incentivize higher density development which can contribute to development capacities greater than the assumptions in Table F-9: Existing Capacity.

Figure F-3: Rezone Sites, identifies the location of these sites.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-30

Figure F-3: Rezone Sites
© Downtown Mixed -Use
J High Density Residential
Q Mixed -Use
© North Gateway Mixed Use
c:3 West Gateway Mixed Use
, ' , e Hollister City Limit
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-31

Downtown Commercial and ixed-Use
As part of the 2040 General Plan rezone process, 34 parcels on approximately 9 acres will be upzoned, increasing the maximum allowable density from 45 to 125 du/ac.

Total residential units created for this land use designation will create 154 Very Low and Low units, 151 Moderate units, and 450 Above Moderate units, for a total of 755 units. These parcels currently allow residential development representing a potential total of 260 units. The rezone would result in an additional increased capacity of 495 units. Figure F-4: Downtown Mixed -Use Rezone Sites, identifies the location of these sites.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-32

Figure F-4: Downtown Mixed -Use Rezone Sites
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-33

High Density Resid^ ntial
As part of the 2040 General Plan rezone process, the High -Density Residential land use designation maximum density will be increased from 35 to 65 du/ac. This rezoning will affect 20 parcels on approximately 44 acres. This includes eight parcels that are currently designated High -Density Residential, one parcel designed Low -Density Residential, one parcel designated Medium -Density Residential, and 10 parcels currently designated North Gateway Commercial.

Total residential units created for this land use designation will create 657 Very Low and Low units, 408 Moderate units, and 1,201 Above Moderate units, for a total of 2,266 units.

With the exception of the sites which are currently zoned North Gateway Commercial, these parcels currently allow residential development representing a potential total of 300 units. The rezone would result in an additional increased capacity of 1,966 units. Figure F-5: High -Density Residential Rezone Sites, identifies the location of these sites.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-34

Figure F-5: High -Density Residential Rezone Sites
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-35

Mixed -Use
As part of the 2040 General Plan rezone process, the Mixed -Use land use designation maximum density will be increased from 40 to 65 du/ac. This rezoning will affect seven parcels on approximately 26 acres. All parcels are currently zoned Neighborhood Mixed -Use.

Total residential units created for this land use designation will create 455 Very Low and Low units, 236 Moderate units, and 707 Above Moderate units, for a total of 1,182 units.

These parcels currently allow residential development representing a potential total of 729 units. The rezone would result in an additional increased capacity of 453 units. Figure F-6: Mixed -Use Rezone Sites, identifies the location of these sites.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-36

Figure F-6: Mixed -Use Rezone Sites
Legend: Rezone Sites
(=I Downtown Mixed -Use
;, High Density Residential
Mixed -Use
© North Gateway Mixed Use
', :::3 West Gateway Mixed Use
o ! Hollister City Limit
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-37

West Gateway (Mixed -Use
As part of the 2040 General Plan rezone process, the Mixed -Use land use designation maximum density will be increased from 40 to 65 du/ac. This rezoning will affect eight parcels on approximately 19 acres. All eight parcels that are currently designated West Gateway Commercial.

Total residential units created for this land use designation will create 173 Very Low and Low units, 177 Moderate units, and 521 Above Moderate units, for a total of 871 units. Figure F-7: West Gateway Mixed -Use Rezone Sites, identifies the location of these sites.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-38

Figure F-7: West Gateway Mixed -Use Rezone Sites
© Downtown Mixed -Use
: High Density Residential
CM Mixed -Use
© North Gateway Mixed Use
West Gateway Mixed Use
" Hollister City Limit
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-39

North Gateway Commercial
The General Plan designates 363 acres as North Gateway Commercial, located east and west of San Felipe Road and north of the downtown. Currently this land use designation does not allow residential development. The goal of this designation is to foster an attractive entry into the City of Hollister by featuring commercial and service -oriented businesses along with high -employment uses such as large-scale retail commercial uses, office parks, and service -oriented businesses. The design guidelines described in the "Special Planning Areas" section of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan stipulates additional criteria that development within the North Gateway must meet.

The Candidate Sites Analysis identifies seven parcels on approximately 21 acres in the North Gateway Commercial District that, when rezoned per the 2040 General Plan, would allow up to 65 dwelling units per acre. With an assumption of this site being developed at 70 percent of its maximum allowable density, based on the City's development trends, these sites would yield approximately 969 units. Total residential units created for this land use designation will create 193 Very Low and Low units, 198 Moderate units, and 578 Above Moderate units, for a total of 969 units. Figure F-8: North Gateway Mixed -Use Rezone Sites, identifies the location of these sites.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-40

Figure F-8: North Gateway Mixed -Use Rezone Sites
RZ-H-15
Z -H-6
RZ-H-9
Legend: Rezone Sites
0 Downtown Mixed -Use
High Density Residential
Mixed -Use
Q North Gateway Mixed Use
West Gateway Mixed Use
Hollister City Limit
RZ-N-2
RZ-N-4
RZ-D-24
RZ-H-20
RZ-H-19 .r'* RZ-H-18
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-41

D. Candidate Sites Inventory
The Candidate Sites Inventory includes a mix of vacant and non -vacant parcels identified to accommodate the City's 6th Cycle RHNA. The City conducted a detailed parcel -by -parcel analysis of non -vacant sites to evaluate whether existing uses materially impede redevelopment and to assess redevelopment feasibility during the planning period. Each non -vacant site was evaluated on a parcel -by -parcel basis using consistent redevelopment feasibility factors, including: existing use type and intensity relative to allowed or proposed zoning, building height, age, and functional characteristics, parcel size and configuration, likelihood of residential redevelopment, and surrounding land use and market context.

This analysis is intended to assess whether existing uses materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, rather than to predict individual property owner actions.

Recent development, such as the 400 Block Condominium project and 500 San Benito Street Apartment project in the downtown have demonstrated that increased density maximums are required to bring feasibility to both vacant and non -vacant sites such as those which have been identified in this Housing Element. Those projects, developed at 98 and 125 du/acre, respectively, on lots significantly less than 1 -acre in size, have been successfully constructed; while other projects proposed and entitled in the downtown and high -density mixed use zoning districts under current density ranges have not come to fruition. The 400 Block Condominium and 500 San Benito Street projects, however, required significant density bonus and other concessions and incentives to accommodate a density increase that created a financially feasible number of units on the sites to support the construction. The policies proposed in this Housing Element will support the proposed increases in density on the Candidate Sites to ensure that residential development projects are successful, without the need for density bonuses, concessions, or incentives.

Existing Use Intensity and Improvement Value
Across the Sites Inventory, most non -vacant parcels are improved with low -intensity uses relative to planned and proposed zoning capacity.

Common existing conditions include older single -story commercial buildings, large surface parking fields, legacy service uses, institutional facilities, storage yards, auto -oriented retail pads, and a few scattered single-family residences on large parcels designated for higher density residential use.

In most cases, improvement value is low to modest relative to underlying land value, with a significant portion of site area devoted to parking, outdoor storage, or other non-productive uses. Structures are frequently single -purpose, shallow in depth, or functionally obsolete for Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-42

contemporary commercial needs. These conditions indicate limited recent reinvestment and are typical precursors to redevelopment when zoning allows higher -intensity residential or mixed -use development.

Structure Age, Condition„ and Reinvestment Potential
The majority of existing structures on non -vacant sites reflect older construction eras and legacy building typologies, including small offices, strip commercial buildings, convenience stores, auto repair facilities, storage facilities, churches, and industrial or yard uses. Field observations and site characteristics indicate limited capital reinvestment in most cases, particularly where buildings are older single -story, surrounded by extensive paving, or partially vacant.

In contrast to newly constructed or heavily reinvested properties, these sites do not exhibit characteristics that would typically deter redevelopment, such as recent large-scale modernization, vertical expansion, or long-term intensification. The prevalence of aging or functionally constrained improvements supports the conclusion that redevelopment is feasible within the planning period as market conditions evolve.

