Documentation:
a. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would increase and improve access to open space and encourage recreation throughout the site and throughout the surrounding open space areas. The project would create habitat for wildlife with the removal of the westernmost golf holes. Any biological resource impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO-11.
The project site is not known to have any association with an important example of California’s history or prehistory. The site would be redeveloped within an already disturbed area, and adverse impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources are not likely to occur. Construction‐phase procedures would be implemented in the event any archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during grading and excavation, consistent with Mitigation Measures CUL‐1, CUL‐2, and GEO-2 and GEO-3. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that impacts related to cultural and paleontological resources would be less than significant. b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network components, the air basin, the watershed, and other 254
Franklin Canyon Project IS/MND | 153
physical conditions. For the proposed project, such impacts would be short‐term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long-term, due to the permanent land use changes involved in the project.
Short‐term, construction-related impacts resulting from air pollutant emissions and noise would be less than significant after mitigation (Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and NOI-1) and would not contribute substantially to any other concurrent construction operations that might occur in the project vicinity, especially because the project site is relatively isolated from other potential development.
The project’s contribution to long‐term, cumulative impacts would not be significant, primarily because project impacts would be confined to the site. In addition, the project would be subject to development impact fees and property taxes to offset project- related impacts to public services and utility systems such as fire protection services, roadways, storm drain facilities, water facilities, and other public facilities and operations. The impacts would be less than significant. c. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Potential environmental impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Sections 6.1 thru 6.20, and all potential impacts would be either less than significant with no mitigation required, or less than significant after mitigation. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the Hazardous Materials Survey Report, which included both an asbestos survey and a lead-based paint survey of the clubhouse. The clubhouse could contain lead-based paints, and asbestos-containing materials, which pose a threat to human health. With implementation of the Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, there would be no substantial, adverse impacts on human beings, directly or indirectly.
References:
Identified throughout this Initial Study.
255
154 | City of Hercules
7. Lead Agency and Consultants
Lead Agency:
City of Hercules
Community Development Department
111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547
Robert Reber, AICP
Community Development Director
Consultants:
MIG, Inc.
800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, California 94710
Erica Rippe, CEQA Lead
Ray Pendro, Director of Environmental Planning
Phillip Gleason, Air, Noise, Greenhouse Gas Analyst
Melinda Mohamed, Biologist
Robert Templar, Cultural Resources
Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering
1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
DKS Associates
1970 Broadway, Suite 740
Oakland, CA 94612
256
017579.0004\6299806.2
Response to Comments on the Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2021030302
Prepared for:
City of Hercules
Community Development Department
111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547
Prepared by:
MIG, Inc.
800 Hearst Ave
Berkeley, CA 94710
May 2021
257
This page intentionally left blank.
017579.0004\6299806.2
258
3 017579.0004\6299806.2
Comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were submitted in the form of comments from individuals attending a March 15, 2021 Planning Commission meeting; and letters/emails received by the City during the Draft IS/MND public review period. In total, fifteen (15) comments were received at the Planning Commission public meeting, and twenty-nine (29) letters/emails were received during the Draft IS/MND public review period, which ended on April 15, 2021.
The individuals who commented at the public meeting, plus each individual, agency, and organization that commented in letter/email form during the Draft IS/MND public review period, are listed below alphabetically by personal name or agency/organization name. After the person’s name, each meeting comment and each letter/email comment received is also identified in parenthesis by a code number - e.g., PC comments PC-1, PC-2; Letter/email comments L-1, L-2, L-3. The code numbers are chronological in the order that the comments were received.
The public commenters are listed below:
• Scott Bedolla, Hercules resident (L-6; L-23)
• Kathleen Carter, Hercules resident (L-17)
• Karen Didomenicis, Hercules resident (L-10)
• Mignon Fernandez, Hercules resident (L-19)
• Jacquelyn Harbert, Hercules resident (L- 22)
• Dean Karay, Hercules resident (L-11)
• David Kavanaugh, Hercules resident (L-1; L-20)
• Charles Lucke, President, Silver Circle Senior Golf Club (L-5) • Melinda Manzo, Friends of Measure M (L-26)
• Katherine Perez, North Valley Yokuts tribe (L-9)
• Dan Romero, Hercules City Councilmember (L-7)
• Hector Rubio, Hercules Planning Commissioner Chair (L-27) • Nicole Sacramento, Hercules Planning Commissioner (L-21) • Robert Schaufenbil, Hercules Planning Commissioner (L-14) • Richard Schneider, Hercules resident (L-24)
• Gillian Silva, Hercules resident (L-25)
• Chris Tallerico, Hercules resident (L-15)
• Jim Taylor, Hercules resident (L-3; L-12)
• Stephen Wahlstrom, Franklin Canyon Men’s Club (L-2; L-4) • Mary Wong, Hercules resident (L-18)
The City received five (5) comment letters in total from the following agencies, who submitted 259
4 017579.0004\6299806.2
comment letters during the public review period for the Franklin Canyon RV Resort IS/MND:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (L-28) • Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (L-13) • Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District (L-29) • East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) (L-16)
• Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) (L-8)
The following commenters provided either spoken or written comments at the March 15 Planning Commission meeting:
• Mike Abelson (PC-8)
• Charlie Boots (PC-3)
• Linus Eukle, John Muir Land Trust (PC-1)
• Irina Galieva, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC-14) • Steve Harker (PC-10)
• Jenae (PC-7)
• David Kavaunagh (PC-6)
• Richard L (PC-2)
• Melinda Manzo (PC-9)
• Kenneth Morrison, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC-11) • D. Raquel (PC-5)
• Hector Rubio, Hercules Planning Commission Chair (PC-15) • Nicole Sacramento, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC- 12) • Robert Schaufenbil, Hercules Planning Commissioner (PC-13) • Stephen Wahlstrom (PC-4)
260
5 017579.0004\6299806.2
LETTER RESPONSE FROM THE CITY OF HERCULES
ON MEASURE M CONSISTENCY
261
6 017579.0004\6299806.2
This page intentionally left blank
262
7 017579.0004\6299806.2
MASTER RESPONSE
COMMENTS ON LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSISTENCY
AND PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH MEASURE M
Several commentors asked questions about the Project’s potential land use and planning impacts, and how the City determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of Measure M.
Chapter 13.5 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance establishes the process for determining whether a proposed use is consistent with applicable land use and zoning requirements. Section 13-5.300 of the Zoning Ordinance explains that “allowable land uses within a zoning district are classified by general land uses rather than extensive lists of specific land uses.” (Hercules Municipal Code (HMC) § 13-
5.300.) This means that many, if not most, allowable land uses are not specifically listed as permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance for each zoning district. Rather, the Ordinance describes the general types of land uses that are allowed in each district and the determination of whether a particular, proposed use is allowed is made by the Community Development Director based on six (6) specific standards set forth in the ordinance. The Community Development Director’s determination is a discretionary decision and is valid if it is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the City’s administrative record for the Project. The Director’s determination is also subject to appeals to the Planning Commission and the City Council. (HMC § 13-5.300.) This process for determining whether a proposed use is allowed in a particular zoning district is the “zoning clearance procedure.” (HMC § 13-5.700.)
On June 26, 2019, pursuant to the zoning clearance procedure and in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 13-5.300, the City issued the project proponent a zoning clearance for the proposed project. The zoning clearance determination was sent to all property owners within 1,900 feet of the project site, posted at various City locations and on the City’s website, sent to all members of the City’s Planning Commission and City Council, and subject to a 14-day appeal period before it became final.
No one elected to appeal the zoning clearance determination, so it became final on July 10, 2019 and is now binding on the City.
The 2019 zoning clearance set forth in detail, based on specific facts and findings, how the proposed project meets each of the six standards set forth in Section 13-5.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. The 2019 zoning clearance determination is attached hereto as [exhibit or attachment] and summarized below.
1. General Plan Consistency. Measure M was adopted by the electorate of the City of Hercules as Ordinance No. 401, and it amended the City’s General Plan by incorporating Sections 4 through 20 of the Ordinance directly into the City’s General Plan. Therefore, consistency of the Project with Measure M constitutes consistency with the General Plan.
The purpose of Measure M, as stated in the Ordinance, is “to protect Franklin Canyon from harmful and unnecessary development by maintaining the existing use of the Canyon and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses.” The Ordinance further states that its objectives are “to preserve and protect natural resources, watersheds and water quality, wildlife habitat, beauty and tranquility, and scenic hill views, while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for the residents of Hercules.” In issuing the zoning clearance determination, the Community Development Director found the Project to be consistent with the purposes of Measure M “because it does not propose to develop any area of Franklin Canyon outside the envelope of the current existing golf course and therefore continues to preserve and protect nearby open space lands and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses.” The Director also found that the Applicant proposes to enhance the riparian corridor by reducing the amount of irrigated turf and run-off associated with irrigation, as well as eliminate non-native and ornamental plant species from the existing golf course 263
8 017579.0004\6299806.2
which should facilitate the reintroduction of native plant species and help eradicate non-native species onsite. The Director further found the Project to be consistent with the objectives of Measure M because, among other things, “[i]t will maintain and enhance the existing golf course in a smaller and more environmentally-sensitive configuration,” would not encroach on the existing open space area, and expand parking for and access to the open space and the John Muir Land Trust open space trails, thus serving to “protect natural resources while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for residents.”
2. Consistency with purpose and intent of the Zoning District. Measure M established the allowable uses and most of the zoning standards for the Project site. Other zoning standards may be applied to the Project to the extent that they are not inconsistent with Measure M and are in addition to or more restrictive than Measure M.
The Community Development Director found that the Project meets the stated purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district because the proposed use is consistent with “the purpose and general intent of the uses listed in Section 9(e) of Measure M,” for the following reasons. • It will provide facilities for the enjoyment of low intensity outdoor recreation activities including golf, pickle ball, basketball and bocce ball, and providing an outdoor swimming pool and hot tub area.
• It will promote and enhance nature observation, study and enjoyment by expanding access to and parking for the existing open space area and the John Muir Land Trust open space trails. • It will provide accommodations for short-term occupancy and provision for food and drink (including low-intensity campgrounds and picnic facilities) for persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, enjoyment or study through the RV resort, walk-in campground, tent bungalows, and onsite club house with food and beverage facilities.
3. Similarity to uses that are specifically allowed in the zoning district without increasing intensity or density of uses and without generating greater environmental effects. For the reasons set forth above, the Community Development Director determined that the proposed uses are “consistent with and share common characteristics with the uses listed in Section 9(e) of Measure M.” In addition, the Director found the Project “does not appear to be of greater intensity or density than those uses listed in Measure M,” because the proposed uses would “not appear to require more infrastructure or impact natural resources more than neighborhood stores, any kind of healthcare use, or a use involving packing/processing/
storage/sale of agricultural products,” all of which are allowed by Measure M and all of which “would likely be more intense and may involve infrastructure and traffic in excess of that produced by the proposed RV resort.”
4. In addition, the Director found that it “does not appear that [the Project] will generate greater environmental impacts than the other uses listed in Measure M” because: (a) the entire proposal is located on existing fairways which are non-native; (b) it will be constructed within the existing building envelope (i.e., under 20,000 square feet) and consistent with FAR requirements in Sections 10, 11, and 12 of Measure M; (c) it proposes to pull back some existing uses to not impair critical wildlife habitat or the quantity or biological quality of wetlands and adjacent creek; (d) it would enhance the riparian corridor by considerably reducing the amount of irrigated turf and run-off associated with irrigation; and (e) it would eliminate non-native and ornamental plant species from the existing golf course, which should facilitate the reintroduction of native plant species and eradicate non-native aquatic species in the onsite man-made ponds.
5. Conformance to specific standards for similar uses allowed in the zoning district. The Community Development Director found that the proposed Project would appear to meet all of the specific and 264
9 017579.0004\6299806.2
applicable development standards set forth in Measure M, which would be confirmed and verified in the Design Review Permit process.
6. Ability of the proposed use to meet the performance standards of the zoning district and the City’s general performance standards set forth in HMC Chapter 13-31. As described above, the Community Development Director found that the proposed project would appear to meet the applicable performance standards of the zoning district. In addition, the Director found that the Project “can meet the City’s general performance standards in Section 13-31 of the Zoning Ordinance[.]”
7. The proposed use will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare of the community nor constitute a nuisance. The Community Development Director found that the “proposed uses for the Project are consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning standards set by Measure M and therefore should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare nor constitute a public nuisance.”
Measure M text is included on the next page.
265
10 017579.0004\6299806.2
266
11 017579.0004\6299806.2
267
12 017579.0004\6299806.2
268
13 017579.0004\6299806.2
269
14 017579.0004\6299806.2
270
15 017579.0004\6299806.2
271
16 017579.0004\6299806.2
272
17 017579.0004\6299806.2
273
18 017579.0004\6299806.2
274
19 017579.0004\6299806.2
275
20 017579.0004\6299806.2
276
21 017579.0004\6299806.2
277
22 017579.0004\6299806.2
278
23 017579.0004\6299806.2
279
24 017579.0004\6299806.2
280
25 017579.0004\6299806.2
This page intentionally left blank
281
26 017579.0004\6299806.2
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Franklin Canyon RV Resort
City of Hercules, California
May 2021
282
27 017579.0004\6299806.2
This page intentionally left blank
283
28 017579.0004\6299806.2
The following comments were raised at the March 15 Planning Commission meeting and reflect community concerns with the project.
• Comment PC-1: Linus Eukle: This comment discussed the merits of the project.
Response PC-1: This comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. No further response is required. • Comment PC-2: Richard L: This comment asked about the time limit on RVs storage, and day use at the site, and if any road improvements are proposed for Highway 4.
Response PC-2: Per the applicant’s response during the Planning Commission meeting, there was no time limit to RV storage. The applicant also mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting that day use would be limited to the following: the restaurant, pool, clubhouse and banquet hall.
No improvements are required for Highway 4. Please refer to response L-6 for a response from the City's transportation engineer. Additionally, Caltrans District 4 was included in the IS/MND distribution list. Caltrans did not provide comments.
• Comment PC-3: Charlie Boots: This commentor asked if the Hercules Police would be enforcing the 30 day stay limit.
Response PC-3: Onsite security would enforce time 30-day limit. Refer to IS/MND Sections
6.15 Public Services for a discussion of project impacts on public services. On page 130, there is specific discussion of police protection.
• Comment PC-4: Stephen Wahlstrom: This commentor has questions about Measure M consistency and the definition of “recreational facility” in the IS/MND Section 6.16 Recreation.
Response PC-4: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance, and Response L-3. This commentor also submitted comment letters L-2 and L-4 covering the same concerns.
• Comment PC-5: D. Raquel: This commentor asked how the project would impact police and City services.
Response PC-5: Refer to IS/MND Sections 6.15 Public Services for a discussion of project impacts on public services. On page 130, there is specific discussion of police protection. • Comment PC-7: Jenae: This comment discussed how the golf course provides access to nature and how this access is beneficial to children. The comment also covered the cost of the proposed project compared to renovating the existing facility.
Response PC-7: This comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. No further response is required. • Comment PC-8: Mike Abelson: This comment discussed the operating cost and price of water for irrigation. The commentor calculated the operation loss and water needs to account for an increase in the price of playing a round of golf, less than what was projected in the applicant’s Powerpoint presentation.
Response PC-8: This comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. No further response is required. • Comment PC-9: Melinda Manzo, Friends of Measure M: This comment was about Measure M 284
29 017579.0004\6299806.2
compliance.
Response PC-9: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. This commentor also submitted comment letter L-26. • Comment PC-11: Kenneth Morrison, Planning Commissioner: This comment discussed the change in project plans from original, and well as how the applicant would monitor length of stay for RVs.
Response PC-11: This portion of the comment does not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. The length of stays would be monitored by onsite security. • Comment PC-12: Nicole Sacramento, Hercules Planning Commissioner: Comments discussed during the Planning Commission meeting covered concerns about Measure M compliance and operating costs. The Commissioner requested net revenue numbers for golf course versus RV park and requested source of golf and RV data from applicant’s Powerpoint presentation.
Response PC-12: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. Commissioner Sacramento also submitted a comment letter with other concerns, included as L-21. The comments related to golf revenue and the sources do not raise a CEQA issue pertaining to the content or adequacy of the IS/MND. • Comment PC-13: Robert Schaufenbil, Hercules Planning Commissioner: This comment discussed Measure M consistency, and other agency approvals.
Response PC-13: Please refer to the Master Response included at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
• Comment PC-14: Irina Galieva, Hercules Planning Commissioner: Comments discussed during the Planning Commission meeting covered concerns about Measure M compliance and questions about the split of the parcel.
Response PC-14: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. The split of the parcel is discussed on page 108 in Section 6.11 Land Use and Planning: “The project site would be subdivided into two parcels to double the allowable structure square footage.”
• Comment PC-15: Hector Rubio, Hercules Planning Commission Chair: Comments covered Highway 4 hazards, and creek leaching concerns.
Response PC-15: Please refer to the IS/MND Section 6.17 Transportation for a discussion about transportation.
Please refer to the IS/MND Section 6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, which discusses BMPs to manage water quality on and offsite. Please also see page 89 in Section 6.7 Geology and Soils, regarding the proposed septic system’s capacity, which would be adequate to serve the project. (Also see 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, pages 144-145) 285
30 017579.0004\6299806.2
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
Franklin Canyon RV Resort
City of Hercules, California
May 2021
286
017579.0004\6299806.2 31
This page intentionally left blank
287
017579.0004\6299806.2 32
In the following “responses to comments,” each comment is included, followed by the response. Based on the comments/responses, any revisions to the IS/MND are included at the end of this document (Revisions to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration).
Comment L-1
288
017579.0004\6299806.2 33
Response L-1
Thank you for your comment. Some of the author’s concerns do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no response is required. These planning concerns can be raised during the design review hearing(s) on the Project. For those comments that do apply to the IS/MND (housing development, runoff, increased pavement, sewer and water demands), see below.
Per the IS/MND in Section 6.14 Population and Housing: “The RV campsites and tent bungalows are proposed to have a limited 30 day or less stay and would prohibit long-term RV occupancy.” (page 128)
Per the IS/MND in Section 6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality: “Design measures would be implemented to prevent surface runoff and flooding on and off site. Furthermore, the City would require the project’s use of BMPs [Best Management Practices], as listed in the post-construction requirements. BMPs preventing flooding and runoff include protection of storm drains through vegetated filter traps and/or catch basins. The BMPs would prevent the alteration of site drainage or increase in surface runoff, and also would reduce flooding potential. Project Low Impact Development (LID) techniques would include limiting impervious surfaces, dispersing development into smaller areas, and creation of storm water detainment areas. With these design measures and BMPs in place, the impact would be less than significant.” (page 104) All potential impacts to surface runoff have been evaluated and not found to have a significant impact. Per the Triad Holmes and 289
017579.0004\6299806.2 34
Associates, 2020 Conceptual Drainage/Stormwater Management Plan, the project proposes construction of adequate treatment basins onsite so as not to degrade water quality.
Please see IS/MND Section 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, regarding increased water and sewer demands. The Project will not cause an increase in sewer and water demands on any new City residents. Further, regarding payment for this use, see page 153: “In addition, the project would be subject to development impact fees and property taxes to offset project- related impacts to public services and utility systems such as fire protection services, roadways, storm drain facilities, water facilities, and other public facilities and operations.”
Regarding the Muir Trust Open Space, the project applicant is collaborating with the John Muir Land Trust (JMLT) to deed approximately 70 acres to the JMLT plus lease about 5 acres to the JMLT for a community garden (IS/MND pages 7 and 132).
The Project is not presently located on JMLT lands and thus is not subject to any JMLT rules; however, JMLT would manage that portion of the project donated as open space consistent with its own practices and policies, so long as consistent with requirements of Measure M.
290
017579.0004\6299806.2 35
Comment L-2
Response L-2
Thank you for your comment. The author’s concerns do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no response is required. See the following email response to this email from Robert Reber, City of Hercules Community Development Director, dated March 12, 2021:
“Thank you for your questions regarding the Franklin Canyon RV Resort. The questions in your first two bullet points are not part of the City’s review and approval process, but I have forwarded those questions to the project applicants so that they can be prepared to respond and hopefully shed some light at Monday’s Planning Commission meeting.
Regarding tax revenues, the restaurant and pro shop generate a small amount of sales tax.
The property itself does generate property tax as well, though the City’s share of the base taxes is less than 5%. The City does not earn any tax revenue on green fees. 291
017579.0004\6299806.2 36
The RV resort would also be subject to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (10%) on the nightly costs of renting a space. Though the County could receive a 32% share (not to exceed $110,000 in any fiscal year) of the Transient Occupancy Tax revenue, the City projects receiving TOT revenue in excess of $200,000 a year. Although a fiscal analysis is not typically required for the pending project applications (design review and vesting map), some economic analysis will likely be included as part of the project review but not as part of the environmental document.”
292
017579.0004\6299806.2 37
Comment L-3
Response L-3
Thank you for your comment. Most concerns raised refer to Measure M compliance.
Please see the Master Response to comments on Measure M at the beginning of this section.
Please refer to Section 6.16 Recreation beginning at p. 132 of the IS/MND for an analysis on the recreational aspect of the Project. In addition, the City does not consider a private golf facility a public park, open space, or a recreational facility. The project is also proposing access to the open space areas owned by JMLT and are proposing dedication of 70-acres of land adjacent to JMLT for open space use, which are considered recreational uses.
293
017579.0004\6299806.2 38
Comment L-4
294
017579.0004\6299806.2 39
Response L-4
This comment is a follow up to comment L-2. Please see Response L-2 for the City’s response to the questions previously submitted and noted as “additional questions beyond this Initial Study” in this comment.
Regarding concern #1: Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
Regarding concern #2 relating to recreation: Please refer to Response L-3, and for a more detailed discussion, refer to Section 6.16 Recreation of the IS/MND.
Please also see Response L-1 regarding long term stays and occupancy. 295
017579.0004\6299806.2 40
Comment L-5
Response L-5
Thank you for your comment. Regarding recreation, please see Response L-3 and for a more detailed discussion refer to Section 6.16 Recreation of the IS/MND.
Regarding wildlife and habitat, please see IS/MND Section 6.4 Biological Resources beginning at page 54, which includes mitigation measures to protect wildlife and habitat.
The comments do not raise any additional concerns or potential environmental impacts not already addressed in the IS/MND.
296
017579.0004\6299806.2 41
Comment L-6
Response L-6
Thank you for your comment. Two transportation studies were prepared for the proposed project: the Abrams Associates Transportation Impact Analysis (included as IS/MND Appendix D) and the Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Memo by DKS Associates. The following information was provided by Erin Vaca, Associate Planner of DKS Associates, in response to the IS/MND Section 6.17 Transportation CEQA checklist question (C):
"Would the project... Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature?" 297
017579.0004\6299806.2 42
The proposed project is not substantially increasing transportation hazards due to a geometric design feature. The proposed project would not worsen the conditions that are already in place. Because jurisdictional transportation agencies (e.g., Caltrans for Highway 4) review project plans, the existing ramps, sight distance, and driveway were designed to the standards in place at the time of the Highway 4 expansion completed in 2002. Design standards do not vary by class of vehicle, and in circumstances where vehicles, including large or specialized vehicles, might need to reduce speed due to curvature or grade, warning signs are placed. No such warning signs are known to be in place today in the project vicinity on Highway 4, so no special hazards for larger vehicles have been identified.
In addition, Caltrans District 4 was included in the IS/MND distribution list. Caltrans did not provide comments.
The TIA prepared by Abrams & Associates (March 18, 2020) specifically analyzed this issue and noted the substantial uphill grade on eastbound SR4 between the Project site and Cummings Skyway. The TIA noted that vehicles exiting the site onto Highway 4 have an acceleration lane to safely merge with traffic before the hill. The TIA further noted that because the speed limit is only 55 mph in this area, vehicles merging on Highway 4 have a minimal impact on the regular flow of traffic (see pp. 15-16). 298
017579.0004\6299806.2 43
Comment L-7
Dan Romero, Hercules City Council
Response L-7
Thank you for your comment. Per Section 6.4 Biological Resources of the IS/MND: “No development is permitted that appreciably impairs the quantity or biological quality of water or habitat in a riparian corridor, except for flood control purposes necessary to protect human health and safety.” The IS/MND concluded that the Project will not appreciably impair the quantity or biological quality of water or habitat. “Riparian corridors” are the areas within 250 feet from the center of a permanent or 299
017579.0004\6299806.2 44
intermittent stream bed.” (page 75)
On page 89 in Section 6.7 Geology and Soils, the four septic tanks would have a capacity of 5,000 gallons each, totaling 20,000 gallons of septic capacity. (Also see Section 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, pages 144-145)
Section 6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials was based on conclusions of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment completed by Gribi Associates in 2016. A Hazardous Materials Survey Report completed by RGA Environmental, Inc. included both an asbestos survey and a lead-based paint survey of the golf course clubhouse. The report contains certifications showing compliance with both federal and state guidelines and statutes. A total of 12 building materials samples were collected and analyzed for asbestoscontaining materials (ACM). ACM identified in the clubhouse included: (1) Roof flashing; (2) Acoustic spray; (3) Floor tile and mastic; (4) Linoleum and mastic; (5) Drywall, tape, and joint compound; and (6) Carpet mastic. A total of six paint chip samples were analyzed for lead-based paint, and two of the samples showed detectable concentrations of lead. All potential impacts of concerns were found to be less than significant.
Regarding the comment about text on page 107 in Section 6.11 Land Use of the IS/MND, see Master Response for project consistency with Measure M at the beginning of this section, including this text: “[The project] will provide accommodations for short-term occupancy and provision for food and drink (including low-intensity campgrounds and picnic facilities) for persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, enjoyment or study through the RV resort, walk-in campground, tent bungalows, and onsite club house with food and beverage facilities.” The text on page 107 remains accurate.
Regarding RV storage noted on page 123 in Section 6.13 Noise, also please see the letter from the City staff regarding responses to comments on Measure M at the beginning of this section.
In Section 6.5 Cultural Resources, please see page 79, answer b. for an explanation of cultural resources, which includes mitigation measures to protect undiscovered and known cultural resources. On page 79, text explains that the cultural resources records search results reported by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) indicate there are three prehistoric period archaeological resources located within the project’s boundaries. Also, “A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which was returned with negative results on August 6, 2020.” Consistent with the comment regarding offsite cultural resources, IS/MND page 89 explains: “In general terms, based on the evidence from the discussion above, the entire area of the project site should be considered sensitive for archaeological resources. The potential for the discovery of previously undiscovered prehistoric archaeological resources is considered high and is considered moderate for previously undiscovered historic period archaeological resources.” 300
017579.0004\6299806.2 45
Comment L-8
301
017579.0004\6299806.2 46
302
017579.0004\6299806.2 47
303
017579.0004\6299806.2 48
304
017579.0004\6299806.2 49
305
017579.0004\6299806.2 50
Response L-8
Thank you for your comment. PG&E would be the electricity and natural gas provider for the proposed project (IS/MND pages 145 and 146). The PG&E mandatory, standard requirements noted in the comment will be required for the project. 306
017579.0004\6299806.2 51
Comment L-9
307
017579.0004\6299806.2 52
L-9 attachment 1
308
017579.0004\6299806.2 53
L-9 attachment 2
309
017579.0004\6299806.2 54
L-9 attachment 3
310
017579.0004\6299806.2 55
L-9 attachment 4
311
017579.0004\6299806.2 56
L-9 attachment 5
Response L-9
Refer to IS/MND Sections 6.5 Cultural Resources and 6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources for a full analysis on cultural resources. This section also recommends the adoption of mitgation measures to assure any potential impacts on cultural resources are mitigated as a result, the additional measures provided by the author are not necessary.
Section 1.10 Native American Consultation at page 8 of the IS/MND explains that a notice of tribal consultation was sent to all applicable tribal representatives. However, no requests by the tribes were made. The IS/MND contains specific mitigation measures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources. The primary goal is avoidance of impacts to archaeological resources. In order to do so, the main strategy is archaeological testing to identify if the project could have impacts to known and unknown resources on the project site, and then preventing impacts based on those results. The archaeological testing is designed to go to a depth of two feet below the maximum depth of project excavation to ensure a buffer during construction. If archaeological testing does discover archaeological resources, the mitigation ensures that the testing will not go any deeper, to prevent damage to the resource. Additionally, construction will not be allowed in the area of the resource (preventing damage through avoidance), unless there is a protective cap of fill with at least a two-foot buffer preventing construction work from disturbing the resource (preservation in situ).
Archaeological monitoring will be conducted, in case there are additional resources that were not identified by testing, although it is considered a low potential. If any Native American archaeological artifact or site is found, Native American consultation and monitoring will be required per the mitigation. The IS/MND has incorporated protections for human remains, avoidance of sites, archaeological training, and Native American 312
017579.0004\6299806.2 57
monitoring and consultation into the mitigation measures that are similar to those you recommended. Because an archaeological monitor will be on site at all times, some of your recommended mitigations would not apply, such as calling an archaeologist in the event a find was discovered.
