Agenda Packet — Hercules City Council, September 12, 2023

Tuesday, September 12, 2023
6:00 PM
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
City Council
Mayor Alex Walker-Griffin
Vice Mayor Dan Romero
Council Member Dion Bailey
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
Meeting Agenda
In-Person in Council Chambers or
Zoom ID: 889 8120 8913
Zoom Passcode: 092535
Zoom Phone Number: 1 669 900 6833
1 September 12, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda
See last pages of agenda for information regarding meeting procedures To view webcast of meetings, live or on demand, go to the City's website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us I. CLOSED SESSION – CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - 6:00 P.M. 1A. CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON ANY REQUEST FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER TO

PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING REMOTELY DUE TO JUST CAUSE OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO AB 2449
1B. SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION

1. 22-641
Conference with Legal Council - Anticipated Litigation
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code Sec. 54956.9

2. 22-637
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Title: City Attorney

3. 22-638
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - Title: City Manager
IV. REGULAR MEETING – CONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - ROLL CALL - 7:00 P.M.

V. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS

1. 22-632
National Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation
National Hispanic Heritage Month ProclamationAttachments:

2. 22-633 Haley Solis Proclamation
Haley Solis ProclamationAttachments:

IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

Page 2 ends

2 September 12, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda
This time is reserved for members of the public to address issues not included in the agenda. In accordance with the Brown Act, Council will refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time, and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.

Individuals wishing to address the City Council are asked to complete a form indicating the name and address of the speaker and the general topic to be addressed. Speakers must make their comments from the podium and will be allowed 3 minutes to discuss their concerns. All public comments are recorded and become part of the public record. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment at this point in the agenda. If any speakers remain at the conclusion of the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting to take the remaining comments.

XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 22-636
Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting on August 8, 2023 Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting on August 8, 2023Attachments:

2. 22-631 Response to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 on Affordable Housing RECOMMENDATION:

By minute order, approve a draft response letter to the Grand Jury Report and direct staff to submit the letter to the Grand Jury.

Staff Report - Hercules Response to Grand Jury Report 2306 Attach 1 - June 16, 2023 Grand Jury letter to City Council Attach 2 - Grand Jury Report No. 2306
Attach 3 - Draft Hercules Response to Grand Jury Report 2306 Attachments:

XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS

1. 22-635 Update on the Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan and Draft Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:
a)
Receive a report from staff regarding the status of the Park System Master Plan
b) Discuss and provide direction on draft project recommendations and project priorities if any.

Staff Report - Update and Draft Recommendation on the Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Attach 1- Hercules PRFMP Draft Recommendations
Presentation - Hercules PRFMP
Attachments:

Page 3 ends

3 September 12, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda

2. 22-634 Negotiation Points for Solid Waste Franchise Agreement RECOMMENDATION:

City Council:
a)
Receive a report from staff regarding the recommended negotiation points for the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with Republic Services; and
b) Discuss and provide direction on the negotiation points to staff, if any; and
c) Authorize staff to proceed with negotiations.

Staff Report - Solid Waste Franchise Deal Points Staff ReportAttachments:

3. 22-630 Receive the Finance Commission’s Annual Report on Measures B and C for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the Finance Commission’s Annual Report on Measures B and C for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022.

Staff Report - Measure B and C Annual Report from Finance Commision Attach 1 - Measure B and C 2022
Attachments:

4. 22-640 Local Small Business Preference for Goods and Services RECOMMENDATION:

Review and discuss report; provide direction to staff.

Staff Report - Local Preference
Attach 1- Public Contracting Code Section 2002
Attach 2 - San Pablo Municipal Code 3.16.100 Local Business Preference Attachments:

XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This time is reserved for members of the public who were unavailable to attend the Public Communications period during Section X of the meeting, or were unable to speak due to lack of time. The public speaker requirements specified in Section X of this Agenda apply to this Section.

XV. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENTS,

COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Page 4 ends

4 September 12, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda
This is the time for brief announcements on issues of interest to the community. In accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act, matters which do not appear on this agenda but require City Council discussion may be either (a) referred to staff or other resources for factual information or (b) placed on a future meeting agenda.

1. Regional Committees

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees

3. Commission Liaisons
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday,September 26, 2023 at 7:00p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us and can receive e-mail notification of agenda and staff report postings by signing up to receive an e-notice from the City’s homepage. Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 799-8200 (Posted: September 7, 2023)

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE AND WATCH THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING

COMMISSION HYBRID MEETINGS
Attend in Person: Hercules City Council Chambers – 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 Attend via Zoom Teleconference: Details provided below and zoom webinar login, passcode and phone numbers provided on the agenda cover.

Page 5 ends

5 September 12, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda
How to Submit Public Comments
In Person: Attend meeting at the Hercules City Council Chambers, fill out a public speaker card located on the side table and submit it to the City Clerk.

Via Zoom: Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing.

Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here or go to: https://www.zoom.us/join. Zoom also allows you to join by phone at +1-669-900-6833 or +1-929-205-6099 or +1-253-215-8782. • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this information is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes to speak and provide comment. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment during the first public comment period on the agenda. If any speaker comments have not been accommodated prior to the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting for the remaining public comments. • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute.

Written Comments Submitted Electronically: All comments received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted to the City’s agenda website and located by clicking on the “meeting details” tab. Written comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be provided to City Council and posted to the agenda website the following day. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Email comments to [email protected]. Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.

Written comments submitted in person or via mail: Additional ways to provide your public comment is to either drop off your comment in person to the front desk receptionist located in the City Hall lobby or to mail your comment to City of Hercules, ATTN: City Clerk – Public Comment (Meeting Date), 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 in time to reach the City Clerk no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting or you can submit your comment by telephone by calling (510) 799-8208 no later than 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.

If you need assistance with public comment, please contact: Eibleis Melendez City Clerk at [email protected] or by calling (510) 799-8208.

All public comments will become part of the official meeting record. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the website will not be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your written comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the Council or Commission meeting.

Page 6 ends

6 September 12, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
Live on Channel 28: City Council meetings will replay the following Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 1:00 p.m.

Planning Commission meetings will replay the following Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 9:00 a.m.

Video Streamed Live on the City’s Website:

To view City Council and Planning Commission meeting videos online go to: Hercules Meeting Videos.

Instructions to view Live or On-Demand Videos from the City’s website:

1. Go to: Hercules Meeting Videos or https://hercules.legistar.com/calendar.aspx.

2. Locate the desired meeting and date.

3. Click the associated “Video” link (Video status is as follows):

Video = Video is available for on demand viewing.

In Progress = Video is available for viewing during live recording.

Not Available = Video is either unavailable or has not been recorded.

Page 7 ends

7 September 12, 2023City Council Meeting Agenda

THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL ADHERES TO THE FOLLOWING POLICIES,

PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

1. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special accommodations to participate at a City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 510-799-8208 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

2. AGENDA ITEMS: Persons wishing to add an item to an agenda must submit the final written documentation 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City retains the discretion whether to add items to the agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council otherwise may make comments during the Public Communication period of the meeting.

3. AGENDA POSTING: Agendas of regular City Council meetings are posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall, the Hercules Swim Center, Ohlone Child Care Center, and on the City’s website (www.ci.hercules.ca.us),

4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: Persons who wish to address the City Council should complete the speaker form prior to the Council's consideration of the item on the agenda.

Anyone who wishes to address the Council on a topic that is not on the agenda and is relevant to the Council should complete the speaker form prior to the start of the meeting. Speakers will be called upon during the Public Communication portion of the meeting. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not take action on items not listed on the agenda. The Council may refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.

In the interests of conducting an orderly and efficient meeting, speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes.

Anyone may also submit written comments at any time before or during the meeting.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Council or a member of the public prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion to adopt.

6. LEGAL CHALLENGES: If you challenge a decision of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the meeting or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the meeting. Actions challenging City Council decisions shall be subject to the time limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

Page 8 ends

8 INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/

COMMISSION REPORTS

AGENDA ITEMS

1. 22-632

2. 22-633
9 PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING SEPTEMBER 15th – OCTOBER 15th , 2023 AS

NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH

IN THE CITY OF HERCULES
WHEREAS, The City of Hercules recognizes and honors contributions of all members of our community; and
WHEREAS, Hispanic Americans bring a rich cultural heritage representing many countries, ethnicities and religious traditions which contribute to America's future; and WHEREAS, the observation started in 1968 as Hispanic Heritage Week under President Lyndon B. Johnson, and was expanded in 1988 by the United States Congress to cover a 30-day period starting on September 15 and ending on October 15; and WHEREAS, September 15 is the anniversary of independence for five Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua; and Mexico achieved independence on September 16; and Chile achieved independence on September 18; and
WHEREAS, more than 15 million Hispanics live in the State of California, the largest racial or ethnic group in the state. A diverse group with roots throughout Latin America and beyond, many Hispanic Californians also trace their heritage to the original Indigenous communities of Latin America and Africa. During National Hispanic Heritage Month, we honor and recognize all in the Hispanic community who helped build our state and city. They are our teachers, business owners, councilmembers, scientists, soldiers, farmworkers, first responders, artists, activists, colleagues, and friends. Hispanic Californians make valuable contributions to our neighborhoods, communities, and every sector of the economy. We are a more excellent and vibrant place because of them; and WHEREAS, The Hispanic community has had a profound influence on our country through their strong commitment to family, faith, hard work, and services, and they have enhanced and shaped our national heritage with centuries old traditions that reflect the multiethnic and multicultural customs of their community; and WHEREAS, The City of Hercules invites all members of the community to learn more about the rich Hispanic culture, traditions and history, and celebrate the contributions that have been made to our country and our community by Hispanic Americans.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, Alex Walker-Griffin, Mayor of the City of Hercules, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby recognize September 15 to October 15, 2023, to be Hispanic Heritage Month in the City of Hercules.

In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Hercules to be affixed this 12th day of September, 2023.
________________________________
Alex Walker-Griffin, Mayor
22-632
10 INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/

COMMISSION REPORTS

AGENDA ITEM

2. 22-633
11 PROCLAMATION

RECOGNIZING HALEY SOLIS FOR HER SERVICE TO THE

HERCULES COMMUNITY & LIBRARY SERVICES COMMISSION

AND ACKNOWLEDGING HER DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT

TO THE HERCULES COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, Haley Solis is seventeen and has lived in Hercules her whole life. As a high school student at Hercules High School, she was heavily involved in both her school community and the Hercules community; and
WHEREAS, In high school, Haley was very active in several student organizations and held leadership roles in academic and community volunteer-based clubs at Hercules High School. She was the founder and President of the Environmental Club, Treasurer of the STEM Cub, Vice President of the Interact V olunteer Club and Secretary for the Math Engineering Science Achievement (MESA). Through these clubs and organizations, Hailey would communicate information from the commission to the student body and recruit volunteers to help at city events in Hercules; and WHEREAS, Along with her involvement in school clubs and community organizations, Haley Solis served as the girls’ softball team captain for three years and ran cross country in her junior and senior year at Hercules High School. Through sports, she made meaningful friendships and appreciated the supportive environment built by her coaches and teammates; and
WHEREAS, In her sophomore year of high school, Haley Solis applied for the Student Commissioner position and was appointed by the Hercules City Council in January 2022. She successfully served as Student Commissioner for the Hercules Community & Library Services Commission through July of 2023; and WHEREAS, In her time as Student Commissioner, Commissioner Solis proved to be an outstanding leader among her peers, often getting numerous teens to volunteer at City events. She is passionate about being involved in her community; and WHEREAS, In her second term as Student Commissioner on the Community & Library Services Commission, Haley Solis was accepted to Stanford University for the fall 2023 school year. Haley plans on studying Environmental Systems Engineering.

Ultimately, she hopes to work in the public sector on Environmental Policy. Her experience on the commission has helped her learn about public policy and government.

Teaching her lessons and skills which she couldn’t have learned anywhere else, and she is looking forward to carrying them with her throughout her career.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Alex Walker-Griffin, Mayor of the City of Hercules, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby recognize Haley Solis for her service to the Hercules Community & Library Services Commission and hereby acknowledge her dedication and commitment to the Hercules community.

In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Hercules to be affixed this 12th day of September 2023.
________________________________
Alex Walker-Griffin, Mayor
22-633
12 CONSENT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEMS

1. 22-636

2. 22-631
13 111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547City of Hercules
Meeting Minutes
City Council
Mayor Alex Walker-Griffin
Vice Mayor Dan Romero
Council Member Dion Bailey
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
6:30 PMTuesday, August 8, 2023
SPECIAL MEETING In-Person in Council Chambers or
Zoom ID: 883 8690 7575
Zoom Passcode: 898431
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
I. SPECIAL MEETING – CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL-6:30 P.M.

Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Vice Mayor D. Romero, Council Member C. Kelley, and Council Member T. Grimsley

Present: 4 -
Council Member D. BaileyAbsent: 1 -
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS
NONE.

III. COMMUNITY LIBRARY SERVICES STUDENT COMMISSIONER INTERVIEWS

1. 22-619 STUDENT COMMISSIONER INTERVIEWS
RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct interviews for eligible candidates who have applied for the Student Commissioner Vacancy on the Community & Library Services Commission.

City Clerk, Eibleis Melendez, presented the item. Council Members conducted interviews for eligible candidates for Student Commissioner for Community & Library Services Commission.

Meeting went into Recess at approximately 6:45 P.M.

Meeting Reconvened at 7:00 P.M.

Page 1 ends

22-636
14 August 8, 2023City Council Meeting Minutes
IV. REGULAR MEETING – CONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - ROLL CALL [7:00P.M] City Attorney, Patrick Tang, was absent. Christie Crowl attended the meeting in his place.

Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Vice Mayor D. Romero, Council Member D. Bailey, Council Member C. Kelley, and Council Member T. Grimsley

Present: 5 -
V. A. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION-

NO CLOSED SESSION
B. CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON ANY REQUEST FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER TO

PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING REMOTELY DUE TO JUST CAUSE OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO AB 2449
NONE.

VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Bailey.

VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Walker-Griffin held a moment of silence for retired Hercules Police Officer Dave Imada.

VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
NONE.

IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
City Manager, Dante Hall, presented one item to be added to the agenda.

Mayor Walker-Griffin requested to utilize funds to travel to Washington DC on August 16th for an event that he was invited to as the Mayor by the Biden Administration. City Attorney, Christie Crowl, provided the criteria, as described by the Brown Act, that needed to be met for the item to be added to the agenda. It was determined that the request met the criteria.

No public comment. Action was taken on this item. A super majority vote was required for the motion to pass.

MOTION: A Motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Council Member Bailey, to add this item to the agenda as the first item on the agenda.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Vice Mayor D. Romero, Council Member D. Bailey, Council Member C. Kelley, and Council Member T. Grimsley
5 -
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
NONE.

Page 2 ends

15 August 8, 2023City Council Meeting Minutes
This time is reserved for members of the public to address issues not included in the agenda. In accordance with the Brown Act, Council will refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time, and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.

XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE.

XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Bailey, to adopt the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Vice Mayor D. Romero, Council Member D. Bailey, Council Member C. Kelley, and Council Member T. Grimsley
5 -

1. 22-617
Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting on July 19, 2023 Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting on July 19, 2023Attachments:

APPROVED

2. 22-618 Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting on July 25, 2023 Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting on July 25, 2023Attachments:

APPROVED
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS

1. 22-627 Community Library Services Student Commissioner Appointment RECOMMENDATION:

Review all eligible candidates which have applied for the for the Student Commissioner Vacancy on the Community & Library Services Commission. City Council will make their selection and appointment directly following the special meeting interview process.

Staff Report - Student Commissioner AppointmentAttachments:

City Clerk, Eibleis Melendez, presented the item. No public comment.

Council Member Grimsley provided comment. Council Members voted to fill the unscheduled vacancy. Monique Anne Hernandez received the highest number of votes and was appointed to serve through December 2023, as Student Commissioner to the Community & Library Services

Page 3 ends

16 August 8, 2023City Council Meeting Minutes
Commission.

2. 22-623 Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for Housing Loan Administration
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution approving a Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. in the Amount of $61,500 for Housing Loan Administration.

Staff Report - Housing Loan Administration
Attach 1 - Resolution
Attach 2 - Hercules Housing Loan Admin Proposal_7.20.23-1 Attachments:

Finance Director, Edwin Gato, introduced and presented the item. Public comment was provided by Viktor Manrique and Aminta Maynard. City Manager, Dante Hall, provided clarification on the item. Council Members asked questions and provided comment. Director Gato provided a response. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Grimsley, to adopt Resolution 23-050. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Vice Mayor D. Romero, Council Member D. Bailey, Council Member C. Kelley, and Council Member T. Grimsley
5 -

3. 22-620
Council Healthcare Benefits
RECOMMENDATION:

A resolution rescinding health and welfare benefits for members of the City Council has been prepared by staff at Council's direction. If adopted the change would not become effective until after the next council election. The matter is presented for Council's consideration as follows:

1.Adopt a Resolution Rescinding Health and Welfare Benefits for Members of the City Council.

Staff Report - City Council Health and Welfare Benefits Attach 1 - Resolution Rescinding Health and Welfare Benefits for members of the City Council
Attach 2 - City Council Compensation Comparison with other Cities Attach 3 - City Council Monthly Pay & Benefits
Attach 4 - 17-054 - Resolution for Reinstating Limited Health Care Benefits for City Council Members- not to exceed $45,000 Attach 5 - Resolution 11-119 Terminate PERS Benefit
Attachments:

Finance Director, Edwin Gato, Introduced and presented the item. No public comment. Council Members asked questions and provided comment. City Attorney, Christie Crowl, provided a response. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bailey, seconded by Council Member Grimsley, to adopt this Discussion/Action Item. The motion failed by the

Page 4 ends

17 August 8, 2023City Council Meeting Minutes
following vote:

Aye: Council Member D. Bailey, and Council Member T. Grimsley2 - Nay: Vice Mayor D. Romero, and Council Member C. Kelley2 - Abstain: Mayor A. Walker-Griffin1 -

4. 22-622 Quarterly Review of Future Agenda Items
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report on the quarterly review of future City Council agenda items and provide comments.

Staff Report - Quarterly Review of Future Agenda Items
Attach 1 - Future Agenda Items List
Attachments:

City Manager, Dante Hall, introduced and presented the item. No public comment. Council Members asked questions and provided comment.

City Manager Hall and City Attorney, Christie Crowl, provided a response.

Council Member Kelly requested to remove 'Amend Conflict of Interest Code (even numbered years)' off the list for the October 10, 2023 City Council meeting. No other changes were made to the Future Agenda Items List. No action was taken on this item.

5. 22-624
Request for Proposals for Grant Writing Services
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report on this issue and provide any additional comments or needs to be built into the request for proposals document.

Staff Report - Request for Proposals for Grant Writing Services Attach 1 - RFP-Grant-Writer
Attachments:

City Manager Hall introduced and presented the item. No public comment.

Council Members asked questions and provided comment. City Manager Hall provided a response. This was an informational item. No action was taken.

6. 22-625
Update On Youth In Government Day
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Hercules City Council receives report about Youth In Government Day that will take place on Tuesday, November 14, 2023.

Staff Report - Youth In Government Day
Attach 1 - Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of April 25, 2023 Attachments:

Parks and Recreation Director, Christopher Roke, introduced and presented the item. No public comment. Council Members asked

Page 5 ends

18 August 8, 2023City Council Meeting Minutes
questions and provided comment. Director Roke provided a response.

This was an informational item. No action was taken.

7. 22-626 Report on West County Mayors And Supervisors Association (WCMSA) Subcommittee on Community Schools Systems Change Collaborative and Request for City’s Participation
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report on the West Contra Costa Community Schools Systems Change Collaborative initiative and consider appointing
one Council member and one City staff member to a subcommittee of the West County Mayors and Supervisors Association (WCMSA) to help oversee the effort.

Staff Report - WCMSA Subcommittee on Community Schools
Systems Change Collaborative and Request for Appointment Attach 1 - WCCUSD Community Schools Summary
Attach 2 - Community Schools Systems Change Collaborative Presentation May 25
Attachments:

City Manager, Dante Hall, introduced the item. Glen Price from the Glen Price Group and Jora Atienza Washington from the City of San Pablo and serves as Co-Chair of the West Contra Costa Unified School District Community Schools, presented the item. Tanya Little provided public comment. Council Members asked questions and provided comment. City Manager Hall and Mr. Price provided a response. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Vice Mayor Romero, to nominate Mayor Walker-Griffin to attend the meetings and to defer the staff member decision to the City Manager.

Aye: Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Vice Mayor D. Romero, Council Member D. Bailey, Council Member C. Kelley, and Council Member T. Grimsley
5 -
22-629 Addition to the Agenda: Request From Mayor Walker-Griffin to Utilize Funds to Travel to Washington DC on August 16th for an event.

This agenda item was initially introduced as the first item under Discussion And/Or Action Items. Vice-Mayor Romero requested that Staff provide documentation on this item. It was agreed by Council to move the item to the end of the agenda presenting it after item seven. City Attorney, Christie Crowl, introduced and provided background on the item. Mayor Walker-Griffin provided further clarification for his request. Council Members asked questions and provided comment. City Manager, Dante Hall and City Attorney Crowl provided a response. No public comment.

Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Romero, seconded by Council Member Bailey, to approve the travel arrangements for Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin to attend the White House event on August 16, 2023. The motion

Page 6 ends

19 August 8, 2023City Council Meeting Minutes
carried by the following vote:

Aye: Mayor A. Walker-Griffin, Vice Mayor D. Romero, Council Member D. Bailey, Council Member C. Kelley, and Council Member T. Grimsley
5 -
XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
NONE.

This time is reserved for members of the public who were unavailable to attend the Public Communications period during Section X of the meeting, or were unable to speak due to lack of time. The public speaker requirements specified in Section X of this Agenda apply to this Section.

XV. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENTS,

COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This is the time for brief announcements on issues of interest to the community. In accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act, matters which do not appear on this agenda but require City Council discussion may be either (a) referred to staff or other resources for factual information or (b) placed on a future meeting agenda.

1. Regional Committees

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees

3. Commission Liaisons
City Manager, Dante Hall, addressed an issue at the Swim Center and provided an update on projects in the City. City Attorney, Christie Crowl, had no announcements.

1. Regional Committees:

No reports were given.

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees:

No reports were given

3. Commission Liaisons:

No reports were given
Community Events-
Council Members reported out on events that they attended throughout the CIty and County.

Future Agenda Items-
Council Member Grimsley requested to have a discussion on starting a program where individuals within the city of Hercules are recognized for their accomplishments and talents either by a certificate or proclamation.

She suggested that we call it 'Hercules Super Stars'. She also suggested a similar recognition program for local business where they are highlighted

Page 7 ends

20 August 8, 2023City Council Meeting Minutes
and recognized for the contribution to the City.

Council Member Bailey would like to have a discussion regarding the Project Labor Agreement. Staff agreed they could add it to the September agenda.

Council Member Romero requested that we present a Proclamation to Haley Solis, the out going Student Commissioner for the Community & Library Services Commission.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Walker-Griffin adjourned the meeting at 9:34 P.M. _________________________________
Alex Walker-Griffin, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk

Page 8 ends

21 CONSENT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEM

2. 22-631
22 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Timothy Rood, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Response to Grand Jury Report No. 2306 on Affordable Housing RECOMMENDED ACTION:

By minute order, approve a draft response letter to the Grand Jury Report and direct staff to submit the letter to the Grand Jury.

BACKGROUND:

On June 17, 2023, the City received a letter dated June 16, 2023 from the Contra Costa County Grand Jury (Attachment A) requesting the City’s response to Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: “A Plan Without a Home” (Attachment B) as prepared by the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury. In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 et seq. the City Council is responsible for responding to the report’s findings and recommendations. The response must be submitted to the Grand Jury n o later than September 13, 2022.

As noted in its summary, the Grand Jury report found that most cities and the County were not providing the required number of housing permits primarily for very low - and low-income resident housing. The report sought to understand who in local government is responsible for implementation of approved housing plans and why those plans were failing to meet permit targets for very low- and low-income residents.

ANALYSIS:

In collaboration with the Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4), City staff prepared the attached draft response to the Grand Jury report for the Council’s consideration 22-631
23 (Attachment C). C4 is a county-based group of agencies that share consulting resources as they work together to address their housing priorities. Planning Collaboratives are staffed by consultants who work with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to complement technical assistance offered at the state and regular levels and to deliver tailored trainings and products to each jurisdiction. ABAG is providing funding to support C4 and other collaboratives through 2023.

As required, the letter includes the City Council’s response to each of the findings and recommendations in the Grand Jury Report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attach 1- June 16, 2023 letter from Grand Jury
Attach 2- Grand Jury Report No. 2306
Attach 3- Draft response letter

24 25
26 Affordable Housing

A Plan Without a Home

2022-2023
Contra Costa County
Civil Grand Jury
Report 2306
June 14, 2023

27 28

Contact: Cynthia Roberts
Foreperson
(925) 608-2621

Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 2306

Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home

TO:

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
City Councils for All Cities in Contra Costa County

29 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 i of i Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Table of Contents
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 METHODOLOGY................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 DOCUMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3 INTERVIEWS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3 BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 RHNA TARGETS AND CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY ................................ ........... 12 ADDITIONAL OBSTACLES THAT HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF AH ........................ 13 Limited Availability of Land ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development ................................ .................... 13 Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward ................................ ................................ ...... 14 Limited Funding ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 14 Lack of Community Support ................................ ................................ ............................... 14 NIMBY Opposition & City Council response to NIMBY opposition ................................ ... 14 CITIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ........................ 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ .............. 16 FINDINGS: ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 16 RECOMMENDATIONS: ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 REQUIRED RESPONSES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 19 REFERENCES: ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY: ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................

A-1. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME 2022 ................................ . 21 A-2. 2022 CCC WAGES, RENT TO INCOME, AMI STATUS ................................ ................ 22 A-3. BAY AREA RHNA ALLOCATIONS AND PROGRESS ................................ ................... 23 A-4. SB 35 VERY LOW-INCOME AND LOW-INCOME DETERMINATION SUMMARIES .. 27 A-5. NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ................................ ........ 34

30 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 1 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AH Affordable Housing
Allocations State-issued housing goals by income category that must be planned for and included in each County and city housing element plan AMI Area Median Income – Refer to Table 1
Builder’s Remedy A provision found in California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that allows developers of affordable housing projects to bypass the zoning code and general plan of cities that are out of compliance with the Housing Element Law.

Extremely Low
Income
30% or less of area AMI
HEP Housing Element Plans
HCD The State Department of Housing and Community Development Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
Regulation, when adopted by a city or the County, requires new residential developments to include a minimum percentage of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households into residential developments of five units or more (generally 15%)
Low Income (LI) 50- 80% or less of area AMI.

RDA Redevelopment Agency - dedicated to urban renewal.

RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Measure X Housing
Fund
Contra Costa County’s 20-year, $12 million annual share of Measure X ½ cent sales tax to be used for housing & services.

NIMBY Not in my back yard
SB 35 California Senate Bill 35 streamlines the housing construction process for cities and counties that fail to build enough housing to meet state-mandated requirements for very low- and low-income households.