Property Tur over Patterns ani Market Feasibility
The analysis identified strong turnover indicators across multiple site types:
• Commercial and strip retail pads with surplus parking and shallow floorplates that are increasingly uncompetitive in walkable, mixed -use corridors.
• Auto -oriented service uses, repair yards, and storage facilities that commonly consolidate into fewer, larger locations as land values increase.
• Institutional and assembly uses (churches, funeral homes, theaters, medical offices) that often redevelop episodically as organizational needs change or facilities relocate.
• Low -density residential uses on large parcels designated for high -density residential development, where replacement with multifamily housing is consistent with local and regional redevelopment patterns.

Local and regional precedent, including recent Hollister projects and comparable developments in nearby cities, demonstrates that conversion of these use types to multifamily or mixed -use housing is both market -feasible and financeable when objective standards and by -right zoning are in place.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-43

Parcel Size, Configuration, and Builder Feasibility
Many Sites Inventory parcels fall within "builder -preferred" size ranges, including:
• Small infill sites (0.1-0.5 acres) suitable for compact podium or stacked -flat development. • Mid -sized sites (0.5-1.0 acres) ideal for efficient podium or wrap configurations delivered in a single phase. • Larger infill and corridor sites (1-3 acres) capable of supporting multi -building layouts, internal circulation, and phased construction. • Large master -planned sites exceeding 10 acres that can accommodate multi -phase neighborhoods with shared infrastructure and open space.

Parcel configurations generally support efficient access, internalized parking, and objective design solutions. Where minor lot adjustments or shared access improve feasibility, the City's lot consolidation and shared access programs provide flexibility without constraining redevelopment.

Displacement Considerations
The parcel -by -parcel analysis confirms that the majority of non -vacant sites do not contain existing residential units, and therefore redevelopment would not result in residential displacement. Where sites include a small number of existing residential units, typically one to two single-family homes, displacement impacts are limited in scale and can be addressed through standard relocation requirements. No sites involve concentrations of existing lower -income residential units that would materially constrain redevelopment feasibility during the planning period.

Regulatory Framework and Impediments to Redevelopment
The City's Housing Element programs substantially reduce regulatory impediments to redevelopment. Key actions include:
• Program H1.3, which implements rezonings to High Density Residential or Mixed -Use districts and allows multifamily development by right at appropriate densities.
• Program H2.1, which establishes objective design and development standards that reduce entitlement risk and improve predictability.
• Programs H3.6 and H4.1, which support density bonus utilization and affordability layering. • Program H4.6, which provides flexibility for lot consolidation or shared access where beneficial.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-44

Taken together, the parcel -by -parcel findings demonstrate that the City's Candidate Sites Inventory is realistic, feasible, and capable of accommodating the City's RHNA. Non -vacant sites are generally characterized by low -intensity, aging, or underutilized uses with low to modest improvement value, clear turnover signals, and parcel sizes that align with efficient multifamily development prototypes. Regulatory and infrastructure conditions further support redevelopment by reducing entitlement risk and allowing by -right residential development at planned densities.

Based on these actions and the parcel -level analysis, the City finds that existing uses do not materially impede redevelopment on Sites Inventory parcels during the planning period.

Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-45

Table F-10: Pipeline Projects
P-1 019120005000
Woodle Subdivision/
Aspen Park
P-2 019310002000
Avalon Village/Willow
Landing
P-3 051230005000
P-4 051230006000
P-5 052090008000
Everglen Subdivision
Kramer Commons
San Juan Apartments
8 P-8
P-9
P-10
052131033000
052180005000
052320003000
P-11 054600005000
4th Street Apartments 17
NWC 4th St/Westside Blvd
1871 Buena Vista Rd
Meridian Village
P-12 055030026000
P-14 057770040000
P-15 057860046000
South St Townhomes
Annotti Landing
Brighton & Mimosa (Eden
Housing)
100
058042024000
P-17 019110031000 _
0580600870
0580600850
0580600820
0580600910
0580600810
0580600830
0580600860
0580600880
0580600930
0580600900
P-18
1620 Buena Vista Rd
Farmstead
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
100 100 Under Construction
100 Single -Family Dwellings
144 144 Under Construction
116 Single -Family Dwellings, 28 Duets
98 98 Under Construction
91 149
91 157
Approved
Approved
17 Approved
84 84 Approved
3 3 Approved
206 206 Under Review
14 14
Approved
28 28 Under Construction
130
100
130
Approved
Approved
13 13 Under Construction
82 Single -Family Dwellings, 16 ADUs
75 Single -Family Dwellings, 16 Duets
157 Multi -Family Units, Mixed -Use
(3,750 SF Commercial)
17 Multi -Family Units
84 Condominiums
3 Single -Family Dwellings
134 Single -Family Dwellings, 72 Multi -
Family Units
Approved
16 Multi -Family Units, 12 ADUs
100 Multi -Family Units
Approved
1 unit on each of the 13 parcels.

Page F-46

Table F-10: Pipeline Projects
0580600890
0580600840
0580600920
P-19
P-20
057710054000
057710053000
054110002000
054110001000
West of Fairview Phase 3
375 Fourth St.

P-21
052360001000
through -5000
020120064
P-22 020460036
020460035
San Juan Crossings
Intravia/The Heights
P-23
054640001
through -028
P-24 054080009
P-25 053260006
400 Block
500 San Benito St
Bhandal Apartments/650
Central Ave
P-26
057900001
through -097,
057890001
through -101
West of Fairview Phase 2
P-27 056091002
057800002
057800001
057770001
through -014,
057770017
through -039,
057760001
through -073,
P-28
P-29
221 Hawkins St
Los Pinars Apartments
Twin Oaks
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
50 4
47 1
132
47 51
132
Approved
Approved
Approved
25 25 Under Review
2 2
Under Construction
12 12 Under Construction
1 1
Approved
157 161 Under Construction
4 47
4 47
Approved
61 61 Under Construction
Some permits pulled; 47 outstanding
in the 6th Cycle.
51 Multi -Family Units
132 Multi -Family Units, Mixed -Use
(5,259 SF Commercial)
11 Duplexes, 3 Single -Family Dwellings
Some permits pulled; 2 outstanding in
the 6th Cycle
Mixed -use ground floor commercial
Addition to existing apartments
Some permits pulled; 161 outstanding
in the 6th Cycle
2 Multi -Family Units, 2 ADUs
Some permits pulled; 47 outstanding
in the 6th Cycle
107 permits issued in 5th Cycle; 61
units outstanding in the 6th Cycle
Page F-47

Table F-10: Pipeline Projects
057780003
through -009,
057780011
through -025,
057780028
through -038,
057780041
through -045,
057780047
through -066
051240043 Everglen 2
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
7 Single -Family Dwellings
Page F-48

Table F-11: Existing Capacity
E-1
057344062000 1371
Sunnyslope Rd

1.56 High Density
Residential
R4
43 11 6 26
A single detached unit sits on a largely open interior, with roughly three-quarters of the site unused —an unusually efficient canvas at 1.56 acres for podium or garden -style multifamily.

The High Density Residential designation enables by -right multifamily; gross -density accounting and objective standards remove the "site plan penalty" that once pushed projects below target yields. Program H1.3 (multifamily rezones and streamlining) and Program H3.8 improve depth of feasibility given the parcel's frontage and nearby services. Local precedent shows Hollister builders comfortable replacing low -intensity improvements with higher density: downtown office conversions and surface -lot redevelopments reached strong unit yields and demonstrate lender acceptance of infill typologies citywide. At 1.56 acres, typical builder programs (3 -4 -story wraps or stacked flats) can hit efficiency thresholds for elevators, centralized utilities, and on -site open space without requiring consolidation. The existing single-family structure does not materially impede redevelopment and could be removed or integrated into a comprehensive site plan. Assessor information and site characteristics indicate that the value of improvements on the parcel is modest relative to land area and zoning capacity, a condition commonly associated with redevelopment feasibility. The existing single-family structure appears older and its condition does not suggest recent substantial reinvestment that would materially deter redevelopment. Single-family structures on large, high -density parcels typically experience higher redevelopment turnover when market conditions align, particularly where zoning allows multifamily development by right.