Comment L-10
Response L-10
Thank you for your comment. The author’s comment does not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no additional response is required. 313
017579.0004\6299806.2 58
Comment L-11
314
017579.0004\6299806.2 59
Response L-11
Thank you for your comment. The issues raised in these comments were analyzed in the IS/MND. Please consult the following sections of the IS/MND:
• Sections 6.3 Air Quality and 6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions discuss potential impacts, which are found to be less than significant.
• Section 6.17 Transportation finds impacts to be less than significant; please also refer to Response L-6 from the transportation consultant. • Section 6.16 Recreation finds impacts on recreational facilities to be less than significant.
• Section 6.1 Aesthetics finds impacts to be less then significant.
These conclusions are based on criteria defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and included in each environmental topic section. This comment does not raise any additional concerns or potential environmental impacts not already analyzed in the IS/MND.
315
017579.0004\6299806.2 60
Comment L-12
316
017579.0004\6299806.2 61
317
017579.0004\6299806.2 62
Response L-12
Thank you for your comment. These comments do not raise questions/concerns about the adequacy of the IS/MND so no specific response is required. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. 318
017579.0004\6299806.2 63
Comment L-13
Response L-13
Thank you for your comment. The environmental topics noted by the commenter are covered in their respective sections of the IS/MND.
319
017579.0004\6299806.2 64
Comment L-14
Response L-14
Thank you for your comment. The Project applicant has confirmed, per an email from Scott Miyashiro, an engineer at Acuanti, Inc on May 14, 2021 the following:
“The septic tanks are not situated within five feet of any structure. Our own standard is to situate septic tanks, dose tanks, and grease interceptor tanks no more than ten feet of any foundation or hardscape. This is more stringent per the Contra Costa County Health Officer Regulations for Sewage Collection and Disposal 420-6.606. This is not a septic 320
017579.0004\6299806.2 65
design at this stage and our enlarged plans will show exactly the setbacks met to all structures, foundations, and other hardscape.”
The applicant is required to obtain permits from RWQCB through a Waste Discharge Permit for its proposed onsite treatment infrastructure. In addition, prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to provide the City Engineer, for review and approval, a detailed study indicating specifications of the new infrastructure. 321
017579.0004\6299806.2 66
Comment L-15
Response L-15
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance. The proposed wastewater system is discussed in IS/MND Section 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems and also refer to response L-14 for additional information on the proposed sanitary system. 322
017579.0004\6299806.2 67
Comment L-16
323
017579.0004\6299806.2 68
Response L-16
Thank you for the comment. The Final draft IS/MND has been updated in the Project Description and Section 6.19 Utilities to reflect the accurate location of the water main near John Muir Parkway and Franklin Canyon Road. EBMUD would be the water provider for the proposed project (IS/MND pages 143 and 144). The EBMUD mandatory, standard requirements noted in the comment will be required for the project. 324
017579.0004\6299806.2 69
Comment L-17
325
017579.0004\6299806.2 70
326
017579.0004\6299806.2 71
Response L-17
Thank you for your comment. Some of the author’s comments do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no specific responses are required. See the responses below for the CEQA-related comment.
Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
Regarding wildlife and habitat, please refer to Section 6.4 Biological Resources for a discussion of potential impacts on biological resources resulting from the project and mitigation measures to avoid the impacts or reduce them to less than significant levels. 327
017579.0004\6299806.2 72
The comment does not raise any additional concerns or potential impacts that were not already addressed in the IS/MND.
328
017579.0004\6299806.2 73
Comment L-18
Response L-18
Thank you for your comment. The author’s comment does not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document, so no specific response is required. 329
017579.0004\6299806.2 74
Comment L-19
Response L-19
Thank you for your comment. Some of the comments do not raise concerns on the adequacy of the IS/MND so no specific response is required. See responses below for CEQA-related comments.
Please note on page 134 of the IS/MND in Section 6.17 Transportation: “The proposed project is estimated to generate 147 average trips per day (a 126-trip decrease per day over existing conditions).”
No firepits are proposed. Please see IS/MND Sections 6.15 Public Services and 6.20 Wildfire for information regarding fire protection and potential project impacts. 330
017579.0004\6299806.2 75
Comment L-20
331
017579.0004\6299806.2 76
332
017579.0004\6299806.2 77
333
017579.0004\6299806.2 78
334
017579.0004\6299806.2 79
335
017579.0004\6299806.2 80
336
017579.0004\6299806.2 81
337
017579.0004\6299806.2 82
Response L-20
Thank you for your comment. Some of the author’s comments do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no specific responses are required. See the responses below for the CEQA-related comments.
Regarding Measure M compliance, please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M concerns.
See Section 1.9 Project Description. Figure 3 and the accompanying IS/MND text have been revised to reflect the current site plan, which includes a total of 176 parking spaces.
The parking spaces are for the public to visit the public amenities on the site such as the restaurant, and banquet room, and access John Muir Land Trust trails; and to serve walk-in campers. The parking area and spaces for the Project are the same as what exists on the site currently. This change in the total parking spaces reflected on the revised plan does not affect the impacts, mitigations or conclusions of the IS/MND.
In Section 6.4 Biological Resources, the mitigations were prepared by a professional biologist and are adequate to assure the potential biological impacts will be mitigated. The implementation of these measures will be assured through the mitigation and monitoring plan enforced by the City.
Regarding comments on energy consumption for Section 6.8 Greenhouse Gases, please refer to page 7 of the IS/MND in Section 1.9 Project Description: “Per the transportation studies, the proposed project is anticipated to generate less trips to the site on a daily basis, and result in reduced or unchanged vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to and from the site 338
017579.0004\6299806.2 83
(Abrams Associates, 2020; DKS Associates, 2020).” Additional comments on Section 6.8 Greenhouse Gases do not provide substantial evidence to support the commentor’s opinions.
The author disagrees with the analysis and conclusions in Section 6.4 Biological Resources and believes the project will impact wildlife in the area. The author also questions the effectiveness of the mitigation measures but does not provide evidence to support their opinions that the recommended measures in the IS/MND are inadequate. The author does not provide evidence or information to support their conclusion which prevents the ability to provide specific response.
Regarding comments on Section 6.13 Noise, please see pages 122-123, where operational noise is discussed. Impacts were found to be less than significant by noise monitoring professionals under contract with the City.
Refer to IS/MND Sections 6.15 Public Services for a discussion of project impacts on public services. On page 130, there is specific discussion of police protection.
Regarding traffic jams, please refer to page 134 of the IS/MND in Section 6.17 Transportation: “The proposed project is estimated to generate 147 average trips per day (a 126-trip decrease per day over existing conditions).” This section was prepared by professional transportation engineers under contract with the City.
Please refer to the IS/MND Section 6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, which discusses Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage water quality on and offsite. Please also see Section 6.7 Geology and Soils for a discussion of soil types. Regarding comments on Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the commentor does not provide evidence to support their opinions.
Regarding the comments on 6.19 Utilities and Service Systems, please see Response L-14 Comments regarding traffic hazards can be found in Response L-6. The comment about the bridge and emergency access is responded to in the below paragraph. In 6.4 Biological Resources pages 69 and 70, the applicant will be required to submit more detailed plans for the widening of the existing access road that spans over Rodeo Creek As proposed, the widening will not occur within the Creek and will not impact the Creek. The comment about the onsite roadway and 9th hole crossing is considered an internal component of the project and not a public roadway. This design and function would be subject to Fire Department review and City Public Works engineering review.
No fire pits are proposed or would be allowed for the project. Regarding comments on Section 6.20 Wildfire, on page 150 of the IS/MND explains emergency response: “The proposed project would not impair the emergency response or emergency evacuation plan for the City. The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) confirmed that the project would not create, interrupt, or otherwise reduce the ability of streets to circulate traffic, but rather, the project proposes a second access from Christie Road for emergency vehicles only (Abrams 2020). The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere in emergency response or evacuation plans. The impact would be less than significant. See 339
017579.0004\6299806.2 84
Section 6.9.f Hazards and Hazardous Materials for information on emergency response and evacuation.”
The commentor’s questions regarding IS/MND Section 6.16 Recreation and Section 6.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance are discussed in Response L-3. The City does not consider a private golf facility a public park, open space, or a recreational facility.
Comment L-21
Response L-21
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the email response to Nicole Sacramento from Robert Reber, City of Hercules Community Development Director, from April 14, 2021:
“While there may be strong arguments for interpreting “low-intensity outdoor recreation” as precluding RVs, that does not negate or undermine the legitimacy of the prior zoning clearance determination that the proposed project is allowed under Measure M. It’s not so much that the zoning consistency determination needs to be “correct”; it simply needs to be fair and reasonable. It’s best to let the June 2019 notice of decision speak for itself in explaining how Measure M was interpreted and applied to the project, yet as you rightly point out, Measure M specifically allows but unfortunately does not define “low-intensity campgrounds.” While an online search reveals a number of varying definitions for “campgrounds” and “camping,” a legal definition of camping provided in current federal regulations supports inclusion of RV use as “camping”: “the erecting of a tent or shelter of 340
017579.0004\6299806.2 85
natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, motor home or trailer, or mooring of a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy.” (36 CFR § 1.4) In reaching its zoning clearance determination, City staff found the RV resort to be clearly within the federal legal definition of a campground. Although the project has changed in the two years since that determination was made, the primary change (eliminating the last nine golf holes and deeding that land to the John Muir Land Trust for use as public open space) brings the project closer—not further—to achieving Measure M’s objectives of preserving open space for low-intensity outdoor recreation. Thus, there appears to be a reasonable basis for the prior zoning consistency determination, and courts are deferential to local zoning determinations as long as there is a reasonable basis for the underlying decision.
Notwithstanding the prior zoning determination, the Planning Commission and City Council could find that certain design elements of the project are not consistent with Measure M.”
Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
341
017579.0004\6299806.2 86
Comment L-22
342
017579.0004\6299806.2 87
Response L-22
Thank you for your comment. Regarding points 1-3, please refer to page 134 of the IS/MND in Section 6.17 Transportation: “The proposed project is estimated to generate 147 average trips per day (a 126-trip decrease per day over existing conditions).” Also see Response L-6 for additional information relating to RVs entering onto Highway 4.
Regarding points 4 and 5, please refer to Sections 6.15 Public Services and 6.20 Wildfire 343
017579.0004\6299806.2 88
of the IS/MND for information regarding police protection, fire protection, and potential project impacts. The comment does not raise any additional concerns or potential environmental impacts that were not addressed in the IS/MND.
The author’s comment in point 5 does not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document so no response is required.
Comment L-23
344
017579.0004\6299806.2 89
345
017579.0004\6299806.2 90
Response L-23
Thank you for your comments. The author’s concerns do not apply to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document (except for the Measure M comment), so no specific responses are required. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
346
017579.0004\6299806.2 91
Comment L-24
347
017579.0004\6299806.2 92
Response L-24
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
Regarding Section 6.1 Aesthetics of the IS/MND, on May 17, 2021, City staff visited Fernandez Ranch trails and took photos to evaluate the views of the project site. See the below photos. These photos are in addition to the visual photos already contained in the IS/MND. Views of the portion of the golf course where the RV resort would be built are blocked by either topography or dense vegetation. City staff - concludes there would be little to no visual impact to views from south of the project and thus, no need to prepare additional photo simulations. In addition, this IS/MND visual analysis, in coordination with City design review, would continue to ensure that the project’s visual impacts would be less than significant.
348
017579.0004\6299806.2 93
The new RV resort is visible from one vantage point, shown in the below photo. This view is from an unmarked and overgrown fire road that terminates at the golf course and thus not part of the trail network.
349
017579.0004\6299806.2 94
350
017579.0004\6299806.2 95
Comment L-25
351
017579.0004\6299806.2 96
Response L-25
Thank you for your comment. The MIG biologist prepared the original, separate Biological Resources Assessment with a slightly different set of plans (dated 06/03/2020), then corrected the numbers for the IS/MND section, based on the slightly revised plans.
The biological resource analysis and conclusions did not require revisions based on these plan revisions.
Please refer to Response L-6 for a discussion of the traffic safety issue.
See Response L-24 regarding Section 6.1 Aesthetics of the IS/MND, Figures 14 and 15 shows the visual simulation from Christie Road.
352
017579.0004\6299806.2 97
Comment L-26
353
017579.0004\6299806.2 98
354
017579.0004\6299806.2 99
355
017579.0004\6299806.2 100
356
017579.0004\6299806.2 101
357
017579.0004\6299806.2 102
358
017579.0004\6299806.2 103
359
017579.0004\6299806.2 104
360
017579.0004\6299806.2 105
361
017579.0004\6299806.2 106
362
017579.0004\6299806.2 107
363
017579.0004\6299806.2 108
364
017579.0004\6299806.2 109
Comment L-26 attachment 1
Comment L-26 attachment 2
Table of Common Slopes in Architecture
The table below shows some common slopes. 1:20 sloped floors do not require handrails, but anything steeper than 1:20 is considered a ramp and requires handrails. 1:12 sloped ramps are the maximum slope allowed by ADA codes and they require handrails. Federal ADA codes indicate that the maximum cross-slope of an accessible route is 1:48, which is slightly more than 2%. However, we have seen some jurisdictions that allow a maximum cross slope of 1:50.
DEGREES GRADIENT PERCENT
0.6° 1 : 95.49 1.0%
1° 1 : 57.29 1.7%
1.15° 1 : 50 2%
1.19° 1 : 48 2.08%
2.86° 1 : 20 5%
365
017579.0004\6299806.2 110
https://www.archtoolbox.com/representation/geometry/slope.html ➔5% slope = 2.86° slope // 5% (x4) = 2.86° (x4) //therefore, 20% slope = 11.44° slope Response L-26
Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the Master Response at the front of this section for a response to Measure M compliance.
4.76° 1 : 12 8.3%
7.13° 1 : 8 12.5%
10° 1 : 5.67 17.6%
14.04° 1 : 4 25%
15° 1 : 3.73 26.8%
26.57° 1 : 2 50%
30° 1 : 1.73 57.7%
45° 1 : 1 100%
56.31° 1: 0.67 150%
60° 1 : 0.6 173.2%
63.43° 1 : 0.5 200%
78.69° 1: 0.2 500%
89.43° 1 : 0.1 1000%
90° 1 : 0 inf.
366
017579.0004\6299806.2 111
Comment L-27
367
017579.0004\6299806.2 112
Response L-27
Thank you for your comment. The project engineer, Tom Platz of THA, has replied to Robert Reber, AICP, City of Hercules Director of Community Development: “Per the CPC, sewer and water can be in a common trench to serve RV sites. This is standard at RV parks as it is [a] private [system], maintaining 1’ vertical and 1’ horizontal (sewer on bottom) minimum separation in the common trench. The standards [provided in the comment] are per the State Health [Department] for mains and laterals within a street right of way.”
No fire pits are proposed or allowed as part of this project. Please see IS/MND Section
6.15 Public Services for fire protection requirements.
368
017579.0004\6299806.2 113
Comment L-28
369
017579.0004\6299806.2 114
370
017579.0004\6299806.2 115
371
017579.0004\6299806.2 116
372
017579.0004\6299806.2 117
373
017579.0004\6299806.2 118
Response L-28
Thank you for your comment. The author begins the comment by summarizing the project description and project setting. No response is necessary.
Withe respect to the author’s suggested revisions to certain mitigation measures in the IS/MND, the response is as follows:
1. BIO-8. This mitigation measure has been revised to include the new last sentence relating to enforcement of the leash requirements.
2. BIO-9. The suggested revisions request that construction activities end 30 minutes prior to sunset and not resume until 30 minutes following sunrise. Restrictions on construction hours are required by a standard condition of approval that requires the following: Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except work on Saturday shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This time constriction generally falls in line with the author’s request, although sunrise will be later than the City time restriction for a short amount of time leading up to, including, and following winter solstice. BIO-9 was updated to include the following sentence: “No nighttime work will occur, as required by the City's standard condition of approval.” The City's existing requirements are sufficient to assure 374
017579.0004\6299806.2 119
construction impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. BIO-11. The author recommends fencing be erected during project construction to exclude wildlife from the project site and be maintained daily by biological staff. A bullet point will be added to this existing measure to require such fencing; however, fencing may also be inspected/repaired by on-site construction personnel who have received the employee education program outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
As highlighted by the author, the landscaping plans will be revised to remove nonnative species.
With respect to the comments raised on Regulatory Requirements, please see below.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA):
• The author outlines the requirement for an incidental take permit (ITP) if the Project may impact CESA-listed species (endangered or threatened). This process is outlined in IS/MND Section 6.4 Biological Resources (California Endangered Species Act [CESA]). The City finds that the proposed mitigation measures avoid take of CESA-listed species. The mitigation measures avoid take, and no additional long-term ITP for the Alameda whipsnake or California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) would be needed. The project would not substantially restrict or reduce the range/population of a species.
Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA):
• The author outlines the process for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) which would be required if the project would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of Rodeo Creek. This process is outlined in the IS/MND (Sensitive Natural Vegetation Community Regulatory Framework: California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1607). The applicant will be required to submit detailed plans for the widening of the existing access road that spans over Rodeo Creek As is currently proposed, the widening activities will not occur within the banks of the Creek and will not impact the Creek waters, either directly (through spillage, debris, equipment usage, etc.) or indirectly (e.g. project runoff water). The widening is proposed to be adjacent to the exiting access road and will continue to span over the Creek. Since the Creek will not be altered, recirculation of the IS/MND is not necessary. If this aspect of the project changes and the access road widening is found to alter or impact Rodeo Creek, the applicant will need to file a notification for a Lake and Streambed Agreement through CDFW by completing the necessary application requirements and paying the associated fee. 375
017579.0004\6299806.2 120
Comment L-29
376
017579.0004\6299806.2 121
Response L-29
Thank you for your comment. These recommendations from Mosquito & Vector Control, a jurisdictional agency, would be incorporated as conditions of project approval. 377
017579.0004\6299806.2 122
REVISIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Franklin Canyon RV Resort
City of Hercules,
California
May 2021
None of the criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption) has been met as a result of the revisions. In particular:
* No new, avoidable significant effect has been identified, and no new mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; * New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects;
* Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and * New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. 378
017579.0004\6299806.2 123
This page intentionally left blank
379
017579.0004\6299806.2 124
380
017579.0004\6299806.2 125
381
017579.0004\6299806.2 126
382
017579.0004\6299806.2 127
383
017579.0004\6299806.2 128
384
017579.0004\6299806.2 129
385
017579.0004\6299806.2 130
386
017579.0004\6299806.2 131
387
017579.0004\6299806.2 132
388
ESR, Inc.
P.O. Box 4086
Oakhurst, CA 93644
Office (559) 683-5335
[email protected]
1 August 1, 2018
Madison MRH-1 Franklin LLC
30423 Canwood Street
Suite #126
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
For the attention of Tom Hix
RE: Franklin Canyon Golf Course Conversion Tree Survey
Dear Mr. Hix:
As requested, ESR, Inc. (ESR) conducted a baseline tree survey for the conversion of the 18-hole Franklin Canyon Golf Course into a 9-hole golf course with a RV park and amenities in Contra Costa County (County) near the City of Hercules (City), California.
The trees located on the course that may or may not be removed or impacted were identified and assessed following Contra Costa County and the City of Hercules tree ordinances. The survey was conducted within the front nine and driving range portion of the course including a 50 foot buffer as these are the only areas that would realistically be affected by the proposed project reconfiguration. The trees within the riparian areas adjacent to the site will not be impacted by the project.
A tree survey is required to obtain the tree removal permits from Contra Costa County and the City of Hercules should any qualifying trees be slated for removal. The two regulatory entities have different tree ordinances and surveying requirements. Primarily, both governmental entities have different diameter and tree species requirements. Refer to the Appendices for the attached Contra Costa County and the City of Hercules ordinances.
Contra Costa County requires a tree survey to identify if any of the 26 specific native tree species would be impacted by the project. The defining parameter for these types of surveys is the diameter of the tree at breast height (~4.5 feet) or the circumference at breast height.
389
ESR, Inc.
2 Contra Costa County requires that the listed 26 trees with a circumference of 20 inches (~6.5 inches) at diameter breast height (dbh) or more that lie within 50 feet of proposed grading should be included in the survey or if any grove of trees (4 or more) are to be impacted should be surveyed without regard for diameter. The Contra Costa County native tree list for species greater than 6.5 inches (20 inches circumference) dbh includes the following:
Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple)
Acer negundo (Box elder)
Aesculus californica (California buckeye)
Alnus rhombifolia (White alder)
Arbutus menziesii (Madrone)
Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon)
Juglans hindsii (California black walnut)
Lithocarpus densiflora (Tanoak)
Pinus attenuata (Knobcone pine)
Pinus sabiniana (Digger pine)
Platanus racemosa (California sycamore)
Populus fremontii (Fremont cottonwood)
Populus trichocarpa (Black cottonwood)
Quercus agrifolia (Coast live oak)
Quercus chrysolepis (Canyon live oak)
Quercus douglasii (Blue oak)
Quercus kelloggii (California black oak)
Quercus lobata (Valley oak)
Quercus wislizenii (Interior live oak)
Salix lasiandra (Yellow willow)
Salix lasiolepis (Red willow)
Sambucus callicarpa (Coast red elderberry)
Sequoia sempervirens (Coast redwood)
Umbellularia californica (Laurel)
The City of Hercules has a different qualifying parameter for tree removal. The City of Hercules does not differentiate between native and non-native tree species but lumps them together as “mature trees”. A “mature tree” is any living tree with a trunk diameter at breast height of 12 inches or greater. Additionally, removal of more than one third of the foliage of a “mature” tree would be considered tree removal. Consequently there are instances where a qualifying native tree on the Contra Costa County list may not qualify on the City of Hercules list. For example there are several occurrences of Quercus agrifolia (Coast live oak) that are greater than 6.5 inches dbh, which qualify for the County, but are less than 12 inches dbh and therefore do not qualify under the City of Hercules “mature” tree ordinance.
ESR visited the site on July 24, 2018 and July 27, 2018 to identify and catalog the trees.
After visiting the site, seeing the new layout, and the types of trees located on the course, it is our professional opinion that an arborist is not warranted until the trees are permitted through the County or City for removal. The removal of any of the qualifying trees will need to be replaced based on the suggested replacement plan.
390
ESR, Inc.
3 ESR conducted the tree survey and assessment of the qualifying trees at the site based on the requirements of both Contra Costa County and the City of Hercules tree ordinances. The methodology for the field portion of the survey was to identify which trees to include, measure the qualifying trees, identify the species of the tree, GPS the tree location, and compile the data into tabular form for inclusion into this tree survey report which will be submitted to assist with the issuance of the tree removal permits.
No encumbering conditions (e.g. bad weather, access restrictions, etc.) that would bias the conclusions of this report were experienced during the conduction of the survey. A few areas were avoided due to thick assemblages of Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). On the survey days, weather was sunny to partly cloudy with an approximate air temperature of between 55o F and 85o
F. Upon each visit, the biologists
collected data throughout the project site by conducting thorough pedestrian surveys with Global Positioning System (GPS) units. All tree species encountered were positively identified, mapped, and were categorized.
It should be noted that even though GPS equipment with sub-meter accuracy was utilized during the surveys, a dilution of precision is always possible depending on the location of the satellites during the data recordation process. Additionally, the Geographic Information System (GIS) maps created using the ArcMap program were prepared based on the importation of shapefiles and metafiles from various georeferenced sources which can cause minor discrepancies in the placement of the data. Nonetheless, the maps generated from the recorded data are adequate for these levels of survey but should be used for planning purposes only and are not intended to be engineered designs.
During the field surveying effort 279 trees were assessed. Trees that were clearly smaller than the qualifying parameters were not assessed further. Nineteen (19) of the measured trees did not meet either the County or the City parameters for inclusion as a qualifying tree but were measured to ensure that they did not meet qualifying parameters.
The remaining 260 trees evaluated qualified either as a County protected tree or as a City protected tree. Using the County qualifying parameters, 120 trees are greater than
6.5 inches dbh and are one of the 26 native trees listed in the ordinance. Using the City qualifying parameters 227 trees qualify as “mature” trees. There was an overlap for some 87 trees that qualified in both the County and the City ordinances. The following table provides the tabulation of the measured trees at the site. Refer to the attached figures for a graphic depiction of the tree locations and the corresponding identification number.
391
ESR, Inc.
4 Table 1 - Franklin Canyon CG Tree Survey Results
ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
1 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 16.0 Y Y -122.21586 38.00662 2 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 19.4 N Y -122.21604 38.00647 3 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 16.1 N Y -122.21608 38.00643 4 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 14.5 N Y -122.21615 38.00642 5 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 17.4, 18.4 Y Y -122.21656 38.00629 6 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 14.1 N Y -122.21738 38.00616 7 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 34.5 N Y -122.21741 38.00611 8 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 22.6 N Y -122.21765 38.00609 9 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 28.2 N Y -122.21773 38.00605 10 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 28.6 N Y -122.21839 38.00594 11 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 14.6 N Y -122.21845 38.00590 12 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 16.1 N Y -122.21867 38.00589 13 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 25.2 N Y -122.21911 38.00585 14 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 29.6 N Y -122.21910 38.00580 15 Quercus kelloggii Black oak QK 1 25.2 Y Y -122.21642 38.00558 16 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 9.6 N N -122.21646 38.00548 17 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 12.3 N Y -122.21651 38.00541 18 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 13.0 N Y -122.21650 38.00529 19 Juglans regia English walnut JR 1 13.3 N Y -122.21659 38.00531 20 Morus alba Mulberry MA 1 9.6 N N -122.21664 38.00520 21 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 27.5 N Y -122.21659 38.00512 22 Quercus kelloggii Black oak QK 1 13.2 Y Y -122.21674 38.00518 23 Quercus kelloggii Black oak QK 1 26.0 Y Y -122.21678 38.00523 392
ESR, Inc.
5 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
24 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.3 Y Y -122.21657 38.00477 25 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 27.1 N Y -122.21678 38.00457 26 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.0 Y N -122.21667 38.00436 27 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 32.2 N Y -122.21681 38.00414 28 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 33.0 N Y -122.21672 38.00404 29 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 19.0 Y Y -122.21731 38.00345 30 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 6.1 N N -122.21694 38.00331 31 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 19.0 Y Y -122.21690 38.00284 32 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 27.0 N Y -122.21686 38.00278 33 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 28.5 N Y -122.21676 38.00266 34 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 12.9 Y Y -122.21690 38.00257 35 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 13.2, 9.0 Y Y -122.21688 38.00252 36 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 15.0 Y Y -122.21684 38.00239 37 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 32.5 N Y -122.21674 38.00243 38 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 11.0 Y N -122.21671 38.00222 39 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 32.8 N Y -122.21652 38.00205 40 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 14.7, 21 Y Y -122.21658 38.00199 41 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 15.0 Y Y -122.21657 38.00196 42 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 20.0 N Y -122.21657 38.00194 43 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 12.1 Y Y -122.21656 38.00190 44 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 45.5 Y Y -122.21656 38.00185 45 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 8.6 Y N -122.21676 38.00176 46 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 7.6 Y N -122.21675 38.00174 47 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 7.2 Y N -122.21673 38.00170 48 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 7.5 Y N -122.21671 38.00172 393
ESR, Inc.
6 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
49 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 7.5 Y N -122.21670 38.00168 50 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 28.3 Y Y -122.21633 38.00159 51 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.4 Y N -122.21646 38.00135 52 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 8.9 Y N -122.21646 38.00130 53 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 9.1 Y N -122.21643 38.00130 54 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 9.2 Y N -122.21639 38.00128 55 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 6.1 Y N -122.21636 38.00124 56 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 8.0, 9.8 Y Y -122.21576 38.00032 57 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 17.0 Y Y -122.21572 38.00036 58 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 30.4 N Y -122.21554 38.00027 59 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 25.0 N Y -122.21545 38.00024 60 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 27.0 Y Y -122.21515 38.00020 61 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 13.0 Y Y -122.21490 38.00050 62 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 28.0 N Y -122.21491 38.00055 63 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 15.0 Y Y -122.21488 38.00063 64 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 46.0 N Y -122.21487 38.00071 65 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 33.0 N Y -122.21489 38.00079 66 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 26.0 N Y -122.21492 38.00088 67 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 19.6 N Y -122.21527 38.00078 68 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 70.0 N Y -122.21534 38.00113 69 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 9.3 Y N -122.21539 38.00102 70 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 12.6 Y Y -122.21552 38.00119 71 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 11.5 Y N -122.21570 38.00132 72 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 14.6 N Y -122.21581 38.00165 73 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 12.6 N Y -122.21593 38.00153 394
ESR, Inc.