Very Low Income
(VLI)
30-50% of area AMI. Qualifications for this designation are based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).

31 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 2 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

SUMMARY
The civil grand jury began this investigation to understand how Contra Costa County is addressing the need for affordable housing. We started by reviewing California Housing and Community reports titled Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) results for the County.

These reports, issued at the end of each Housing Element cycle, show housing permits issued for various resident income classification groups against state mandated targets. Each city plus unincorporated County areas of responsibility results are listed. Appendix 3 comprises results for the past 3 Housing Element cycles plus targets for the latest cycle 2023-2031.

After reviewing these reports, we realized that most cities and our County were not providing the required number of housing permits primarily for very low- and low-income resident housing.

Close examination of these reports reveals the scale and accelerated progression of missed targets. Additionally, these reports show that the very low- and low-income resident categories reflect the largest percentage of missed RHNA and plan targets over the past 20 years.

Based on these initial findings, we focused our efforts on housing for residents classified as very low or low income. We wanted to understand who in local government is responsible for implementation of approved housing plans and why were those plans failing to address permit targets for very low- and low-income residents. What are the drivers/obstacles behind these missed targets, and what actions were being taken to increase the availability of affordable housing for these residents throughout our County.

What we found was that although there is ownership for the creation and approval of Housing Elements that address affordable housing targets, we could not find clear assigned responsibility inside local government to implement plans after approval. This problem, combined with the myriad of challenging obstacles outlined in this report has translated into years of missed targets for residents classified as very low or low income. Without significant changes to how local governments address affordable housing, cities and the County risk the imposition of State mandated solutions that bypass local development protocols. This report is a summation of our work, findings and recommendations for improvement.

.
32 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 3 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

METHODOLOGY
Documents
The grand jury reviewed numerous documents from local, County, regional, and State agencies. For a comprehensive list see the References section of this document.

Interviews
The grand jury conducted interviews with city and County leaders knowledgeable about the housing development process in the west, central and east County cities. We also interviewed:
• developers that specialize in affordable housing construction projects • leaders with experience in addressing housing development issues • various staff members with housing responsibilities

33 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 4 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

BACKGROUND
The housing element cycle was introduced in 1969, when the California State Legislature passed laws requiring that all cities and counties adequately plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state).

The process involves significant planning from experts in local government, and citizens are asked proactively for input on these proposed plans before being submitted to the State for approval. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approves all HEPs.

The role of the state, besides approval of each HEP, is to identify the total number of homes required by resident income classification so that cities and counties can include these numbers in their HEPs. These numbers are required to be included in each city and County HEP.

Determining individual income classifications is a County-specific exercise. It starts with a determination of County Area Median Income (AMI). As noted in Table 1 below, the state defines for each County, which is then extrapolated into specific resident income classifications.

After development of housing allocation numbers by HCD, the data is passed down to the regional authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, (ABAG), as a Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND). This is the first step in California’s process to plan for the housing needs in each region of the state. It is RHND’s responsibility to also track permits issued against allocation targets in each Housing Element Plan (HEP). This tracking of progress against targets is communicated through ABAG issued reports (Appendix 3).

The next step, allocation, is also the role of the regional authority, ABAG. It is their responsibility to allocate a share of the RHND housing numbers to each city and County as a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). These numbers are broken out by resident income, classified as very low income, low income, moderate income and above moderate income.

The next two tables reflect Contra Costa County’s average median income, occupation, and wages of some of the County residents. We wanted to understand who in our community is part of the very low- and low-income groups. We realized that we all probably know someone who may be impacted by the shortage of affordable housing in the County. 34 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 5 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Table 1 below, from the California Department of Housing and Community Development website, shows the state definition of income limits for residents in Contra Costa County based on the calculation of the average median income (AMI). AMI is based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).

Table 1: 2022 State Income Limits by Household

Contra Costa County
35 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 6 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Table 2 below contains data from govsalaries.com. It identifies by occupation some of the County occupations that fall into the very low- and low-income classifications as well as a few occupations that are just over the threshold, falling into the median income group.

Table 2: 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status

In addition to residents in these occupational categories, a lack of very low- and low-income affordable housing impacts senior County residents (over the age of 65). Seniors are one of the fastest growing population segments in the County. The most recent US Census for the County indicates that 6.7 percent of the total population, over 200,000 residents, is over the age of 65, an increase of 12.5 percent since 2010. The California Department of Aging projects that this group of residents will grow by over 150 percent by 2060.

36 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 7 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury The next two charts contain data extracted from published ABAG housing reports (Appendix 3).

They highlight the disappointing results in housing permits issued against mandated allocations for very low- and low-income residents.

Chart 1 shows a 21-year decline in the percentage of permits issued for very low-income residents, even as allocation targets stayed relatively flat. For the upcoming 2023-2031 allocation cycle for very low-income housing, allocations have tripled.

Chart 1: Very-low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 1999-2006 Progress 2007 -2014 2015 -2020 2023-2031
Percentage
Thousands
RHNA Cycle
Contra Costa County Very Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
RHNA Allocation Permits Issued Percent of Allocation Permitted 37 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 8 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Chart 2 shows a 15-year decline in low-income housing permits, with an uplift in the most recent allocation cycle. However, the County still only issued permits for about half of the allocations mandated by the state for this same period. And again, the upcoming allocation cycle for 2023- 2031 has a significant bump in the mandated allocation for low-income housing.

Chart 2: Low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC

The data published in charts 1 & 2 above illustrates that over the period 1999-2020 the County has failed to provide the number of housing units mandated by the State of California and as they have planned for in their individual city and County element plans for very low- and low-income residents.

To understand the allocation targets and whether all income groups were equally impacted, the grand jury again looked at whether there had been any progress made against RHNA targets within any of the other income groups. What we found was that housing permits for high income housing had outpaced other income groups, with high income permits more than double all other income group housing permits combined. Close examination of the details published in the reports found in Appendix 3 validates this reality. The next 2 charts again use graphic descriptions of this published data to reinforce the magnitude of the problem.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1999-2006 Progress 2007 -2014
Progress4325
2015 - 2020 Progress 2023 - 2031
Percentage
Thousands
RHNA Cycle
Contra Costa County Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
RHNA Allocation Permits Issued Percent of Allocations Permitted 38 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 9 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Chart 3 looks at the past three Housing Element cycles results against allocations for the four income categories measured by RHNA reports for Contra Costa County. It also identifies new allocations for the current 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle. The income categories are VLI (very low), L (low), M (moderate), and H- (above moderate), which align with income categories measured in RHNA published progress reports. This chart also shows what percentage of the planned permits (allocation) resulted in a corresponding permit (Permits Issued) being issued for each income group as a percentage (Percent Permitted).

Chart 3: Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocations and Permits by Income Group

0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 VLI L M H VLI L M H VLI L M H VLI L M H
1999-2006 2007 -2014 2015 -2020 2023-2031
Thousands
Contra Costa County RHNA Allocations
and Permits
Allocation Permits Issued Percent Permitted
39 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 10 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Chart 4 below takes a representative sample of cities in the County and shows the percentage of housing permits issued for very low- and low-income residents measured against all housing permits issued for the time period 1999-2020. Most of the cities identified fell short of their allocation goals.

Chart 4: Very Low and Low-Income Housing Permits as a % of All Permits by City

Chart 5 is a listing of all 19 cities in the County, showing how much housing was permitted for very low- and low-income residents in the last Housing Element cycle 2015-2020 and what is expected to be accomplished in 2023-2031. As the chart shows, the State of California has increased the mandatory allocation for very low- and low-income housing for many Contra Costa County cities and for the County itself.

Chart 5: Very Low and Low-Income Permit Allocations by City

40 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 11 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Whether reviewing individual city details in Appendix 3 or reviewing the County results overall, the track record regarding very low- and low-income permitted units for affordable housing over the past 20 years is dismal. How will each city and the County meet more challenging targets (Appendix 5) for very low- and low-income housing in the next Housing Element cycle and what might enable attainment in the future?

41 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 12 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

DISCUSSION
In every interview the grand jury conducted with city and County officials, all communicated that they care deeply about the affordable housing issue in their communities. However, none of those interviewed acknowledged or identified themselves, their department or any other agency as having responsibility for the actual attainment of RHNA housing targets. Although we found the Housing Element Plans on the various city and the County entities, we did not find any language or group description that identified an owning entity that is either accountable or responsible for the execution of the Housing Element Plan, identifying and addressing obstacles, or attaining state mandated targets. The grand jury was unable to find any owner for the actual achievement of state mandated housing targets. Meaning that once a Housing Element plan containing the mandated housing targets for each income group was approved, no individual or department was responsible for implementing the approved Housing Element plan or accountable for the progress/results against the established targets within the plan.

Our investigation looked at three specific areas that should enable affordable housing. First, the RHNA targets identified in housing element plans and who in local government takes ownership to implement approved HEPs. Second, what control do our cities and the County have in the affordable housing development process? Finally, the state’s relationship with our cities and the County: how decisions by the state impact affordable housing development in our County.

RHNA Targets and City and County Responsibility

Each city is required by the State of California to provide an updated housing element plan for approval every eight years. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a Bay Area local government consortium whose mission is to strengthen cooperation and collaboration across local governments in order to build healthier and stronger communities, receives the affordable housing target data from the state. This data outlines how much housing will be needed, by income category, for the next reporting cycle. ABAG distributes the individual targets for each city and the County for the current cycle. ABAG then provides a report, before the next housing element cycle, which documents each city and the County results against targets.

Contra Costa County city and County performance in issuing housing permits for very low- and low-income residents for the last three housing element cycles, 1999-2006, 2007-2014 and 2015- 2020, showed significant misses of actual permits issued against the targets.

The charts in Appendix 3 reflect the number of permits issued by city, against RHNA allocation targets for each housing element. Appendix 5 is the final RHNA allocation for 2023-2031. All data presented in appendices 3 and 5 reflect that our cities and County are permitting housing, primarily for residents in the 120 percent of median or higher income classification.

City and County officials are primarily focused on getting HCD to approve an individual housing element plan. In multiple interviews with various city officials, after HEP approval we did not find examples of consistent communication of progress to meeting targets for very low- and low- income residents. In these same interviews, RHNA targets were described as “aspirational, not 42 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 13 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury realistic, or not attainable.” Interviewees used different words, but overall, RHNA targets were considered mostly an academic exercise that no one takes seriously. Furthermore, we did not find a specific owner for attainment of the housing element plan allocations, leading us to believe that this could well be one of the key reasons for our County’s failure to realize (permit and build) affordable housing for very low- and low-income residents.

Additional Obstacles that Hinder the Development of AH
Six additional obstacles to the development of AH for residents identified as very low- and low- income are:
• limited availability of land;
• restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; • limited developer interest to bring projects forward; • limited funding;
• lack of community support;
• NIMBY – an industry term that denotes opposition to development in a neighborhood, community, or city.

These obstacles are not uniform or constant across the County. Rather, some are more pronounced in one area or at one time.

Limited Availability of Land
Cities with less available land, but access to mass transit hubs, benefit from incentives to build AH close to transit centers. West County cities have benefitted the most from these projects. East County cities with large tracts of undeveloped land have had recent success in building AH projects for very low- and low-income residents. The Antioch Family and Senior Apartments project, completed in 2022, is an example of a successful AH project, in that it was submitted, approved, and completed in a relatively short time period with minimal roadblocks (References/ Bibliography East Bay Times October 22, 2022). Central County cities must balance extremely high land costs against AH development needs.

Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development
City zoning ordinances vary greatly throughout the County but in many instances are not conducive to the development of AH. For instance, we conducted a limited proactive review of existing zoning policies to see if there were any subtle changes to local building codes that could be made to ease the approval of AH projects. Some cities zone land for AH development, but land that is far from basic services, in very expensive-to-develop areas, or in environmentally sensitive locations. Some cities have restrictive height zoning ordinances. Many cities do not have an inclusionary housing ordinance. (An inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers to set aside select units for very low- and low-income residents when proposing projects or to pay cities for the exclusion creating a local funding opportunity.)

43 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 14 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward
Actions by local city councils greatly influence how developers view their ability to successfully create an AH development. In our interviews with city officials and developers, it was determined that city councils that work openly to mitigate community concerns, don’t flip flop after a project has been properly vetted, and are willing to team with developers as partners throughout the long approval and development process are viewed as fostering conducive and supportive environments for AH development. Failure to team with a developer or to actively address obstacles during the approval and development process often results in failing to meet AH targets.

Limited Funding
The lack of funding and the complexity associated with getting funding support for AH projects are obstacles. The state prioritizes AH projects that provide some local funding support.

Developers who rely on tax incentives to help secure project funding get a better place in line to have their projects approved if there is demonstrated local funding support. City officials attribute the elimination of redevelopment agencies as a local funding source in 2012 as a key reason local funding has been so difficult to obtain. The County has been slow to provide alternative funding sources. Voters passed Measure X in 2020, and housing funds will finally be available in 2023. Other Bay Area counties took a more assertive role in providing alternative funding support for their cities.

In 2016, Alameda County passed measure A1, which dedicated $580 million for AH. In 2016, Santa Clara County passed Measure A, which allocated $950 million for AH. In Contra Costa County, Measure X carved out $240 million as a dedicated housing fund, with a stipulation that only $12 million annually for 20 years will be allocated to support housing. No funds are dedicated specifically to building housing for very low- and low-income residents, and there is no direct link of fund requests to achieving RHNA targets.

Lack of Community Support
Cities across the County have a wide range of policies around outreach and education about AH.

The effort to educate communities as to why this housing issue is so important is broadly different across the County. In reviewing successful AH projects completed in the County citizen involvement and participation has shown to lessen local opposition to AH.