Taken together, the relatively low improvement intensity, age of the structure, and redevelopment patterns for similar sites support a higher probability of redevelopment during the planning period.
4th Cycle
E-2
055190015000
1001 Nash Rd

0.64 High Density
Residential
R4
17 4 3
10 This is an operating church on a small but well -located parcel. Faith -based owners often explore mission -aligned housing, and the zoning already allows multifamily. At 0.64 acre, feasibility pivots on compact massing (elevator -served stacked flats or three-story walk-ups) and shared or structured parking solutions. Program H4.6 (small -site entitlement support) and Program H1.3 can right -size standards, while Program H3.8 reduces parking friction for modest unit counts. Precedents downtown —like conversion/overbuilds of existing improvements —show that replacing low -intensity uses on sub -acre sites is viable in Hollister when objective standards are clear. If the congregation relocates or pursues joint development (SB 4, ground lease), the site's frontage supports a residential entry court and screened parking to the rear. Density bonuses further help pencil a 20-30+ unit concept with a meaningful affordable set -aside. The existing church does not materially impede redevelopment over the planning period. Redevelopment would not involve displacement of residential units. Overall, the site exhibits moderate to high redevelopment potential, with realistic capacity for approximately 20 to 30 or more multifamily units, with density bonus provisions supporting additional unit yield and affordability where utilized.

No
E-3
057250008000
1573 Valley
View Rd #A

3.09 High Density
Residential
R4
86 22 13
51 A large, mostly vacant tract with scattered structures and the "builder -preferred" size: at just over three acres, the site supports efficient internal drives, building bars that maximize frontage and solar orientation, and centralized amenity nodes. With R4 already in place, Program H1.3 streamlines multifamily, and Program H2.1 (objective design standards) supplies predictable elevations, materials, and stepbacks. The City's recent history converting underutilized parcels to housing, including a 100 -unit plan at 1070 Buena Vista, confirms the 4th Cycle
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-49

market for mid -scale multifamily and the City's comfort permitting it. The land area can deliver multiple buildings in one phase or two marketable phases with shared infrastructure, a key lender consideration. Improvements on the parcel are limited and scattered, and the improvement value is low relative to overall parcel size and zoning capacity, which is a strong indicator of redevelopment feasibility. Existing structures appear older and utilitarian in nature, and do not reflect recent reinvestment that would constrain redevelopment. Large parcels with minimal improvements historically experience higher redevelopment turnover, particularly when zoning already allows multifamily residential development and no residential displacement is involved. These factors collectively indicate a high likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period. Given parcel size, zoning, and recent local precedent, the site exhibits high redevelopment potential during the planning period, with realistic capacity for approximately 80 to 120 multifamily units depending on unit mix and application of density bonus provisions.

E-4
053440054000
North St

3.41 Medium
Density
Residential
R3
60 30
30 0
Vacant. Owned by an affordable housing developer with interest in developing a 100% affordable project.

No
053440055000

1.75 No
West Gateway
Mixed -Use
E-5 O52131O28OOO 122O Fourth St 1.6O WG 39 1O 6 23 4
A single -tenant commercial building with large parking areas occupies a prime West Gateway corner, but field conditions (partial vacancy, expansive asphalt) point to classic infill: wrap new housing along the street edges and internalize replacement parking. Program H1.3 (allowing 100% residential on mixed -use sites) is critical —Hollister has already approved projects that leaned residential first, with small ground -floor commercial components where marketable. Comparable downtown examples —like 375 Fourth (mixed -use with 4,600+ sf retail over a former lot) and overbuilds at 500/400 San Benito —demonstrate the playbook:
right -size retail, put homes above or beside it, and retire surplus parking. At 1.6 acres, the site clears the threshold for efficient podium or liner buildings without needing off -site parking deals, and objective standards de -risk massing and frontage. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, as parking areas can be internalized or reduced and no residential displacement would occur. Given parcel size, gateway location, and zoning flexibility, the site exhibits high redevelopment potential, with realistic capacity for approximately 40 to 60 or more multifamily units, with density bonus and inclusionary provisions potentially increasing unit yield and affordability. A significant portion of the parcel's value is attributable to land rather than improvements. Field conditions and partial vacancy suggest limited recent reinvestment in the existing structure.

Commercial properties of this type, particularly those with excess parking, tend to experience higher turnover as retail formats evolve and mixed -use redevelopment becomes more competitive. The combination of underutilized improvements, observable age and condition, and market -driven turnover of similar commercial sites supports a higher probability of redevelopment over the planning period.
to Cycle
E-6
057420051000
Ladd Lane
Apartments

1.00 Neighborhood
Mixed -Use
NMU
28 0
0 28
Vacant
No
E-7
057720002000
262 Hillock Dr

0.87 Neighborhood
Mixed -Use
NMU
24 6
4 14
Vacant
No
E-8
057720001000
242 Hillock Dr

0.88 Neighborhood
Mixed -Use
NMU
24 6
4 14
Vacant
No
E-9
057800002000
1561 Cushman
St

1.27 Neighborhood
Mixed -Use
NMU
35 9
5 21
Vacant
No
E-10
057800001000
0 Cushman St

1.20 Neighborhood
Mixed -Use
NMU
33 8
5 20
Vacant
No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-50

E-11
057420052000
391 Hillock Dr

1.1 Neighborhood
Mixed -Use
NMU
30 8
5 17
Vacant
No
. ... ..
. . ....mm. . .
..mow.
..
.w. � a ... . ..
.,.
. . :�. .

Residential
206
67 52
87 Mixed -Use
213
47 ;29
137
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-51

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-1 054140006000 220
Fourth St
RZ-D-2 054020001000
RZ-D-3 054010024000
RZ-D-4 054050018000
701 San
Benito St
Seventh St
375 Sixth
St

0.24 0.15

0.12 0.45
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
4 4
12 20
A clean, vacant infill pad in the Downtown grid that can deliver near -term housing without displacement, utility reroutes, or demolition. A compact 4- 6 -story stacked -flat or small -podium fits the quarter -acre footprint under the proposed Downtown Mixed -Use intensity; the assumption of —20 homes at —70% of maximum density mirrors similarly sized downtown parcels in peer cities. The street edge can carry an active lobby corner and transparent amenities, with massing stepped to adjacent low-rise fabric and curb -cut consolidation for a safer, more walkable frontage. Program H1.3 provides the rezoning basis; Program H2.1 calibrates objective standards (setbacks, transitions, open space, loading) to today's infill prototypes; Program H4.6 allows right -sized parking where eligible; and Program H1.3 offers a ministerial path when deeper affordability is pursued. Regional precedents show this move is routine—Watsonville's 558 Main St (long -vacant CBD lot to 4 -story mixed -use) and Santa Cruz's Pacific Station North (mid -rise housing in a transit core) demonstrate near -term feasibility for sites of this scale.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
2 2
8 12
A prominent vacant corner that reads as "ready land" for a 4 -5 -story building with internalized parking (or participation in a pooled/shared solution) and a fine-grained ground floor. The assumption of "12 homes at —70% of maximum density is reasonable for an upzoned main street, and recent small -pad submittals in similar towns trend predominantly residential —consistent with HCD's realism test on micro -sites. Streetscape upgrades —curb -cut consolidation, shade trees, and lighting —pair with an activated corner to reinforce walkability, while step -backs and articulation protect privacy on shared lot lines. With Program H1.3 bringing the rezone into force and Program H2.1 refining objective standards, applicants can size any nonresidential area only where it pencils; Program H1.5 can reduce parking where transit criteria are met; and Program H1.3 expedites qualifying affordability mixes. Nearby examples such as Santa Cruz's Riverfront/Front Street and Morgan Hill's Sunsweet show main -street parcels intensifying to mid -rise housing with structured or shared parking.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
2 2
6 10
A textbook vacant micro-infill interior lot: no active tenants to relocate, utilities at the doorstep, and just enough width for a 3 -4 -story stacked -flat with a single efficient core, internal bike/storage rooms, and modest on -site stalls (or access to a shared facility). The assumption of —10 homes at ^'70% of maximum density is achievable with current small -plate prototypes. A stoop or compact forecourt balances privacy and "eyes on the street," while upper -story step -backs respect adjacent structures. Program H1.3 (rezone) and Program H2.1 (objective standards update) set a predictable envelope; and Program H1.3 shortens timelines for qualifying affordability.