7 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
74 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 56.0 N Y -122.21612 38.00175 75 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 18.7 N Y -122.21606 38.00181 76 Quercus kelloggii Black oak QK 1 28.0 Y Y -122.21502 38.00146 77 Quercus kelloggii Black oak QK 1 25.0 Y Y -122.21481 38.00115 78 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 12.9 Y Y -122.21486 38.00123 79 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 40.0 N Y -122.21531 38.00217 80 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 36.0 N Y -122.21534 38.00228 81 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 65.0 N Y -122.21593 38.00234 82 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 96.0 N Y -122.21601 38.00247 83 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 43.0 Y Y -122.21618 38.00275 84 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 29.0 Y Y -122.21607 38.00280 85 Salix alba White willow SA 4 28, 28, 15, 23 N Y -122.21617 38.00289 86 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 44.0 N Y -122.21626 38.00296 87 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 24.0 N Y -122.21608 38.00313 88 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 25.0 N Y -122.21608 38.00323 89 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 13.6 Y Y -122.21504 38.00245 90 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 15.0 Y Y -122.21508 38.00256 91 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 9.9 Y N -122.21506 38.00262 92 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 8.8 Y N -122.21509 38.00266 93 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 22.8 Y Y -122.21508 38.00282 94 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 14, 13.1 Y Y -122.21500 38.00284 95 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 9.3 Y N -122.21503 38.00290 96 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 18.4 Y Y -122.21528 38.00301 97 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 18.5 Y Y -122.21534 38.00309 395
ESR, Inc.
8 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
98 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 11.2 Y N -122.21539 38.00316 99 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 8.6, 9.6 Y Y -122.21546 38.00328 100 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 32.0 Y Y -122.21547 38.00333 101 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 13.3 Y Y -122.21554 38.00336 102 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 15.8 Y Y -122.21553 38.00343 103 Magnolia alba Magnolia MA 1 12.2 N Y -122.21561 38.00336 104 Magnolia alba Magnolia MA 1 12.7 N Y -122.21571 38.00338 105 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 29.0 N Y -122.21552 38.00356 106 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.0 Y N -122.21546 38.00382 107 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 14.0 N Y -122.21548 38.00396 108 Alnus rubens Red alder AR 1 20.5 N Y -122.21577 38.00394 109 Alnus rubens Red alder AR 1 15.7 N Y -122.21576 38.00403 110 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 18.3 N Y -122.21607 38.00406 111 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 10.0 Y N -122.21602 38.00419 112 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 6.5 Y N -122.21595 38.00423 113 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 8.6 Y N -122.21601 38.00432 114 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 19.5 N Y -122.21584 38.00430 115 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 28.6 N Y -122.21581 38.00437 116 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 24.5 N Y -122.21584 38.00445 117 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 16.3 Y Y -122.21546 38.00413 118 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 36.0 Y Y -122.21542 38.00424 119 Alnus rubens Red alder AR 1 13.7 N Y -122.21575 38.00462 120 Alnus rubens Red alder AR 1 17.7 N Y -122.21579 38.00468 121 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 14.8 N Y -122.21588 38.00499 122 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 15.1 N Y -122.21588 38.00522 396
ESR, Inc.
9 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
123 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 46.4 Y Y -122.21565 38.00573 124 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 17.5 N Y -122.21552 38.00612 125 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 9.3, 11.1 Y Y -122.21548 38.00627 126 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 11.3 Y N -122.21560 38.00624 127 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.8 Y N -122.21567 38.00627 128 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 7.0 Y N -122.21573 38.00630 129 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 13.8, 8.1 Y Y -122.21581 38.00637 130 Quercus lobata Valley oak QL 1 64.0 Y Y -122.21592 38.00634 131 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 14.1 N Y -122.21571 38.00538 132 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum LS 1 17.6 N Y -122.21564 38.00539 133 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 42.0 N Y -122.21563 38.00533 134 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 16.7 N Y -122.21543 38.00534 135 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 12.8 N Y -122.21523 38.00527 136 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 17.4 N Y -122.21513 38.00503 137 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 9.3 N N -122.21521 38.00485 138 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 22.7 Y Y -122.21538 38.00462 139 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 18.1 N Y -122.21524 38.00478 140 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 15.4 N Y -122.21527 38.00466 141 Cedrus deodara Himalayan cedar CD 1 19.2 N Y -122.21512 38.00464 142 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 9.4 Y N -122.21428 38.00426 143 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 14.9 Y Y -122.21411 38.00414 144 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 9.0 Y N -122.21417 38.00403 145 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.2 Y N -122.21409 38.00396 146 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 10.0 N N -122.21336 38.00371 147 Cedrus deodara Himalayan cedar CD 1 17.3 N Y -122.21320 38.00361 397
ESR, Inc.
10 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
148 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 9.6 N N -122.21264 38.00342 149 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 10.8 N N -122.21266 38.00349 150 Platanus racemosa California sycamore PR 1 13.5 Y Y -122.21259 38.00346 151 Arbutus menziesii Madrone ARM 1 19.2 Y Y -122.21248 38.00326 152 Arbutus menziesii Madrone ARM 1 16.3 Y Y -122.21228 38.00313 153 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 9.3 N N -122.21215 38.00332 154 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 11.5, 15.2 Y Y -122.21207 38.00302 155 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 12.7 N Y -122.21194 38.00340 156 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 33.6 N Y -122.21212 38.00362 157 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 88.0 N Y -122.21211 38.00374 158 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 13.3 Y Y -122.21284 38.00499 159 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 13.9 Y Y -122.21292 38.00509 160 Quercus lobata Valley oak QL 1 15.4 Y Y -122.21285 38.00547 161 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 19.5 N Y -122.21308 38.00537 162 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 14.7 N Y -122.21300 38.00545 163 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 16.3 N Y -122.21307 38.00549 164 Morus alba Mulberry MA 1 10.7 N N -122.21303 38.00558 165 Morus alba Mulberry MA 1 12.8 N Y -122.21291 38.00558 166 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 14.8 N Y -122.21342 38.00568 167 Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine PP 1 29.0 N Y -122.21373 38.00586 168 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 8.6, 10.0 Y Y -122.21378 38.00588 169 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 11.7 N N -122.21388 38.00585 170 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 13.3 N Y -122.21393 38.00605 171 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 11.7 Y N -122.21408 38.00588 172 Acer negundo Box elder AN 1 15.7 Y Y -122.21421 38.00590 398
ESR, Inc.
11 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
173 Quercus lobata Valley oak QL 1 29.0 Y Y -122.21476 38.00612 174 Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey pine PJ 1 31.0 N Y -122.21487 38.00615 175 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 31.0 Y Y -122.21522 38.00620 176 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 50.0 Y Y -122.21519 38.00562 177 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 63.0 Y Y -122.21510 38.00556 178 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 55.0 Y Y -122.21500 38.00550 179 Salix lasiandra Yellow willow SLA 2 48, 16.8 Y Y -122.21462 38.00541 180 Salix lasiandra Yellow willow SLA 6
17.0,16.0,
14.0, 15.0,
15.0, 17.0 Y Y -122.21462 38.00536
181 Salix lasiandra Yellow willow SLA 3
17.0,16.0,
22.0 Y Y -122.21467 38.00529
182 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.5 Y N -122.21465 38.00524 183 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 6.5, 7.5 Y Y -122.21457 38.00523 184 Salix lasiandra Yellow willow SLA 5
15.9, 32, 8,
14.9, 12.8 Y Y -122.21375 38.00458
185 Cedrus deodara Himalayan cedar CD 1 15.4 N Y -122.21365 38.00458 186 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 10.1 N N -122.21351 38.00470 187 Betula sp. Birch BS 1 8.8 N N -122.21341 38.00465 188 Salix lasiandra Yellow willow SLA 1 43.0 Y Y -122.21347 38.00475 189 Salix laevigata Red willow SL 5
7.5, 6.5, 8.5,
6.6, 6.5 Y Y -122.21376 38.00530
190 Betula sp. Birch BS 2 9.5, 7.1 N Y -122.21335 38.00453 191 Alnus oregona Red alder AO 1 21.7 N Y -122.21335 38.00439 399
ESR, Inc.
12 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
192 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 3
20.0, 18.0,
19.0 N Y -122.21309 38.00432
193 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 32.0 N Y -122.21298 38.00436 194 Prunus mume Ornamental plum PM 1 15.3 N Y -122.21298 38.00421 195 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 50.0 Y Y -122.21288 38.00412 196 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 2 19.0, 23.0 Y Y -122.21276 38.00407 197 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 11.8 N N -122.21265 38.00400 198 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 11.8 N N -122.21255 38.00405 199 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 15.8 N Y -122.21115 38.00331 200 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 16.0 N Y -122.21098 38.00291 201 Platanus x Acerifolia London planetree PA 1 12.3 N Y -122.21080 38.00287 202 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 6.5, 6.5 Y Y -122.21054 38.00284 203 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 2 9.4, 12.5 N Y -122.21049 38.00278 204 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 28.0 N Y -122.21011 38.00282 205 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 18.5 N Y -122.20988 38.00257 206 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 22.0 Y Y -122.20984 38.00248 207 Sambucus callicarpa Coast red elderberry SC 1 19.0 Y Y -122.20977 38.00245 208 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 34.0 Y Y -122.20970 38.00245 209 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 14.4 N Y -122.20972 38.00252 210 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 23.0 Y Y -122.20965 38.00250 211 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 10.0 N N -122.20962 38.00257 212 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 16.6 N Y -122.20963 38.00262 213 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 3
8.0, 14.5,
10.0 Y Y -122.20963 38.00267
214 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 42.0 N Y -122.20965 38.00277 400
ESR, Inc.
13 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
215 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 6.5, 9.5 Y Y -122.20963 38.00320 216 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 10.5 Y N -122.20961 38.00326 217 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 7
13.0, 12.0,
12.5, 7.5,
14.0, 12.0,
10.0 Y Y -122.20961 38.00331
218 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 14.0, 7.0 Y Y -122.20960 38.00338 219 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 12.0 N Y -122.20961 38.00343 220 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 44.0 N Y -122.20960 38.00351 221 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 41.0 N Y -122.20960 38.00355 222 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 11.6 N N -122.20959 38.00359 223 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark ES 1 30.0 N Y -122.20963 38.00376 224 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 28.0 N Y -122.20966 38.00381 225 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 20.2 N Y -122.20966 38.00388 226 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 43.0 N Y -122.20967 38.00394 227 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 29.0 N Y -122.20962 38.00424 228 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 11.3 N N -122.20966 38.00429 229 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 23.0 N Y -122.20967 38.00436 230 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 27.0 Y Y -122.21005 38.00482 231 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood SS 1 16.6 Y Y -122.21001 38.00486 232 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 23.0 N Y -122.21020 38.00502 233 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 22.0 N Y -122.21016 38.00513 234 Lithocarpus densiflora Tanoak LD 1 9.1 Y N -122.21025 38.00515 235 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 2 12.8, 18.5 N Y -122.21037 38.00520 236 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 28.0 N Y -122.21081 38.00576 401
ESR, Inc.
14 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
237 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 35.0 N Y -122.21095 38.00579 238 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 35.0 N Y -122.21083 38.00582 239 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 44.0 N Y -122.21087 38.00587 240 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 43.0 N Y -122.21096 38.00592 241 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 12.7 N Y -122.21107 38.00608 242 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 24.0 N Y -122.21136 38.00633 243 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 11.9 N N -122.21152 38.00638 244 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 24.0 N Y -122.21169 38.00651 245 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 23.0 N Y -122.21178 38.00664 246 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 30.0 N Y -122.21193 38.00666 247 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 19.0 N Y -122.21203 38.00670 248 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 14.0 Y Y -122.21238 38.00673 249 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 16.5 N Y -122.21230 38.00662 250 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 14.1 N Y -122.21262 38.00658 251 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 23.0 Y Y -122.21265 38.00646 252 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark ES 2 9.6, 11.8 N Y -122.21259 38.00639 253 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark ES 2 16.0, 12.5 N Y -122.21261 38.00618 254 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 16.5 Y Y -122.21257 38.00617 255 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 2 12.5, 25.0 Y Y -122.21248 38.00606 256 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 28.0 Y Y -122.21215 38.00560 257 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 39.0 Y Y -122.21216 38.00552 258 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 28.0 N Y -122.21214 38.00541 259 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 1 35.0 N Y -122.21209 38.00526 260 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark ES 1 26.0 N Y -122.21217 38.00518 261 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark ES 1 16.0 N Y -122.21209 38.00519 402
ESR, Inc.
15 ID# Scientific Name Common Name Code Trunks Diameter (inches) Contra
County
Qualifying
Tree
City of
Hercules
Qualifying
Tree
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
262 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak QA 1 6.8 Y N -122.21210 38.00512 263 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 48.0 N Y -122.21199 38.00502 264 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark ES 1 29.0 N Y -122.21190 38.00497 265 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark ES 1 34.0 N Y -122.21118 38.00366 266 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 26.0 N Y -122.21072 38.00338 267 Quercus kelloggii Black oak QK 1 17.7 Y Y -122.21040 38.00329 268 Pinus rabiata Monterey pine PR 2 26.5, 23.0 N Y -122.21011 38.00361 269 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FL 1 10.3 N N -122.21108 38.00499 270 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 64.0 N Y -122.21117 38.00512 271 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 38.0 N Y -122.21134 38.00559 272 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 67.0 N Y -122.21150 38.00567 273 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 56.0 N Y -122.21158 38.00574 274 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 60.0 N Y -122.21169 38.00586 275 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 26.0 N Y -122.21175 38.00595 276 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 23.0 N Y -122.21181 38.00602 277 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 53.0 N Y -122.21189 38.00608 278 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum EG 1 25.0 N Y -122.21163 38.00609 279 Quercus lobata Valley oak QL 1 78.0 Y Y -122.21163 38.00611 403
ESR, Inc.
16 nm
nm nmnm
nm
nm
nm nm nm
nm nm nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nmnmnmnmnm
nm
nm
nmnmnmnm
nmnm
nm nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm nm nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nmnm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm nmnm nm nm
nmnmnm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm nm
nm
nm nmnm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nmnmnmnmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nmnm
nmnmnm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm nm nm nm nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 99
98 97
96 95
94 9293
91 90 89
88 87
86 85
83 84
82 81 80
79 78
77 76
75 74
73 71
70 69 68
67 66
65 6364
62 61
60 5859
57 56
55 54
53 5251
50 49 48
4647
44 43
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
19 18
16 15
14 13 12 1110
277 278
275276
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
266
265
264 263
262 261 259
258
257
255
254253
252 251
249
248 247
246244
243
242
241
240
239
238
237
236
235
234
233 232
230231
229
227228
226
224225
223
221222
219220
218
217
216
215
214
212213
211
210 209 206
205
202203 204 201 200
199
198 197 196 195
194193 192 191
190
189
188
187
186 185
184
182183181
179
178 177 176
175 174
173
172
171
170
168
167
166
164165
163
162 161
159
158
157
156
155
154
153
152
151
149150
148
147
146
145 144
142
138140141
137
136
135
131133134
130
129
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
113114115
111 112
110 109
108 107
106
105
104
103
±
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Figure 1 – Franklin Canyon GC Surveyed Tree Overview (Location and ID#) 404
ESR, Inc.
17 nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm nm nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
9 8 7
6 5
43 1
99 98
97 96
95 93 94
92 9091
89 88
87 86
85 84 83
82 81 80
79 78
77 76
75 74
73 72
71 70
69 68
67 66
65 64
63 62
61 60 59 58
57 56
55 54 53
52 50
49 48
47 46
44 43
42 40
38 37 36
35 34
33 32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
19 18
17 15
14 13 12 11
10 255
253254
252
251
250
248
198 197 196 195
194
193 192
191
190
189
188
187 186
184185
182183
180 179
178 177 176
175 174
173
172
171
170
169
168
166
164165
163
162 161
159
158
151
150 149
148
147
146
145
144
143
142
141 140
139
138
137
136
135 133 134 132
131
130
129
127
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
114 113
111112
110 109
108 107
106
105
104
103
102
±
0 125 250 375 500
Feet
Figure 2 - Western Portion of Survey Area
405
ESR, Inc.
18 nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm nm nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm
1 99
98 97
96 95
93 94
92 9091
89 80
79 78
77 76
72 71
70 69
68 67
66 65
64 63
62 61
60 59 58
57 56
277 278
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
266
265
264 263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
253254
252
251
250 249
248 247
246
245
244243
242
241
240
239
238 237
236
235
234
232233
231 230
229
228
227
226
225
223224
222 221
220 219
218 217
216 215
214
213
212 211
210
209 207
206
205
204 203 202 201 200
199
198 197 196 195
194
193 192
191
190
189
188
187 186
185184
182183
180 179
178 177 176
175 174
173
172
171
170
169
168
166
164165
163
162 161
159
158
157
156
155
154
153
152
151
150 149
148
147
146
145
144
143
142
141 140
139
138
137
136
135 133 134 132
131
130
129
127
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
112
109
108 107
106
105
104
103
102
±
0 125 250 375 500
Feet
Figure 3 - Eastern Portion of Survey Area
406
ESR, Inc.
19 ESR suggests that if any qualifying trees would be removed or more than 30% of the crown foliage was to be removed then the following replacement ratio could be utilized:
• 1:1 replacement ratio for qualifying native trees (County qualifying tree list as referenced above) greater than or equal to 6.5 inches dbh but less than 12 inches dbh from the.
• 2:1 replacement ratio for trees greater than 12 inches but less than 24 inches dbh. Replacement tree species selection should be based on whether the tree is one of the 26 native trees listed by the County or a non-native tree based on the City requirements. A like for like replacement is anticipated except for the Eucalyptus species.
• 3:1 replacement ratio for trees greater than 24 inches dbh. Replacement species selection would be a like for like replacement except for Eucalyptus species.
Generally replacement is required either by planting acorns or similar nuts/seeds of the removed tree at the project site or planting containerized saplings of the removed trees.
Typically when the tree replacement ratio is implemented a time period of maintenance and monitoring of the trees coupled with a survival percentage is utilized to evaluate success of the program.
ESR recommends the following monitoring program:
• For the first three years the trees should be evaluated on a semi-annual basis for viability.
• Health and vigor of the trees should be based on root, bark, and bud/leaf development. The height of tree should be used to evaluate the success of the planting.
• A success (i.e. live tree) percentage of 70% after three years would indicate a successful planting regime.
• Trees that are identified during semi-annual survey that are stressed, dying, or dead should be replaced unless natural recovery by the tree is deemed to be ongoing. 407
ESR, Inc.
20 ESR is hopeful that this report meets your needs at this time. If there are any question or comment or further clarification needed please do not hesitate to contact us using the letterhead information. Thank you for the opportunity to assist with this project.
Sincerely,
ESR, Inc.
William Stolp
Vice President/Senior Biologist
408
ESR, Inc.
21 Appendix A - Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance
409
ESR, Inc.
22 410
ESR, Inc.
23 411
ESR, Inc.
24 412
ESR, Inc.
25 Appendix B - City of Hercules Mature Tree Ordinance
413
ESR, Inc.
26 414
ESR, Inc.
27 415
ESR, Inc.
28 416
ESR, Inc.
29 417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination Planning Division
Notice of Decision
June 26, 2019
SUBJECT: Application # ZD 19-01
REQUEST: Zoning Clearance for Allowable Use Determination for Franklin Canyon Recreational Vehicle (RV) Resort and Golf Course Project LOCATION: 3100 Franklin Canyon Road, Hercules, CA
Assessor’s Parcel # 362-020-021-6
APPLICANT: Patricia E. Curtin, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean, LLP for Madison MRH-1 Franklin, LLP (“Applicant”)
Ms. Curtin,
An application for Zoning Clearance for Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course Project (“Project”) was received on April 1, 2019. An initial Letter of Incompleteness was delivered within 30-days of submittal on Monday, April 29th, and a subsequent Revised Letter of Incompleteness was delivered which clarified that the Applicant only needed to submit items requested for the determination on the Zoning Clearance portion of the application as the City agreed to bifurcate the Project approvals into two-parts: review and approval of the Zoning Clearance and review and approval of the Design Review Permit. A copy of the “Application,” is available at the City Planning Department or can be accessed on the City website at https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/planning/hercules-projects/franklin-canyon. Per section 13-5.700 of the City’s Municipal Code, “Zoning Clearance shall be implemented through a use permit application, development plan or design review application review.” This determination only addresses the Zoning Clearance related to the allowable uses on the site and not the subsequent Design Review Permit required for full Project approval.
Proposed Uses:
We understand that the proposed uses for your project on the existing 161.5-acre Franklin Canyon Golf Course include:
• Visitor-serving RV Resort to be located on 9 holes of the existing golf course fairways containing the following: 160 RV spaces to include 1 onsite manager spot, 107 Class A and 52 Class B/C RV parking sites, 22 walk-in campsites with tent bungalows with a limited (30 days or less) stay, and a deed restriction to prohibit long-term RV occupancy (with potentially the exception for an the onsite manager) • Renovation of the remaining 9-hole golf course with modifications to the existing maintenance building / golf cart garage. The remaining 9-hole course would continue to be open to public with a venue for charitable organization and corporations to hold tournaments, fundraising, or team-building (as it is currently) 427
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination • Remove existing 7,200 square foot club house and replace with new 17,000 square foot club house to feature dining and lounge/bar facilities as well as fitness and wellness center, locker rooms, an outdoor swimming pool with a poolside shower and changing room, small spa, a golf pro-shop, and grill/snack shop and meeting rooms • Outdoor recreation uses to anticipated to include swimming, two small playgrounds, pickle ball court(s), half basketball court, and bocce ball
• Dining facility and golf-related amenities to be available to the visiting public as well as those staying at the RV Resort with their recreational vehicles • Upgrade and reduce existing 4,000 square foot golf maintenance building • New 150 square foot security/info building
• Provide 50 existing parking spaces to trail users and provide a new dedicated open space trail connection to existing John Muir Land Trust trails for patrons which could also include a staging area, restroom, drinking fountain and picnic tables within the existing golf course • 5 acre community garden to be donated to John Muir Land Trust with connecting pedestrian bridge
• Construct a total combined 20,000 square feet of permanent structures (discussed above) but excluding the covered RV parking spaces
• 38-50 covered RV Storage spaces to act as an aesthetic buffer adjacent to the electric substation
This Notice of Decision serves to inform the Applicant that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed Project’s uses are similar to other Commercial Uses listed in Section 9(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(8) of Measure M (aka Protect Franklin Canyon Area Initiative – Ordinance No. 401). Therefore, the Planning Director has determined that the Project’s proposed uses are allowed pursuant to sections 13.5-700 (Zoning Clearance Procedure) and 13.5-300 (Allowable Land Uses) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance based on the information and evidence below. This determination only approves the Zoning Clearance portion of the Application. The Project must still obtain a Design Review Permit prior to commencement of Project construction and/or implementation.
I. Background
Measure M was an initiative measure approved by a majority (63.1%) of the voters in the November 2, 2004 election. Measure M established allowable land uses and certain development standards for the “Franklin Canyon Area,” which consists of approximately 973 total acres with about 646 acres within and 327 acres outside of City limits and includes the existing 18-hole golf course, parking, clubhouse facilities, and out buildings. Measure M became effective January 1, 2005.
Measure M amended the City’s General Plan’s Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Safety, Noise, Economic Development and Growth Management Elements.
It also established the General Plan land use designation and, to an extent, the zoning regulations for the Franklin Canyon Area.
428
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination The purpose of Measure M is to “protect Franklin Canyon and nearby open space lands from harmful and unnecessary development” and “maintains existing use of the Canyon and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses. The objectives are to preserve and protect natural resources, watersheds and water quality, wildlife habitat, beauty and tranquility, and scenic hill views, while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for the residents of Hercules.” Accordingly, section 9 of Measure M provides a list of allowable uses for the Franklin Canyon Area consistent with these stated purposes and objectives.
Section 3 of Measure M amended the General Plan's Land Use, Open Space/Conservation, and Safety Elements. Section 25 of Measure M confirms that the General Plan was amended to eliminate or revise material that is or may be deemed inconsistent with Measure M. Specifically, section 25 shows that Page II-36 of the General Plan was amended to state that the Franklin Canyon Golf Course Area is subject to Measure M. Section 19(b) states that Measure M supersedes "…any provision of any zoning ordinance to the extent that the provision is inconsistent with [Measure M]…” And section 19(d) states that “…other City plans, ordinances, regulations, and actions are not to be deemed inconsistent with and are not affected by [Measure M] to the extent that they impose additional prohibitions, restrictions, conditions, regulations or requirements beyond or in addition to those imposed by [Measure M].”
Therefore, while Measure M establishes the allowable uses and most zoning standards for the Project site, other Zoning Ordinance provisions may be applicable to the Project site if they are not inconsistent with Measure M and are in addition to or more restrictive than Measure M.
II. Determination Regarding Allowable Land Uses
According to the Application, the proposed Project is a destination RV resort with 160 recreational vehicle (RV) spaces (to include 1 onsite manager spot, 107 Class A and 52 Class B/C RV parking sites) and 22 walk-in campsites with tent bungalows. This specific use with its proposed ancillary uses are not specifically listed in section 9 of Measure M. Section 13-5.300 of the City’s Municipal Code (Allowable Land Uses) states:
“The conformance and appropriateness of a specifically proposed use shall be determined by the Community Development Director. When a use is not specifically listed in a classification, the use may be permitted if the Community Development Director determines that the use is similar to others listed in a classification.” Since Measure M does not specifically include the Project’s proposed RV resort use, the Community Development Director must determine whether the proposed use is similar to others listed in Measure M. Section 13-5.300 states that the Community Development Director shall consider six standards in order to determine the conformity, similarity, and appropriateness of the proposed use in the applicable zoning district (i.e. Measure M). The Community Development Director has therefore examined and analyzed the Project in terms of the six standards below.
Standard 1. “The proposed use meets the intent of and is consistent with the General Plan description of the land use classification; and is consistent with General Plan goals, objectives, policies and standards.”
429
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination Applicable Policy 1: The general purpose of Measure M is to protect Franklin Canyon and nearby open space lands from harmful and unnecessary development by maintaining the existing use of the Canyon and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses. The objectives of Measure M are to preserve and protect natural resources, watersheds and water quality, wildlife habitat, beauty and tranquility, and scenic hill views, while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for the residents of Hercules.
Facts & Findings supporting Determination: The Project is consistent with the purpose of Measure M because it does not propose to develop any area of Franklin Canyon outside the envelope of the current existing golf course and therefore continues to preserve and protect nearby open space lands and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses. The Applicant proposes to enhance the riparian corridor by reducing the amount of irrigated turf and run-off associated with irrigation, as well as eliminate non-native and ornamental plant species from the existing half of the golf course which should facilitate the reintroduction of native plant species and help eradicate non-native species onsite.
The Project is also consistent with the objectives of Measure M. It will maintain and enhance the existing golf course in a smaller and more environmentally-sensitive configuration.
The Applicant has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the John Muir Land Trust (the owner of adjacent property of approximately 483.49 acres which is now permanent open space) which provides for a permanent easement allowing 50 parking spaces and creates a new connection to the Muir Open Space Trail. The MOU thus serves to protect natural resources while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for residents. Finally, a Biological Assessment prepared by ESR, Inc concluded that “the 100’ setback area from ‘top of bank’ allow[s] the riparian corridor to be less impacted by foot traffic than the current golf course.” This setback will be confirmed during Design Review (which includes CEQA review) to ensure that Measure M’s Areas of Special Environmental Concern – Further Safeguards requirements are met, and removal of the use of that setback area will be an improvement over the current use of the property.
Determination 1: For the above reasons, the proposed Project uses appear to meet the intent of and are consistent with the land use classifications set forth in Measure M and with the goals, objectives, policies and Standards in Measure M.
Standard 2. “The proposed use meets the stated purpose and general intent of the zoning district in which it is proposed.”
Applicable Policy 2a: The general purpose of Measure M is to protect Franklin Canyon and nearby open space lands from harmful and unnecessary development by maintaining the existing use of the Canyon and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very lowdensity residential, and open space uses. The objectives of Measure M are to preserve and protect natural resources, watersheds and water quality, wildlife habitat, beauty and tranquility, and scenic hill views, while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for the residents of Hercules.
430
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination Applicable Policy 2b: Section 9(e) of Measure M allows “the following uses and their normal and appropriate accessory uses and non-residential structures…are permitted….if they comply with all of the provisions of the Plan and with other City prohibitions, restrictions, regulations, conditions, and requirements that further the Plan”:
(e) Commercial uses, limited to the following:
“(1) Low-intensity outdoor recreation and pastimes predominantly for active participants that is compatible with preserving the natural qualities of the area… (2) Nature observation, study or enjoyment;
(3) Accommodations for short term occupancy and for provision of food and drink (including low-intensity campgrounds and picnic facilities), predominantly for persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, study or enjoyment
(8) Packaging, processing, storage or sale of agricultural produce or plants, a substantial portion of which were grown in the Franklin Canyon Area, that will have no deleterious effects on the environment.”
Facts & Findings Supporting Determination: The proposed RV resort use meets the stated purpose and general intent of Measure M. As stated in the Facts and Findings under Standard #1 above, Measure M is intended to protect and preserve the Franklin Canyon Area and its open space uses and to make outdoor recreation uses accessible to residents, and the Project fulfills those purposes.