NIMBY Opposition and City Council response to NIMBY Opposition NIMBY opposition was frequently cited by the developers that we interviewed as a primary cause of wasted resources and unnecessary project delays. Communities where projects get tied up in extensive local battles with non-supportive citizens or with city councils that reverse earlier decisions made through the normal local development process were cited by developers as influencing whether they would consider proposing AH projects in these communities.

44 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 15 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Their Relationship with the State of California The state grants cities and counties broad independence to do what is best for their community regarding housing development. But the state retains the ability to override local city jurisdiction.

The Builder’s Remedy provision in California’s Housing Accountability Act has been in place since 1990. It grants developers the authority to bypass any local zoning or approval process and move projects forward if a local government entity is not in compliance with its current Housing Element plans. Compliance has meant meeting the requirement to have an approved HEP. While in place for many years, the state, until recently, has rarely enforced this provision. City and County officials who were interviewed recognize that there is now a more intense state oversight process to plan submissions, and there are potential penalties for poor content plans or plans that do not get approved by state deadlines. This renewed intensity of focus has forced cities and counties to improve the quality of their Housing Element plans. The Builder’s Remedy is the draconian solution that the state may enforce if cities insist on proposing Housing Element plans that are not implementable. The city and County officials interviewed for this investigation expect to get their housing element plans approved. But again, plan approval does not equal plan implementation.

Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying development projects with certain minimum affordable housing guarantees to move more quickly through the local government review process. The bill amended the Government Code to restrict the ability of local governments to reject these projects. A project approved under SB 35 cannot be challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an important feature of projects developed under SB35 as much has been discussed publicly about how CEQA lawsuits have been used to slow or stop the development of AH projects. Appendix 4 identifies individual cities and counties that have met their prorated very low- and low-income RHNA goals for the latest reporting period.

It’s a small list. In this County, only El Cerrito qualified for exemption from SB 35. We did not find examples of projects being developed in this County that have been or could be streamlined under SB 35.

Cities in this County that propose Housing Element plans, implement their approved plans, and meet RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents will not run the risk of losing local development control through either Builder’s Remedy or SB35.

45 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 16 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Findings and Recommendations
Findings:

F1. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.

F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.

F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.

F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for low- income residents).

F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low- and low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.

F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development.

Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.

F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval

F8. Builder’s Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.

F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.

46 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 17 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury F10. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents.

F11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.

F12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.

F13. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low- and low-income housing.

Recommendations:

R1. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.

R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.

R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.

R4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their community.

R5. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.

R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned “suitable for residential use,” without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.

47 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 18 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.

R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).

R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.

R10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.

48 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 19 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

REQUIRED RESPONSES
As required by California Penal Code sections 933(b) and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County civil grand jury requires responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors F1--F13 R1-R7 & R9-R10 Antioch City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Brentwood City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Clayton City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Concord City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Danville City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
El Cerrito City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Hercules City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Lafayette City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Martinez City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Moraga City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Oakley City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Orinda City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pinole City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pittsburg City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pleasant Hill City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Richmond City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Pablo City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Ramon City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Walnut Creek City Council F1-F13 R1-R10

These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by e-mail to [email protected] and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to:

Civil Grand Jury – Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
49 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 20 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury REFERENCES:

Bibliography:
• Association of Bay Area Governments:
o RHNA 1999-2006 Final Report
o RHNA San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 o RHNA 2015 - 2020 Bay Area Building Permit Activity Report o RHNA Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031
o RHNA - Regional Housing Needs Allocation
o RHNA: Housing Element Law Changes from 1969 to 2020
• U.S. Census Quick Facts / Contra Costa County, CA
• Fannie Mae Area Median Income Lookup Tool / Contra Costa County, CA • CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act
• SB35 Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process • Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51): Builder's Remedy and Housing Elements
• Mercury News, February 13, 2023: New bill would extend controversial California housing law
• Mercury News, October 20, 2022: Antioch unveils its newest and largest affordable income apartment complex
• Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, 2015-2016, Report 1614: Where Will We Live? The Affordable Housing Waiting List is Closed
• Contra Costa Conservation and Development: Measure X Housing Fund • Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing: 2016 Measure A - Affordable Housing Bond
• Alameda County HCD: Measure A1 Implementation Policies - Rental Housing Development Fund & Innovation and Opportunity Fund

50 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 21 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Appendices
A-1. Contra Costa County Average Median Income 2022

51 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 22 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

A-2. 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status

52 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 23 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

A-3. Bay Area RHNA Allocations and Progress
CCC Progress in Meeting 1999-2006 Regional Housing Need Allocation

53 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 24 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury CCC Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation

CCC Progress in Meeting 2015 - 2020 Regional Housing Need Allocation

54 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 25 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Jurisdiction RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issued
%
RHNA
Met Deed
Restricted
Non-
Deed
Restricted
Total Deed
Restricted
Non-
Deed
Restricted
Total Deed
Restricted
Non-
Deed
Restricted
Total
Contra Costa County 5,264 798 19 817 16% 3,086 1,580 116 1,696 55% 3,496 260 953 1,213 35% 8,784 14,020 128% Antioch 349 175 18 193 55% 205 299 1 300 146% 214 0 34 34 16% 680 795 117% Brentwood 234 2 0 2 1% 124 6 10 16 13% 123 0 85 85 69% 279 3,192 1144% Clayton 51 0 0 0 0% 25 0 5 5 20% 31 0 0 0 0% 34 8 24%
Concord 798 0 0 0 0% 444 0 0 0 0% 559 5 5 10 2% 1,677 501 30% Danville 196 20 0 20 10% 111 3 27 30 27% 124 2 38 40 32% 126 484 384% El Cerrito 100 62 0 62 62% 63 6 0 6 10% 69 0 13 13 19% 166 459 277% Hercules 220 0 0 0 0% 118 0 16 16 14% 100 0 217 217 217% 244 509 209% Lafayette 138 7 0 7 5% 78 6 0 6 8% 85 24 40 64 75% 99 319 322% Martinez 124 0 0 0 0% 72 0 0 0 0% 78 0 0 0 0% 195 88 45% Moraga 75 0 0 0 0% 44 0 0 0 0% 50 0 6 6 12% 60 86 143%
Oakley 317 8 0 8 3% 174 170 0 170 98% 175 26 208 234 134% 502 1,273 254% Orinda 84 0 0 0 0% 47 0 0 0 0% 54 0 30 30 56% 42 254 605% Pinole 80 0 0 0 0% 48 0 0 0 0% 43 0 1 1 2% 126 25 20%
Pittsburg 392 75 0 75 19% 254 708 34 742 292% 316 0 71 71 22% 1,063 976 92% Pleasant Hill 118 0 0 0 0% 69 19 0 19 28% 84 0 41 41 49% 177 112 63% Richmond 438 266 0 266 61% 305 81 0 81 27% 410 0 0 0 0% 1,282 612 48% San Pablo 56 0 0 0 0% 53 3 4 7 13% 75 8 21 29 39% 265 36 14% San Ramon 516 25 0 25 5% 279 87 0 87 31% 282 164 0 164 58% 340 1,547 455% Walnut Creek 604 96 0 96 16% 355 18 10 28 8% 381 0 44 44 12% 895 1,210 135% Contra Costa
Unincorporated 374 62 1 63 17% 218 174 9 183 84% 243 31 99 130 53% 532 1,534 288% RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
%RHMA Met >100
75> %RHNA Met >100
%RHN Met <75

55 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 26 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Final RHNA Allocations for 2023-2031

56 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 27 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

A-4. SB 35 Very Low Income and Low-Income Determination Summaries
Cities and Counties Not Currently Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions This determination represents Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) data received as of June 1, 2022. The following 38 jurisdictions have met their prorated Lower (Very-Low and Low) and Above-Moderate Income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the Reporting Period and submitted their latest APR (2021).

These jurisdictions are not currently subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining), but the jurisdictions are still encouraged to promote streamlining. All other cities and counties beyond these 38 are subject to at least some form of SB 35 streamlining, as indicated on the following pages.

For more detail on the proration methodology or background data see the SB 35 Determination Methodology.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ATHERTON 20 MILL VALLEY
2 BELL 21 MONTE SERENO
3 BELLFLOWER 22 NEWPORT BEACH
4 BEVERLY HILLS 23 NORWALK
5 BUENA PARK 24 PLUMAS CO.
6 CALISTOGA 25 ROHNERT PARK
7 CARPINTERIA 26 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
8 CORTE MADERA 27 SAINT HELENA
9 EL CERRITO 28 SAN BERNARDINO CO.
10 FOSTER CITY 29 SANTA ANA
11 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 30 SANTA CLARA CO.
12 GUADALUPE 31 SANTA MONICA
13 HILLSBOROUGH 32 SIERRA CO.
14 INDUSTRY 33 SOLVANG
15 LA HABRA 34 SONOMA CO.
16 LA QUINTA 35 UKIAH
17 LAGUNA NIGUEL 36 VILLA PARK
18 MENDOCINO CO. 37 WESTMINSTER
19 MENLO PARK 38 WOODSIDE

57 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 28 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ≥10% Affordability
These 263 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) (2021) and therefore are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ADELANTO 28 BURBANK 55 DEL REY OAKS
2 ALAMEDA CO. 29 BUTTE CO. 56 DELANO
3 ALISO VIEJO 30 CALAVERAS CO. 57 DESERT HOT SPRINGS
4 ALTURAS 31 CALEXICO 58 DIAMOND BAR
5 AMADOR 32 CALIFORNIA CITY 59 DORRIS
6 AMADOR CO. 33 CALIPATRIA 60 DOS PALOS
7 APPLE VALLEY 34 CARSON 61 DUNSMUIR
8 ARCADIA 35 CERES 62 EAST PALO ALTO
9 ARCATA 36 CHOWCHILLA 63 EL CAJON
10 ARROYO GRANDE 37 CITRUS HEIGHTS 64 EL CENTRO
11 ARVIN 47 38 CLAYTON 65 EL MONTE
12 AUBURN 39 CLEARLAKE 66 ESCALON
13 AVALON 40 CLOVERDALE 67 ESCONDIDO
14 AVENAL 41 COACHELLA 68 ETNA
15 AZUSA 42 COLMA 69 EUREKA
16 BAKERSFIELD 43 COLTON 70 EXETER
17 BANNING 44 COLUSA 71 FAIRFAX 107
18 BARSTOW 45 COLUSA CO. 72 FARMERSVILLE
19 BEAUMONT 46 COMMERCE 73 FERNDALE
20 BELVEDERE 47 COMPTON 74 FILLMORE
21 BENICIA 48 CONCORD 75 FIREBAUGH
22 BIGGS 49 CORCORAN 76 FORT JONES
23 BISHOP 50 CORNING 77 FORTUNA
24 BLUE LAKE 51 COSTA MESA 78 FRESNO CO.
25 BLYTHE 52 CRESCENT CITY 79 GLENN CO.
26 BRADBURY 53 CUDAHY 80 GONZALES
27 BRAWLEY 54 DEL NORTE CO. 81 GRASS VALLEY
58 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 29 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
82 GREENFIELD 117 LEMON GROVE 152 NOVATO
83 GRIDLEY 118 LEMOORE 153 OCEANSIDE
84 GUSTINE 119 LINCOLN 154 OJAI
85 HALF MOON BAY 120 LINDSAY 155 ORANGE COVE
86 HANFORD 121 LIVINGSTON 156 ORLAND
87 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 122 LOMA LINDA 157 OROVILLE
88 HAYWARD 123 LOMPOC 158 OXNARD
89 HESPERIA 124 LOOMIS 159 PACIFICA
90 HIGHLAND 125 LOS ANGELES CO. 160 PALMDALE
91 HOLTVILLE 126 LOS GATOS 161 PARLIER
92 HUGHSON 127 LYNWOOD 162 PASO ROBLES
93 HUMBOLDT CO. 128 MADERA 163 PATTERSON
94 HUNTINGTON BEACH 129 MADERA CO. 164 PERRIS
95 HUNTINGTON PARK 130 MARICOPA 165 PICO RIVERA
96 HURON 131 MARTINEZ 166 PINOLE
97 IMPERIAL 132 MARYSVILLE 167 PLACERVILLE
98 IMPERIAL CO. 133 MAYWOOD 168 PLEASANT HILL
99 INGLEWOOD 134 MCFARLAND 169 POMONA
100 INYO CO. 135 MENDOTA 170 PORTERVILLE
101 IRWINDALE 136 MERCED CO. 171 PORTOLA
102 ISLETON 137 MILLBRAE 172 POWAY
103 KERMAN 138 MODESTO 173 RANCHO CORDOVA
104 KERN CO. 139 MONTAGUE 174 RED BLUFF
105 KINGS CO. 140 MONTEBELLO 175 REDLANDS
106 KINGSBURG 141 MONTEREY 176 REDONDO BEACH
107 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 142 MONTEREY PARK 177 REEDLEY
108 LA MIRADA 143 MORENO VALLEY 178 RIALTO
109 LA PUENTE 144 MORRO BAY 179 RICHMOND
110 LAKE CO. 145 MOUNT SHASTA 180 RIDGECREST
111 LAKE ELSINORE 146 NATIONAL CITY 181 RIO DELL
112 LAKEPORT 147 NEEDLES 182 RIPON
113 LAKEWOOD 148 NEVADA CITY 183 RIVERBANK
114 LANCASTER 149 NEVADA CO. 184 RIVERSIDE
59 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 30 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
115 LASSEN CO. 150 NEWMAN 185 RIVERSIDE CO.
116 LAWNDALE 151 NORCO 186 ROLLING HILLS
187 ROSS 213 SANTEE 239 TUOLUMNE CO.
188 SACRAMENTO 214 SARATOGA 240 TURLOCK
189 SACRAMENTO CO. 215 SAUSALITO 241 TWENTYNINE PALMS
190 SALINAS 216 SEASIDE 242 VALLEJO
191 SAN BERNARDINO 217 SEBASTOPOL 243 VENTURA CO.
192 SAN BRUNO 218 SELMA 244 VICTORVILLE
193 SAN DIEGO CO. 219 SHAFTER 245 VISALIA
194 SAN DIMAS 220 SHASTA CO. 246 WATERFORD
195 SAN FERNANDO 221 SHASTA LAKE 247 WEED
196 SAN GABRIEL 222 SIGNAL HILL 248 WEST HOLLYWOOD
197 SAN JACINTO 223 SISKIYOU CO. 249 WEST SACRAMENTO
198 SAN JOAQUIN 224 SOLANA BEACH 250 WESTLAKE VILLAGE
199 SAN JOAQUIN CO. 225 SONORA 260 251 WESTMORLAND
200 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 226 SOUTH GATE 252 WHEATLAND
201 SAN LEANDRO 227 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 253 WILDOMAR
202 SAN MARINO 228 STANISLAUS CO. 254 WILLIAMS
203 SAN MATEO CO. 229 STOCKTON 255 WILLITS
204 SAN PABLO 230 SUISUN CITY 256 WILLOWS
205 SAN RAFAEL 231 SUTTER CO. 257 WINDSOR
206 SAND CITY 232 TAFT 258 WOODLAKE
207 SANGER 233 TEHACHAPI 259 YOLO CO.
208 SANTA CLARITA 234 TEHAMA 260 YREKA
209 SANTA CRUZ CO. 235 TEHAMA CO. 261 YUBA CITY
210 SANTA MARIA 236 TORRANCE 262 YUCAIPA
211 SANTA PAULA 237 TULARE CO. 263 YUCCA VALLEY
212 SANTA ROSA 238 TULELAKE