Regionally, Watsonville's 558 Main and Santa Cruz's Pacific Station North illustrate the same micro -to -mid -rise pattern that can be replicated here.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
10 6
23 39
A faith -based campus embedded in Downtown that can either replace or retain worship space paired with a 4 -6 -story podium. Either sequence can keep services active during construction (temporary assembly space or a No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-52

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-5 054080026000
RZ-D-6 054130013000
350 Sixth
St
310
Fourth St

0.40 0.36
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
shared off -site venue), while curb -cut reductions, accessible entries, and stepped upper floors fit the block's scale. The assumption of —39 homes at ^'70% of maximum density aligns with church -to -housing precedents nearby, including San Jose's Immanuel-Sobrato supportive housing on church land and Cathedral of Faith campus housing. Program H1.3 sets the land -use basis; Program H2.1 tunes objective standards for step -backs and loading; Program H4.6 keeps small -lot consolidation optional where a sliver improves back -of -house circulation; and Program H1.3 is available for deeper -affordability proposals. With the Draft EIR covering rezone growth and standards refinement underway, entitlements can be streamlined post - adoption. The value of improvements is modest relative to downtown land value and zoning capacity. The structures appear older and functional in nature, with limited evidence of recent capital reinvestment that would materially deter redevelopment. Institutional properties of this type typically experience episodic turnover or partnership -driven redevelopment rather than incremental expansion, which increases redevelopment probability over a multi -year planning period. Redevelopment would not involve displacement of existing residential units.

A strip/pad-style commercial site that phases cleanly to housing while neighborhood -serving uses remain available. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, as no residential displacement would occur and existing tenants can be accommodated through phased relocation or re -tenancy within new ground -floor space. Given parcel size, downtown context, underutilized improvements, and demonstrated redevelopment of similar strip and pad sites in comparable communities, the site exhibits moderate to high redevelopment potential, with realistic capacity for approximately 30-35 multifamily units at roughly 70 percent of maximum density, consistent with assumptions. Early moves include consolidating curb cuts, pulling the building line to the sidewalk, and delivering a 4 -6 -story building with only the amount of ground -floor commercial that pencils —or simply 100% residential once rezoned. Existing tenants can be accommodated by sequencing: retain a small portion of the pad during Phase 1, then relocate into finished ground -floor space. The assumption of -34 homes at -70% of maximum density matches yields on -0.4-acre podiums in comparable downtowns. Program H1.3 enables the intensity; Program H2.1 right -sizes parking and open -space standards; Program H1.5 can reduce minimums where transit -proximate; and Program H4.6 keeps a single, efficient garage podium possible through optional small -lot consolidation. Direct analogs abound, from San Jose's Cambrian Park Plaza to El Paseo/Saratoga and Seaside's Seagrove, each showing strip -center or pad sites evolving to mixed -use housing under updated standards.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
7 7
20 34
No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
6 6
19 31
A classic underbuilt pad with multiple commercial tenants. The site presents shallow shopfront massing and a wide parking apron that can step into a 4 -6 -story residential building with a tightened curb line, transparent No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-53

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-7 054080013000
RZ-D-8 054090004000
535
Monterey
St
221 Fifth
St

0.27 0.20
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
45 45
Downtown
Mixed -Use
Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
125
5 3
4 10
23 17
ground -floor edge, and parking tucked behind or below grade.

Improvement value appears modest compared to underlying land value, with a site layout and building form typical of older strip or pad retail that has not seen recent substantial reinvestment. Commercial properties of this type commonly experience turnover as retail demand evolves, particularly where surplus parking and shallow floor plates limit long-term adaptability. At roughly a third of an acre, builders favor a small podium with one consolidated driveway, efficient double -loaded corridors, and screened loading; the assumption of ^'31 homes at ^'70% of maximum density aligns with that footprint. Program H1.3 supplies the upzoning and Program H2.1. calibrates objective standards for height, setbacks, and open space, Program H4.6 keep optional assembly with a neighbor on the table.

Regionally, the move from strip/pad retail to housing mirrors San Jose's Cambrian Park Plaza and El Paseo/Saratoga, and Seaside's Seagrove —each converting surplus stalls into homes while repairing the pedestrian edge.

The existing commercial uses do not materially impede redevelopment over the planning period, as no residential displacement would occur and phased redevelopment could accommodate tenant relocation or re - tenancy.

A multi -tenant commercial building with corner visibility and over -parked site lend themselves to a "corner -maker" building. The parcel is an over - parked corner site, reflecting a low -intensity development pattern relative to its downtown land value, visibility, and rezoning capacity. Improvement value is concentrated in a single -story structure with limited vertical or adaptive potential, and field conditions suggest functional adequacy rather than recent capital reinvestment. Corner commercial sites with surplus parking commonly experience redevelopment turnover as demand shifts toward residential or mixed -use formats that better capitalize on visibility and pedestrian access. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, as redevelopment would not displace residential units and could occur following natural tenant turnover. Given parcel size, underutilized parking, corner location, and regulatory certainty, the site exhibits moderate to high redevelopment potential, with realistic capacity for approximately 20-25 multifamily units, consistent with conservative infill assumptions. Program H1.3 establishes the intensity and Program H2.1 provides predictable step -backs and service standards, Program H4.6 allow assembly if a sliver would improve garage efficiency. Comparable conversions —El Paseo/Saratoga and Seagrove — illustrate the same pattern from parking fields to mid -rise housing.

A small multi -tenant pad with big drive aisles can pivot to a 3 -5 -story building using a single core, internal bike/storage rooms, and a forecourt or stoop sequence that puts "eyes on the street." On a fifth of an acre, builders prize straightforward structure and circulation; the assumption of "'17 homes at —70% of maximum density is consistent with micro -podium yields once turning movements are calmed and the sidewalk is made No
No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-54

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-9 054010017000
RZ-D-10 054010016000
738 San
Benito St
730 San
Benito St