Since Measure M sets both the General Plan and the zoning classifications for the site (as discussed in the Background section and the analysis in Standard #1 above), the uses proposed by the Project must also meet the purpose and general intent of the zoning regulations established by Measure M. The uses proposed by the Project meet the purpose and general intent of the uses listed in Section 9(e) of Measure M as follows:
Low intensity outdoor recreation: As described above in the Proposed Uses section, most of the amenities and continuation of half of the golf course operations, pickle ball, half basketball court, bocce ball, and outdoor pool/hot tub area are all considered outdoor recreation and pastime uses, so they can continue to preserve the natural qualities of the area.
Nature observation, study or enjoyment: The Project uses would enhance nature observation through the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with John Muir Land Trust dated February 2, 2019. This MOU proposes to support access to the open space by expanding the golf course parking lot along John Muir Parkway and providing a permanent easement for 50-parking spaces or equal land via a lot line adjustment to create a new connection to Muir OS as described in the Application.
Accommodations for short term occupancy and for provision of food and drink (including low-intensity campgrounds and picnic facilities), predominantly for persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, study or enjoyment: The 160 RV campsites and 22 tent bungalows are proposed to have a limited 30 day or less stay and be deed restricted to prohibit long-term RV occupancy and would have access to onsite food and drink through a new club 431
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination house. It would be assumed that one (1) of the RV site be reserved for an on-site caretaker as part of a normal and appropriate accessory use of the RV campsite. Visitors would also have access to the trail system and other new onsite outdoor recreation listed in the low intensity outdoor recreation section above.
Packaging, processing, storage or sale of agricultural produce or plants, a substantial portion of which were grown in the Franklin Canyon Area, that will have no deleterious effects on the environment: The proposed RV covered storage is similar to the storage use listed in section 9(e)(8), however if the Design Review Permit proposal includes roofs supported by columns, then the use’s structures will need to be part of the maximum floor area calculations.
Pursuant to section 19 of Measure M, certain City zoning standards may also apply to the Project to the extent that they are not inconsistent with Measure M and/or are more restrictive than Measure M. When the second portion of the Project is reviewed during the Design Review Permit process, the City will determine whether and to what extent Section 13-31 (Performance Standards) applies and will also perform CEQA review for the Project.
Determination 2: For the above reasons, the proposed Project uses appear to meet the stated purpose and general intent of the above listed “Uses” contained within Measure M.
Standard 3. “The proposed use is consistent with or shares common characteristics with and is not of greater intensity or density and will not generate greater environmental impact than uses listed in the zoning district in which it is proposed.” Applicable Policy 3: Measure M section 9(e). See “Applicable Policy 2b” in the Standard #2 analysis above.
Facts & Findings Supporting Determination 3: The Project’s proposed uses are consistent with and share common characteristics with the uses listed in Measure M. As explained in the analysis for Standard #1 and Standard #2 above, the proposed use is consistent with the uses listed in section 9(e) of Measure M. The proposed use also does not appear to be of greater intensity or density than those uses listed in Measure M. The proposed RV use and existing golf use are not more intense uses than these other listed uses – that is, they do not appear to have impacts to the land in excess of the potential impacts of these other listed uses. Measure M uses such as “neighborhood stores and services,” “healthcare” uses, and “packing/processing/storage/sale of agricultural produce or plants” appear to be more intense uses than those recreation-oriented uses in the proposed Project. Continuance of the existing golf course use is not more intense than the current use because it is the same use. And the proposed RV resort does not appear to require more infrastructure or impact natural resources more than neighborhood stores, any kind of healthcare use, or a use involving packing/processing/storage/sale of agricultural products. Those uses would likely be more intense and may involve infrastructure and traffic in excess of that produced by the proposed RV resort.
Additionally, Measure M actually allows limited single family residences, room rental, and City and governmental facilities, which appear to be more intense uses than the proposed use. 432
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination The Project also does not appear that it will generate greater environmental impacts than the other uses listed in Measure M, especially since the entire proposal is located on existing fairways which are non-native. The Application indicates that the Project will be constructed within the existing building envelope (i.e. under 20,000 square feet) and consistent with FAR requirements in sections 10, 11, and 12 of Measure M. The Project proposes to pull back some existing uses to not impair critical wildlife habitat or the quantity or biological quality of wetlands and adjacent creek. The Project also proposes to (i) enhance the riparian corridor by considerably reducing the amount of irrigated turf and run-off associated with irrigation, and (ii) eliminate nonnative and ornamental plant species from half of the existing golf course, which should facilitate the reintroduction of native plant species and eradicate non-native aquatic species in the onsite man-made ponds. The Biological Assessment letter prepared by ESR, Inc. concluded that the project would be in compliance with section 10 of Measure M (Areas of Special Environmental Concern – Further Safeguards), which will result in the riparian corridor being less impacted by foot traffic. The conclusion in the Biological Assessment will be verified during Design Review of the Project, which will include CEQA review.
Determination 3: The proposed use appears to be consistent with and shares common characteristics with the uses listed in Measure M, is not of greater intensity or density than the uses listed in Measure M, and will not generate greater environmental impacts than the uses listed in Measure M.
Standard 4. “The proposed use meets specific standards for similar uses allowed within a zoning district.”
Applicable Policy 4: Measure M contains standards for its listed uses throughout the ordinance. The Project would be subject, at minimum, to standards in sections 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Fact & Findings supporting Determination 4: The proposed Project appears to meets specific standards required for the uses listed in Measure M. The below standards will be confirmed and verified during the Design Review Permit process:
• The Project complies with minimum parcel size requirements of Measure M section
8. • The Project complies with the requirements of Measure M Section 10, which establishes standards to protect the environment. The Project’s environmental impacts, if any, will be analyzed during Design Review. • The Project’s draft layout design includes contiguous development envelopes, which are required by Measure M Section 11.
• The Project appears to comply with Section 13 - Visual Safeguards, which will be verified during Design Review.
• The Project complies with maximum floor area requirements of Measure M Section 12. If the Design Review Permit proposal includes roofs supported by 433
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination columns within the RV storage area, then the use’s structures will need to be part of the maximum floor area calculationThe Project does not appear to conflict with the visual safeguard requirements of Measure M Section 13.to be verified during Design Review.
• The Project does not appear to conflict with the lot line adjustment requirements of Measure M Section 14.
Determination 4: The proposed uses appear to meet the standards for similar Measure M uses.
Standard 5. “The proposed use can meet the performance standards for the zoning district along with the general performance standards of the City set forth in 13-31.” Applicable Policy 5: Measure M contains standards similar to zoning standards throughout the ordinance. The Project would be subject, at minimum to standards in sections 8, 10, and 12.
The Project also must comply with any applicable City Standards in section 13-31 of the Zoning Ordinance section of the Hercules Municipal Code.
Facts & Findings supporting Determination 5: As described in #4 above, the proposed uses appear to meet the standards set by Measure M for similar uses. The Project also appears to meet the remaining standards set by Measure M, which will be confirmed and verified during the Design Review Permit process, as follows:
• The Project complies with minimum parcel size requirements of Measure M section
8. • The Project complies with the requirements of Measure M Section 10, which establishes standards to protect the environment. The Project’s environmental impacts, if any, will be analyzed during Design Review. • The Project complies with the maximum floor area requirements of Measure M Section 12. The City notes, however, that the covered RV storage area cannot be excluded from maximum floor area calculations. Measure M defines a “building” to be “any structure having a roof supported by walls or columns, or both, except for greenhouses, and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of any person, animal or property.” Section 12 states that “the maximum aggregate floor area for all floors (regardless of composition) in building on a parcel may not exceed one percent (1%) of the parcel’s area, or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, but for any parcel a minimum of 10,000 square feet shall be permitted.” If the Project keeps the 161.5-acre site as a single parcel, then 20,000 square feet would be the maximum for all buildings, including the covered RV storage. However, if the parcel was split into multiple parcels that contained the minimum of 40,000 square feet each, then the Project could contain 70,349 square feet of buildings based on the 1% of parcel area standard.
434
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination It also appears that the Project can meet the City’s general performance standards in section 13-31 of the Zoning Ordinance (e.g. the standards for construction, erosion control, etc.) There is no information available or evidence in the Application to suggest that the Project could not meet these generally-applicable standards. However, as explained above, the Project will undergo environmental review and will be subject to Design Review Permit conditions of approval that will confirm compliance with section 13-31.
Determination 5: The proposed uses appear to meet the standards set by Measure M and the City’s performance standards, which will be confirmed during Design Review.
Standard 6. “The proposed use does not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare of the community nor constitute a public nuisance.” Applicable Policy 6: Standard 6 text.
Facts & Findings supporting Determination 6: The proposed uses for the Project are consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning standards set by Measure M and therefore should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare nor constitute a public nuisance.
Determination 6: The proposed uses do not appear to adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare of the community nor constitute a public nuisance. This finding will also be verified during Design Review.
IV. Conclusion
After considering all of the relevant information, including the Application and the materials submitted therewith, the Director finds that the uses proposed for the Project are similar to those contained in Measure M section 9(e), subsections (1), (2), (3) and (8). Therefore, the Director finds the Project’s uses to be in conformance with those uses allowed in the Franklin Canyon Area as outlined in the above analysis. At this time, no development application for Design Review is being considered as the Applicant has not separately applied for a Design Review Permit. This is a determination on the Zoning Clearance portion of the Project only.
If you have any objections to the Director’s determination, you may file a written appeal, subject to applicable appeal fees, by Wednesday, July 10, 2019. If no formal appeal has been filed by the deadline listed above, this letter will serve as the land use determination #ZD 19-01.
For further information about this application and process, please contact Holly Smyth, Planning Director, at 510-799-8200 or via email to [email protected] and [email protected].
435
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination 436
Franklin Canyon RV Resort Zoning Clearance Determination 437
438
439
440
441
442
MRH LAND PROVIDED
TO JMLT PER LLA
JMLT LAND PROVIDED
TO MRH PER LLA
PROPOSED
SECONDARY ACCESS
JMLT PARKING SPACE
ESMT AREA
JMLT PUBLIC
RESTROOM
JMLT ACCESS
ESMT
JMLT - MRH MOU
EXHIBIT A N
NOT TO SCALE
443
10/18/21, 2:36 PM MIG, Inc. Mail - FW: Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/? k=645daf7b10&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar5364197495337187473&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar53… 1/1 Sou Garner <[email protected]>
FW: Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project
Sou Garner <[email protected]> Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 2:35 PM To: Sou Garner <[email protected]>
From: Adriaan Vanderzwan
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 5:31 AM
To: Robert Reber <[email protected]>
Subject Franklin Canyon RV Re ort Project
I feel change may be good for our area, but totally eliminating a golf cour e i too dra tic The be t outcome would be an executive 9 hole course with a smaller space triple deck driving range and practice putting green. Open space for hikers is already plentiful. The nearest 9 hole golf courses are far away, Concord and Oakland making golf for seniors more difficult to access. Please consider this alternative.
444
From:
To: Robert Reber
Subject: Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project
Date: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:10:30 AM
Please keep the golf course and add a couple restaurants instead or replacing it with an RV park. Considering Hercules does not technically have a downtown, the removal of the golf course would be a to the community.
Regards
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. 445
From:
To: Robert Reber; Hector Rubio; Lori Martin; Chris Kelley; Dion Bailey; Alex Walker-Griffin; Dan Romero; Tiffany Grimsley; Irina Galieva; Kenneth Morrison; Robert Schaufenbil Subject: Planning Commission Mtg - Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project Date: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:32:05 PM
Dear Members of the Hercules Planning Commission & City Council:
I was on the call this evening as one of 5 members of the public that voiced feedback, all of which were not in favor of the current plan for the RV Park. Not one member of the public voiced comments in favor of the project. The 132 page document of public letters from May, 2021, also did not include any positive comments in favor of the project. I would like to know how many voiced letters in favor vs not in favor. It was mentioned there were positive letters but somehow they do not appear in the 132 page document.
Patricia Curtain mentioned that the project for the RV park was already determined to be in alignment with Measure M in 2019. When even one of the writers of Measure M, Richard Sneider says this project is inconsistent with the intent of Measure M and a former Hercules Planning Commissioner, Melinda Manzo, who was closely involved with Measure M also says there is no way one could reach the conclusion that this project is consistent with Measure M, this leads me to question the sincerity of that original determination. Now we hear it's been a done deal since 2019 and so it essentially doesn't matter if it aligns with Measure M or not because a prior commission determined it was consistent.
Patricia also noted that there was significant public outreach based on what is legally required back in 2019. I'd like to know exactly what that public outreach consisted of because I find it odd that 60+ people were at the orignal meeting, and then no public dissent when deciding if the proposed project meets Measure M, which was voted on by the residents of Hercules. And only now when it's a done deal do we hear public dissent.
And finally, let's take Measure M out of the equation for a moment. Do the residents of Hercules want this RV Park? Everything I've heard and seen tells me no, they do not - at least not the majority that recently voiced feedback. Just because a former planning commision determined it matches measure M, doesn't change the fact that many members of the public voiced legitimate concerns about the RV Park.
Sincerely,
-Kathleen Carter
446
From:
To: Robert Reber
Cc: Ken Morrison; Christine Kelley
Subject: RV Resort
Date: Sunday, October 3, 2021 2:42:30 PM
Dear Mr. Reber and Planning Commission
I am writing in favor of the proposed Recreational Vehicle Resort. I understand some residents have concerns. I highly recommend there be a great deal more information shared with the community about this which includes mailers and perhaps an opportunity for the public to view a scaled model and ask the developer questions. It is my impression that those who are opposed have never camped at an RV Resort. I have, many times.
The differences between regular RV campgrounds and RV Resorts are considerable. For many years I was able to vacation during the summer with two small children and a dog to beautiful national parks as well as to San Diego and Disneyland in complete safety and comfort. Although we did not have a fancy rig (we camped with a VW Vanagon and later a Coleman Tent Trailer,) I always selected the resorts for safety, cleanliness, full hook-ups, location, beauty and the great amenities. Staying at an RV resort is like staying at a hotel but you are bringing your own little apartment.
It was my observation during those years that those who enjoyed RV resorts typically were seniors enjoying retirement and visiting places in the United States they were never able to previously visit, and young families like mine with small children and pets.
We enjoyed swimming pools, hot tubs, playgrounds, beautiful views, enclosed clean dog runs, convenience stores, small coffee shops or snack bars, even bike rentals, golf and miniature golf at some locations. While it has been many years since my family RV'd, I have many wonderful memories of the places we were able to visit in safety and comfort and it was all affordable.
My only concern is the RV storage option. I think there should be enforced time limits and specifications as to the size and type of RV to be stored as well as required padlocks, etc. I also suggest the KOA style tent cabins be limited in number and maintained and kept in pristine condition with strict limits on the amount of time a guest can stay. I also would like to suggest that the proposed Driving Range be replaced with a Miniature Golf Course which would be greatly enjoyed by the family-oriented Hercules and would bring in revenue.
Miniature golf provides a safe, fun, family activity and is also fun for teens looking for something safe and fun to enjoy.
Please do not hesitate to share my input. I can be reached at:
Susan Keeffe
Regards,
Susan Keeffe
447
From:
To: Robert Schaufenbil; Robert Reber; Nicole Sacramento; Irina Galieva; Kenneth Morrison; Hector Rubio Cc: City Council
Subject: Re: Oct. 4 Planning Commission Meeting: Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project Date: Saturday, October 2, 2021 10:54:47 AM
Dear Commissioners,
Several years ago I was a member of the Hercules Planning Commission when a vision for the Franklin Canyon Golf Course was presented. At that time a new clubhouse, restaurant and resort hotel were proposed. The water issue was going to be addressed just as it is at other golf courses, i.e. use of recycled/gray water and careful placement of the "greens".
The current proposal represents a significant downgrade of a concept that would have created an impressive eastern gateway to Hercules. Instead, the proposed RV "Resort" is simply a typical RV hookup, dump station and campground similar to KOA and others typically found on routes to National Parks. These facilities are intended to provide services and storage for the motorhome and travel trailer community. This project would replace a very attractive and popular regional asset with a marginal and unattractive yard for RV's.
I respectfully recommend that you deny the proposal and send the project's proponents back to the drawing board. The Franklin Canyon Golf course has great potential. Please don't surrender it to this low value use.
Richard Mitchell
Hercules resident since 1985
Planning Commissioner for fourteen years
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 11:37 AM Robert Reber <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Planning Commissioners,
The agenda packet for the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, Oct. 4, is now available on the City’s web site. The Planning Commission will be continuing the public hearing from Sept. 20 for the Franklin Canyon RV Resort project.
Robert Reber, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Hercules
510-799-8248
[email protected]
448
449
450
451
9/29/21, 9:46 PM MIG, Inc. Mail - FW: Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=645daf7b10&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar1462659298625472513&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-a%3Ar14… 1/1 Sou Garner <[email protected]>
FW: Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project
Sou Garner <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 9:03 PM To: Sou Garner <[email protected]>
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 1:12 PM
To Robert Reber RReber@ci hercule ca u
Subject: Franklin Canyon RV Resort Project
The addition of the Franklin Cayon RV Resort, is the perfect fit for our small city. As someone who is familiar with RV camping this will bring much need recreation and income to our community. Golf is a privileged sport that has many deeply rooted issues aside from the insane amount of money spent to water a non native invasive species. I have driven from the Bay Area to Petaluma and Pe cadero to utilize there KOA facilitie and ugge t u ing them a proof that the concept works and will remain viable for the foreseeable future. Thank you all for consideration and I look forward to welcoming the Franklin Canyon RV resort to our community.
Randall Dunevant
452
Commissioners,
I was very heartened to hear concerns expressed about the assault this project is making against Measure M and the desires of Hercules residents.
I extracted the following narrative from the packet provided for the Planning Commission meeting Sept 20, 2021 … In issuing the zoning clearance determination, the Community Development Director found the Project to be consistent with the purposes of Measure M “because it does not propose to develop any area of Franklin Canyon outside the envelope of the current existing golf course and therefore continues to preserve and protect nearby open space lands and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space uses.”
I think the Community Director came to an incorrect conclusion. The above statement ignores the interest and protection of the residents of Hercules.
As stated in Measure M, its purpose is to protect Franklin Canyon and nearby open space lands from harmful and unnecessary development. The ordinance maintains existing use of the Canyon and surrounding areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential and open space uses. The objectives are to preserve and protect natural resources, watersheds and water quality, wildlife habitat, beauty and tranquility, and scenic hill views, while permitting proximity to nature and outdoor recreation for the residents of Hercules.
The Community Development Director left out, or ignored, the consideration of beauty, tranquility and impact on Hercules residents.
Creating a parking lot for 158 RVs and storage for 50 others does not fit within the intended purpose. RVs are not outdoor recreation … they are simply a means of transportation from one RV park to the next.
Allowing the current front 9 holes of the golf course to be converted into an RV parking lot simply does not allow for beauty and tranquility or scenic views.
Additionally, at night the golf course is currently a very peaceful and tranquil area. If the RV parking lot is approved, how do you think the residents of Hercules will accept having to listen to 158 generators, loud music, and other rambunctious noises on a nightly basis.
If approved, this project will destroy the current peaceful and tranquil area and turn it into an eye sore that has the potential to be a significant burden on current police, fire and other Hercules resources.
453
It is good to know Mr. Schneider is now available to consult with you regarding the original intent of Measure M, although I wonder why he was not initially consulted by the Community Development Director.
Commissioners, I believe that moving this project forward is not in the best interest of Hercules residents.
Jim Taylor
454
From:
To: Robert Reber
Subject: Franklin+Canyon+RV+Resort+Project
Date: Sunday, September 26, 2021 11:52:58 PM
As a 32-year resident of Hercules, I strongly support the RV Resort project as a positive contribution to our community that is a great fit for the difficult zoning requirements of that area. It will provide much needed tax revenue and local spending with very little impact.
As an RV owner, I am familiar with this type of project. The restrictions on this project will allow it to remain a positive destination while not becoming misused.
The Bay Area has few if any high end locations for RV visitors to stay that provide safe, quality accommodations close to desirable tourist attractions like the Napa, Sonoma, Suisun, and Lodi wine countries, Discovery Kingdom, and the many other cities and outdoor activities our area has to offer.
Please move to approve this project.
Scott A. Wyatt
455
From: Shiva Matinpour
To: Robert Reber
Subject: FW: 9/20 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:58:26 PM
Shiva Matinpour
Community Development Specialist
smatinpour@ci hercules.ca.us
City of Hercules -111 Civic Drive-Hercules, CA 94547
Tel: 510 799 8244
Please be advised City offices are closed on Fridays.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Shiva Matinpour <[email protected]>
Subject: 9/20 Planning Commission Meeting
Hi,
I have a meeting for the owners of Franklin Canyon Golf Course.
I realize you have made an effort to plan this proposed RV Park but did you consider alternatives to keep this a golf course- things like approaching local cities, county, East Bay Parks, to lease or contract the golf course? Perhaps a consortium of entities would have been able to continue with a golf course.
Thanks!
Nancy Arms
Sent from my iPhone
456
From:
To: Robert Reber
Subject: Horse Trailer Parking at Franklin Canyon Golf Course Date: Thursday, September 2, 2021 8:35:03 AM
"The project would add approximately 70 acres (not 700) of public open space to the John Muir Land Trust's Fernandez Ranch property, with public parking and new trailhead access from what is now the golf course parking lot along Highway 4. Although there are no horse trailer parking spaces in the current design plans, that would be a very relevant issue to raise for the Planning Commission to consider. Because access off and on to Highway 4 is much easier from the golf course than Christie Road--especially for vehicles pulling a trailer--I would recommend that the applicants and JMLT revise the parking lot to accommodate an appropriate number of trailer parking spaces." My name is Joni Hiramoto. I am a Contra Costa County resident who boards a horse in Martinez. The Fernandez Ranch property is a wonderful and close area for trail riding.
However, my friends and I currently don't use it much because the driveway on and off Highway 4 is not a proper ramp and is so short and requires a 270 degree right turn to head eastbound on Highway 4. It is dangerous for hauling a horse in a trailer.
I would request that the applicants and JMLT revise the parking lot to accommodate an appropriate number of horse trailer parking spaces. There are many places that board horses in Martinez and Briones whose horse owners would welcome this accommodation.
Thank you.
Joni Hiramoto
Resident of El Cerrito, CA
457
From:
To: Irina Galieva; Kenneth Morrison; Robert Schaufenbil; Hector Rubio; Robert Reber; Shiva Matinpour Subject: Public comment on the Project to convert Franklin Canyon Golf Course to an RV Resort Date: Monday, September 6, 2021 11:51:37 AM
Hercules Planning Commission,
I submit this public comment on behalf of the Bicycle Trail Council of the East Bay membership for the September Planning Commission meetings. We support the project converting the Franklin Canyon golf course property to a campground, creating a second trail head to the John Muir Land Trust Fernandez Ranch property, and the addition of 70 acres on the west end of the existing golf course property to the John Muir Land Trust Fernandez Ranch property. The project provides increased opportunities for public access to open spaces.
Regarding the trail head at Franklin Canyon we would like to see consideration to provide parking for horse trailers and consideration for disabled access to trails and facilities. Trails are a shared access for a wide variety of trail users and we support access and positive trail experiences for all trail users.
We are disappointed that this project does not include a means of bicycle access without traveling on highway 4. If there is a way to include that in this project that would be a great benefit although it does not appear to include properties connecting to bike accessible public roadways. Currently there is no northern means of access to Fernandez Ranch by bicycle. We would like the planning commission to consider bicycle access to this new trailhead and additional access from the neighborhoods to the west of Fernandez in future planning and projects.
Potential future access points could include potential trail access points #1,2,3 identified in the 2013 Initial Study for Bicycle access is important to those that don't have ready access to motor vehicles and to reducing traffic and environmental impact.
Regards,
Scott Bartlebaugh
Advocacy Director, Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay 458
From:
To: Robert Reber
Subject: Needed trailer parking at Franklin Canyon Golf Course Date: Friday, September 3, 2021 10:47:54 PM
Hi Robert: I commented on this earlier in the summer to someone associated with the John Muir Land Trust regarding horse trailer parking at Franklin Canyon Golf course (and the need for a watering trough). I also gave some input regarding the plans for the "campsites" and wondered if the campsite developers would consider including a couple of spots for overnight horse camping. I live on Franklin Canyon Rd closer to Alhambra exit. It would be nice to be able to park down that way to explore that end.
It is not possible to ride that far now. Thanks, Cindy Easton --
CE
Virus-free. www.avg.com
459
From:
To: Robert Reber; [email protected]
Cc: Joni Hiramoto
Subject: Please have equestrian staging at the new Frankkin Canyon Fernandez Ranch park Date: Thursday, September 2, 2021 8:50:38 AM
My horses are boarded in Orinda and I trailer weekly around the east bay.
Staging at Briones for example.
Please provide staging at Fernandez as well so that I can access this new park.
Sent from my "dumb" phone
460
From: Webmaster
To: Robert Reber
Subject: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 1:03:16 PM
Message submitted from the <Hercules, CA> website.
Site Visitor Name: David Hammond
Site Visitor Email:
Robert I am a supporter of JMLT and the repurposing of Franklin Canyon and especially the open space component of the plan. Fernandez Ranch and Franklin Canyon are both popular mountain biking locations and this plan will further their popularity and enjoyment. Dave Hammond 10 Year Land Committee Member of Save Mt Diablo and a vocal Open Space Advocate.
461
From:
To: Robert Reber
Subject: Franklin Canyon Golf Course
Date: Sunday, June 13, 2021 7:43:48 AM
My wife lived in Hercules for many years and is very fond of the city as am I. We also play golf and played again yesterday after a few years away from the sport. The environmental impact of the water in particular has been weighing on me. 50M gallons of water needed for Franklin Canyon and if you read the Yelp reviews many golfers are complaining about the condition of the course. “Need to get water back into the water hazards”. Completely out of touch with the realities of the semiarid climate in California. I was running the numbers in my head of economics of the course and wondering how it could possibly survive the combination of increased water expenses, increased labor expenses, and decreasing interest in golf. I think the RV park concept makes a lot of sense for the community. Tent cabins and mountain bike trails would be amazing and that’s just a small part of the project. I’m sure this is not easy to manage and I wanted to send a quick note that even for someone that loves golf, we need to do what’s best for the environment and the overall return for the community.
Hopefully anyone working for the course now will be offered employment in this new RV park.
Sean McMurray
Founder/CEO
Watch ALVA Goes Bowling!
https://vimeo.com/236319157
www.alvalight.com
462
155 Mason Circle
Concord CA 94520
phone (925) 685-9301
fax (925) 685-0266
www.contracostamosquito.com
Protecting Public Health Since 1927
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
President PEGGIE HOWELL Clayton Vice President PETER PAY San Ramon Secretary DANIEL PELLEGRINI Martinez Antioch LOLA ODUNLAMI Brentwood Vacant Concord PERRY CARLSTON Contra Costa County JIM PINCKNEY CHRIS COWEN & DARRYL YOUNG Danville RANDALL DIAMOND El Cerrito THOMAS MINTER Hercules DUYLINH NGUYEN Lafayette JAMES FITZSIMMONS Moraga Vacant Oakley MICHAEL KRIEG Orinda KEVIN MARKER Pinole WARREN CLAYTON Pittsburg RICHARD AINSLEY PhD Pleasant Hill JENNIFER HOGAN Richmond SHIVA MISHEK San Pablo Vacant Walnut Creek JAMES MURRAY April 28, 2021
Robert Reber
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Re: Franklin Canyon RV Resort
Dear Mr. Reber,
Thank you for the opportunity to express the position of the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District (the District) regarding the proposed conversion of the Franklin Canyon Golf Course into a RV resort and campground.
As a bit of background, the District is tasked with reducing the risk of diseases spread by vectors in Contra Costa County by controlling them in a responsible, environmentally-conscious manner. A “vector” means any animal capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or capable of producing human discomfort or injury, including, but not limited to, mosquitoes, flies, mites, ticks, other arthropods, and rodents and other vertebrates. Under the California Health and Safety Code, property owners retain the responsibility to ensure that the structure(s), device(s), other project elements, and all additional facets of their property do not produce or harbor vectors, or otherwise create a nuisance.
Owners are required to take measures to abate any nuisance caused by activities undertaken and/or by the structure(s), device(s), or other feature(s) on their property. Failure by the owner(s) to adequately address a nuisance may lead to abatement by the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District and civil penalties up to $1,000 per day pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §2060 et seq.
All mosquitoes require water to complete their life cycle. Projects that construct impervious surface, alter water flow or drainage, introduce irrigation, contain water conveyance or treatment elements, etc. have the potential to produce standing water and vector breeding habitat, creating a potential health hazard for area citizens, pets, and wildlife. Vector species that may breed in such locales have the ability to not only affect nearby individuals, but potentially spread disease viruses to persons and other animals several miles away. This project has multiple features—stormwater collection and conveyance structures, bioretention basins, RV wash station, etc.— that can become high-volume mosquito production sites. These sites can not only require significant District resources, but put the health of local citizens at risk. Careful considerations for design and construction should be employed for all facets of the project in order to prevent creating suitable vector habitat. No feature of the project should create areas of stagnant water that exist in excess of 72 hours. A thorough operation and 463
maintenance plan should include steps to preclude vector production and contingencies to remedy such issues if they arise. Bioretention basins, along with any other potential mosquito production sources, should be readily accessible by our field staff for inspection and control efforts, if necessary.