60 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 31 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ≥ 50 Percent Affordability These 238 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Lower income RHNA (Very low- and low-income) and are therefore subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50% affordability. If the jurisdiction also has insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA, then they are subject to the more inclusive streamlining for developments with at least 50% affordability.

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 AGOURA HILLS 28 CANYON LAKE 55 DINUBA
2 ALAMEDA 29 CAPITOLA 56 DIXON
3 ALBANY 30 CARLSBAD 57 DOWNEY
4 ALHAMBRA 31 CARMEL 58 DUARTE
5 ALPINE CO. 32 CATHEDRAL 59 DUBLIN
6 AMERICAN CANYON 33 CERRITOS 60 EASTVALE
7 ANAHEIM 34 CHICO 61 EL DORADO CO.
8 ANDERSON 35 CHINO 62 EL SEGUNDO
9 ANGELS CAMP 36 CHINO HILLS 63 ELK GROVE
10 ANTIOCH 37 CHULA VISTA 64 EMERYVILLE
11 ARTESIA 38 CLAREMONT 65 ENCINITAS
12 ATASCADERO 39 CLOVIS 66 FAIRFIELD
13 ATWATER 40 COALINGA 67 FOLSOM
14 BALDWIN PARK 41 COLFAX 68 FONTANA
15 BELL GARDENS 42 CONTRA COSTA CO. 69 FORT BRAGG
16 BELMONT 43 CORONA 70 FOWLER
17 BERKELEY 44 CORONADO 71 FREMONT
18 BIG BEAR LAKE 45 COTATI 72 FRESNO
19 BREA 46 COVINA 73 FULLERTON
20 BRENTWOOD 47 CULVER CITY 74 GALT
21 BRISBANE 48 CUPERTINO 75 GARDEN GROVE
22 BUELLTON 49 CYPRESS 76 GARDENA
23 BURLINGAME 50 DALY CITY 77 GILROY
24 CALABASAS 51 DANA POINT 78 GLENDALE
25 CALIMESA 52 DANVILLE 79 GLENDORA
26 CAMARILLO 53 DAVIS 80 GOLETA
27 CAMPBELL 54 DEL MAR 81 GRAND TERRACE
82 GROVER BEACH 114 LOS ALAMITOS 146 OAKLEY
61 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 32 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION

83 HAWTHORNE 115 LOS ALTOS 147 ONTARIO
84 HEALDSBURG 116 LOS ALTOS HILLS 148 ORANGE
85 HEMET 117 LOS ANGELES 149 ORANGE CO.
86 HERCULES 118 LOS BANOS 150 ORINDA
87 HERMOSA BEACH 119 LOYALTON 151 PACIFIC GROVE
88 HIDDEN HILLS 120 MALIBU 152 PALM DESERT
89 HOLLISTER 121 MAMMOTH LAKES 153 PALM SPRINGS
90 IMPERIAL BEACH 122 MANHATTAN BEACH 154 PALO ALTO
91 INDIAN WELLS 123 MANTECA 155 PALOS VERDES ESTATES
92 INDIO 124 MARIN CO. 156 PARADISE
93 IONE 125 MARINA 157 PARAMOUNT
94 IRVINE 126 MARIPOSA CO. 158 PASADENA
95 JACKSON 127 MENIFEE 159 PETALUMA
96 JURUPA VALLEY 128 MERCED 160 PIEDMONT
97 KING CITY 129 MILPITAS 161 PISMO BEACH
98 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 130 MISSION VIEJO 162 PITTSBURG 99 LA MESA 131 MODOC CO. 163 PLACENTIA
100 LA PALMA 132 MONO CO. 164 PLACER CO.
101 LA VERNE 133 MONROVIA 165 PLEASANTON
102 LAFAYETTE 134 MONTCLAIR 166 PLYMOUTH
103 LAGUNA BEACH 135 MONTEREY CO. 167 POINT ARENA
104 LAGUNA HILLS 136 MOORPARK 168 PORT HUENEME
105 LAGUNA WOODS 137 MORAGA 169 PORTOLA VALLEY
106 LAKE FOREST 138 MORGAN HILL 170 RANCHO CUCAMONGA
107 LARKSPUR 139 MOUNTAIN VIEW 171 RANCHO MIRAGE
108 LATHROP 140 MURRIETA 172 RANCHO PALOS VERDES
109 LIVE OAK 141 NAPA 173 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
110 LIVERMORE 142 NAPA CO. 174 REDDING
111 LODI 143 NEWARK 175 REDWOOD CITY
112 LOMITA 144 OAKDALE 176 RIO VISTA
113 LONG BEACH 145 OAKLAND 177 ROCKLIN

62 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 33 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
178 ROSEMEAD 199 SEAL BEACH 220 TULARE
179 ROSEVILLE 200 SIERRA MADRE 221 TUSTIN
180 SAN ANSELMO 201 SIMI VALLEY 222 UNION CITY
181 SAN BENITO CO. 202 SOLANO CO. 223 UPLAND
182 SAN CARLOS 203 SOLEDAD 224 VACAVILLE
183 SAN CLEMENTE 204 SONOMA 225 VENTURA
184 SAN DIEGO 205 SOUTH EL MONTE 226 VERNON
185 SAN FRANCISCO 206 SOUTH PASADENA 227 VISTA
186 SAN JOSE 207 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 228 WALNUT
187 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 208 STANTON 229 WALNUT CREEK
188 SAN LUIS OBISPO 209 SUNNYVALE 230 WASCO
189 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. 210 SUSANVILLE 231 WATSONVILLE
190 SAN MARCOS 211 SUTTER CREEK 232 WEST COVINA
191 SAN MATEO 212 TEMECULA 233 WHITTIER
192 SAN RAMON 213 TEMPLE CITY 234 WINTERS
193 SANTA BARBARA 214 THOUSAND OAKS 235 WOODLAND
194 SANTA BARBARA CO. 215 TIBURON 236 YORBA LINDA
195 SANTA CLARA 216 TRACY 237 YOUNTVILLE
196 SANTA CRUZ 217 TRINIDAD 238 YUBA CO.
197 SANTA FE SPRINGS 218 TRINITY CO.

198 SCOTTS VALLEY 219 TRUCKEE

63 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 34 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury A-5. News Articles Regarding Affordable Housing
Bay Area News Group article

64 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 35 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

65 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 36 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

East Bay Times article

66 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 37 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Builder’s Remedy Article - The Fix

67 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 38 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

68 September 12, 2023
Cynthia Roberts, Foreperson
2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
Dear Ms. Roberts and members of the Grand Jury,
Thank you for your June 16, 2023 letter and the accompanying Grand Jury Report No. 2306, "Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home," in which you highlighted several findings that align with the prevailing trends and challenges in our jurisdiction. Please consider this to be the City of Hercules' response.

As part of our review process, we carefully considered your concerns, and we acknowledge that some findings may lack context. As you highlighte d in your letter and report, one significant challenge is the lack of funding for affordable housing initiatives. Additionally, even when funding is available, the competition for these dollars often discourages developers from pursuing projects with a low er probability of receiving funding. However essential it is to emphasize that local jurisdictions play a pivotal role in fostering housing development, including affordable housing options, development activity will often follow the path of least resistance.

Your letter and report indicate that all findings and recommendations uniformly apply to Contra Costa County and the 19 incorporated towns/cities. While we acknowledge the similarities in many challenges we face as a region, we also recognize the uniqueness of each community and therefore the specific challenges and associated solutions for Contra Costa County are different, based on geography/location, demographics, market conditions, land availability and associated costs, and land use/trans portation options.

Individual jurisdictions may also face unique constraints, especially environmental constraints, which may compromise a jurisdiction's ability to address housing needs.

Here in Hercules, our community is divided by two railways and two freeways, which create significant pedestrian and bicycle barriers between many of our development opportunity sites and existing retail and other services. Our waterfront sites, which are governed by a master plan and development agreement that together cr eate a dense, mixed -use and mixed-income neighborhood focused on our transit center site, have experienced challenges in the current economic climate. We expect considerable additional demand in the future when the planned Hercules Hub is funded and comple ted, thereby bringing rail and potentially ferry service to the waterfront.
69 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 2 of 16 Finally, among the key points from our review and your findings, unfunded mandates from the State that add to the administrative burden continue to impact local jurisdictions and their ability to take proactive steps to increasing housing production. On January 1, 2023, additional housing laws went into effect, including changes to the State Density Bonus law and the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law. On July 1, 2023, two additional laws came into effect, requiring local jurisdiction staff to create handouts and checklists and re -prioritize workloads to process housing applications on commercial corridors. Before January 1, 2024, local building and public works departments need to de velop specific submittal requirements for post -entitlement permit applications, and all such applications, such as building and grading permits, will be subject to a "shot clock" to review and approve permits. The expectations and costs to local jurisdictions and their staff are significant and, without adequate funding and resources, impact local jurisdictions' ability to focus their resources on implementation.

The key points from our review and partially your findings are as follows:

Lack of Funding: The shortage of funding poses a significant obstacle to the development of affordable housing projects in our jurisdiction. This scarcity hampers the progress of initiatives aimed at addressing the housing needs of our community.

Competition for Funding: When funding becomes available, developers often face stiff competition. This intense competition can lead developers to focus only on projects that have a higher likelihood of receiving funding, potentially leaving out projects that may cater to specific, underserved demographics.

Jurisdictions' Role in Housing Development: Local jurisdictions do not directly produce housing. However, they play a crucial role in creating an environment that encourages housing development, including affordable housing options. The Housing Element and Housing Plan of each jurisdiction serve as essential frameworks for addressing housing concerns.

Tools and Collaborative Efforts: To proactively address the housing needs of our community, jurisdictions utilize various tools provide d by the State and local government. This includes setting goals, policies, and actions in their Housing Element and Housing Plan. Collaborative efforts involving developers, community organizations, and other stakeholders are crucial in achieving sustaina ble and inclusive housing solutions.

The housing crisis has become a pressing concern in our jurisdiction and beyond, with far- reaching implications for individuals and communities. Escalating housing costs, coupled with stagnant wages and limited housing supply, have led to an increasing number of individuals and families struggling to secure decent and affordable housing.

The lack of accessible housing options has particularly impacted vulnerable populations, including low -income households, seniors, disa bled, and individuals experiencing homelessness. As local jurisdictions endeavor to tackle this crisis, they are confronted with the daunting challenge of vying for limited resources and funding. The competition among 70 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 3 of 16 jurisdictions with diverse capacities and needs often accentuates the difficulty of implementing comprehensive and equitable housing solutions.

Your letter has shed some light on critical aspects of the housing crisis we face today and affirmed that we are not alone as a jurisdiction in facing these challenges. Despite potential areas of partial disagreement, we acknowledge the factual basis of your findings and recognize the interconnectedness of the underlying conditions that have given rise to the current challenges.

According to page 19 of the Report, Hercules is required to respond to Findings Fl -F13 and Recommendations RI-RIO.

Findinqs:

Fl. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.

Partially Disagree . We partially disagree with Finding 1 because while a single entity is responsible for reporting on RHNA permitting targets, jurisdictions do not develop housing projects. State Housing Law only requires that jurisdictions plan to address barriers to development, accommodate all types of housing based on the RHNA allocations, and report their progress towards RHNA. Nevertheless, the City facilitates the development of housing through a number of planning tools, including but not limited to specific plans an d density bonus incentives. The Community Development Department is also responsible for preparing the Annual Progress Report (APR) as required by State Housing Law. These reports are presented before the City Council early in the calendar year, prior to s ubmission to HCD.

Furthermore, each jurisdiction's Housing Element identifies the department responsible for carrying out the Housing Element's Plans and Programs.

F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state -mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.

Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 2 because while City and County officials recognize the challenges ahead, our Housing Element identifies a clear path to accommodate the RHNA targets and we are actively exploring and implementing strategies to work towards meeting state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets. Despite acknowledging the complexity of the task, officials are committed to finding viable solutions and collaborating with stakeholders to address the housing ne eds of the region. Through ongoing assessments and adaptive planning, they aim to identify feasible pathways to make progress toward meeting RHNA targets. While it may be a challenging endeavor, the dedication and proactive approach of City officials demonstrate their commitment to addressing the housing crisis and fulfilling their obligations in accordance with state mandates. However, the cities and County are not housing developers and do not construct the units.

F3. There are currently no measurable pen alties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan. 71 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 4 of 16 Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 3 because while there are no legal or financial penalties if the cities and County do not achieve their R HNA targets, there are penalties for not accommodating RHNA in a Housing Element, and the consequences for not issuing adequate permits can be considered punitive.

In addition, jurisdictions are subject to penalties if they do not adopt a Housing Element t hat is certified by the State, including designating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA targets. For example, cities and the County may be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights' organizations, developers, and/or HCD. Depending on court decisions, local control may further diminish, beyond that prescribed in State law, including, for example, suspending the cities' or County's authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits.

Cities and the County may also be subject to court-issued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion.

Regardless of the reasons for lack of building permit activities, if the cities or County do not issue building permits that meet the RHNA targets, developers may choose to use a ministerial process for housing projects that meet specified criteria (SB 35). In addition, a developer could choose to construct housing on sites that the cities or County have not designated for housing.

F4. Data publis hed by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low - and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for low-income residents).

Partially Disagree. It is true that many cities and the County as a whole missed their RHNA targets for very low and low-income housing, and that RHNA Allocation for very low - and low -income housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in RHNA allocation is not to the extent mentioned in this report. RHNA numbers from the past 3 cycles indicate that the current (6th) cycle has had the largest increase of 2.5x from the previous cycle in very low- and low-income housing requirements.

Cycle Very Low % permitted Low % permitted Source
1999 - 2006 6,481 44% 3,741 48% link
2007 - 2014 6,512 21% 4,325 24% link
2015 - 2020 5,264 16% 3,086 55% link
2023 - 2031 13,346 n/a 7,685 n/a link

72 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 5 of 16 F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low and low-income housing, including:
 Limited availability of land;
 Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development;  Limited developer interest to bring projects forward;  Limited available funding;
 Lack of community support;
 NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.

Partially Disagree. Though the above list of obstacles can hinder the development of affordable housing, the City has addressed each item in their Housing Element programs, policies, and actions to the extent feasible and considered acceptable to HCD.

Hercules's Housing Element includes many new programs aimed at overcoming these barriers:
a. Limited availability of housing:

Program H2-2: Mixed-Use and TOD Sites Lot Consolidation Program H2-5: Alternative Housing Models
Program H2-6: No Net Loss
Program H2-7: Replacement of Units on Sites
Program H2-8: Development on Nonvacant Sites
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to affordable housing development:

Program H3-1 : Density Bonuses
Program H3-2: Housing for Extremely Low-Income and Low-income Households
c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward:

Program H3-3: Development Process Streamlining
Program H3-4: Reduce Parking Constraints for New Development d. Limited available funding:

Program HI -2: Affordable Housing Partnerships and Funding Sources Program HI-I : First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Programs e. Lack of community support:

Program H4-2: Fair Housing Services
Program H4-4: Outreach Plan
f. NIMBY opposition and city council response to NIMBY opposition NIMBY opposition has not been a significant factor in Hercules. Since May 2017, the Planning Commission and City Council have approved six major project 73 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 6 of 16 entitlements that together will provide over 1,500 homes, nearly all of which are multifamily units, and more than 400 of these homes have been built within the past five years, despite the pandemic and economic downturn. The detail and clarity of the City's desired vision for development as expressed in its Form -Based Codes has been instrumental in facilitating develop ment approvals that are accepted by the community and Council.

F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development. Zoning obstacles include:
 Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development;  Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies;
 Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.

Partially Disagree. AB 1397 set forth strict criteria for adequate sites. These criteria are somewhat arbitrary (e.g., not smaller than 0.5 acre and not larger than 1 0 acres). The requirement to demonstrate substantial evidence that existing uses do not impede redevelopment also tends to steer sites selection to neighborhoods with declining uses and lower and moderate resource areas
Most jurisdictions consider amending/changing the zoning while reviewing their Housing Element and/or updating the General Plan, not just when a project is proposed for development.
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(b), Housing Element sites must include information on the number of dwelling units that a site can realistically accommodate, the RHNA income category the parcel is anticipated to accommodate, whether the parcel has available or planned and accessible infrastructure, and the existing use of the site, amongst other details. When selecting sites to accommodate the lower income RHNA, HCD provides jurisdictions with best practices to consider factors such as:
(1) Proximity to transit
(2) Access to high performing schools and jobs
(3) Access to amenities, such as parks and services
(4) Access to health care facilities and grocery stores (5) Locational scoring criteria for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (TCAC) Program funding
(6) Proximity to available infrastructure and utilities (7) Sites that do not require environmental mitigation
(8) Presence of development streamlining processes,
environmental exemptions, and other development incentives.

However, sites that meet these locational criteria do not always meet the other existing use criteria needed to demonstrate substantial e vidence for existing uses to discontinue within the planning period. These include high vacancies, deteriorating conditions, marginally operating businesses, underutilization of sites, etc. These conditions are often directly contrary to 74 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 7 of 16 access to high per forming schools and jobs, amenities, adequate infrastructure, and clear of environmental hazards.

In addition to the above requirements and pursuant to AB 686 (Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)), Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, sites must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing (AFFH). AFFH means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities f ree from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.

Very often the approach to sites selection is to target declining areas for redevelopment. Without tax increment financing as a reinvestment tool, jurisdictions must rely on private investments as catalyst to induce redevelopment in declining neighborhoods. Housing is the best catalyst. For jurisdictions that take a neighborhood revitalization approach to accommodating the RHNA, place -based strategies that focus on pub lic improvements, economic development, prioritization of funding, and targeted outreach are used to complement the sites inventory strategies.

As such, Housing Element plans provide an inventory of land that addresses the unique conditions of each jurisdiction.
b. According to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), local agencies are required to allow increased density, reduced standards, and development incentives based on the number and type of affordable housing units proposed in a project. The SDBL applies to ho using projects, including mixed -use developments, new subdivisions, or common -interest development.

Developers may request incentives and concessions from the jurisdiction's regulatory or development standards that result in actual and identifiable cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. The number of required incentives is based on the percentage of affordable units provided in the qualifying project. For example, developers may ask for increased height above that allowed by the z oning regulations. As such, height and density do not represent a restriction to development. Furthermore, many sites are located in transit -oriented neighborhoods where recent State laws have preempted restrictions on height and density.
c. Due to economic c onditions, the loss of redevelopment authority, and previous court decisions regarding inclusionary requirements on rental housing, Hercules suspended its inclusionary housing ordinance in 2012, and most major projects approved since then have had inclusionary housing as negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval.
75 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 8 of 16 Partially Disagree. We agree that there are penalties that are directly related to not meeting statutory deadline of the Housing Element. Builder's Remedy, where individuals may apply for a building permit on land that is not designated for housing, is one such penalty that is directly linked to meeting state deadlines for Housing Elements.

We partially disagree with Finding 7 because there are other penalties that are not directly tied to the statutory deadline. There are penalties associated with lawsuits, which are rarely brought forward for simply missing the statutory deadline, but more due to a perception of continued inactions. Penalties also include eligibility for funding, including some of the grants needed to fund the design and construction of the Hercules Hub.

As stated in the response to Finding 3, cities and the County may be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights' organizations, developers, and/or HCD.

Depending on court decisions, the cities and the County may lose additional local control, such as suspension of authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits; and/or cities and the County may be subject to court-issued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion.

In addition, depending on specific programs, eligibility for some state funds requires a certified Housing Element (such as PLHA and State HOME funds). Finally, loss of local control is not limited to jurisdictions that do not meet specified timeframes for a certified housing element. For example, SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act, the No Net Loss Act, Density Bonus Law, and AB 2011/SB 6 specify what types of projects local jurisdictions must approve and where such projects must be approved, regardless of whether jurisdictions meet state deadlines for Housing Elements.

Link to information on HCD's accountability efforts and enforcement authority:
https://www.hcd.ca.qov/planning-and-community-development/accountabilityand- enforcement
F8. Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.

Partially Disagree. While Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects are valuable tools that can expedite affordable housing development, they may not comprehensively address all the ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that hinder the completion of approved AH projects. The effectiveness of these streamlined processes can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and while they can help overcome certain barriers like restrictive zoning policies and prolonged approval timelines, other challenges mentioned in the report, such as limited available funding, community support, and NIMBY opposition, may con tinue to persist in diverse degrees in different locations. To achieve the successful completion of approved AH projects and effectively address these obstacles, a multifaceted and jurisdiction-specific approach is required, taking into account the unique circumstances and complexities faced by each locality.
76 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 9 of 16 F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.

Partially Disagree. While the County and cities did not create or find new sources of funds for affordable housing after the State discontinued 452 RDAs, State law limits local jurisdictions' ability to create new funding sources. Voters need to approve virtually all new funding or financing mechanisms to generate the revenues or funds needed to preserve existing affordable housing and construct or finance new affordable housing. The Board of Supervisors and Town/City Councils cannot, for example, float bonds any longer without voter approval.

While Measure X, the countywide 20 -year 1/2 cent sales tax was approved in November 2020, Measure X is projected to provide up to $12 million annually for "housing and related services" for the entire County (emphasis added). This amount of funding represents only a fraction of what is needed to mitigate the housing crisis in a meaningful magnitude. Measure X Affordable Housing funds will be distributed through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process, a competitive process. The criteria for weighing funding applications no doubt will favor c ertain communities over others, while all communities are faced with the same critical need for funding.

Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low - and low-income residents,
Agree. Hercules agrees with this finding
Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.

Partially Disagree. Bond funding requires voters' approval. Depending on the timing (economic conditi ons and bond measures for other competing interests), bond financing has not been the most significant source of affordable housing financing. While local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund in Contra Costa County are a beneficial compone nt to help fund affordable housing construction, the amount of funding available from Measure X is not high enough to be a critical factor in a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an affordable housing (AH) development. Under the Measure X Progr am Allocation Summary, only $10 million dollars (about 13% of FY 2022-23 funding and about 4.5% of total funding) were allocated to a Local Housing Trust Fund; for FY 202324, $12 million dollars were allocated. The Measure X Housing Funds are to be dispers ed by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) and the Health Services' Health, Housing and Homeless (HSD -H3) Services and the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa. While a contributing factor, Measure X dollars allocated to housing production is not critical to the overall ability of the jurisdictions to meet their RHNA requirements for affordable housing.

77 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 10 of 16 F 12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.

Partially Disagree. Hercules agrees that proactive strategies can help attract affordable housing developers and mitigate the barriers to housing production; however, proactive strategies alone do not result in affordable housing projects being constructed. For example, while Hercules engages in all of the above, a variety of other obstacles towards a ffordable housing development exist beyond a local jurisdiction's control. This includes the gap in financing between constructing market-rate versus affordable housing, land costs, the land-to-building ratio when a property contains an underutilized build ing, the cost to upgrade or renovate an existing nonresidential building to accommodate housing, infrastructure costs (on - and off-site), fees for public utilities (particularly for non-municipal utilities), etc.

F13. The latest RHNA targets for cities an d unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low- and low-income housing.

Partially Disagree. It is true that RHNA Allocation for very low - and low-income housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in RHNA allocation is not to the extent mentioned in this report. RHNA numbers from the past 3 cycles indicate that the current (6th) cycle has had the largest increase of 2.5x from the previous cycle in very low- and low-income housing requirements. Please see the response to Finding 4 for detailed RHNA numbers from previous Housing Element cycles.

Recommendations
RI. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets.

The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.

The recommendation has been implemented. California's Housing Element Law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demands of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. Cities and Counties are not responsible for the development and construction of housing to achieve the allocated RHNA targets. Instead, they are responsible for the effective implementation of their housing elements and associated programs to address any existing constraints to housing and for tracking and reporting the jurisdiction's progress toward achieving their RHNA. The Community Development Department is assigned with the responsibility of the above tasks.
78 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 11 of 16 R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of pro gress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low - and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.

The recommendation has been implemented. State Law (S65400) requires each jurisdiction (city council or board of supervisors) to prepare an annual progress report (APR) on the jurisdiction's status and progress in implementing its housing element (HE) using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The HE APR allows HCD to track the progress of the implementation of a jurisdiction's Housing Element and r equires its submission as a threshold requirement for several State housing funding programs (source).

Through the forms and tables provided by HCD ( link), jurisdictions must report annual data on housing in the APR, including the following:
 Housing development applications received (including proposed number of units, types of tenancy, and affordability levels)
 Building/construction activity
 Progress towards the RHNA
 Sites identified or rezoned to accommodate a shortfall in housing need  Program implementation status
 Local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the development of housing  Projects with a commercial development bonus
 Units rehabilitated or preserved
 Locally owned lands included in the sites inventory that have been sold  Locally owned surplus sites

Government Code S65400 requires the planning agency to provide this report to the legislative body (i.e., local Council or Board), HCD, and OPR by April 1 of each year (covering the previous calendar year). APRs must be pres ented to the local legislative body for its review and acceptance, usually as a consent or discussion on a regular meeting agenda.

The statute does not specify in which order they be provided, and HCD does not require the report to be submitted to the legi slative body prior to submitting it to HCD. However, HCD recommends that planning departments provide the report to the local legislative body prior to sending it to HCD and OPR ( source) Biannual reporting would divert staff time from other housing programs.

R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community vo ice in the process and helping to 79 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 12 of 16 identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.