0.27 0.09
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
continuous. The adjacent building exhibits the exact product this parcel can emulate. The value of improvements is limited compared to land value, and the building form reflects an older commercial typology with minimal recent reinvestment. Small downtown commercial pads frequently experience redevelopment turnover as pedestrian -oriented housing becomes more competitive and auto -oriented layouts lose functional relevance. Program H1.3 resolves underzoning and Program H2.1 locks in objective transitions to nearby low-rise. Similar downtown envelopes deliver meaningful unit counts in Watsonville's 558 Main and Santa Cruz's Pacific Station North when standards are tuned to infill geometry. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, and redevelopment would not involve displacement of residential units.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
5 5
13 23
A multi -tenant commercial building with San Benito St frontage, shallow retail depth, and redundant curb cuts suggest a clean "retail -to -residential" transition: a 4 -6 -story building completes the streetwall, internalizes parking/loading, and keeps only the amount of nonresidential floor area that pencils —or goes 100% residential per policy. Improvement value is low to modest compared to land value, and the site layout suggests an older retail typology with limited recent reinvestment. Commercial properties of this form commonly experience turnover as auto -oriented retail becomes less competitive along walkable corridors. At 0.27 acres, developers can build a simple podium and single access point; the assumption of ^'23 homes at ^'70% of max tracks with recent corridor prototypes. The public - realm payoff is immediate: fewer driveways, safer crossings, and a continuous tree canopy. Program H1.3 and Program H2.1 provide the entitlement and predictable form. Regional conversions like Cambrian Park Plaza and El Paseo/Saratoga demonstrate feasibility for parcels of this size and exposure. The existing commercial uses do not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, as no residential displacement would occur and tenant turnover can support phased redevelopment.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
2 4
7 A true micro -lot where success hinges on precision: a slender 3 -4 -story stacked -flat with one efficient core, fire/life-safety resolved along the side yard, and service access consolidated with a neighbor. Improvement value is limited, and the building form reflects an older commercial typology with minimal reinvestment. Micro -scale commercial parcels often experience higher redevelopment turnover as legacy structures lose functional viability and consolidation or vertical infill becomes more competitive. On ^'0.09 acres, builder preference is for a tight structural grid and shared service court; the assumption of —7 homes at ^'70% of maximum density is achievable when Program H4.6 secure a shared drive or trash/loading bay, Program H2.1 clarifies setbacks and window placement for privacy. Micro - parcels in Santa Cruz's Riverfront area and Morgan Hill's Sunsweet block show that small plates can carry multifamily when standards and access are right -sized. Micro -lots also present viable options for lot consolidations. The No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-55

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-11 054010021000
RZ-D-12 054090012000
RZ-D-13 054220006000
363
Seventh St
515 San
Benito St
10 East St

0.54 0.17

0.17 Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
existing use does not materially impede redevelopment over the planning period and would not involve residential displacement.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
9 9
29 47
A funeral home with extensive on -site parking that is well -suited to a phased transition: maintain operations in the existing structure while a first residential wing rises over reconfigured parking; then complete the program with a replacement assembly or amenity space if desired.

Improvement value is concentrated in a single -purpose structure with limited adaptability, and the presence of surplus parking indicates underutilization of land. Institutional properties of this type commonly redevelop through episodic turnover or partnership -driven transitions rather than incremental reinvestment. A half -acre footprint simplifies construction logistics, supports a single consolidated driveway and internalized loading, and yields predictable efficiency; the assumption of —47 homes at —70% of maximum density matches podium yields at this acreage. Program H1.3 provides a mixed -use basis and Program H2.1 supplies objective step -backs and loading standards, and Program H4.6 keep an optional edge assembly open. Regional models —from San Jose's Tamien Station (public/institutional lots to housing) to Immanuel-Sobrato and Cathedral of Faith —show how specialized or institutional parcels reconfigure into housing while maintaining community -serving functions.

The existing institutional use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period and would not involve residential displacement.

This shallow commercial pad can convert to a 3 -5 -story building with a compact lobby, screened service alcove, and parking tucked to the interior.

Improvement value is low to modest compared to land value, and the site's configuration suggests an older commercial format with limited recent reinvestment. Small commercial pads of this type frequently experience redevelopment turnover as pedestrian -oriented residential infill becomes more competitive. On 0.17 acres, builders can maintain an efficient double - loaded corridor and still deliver an animated frontage; the assumption of —15 homes at —70% of maximum density reflects what similar parcels deliver once curb cuts are consolidated. Program H1.3 unlocks the intensity and Program H2.1 codifies objective transitions and open -space metrics, and Program H4.6 enabling shared access with a neighbor if needed.

Outcomes like Santa Cruz's Riverfront and Seaside's Seagrove show the same right -sized mixed -use or all -residential formats at this scale. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment and would not displace residential units.

A corner/interior hybrid commercial lot with East St visibility can support a 4 -5 -story mass that builds a continuous edge, includes a compact lounge or maker space at grade only if it pencils, and places parking behind liner units. Improvement value appears limited relative to land value, and the site layout reflects an older commercial typology with minimal recent reinvestment. Corner commercial parcels of this scale often experience turnover as demand shifts toward residential infill that better leverages No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
3 3
9 15
No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
3 3
9 15
No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-56

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-14 054020008000
RZ-D-15 054020004000
217
Seventh St
727 San
Benito St

0.74 0.15
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
visibility and walkability. The 0.17 -acre size suits a single -core podium-lite plan; the assumption of "15 homes at ^'70% of maximum density is typical.

Program H1.3 aligns the land use and Program H2.1 brings predictable objective envelopes, and Program H4.6 keeping shared access or small -lot assembly available. The transition echoes El Paseo/Saratoga and Cambrian Park Plaza —retiring legacy parking fields and returning the block face to pedestrians. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, and redevelopment would not involve residential displacement.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
13 13
39 65
A low -coverage lumber yard operation with large open storage offers a clear path to medium -scale housing: a 4 -6 -story podium or wrap can reorganize circulation behind a planted frontage, deliver efficient double - loaded corridors, and phase to minimize disruption during transition. This is a very low -intensity industrial use relative to parcel size and rezoning capacity. Improvement value is low to modest compared to underlying land value, with the majority of site area devoted to open yards rather than enclosed buildings. Existing structures, where present, appear utilitarian and older in nature, with limited reinvestment typical of outdoor storage uses. Properties of this type frequently experience redevelopment turnover as urban land values increase and production -oriented uses transition to more intensive residential or mixed -use development. Program H1.3 provides the rezone and Program H2.1 establishes objective step -backs and frontage rules, and Program H4.6 allowing optional assembly for a cleaner garage podium. The evolution from yard/storage to housing is well documented nearby—Gilroy's The Cannery and Santa Cruz's 901 Pacific (auto/warehouse to mixed -use) demonstrate market appetite for converting production- or auto -oriented parcels. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, as operations can be phased or relocated and no residential displacement would occur. Overall, the site exhibits high redevelopment potential.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
3 3
7 13
A legacy two-story commercial building with limited depth can transition to a 4 -5 -story, predominantly residential plan that respects the main -street rhythm while unlocking upper -story yield. The site reflects a low -intensity use relative to its main -street location and rezoning potential.

Improvement value is low to moderate but largely attributable to an older structure that has limited adaptability for contemporary commercial needs.

Field conditions and building form suggest an aging building with no indication of recent substantial reinvestment. On a 0.15 -acre plate, a compact core, clear lobby corner, and privacy -managed side walls keep construction efficient; the assumption of ^'13 homes at ^'70% of maximum density reflects builder outcomes on similar plates. Program H1.3 aligns the land use and Program H2.1 provides predictable, objective envelopes.

Nearby, Santa Cruz's Riverfront/Front Street and Morgan Hill's Sunsweet demonstrate main -street intensification from aging shopfronts to mid -rise housing with structured or shared parking. The existing commercial use No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-57

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-16 054020003000
RZ-D-17 054020002000
RZ-D-18 054010008000
717 San
Benito St
713 San
Benito St
722 San
Benito St

0.10 0.05

0.10 Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period and would not displace residential units.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
2 2
4 8
A compact main -street commercial parcel where scale works in our favor:
at a tenth of an acre, a 4 -5 -story, single -core building can replace the legacy two-story shell and still hold an efficient double -loaded corridor, modest back -of -house, and a clear lobby corner. Low -intensity use relative to zoning capacity and downtown land value. Improvement value is limited compared to land value, and the existing structure reflects an older commercial typology with constrained floorplates and minimal recent reinvestment. Small main -street parcels of this size frequently experience redevelopment turnover as pedestrian -oriented residential infill becomes more economically viable than continued commercial use. The assumption of roughly eight homes at —70% of maximum density is realistic on this footprint once driveways are consolidated and glazing carries the streetwall. Program H1.3 brings the zoning up to the proposed Downtown Mixed -Use standard, Program H2.1 supplies predictable objective envelopes and step -backs to protect adjacent privacy; if a shared service bay with a neighbor improves access, Program H4.6 keep that optional.