Sites abutting open or green space encounter a greater number of encounters with wildlife, including skunks. As skunks are a primary vector of rabies virus in California, efforts should be taken to prevent their access to gathering spaces to reduce the risk of encounters and potential virus transmission. Any fences bordering such space should be constructed of solid, gapless materials (e.g. wood or concrete) or incorporate ½-inch hardware cloth (e.g. slatted fence with attached hardware cloth) from ground level to two feet in height, paired with footings of similar material running the length of the fence to a depth of 12 inches.
Additionally, efforts should be made to keep the grounds, office, storage areas, trash enclosure, etc. from becoming attractive harborage for rodents. Trash enclosures should have sealed containers and be kept clean. Thorough exclusion work on structures, paired with eradicating available food and water sources, should reduce the attractiveness of the site to these animals, thus limiting potential for diseases spread by rodents and rodent-associated vectors.
Addressing these concerns in the project planning phases can not only better protect public health and reduce the need for vector control efforts, but avoid costly retrofits and fines for property owners in the future. Please don’t hesitate to contact the District should you have any questions or need anything further.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Shannon
Vector Control Planner
925-771-6119
[email protected]
464
From: Chris Kelley
To: Robert Reber; Steve Falk; Mike Roberts; Lori Martin; [email protected] Subject: Fw: Proposed RV park in Franklin Canyon
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 7:05:23 AM
FYI.
Chris
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:21 PM
To: Chris Kelley <[email protected]>; Dion Bailey <[email protected]>; awalker[email protected] <[email protected]>; Dan Romero <[email protected]>; Tiffany Grimsley <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed RV park in Franklin Canyon
Dear Mayor Kelley and Members of the City Council,
I had the privilege of serving on the Hercules Planning Commission for fourteen years. During that time I participated in the approval process for much of the development that has been built west of San Pablo Avenue. Many elements in those communities are unique and celebrated examples of urban design that could only have been achieved because the City Council, Planning Commission, City staff and Community shared a vision that demanded excellence from land developers.
I'm writing to respectfully express my strong concerns about the current proposal to close the Franklin Canyon Golf Course and replace it with a recreational vehicle park/resort and storage facility. In my opinion this proposal falls far short of the tradition of excellence in land planning and development that defines Hercules today.
During a recent driving tour around southern Utah I had the opportunity to observe several "RV Resorts". Beyond their manicured entrances these facilities are not attractive or appealing, especially to anyone outside of the RV community. These establishments provide power connections, laundromats, a sewage dumping station and other facilities and services needed by people who are living or traveling on the road. Such a facility would offer little or no value to the Hercules community.
RV parks are usually located on highways near major attractions such as national and state wilderness parks, amusement parks, casinos, or retail outlet centers. The proposed Franklin Canyon site is not close enough to San Francisco, the wine country, Carmel, Lake Tahoe or any other regional attraction to justify use of this location as a staging area. Lacking close proximity to major attractions, the proposed RV "resort" could eventually become a typical mobile home/trailer park. RV storage, also included in the proposal, is a "light industrial" use that should not be permitted under any circumstances. Vehicle storage is a very low value land use that does not require a choice location or generate jobs or revenue.
This RV Park proposal completely abandons the upscale destination that was promised when the Council voted to permit bifurcation of the site many years ago. At that time the owner/developer claimed that the golf course was going to be extensively redesigned and 465
upgraded by a nationally known operator and the project was going to include a luxury hotel, restaurants, a variety of sports facilities and shopping. If that vision was a bit too ambitious, the current proposal is far too modest and unimaginative.
Certainly, interest in Recreational Vehicles is enjoying temporary growth concurrent with retirement of the "baby boom generation" and as a reaction to the Covid outbreak, however; this trend may be short lived as people are already returning to pre-Covid travel patterns.
Based upon recent articles that cover the subject, much of the current demand for RV, travel trailer, "tiny house", and tent accommodations is driven by a growing interest in "alternative/affordable" non code compliant permanent housing rather than a demand for space to park luxury mobile units ($200,000+) depicted in the developer's video.
The developer suggests that the project will generate significant occupancy tax revenue for the city. Please consider requesting that the proposed financial model be evaluated by a third party (to be identified and hired by the City and paid for by the developer). Developer estimates of occupancy rates and revenue may be significantly overstated. Moreover, what safeguards are in place to prevent sale of the property to an organization that has a different vision for the facility? Given the housing crisis that has driven the state legislature to take extreme measures to increase sheltering capacity, the project may be vulnerable to a change at the state level that could arbitrarily convert the site from transient into permanent "alternative" housing.
Finally, the video prepared for the project offers a confusing picture because it shows scenes of an upgraded Franklin Canyon Golf Course juxtaposed with images of RV resorts in Florida or Southern California under canopies of Palms. The viewer is then taken on a photo tour of San Francisco and the wine country rather than being shown specifics pertaining to the proposal itself. The video includes a glance at an overhead layout and an elevation ( drawing) of the proposed new 'clubhouse'. It mentions a "Spa" , restaurant and other amenities but without specifics. I respectfully suggest that more information is needed before an informed decision can be made about this proposal.
I hope that you will carefully consider these issues and seriously question why this particular project is proposed for such an attractive, unique and popular site. Franklin Canyon has operated successfully as an affordable place to learn and play golf for many years. This existing amenity could be improved and made more attractive and accessible to Hercules residents. It is difficult to imagine how an RV, travel trailer, tent camp and RV storage facility can complement the site or benefit the community in any meaningful way.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Mitchell
Hercules resident since 1985
Retired
466
Franklin Canyon RV Resort
3100 Franklin Canyon Road, Hercules, CA
APN 362-020-021-6
CITY OF HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 8, 2022
467
Presentation Overview
Vicinity and Location Map
Measure M & Zoning Clearance Determination
Requested Permits
◦ Lot Line Adjustment
◦ Vesting Tentative Map
◦ Design Review
◦ CEQA Adoption
Project History
City Council Direction
Project Recommendation
468
Vicinity and Location Map
469
Measure M
Voter Initiative approved with 63.1%
support on November 2, 2004
Purpose
◦ Established to protect the Franklin Canyon Area
and nearby open space lands from harmful and
unnecessary development by maintaining the
existing use of the Canyon and surrounding
areas for agriculture, outdoor recreation, very
low-density residential, and open space uses
Established allowable land uses and
development standards
Allowed Uses
◦ One single-family residence on each legal lot
◦ Two rental units in a residence
◦ Agricultural
◦ Small scale, low-intensity rearing, custodianship,
training or care of animals
◦ Commercial uses
◦ Low-intensity outdoor recreation; Short-term occupancy accommodations; Neighborhood stores and services
◦ Institutional and other non-profits that primarily
serve Franklin Canyon Area
◦ City and other gov facilities and uses
470
Zoning Clearance Determination
6 standards to consider when determining conformance and appropriateness of use per Section 13-5.300 of the Municipal Code
1. The proposed use meets the intent of and is consistent with the General Plan description of the land use classification; and is consistent with General Plan goals, objectives, policies and standards.
▪ Applicant will not develop outside of the existing golf course envelope; therefore continuing to preserve and protect nearby open space lands and surrounding areas for ag, outdoor recreation, very low-density residential, and open space
2. The proposed use meets the stated purpose and general intent of the zoning district in which it is proposed.
▪ Measure M is intended to protect and preserve the Franklin Canyon Area and its open space uses and to make outdoor recreation uses accessible to residents ▪ Proposal includes outdoor recreation and pastime uses, enhance nature observation through the MOU with the John Muir Land Trust, 30 day or less stay for RV Campsites and tent bungalows 471
Zoning Clearance Determination
3. The proposed use is consistent with or shares common characteristics with and is not of greater intensity or density and will not generate greater environmental impact than uses listed in the zoning district in which it is proposed. ▪ Proposed uses are consistent with and share common characteristics with the uses listed in Measure M and will not generate greater environmental impacts than listed uses
4. The proposed use meets specific standards for similar uses allowed within a zoning district.
5. The proposed use can meet the performance standards for the zoning district along with the general performance standards of the City set forth in Chapter 13-31. ▪ Proposed project detail and specific standards listed in Measure M will be confirmed and verified during the Design Review
472
Zoning Clearance Determination
6. The proposed use does not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare of the community nor constitute a public nuisance. ▪ Proposed uses are consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning standards set by Measure M and therefore should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare nor constitute a public nuisance.
June/July 2019 Determination:
Proposed project meets the intent of and is consistent with Measure M 473
Requested Permits
474
Area deeded to JMLT
Lot Line
Adjustment
475
Parcel 1: 52.16 acres
Parcel 2: 40.12 acres
Vesting
Tentative Map
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
476
Design Review – Proposal
Overview
Proposal
▪ RV Resort
• Outdoor recreation opportunities: Swimming, playgrounds, pickleball court, ½ basketball court, bocce ball • 24 covered RV storage spaces
▪ Putting green and driving range
▪ Replace clubhouse with dining area
▪ Upgrade maintenance building & new security building
▪ John Muir Land Trust Open Space
• Trail connection with 50 existing parking spaces for trail users Proposal Changes
▪ Bike rental is no longer in a separate building but is now located within the clubhouse 477
Project History
478
Project Public Hearing
Planning Commission
▪ March 15, 2021 (Study Session)
▪ September 20, 2021(Continued)
▪ October 4, 2021 (Recommended for Approval)
▪ January 18, 2022 (Recommended for Approval)
City Council
▪ October 26, 2021(Recommended project return to PC for additional clarifications) 479
City Council Direction
Provide detail/clarification on the following conditions:
▪ 13: Site plan, elevations, exterior materials, and design elements ▪ Exterior materials are shown in Architectural Plan Set ▪ Tent elevations shown on sheet C2
▪ Typical Class A and B/C RV spaces are shown on sheet C2 ▪ Entry gate and guardhouse elevations shown on sheet L3 ▪ 16: Utility boxes
▪ Final utility plans are required to be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits
▪ 18: EV parking and recharge stations
▪ 18 proposed spaces
▪ Typical detail shown on sheet C2
480
City Council Direction
Provide detail/clarification on the following conditions:
▪ 19: Bicycle parking
▪ Proposed east of renovated clubhouse and at the Class B/C pool site (sheets C2 and L3); to be added near tent bungalows (per Planning Commission recommendation) ▪ 20: Signage
▪ Conceptual sign plan shown on sheet 7b
▪ Final font and material selection required prior to issuance of building permits ▪ 21: Landscape & fencing
▪ Master Landscape Plan shown on sheets L1-L6
▪ Plant Pictorial and Preliminary Plant List shown on sheet L8 ▪ 22: Tree Replacement Plan
▪ Tree Replacement Plan shown on sheets L11-L16 with ratios shown 481
City Council Direction
Provide detail/clarification on the following conditions:
▪ 23: Landscape Installation
▪ Licensed Landscape Architect written verification
▪ Final landscape plan to be submitted to Community Development Director prior to acceptance of the installation verification
▪ 24: Walkway Requirements
▪ Paths are a minimum of 5 feet wide (sheets C2 and L2-L5) ▪ Pathway lighting is shown on sheet L9
▪ 30: Roof Equipment
▪ None proposed
482
Planning Commission Requests
1) Provide no less than 15 electric vehicle parking spaces; 2) Install bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the proposed tent bungalows; 3) Make fences for the dog park a minimum of 5 feet tall; 4) Install a double-gate ‘sally port’ or interior fence with door for access to the dog park; 5) Adjust colors for the RV Resort entry gate/guardhouse (including vehicle boom barrier) for compatibility with the project color board for the clubhouse; and 6) Include letter color alternatives in Final Master Sign Plan (front lettering changed from gold to black).
Planning Commission Recommended Approval to the City Council 483
Staff
Recommendation
484
Staff Recommendation
Recommend approval for:
▪ Use Permits
◦ Lot Line Adjustment
◦ Vesting Tentative Map
◦ Design Review
▪ Adoption of the CEQA IS/MND
485
Questions?
486
Franklin Canyon RV Resort
3100 Franklin Canyon Road, Hercules, CA
APN 362-020-021-6
CITY OF HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 8, 2022
487
111 Civic Drive City of Hercules Hercules, CA 94547
Meeting Minutes
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dan Romero
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Lori Martin, City Clerk
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:00 PM
Zoom Meeting ID: 842 0985 1288
Zoom Passcode: 799394
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
I. SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.
Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
Present: 5 -
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Tang announced the items listed on the agenda to be discussed in closed session.
IV. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.
Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.
Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
Present: 5 -
1. 22-035 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9 (e)(1): In one (1) matter.
2. 22-036 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, Conference with Real Property Negotiators: Property Address: 1991 Railroad Ave, Hercules, CA 94547; Real Property Negotiator: Dante Hall, City Manager City of Hercules Page 1
488
City Council Meeting Minutes January 25, 2022
V. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Tang identified the items discussed in closed session and stated that no were no final or reportable actions.
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Kelley.
VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
The moment of silence was conducted after Discussion Item XIII.3. Mayor Bailey called for a moment of silence for Michelle Go who was tragically killed at a New York subway station on January 15, 2022. Ms. Go was a former resident of Berkeley and Fremont, CA.
VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
1. 22-037 Proclamation in Celebration of Lunar New Year 2022 Mayor Bailey read aloud the Proclamation and presented it to Si Lau, Vice President of the Chinese Association. Members of the City Council provided comments. Ms. Lau provided remarks and thanked the Mayor and Council for their recognition of Lunar New Year and the Chinese Association.
IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
None.
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
West Contra Costa Unified School District Trustee, Jamela Smith-Folds provided an update on Area 1 of the school district.
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 22-029 Zoning Text Amendment #21-02 - Parking Exception Recommendation: Adopt an ordinance amending Title 13, Chapter 32 of the Hercules Municipal Code to add Section 13-32.500 to allow the approval of parking exceptions on a validated case-by-case basis citywide.
Community Development Director Reber introduced the item and provided a staff report. Members of the City Council asked questions and provided comments.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Grimsley to waive the first reading and approve the introduction of an Ordinance amending Title 13, Chapter 32 of the Hercules Municipal Code to add Section 13-32.500 to allow the approval of parking exceptions on a validated City of Hercules Page 2
489
City Council Meeting Minutes January 25, 2022
case-by-case basis citywide.
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.
Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -
2. 22-030 America's Tire Store: Proposal to Construct and Operate an 8,938-square-foot Tire Store on the Southerly Portion of The Home Depot Parking Lot at 1625 Sycamore Avenue, Hercules
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution:
(1) Amending the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit #03-02 and Design Review Permit #03-02 for The Home Depot project; and (2) Approving the America's Tire store project, consisting of Conditional Use Permit #21-03, Design Review Permit #21-03, and Tentative Parcel Map #21-01.
Community Development Director Reber introduced the item and provided a staff report. Colt Elisworth of Discount Tires gave a presentation on the America's Tire project. Community Development Director Reber provided additional comments. Scott Mommer, Home Depot Representative asked questions and provided comments. Members of the City Council asked questions and provided comments.
Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
A comment was provided by Mayor Bailey during the open public hearing period.
Mayor Bailey closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. with no other comments provided.
City Council requested that 4 amendments be made to the Conditions of Approval:
1. Restricting use to tire services only with any additional services provided beyond that will be required to undergo additional review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council.
2. Prohibit overnight storage of vehicles in the parking lot.
3. When using pneumatic equipment the bay doors shall be closed.
4. Trash collection system to be kept onsite with the site swept regularly on a daily basis and removal of any debris found near the creek on a daily basis.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Romero, seconded by Vice Mayor Walker-Griffin to adopt Resolution 22-005 to include the amendments discussed to the Conditions of Approval.
City of Hercules Page 3
490
City Council Meeting Minutes January 25, 2022
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.
Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Motioned by Council Member Romero, seconded by Council Member Kelley to adopt the Consent Calendar.
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.
Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -
1. 22-028 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the special meeting minutes of January 4, 2022, the regular meeting minutes of January 11, 2022 and the special meeting minutes of January 18, 2022.
Approved.
2. 22-014 Annual Update Regarding the Following Matters:
1) Anti-Nepotism and Anti-Cronyism Ordinance
2) Hercules Ethics Policy
Recommendation: Accept report, provide direction to staff, if any and file the report.
Accepted and filed.
3. 22-034 Emergency Declaration Extension
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution extending the Declaration of Local Emergency by 30 days to March 2, 2022.
Approved.
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS
1. 22-031 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Recommendation: Receive the fiscal year (FY) 20-21 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (CAFR) and accept the audited financial statements.
Finance Director Gato introduced the item and provided a staff report.
Gary Caporicci of the Pun Group gave a presentation on the FY 2020-21 audited financial statements. Members of the City Council asked questions and provided comments.
MOTION: Motioned by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Vice Mayor Walker-Griffin to accept and file the FY 2020-21 audited financial statements.
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.
Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -
City of Hercules Page 4
491
City Council Meeting Minutes January 25, 2022
2. 22-032 Long-Term Financial Projection for the General Fund and Approval of a Resolution Declaring a Fiscal Emergency in the City of Hercules by Unanimous Vote
Recommendation: Receive and discuss the long-term financial projection of the general fund and approve a Resolution unanimously declaring a fiscal emergency in the City of Hercules.
Finance Director Gato introduced the item and provided a staff report. City Attorney Tang provided additional information. Members of the City Council asked questions and provided comments. There was a consensus of City Council to continue this item to the next City Council meeting.
3. 22-033 Consideration of an Updated Library Services Agreement Between the City of Hercules and Contra Costa County
Recommendation: Receive staff report, discuss and consider adopting a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement as described in the staff report.
Parks and Recreation Director Roke introduced the item and provided a staff report. City Attorney Tang provided additional information. Alison McKee, Contra Costa County Librarian provided additional information and answered questions. Members of the City Council asked questions and provided comments.
MOTION: Motioned by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Vice Mayor Walker-Griffin to adopt Resolution 22-007.
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Vice Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
4 -
Abstain: 1 - Council Member D. Romero
XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
None.
XV. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENTS,
COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORTS
AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
City staff and Council Members reported on attendance at events and community and regional meetings.
A request was made by Council Member Romero to bring forward a Proclamation or letter of recognition to former Fire Chief Brian Craig who recently retired with 38 years of service with the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District and to introduce new Interim Fire Chief Johnson.
City of Hercules Page 5
492
City Council Meeting Minutes January 25, 2022
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bailey adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Lori Martin, MMC
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
City of Hercules Page 6
493
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 8, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Michael Roberts, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Execution of Standard Caltrans Agreements to Receive $36K to Develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan and Receive Additional TransportationRelated Grant Funding in the Future RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Caltrans Master Agreement and Program Supplement Agreement to receive $36K to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan and be eligible for other state-funded grants in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:
Executing these standard agreements is required for the City to receive the $36K to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan and be eligible for future State-funded grants.
DISCUSSION:
Historically Caltrans has required each local agency in the State enter into an umbrella Master Agreement to receive federally-funded grants they administer and individual supplemental agreements for each specific grant funding opportunity. This format has worked well over the years and Caltrans is now implementing the same process for State-funded grants.
Both the Master and Program Supplement Agreements are standardized, used by local agencies throughout the State, and according to Caltrans are not eligible for language changes.
The $36K in State grant funding the City will be receiving will be used to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which will identify and analyze vehicle-related safety concerns on the local transportation network and recommend improvements to address them. In the future, an LRSP will be required to receive federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding. The LRSP will be an excellent tool in evaluating and prioritizing future transportation-related improvements in Hercules.
ATTACHMENTS:
494
1. Resolution
2. Master Agreement & Program Supplement Agreement
Financial Impact
Description: Receive $36K in State funding to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan.
Funding Source: State Grant
Budget Recap:
Total Estimated cost: $ New Revenue: $36,000
Amount Budgeted: $ Lost Revenue: $
New funding required: $ New Personnel: $
Council Policy Change: Yes No
495
HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CALTRANS MASTER AGREEMENT NO. 04-5117S21 AND PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 000000Y58 INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENT THERETO TO RECEIVE $36K TO DEVELOP A LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR
OTHER STATE-FUNDED GRANTS IN THE FUTURE
WHEREAS, Caltrans is now requiring local agencies enter into Master Agreements to be eligible for future state-funded grants similar to their process to receive federally-funded grants they administer; and WHEREAS, Caltrans is requiring the City enter into a Program Supplement Agreement to said Master Agreement receive $36K to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan; and WHEREAS, completion of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is required to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding in the future; and WHEREAS, the LRSP will identify and analyze automobile-related safety concerns on local streets and include recommendations to address them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute Caltrans Master Agreement No. 04-5117S21 and Program Supplement No. 000000Y58 including any amendments thereto to receive $36K to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan and be eligible for other State-funded grants in the future.
The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 8
th day of February, 2022 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lori Martin, MMC
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
496
MASTER AGREEMENT
ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT FOR
STATE-FUNDED PROJECTS
04 City of Hercules
-------- ---------------------------------------------- District Administering Agency
Agreement No. 04-5117S21
This AGREEMENT, is entered into effective this _______ day of __________, 20___, by and between the City of Hercules, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY," and the State of California, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (Caltrans), hereinafter referred to as "STATE", and together referred to as "PARTIES" or individually as a "PARTY."
RECITALS:
1. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted legislation by which certain State funds are made available for use on local transportation related projects of public entities qualified to act as recipients of these state funds; and
2. WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and/or STATE for funding from a State-funded program (herein referred to as STATE FUNDS), as defined in the Local Assistance Program Guidelines (LAPG) and/or in the respective CTC Guidelines, for use on local authorized transportation related projects as a local administered project(s), hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and
3. WHEREAS, said PROJECT will not receive any federal funds; and
4. WHEREAS, before STATE FUNDS will be made available for PROJECT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE are required to enter into an agreement to establish terms and conditions applicable to the ADMINISTERING AGENCY when receiving STATE FUNDS for a designated PROJECT facility and to the subsequent operation and maintenance of that completed facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES agree as follows:
497
ARTICLE I - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1. This AGREEMENT shall have no force or effect with respect to any program project unless and until a project- specific Program Supplement to this AGREEMENT for state funded projects, hereinafter referred to as "PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT", has been fully executed by both STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
2. The State approved project-specific allocation notification letter and approved CTC allocation documentation designate the party responsible for implementing PROJECT, type of work, and location of PROJECT for projects requiring CTC allocation by PROJECT component of work.
3. The PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT sets out special covenants as a condition for the ADMINISTERING AGENCY to receive STATE FUNDS from/through STATE for designated PROJECT. The PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT shall also show these STATE FUNDS that have been initially encumbered for PROJECT along with the matching funds to be provided by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and/or others. Execution of PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT by the PARTIES shall cause ADMINISTERING AGENCY to adopt all the terms of this AGREEMENT as though fully set forth therein in the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. Unless otherwise expressly delegated in a resolution by the governing body of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, and with written concurrence by STATE, the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT shall be approved and managed by the governing body of ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to execute and return each project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. The PARTIES agree that STATE may suspend future allocations, encumbrances and invoice payments for any on- going or future STATE FUNDED PROJECT performed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY if any project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT is not returned, unless otherwise agreed by STATE in writing.
5. ADMINISTERING AGENCY further agrees, as a condition to the release and payment of STATE FUNDS encumbered for the PROJECT described in each PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, to comply with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT and all the agreed-upon Special Covenants or Remarks incorporated within the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, and Cooperative/Contribution Agreement where appropriate, defining and identifying the nature of the specific PROJECT.
6. STATE FUNDS will not participate in any portion of PROJECT work performed in advance of the effective date of allocation by CTC, or by STATE for allocations delegated to STATE by CTC, for said PROJECT.
7. Projects allocated with STATE FUNDS will be administered in accordance with the current CTC STIP Guidelines, applicable chapter(s) of the LAPG, LAPM and/or any other instructions published by STATE.
8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to ensure compliance with all relevant State laws and requirements for work related to PROJECT, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
498
9. ADMINISTERING AGENCY's eligible costs for preliminary engineering work includes all preliminary work directly related to PROJECT up to contract award for construction, including, but not limited to, environmental studies and permits (E&P), preliminary surveys and reports, laboratory work, soil investigations, the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E), advertising for bids, awarding of a contract and project development contract administration.
10. ADMINISTERING AGENCY's eligible costs for construction engineering include actual inspection and supervision of PROJECT construction work; construction staking; laboratory and field testing; and the preparation and processing of field reports, records, estimates, final reports, and allowable expenses of employees/consultants engaged in such activities.
11. Unless the PARTIES agree otherwise in writing, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's employees or its contracted engineering consultant shall be responsible for all PROJECT engineering work.
12. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not proceed with final design of PROJECT until final environmental approval of PROJECT. Final design entails the design work necessary to complete the PS&E and other work necessary for a construction contract but not required earlier for environmental clearance of that PROJECT.
13. If PROJECT is not on STATE-owned right-of-way, PROJECT shall be constructed in accordance with Chapter 11 of the LAPM that describes minimum statewide design standards for local agency streets and roads. The design standards for projects off the National Highway System (NHS) allow STATE to accept either the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards, the current FHWA-adopted American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets standards, or the approved geometric design standards of ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
Additionally, for projects off the NHS, STATE will accept ADMINISTERING AGENCY-approved standard specifications, standard plans, materials sampling and testing quality assurance programs that meet the conditions described in the then current Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
14. If PROJECT involves work within or partially within STATE-owned right-of-way, that PROJECT shall also be subject to compliance with the policies, procedures and standards of the STATE Project Development Procedures Manual and Highway Design Manual and where appropriate, an executed cooperative agreement between STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY that outlines the PROJECT responsibilities and respective obligations of the PARTIES. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its contractors shall each obtain an encroachment permit through STATE prior to commencing any work within STATE rights-of-way or work which affects STATE facilities.
499
15. When PROJECT is not on the State Highway System (SHS) but includes work to be performed by a railroad, the contract for such work shall be prepared by ADMINISTERING AGENCY or by STATE, as the PARTIES may hereafter agree. In either event, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall enter into an agreement with the railroad providing for future maintenance of protective devices or other facilities installed under the contract.
16. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall comply with the provisions of sections 4450 and 4454 of the California Government Code, as well as other Department of General Services guidance, if applicable, for the contract PS&E for the construction of buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs and related facilities for accessibility and usability. Further requirements and guidance are provided in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
17. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall provide a full-time public employee to be in responsible charge of each PROJECT. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall provide or arrange for adequate supervision and inspection of each PROJECT. ADMINISTERING AGENCY may utilize consultants to perform supervision and inspection work for PROJECT with a fully qualified and licensed engineer. Utilization of consultants does not relieve ADMINISTERING AGENCY of its obligation to provide a full-time public employee to be in responsible charge of each PROJECT.
18. Unless otherwise provided in the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall advertise, award, and administer the PROJECT construction contract or contracts.
19. The cost of maintenance, security, or protection performed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY or contractor forces during any temporary suspension of PROJECT or at any other time may not be charged to the PROJECT.
20. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall submit PROJECT-specific award information to STATE's District Local Assistance Engineer, within sixty (60) days after contract award.
21. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall submit the final report documents that collectively constitute a "Final Project Expenditure Report", LAPM Exhibit 17-M, within one hundred eighty (180) days of PROJECT completion. Failure by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to submit a "Final Project Expenditure Report", within 180 days of project completion will result in STATE imposing sanctions upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY in accordance with the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
22. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.
500
23. The Governor and the Legislature of the State of California, each within their respective jurisdictions, have prescribed certain nondiscrimination requirements with respect to contract and other work financed with public funds. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with the requirements of the FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ADDENDUM, attached hereto as Exhibit A and further agrees that any agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY with a third party for performance of work connected with PROJECT shall incorporate Exhibit A (with third party's name replacing ADMINISTERING AGENCY) as parts of such agreement.
24. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall include in all contracts and subcontracts awarded when applicable, a clause that requires each subcontractor to comply with California Labor Code requirements that all workers employed on public works aspects of any project (as defined in California Labor Code sections 1720-1815) be paid not less than the general prevailing wage rates predetermined by the Department of Industrial Relations as effective at the date of contract award by the ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
ARTICLE II - RIGHTS-OF-WAY
1. No contract for the construction of a STATE FUNDED PROJECT shall be awarded until all necessary rights of way have been secured. Prior to the advertising for construction of PROJECT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall certify and, upon request, shall furnish STATE with evidence that all necessary rights-of-way are available for construction purposes or will be available by the time of award of the construction contract.
2. The furnishing of rights of way by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as provided for herein includes, and is limited to, the following, unless the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT provides otherwise.
(a) Expenditures of capital and support to purchase all real property required for PROJECT free and clear of liens, conflicting easements, obstructions and encumbrances, after crediting PROJECT with the fair market value of any excess property retained and not disposed of by ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
(b) The cost of furnishing of right-of-way as provided for herein includes, in addition to real property required for the PROJECT, title free and clear of obstructions and encumbrances affecting PROJECT and the payment, as required by applicable law, of damages to owners of remainder real property not actually taken but injuriously affected by PROJECT. (c) The cost of relocation payments and services provided to owners and occupants pursuant to Government Code sections 7260-7277 when PROJECT displaces an individual, family, business, farm operation or nonprofit organization.