The recommendation will not be implemented. We appreciate the thoughtful recommendation to create a dedicated Affordable Housing (AH) commission comprised of a multi -disciplinary team of diverse citizens, led by a current, non - elected, city expert in planning. While we acknowledge the potential benefits of such a commission, after careful consideration, we have de cided not to pursue its implementation due to the following reasons:

Existing Planning Mechanisms: Our city already has established planning mechanisms responsible for addressing affordable housing issues , including the City’s Planning Commission and its participation in the County ’s Advisory Committee on Aging and the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. These existing structures provide platforms for community engagement and collaboration, making the formation of a se parate commission redundant and potentially duplicative of efforts.

Resource Constraints: Establishing and maintaining a dedicated AH commission would require additional financial and administrative resources. At present, our city and County are already al locating resources to multiple initiatives aimed at addressing affordable housing needs. Adding another commission might spread resources too thin and hinder the efficiency of current efforts.

Efficient Decision-Making: By involving a diverse range of citi zens and experts in our existing planning commission, we maintain a balanced and inclusive approach.

This integration ensures streamlined decision -making processes and comprehensive representation of community interests without creating an additional layer of bureaucracy.

The recommendation has been implemented.

Comprehensive Process Review: As required by State Law, jurisdictions have reviewed existing processes and identified programs to address any potential constraints to development through the Housing Element's Constraints and Zoning Analysis Section. Hercules has conducted a thorough review of existing processes related to affordable housing development, permitting, and zoning regulations.

This review aimed to identify any inefficiencies or barriers ("constraints") that may have contributed to the challenges in meeting RHNA allocation targets. Programs targeted to reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve specific obstacles include the following:
• Program H2 -3 Review/revise Development Code to provide appropriate standards for development of senior housing
80 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 13 of 16 • Program H3 -2 Housing for Extremely Low -Income and Low -income Households
• Program H3-3 Development Process Streamlining
• Program H3-6 Infrastructure Master Planning
Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach, stakeholders, including community members, developers, housing advocates, and relevant government agencies, were actively engaged throughout the proces s.

Feedback and input from these stakeholders played a pivotal role in shaping the subsequent actions.

Identifying Key Obstacles: Based on the review and stakeholder input, specific constraints hindering the achievement of RHNA allocation targets were iden tified.

These included issues related to funding constraints and limited developer interest.

Development of a Housing Plan: With a clear understanding of the obstacles, each city and the County developed tailored action plans to address the identified challenges. These action plans outlined concrete steps, timelines, and responsible parties for implementation that have been or are in the process of being deemed appropriate by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

Policy and Regulato ry Reforms: To streamline affordable housing development, policy and regulatory reforms were introduced to the broader community at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels and noticed public hearings.

These reforms aimed to remove unnecessary barriers, expedite permitting processes, and incentivize the construction of affordable housing.

Outcomes Achieved: As a result of these actions, tangible progress can be made towards meeting RHNA allocation targets for very Iow - and low-income housing in each community. The review and reforms will lead to a more efficient and supportive environment for affordable housing development.

New inclusionary housing projects have been approved and initiated, increasing the overall housing stock for low -income residents. The engagement of stakeholders has fostered a collaborative approach to address housing challenges, and community support for affordable housing initiatives has grown significantly.

The City's 2021 decision to partner with the California Community Housing Agency to facilitate its acquisition of one of the new waterfront multifamily buildings, the Exchange at Bayfront, has resulted in the creation of 172 workforce units affordable to households earning 80% to 120% of median income.

While challenges persist, the ongoing commitment of the jurisdiction to address the obstacles identified in the report demonstrates significant strides in advancing affordable housing goals. Continued efforts and collaboration will be crucial in achieving sustained progress and ensuring housing accessibility for all members of our communities.
81 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 14 of 16 R5. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.

The recommendation has been implemented. Each jurisdiction (city coun cil or board of supervisors) must prepare an annual progress report (APR) on the jurisdiction's status and progress in implementing its housing element using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (Government Code Section 65400.) Each jurisdiction's APR must be submitted to HCD and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by April 1 of each year (covering the previous calendar year (CY)). HCD compiles and showcases all APRs through their interactive digital data dashboard with downloadable data sets. (link)
In addition, all jurisdictions are subject to Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), which was amended in 2017 with SB 166, and requires jurisdictions to maintain adequate sites to accommodate remaining unmet RHNA at each income level throughout the life of an adopted Housing Element. The No Net Loss Law restricts cities and the County from approving a housing project at a lower density, or with fewer units than identified in the Housing Element unless a corresponding number of units are accommodated and identified elsewhere in the cities or County.

To assist with the monitor ing, cities and the County are developing standard language to include in staff reports when housing projects come forward to decisionmakers for approval and are exploring a No Net Loss Tool to help monitor RHNA progress.

R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned "suitable for residential use, " without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.

The recommendation has been implemented. As required by State Law, jurisdictions are required to prepare a site inventory identifying land suitable and available for residential development to meet the locality's regional housing needs by income level. Please see the response to Finding 6(a) for details. Further, in addressing HCD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements there is a thorough review of the site selection via the Tax Credit Allocation's Committee (TCAC) Resource Map that designates areas of low-, moderate-, high-, and highest- resource within a jurisdiction and requires specific justification for placing affordable housing projects within low-resources areas.

R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.

The recommendation has been implemented. Through the Housing Element process, jurisdictions h ave reviewed their zoning policies and identified potential affordable housing development constraints unique to their jurisdiction. The 82 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 15 of 16 Housing Element Program Section outlines forthcoming changes to their zoning policies with specified timeframes to address the identified constraints.

R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).

This recommendation will not be implemented . On June 12, 2012, the City of Hercules suspended its inclusionary housing ordinance indefinitely due to the dissolution of redevelopment and the City opting out of managing the affordable housing obligations of the former Hercules Redevelopment Agency due to lack of funding. The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County became the Housing Successor by operation of law but did not formally accept the Hercules RDA's housing assets to avoid jeopardizing HUD funding. Since September 2022, the City has been engaged in discus sions with the Housing Authority regarding the City's desire to resume the role of affordable housing successor agency, so it can legally administer housing assets and functions of the former Hercules RDA, such as outstanding loans issued to low -income homeowners by the former Hercules RDA who request payoff and refinancing. The City provided a draft agreement for the County's review in March 2023.

Currently, inclusionary housing in the City is negotiated on a case -by-case basis.

An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was not determined to be necessary when the Fifth Cycle Housing Element was adopted in April of 2015. The draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element also has not determined that an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was necessary. However, the jurisdiction will be conducting an analysis of the current approach and the number of units developed or proposed to be developed for the 6 th cycle as an action item in the City's housing plan. Currently, affordable housing requirements are negotiated and memorialized in de velopment agreements, that currently include, on average, that 5% of the housing units produced will be affordable units.

R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.

The recommendation has been implemented. According to local ordinance, it is mandatory for cities and counties to assess all development projects within specified timelines. Nevertheless, jurisdictions have implemented incent ives and expedited permitting processes for certain categories of housing type or tenure.

City and County officials have reviewed and revised zoning regulations to incentivize the development of very low - and low -income housing projects. By designating spe cific zones for affordable housing and providing waivers, concessions and/or density bonuses for qualifying projects, the goal is to encourage developers to prioritize these types of housing developments.

Collaborative efforts between public entities and p rivate developers have been fostered to maximize available resources and expertise. Through these 83 Hercules Responses to Grand Jury Report 2306 Page 16 of 16 partnerships, the County and cities leverage private sector investments to create a greater number of affordable housing units
Further, the preservation and promotion of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), is also part of our affordable housing strategy. While developing housing that is affordable to lower income households is important and a key strategy, preservation of affordable units is equally important and requires additional resources. It may, in some cases, be more cost effective to preserve existing units.

Additionally, the promotion of Accessory Dwelling Units, as NOAH, is a key strategy identified in our Housing Plan.

R10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low - and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.

The recommendation will not be implemented. Measure X is a countywide 20 year, 1/2 cent sales tax approved by Contra Costa County voters on November 3, 2020 "to keep Contra Costa's regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; support crucial safety -net services; invest in early childhood service s; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services." Under the Measure X Program Allocation Summary, only $10 million dollars (about 13% of FY 2022 -23 funding and about 4.5% of total funding) were allocated to a Local Housing Trust Fund; for FY 2023-24, $12 million dollars were allocated. The Measure X Housing Funds are to be dispersed by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) and the Health Services' Health, Housing and Homeless (HSD -H3) Services and the Housing Author ity of the County of Contra Costa. The use of Measure X funds for housing are reported by the County here: https://www.contracosta.ca.qov/8530/Measure-X

By working collaboratively and understanding the broader context of the housing crisis, we strive to develop more effective strategies and policies to address this pressing issue and create a more inclusive and sustainable housing landscape for all members of our community.

We hope this letter is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,
Alex Walker-Griffin, Mayor
84 DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION

AGENDA ITEMS

1. 22-635

2. 22-634

3. 22-630

4. 22-640
85 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on the Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan and Draft Recommendations
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:
a) Receive a report from staff regarding the status of the Park System Master Plan b) Discuss and provide direction on draft project recommendations and project priorities if any.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan, which began in November of 2022, uses a four-phased approach to assess, evaluate, and make recommendations for Hercules’ parks and recreation system. When completed, th e Master Plan will support fiscal sustainability by creating an investment strategy for priority park improvements, facility enhancements, and other new park development.

An assessment of the condition of the Hercules park system and community outreach to identify park needs has been completed. An evaluation of overarching park system priorities is currently underway.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

The last decade has been challenging financially for the City. During this time, capital maintenance in parks was deferred and only the most pressing repairs were made on a pay-as-you-go, annual basis. As a result, the parks in Hercules are showing their age and wear and tear, which has accumulated over time. Additionally, trends in parks and facilities usage have changed, as can be seen by the increase in popularity of pickleball. 22-635
86 Much of this demand is driven by demographics, which has also changed over t he past decade. In recent public meetings, it has been voiced that the younger population needs more recreational opportunities in Hercules. Given the gradual financial recovery of the City and one-time American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, the City Council authorized the development of a Parks Master Plan. The Parks Master Plan will provide the information for the City that is needed to take a proactive approach over the next decade in addressing aging park facilities, responding to the need for inclusi ve parks, and anticipating the future recreation needs of the community. It will capture the infrastructure and facility needs as well as community priorities for the future. This information will support informed discussion and decision -making related to park needs and opportunities. This will allow the City to strategically allocate resources and leverage grant opportunities to ensure the needs of the community are met in the future.

The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss input received from the public and project Steering Committee during the community engagement process of the Master Pan, provide a high -level overview of the preliminary recommendations, and get Council feedback on priority projects.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

There are no fiscal impacts associated with this update presentation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Hercules PRFMP Council Update & Draft Recommendations

2. Hercules PRFMP City Council Update Presentation

87 4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 1 Site Recommendations

Introduction
This document provides a site-by-site overview of existing Hercules parks and identifies an all-encompassing, comprehensive list of recommendations for existing and proposed parks, trails, and recreation facilities in the City of Hercules. The purpose of the recommendations is to capture all beneficial improvements and new development that could benefit the park and recreation system in the future.

It is not proposed that all the recommendations described here be implemented over the next 10 years, as they will certainly exceed the available funding and staffing resources, but they are documented to support a long-term funding strategy (including the use of grants) for implementation. This approach ensures that no opportunities that will inevitably arise in the future are missed, and that the highest priority projects are properly identified given the entire realm of improvements is captured. A capital improvement plan and action plan will be created to identify planning level costs and prioritize projects for implementation.

Recommendations for each site were developed based on findings from the site tour, community engagement, Steering Committee and City Council input, Project Leadership Team discussions, as well as a technical evaluation and analysis of site conditions and needs. More specifically, the following data were incorporated:
• Results from the Park Tour (November 2022) and Park Condition Assessment (April 2023), which were reviewed and discussed with City staff. • Community engagement findings, including an online survey, MIG and City-staffed pop-up events, an in-person open house, interviews with City Council members, and a virtual community workshop (February – March 2023).
• The draft Needs Assessment, a technical analysis which identified desired park and facilities level of service and ways that individual parks sites and trail corridors contribute to overarching park and recreation needs based on their locations and unique characteristics.
• Steering Committee input and direction.
• Prioritization Summary (August 2023)
• Other planning documents pertinent to the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.

88 4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 2 Capital Recommendations Summary
Tables 1-3 below summarize capital recommendations as they apply to existing sites, planned sites, and proposed parks, greenways and trails, and recreation facilities. More than one capital recommendation applies to some sites.

Park recommendations are summarized in Table 1 and trail recommendations in Table 2, using the following definitions to characterize proposed capital projects:
• Develop – Includes land acquisition, site master planning, design concepts/feasibility studies, and construction for new sites. This recommendation also includes working with developers where the City has a vested interest in ensuring the park remains publicly accessible.
• Restore – Restore existing park features, landscaping, and site amenities that are damaged, worn or at the end of their lifecycles. These represent larger repairs or a ‘one for one’ replacement in the same developed footprint. • Enhance – Provide enhancements at existing parks with the addition of new, expanded or upgraded park features to expand park capacity and use.

Note: Many existing parks in Hercules were assigned a “Restore and Enhance” capital recommendation, reflecting the need to both replace items in-kind as well as expand capacity.