Regional precedents like Santa Cruz's Riverfront/Front Street and Morgan Hill's Sunsweet block demonstrate how shallow, legacy shopfronts transition to mid -rise housing without losing walkability or storefront rhythm. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment and would not involve residential displacement.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
1 2
4 This is a true micro -lot —precisely the condition where builder preference leans toward a slender 3 -4 -story stacked -flat with one efficient core and a stoop or forecourt entry that balances privacy with active frontage. Very low -intensity use relative to zoning potential and downtown land value.

Improvement value is minimal, and the structure appears older and functionally constrained, with limited evidence of recent capital reinvestment. Micro -scale commercial parcels of this type often experience higher redevelopment turnover or are assembled with adjacent parcels as land values rise and zoning supports residential infill. The assumption of four homes at —70% of maximum density tracks with small -plate precedents on similarly constrained sites once curb cuts are eliminated and services (trash/loading) are solved via a shared easement. The proposed rezone under Program H1.3 and calibrated objective standards under Program H2.1 supply a predictable envelope; and Program H4.6 keep shared access feasible. Examples in Santa Cruz's downtown core show micro -parcels making the jump to multifamily when standards are tuned to infill geometry. Micro -lots also present viable options for lot consolidation.

The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period and would not displace residential units.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
2 2
4 8
A two-story mixed -use building on a tenth of an acre can be reworked or replaced with a 4 -5 -story predominantly residential plan that maintains a modest commercial presence only where it pencils. While the existing No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-58

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-19 054010025000
RZ-D-20 054050023000
339
Seventh St
#A
650 San
Benito St

0.14 0.34
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
45 45
Downtown
Mixed -Use
Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
125
2 6
6 18
12 30
building includes both residential and commercial components, the overall intensity remains low relative to downtown land value and the rezoning capacity anticipated under the Housing Element and 2040 General Plan.

Improvement value is low to modest compared to underlying land value, and the structure reflects an older, shallow -plate typology with limited flexibility for contemporary mixed -use demands. Field conditions do not indicate recent substantial reinvestment that would materially deter redevelopment. The site size is ideal for a single -core podium-lite solution with internal bike/storage, wrapped or screened services, and an articulated facade to match San Benito St's cadence. The assumption of eight homes at —70% of maximum density is consistent with builder preferences for small footprints. With Program H1.3 aligning land use and Program H2.1 ensuring objective transitions and loading standards, an applicant can pursue 100% residential if desired; and Program H4.6 keep a shared access bay possible. Riverfront/Front Street in Santa Cruz and Morgan Hill's Sunsweet show the same shopfront-to-mid-rise evolution on shallow lots. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period; any residential displacement would be limited in scale and manageable through standard relocation requirements.

Slightly larger than the micro San Benito lots, this 0.14 -acre parcel can support a 4 -5 -story building with a clearer back -of -house and a small, internalized service bay, improving both feasibility and streetscape.

Improvement value is limited relative to land value, and the building appears to be aged with constrained floorplates and minimal recent capital reinvestment. Commercial buildings of this size and form often experience turnover as land values increase and redevelopment for residential use becomes more competitive than continued commercial operation. The assumption of about twelve homes at —70% of maximum density fits an efficient double -loaded corridor and a planted sidewalk with reduced driveways and better lighting. Program H1.3 supplies the Mixed -Use basis, Program H2.1 sets objective step -backs and open -space metrics, if a shared driveway improves geometry, Program H4.6 are available. Conversions of older single -story buildings to mid -rise housing in downtown Santa Cruz and Morgan Hill provide direct analogs for this scale and frontage. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment and would not displace residential units.

A multi -tenant commercial building that's a third of an acre with a wide parking apron is exactly where builders favor a small podium: pull the building line to the sidewalk, wrap the parking with active uses or residential liners, and consolidate to a single access point. Low -intensity use relative to corridor land value and zoning capacity. Improvement value is concentrated in single -story commercial space and extensive paving, indicating that a significant portion of the site's value lies in the land rather than the improvements. Field conditions suggest limited recent reinvestment, and strip/pad commercial sites of this type commonly No
No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-59

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-21 054080005000
RZ-D-22 054050006000
345 Fifth
St
610 San
Benito St

0.15 0.54
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
experience redevelopment turnover as parking -heavy retail formats decline. The assumption of roughly thirty homes at ^'70% of maximum density reflects what a 0.34 -acre plate yields when redundant curb cuts are removed and a continuous canopy and glazing animate the frontage.

Program H1.3 and Program H2.1 create a predictable entitlement and form - based environment, and Program H4.6 keep limited consolidation options open if a sliver improves garage efficiency. The transition from strip/pad retail to mixed -use housing mirrors San Jose's Cambrian Park Plaza and El Paseo/Saratoga, and Seaside's Seagrove —each converting surplus stalls into homes while upgrading the pedestrian realm. The existing commercial uses do not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period and would not involve residential displacement. Overall, the site exhibits moderate to high redevelopment potential.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
3 3
7 13
A multi -tenant commercial building on a 0.15 -acre pad, the most feasible move is a 4 -5 -story building that limits ground -floor nonresidential area to what the market can support and shifts the remainder to housing. Low - intensity use relative to downtown land value and redevelopment potential. Improvement value is low to modest, and the building form reflects an older commercial typology with limited adaptability and minimal recent reinvestment. Small commercial pads of this type frequently experience redevelopment turnover as demand for walkable residential infill increases. The assumption of thirteen homes at —70% of maximum density fits a single -core layout with a compact service alcove and improved sidewalk continuity. Program H1.3 brings the rezone, Program H2.1 provides objective rules for setbacks, transitions, and loading. Similar -sized pads have converted across the region, with Cambrian Park/El Paseo showing the parking -field -to -housing model and Seagrove demonstrating a smaller -scale version. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment and would not displace residential units.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
9 10
28 47
Multi -tenant commercial building with parking. At just over a half -acre, this site hits a sweet spot for builder efficiency: enough width for a clean podium with double -loaded corridors, a single consolidated driveway, and internalized loading, while still maintaining a fine-grained facade on San Benito St. Low -intensity use relative to corridor land value and mixed -use redevelopment potential. Improvement value is low to modest compared to underlying land value, with a development pattern typical of older commercial centers that prioritize surface parking over building intensity.

Field conditions suggest limited recent capital reinvestment, and multi - tenant commercial properties of this type commonly experience tenant turnover as retail demand shifts and higher -intensity residential or mixed - use formats become more competitive. The assumption of forty-seven homes at —70% of maximum density is consistent with podium yields on this acreage, and the larger footprint simplifies construction sequencing and tenant relocation. Program H1.3 supplies the Mixed -Use basis, Program H2.1 codifies step -backs and frontage rules, and Program H4.6 preserve No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-60

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-24 054190010000
RZ-D-25 056020007000
RZ-D-27 056020006000
321 First
St
810 East
St
829 San
Benito St

0.34 0.41

0.28 Vacant
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
optional assembly if a narrow strip would optimize the garage. Regional conversions of multi -tenant centers —Cambrian Park, EI Paseo, and Seagrove —confirm feasibility at this scale. The existing commercial uses do not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, and redevelopment would not involve residential displacement. Overall, the site exhibits moderate to high redevelopment potential.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
7 4
18 29
A vacant third -acre infill pad that avoids demolition, relocation, and utility conflicts is primed for a 4 -6 -story stacked -flat or small -podium building with a single core and a planted, transparent frontage. The assumption of twenty-nine homes at ^'70% of maximum density matches builder experience for this footprint, and the absence of on -site structures keeps timelines predictable. Program H1.3 provides the rezone, Program H2.1 sets objective envelopes, if shared access with a neighbor proves advantageous, Program H4.6 keep that optional. Nearby success on vacant downtown lots—Watsonville's 558 Main and Santa Cruz's Pacific Station North —demonstrates delivery speed once zoning and standards are aligned.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
7 7
21 35
A multi -tenant commercial building on a lot just over four -tenths of an acre.