(d) The cost of demolition and/or the sale of all improvements on the right-of-way after credit is recorded for sale proceeds used to offset PROJECT costs. (e) The cost of all unavoidable utility relocation, protection or removal.
501
(f) The cost of all necessary hazardous material and hazardous waste treatment, encapsulation or removal and protective storage for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY accepts responsibility and where the actual generator cannot be identified, and recovery made.
3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to indemnify and hold STATE harmless from any liability that may result in the event the right-of-way for a PROJECT is not clear as certified by ADMINISTERING AGENCY, including, but not limited to, if said right-of-way is found to contain hazardous materials requiring treatment or removal to remediate in accordance with Federal and State laws. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall pay, from its own non- matching funds, any costs which arise out of delays to the construction of PROJECT because utility facilities have not been timely removed or relocated, or because rights-of-way were not available to ADMINISTERING AGENCY for the orderly prosecution of PROJECT work.
ARTICLE III - MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT
1. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, constructed, rehabilitated, or restored by PROJECT for its intended public use until such time as the parties might amend this AGREEMENT to otherwise provide. With the approval of STATE, ADMINISTERING AGENCY or its successors in interest in the PROJECT property may transfer this obligation and responsibility to maintain and operate PROJECT property for that intended public purpose to another public entity.
2. Upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's acceptance of the completed construction contract or upon contractor being relieved of the responsibility for maintaining and protecting PROJECT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY will be responsible for the maintenance, ownership, liability, and the expense thereof, for PROJECT in a manner satisfactory to the authorized representatives of STATE and if PROJECT falls within the jurisdictional limits of another Agency or Agencies, it is the duty of ADMINISTERING AGENCY to facilitate a separate maintenance agreement(s) between itself and the other jurisdictional Agency or Agencies providing for the operation, maintenance, ownership and liability of PROJECT. Until those agreements are executed, ADMINISTERING AGENCY will be responsible for all PROJECT operations, maintenance, ownership and liability in a manner satisfactory to the authorized representatives of STATE. If, within ninety (90) days after receipt of notice from STATE that a PROJECT, or any portion thereof, is not being properly operated and maintained and ADMINISTERING AGENCY has not satisfactorily remedied the conditions complained of, the approval of future STATE FUNDED PROJECTS of ADMINISTERING AGENCY will be withheld until the PROJECT shall have been put in a condition of operation and maintenance satisfactory to STATE. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a PROJECT that has been vacated through due process of law with STATE's concurrence.
3. PROJECT and its facilities shall be maintained by an adequate and well-trained staff of engineers and/or such other professionals and technicians as PROJECT reasonably requires.
Said operations and maintenance staff may be employees of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, another unit of government, or a contractor under agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
All maintenance will be performed at regular intervals or as required for efficient operation of the complete PROJECT improvements.
502
4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall comply with all applicable law, including but not limited to, all applicable legal authority regarding construction standards.
ARTICLE IV - FISCAL PROVISIONS
1. All contractual obligations of STATE are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the CTC.
2. STATE'S financial commitment of STATE FUNDS will occur only upon the execution of this AGREEMENT, the execution of each project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and/or STATE's approved finance letter.
3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, as a minimum, to submit invoices in arrears for reimbursement of allowable PROJECT costs at least once every six months commencing after the STATE FUNDS are encumbered on either the project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT or through a project-specific finance letter approved by STATE. STATE reserves the right to suspend future allocations and invoice payments for any on-going or future STATE FUNDED project performed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY if PROJECT costs have not been invoiced by ADMINISTERING AGENCY for a six-month period
4. Invoices shall be submitted on a standardized billing summary template, in accordance with Chapter 5 of the LAPM to claim reimbursement by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. For construction invoices, pay estimates must be included.
5. ADMINISTERING AGENCY must retain at least one copy of supporting backup documentation for allowable costs incurred and claimed for reimbursement by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to submit supporting backup documentation with invoices if requested by State. Acceptable backup documentation includes, but is not limited to, agency's progress payment to the contractors, copies of cancelled checks showing amounts made payable to vendors and contractors, and/or a computerized summary of PROJECT costs.
6. Payments to ADMINISTERING AGENCY can only be released by STATE as reimbursements of actual allowable PROJECT costs already incurred and paid for by the ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
7. Indirect Cost Allocation Plans/Indirect Cost Rate Proposals (ICAP/ICRP), Central Service Cost Allocation Plans and related documentation are to be prepared and provided to the Inspector General - Independent Office of Audits and Investigations for review and approval prior to ADMINISTERING AGENCY seeking reimbursement of indirect cost incurred within each fiscal year being claimed for reimbursement. ICAPs/ICRPs must be prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in 2 CFR, Part 200, Chapter 5 of the LAPM, and the ICAP/ICRP approval procedures established by STATE.
503
8. STATE will withhold the greater of either two (2) percent of the total of all STATE FUNDS encumbered for each PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT or $40,000 until ADMINISTERING AGENCY submits the Final Report of Expenditures for each completed PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT PROJECT.
9. The estimated total cost of PROJECT, the amount of STATE FUNDS obligated, and the required matching funds may be adjusted by mutual consent of the PARTIES with a finance letter, and an allocation notification letter when applicable. STATE FUNDING may be increased to cover PROJECT cost increases only if such additional funds are available and the CTC and/or STATE concurs with that increase in the form of an allocation and finance letter.
10. When such additional STATE FUNDS are not available, ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that any increases in PROJECT costs must be defrayed with ADMINISTERING AGENCY's own funds.
11. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall use its own non-STATE FUNDS to finance the local share of eligible costs and all PROJECT expenditures or contract items ruled ineligible for financing with STATE FUNDS. STATE shall make the final determination of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's cost eligibility for STATE FUNDED financing with respect to claimed PROJECT costs.
12. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will reimburse STATE for STATE's share of costs for work performed by STATE at the request of ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE's costs shall include overhead assessments in accordance with section 8755.1 of the State Administrative Manual.
13. STATE FUNDS allocated by the CTC and/or STATE are subject to the timely use of funds provisions approved in CTC Guidelines and State procedures approved by the CTC and STATE.
14. STATE FUNDS encumbered for PROJECT are available for liquidation only for a limited period from the beginning of the State fiscal year when those funds were appropriated in the State Budget. STATE FUNDS not liquidated within these periods will be reverted unless a Cooperative Work Agreement (CWA) is submitted by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and approved by the California Department of Finance in accordance with Section 16304 of the Government Code. The exact date of fund reversion will be reflected in the STATE signed PROJECT finance letter.
15. Payments to ADMINISTERING AGENCY for PROJECT-related travel and subsistence (per diem) expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its contractors and subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid to rank and file STATE employees under current California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) rules unless a Cooperative Work Agreement (CWA) is submitted by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and approved by the California Department of Finance in accordance with Government Code section 16304. If the rates invoiced by ADMINISTERING AGENCY are in excess
504
of CalHR rates, ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference, and any overpayments inadvertently paid by STATE shall be reimbursed to STATE by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on demand.
16. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with California Government Code 4525- 4529.14. Administering Agency shall undertake the procedures described in California Government Code 4527(a) and 4528(a). Administering Agency shall also comply with 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirement for Federal Awards, excluding 2 CFR Part 200.318-200.326.
17. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors will be obligated to agree that Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items. Every recipient and sub-recipient receiving PROJECT funds under this AGREEMENT shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirement for Federal Awards, excluding 2 CFR Part 200.318-200.326Governments.
ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with the provisions set forth in 23 CFR Parts 140, 645 and 646 when contracting with railroad and utility companies.
18. Every recipient and sub-recipient receiving PROJECT funds under this AGREEMENT shall comply with 2 CFR 200 excluding 2 CFR Part 200.318-200.326, 48 CFR Chapter 1, Part 31, LAPM, Public Contract Code (PCC) 10300- 10334 (procurement of goods), PCC 10335-10381 (non-A&E services), California Government Code 4525-4529.5 including 4527(a) and 4528(a), and other applicable STATE regulations.
19. Any PROJECT costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be questioned, disallowed, or unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, 23 CFR Parts 140, 645 and 646, LAPM, Public Contract Code (PCC) 10300-10334 (procurement of goods), PCC 10335-10381 (non-A&E services), California Government Code 4525-4529.5 including 4527(a) and 4528(a), and other applicable STATE regulations are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE and may result in STATE imposing sanctions on ADMINISTERING AGENCY as described in Chapter 20 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
20. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to refund any moneys due upon written demand by STATE as provided herein or should ADMINISTERING AGENCY breach this AGREEMENT by failing to complete PROJECT without adequate justification and approval by STATE, then, within thirty (30) days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed to in writing between the PARTIES hereto, STATE, acting through the State Controller, the State Treasurer, the CTC or any other public entity or agency, may intercept, withhold and demand the transfer of an amount equal to the amount paid by or owed to STATE for each PROJECT, from future apportionments, or any other funds due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from the Highway Users Tax Fund or any other sources of funds, and/or may also withhold approval of future STATE FUNDED projects proposed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
21. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY be declared to be in breach of this AGREEMENT or otherwise in default thereof by STATE, and if ADMINISTERING AGENCY is
505
constituted as a joint powers authority, special district, or any other public entity not directly receiving funds through the State Controller, STATE is authorized to obtain reimbursement from whatever sources of funding are available, including the withholding or transfer of funds, from those constituent entities comprising a joint powers authority or by bringing of an action against ADMINISTERING AGENCY or its constituent member entities, to recover all funds provided by STATE hereunder.
22. ADMINISTERING AGENCY acknowledges that the signatory party represents the ADMINISTERING AGENCY and further warrants that there is nothing within a Joint Powers Agreement, by which ADMINISTERING AGENCY was created, if any exists, that would restrict or otherwise limit STATE's ability to recover STATE FUNDS improperly spent by ADMINISTERING AGENCY in contravention of the terms of this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE V
AUDITS, THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING, RECORDS RETENTION AND REPORTS
1. STATE reserves the right to conduct technical and financial audits of PROJECT work and records and ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, and shall require its contractors and subcontractors to agree, to cooperate with STATE by making all appropriate and relevant PROJECT records available for audit and copying as required by paragraph three (3) of Article V.
2. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain a financial management system and records that properly accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable, and allocable incurred PROJECT costs and matching funds by line item for the PROJECT. The financial management system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices sent to or paid by STATE.
3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors, and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection and audit by STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States, all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. All of the above-referenced parties shall make such AGREEMENT and PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the entire PROJECT period and for three (3) years, or 35 years for Prop 1B funds, from the date of final payment to ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $25,000 on the basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed under this AGREEMENT without the prior written approval of STATE. All contracts awarded by ADMINISTERING AGENCY intended or used as local match credit must meet the requirements set forth in this AGREEMENT regarding local match funds.
506
5. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall comply with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 4525) Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code and shall undertake the procedures described in California Government Code 4527(a) and 4528(a). Administering Agency shall comply with Chapter 10 of the LAPM for A&E Consultant Contracts.
6. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall comply with Government Code Division 5 Title 1 sections 4525-4529.5 and shall undertake the procedures described in California Government Code 4527(a) and 4528(a) for procurement of professional service contracts. Administering Agency shall follow Public Contract Code Section 10335-10381 for other professional service contracts.
7. Any subcontract entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of this AGREEMENT shall contain all of the provisions of Article IV, FISCAL PROVISIONS, and this ARTICLE V, AUDITS, THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTING, RECORDS RETENTION AND REPORTS and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third- party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as PROJECT costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors.
8. To be eligible for local match credit, ADMINISTERING AGENCY must ensure that local match funds used for a PROJECT meet the fiscal provisions requirements outlined in ARTICLE IV in the same manner that is required of all other PROJECT expenditures.
9. Except as provided in this Article, this AGREEMENT is solely between and for the benefit of the PARTIES and there are no third-party beneficiaries.
ARTICLE VI - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
1. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to use all PROJECT funds reimbursed hereunder only for transportation purposes that are in conformance with Article XIX of the California State Constitution and other California laws.
2. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall conform to all applicable State and Federal statutes and regulations, and the Local Assistance Program Guidelines and Local Assistance Procedures Manual as published by STATE and incorporated herein, including all subsequent approved revisions thereto applicable to PROJECT unless otherwise designated in the project-specific executed PROJECT SUPPLEMENT.
3. This AGREEMENT is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, conditions, or any statute enacted by the State Legislature or adopted by the CTC that may affect the provisions, terms, or funding of this AGREEMENT in any manner.
4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and the officers and employees of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, when engaged in the performance of this AGREEMENT, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees or agents of STATE.
507
5. Each project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT shall separately establish the terms and funding limits for each described PROJECT funded under this AGREEMENT and that PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. No STATE FUNDS are obligated against this AGREEMENT.
6. ADMINISTERING AGENCY certifies that neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor its principals are suspended or debarred at the time of the execution of this AGREEMENT, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that it will notify STATE immediately in the event a suspension or a debarment occurs after the execution of this AGREEMENT.
7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY certifies, by execution of this AGREEMENT, that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this AGREEMENT upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by ADMINISTERING AGENCY for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, STATE has the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability, pay only for the value of the PROJECT work actually performed, or in STATE's discretion, to deduct from the price of PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.
8. In accordance with Public Contract Code section 10296, ADMINISTERING AGENCY hereby certifies under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against ADMINISTERING AGENCY within the immediate preceding two (2) year period because of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders ADMINISTERING AGENCY to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board.
9. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with STATE that may have an impact upon the outcome of this AGREEMENT or any individual PROJECT encompassed within a PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall also list current contractors who may have a financial interest in the outcome of a PROJECT undertaken pursuant to this AGREEMENT. These disclosures shall be delivered to STATE in a form deemed acceptable by the STATE prior to execution of this AGREEMENT.
10. ADMINISTERING AGENCY hereby certifies that it does not have, nor shall it acquire, any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of any PROJECT initiated under this AGREEMENT.
11. ADMINISTERING AGENCY certifies that this AGREEMENT was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration either promised or paid to any STATE employee. For breach or violation of this warranty, STATE shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate this AGREEMENT without liability, to pay only for PROJECT work actually performed, or to deduct from a PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT price or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback, or other unlawful consideration.
508
12. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the STATE's Contract Manager, who shall be identified to ADMINISTERING AGENCY at the time of execution of this AGREEMENT and, as applicable , any time that Contract Manager changes during the duration of this AGREEMENT who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
The decision of the Contract Manager, issued in writing, shall be conclusive and binding on the PARTIES on all questions of fact considered and determined by the Contract Manager.
13. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by the Contract Manager will excuse the ADMINISTERING AGENCY from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT and each PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT.
14. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction of ADMINISTERING AGENCY arising under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all claims and suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this AGREEMENT.
15. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE, under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the ADMINISTERING AGENCY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under this AGREEMENT.
16. In the event of (a) ADMINISTERING AGENCY failing to timely proceed with effective PROJECT work in accordance with the project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT; (b) failing to maintain any applicable bonding requirements; and (c) otherwise materially violating the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT and/or any PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for that PROJECT upon thirty (30) days' written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
17. No termination notice shall become effective if, within thirty (30) days after receipt of a Notice of Termination, ADMINISTERING AGENCY either cures the default involved or, if the default is not reasonably susceptible of cure within said thirty (30) day period the ADMINISTERING AGENCY proceeds thereafter to complete that cure in a manner and time line acceptable to STATE.
18. Any such termination shall be accomplished by delivery to ADMINISTERING AGENCY of a Notice of Termination, which notice shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days after receipt, specifying the reason for the termination, the
509
extent to which funding of work under this AGREEMENT and the applicable PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT is terminated and the date upon which such termination becomes effective, if beyond thirty (30) days after receipt. During the period before the effective termination date, ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall meet to attempt to resolve any dispute. In the event of such termination, STATE may proceed with the PROJECT work in a manner deemed proper by STATE. If STATE terminates funding for PROJECT with ADMINISTERING AGENCY for the reasons stated in paragraph sixteen (16) of ARTICLE VI, STATE shall pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the sum due ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and/or STATE-approved finance letter prior to termination, provided, however, ADMINISTERING AGENCY is not in default of the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT or the project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and that the cost of any PROJECT completion to STATE shall first be deducted from any sum due ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
19. In the case of inconsistency or conflicts with the terms of this AGREEMENT and that of a project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and/or Cooperative Agreement, the terms stated in that PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and/or Cooperative Agreement shall prevail over those in this AGREEMENT.
20. Without the written consent of STATE, this AGREEMENT is not assignable by ADMINISTERING AGENCY either in whole or in part.
21. No alteration or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the PARTIES, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the PARTIES.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this AGREEMENT by their duly authorized officer.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA City of Hercules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By______________________________ By_______________________________ ________________________________ _______________________________ Chief, Office of Project Implementation City of Hercules Division of Local Assistance Representative Name & Title (Authorized Governing Body Representative)
Date __________________________ Date __________________________
510
EXHIBIT A - FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ADDENDUM
1. In the performance of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY will not discriminate against any employee for employment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
employment; upgrading; demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall post in conspicuous places, available to employees for employment, notices to be provided by STATE setting forth the provisions of this Fair Employment section.
2. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractor(s) and all subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., Title 2, 11000, et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code section 12900(a-f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations are incorporated into this AGREEMENT by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Each of the ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S contractors and all subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreements, as appropriate.
3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts to perform work under this AGREEMENT.
4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will permit access to the records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, and other pertinent data and records by STATE, the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, or any other agency of the State of California designated by STATE, for the purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Fair Employment section of this Agreement.
5. Remedies for Willful Violation:
(a) STATE may determine a willful violation of the Fair Employment provision to have occurred upon receipt of a final judgment to that effect from a court in an action to which ADMINISTERING AGENCY was a party, or upon receipt of a written notice from the Fair Employment and Housing Commission that it has investigated and determined that ADMINISTERING AGENCY has violated the Fair Employment Practices Act.
511
(b) For willful violation of this Fair Employment Provision, STATE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by STATE in securing the goods or services thereunder shall be borne and paid for by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and by the surety under the performance bond, if any, and STATE may deduct from any moneys due or thereafter may become due to ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the difference between the price named in the Agreement and the actual cost thereof to STATE to cure ADMINISTERING AGENCY's breach of this Agreement.
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 8, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Edwin Gato, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2021 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2021.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION: This is an information report with no fiscal impact.
DISCUSSION: This report presents the City’s investment portfolio for the quarter ending December 31, 2021. It has been prepared to comply with regulations contained in California Government Code Section 53646 and City’s Investment Policy. The report includes all cash and investments managed by the City. It also includes City-related investments held by bond trustees for debt service obligations as well as money held in the irrevocable trust with PARS for pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB). The report provides information on the investment type, issuer, maturity date, cost, and current market value for each security.
The City utilizes the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) as a money market fund administered by the State Treasurer. LAIF has many governmental agency participants and holds securities through its administrator. LAIF provides local agencies a way to invest cash held in the treasury pool that may be withdrawn as needed on a same-day basis to meet the agency’s cash flow needs while realizing interest generated by the Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA). Moreover, the Investments held by Bond Trustees are administered in accordance with individual bond indentures.
As of December 31, 2021, the overall pooled investment portfolio average yield (before adjustments for changes in market value) was 0.45%, which is higher than the rate for a two-year U.S. Treasury Note at 0.39% and LAIF average monthly rate of 0.23%.
On December 31, 2021, the market value of the pooled portfolio was $116,950 lower than the book value. As the City does not intend to sell its pooled investment portfolio securities prior to maturity, this will have no effect on yield.
540
The 60.58% of the total Investment Portfolio was deposited with LAIF as of December 31, 2021.
LAIF has 65.40% of its investments in U.S. Treasuries and agency notes, 7.39% in CDs and banknotes, and 27.21% in other types of investments. Additional economic summaries and specific information related to each of the investment advisors and LAIF are included in the Investment Portfolio Summary Report included in attachment 1.
The City invests its idle cash from all operating funds on a pooled basis to maximize returns. Earnings are allocated to each fund based on the average cash balance. The total investment income for the City as of December 31, 2021, was $109,422. The timing of revenue collections, such as property tax, business licenses, and franchise tax, affects the quarterly investment income during the year.
There is adequate cash to meet expected obligations over the next six months.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 40 requires the City to recognize the fair market value of its investments at the end of each fiscal year. The market values of investments included in this report are obtained from the State Controller’s office for LAIF and from the City’s registered investment managers and bond trustees for all other investments. These market valuations are subject to daily changes. The difference between market value and historical costs, known as Unrealized Investment Gains and Losses, are temporary in nature and are not cash-related transactions. Since it is the City’s general intention to hold its investments until maturity, when they would be redeemed at par value, any unrealized gain or loss is only reported at the end of the fiscal year in the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.
Of the total cash and investments reported above, only the portions held in the City’s General Fund (approximately $12.4 million, or 17%) and Internal Service Funds (approximately $2.7 million, or 4%) are unrestricted, although a portion of these amounts may be committed for existing obligations or designated for specific purposes. The remaining $58 million, or 79%, of the City’s cash and investments are restricted for specific uses, in accordance with federal, state or local agency rules and regulations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Quarterly Investment Report
Amount
Market Over/(Under) Average
Investment Type Value Cost Yield
Petty Cash $2,255 - 0.00%
Cash in Bank 4,630,196 - 0.05%
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 44,200,412 ($113,483) 0.21% Irrevocable Trust (Pension) 2,260,477 - 1.85%
Irrevocable Trust (OPEB) 2,936,693 - 1.85%
Investments with Bond Trustees 18,997,328 (3,467) 0.16% Total Portfolio $73,027,361 ($116,950) 0.45%
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
1 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 8, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante G. Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Robert Reber, Community Development Director Larissa Alchin, Contract Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Continued discussion from City Council meeting held January 11, 2022, on decarbonizing buildings through possible adoption of an all-electric building code amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss and provide direction if and what type of all-electric ordinance should or should not be pursued.
COMMISSION/SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:
No Commission or Subcommittee actions or recommendations are yet applicable for this action. If an ordinance were to be considered, it would require Planning Commission review. If Council directs staff to initiate adoption of an all-electric ordinance, staff recommends that the process be completed early enough that it can be approved by the California Energy Commission (CEC) no later than September 2022, prior to the start of the next building code cycle that will take effect January 1, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:
If Council desires an ordinance be drafted, additional but unknown staff and attorney time will be needed to draft the ordinance, notice and hold required public hearings, and then implement a mandatory program, which would also affect costs of construction in Hercules.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular City Council meeting held on September 28, 2021, following a presentation by staff, City Council members present agreed to continue the discussion to a date uncertain to enable the full City Council an opportunity to provide feedback to staff. The September 28 staff report to City 556
2 Council provided an in-depth look at all-electric ordinances (see Attachment 1). At the regular City Council meeting held January 11, 2022, following a presentation by staff, Council members requested staff return with an update following Contra Costa Board of Supervisors vote on the County’s All-Electric reach code ordinance (see Staff Report Attachment 2) Additionally, Council requested clarification on the cost associated with construction of an allelectric building to Hercules residents. The new Energy Code adopted by the State in August 2021 and effective on January 1, 2023, will require the following in newly constructed homes and businesses in Hercules and through the State regardless of the City adopting an All-Electric Ordinance.
Extend PV systems and introduces battery storage standards to the following building types:
o High-rise multifamily (apartments and condos)
o Hotel-motel
o Tenant space
o Office, medical office, and clinics
o Retail and grocery stores
o Restaurants
o Schools
o Civic (theaters, auditoriums, and convention centers) Require single-family homes to be electric-ready, including:
o Electrical circuits for space heating, water heating, cooking/ovens, and clothes dryers.
o Electrical panel, branch circuits, and transfer switch for battery storage. o Dedicated circuits and panels to easily convert from natural gas to electric in the future
Require most new homes and buildings statewide to be equipped with at least one heat pump for either space heating or water heating or face higher energy efficiency requirements. o Additionally, even if they don’t install an electric heat pump, they must provide the wiring and space to make it easy to install one in the future.
DISCUSSION:
On January 18, 2022, Conta Costa Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2022-02 (Attachment 3) which amends the 2019 California Energy Code to require all newly constructed residential buildings, detached accessory dwelling units, hotels, offices, and retail buildings to be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure. As previously stated, the ordinance applies only to new construction, however, it also covers any reconstruction of structures that are lost due to fire or natural disaster.
Direction to Staff
Staff is requesting the Council provide direction on the following:
557
3 1. Does the Council wish to adopt by reference the County’s adopted ordinance, or adopt an ordinance of its own?
2. If adopting the County’s code by reference would Council like to add exceptions? o Affordable housing projects
o Accessory Dwelling Units when the existing primary dwelling also has natural gas infrastructure.
o Medical
o Laboratories
o Emergency facilities
3. If the Council prefers to adopt its own ordinance would a prescriptive or a performancebased ordinance be preferred?
4. What projects would be subject to the ordinance?
o New single-family residential
o New multi-family residential
o New accessory dwelling units
o New commercial building
o Substantial remodel of existing buildings
5. When will the ordinance take effect?
o Immediately upon approval, which affects the
current 2019 building code
o With the 2022 update which takes effect January 1,
2023
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report to City Council – September 28, 2021
2. Staff Report to City Council – January 11, 2022
3. Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2022-02 (adopted January 18, 2022)
558
1 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 28, 2021
TO: Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Robert Reber, Community Development Director Larissa Alchin, Contract Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Discussion of building decarbonization through possible adoption of allelectric building code amendment RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss and provide direction if and what type of all-electric ordinance should or should not be pursued.
COMMISSION/SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:
No Commission or Subcommittee actions or recommendations are yet applicable for this action. If an ordinance were to be considered, it would require Planning Commission review. If Council directs staff to initiate adoption of an all-electric ordinance, staff recommends that the process be completed early enough that it can be approved by the California Energy Commission (CEC) no later than September 2022, prior to the start of the next building code cycle that will take effect January 1, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:
If Council desires an ordinance be drafted, additional but unknown staff and attorney time will be needed to draft the ordinance, notice and hold required public hearings, and then implement a mandatory program, which would also affect costs of construction in Hercules.
BACKGROUND:
The primary component in natural gas is methane. Methane is a short-lived pollutant whose contribution to climate change (“global warming potential”) is, pound for pound, 25 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. In addition to being a source of greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas has other attributes negatively affecting public health and safety. Indoor natural gas use, particularly for cooking, worsens indoor air quality, which disproportionately harms children, who are 42% more likely to develop asthma as a result of exposure. Ruptures in natural gas lines caused by earthquakes pose a secondary hazard of fires (half of the fires in San Francisco after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake were due to ruptured gas lines). Reducing a community’s reliance on the natural 559
2 gas system improves its physical resilience, reduces fire risk, simplifies building systems and maintenance, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
In September 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed two bills aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, SB 1477 and AB 3232. SB 1477 calls on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in consultation with the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop two new programs: the Building Initiative for Low Emissions Development (BUILD) program and the Technology and Equipment for Clean Heating (TECH) program to promote the use of high efficiency building appliances. AB 3232 required the CEC to develop a feasibility assessment (Building Decarbonization Assessment) for reducing greenhouse gas emission of buildings to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. According to the California Building Decarbonization Assessment – Final Commission Report presented to the CEC on August 11, 2021, 1 residential and commercial buildings
jointly account for 25 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 70 percent of electricity use in the state. The assessment concludes that reducing building emissions is an essential component of meeting California’s GHG reduction targets.
State Building Code
Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards that are codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building Standards Code (“Building Code”). This regular update is referred to as a “code cycle.” The current code cycle is for the year 2019 and was adopted by Hercules, via Ordinance No. 526 with amendments adopted by Contra Costa County and the Rodeo–Hercules Fire Protection District. The next code cycle will be for the year 2022 and will become effective statewide on January 1, 2023.
On August 11, 2022, the CEC approved the 2022 Energy Code which includes elements to incentivize all-electric construction for newly constructed and renovated buildings to increase efficiency and lower emissions. The 2022 Energy Code focuses on four key areas in newly constructed buildings:
• Encouraging electric heat pump technology for space and water heating, which consumes less energy and produces fewer emissions than gas-powered units. • Establishing electric-ready requirements for single-family homes to position owners to use cleaner electric heating, cooking, and electric vehicle (EV) charging options whenever they choose to adopt those technologies.
• Expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards to make clean energy available onsite and complement the state’s progress toward a 100% clean electricity grid. • Strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.
The proposed 2022 Energy Code stops short of requiring new buildings to be exclusively electric (gas ban); nevertheless, the code does require homes to be electric-ready, with dedicated 240-volt outlets and space (with plumbing for water heaters) so electric appliances can eventually replace installed gas appliances (see Attachment 2 for 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary passed by the CEC). The proposed code update for 2022 does not dictate the type of energy to be used in buildings (as between such options as natural gas, propane, or electricity). Rather, the code applies prescriptive or performance-based standards to each individual building design submitted for review. 1 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=239311 560
3 The 2022 update next moves to the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) for approval and is scheduled for consideration in December 2021. If approved, the building standards will go into effect January 1, 2023, to provide time for all interested parties to prepare for the changes.
DISCUSSION:
The State of California allows cities to amend the California Building Standards Code to make them more restrictive by adopting “Reach Codes.” When a local government adopts a reach code, that agency must make an official finding that the new requirements save energy and are cost-effective.
To be cost effective, the money saved from the reduced energy costs needs to be enough to cover the initial cost within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, exploring cost-effectiveness is a key step for local governments in California interested in establishing a reach code. There is no official method for determining cost effectiveness, but local governments must make a cost-effectiveness determination, based on the method they deem appropriate, and provide such evidence to the California Energy Commission.
In practice, cost-effectiveness is often measured by a benefit-to-cost ratio, whereby the benefit is the total energy bill savings expected from the energy conservation measure(s), and the cost is the incremental cost of installing the measure(s). A ratio of at least 1.0 is considered cost-effective, indicating the benefit exceeds the cost.
Another commonly used measure of cost-effectiveness is “simple payback,” which is calculated by dividing the up-front installation cost by the annual utility savings. The resulting value indicates the number of years it takes to pay back the initial cost. Generally, an energy-efficiency measure is considered cost-effective when it pays back in less than 15 years. The exact cutoff value is a matter of opinion and depends on the context, but usually falls between 10 and 20.
Each cost-effectiveness study sets out to evaluate a specific set of energy conservation measures (e.g., home energy efficiency measures) for one or more specific building types (e.g., new single-family homes). The studies start with a digital building model that reasonably represents a typical building of that type in California. Next, installation costs are typically estimated for each measure by surveying building contractors. Then software is used to simulate the energy needs of the building with and without the measures. From these simulations, savings estimates are derived. Besides measuring benefit-to-cost ratio, cost-effectiveness studies also present additional results related to how much energy, money, and emissions are saved. As weather patterns and utility rates differ across the state, the cost-effectiveness energy-efficiency measures may differ from one location to another.
Cost-effectiveness studies model cost-effectiveness using climate zones to approximate the local weather pattens.
Cost-effectiveness studies can be funded directly by a city, but most studies are developed with the California Energy Codes & Standards Reach Codes Subprogram which is funded by ratepayer funds.
Using an automated online tool2 provided through this statewide utility program, City staff have generated a preliminary sample estimate of cost effectiveness in Hercules for possible energy efficiency measures (see Attachment 3).
Some cities and counties in California have already adopted reach codes to go above and beyond the statewide building code to require building electrification using an array of building code approaches. 2 Cost Effectiveness Explorer: https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/ 561
4 According to the Sierra Club, as of September 2021, 49 cities and counties(about 10% of jurisdictions statewide) have adopted reach codes to reduce their reliance on gas. In addition, the California Green Building Standards (“CAL Green” Part 11 of Title 24) includes voluntary reach standards and offers model building code language for local governments that wish to adopt reach codes that exceed the minimum statewide requirements. Table 1 below offers a sample of recently adopted reach codes and the range of approaches.
Table 1 – Adopted Electrification Ordinances
City Residential Commercial Remodels Exemptions Date
Adopted
Fairfax Yes Yes No Commercial kitchens 8/4/2021
Emeryville Yes No Remodels of
50% or more
Nonresidential
buildings but must be
pre-wired for future
electric appliances
7/20/2021
Petaluma Yes Yes Substantial
remodels or
addition of 50%
or more
Essential Services
Buildings and backup
power facilities for
Essential Services
Buildings.
5/3/2021
Daly City Yes Yes No 100% affordable
housing, ADUs,
commercial kitchens,
and laboratories
4/27/2021
Piedmont Yes Yes Based on project
evaluation and
Home Energy
Score
A Home Energy Score
Report demonstrating
a Home Energy Score
of 7
2/1/2021
Millbrae Yes Yes No Laboratories, and most
residential buildings
may have non-electric
cooking and fireplaces
10/27/2020
East Palo Alto Yes Yes No Affordable housing,
and commercial
kitchens
10/6/2020
In addition to the adopted reach codes referenced above, Contra Costa County’s Sustainability Commission voted on August 23, 2021, to present a letter and report to the Board of Supervisors in support of adopting building electrification reach codes for new construction.
Removing natural gas as an energy option would reduce the carbon footprint of buildings in Hercules by removing or reducing a source of greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. If Hercules adopts an all-electric ordinance, the building code amendment could remove natural gas as a possible energy source for new construction and remodels as directed by the City Council. Should the City Council direct staff to proceed with the development of an all-electric ordinance requiring new buildings and/or substantial remodels to be all-electric, an initial discussion of parameters would be helpful to enable staff to develop a proposed ordinance.
562
5 General Steps to Develop All-Electric Ordinance
Figure 1 below provides a generalized timeline for implementing the following steps necessary to adopt and implement a reach code ordinance (actual time to implement may vary depending on the scope and nature of the ordinance and the resources available):
1. Develop idea for a reach code ordinance:
o Ideas for reach codes can come from several places, including direction from City Council, General Plan policies, and neighboring jurisdictions.
2. Work with stakeholders:
o Both internal and external stakeholders such as elected officials, building officials and staff, local developers and contractors, environment advocacy groups, and others involved in implementing and enforcing the reach code.
3. Obtain a cost-effectiveness study
4. Develop and draft an ordinance
o All-electric reach codes typically include the purpose of the reach code, what types of buildings and actions trigger the reach code, whether there are any exceptions to or exemptions from reach code requirements, relevant definitions and interpretations and any additional administrative requirements. (See Attachment 2 for a model ordinance)
5. Public process and revisions
o The proposed draft ordinance would initially be considered by the Planning Commission followed by review and consideration by the City Council.
6. Formal adoption process
o Since a reach code is a local ordinance, it is adopted by the City Council.
7. Application for approval by California Energy Commission o Once the local reach code is adopted, but before it can be enforced, the ordinance must be submitted to the CEC. The CEC will verify that the reach code is at least as stringent as the California Energy Code and then post the reach code and accept comments on it for 60 days.
Figure 1 - BAYREN Generalized Timeline
563
6 ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2021 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary
2. All-Electric Model Code Ordinance
(version of the Menlo Park all-electric code, edited by Peninsula Clean Energy and Silicon Valley Clean Energy for use as a model)
3. Sample estimate of cost effectiveness results for Hercules 564
1 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of January 11, 2021
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante G. Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Robert Reber, Community Development Director Larissa Alchin, Contract Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Continued discussion from City Council meeting held September 28, 2021, on decarbonizing buildings through possible adoption of an all-electric building code amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss and provide direction if and what type of all-electric ordinance should or should not be pursued.
COMMISSION/SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:
No Commission or Subcommittee actions or recommendations are yet applicable for this action. If an ordinance were to be considered, it would require Planning Commission review. If Council directs staff to initiate adoption of an all-electric ordinance, staff recommends that the process be completed early enough that it can be approved by the California Energy Commission (CEC) no later than September 2022, prior to the start of the next building code cycle that will take effect January 1, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:
If Council desires an ordinance be drafted, additional but unknown staff and attorney time will be needed to draft the ordinance, notice and hold required public hearings, and then implement a mandatory program, which would also affect costs of construction in Hercules.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular City Council meeting held on September 28, 2021, following a presentation by staff, City Council members present agreed to continue the discussion to a date uncertain to enable the full City Council an opportunity to provide feedback to staff. The September 28 staff report to City Council provided an in-depth look at all-electric ordinances (see Attachment 1). During the September 28 meeting, Council members asked staff to provide additional information regarding the range of ordinance types, example ordinance, feasibility, and power grid capacity. 565
2 DISCUSSION:
Types of Reach Codes
Local jurisdictions have adopted two types of reach codes:
Prescriptive codes, which require one or more specific energy efficiency measures; and Performance codes, which require buildings perform more efficiently based on accepted computer modelling and allow trade-offs between energy efficiency measures.
Additionally, some related codes do notspecifically require increased energy efficiency, but they may cause less energy to be used or they may increase the likelihood of electrification and therefore reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Examples of this type of code are requiring EV charging stations or requiring a home energy audit.
Table 1 - Prescriptive & Performance Reach Codes
Reach Code Type Examples
Prescriptive Banning new natural gas infrastructure;
Requiring all-electric power source for new construction in most common occupancy types;
Requiring all-electric power source for new construction and substantial remodels.
See Attachment 2: All-Electric Model Reach Code
Performance Fuel-Neutral Reach Code requiring stricter energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy storage requirements for newly constructed buildings regardless of energy power source (electricity and natural gas OR electricity only). All new mixed-fuel buildings must comply with stricter performance standards or prescriptive requirements such as being all-electric.
See Attachment 3: Electric-Preferred Model Reach Code
Local jurisdictions have adopted a variety of reach codes for the current (2019) three-year code cycle which took effect January 1, 2020. These adopted reach codes include performance-based “FuelNeutral” ordinances (such as those adopted by the cities of San Rafael and Albany), which require new buildings comply with greater energy performance levels regardless of building power source.
The “Electric Preferred” ordinance adopted by Marin County requires only mixed-fuel buildings comply with greater energy performance levels to offset the effects of continued natural gas use. Some prescriptive “All-Electric” reach codes, such as that adopted by the City of Campbell, ban natural gas for specific appliance uses such as water and space heating while still allowing gas for fireplaces and cooking. The cities of Petaluma and Berkeley have adopted “Gas Ban” or “All-Electric” ordinances whereby no new gas lines or hookups are allowed in certain new construction.
As of September 2021, 49 local justifications in California had adopted reach codes to reduce their reliance on natural gas and improve energy efficiency (see Attachment 4). On February 18, 2020, Richmond was the first city in Contra Costa County to adopt a reach code banning natural gas for 566
3 space/water heating and cloth dryers in new single-family and low-rise multifamily units. Richmond is currently working on an update to its reach codes to make it more stringent in anticipation of the upcoming Title 24 update. On December 14, 2021, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted to waive the first reading and set a date of January 18, 2022, for a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amending the County’s building code to require all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings to be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure (see Attachment 5).
Figure 1- Adopted Reach Codes
Feasibility of All-Electric Ordinance
The feasibility of switching to all-electric energy sources compared to the current hybrid model of gas and electric power depend on the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, battery storage, and improving efficiencies. Starting with the 2019 Title 24 update, all new single-family and low-rise multi-family buildings are required to install PV systems that cover the projected annual electrical usage. With the 2022 Title 24 update, current solar requirements will be coupled with PV battery storage to increase the availability of energy when needed at night and on cloudy/smoky days.
Additionally, starting in 2023, new high-rise multifamily units, hotels-motels, schools, and commercial buildings will also be required to install PV and battery systems. The solar systems must also be sized to provide for the full annual energy usage of the building, based on the floor area of the building and climate zone where the building is located. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the PV mandate, like a property being too shaded or having too small a roof to install solar panels.
Local weather patterns impact how much energy a building consumes and accordingly the amount of energy certain measures may save. Provisions in the California Energy Code account for climate variation by dividing the state into sixteen climate zones. Hercules contains two climate zones: 91.8% 567
4 of the existing building stock is located in Climate Zone 3, and 8.2% is located in Climate Zone 12.1 Cost effectiveness studies model energy performance using weather patterns from each climate zone to better approximate energy savings and therefore cost-effectiveness in each climate zone. The California Energy Codes & Standards Study (Attachment 6) contains the full methodology, assumptions and building prototypes used in the low-rise residential cost-effectiveness studies. Cost effectiveness studies analyze two different metrics (utility bill impacts and time-dependent valuation) to assess cost-effectiveness in newly constructed residential buildings. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the way they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use.
Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration, accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation.
Time-Dependent Valuation (TDV): This methodology is intended to capture the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. The Energy Commission uses this methodology in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.
The cost-effectiveness study measures the benefit-to-cost ratio of multiple energy saving measures over a 30-year time frame, taking into account future savings, costs, and financing of incremental first costs. Energy efficiencies studied include but are not limited to cool roofs, slab insulation, wall & attic insulation, and HVAC duct measures. Results are presented as On-Bill benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio or Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) B/C ratio. A value equal to one is equivalent to the incremental cost and a value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The tables below show the results from the Cost-Effectiveness report for new low-rise single-family homes and multi-family units in Hercules. The City of Hercules Climate Zone 3 cost-effectiveness study also provides calculations for new and existing office, retail, and hotel buildings (see Attachment 7).
1 Climate Zone 3 is typified by hot dry summers and warm winters (distinct wet and dry seasons; low rainfall and low humidity; no extreme cold but can be cool in winter; hot to very hot summers common; significant diurnal temperature range). Climate Zone 12 experiences cooler winters and hotter summers than Climate Zone 3, with some lower areas receiving frost on winter nights. 568
5 Table 2 – Benefit-to-Cost Ratios of Energy Options for New Single-Family Homes in Hercules Table 3 – Benefit-to-Cost Ratios of Energy Options for New Low-Rise Multifamily Units in Hercules
Package B/C TDV B/C
High-Efficiency Appliances 1.73 1.58
EE + PV 2.43 1.73
EE + PV + Battery 1.32 1.64
Electrification 0.58 1.46
Electrification + EE + PV 4.18 ∞
Electrification + PV (neutral cost) ∞ ∞
The following Energy Efficiencies (EE) were included as part of the climate zone 3 new single-family home packages: verified low-leakage ducts in condition spaces, R-10 perimeter slab insulation, basic compact hot water distribution design credit, 0.35 cfm (cubic feet per minute) HVAC system, minimum code compliant PV, and 5-kWh battery storage. No Energy Efficiency packages alone were found to be cost-effective and therefore not included for multifamily units. The only package which did not show a positive On-Bill ratio was the Electrification package which compares a 2019 code compliant all-electric home with a 2019 code compliant mixed-fuel home, and does not include improved efficiencies, HE appliances, increased PV scaling, or battery storage.
The cost-effectiveness study for climate zones 3 and 12 show reach codes requiring all-electric fuel in new construction would result in a positive return on investment in nearly all new residential and nonresidential construction in Hercules. Furthermore, requiring new construction to be electric-ready as the new 2022 Title 24 update proposes would likely make mixed-fuel buildings more costly to build as they require the added cost of gas lines.
Power Grid Capacity
According to a 2019 study by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., 4 the California grid is a
summer peaking system, with peak electricity demand driven by residential and commercial air conditioning. This means that the summer peak load is used to plan systemwide capacity additions and investments. Residential and commercial building electrification will lead to an increase in winter
2 Ratios listed “∞” indicate cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings; upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.
3 The cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home ("Electrification" package) is invested in a larger PV system, sized to result in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach, relative to a mixed-fuel home. 4 Residential Building Electrification in California:
https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Package B/C TDV B/C
Energy Efficiency (EE) 2.60 2.36
High-Efficiency Appliances 1.76 1.62
EE + PV 2.22 1.68
EE + PV + Battery 1.50 1.58
Electrification 0.55 1.53
Electrification + EE + PV 2.88 ∞
2 Electrification + PV (neutral cost)3 ∞ ∞
569
6 electricity demand across all climate zones. However, as the study suggests, even in a relatively high residential building electrification future, buildings’ contribution to statewide winter electricity demand is likely to remain lower than the residential summer peak demand levels. Currently, most natural gas consumption is attributed to water and space heating in the home, which generally increase in the winter months during off-peak electricity demand.
Without additional energy efficiency measures, widespread use of electric space and water heating could increase California’s overall electricity use by approximately 19 percent. However, when coupled with energy efficiencies, PV systems, and batteries (as required by the energy code), those grid impacts would be reduced. In California, space heating accounts for 40 percent of natural gas use in residential and commercial buildings combined. Electric heat pumps are an energy-efficient heating and cooling system that can heat buildings by moving heat from outdoors to indoors (during winter) and cool buildings by moving heat from indoors to outdoors (during summer). Similarly, induction cooktops, heat pump electric clothes dryers, and electric water heat pumps and solar hot water heaters are high efficiency and reduce the impact of increased electric grid use.
Furthermore, a 2018 Synapse Energy Economics5study that modeled the impacts of building electrification scenarios on the grid in the winter and summer, confirmed that California’s electricity infrastructure is well equipped for electrification and that the new winter demand from space and water heating needs would remain below the summer peak demand. Northern California PG&E customers (including Hercules) consume the majority of natural gas in the state. Under an “unmanaged” scenario in which 50 percent of the natural gas used in new and existing building is converted to electric for space and water heating, PG&E’s winter peak loads would begin to surpass summer peak loads as shown in Figure 4. Converting 50 percent of buildings to electric space and water heating will be a slow process with natural gas currently accounting for 86 percent of space heating and 90 percent of water heating in residential buildings. Similarly, natural gas is used to heat water in 95 percent of commercial buildings and for 80 percent of space heating in Northern California. Nonetheless, according to the Synapse study, if PG&E becomes a winter-peaking utility in the future, it is unlikely to require additional generation supply but could require additional transmission and distribution upgrades to serve load in its territory.
5 Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings:
https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf 570
7 Figure 2 – PG&E electrification impacts in a 50% building electrification scenario During the summer months, electrification will result in relatively minor additional load from water heating, but very little additional load from space heating. The graphs below depict the expected hourly load shapes from water and space heating on a peak summer day and a peak winter day.
Figure 3 - Residential peak summer and winter space and water heating The graphs indicate that water heating load is highest during the morning and late evening hours.
Electric water heating in the summer would likely draw energy form the grid. However, a portion of 571
8 the load could be shifted to off peak hours through time-of-use rates and through water heaters’ ability to heat water during off-peak hours and store it for use during peak hours.
With increased Title 24 energy efficiency standards for 2022, including heat pump technology use for space and water heating, PV systems and batteries sized to provide the total electricity usage of a home, all electric newly constructed buildings would likely have minimal impact on the summer and winter grid demand.
Direction to Staff
As described above, reach codes can be either prescriptive codes, which require one or more specific energy efficiency measures, or performance codes, which require buildings perform more efficiently through a variety of optional measures regardless of fuel source. Performance reach codes require energy modeling to craft policies which exceed minimum building energy performance by a certain percentage and are generally more complicated to develop and enforce. The prescriptive and performance approaches can also be combined as a hybrid reach code.
Staff is requesting the Council provide direction on the following:
1. Does the Council wish to adopt a building decarbonization ordinance (Electrification Ordinance)?
2. If so, does the Council wish to adopt by reference the County’s pending ordinance, or adopt an ordinance of its own?
3. If the latter, does Council prefer a prescriptive or a performance-based ordinance?
4. What projects would be subject to the ordinance?
o New single-family residential
o New multi-family residential
o New accessory dwelling units
o New commercial buildings
o Substantial remodel of existing buildings
5. Will any exceptions be allowed?
o Affordable housing projects
o Cooking appliances (commercial and/or residential)
o Outdoor fireplaces/pits and grills
o Medical
o Laboratories
o Emergency facilities
6. When will the ordinance take effect?
o Immediately upon approval, which effects the current 2019 building code o With the 2022 update which takes effect January 1, 2023 572
9 ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report to the City Council – September 28, 2021
2. All-Electric Model Reach Code
3. Electric-Preferred Model Reach Code
4. 2019 Code-cycle adopted reach codes
5. Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2022-02 All-Electric Buildings
6. California Energy Codes & Standards Study
7. Summary Cost-Effectiveness results for Hercules Climate Zone 3 573
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02
ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE TO
REQUIRE CERTAIN NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS TO BE ALL-ELECTRIC
BUILDINGS
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adopts and amends the 2019 California Energy Code to require all newly constructed residential buildings, hotels, offices, and retail buildings to be constructed as all-electric buildings without natural gas infrastructure. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17922, 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5, Public Resources Code section 25402.1(h)(2), and Government Code sections 50020 through 50022.10.
SECTION II. Section 74-2.002 (Adoption) of Division 74 (Building Code) of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
74-2.002 Adoption.
(a) The building code of this county is the 2019 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2), the 2019 California Residential Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5), the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), the 2019 California Existing Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 10), and the 2019 Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this division and Division 72. (b) The 2019 California Building Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division.
(c) The 2019 California Residential Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division.
(d) The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division.
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02
1 574
(e) The 2019 California Existing Building Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division.
(f) The 2019 California Energy Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in Chapter 74-4 and Division 72, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth in this division.
(g) At least one copy of this building code is now on file with the building inspection division, and the other requirements of Government Code section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.
(h) As of the effective date of the ordinance from which this division is derived, the provisions of the building code are controlling and enforceable within the county. (Ords. 2022-02 § 2, 2019-31 § 2, 2016-22 § 2, 2013-24 § 2, 2011-03 § 2, 2007-54 §3, 2002-31 § 3, 99-17 § 5, 99-1, 90-100 § 5, 87-55 § 4, 80-14 § 5, 74-30.) SECTION III. Section 74.4.010 (Amendments to CEnC) is added to Chapter 74-4 (Modifications) of Division 74 (Building Code) of the County Ordinance Code, to read:
74-4.010 Amendments to CEnC. The 2019 California Energy Code ("CEnC") is amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and Division 72. Section numbers used below are those of the 2019 California Energy Code. (a) Section 100.0(e)(2)(A) of CEnC Subchapter 1 (All Occupancies - General Provisions) is amended to read:
A. All newly constructed buildings.
i. Sections 110.0 through 110.12 apply to all newly constructed buildings within the scope of Section 100.0(a). In addition, newly constructed buildings shall meet the requirements of Subsection B, C, D, or E, as applicable.
ii. A newly constructed building that is any of the following building types shall be an all-electric building:
a. Residential.
b. Detached accessory dwelling unit.
c. Hotel.
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02
2 575
d. Office.
e. Retail.
Exception to Section 100.0(e)(2)(A)(ii): Development projects that have obtained vested rights before the effective date of this subsection (ii) or June 1, 2022, whichever is later, pursuant to a development agreement in accordance with Government Code section 65866, a vesting tentative map in accordance with Government Code section 66998.1, or other applicable law, are exempt for the requirements of Section 100.0(e)(2)(A)(ii). (b) Section 100.1(b) (Definitions) of CEnC Subchapter 1 (All Occupancies - General Provisions) is amended by adding the following definition:
ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING means a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building, and that uses electricity as the sole source of energy for its space heating (including heating of all indoor and outdoor spaces of the building), water heating (including heating of indoor and outdoor pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. An all-electric building may utilize solar thermal pool heating. (Ord. 2022-02 § 3.)
SECTION IV. VALIDITY. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors declares that if any section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this ordinance or of the 2019 California Energy Code as adopted and amended herein is declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors that it would have passed all other portions or provisions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom any portion or provision as may be declared invalid.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective, but not operative, upon approval by the California Energy Commission or 30 days after passage, whichever is later. This ordinance will become operative on the effective date of this ordinance or June 1, 2022, whichever is later. Within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once in the East Bay Times, a newspaper published in this County. \\\
\\\
\\\
\\\
\\\
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02
3 576
PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: MONICA NINO, _____________________________
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair
and County Administrator
By: ______________________ [SEAL]
Deputy
KCK:
H:\Client Matters\2021\DCD\Ordinance No. 2022-02 All-Electric Buildings.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02
4 577
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 8, 2022
TO: Mayor Kelley and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Polling Results Related to Extending the Existing Utility Users Tax and the Viability of Becoming a Charter City for the Limited Purpose of Increasing the Real Estate Property Transfer Tax RECOMMENDATION ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive the report from the Lew Edwards Group and direct staff to proceed with planning for the placement of the Utility Users Tax measure on the City’s regularly scheduled Municipal Election in November of 2022, or
2. Provide alternate direction
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to receiving this report. Based on the Council’s direction, staff will return to the Council to request additional funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In October of 2021, the City awarded a contract to the Lew Edwards Group, and FM3 Research to determine the public opinion of registered voters regarding 1) the feasibility of going to the voters in November 2022 or November 2024 to extend the existing Utility Users Tax (UUT) prior to its expiration on January 1, 2025, and 2) the viability of becoming a charter city for the limited purpose of increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). 578
Lew Edwards and FM3 Research have completed the public opinion survey and will be making a presentation about their findings and recommendations related to the UUT and RTTP initiatives (ATTACHMENT 1).
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
At its May 25th, 2021 meeting, the Council engaged in a discussion regarding the feasibility of becoming a charter city for the limited purpose of increasing the real Property Transfer Tax, the Council requested that the Charter City/RPTT item come back for additional discussion and further directed that a companion report be prepared regarding the need to extend the UUT which will otherwise expire on January 1, 2025.
The City of Hercules relies on the UUT to provide sufficient ongoing revenues to sustain current levels of service. The UUT sunsets January 1, 2025 and is estimated to generate a projected $ 3.5 million in revenue in the fiscal year which ends June 30, 2022. Without these revenues, the city would not be in the position to continue to provide the services important to our community even at the current reduced level. While there has been some improvement in revenues overall, Hercules still receives a low share of the property taxes compared to other cities in Contra Costa County, and its retail tax base while largely weathering the effects of Covid-19 is not significant enough to support current service levels without the UUT.
Attachments:
1. Summary Report of January 2022 Community Survey Result
2. January 2022 Community Opinion Survey Questions
3. November 9, 2021 Staff Report – Lew Edwards Group award of contract
4. Resolution
5. Election Opinion Poll Services
579
To: Hercules City Manager Dante Hall
From: Lew Edwards Group and FM3 Research
Date: February 4, 2022
Re: Summary Report of January 2022 Community Survey Results
INTRODUCTION
Together with City Executive Staff, Lew Edwards Group (LEG) and FM3 Research (FM3) designed an updated 2022 City of Hercules Community Survey to evaluate customer satisfaction, resident priorities for services, and community interest in potential local funding measures.
Survey interviews were conducted by FM3 January 3-17th. LEG/FM3 is pleased to report 324 completed interviews, which is more than the 245 respondents willing to respond in the last survey conducted in the City in 2015. The Margin of Error on the full sample is +/- 5.4% at the 95% confidence level.
VIEWS OF THE CITY
Having served the City’s sustainability needs over the course of the past decade, LEG/FM3 have a unique view on how resident perspectives have evolved over time. 2022 survey respondents clearly view life in Hercules through a more positive lens. Today, those who say things are off on the wrong track are at a record low, and 56% of respondents feel the City is headed in the “right direction” -- a 25 point increase from when we started our collaboration with the City in 2012.
A majority of respondents feel the City is doing an “excellent” or “good” job providing services, and a plurality believe the City is doing a good job managing its budget and finances. At the same time, perceptions of city inefficiency and corruption have continued to steadily decline since 2012, with perceptions of corruption, cronyism, waste, or inefficiency dropping from a high of 63% in 2012 to 24% today.
While confidence has softened since our 2015 collaboration, it is still stronger than many other cities are currently experiencing and is likely due to the uncertain COVID times. This is a testament to City leadership’s hard work during these trying times.
580
MEASURE VIABILITIES
There were three measures evaluated in the 2022 study.
Renewal of Existing Voter-Approved UUT, with No Increase in Tax Rate The City is in a strong position to renew its existing, voter-approved utility users tax (UUT) measure in November 2022. The following ballot question (reviewed and approved by the City Attorney) was tested three times in the study:
CITY OF HERCULES NO TAX INCREASE/FINANCIAL STABILITY MEASURE: Shall an ordinance to maintain Hercules’ long-term financial stability and essential city services, such as neighborhood police patrols; crime prevention; street and pothole repair; and youth and senior programs, by renewing an existing, voter-approved 8% utility users’ tax, generating approximately $3,600,000 annually until ended by voters, with no tax increase, low-income exemptions, independent citizens’ oversight, annual audits, and funding that cannot be taken by Sacramento, be adopted? This simple majority requirement measure begins with a 67% viability threshold on the first ballot test, stays consistent at 69% on the second test, and remains at 66% on the final, third ballot test. As there is no statistical difference in these percentages, this measure is strongly supported by respondents and remains remarkably consistent through the entire progression of the survey.
Based on this evaluation, LEG/FM3 recommend the City proceed with planning for placement of this measure on the City’s regularly scheduled Municipal Election.
City Charter Measure
Each of the two following measures were tested once in the study:
CITY OF HERCULES CITY CHARTER/LOCAL CONTROL MEASURE. To enhance local control over funding essential city services, shall the City of Hercules Charter be adopted to establish Hercules as a Charter City with the ability to adopt a local real property transfer tax, subject to voter approval? The City Council’s powers otherwise remain unchanged and are limited by State general law, and any other powers as a charter city would have to be approved by voters. Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure?
This simple majority-requirement Charter measure receives 39% support. While this percentage is not unusual for other LEG cities who have enacted similar measures, it bears noting that in Hercules's case, the percentage opposition to this measure is also 39%, which is far higher than in our other successful cities. The percentage of undecideds are therefore much lower in Hercules (around 20%) than in other successful jurisdictions.
581
Based on the community’s current reaction to this measure LEG/FM3 advise a longer runway of preparation for the 2024 election cycle to provide time for the City to educate the community about this measure concept if desired.
Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) Measure
The following companion revenue measure to the Charter Measure was also tested once in the survey:
CITY OF HERCULES ESSENTIAL SERVICES PROTECTION MEASURE. Shall an ordinance to expand locally controlled funding for essential city services such as improving 911 response times, disaster preparedness/ safe routes to school; retaining/ attracting businesses; keeping public areas/ parks safe/ clean; by enacting a real property transfer tax (paid only by buyers and sellers of property at the time of sale), until ended by voters and requiring annual audits, no funds for Sacramento, be adopted?