The parcel is large enough for a clear podium scheme —efficient double - loaded corridors, one drive aisle, screened loading —yet compact enough to keep facades finely articulated along East Street. Low -intensity use relative to downtown land value and rezoning capacity. Improvement value is low to modest compared to underlying land value, with a development pattern typical of older commercial pads that emphasize surface parking rather than building intensity. Field conditions suggest limited recent capital reinvestment, and multi -tenant commercial sites of this size frequently experience redevelopment turnover as retail demand softens and residential formats become more competitive. The assumption of thirty- five homes at —70% of maximum density is consistent with builder preference for 0.35 -0.45 -acre downtown pads where curb -cut consolidation and a continuous tree canopy can transform the walking experience. Program H1.3 enables intensity, Program H2.1 gives objective form controls, and Program H4.6 allow small -lot assembly if a sliver would clean up the garage. Regionally, the shift from multi -tenant pads to housing is well established at Cambrian Park, EI Paseo, and Seagrove. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, and redevelopment would not involve residential displacement. Overall, the site exhibits moderate to high redevelopment potential.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
5 5
14 24
Multi -tenant commercial building on a sub -third -acre lot that still carries enough depth for a small podium, with the primary gains coming from eliminating multiple driveways and pulling the streetwall to the sidewalk.

Low -intensity use relative to corridor land value and zoning capacity.

Improvement value is concentrated in a shallow, single -story structure with limited adaptability, and field conditions suggest an aging commercial No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-61

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-28 056020019000
RZ-D-30 056011005000
899 San
Benito St
800 San
Benito St

0.23 0.54
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
format with minimal recent reinvestment. Commercial parcels of this type commonly experience turnover as drive -up retail becomes less viable along walkable corridors. The assumption of twenty-four homes at "70% of maximum density suits a single -core plan with wrapped or lined parking and a short run of active frontage where it pencils. Program H1.3 aligns the land use, Program H2.1 ensures objective transitions and service standards, and Program H4.6 allow optional access sharing with a neighbor.

Conversions of comparable scale —Seagrove in Seaside and portions of the EI Paseo/Cambrian Park plans —show that parcels under a third of an acre can make the leap to housing with efficient frontage and service design.

The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment, and no residential displacement would occur.
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
4 4
12 20
This quarter -acre site's partial vacancy reduces near -term relocation complexity and positions the parcel for a phased replacement with a 4 -5 - story building that restores a continuous streetwall. Improvement value appears limited relative to land value, and the existing commercial improvements reflect an older typology with minimal reinvestment. Partial vacancy is a strong indicator of redevelopment turnover, as smaller pads within larger commercial corridors often transition first before deeper consolidation occurs. The assumption of twenty homes at —70% of maximum density matches builder experience on —0.20-0.25-acre plates once the frontage is made transparent and services are internalized.

Program H1.3 and Program H2.1 set the entitlement and form framework; and Program H4.6 keep a shared service court in play if needed. Regionally, smaller pads within larger centers have transitioned first —an approach visible within the EI Paseo/Saratoga program and in Seagrove —before deeper consolidation occurs. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment, and no residential displacement would occur.

No
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
9 10
28 47
Multi -tenant commercial building on a half -acre corner with generous parking fields offers a straightforward path to a podium building that concentrates access to a single curb cut, internalizes loading, and places active uses or residential liners along San Benito St. Low -intensity use relative to its prominent location and mixed -use redevelopment potential.

Improvement value is modest compared to land value, with a parking - dominant layout typical of older commercial centers. Field conditions indicate limited recent reinvestment, and half -acre retail pads with surplus parking frequently experience redevelopment turnover as mixed -use housing becomes more competitive. The assumption of forty-seven homes at ^'70% of maximum density aligns with builder yields on this acreage, and the larger footprint supports clean phasing if interim tenant accommodation is needed. Program H1.3 supplies the Mixed -Use entitlement, Program H2.1 codifies predictable step -backs and frontage design, and Program H4.6 preserve optional assembly if a sliver improves the garage. Comparable conversions at Cambrian Park and EI Paseo confirm No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-62

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-31 056020008000
RZ-D-32 056020001000
RZ-D-33 056020002000
843 San
Benito St
801 San
Benito St
219 South
St

0.40 0.14

0.05 Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
7 2
7 2
45 45
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
Downtown
Mixed -Use
Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
125
21 7
2 35
11 4
feasibility for half -acre pads with surplus parking. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period, and redevelopment would not displace residential units. The site demonstrates moderate to high redevelopment potential.

Multi -tenant commercial building on a 0.40 -acre frontage that favors a 4 -6 - story podium or wrap: double -loaded corridors, one consolidated driveway, and a continuous canopy and glazing to repair the pedestrian edge. Low - intensity use relative to corridor land value and zoning capacity.

Improvement value is limited relative to land value, with a building form and site layout indicative of an older commercial typology and minimal recent reinvestment. Sites of this scale and configuration commonly experience redevelopment turnover as parking -heavy retail formats decline. The assumption of thirty-five homes at —70% of maximum density reflects builder preferences for this plate size, where construction logistics and structured parking remain efficient without requiring deep assemblage.

Program H1.3 and Program H2.1 deliver the regulatory clarity, and Program H4.6 remain available if a minor lot line adjustment sharpens the garage geometry. The pattern is the same as Seagrove, EI Paseo, and Cambrian Park: retire excess asphalt, add housing, and upgrade the block face. The existing commercial use does not materially impede redevelopment and would not involve residential displacement. Overall, the site exhibits moderate to high redevelopment potential.

A small corner convenience store pad with its own stalls is a classic candidate for a 3 -5 -story replacement that restores the corner, internalizes parking, and reserves only the minimal ground -floor commercial depth that pencils —or converts to 100% residential. Low -intensity commercial use relative to downtown land value. Improvement value is modest and concentrated in a single -story structure with limited adaptability, and field conditions suggest an older format with minimal recent reinvestment.

Convenience store pads of this type frequently experience redevelopment turnover as walkable residential infill becomes more competitive. The assumption of eleven homes at —70% of maximum density matches what builders deliver on 0.14 -acre urban corners once curb cuts are reduced and a single access point is established. Program H1.3 aligns land use, Program H2.1 sets objective frontage and transition rules, and Program H4.6 keep shared access options available. Conversions of small convenience pads to housing are common across the region and echo the smaller -scale components within the EI Paseo and Cambrian plans. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment, and no residential displacement would occur.

Another micro -parcel where feasibility comes from precision or lot consolidation: a slender 3 -4 -story stacked -flat with one core, a shared service bay secured via easement, and a stoop or forecourt entry that maintains privacy while activating the sidewalk. Very low -intensity use relative to downtown zoning capacity. Improvement value is minimal, and No
No
No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-63

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-D-34 056020017000
RZ-D-36 056011013000
204
Hawkins
St
San
Benito

0.16 0.12
Not
Vacant
Not
Vacant
70%
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
45 45
Downtown
Mixed -Use
Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
3 2
3 2
7 6
13 10
the structure reflects an older, functionally constrained typology with little recent reinvestment. Micro -parcels of this size often experience redevelopment turnover through precise infill or lot consolidation as land values increase. The assumption of four homes at —70% of maximum density is aligned with builder expectations on 0.05 -acre plates once curb cuts are eliminated. Program H1.3 and Program H2.1 supply the regulatory path, and Program H4.6 make shared access achievable. Micro -lot housing outcomes in nearby downtowns (e.g., Santa Cruz) show this is a viable path when standards are tuned to infill. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment and would not displace residential units.