The test of this simple majority-requirement companion RPTT measure is at 53% which is within the MOE for the survey. As this type of funding mechanism is reliant on the companion Charter Measure being adopted, as noted above, deferring consideration of this measure package until 2024 is strongly advised due to the relatively low scoring reactions to both at this time.
TOP SCORING COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
An extensive battery of City services/objectives was evaluated in the study. The following seven services/objectives scored the most intensively and highly:
▪ Maintaining long-term financial stability - 88%
▪ Preventing funds being taken by Sacramento - 87%
▪ Meeting water quality health standards - 86%
▪ Maintaining fiscal accountability - 86%
▪ Maintaining 911 response times - 85%
▪ Keeping public areas and parks safe and clean - 84%
▪ Keeping funds local - 81%
INFORMATIONAL STATEMENTS
The following paraphrased informational facts resonated most strongly and effectively with survey respondents.
Budget Implications: Without this funding, the City will lose $3.6 million every year, which is over 20% of the City's budget. The City may have no choice but to slash basic city services just to balance its budget, including police and neighborhood patrols, street maintenance, parks, senior services, youth programs, economic development, and others.
582
Maintaining Local Public Safety Services: Measure C has maintained police services. If it is not renewed, the City will be forced to seriously consider major cuts to our police department, which could impact crime prevention and 911 response times.
Quality of Life: Hercules is a place where people desire to live and raise families. If the City is forced to continue cutting basic city services, the character of our community and its quality of life will decline. Renewing local funding helps protect and maintain essential City services that make our community a safe, well-maintained place to live.
Finally, it bears noting that the study found that virtually half of Hercules respondents were concerned about the amount they were paying in utilities -- viewing it as an “extremely” or “very” serious problem. In these uncertain COVID times LEG/FM3 would caution the City about overreaching to consider any increase or changes to the actual UUT rate. These results show your constituents clearly value maintaining existing voter-approved funding for the City’s long-term fiscal stability with no tax rate increase, but do not speak to the viability of a potential increase in the rate.
RECOMMENDATIONS/NEXT STEPS
Educating and engaging your residents around the City’s budget, service needs and local priorities is vital to maintaining measure viability. LEG/FM3 recommend the City educate and engage the community during the upcoming budget process to collect more input and keep the public updated on your challenges.
As in past collaborations with the City, LEG’s recommended Public Information toolkit will include the following:
▪ Informational Speakers’ Bureau: City staff should visit those organizations in-person or through their scheduled online meetings to solicit feedback and provide information, which was highly effective and well-received by the community in past collaborations. ▪ Opinion Leader Communications and Outreach: Communicating the results of this survey provides the City with an opportunity to engage opinion leaders and expand the conversation with high-level leaders.
▪ Website/Newsletters/Social Media: Facts and information about the City’s financial condition should be placed on the City’s website, Facebook Page and Twitter feed. LEG will be recommending an E-Update & Social Media Plan to engage the public, get more feedback, and provide information.
▪ Media Response & Earned Media: Any opportunity to respond to the media should be treated with high importance and an opportunity to share information with the community. ▪ City Newsletter: Producing and mailing printed City Newsletters are recommended to engage and inform the Community about City service needs and priorities. While the Speakers’ 583
Bureau and Opinion Leader letters are extremely effective forms of communication, direct mail remains one essential component of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary communications plan especially for seniors.
▪ Citizens Advisory Committee engagement: In LEG/FM3’s past collaborations with the City, the Hercules Citizens Advisory Committee has always been involved as a highly credible community messenger, and we look forward to collaborating with the Committee again.
THUMBNAIL TIMELINE IF PREPARING FOR A NOVEMBER 2022 PLACEMENT LEG/FM3 are looking forward to finalizing a graph presentation of Community Survey highlights for presentation to the City Council on February 8th. The following is a thumbnail outline of the timetable and key activities if planning for a November 2022 measure:
February – May: Update City Council, authorize continued project planning Engage Influentials and Community at Large
Solicit additional community feedback, report back to public Utilize budget consideration/adoption engagement and
messaging opportunities
June – July: Prepare ballot measure documents
Place measure on Municipal Election ballot
August – November: Submit ballot measure documents to County ROV Develop Municipal Election Communications Toolkit
Provide Municipal Election/Measure Information to public Thank the community for participating
November – December: Evaluate 2022 activities
If desired, commence assessment, planning and engagement for charter/RPTT activities
584
DECEMBER 22, 2021
CITY OF HERCULES COMMUNITY ISSUES AND BUDGET PRIORITY
SURVEY
220-6254
FINAL
A/B SPLITS
CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
Hello, I'm ___________ from ________, a public opinion research company. I am definitely NOT trying to sell you anything. We are conducting an opinion survey about issues that interest people living in Hercules, and we are only interested in your opinions. May I speak to ______________? (YOU MUST SPEAK TO THE VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE. IF NOT AVAILABLE, ASK WHEN IT WOULD BE CONVENIENT TO CALL AGAIN.) (IF RESPONDENT REPLIES IN SPANISH OR DESIRES TO SPEAK IN SPANISH,
FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE FOR HANDING OFF TO A BILINGUAL INTERVIEWER.)
(ONLY ASKED ON TELELPHONE)
A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? Yes, cell and can talk safely ------------------------------------------------------ 1 Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ----------------------------------TERMINATE No, not on cell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED--------------------------TERMINATE (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
1. (T) Next, would you say that things in the City of Hercules are generally headed in the right direction or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?
Right direction---------------------------------- 1
Wrong track------------------------------------- 2
(DON’T KNOW/NA) ------------------------ 3
2. (T) In your personal opinion, do you think there is a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to provide the level of city services that residents of the City of Hercules need and want?
Great need--------------------------------------- 1
Some need--------------------------------------- 2
A little need ------------------------------------- 3
No real need ------------------------------------ 4
(DON’T KNOW/NA) ------------------------ 5
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT A POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE HERCULES IS CONSIDERING FOR A FUTURE ELECTION.
585
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 2
3. It may read as follows:
CITY OF HERCULES NO TAX INCREASE/FINANCIAL STABILITY MEASURE:
Shall an ordinance to maintain Hercules’ long-term financial stability and essential city services, such as neighborhood police patrols; crime prevention; street and pothole repair; and youth and senior programs, by renewing an existing, voter-approved 8% utility users’ tax, generating approximately $3,600,000 annually until ended by voters, with no tax increase, low-income exemptions, independent citizens’ oversight, annual audits, and funding that cannot be taken by Sacramento, be adopted? Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably YES/NO?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
Definitely yes----------------------------------- 1
Probably yes ------------------------------------ 2
Undecided, lean yes --------------------------- 3
Undecided, lean no ---------------------------- 4
Probably no ------------------------------------- 5
Definitely no ------------------------------------ 6
(DON’T READ) DK/NA -------------------- 7
NOW I AM GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME GENERAL ISSUES FACING THE CITY OF HERCULES.
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
4. (T) First, how would you rate the overall job being done by the current Hercules city government in providing services to the City’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an excellent job, a good job, an only fair job, or a poor job at providing services to City residents? Excellent----------------------------------------- 1
Good --------------------------------------------- 2
Just fair ------------------------------------------ 3
Poor ---------------------------------------------- 4
(DON’T KNOW/NA) ------------------------ 5
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
5. (T) Next, how would you rate the job being done by the current Hercules city government in managing the City’s budget and finances? Would you say the City is doing an excellent job, a good job, an only fair job, or a poor job in managing the City’s budget and finances? Excellent----------------------------------------- 1
Good --------------------------------------------- 2
Just fair ------------------------------------------ 3
Poor ---------------------------------------------- 4
(DON’T KNOW/NA) ------------------------ 5
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
6. Next, I'd like to read you a list of issues that some people say may be local problems. For each one I read, please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem in the City of Hercules. (RANDOMIZE) 586
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 3
EXT VERY SMWT NOT TOO
SER SER SER SER
PROB PROB PROB PROB (DK/NA)
[ ]a. The amount you pay in utilities---------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]b. (T) The amount people pay in local taxes --------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]c. Increase in property crimes like burglaries and
car thefts -----------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]d. The number of homeless residents in Hercules --------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]e. (T) Budget shortfalls in Hercules city
government --------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]f. (T) Too much cronyism and nepotism in City
government --------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]g. (T) A lack of transparency in city government---------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]h. The cost of living -------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]i. (T) The condition of the local economy-----------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]j. (T) Crime in general ---------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]k. (T) Potholes and deteriorating streets -------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]l. (T) Waste and inefficiency in city government --------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]m. (T) Corruption in City government ----------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]n. (T) Insufficient city services to maintain a
good quality of life -----------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]o. The cost of housing-----------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]p. Traffic congestion on local freeways and
highways-----------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 587
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 4
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO RETURN TO THE LOCAL BALLOT MEASURE WE DISCUSSED EARLIER.
7. First, I am going to read you a list of ways in which funds generated by a ballot measure could be spent.
After I read each one, please tell me how important that item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE) NOT
EXT VERY SMWT TOO
IMPT IMPT IMPT IMPT (DK/NA)
[ ]a. (T) Protecting and maintaining essential City
services-------------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]a. (T) Maintaining the number of police officers
patrolling neighborhood streets---------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]b. (T*) Maintaining 9-1-1 police response times ---------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]c. Keeping public areas and parks healthy, safe
and clean -----------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]d. (T*) Retaining and attracting local businesses---------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]e. Responding to public nuisances -------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 (ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]f. Maintaining crime prevention programs ----------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]g. Maintaining parks ------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]h. Maintaining park restrooms and sports fields ----------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]i. Repairing streets and roads--------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]j. Improving crosswalk safety for disabled
residents------------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]k. (T) Meeting local water quality health
standards-----------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]l. (T) Keeping the senior center open ----------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]m. (T) Maintaining youth programs-------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]n. (T*) Maintaining fiscal accountability ------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]o. (T) Preventing funds from being taken by
Sacramento --------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]p. Reducing traffic congestion by completing the
bus, train, and ferry service planned for the
Hercules Waterfront----------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 588
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 5
NOT
EXT VERY SMWT TOO
IMPT IMPT IMPT IMPT (DK/NA)
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]q. (T) Preventing cuts to police services -------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]r. Upgrading park facilities ----------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]s. Maintaining clean drinking water fountains at
parks----------------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]t. Repairing broken and deteriorating sidewalks ---------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]u. Improving safe routes to school --------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]v. Maintaining safe places for children to play------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]w. (T*) Maintaining senior programs-----------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]x. (T) Maintaining after-school programs -----------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]y. (T*) Maintaining the City’s long-term
financial stability -------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]z. Keeping funds local ----------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]aa. Bringing back suspended annual festivals,
concerts and special events such as the
Cultural Festival, Fourth of July Parade, and
fireworks-----------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
NOW I AM GOING TO READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THIS CITY OF HERCULES SERVICES PROTECTION MEASURE.
8. First, I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure we have been discussing. After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to support this measure on a future ballot. If you do not believe the statement, you can tell me that instead. (RANDOMIZE)
VERY SMWT NOT DON'T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
[ ]a. (T*) (NO TAX INCREASE) This measure
does not create a new tax nor increase utility
rates in any way. It simply renews the existing
utilities tax, which has been previously passed
twice by majorities of Hercules voters.------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]b. (T*) (ACCOUNTABILITY) In recent years,
Hercules has continued to demonstrate its
commitment to transparency and public
oversight. The City has passed an antinepotism measure and formed a permanent citizen Finance Commission to ensure that the
public has regular oversight on the City’s
budget and spending decisions.---------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 589
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 6
VERY SMWT NOT DON'T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]c. (T*) (KEEP POLICE DEPARTMENT)
With the help of local voters who passed this
measure in the past, Hercules was able to
maintain police services and not cut public
safety any further. However, if it is not
renewed, the City will be forced to seriously
consider major cuts to our police department,
which could impact crime prevention and 9-1-
1 response times.--------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]d. (T*) (MOMENTUM - GENERAL) Many of
us remember when Hercules City government
was corrupted and nearly driven to bankruptcy
by previous administrations. Over the past
decade, new City administrations and Councils
avoided bankruptcy, reduced a nine-milliondollar deficit, took steps to improve fiscal and government transparency, and helped restore
confidence and trust. Voters approved this
measure twice before and should do so again
to continue this positive momentum. --------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]e. (ECONOMY) COVID has had a significant
impact in our economy. We have seen in the
past that we cannot count on the state or
federal government to take care of our needs.
Renewing this funding ensures we continue to
have local money for Hercules to help protect
small businesses that provide local jobs and to
foster our partnerships with local organizations
that provide essential services to our
community—all of which is needed to restart
our local economy. -----------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]f. (YOUTH) The City’s after-school and
summer programs give thousands of kids a
place to go in their free time. They are a
proven way of keeping youth out of trouble
and away from gangs and drugs. Renewing
this funding will maintain and improve afterschool programs for youth and help maintain our parks clean and safe, to keep our
community and our kids safe.-----------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 590
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 7
VERY SMWT NOT DON'T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]g. (MAINTAIN POLICE SERVICES)
Renewing this local funding will help keep
Hercules safe. It will provide money to
maintain neighborhood police patrols,
continue investments in crime prevention
programs, and maintain police 9-1-1 response
times at a time when other parts of the Bay
Area are struggling with rising crime.-------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]h. (BUDGET CUTS) If voters do not renew this
funding, the City will lose $3.6 million every
year, which is over 20% of the City’s budget.
This means the City will have no choice but to
slash basic city services just to balance its
budget and be forced to cut essential city
services that may include police and
neighborhood patrols, street maintenance,
parks, senior services, youth programs,
economic development and others. ----------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]i. (T) (QUALITY OF LIFE) Hercules is a
place where people desire to live and raise
families. However, if we are forced to
continue cutting basic city services, the
character of our community and its quality of
life will decline. Renewing this local funding
will help protect and maintain essential City
services that make our community a safe, wellmaintained place to live.-----------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]j. (INFRASTRUCTURE) While most of the
City’s infrastructure is well-maintained,
continued local funding is still needed to help
replace outdated, unsafe park equipment and
facilities, and repair deteriorating sidewalks.-----------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 591
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 8
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
9. Now that you have heard more about it, I would like to ask you again about the CITY OF HERCULES NO TAX INCREASE/FINANCIAL STABILITY MEASURE which would maintain Hercules’ longterm financial stability and essential city services, such as neighborhood police patrols; crime prevention; street and pothole repair; and youth and senior programs, by renewing an existing, voter-approved eight percent utility users’ tax.
Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably YES/NO?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
Definitely yes----------------------------------- 1
Probably yes ------------------------------------ 2
Undecided, lean yes --------------------------- 3
Undecided, lean no ---------------------------- 4
Probably no ------------------------------------- 5
Definitely no ------------------------------------ 6
(DON’T READ) DK/NA -------------------- 7
592
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 9
10. Next, I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose the measure we have been discussing. After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose this measure on a future ballot. If you do not believe the statement, you can tell me that instead. (RANDOMIZE)
VERY SMWT NOT DON'T
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA)
[ ]a. (COVID) Our region’s economy has not yet
bounced back from the challenges of COVID19. Many local businesses are struggling to stay open, while many residents are having
trouble finding a job, and paying their rent or
mortgage. We cannot continue to afford
paying these high taxes. -----------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]b. (T) (NO SUNSET) We were promised that
this tax would be temporary to help the City
get through a fiscal emergency. Now they
want to make it permanent. We should vote
“no” on any “forever” tax because we just
can’t trust the City. ----------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]c. (T*) (GOVERNMENT DISTRUST) For
years, the City of Hercules has borrowed more
than it could pay back, spent more money than
it has taken in and has been sued in the past
because the City can’t pay its bills. In the past,
top City officials misappropriated funds and
wasted taxpayer dollars on expensive
consultants and personal home loans. The City
of Hercules cannot be trusted with additional
tax dollars. --------------------------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 [ ]d. (TOO MANY TAXES) Californians are
being taxed more than enough, and the cost of
living is out of control. We simply cannot
afford any additional taxes. -------------------------------1--------- 2 -------- 3 ---------4--------- 5 593
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 10
11. Sometimes over the course of a survey like this people change their minds. Let me ask you one more time about the CITY OF HERCULES NO TAX INCREASE/FINANCIAL STABILITY MEASURE which would maintain Hercules’ long-term financial stability and essential city services, such as neighborhood police patrols; crime prevention; street and pothole repair; and youth and senior programs, by renewing an existing, voter-approved eight percent utility users’ tax.
Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably YES/NO?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
Definitely yes----------------------------------- 1
Probably yes ------------------------------------ 2
Undecided, lean yes --------------------------- 3
Undecided, lean no ---------------------------- 4
Probably no ------------------------------------- 5
Definitely no ------------------------------------ 6
(DON’T READ) DK/NA -------------------- 7
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURES. THESE MEASURES WOULD NOT APPEAR ON THE SAME BALLOT AS THE
MEASURE WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, BUT MAY BE ON A BALLOT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE.
(ROTATE Q12 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX AND Q13 CITY CHARTER)
12. The FIRST/SECOND measure may read as follows:
CITY OF HERCULES ESSENTIAL SERVICES PROTECTION MEASURE.
Shall an ordinance to expand locally controlled funding for essential city services such as improving 911 response times, disaster preparedness/ safe routes to school; retaining/ attracting businesses; keeping public areas/ parks safe/ clean; by enacting a real property transfer tax (paid only by buyers and sellers of property at the time of sale), until ended by voters and requiring annual audits, no funds for Sacramento, be adopted?
Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably YES/NO?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
Definitely yes----------------------------------- 1
Probably yes ------------------------------------ 2
Undecided, lean yes --------------------------- 3
Undecided, lean no ---------------------------- 4
Probably no ------------------------------------- 5
Definitely no ------------------------------------ 6
(DON’T READ) DK/NA -------------------- 7
594
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 11
(ROTATE Q12 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX AND Q13 CITY CHARTER)
13. The FIRST/SECOND measure may read as follows:
CITY OF HERCULES CITY CHARTER/LOCAL CONTROL MEASURE.
To enhance local control over funding essential city services, shall the City of Hercules Charter be adopted to establish Hercules as a Charter City with the ability to adopt a local real property transfer tax, subject to voter approval? The City Council’s powers otherwise remain unchanged and are limited by State general law, and any other powers as a charter city would have to be approved by voters.
Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably YES/NO?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
Definitely yes----------------------------------- 1
Probably yes ------------------------------------ 2
Undecided, lean yes --------------------------- 3
Undecided, lean no ---------------------------- 4
Probably no ------------------------------------- 5
Definitely no ------------------------------------ 6
(DON’T READ) DK/NA -------------------- 7
HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.
14. What was the last level of school you completed?
Less than high school-------------------------- 1
High school graduate -------------------------- 2
Vocational or technical school --------------- 3
Some college, but no degree------------------ 4
Associate degree ------------------------------- 5
Four-year college degree---------------------- 6
Graduate school -------------------------------- 7
(DON’T READ) DK/NA -------------------- 8
15. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Latino or Hispanic, White or Caucasian, Black or African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, or some other ethnic or racial background? Latino/Hispanic -------------------------------- 1
White/Caucasian ------------------------------- 2
Black/African American ---------------------- 3
Asian/Pacific Islander ------------------------- 4
Other (SPECIFY_____________)---------- 5
(DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------ 6
595
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6254-F PAGE 12
16. (T) I don’t need to know the exact amount, but I’m going to read you some categories for household income. Would you please stop me when I have read the category indicating the total combined income for all the people in your household before taxes in 2021? $25,000 and under ----------------------------- 1
$25,001 - $50,000------------------------------ 2
$50,001 - $75,000------------------------------ 3
$75,001 – $100,000---------------------------- 4
$100,000- $150,000 --------------------------- 5
$150,000 or more ------------------------------ 6
(DON'T KNOW/REFUSED)--------------- 7
(ONLINE ONLY)
X. What is your gender?
Male---------------------------------------------- 1
Female ------------------------------------------- 2
Non-binary -------------------------------------- 3
Prefer not to answer --------------------------- 4
THANK AND TERMINATE
SEX (BY OBSERVATION): Male---------------------------------------------- 1 Female ------------------------------------------- 2
LOI (BY OBSERVATION): English------------------------------------------- 1 Spanish ------------------------------------------ 2
PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ---------------------------------------- 1 Republican -------------------------------------- 2
No Party Preference --------------------------- 3
Other --------------------------------------------- 4
FLAGS
P16---------------------------------------1
G16 --------------------------------------2
P18---------------------------------------3
G18 --------------------------------------4
P20---------------------------------------5
G20 --------------------------------------6
BLANK ---------------------------------7
VOTE BY MAIL
1 ------------------------------------------1
2 ------------------------------------------2
3+ ----------------------------------------3
BLANK ---------------------------------4
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes---------------------------------------1
No --------------------------------------- 2
DATA COLLECTION MODE
Online ---------------------------------- 1
Phone ----------------------------------- 2
LIKELY JUNE 2022
Yes-------------------------------------- 1
No --------------------------------------- 2
HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE
D1 --------------------------------------- 1
D2+ ------------------------------------- 2
R1 --------------------------------------- 3
R2+ ------------------------------------- 4
596
FM3 RESEARCH 220
-6254 D3 PAGE 13
I1+ ---------------------------------------5
Mixed------------------------------------6
AGE
18-24 ------------------------------------1
25-29 ------------------------------------2
30-34 ------------------------------------3
35-39 ------------------------------------4
40-44 ------------------------------------5
45-49 ------------------------------------6
50-54 ------------------------------------7
55-59 ------------------------------------8
60-64 ------------------------------------9
65-74 ---------------------------------- 10
75+------------------------------------- 11
SPLITS A -----------------------------------------
1 B -----------------------------------------2
597
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021
TO: Mayor Kelley and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Contract to the Lew Edwards Group for Polling and Strategic Communication Services for Ballot Measures to Extend the Utility Users Tax, and the Viability of Becoming a Charter City for the Limited Purpose of Increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax RECOMMENDATION ACTION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for Election Opinion Poll Services with the Lew Edwards Group subject to the City Attorney’s review and available budget appropriations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff requests that the Council allocate an amount not to exceed $60,000 to retain the Lew Edward’s Group for Polling and Strategic Communication Services. The City Council approved sufficient funding in the current year’s adopted budget for this purpose. No additional funds are needed at this time.
EXECUTIVE SUMARRY:
The City of Hercules is interested in determining public opinion of registered voters regarding 1) the feasibility of going to the voters in November 2022 or November 2024 to extend the existing Utility Users Tax (UUT) prior to its expiration on January 1, 2025, and 2) the viability of becoming a charter city for the limited purpose of increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). To meet this objective, the City is seeking an experienced consultant with a proven track record of success assisting public agencies in passing revenue measures to conduct a pre-election opinion poll to determine the level of community support for these new revenue measures that will continue to fund capital infrastructure projects, City services and other community priorities.
On October 14th, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Election Opinion Poll Services (ATTACHMENT A). The purpose of this RFP was to retain a team of 598
consultants to conduct an opinion poll and provide strategic communication guidance to the City for the UUT and RPTT ballot measures. On October 28th, the consulting team led by the Lew Edwards Group, along with FM3 Research, submitted a proposal that is responsive to the City’s needs. Staff seeks authorization to enter a contract with the Lew Edwards Group to conduct the polling analysis and provide strategic guidance to the City.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
In May of 2021, the City Council requested staff to conduct a pre-election opinion poll to determine the level of community support for an extension of the Utility Users Tax, which will otherwise expire on January 1, 2025, and the feasibility of becoming a charter city for the limited purpose of increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax.
The City’s Utility Users Tax is a tax upon every person or entity in the City on their use of mobile telecommunications, video services (cable tv), electricity, natural gas, and water services. The tax imposed is at the rate of six percent (6%) of the charges made for such services, with an additional 2% temporary increase approved in 2013. The tax is collected from the service user by the service supplier or its billing agent.
The City of Hercules relies on the UUT to provide sufficient on-going revenues to sustain current levels of service. The UUT sunsets January 1, 2025. The UUT is estimated to generate a projected $ 3.5 million in revenue in the fiscal year which ends June 30, 2022.
Without these revenues the city would not be in the position to continue to provide the services important to our community even at the current reduced level. While there has been some improvement in revenues overall, Hercules still receives a low share of the property taxes compared to other cities in Contra Costa County, and its retail tax base while largely weathering the effects of Covid-19 is not significant enough to support current service levels without the UUT.
The consulting team led by the Lew Edwards Group and FM3 Research submitted a proposal that demonstrates their understanding of the City’s needs and scope of the project; description of past efforts to determine registered voters’ opinion regarding ballot measure topics; description of recommended approach, research methodology, recommended timeline, and work plan; management plan with a description of qualifications of the key personnel selected to lead the scope of services.
If awarded the contract, the Lew Edwards and FM3 Research will perform the following tasks related to the UUT and RTTP initiatives:
• Collaborate on this initiative with both City staff and City Council • Host an initial meeting to kick off the process with City Staff • Work with City staff to determine the content and questions for the opinion poll and recommend the methodology (phone and/or other means) to conduct the poll to maximize input received
599
• Recommend unique ways to reach all aspects of Hercules City’s diverse voter population
• Submit preliminary survey results in written form to the City • Hold an initial meeting with City staff to review the preliminary results • Submit a topline report and detailed data analysis within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the opinion poll administration
• Prepare, in coordination with City staff, a City Council presentation to be scheduled following the submittal of all written reports
• Develop a Strategic Communication Plan and recommend ongoing communications throughout the process
• Assist in developing ballot measure and ordinance language should the City move forward with the placement of a revenue ballot measure in November 2022 or 2024.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for Election Opinion Poll Services with the Lew Edwards Group.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Election Opinion Poll Services Proposal for the City of Hercules 600
HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 21-
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP AND FM3 RESEARCH FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 FOR TAX MEASURE ADVISORY WORK
WHEREAS, the City of Hercules relies on a voter approved Utility Users Tax (UUT) measures to provide sufficient on-going revenues to sustain our current reduced levels of service; and WHEREAS, the UUT measure, sunsets in January 2025; and
WHEREAS, the UUT measure is estimated to generate over $3.5 million in revenue in the fiscal year which ends June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, without the UUT Hercules would not be in the position to continue to provide the services important to our community even at our current reduced levels; and WHEREAS, Hercules still receives a low share of property taxes relative to other cities in the County, and the City’s retail tax base is not currently enough to cover the cost of providing basic services to City residents; and
WHEREAS, ongoing efforts to generate revenue through economic development and to reduce expenditures by becoming more efficient will not result in sufficient increases in revenues to replace revenues generated by the voter approved measures prior to them sun setting; and WHEREAS, the City of Hercules is a general law city and would like to explore becoming a charter city for the purpose of increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax; and WHEREAS, it is highly beneficial and advisable to engage the services of a professional consultant that specializes in public outreach and strategic planning for local revenue measures; and
WHEREAS, the consulting team comprised of Lew Edwards Group and FM3 Research was chosen by the City through a competitive interview process to provide Polling and Strategic Communications for the UUT and RPTT initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the Lew Edwards Group and was effective in successfully assisting the City with several prior ballot measures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:
601
1. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Lew Edwards Group to provide professional consulting services related to possible revenue enhancement measures for a future ballot.
2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $60,000 from the approved general fund for consultants to the City Manager.
The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 9
th day of November, 2021 by the following vote of
the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
DION BAILEY, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
LORI MARTIN, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk 602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sent via email – no hard copy to follow
January 27, 2022
Acuantia Septic
Attn: Kwame Agyare
490 Chadbourne Road, Suite A120
Fairfield, CA 94534
Sent electronically to [email protected]
Subject: Draft Report of Waste Discharge Review, Wastewater Treatment System for the Franklin Canyon Golf and RV Resort, 3100 Franklin Canyon Road, Hercules, Contra Costa County
Dear Mr. Agyare:
Acuantia Septic submitted a Draft Report of Waste Discharge dated September 2020 (Draft Report), on behalf of MRH-1 Franklin, LLC (Discharger), for Franklin Canyon Golf and RV Resort Wastewater Treatment System Project, located at 3100 Franklin Canyon Road, Hercules in Contra Costa County. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff provided comments on the Draft Report and had numerous discussions with Acuantia Septic and project representatives. A revised Draft Report was submitted in April and September 2021.
Based on our review of these submittals, we have no objections to the Project proceeding through the County land use permit process. This correspondence serves as a preliminary acceptance of the wastewater treatment system design concepts and concurrence with the feasibility of the Project to discharge to land via subsurface drip dispersal.
Please note that we reviewed the Draft Report and are writing this letter to help move through the County and City Permitting Process; this letter does not constitute as authorization to discharge wastewater to land. Furthermore, the Draft Report (original and revised) you submitted to us does not constitute as a complete application for Water Board permit coverage. We anticipate further review and correspondence with the Discharger and Contra Costa County as the Project develops. 629
Mr. Agyare January 27, 2022
Franklin Canyon Golf & RV Resort