A neighborhood convenience store pad with surface stalls can step up to a 3 -5 -story building that restores a continuous streetwall and screens services. Low -intensity use relative to mixed -use zoning potential.

Improvement value is low to modest, and the building form reflects an older auto -oriented typology with minimal recent reinvestment. Similar neighborhood commercial pads frequently experience redevelopment turnover as demand shifts toward residential infill. The assumption of thirteen homes at ' 70% of maximum density matches the yield on 0.15-

0.17 -acre corners where a single consolidated driveway, transparent frontage, and shade canopy elevate the pedestrian experience. Program H1.3 enables the land use, Program H2.1 fixes predictable envelopes, and Program H4.6 preserve the option for a shared access court if warranted.

This move follows the regional trend of replacing small auto -oriented pads with mid -scale housing in mixed -use districts. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment and would not displace residential units.

A compact storefront with rear/side parking sits within the downtown core, the classic "small shop plus lot" pattern that routinely turns over as owners retire or reposition frontage space. Improvement value is modest relative to land value, and the shallow structure reflects an older typology with limited recent reinvestment. Downtown sites of this form commonly transition to vertical infill as land values rise. On a 0.12 -acre lot, the most realistic path is vertical infill—three to four stories over ground -floor commercial or lobby —stacking studios and 1 -bedrooms above shared circulation. The scale matches recent downtown shifts (e.g., the 22 -unit infill on San Benito St and the 52 -unit Fourth Street redevelopment), where modest footprints still yield meaningful density through height and efficient unit plans. Program H1.3 (objective downtown standards) gives a predictable massing and frontage playbook so an applicant can cost out a small podium or Type V -over -I scheme; Programs make the numbers work on a postage -stamp site; and Program H1.3 (mixed -use allowances, including 100% residential) lets the project simplify if ground -floor retail is infeasible. If a neighbor is receptive, Program H4.6 enables lot consolidation to increase efficiency; if not, the parcel can still deliver small infill, as shown downtown in recent projects. With the proposed DMU at 125 du/ac and standard 70% efficiency, a slender stack yields feasible unit No
No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-64

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
counts while respecting adjacent form and sunlight access. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment.

RZ-D-37
056011008000
853
Washingt
on St

0.20 Not
Vacant
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
3 3
11 17
This site operates as a mortuary/funeral home —an institutional use that often migrates to newer facilities with modern parking and chapels, freeing well -located infill parcels near services. Improvement value is concentrated in a single -purpose structure with limited adaptability, and field conditions suggest an older facility with constrained parking and interior layouts.

Institutional properties of this type commonly redevelop through episodic turnover rather than incremental reinvestment. At 0.20 acres, a four-story mixed -use or all -residential building is a natural successor, with quiet, well - planned circulation and common rooms that respect the street's calmer rhythm. The transition from assembly/specialty commercial to housing mirrors nearby infill stories, and regionally we've seen older civic/assembly footprints in places like Salinas and Gilroy become efficient residential plots once parking is managed and interior program needs change. Program H1.3 provides a clear massing envelope and fagade rhythm; Program H4.1 aligns inclusionary and density -bonus tools to leverage height for yield; and Program H1.3 lets an applicant go 100% residential if retail depth isn't viable. At the proposed DMU 125 du/ac and 70% efficiency, the 0.20 -acre scale supports 3-4 levels of efficient studios/1-beds over bike storage and lobby —very similar in form to recent downtown projects that proved out lender appetite for small -parcel podiums. The existing use does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period and would not displace residential units.

No
RZ-D-38
056011007000
848 San
Benito St

0.20 Not
Vacant
70%
Downtown
Commercial
and Mixed -
Use
45 Downtown
Mixed -Use
125
3 3
11 17
Today's use —surface parking supporting nearby commercial —reflects a legacy pattern downtown where stalls spread horizontally rather than stack. Redevelopment flips that equation: a mid -rise residential building, potentially with limited podium parking or shared/district arrangements, can replace asphalt with dwelling units. Very low -intensity land use in the downtown core. Improvement value is minimal, with the site's value primarily attributable to land. Surface parking parcels frequently experience redevelopment turnover as structured parking and residential uses replace horizontal stalls. The 0.20 -acre size is ideal for an "urban house" prototype:
single core, efficient double -loaded corridors, and compact units, much like the 22 -unit infill on San Benito Street or the 52 -unit affordable community on Fourth Street that proved tight footprints pencil when parking is right - sized. Program H2.lprovides clear massing/objective design guardrails; and Program H1.3 ensures housing can proceed even if retail tenancy is uncertain. Given the proposed DMU 125 du/ac, a 70% capacity assumption supports a slender stack of attainable units with active edges and stoops, replacing a heat-island lot with residents who sustain adjacent shops. The site demonstrates high redevelopment potential.

No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis Page F-65

Table F-12: Rezone Sites
RZ-H-1
051090031000 190 Rustic
St

1.51 Not
Vacant
80%
Low Density
Residential
8 High
Density 65
Residential
16 16
46 78
With most of the lot unimproved and a single residence to clear, this 1.5 - acre interior parcel is a textbook candidate for an ^'80% -of -max prototype:
a pair of 3-4 story buildings with a central green and peripheral parking.

Improvement value is low to modest compared to underlying land value and zoning capacity, and the structure is typical of older single-family development with limited reinvestment. Parcels of this size and configuration commonly experience redevelopment turnover as market conditions support replacement of low -density residential uses with multifamily development. Sites in the 1 -2 -acre band are large enough to fit 70-90 units with standard fire access, which is why they're common in builder pipelines. The move from Low Density to High Density Residential is implemented by Program H1.3, while Program H2.1 supplies objective standards for setbacks, stepbacks, and open -space ratios —reducing design friction. Recent local projects show both demolition/replacement (1070 Buena Vista Rd) and adaptive reuse (500 San Benito, 430 San Benito) are feasible, which supports anticipated redevelopment here. Program 1.3 can streamline if deeper affordability is proposed. The existing single-family structure does not materially impede redevelopment during the planning period. While redevelopment would involve removal of a single residential unit, displacement impacts are limited in scale and manageable under standard relocation requirements. Given parcel size, zoning capacity, limited improvements, and demonstrated local redevelopment patterns, the site exhibits high redevelopment potential.

No
RZ-H-2 057440001000
Valley
View

1.20 Vacant
80%
High Density
Residential
35 High
Density 65
Residential
12 13
37 62
Vacant
No
RZ-H-3 056110001000
45 Hawkins
St

0.53 Vacant
80%
High Density
Residential
35 High
Density 65
Residential
5 6
16 27
Vacant
No
RZ-H-4 056102011000
Hawkins
St

0.21 Vacant
80%
High Density
Residential
35 High
Density 65
Residential
2 3
5 10
Although compact, this fifth -of -an -acre lot can be consolidated with the adjacent vacant parcel and support a narrow, three-story walk-up over at - grade tuck parking or carports —precisely the small -lot pattern the City has already seen (e.g., 221 Hawkins St duplex/ADUs and 114 Fourth St duplex subdivision). Small sites avoid long carrying periods and can deliver quickly under Program H2.1's objective standards, with the rezone completed through Program H1.3. Program H4.6 can defray soft -costs typical of one- off infill, and the unit assumptions mirror built examples that have already proven absorption at this scale.

No
RZ-H-5 053330003000
Park Hill

1.26 Vacant
80%
High Density
Residential
35 High
Density 65
Residential
13 13
39 65
Vacant
No
RZ-H-6 053330005000
605 North
Street

2.69 Vacant
80%
High Density
Residential
35 High
Density 65
Residential
28 28
83 139
Nearly 2.7 acres unlock a village -scale plan: two or three mid -rise bars stepping with grade, internal drives, and ample open -space terraces —an arrangement that supports 130-140 units without moving to costly multi- level garages. The single existing home is readily removed or incorporated No
Appendix F: Candidate Sites Analysis
Page F-66