89 4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 3 Table 1: Parks Recommendations Summary
Site Name Acres Classification Capital
Recommendation(s)
Map/Figure
Reference #
Existing Sites
Refugio Valley Park and
Tennis Courts

12.7 Citywide Restore and Enhance

Duck Pond Park 6.8 Community Restore and Enhance
Foxboro Park 3.6 Community Restore
Hanna Ranch Park 10.2 Community Restore and Enhance
Ohlone Park 8.2 Community Restore and Enhance
Shoreline Park 2.6 Community Restore and Enhance
Woodfield Park 6.0 Community Restore and Enhance
Bayside Park 0.7 Neighborhood Restore and Enhance
Beechnut Park 4.7 Neighborhood Restore and Enhance
Frog Pad Park 1.0 Neighborhood Restore
Railroad Park 0.6 Neighborhood Restore and Enhance
Shasta Park 0.5 Neighborhood None
Sierra Park 0.4 Neighborhood None
Planned Sites – Waterfront District (see Figure 1)
Bayfront/Creekside
Park/Block K

0.35 Neighborhood Develop Figure 1: 1
Neighborhood
Park/Block B

0.60 Neighborhood Develop Figure 1: 2
Neighborhood
Park/Block L&M

0.60 Neighborhood Develop Figure 1: 3
Civic Plaza, Block G 0.5 Special Use
Site
Develop Figure 1: 4
Plaza, Block D&E

0.4 Special Use
Site

Develop Figure 1: 5
90 4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 4 Proposed Site (See Figure 2)
Gems Nature Park
(converting open space)
2-4 Nature Park Develop n/a

Figure 1: Planned Sites | Waterfront District (reference map)

1 5
4 3
2 91

4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 5 Table 2: Greenways and Trails Recommendations Summary (See Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan)
Trail Name Acres Lineal
Feet
Type Capital
Recommendatio
n
Map/Figure
Reference #
Existing Greenways and Trails
Bay Trail 16 n/a Multiuse Restore n/a
Refugio
Valley Trail
23 n/a Multiuse Restore and
Enhance
n/a
Paved Trails 1.3 n/a Paved None n/a
Unpaved
Trails

0.6 n/a Unpaved Restore n/a
Proposed Greenways and Trails (see Proposed Park and Trail Connectivity Plan) Note: Trail names are for reference only.

Bay Trail
(missing
segment)

0.46 1,120 Multiuse
Develop
1 John Muir
Parkway Trail

0.35 960 Multiuse Develop 2
Sycamore
Ave Trail

0.65 1,800 Multiuse Develop 3
Trestle Cove
Connection

0.16 1,200 Paved Develop 4
Pinole Creek
Connection

0.11 820 Paved Develop 5
Gem Stones
Trail

0.11 1,600 Unpaved Develop 6
Ohlone Creek
Trail

0.52 7,550 Unpaved Restore and
Enhance
(requires HOA
coordination)
7 The Birds
Trail

0.16 2,400 Unpaved Develop 8
Refugio
Creek Loop
Trail

0.38 4,765 Unpaved Restore and
Enhance
9 92

4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 6 The Flowers
Trail

0.27 3,925 Unpaved Develop 10
Upper
Watershed
Loop Trail

0.25 3,700 Unpaved Develop
(requires HOA
coordination)
11 93
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Source(s): ESRI, OpenStreetMap, Google Maps. Disclaimer: Data is shown for planning purposes only and requires verification by public agencies. Permission to use parklands and trails should not be assumed. Some parklands and trails may traverse private property and their boundaries do not imply rights of public use.

Hercules
Community Center
Hercules
Teen Center
Foxboro
Community
Center
Hercules
Senior Center
Ohlone
Community
Center
San Pablo Bay
Refugio V
alley Tr
ail
Pinole Creek Trail
Bay Trail
Bay Area Ridge Trail
Bay Area Ridge Trail
Ohlone
Elementary
School
Hercules
Middle/High
School
Lupine Hills
Elementary
School
Hannah Ranch
Elementary
School
Rodeo
Pinole
San Pablo Ave
John Muir Pkwy
Pheasant Dr
San Pablo Ave
Redwood Dr Lupine Rd
Falcon Way
John Muir Pkwy
Willow Ave
Sy
camo re Ave
80 4
Franklin Canyon
Open Space
(John Muir Land Trust)
Hercules
Point
Refugio Creek
Pinole Creek
Rodeo Creek
Refugio Valley Road
Proposed
Multimodal
Transit Station
Ohlone
Park
Woodfield
Park
Foxboro
Park
Hanna
Ranch
Park
Railroad
Park
Beechnut
Mini Park
Shasta
Park
Sierra
Park
Duck
Pond Park
Refugio
Valley Park
Shoreline
Park
Frog
Pad Park
Bayside
Park
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 4
4 1
1 3
2 2
3 10
5 5
11 11
# #
# #
# #
Proposed Park and
Trail Connectivity
Existing Multiuse Trails
Proposed Multiuse Trails
Existing Trails - Paved
Proposed Trails - Paved
Existing Trails - Unpaved
Proposed Trails - Unpaved
Parks and Trails
Recreation Facility
Open Space
Conservation Area
Schools
Creeks and Waterbodies
City of Hercules
Outside of City Boundary
94 this page intentionally left blank
95 4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 9 Table 3 summarizes future policy issues for the City Council to consider once the Building Facilities Assessment is completed for the City’s recreation buildings (assumed to be complete in spring 2024). The parks master plan did not include an architectural evaluation of buildings, so capital recommendations focus on new facility needs and operational considerations that factor in facility age and current uses. Recognizing the long-term investment in major facilities, several of these recommendations are longer-term and would require planning, outreach, financial feasibility studies, and investment beyond the 10-year planning horizon. The definitions below characterize the capital recommendations:
• Develop – Create a site master plan, complete a financial feasibility study, and construct a new building at the existing site.
• Restore – Repair, replace or make minor improvements to existing recreation facilities to refresh aging and worn features.
• Renovate – Enhance or provide more extensive changes to an existing building to add new, expanded or upgraded features to expand capacity and existing use. • Reprogram – Improve or renovate a building to accommodate a new use. • Trade – Negotiate an agreement, long-term lease, or other arrangement to give a current building to another public service provider in exchange for an equally valuable benefit.
• Continue – Continue current reservable uses to support recreation.

96 4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 10 Table 3: Major Recreation Facilities Recommendations Summary (to be considered in coordination with recommendations from the forthcoming Building Facilities Assessment)
Site Name Square
Feet
Classification
/Type
Capital
Recommendation
Hercules Community
Center
17,000 Recreation
Facility Renovate and Develop
Hercules Swim Center 20,000 Aquatics
Facility Restore
Teen Center 2,000 Recreation
Facility Reprogram
Ohlone Community
Center
2,050 Recreation
Facility
Renovate (or explore
other options)
Foxboro Community
Center
1,200 Recreation
Facility Restore
Senior Center 1,500 Recreation
Facility Restore
Lupine Kidz Center n/a Childcare
Center Relocate
Hanna Ranch Kidz Center n/a Childcare
Center Renovate
Ohlone Kidz Center n/a Childcare
Center Trade
Hercules Library n/a Library Continue
Samara Terrace Van
Domselaar Room
n/a Recreation
Facility Continue

97 4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 11 Existing Parks
Recommendations for individual parks and trails are presented in the order provided in Table 1.

All Parks
• Provide standard park identification signs and updated rules signs at all parks.

Remove old or out-of-date signage. Install park signage along the accessible route.

Many parks are missing identification signs (examples: Sierra, Shasta, Shoreline, Bayside).
• Use the two-stall unisex restroom at Duck Pond Park as a model for prefabricated restroom replacement throughout the park system. Some parks with unique restrooms, such as Refugio Valley Park, may require another approach that upholds the original park design intent.
• Determine invasive plant species in Hercules parks and remove them with volunteer/City coordination. Examples include pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) found at Refugio Valley Park, Duck Pond Park, and Frog Pad Park. • Replace old green wood park benches with updated City standard benches. These benches do not meet accessibility standards.
• Address the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when developing or renovating parks, facilities, and trails. • Provide directional or wayfinding information to City parks on existing or new signs, where appropriate. Consider this in any future City sign and wayfinding project. • Select standard equipment (ex: basketball poles, backboards and hoops) that can withstand high intensity use to reduce need for maintenance/repairs.

98 BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Amphitheater
Barbecue Grill
Bench
Bike Rack
Bridge
Drinking Fountain
Exercise Equiment
Gazebo
Lake or Pond
Open Lawn Area
Other
Parking (off-street)
Picnic Area or Table
Planting Area
Playground
Public Art
Restrooms
Sign
Storage or Equipment Building
Tennis Court
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Bench
•
Bench
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Other
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Tennis Court
•
Tennis Court
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Ampitheatre
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Bike Rack
•
Bike Rack
•
Gazebo
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Parking (off-street)
•
Picnic Area or Table
Existing Assets
Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional
• Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Playground
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Storage or Equipment Building
•
Tennis Court
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Barbecue Grill
• Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Lake or Pond
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Other
•
Other
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Restrooms
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Tennis Court
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
• Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bridge
•
Other
•
Parking (off-street)
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Playground
•
Public Art
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Waking/Jogging Path
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Other
•
Other
•
Other
•
Playground

REFUGIO VALLEY PARK AND TENNIS COURTS
Park Classification: Citywide Park
Park Size: 12.7 Acres
99 • Provide a site master plan to coordinate multiple, layered needs and site development of Refugio Valley Park including ADA access, new parking, extension of Refugio Valley Trail, tennis area renovation, proposed features, pond sediment dredging, natural resources mitigation, and functional adjacencies of new park features. •
Provide new electrical hookups to better support events.

Park

1. Improve sightlines around restroom – remove
ficus (creeping fig) from restroom exterior wall
and refinish restroom exterior – OR – replace
restroom outright with prefabricated restroom (4
unisex stalls). The former is preferred as existing
circular restroom is a feature of the park’s overall
design aesthetic (circles and curvilinear lines exist
in park throughout).

2. Remove the existing tot lot and concrete
foundation along pond edge; naturalize the area
in conjunction with pond rehabilitation.

3. Remove existing play hill stairs feature at
pond’s east edge. Add a new 6,000 - 8,000
SF accessible flexible space for concerts,
community performances and gatherings. This
space can function as a group picnic area when
performances aren’t planned.

4. Improve the central grass lawn by regrading,
adding subsurface drainage and irrigation system,
and reseeding lawn with shade tolerant grass
seed mix.

5. Remove eucalyptus trees recommended by
certified arborist. Grind down stumps and remove
surface roots.

6. Where trees have been removed, provide shade
structures near parking lot and group picnicking
area where trees have been removed. Locate
shade structures along an accessible route from
the parking lot.

7. Add a full basketball court to the main lawn that
can support active recreation, as well as park
events and gatherings.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map)

8. Renovate and expand the older children’s
playground (currently 2,800 SF) to a universally
accessible 8,000 - 10,000 SF destination play
space suitable for ages 2 to 5 and 5 to 12 years.

Incorporate accessible swing into the future
playground design, (planned be added in 2023).

9. Add another parking lot along Refugio Valley
Road. Design lot to support function of the
Refugio Valley Trail – see Trails.

Tennis Center

10. Renovate connecting circulation system between
parking lot, practice wall, group picnic area, tennis
courts, and Turquoise Avenue

11. Provide a marked accessible parking spot and
accessible route to tennis courts and gathering
areas.

12. Replace wood railroad tie stairs, steps and other
connecting features with concrete throughout.

Wood steps throughout are trip hazards with
uneven surfaces, rotted areas, gaps, cracked
risers.

13. Revegetate bald slopes along Turquoise Avenue,
between tennis courts, and at parking lot.

14. Evaluate health of trees at Tennis Center. Remove
dying, dead or stressed vegetation, including tree
stumps which are trip hazards.

Pond and Creek

15. Naturalize pond edge with a 10’-20’ buffer of
native pond plantings; replenish existing edges;
limit public access around pond edge.

16. Initiate permits needed to dredge the pond.

Select a qualified contractor to dredge and (semi)
annually maintain pond.

17. Replace decking of wood bridge over Refugio
Creek.
16 173
9 1
5 7
8 6
4 2
10 11
12 13
14 15

REFUGIO VALLEY PARK AND TENNIS COURTS
Park Classification: Citywide Park
Park Size: 12.7 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 100

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Basketball Court
Bench
Bike Rack
Bocce Court
Drinking Fountain
Gazebo
Horseshoe Pit
Lake or Pond
Open Lawn Area
Other
Parking (off-street)
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Public Art
Restrooms
Sign
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Basketball Court
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bike Rack
•
Bike Rack
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Parking (off-street)
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Sign
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bocce Court
•
Bocce Court
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Gazebo
•
Horseshoe Pit
•
Horseshoe Pit
•
Other
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Restrooms
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Waking/Jogging Path
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional
• Lake or Pond
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

DUCK POND PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 6.8 Acres
101
Recommended park additions include a fenced dog park, futsal or similar type of court, and ping pong tables.

PLANTING AREAS
•
Dedicate one of the park hillside meadow areas to butterfly habitat. •
Renovate empty planters throughout developed areas of park with drought tolerant pollinators like Russian sage, Mexican bush sage, California lilac, etc. Consider removing manicured shrubs. •
Add mulch to planter areas to meet elevation of paved walkways. Current walkways are 4” above grade and present a fall/trip hazard.

POND
•
Improve park’s natural features to enhance habitat, site aesthetics, and reduce fire risk. •
Remove dead or dying trees near pond.
•
Remove felled tree debris, dead brush, and eucalyptus litter. •
Leave horizontal limbs that provide perching habitat within pond. •
Refrain from mowing the west slope of pond until late June to encourage pollinator establishment and lifecycle.

1. Replace horseshoe courts with a sports court or
game station, such as 2 additional bocce courts
(if sponsored by area bocce league), ping pong
tables, pickleball court, futsal court, etc.

2. Remove trees lining bocce courts to minimize leaf
litter. Replace them with other drought tolerant
landscaping or evergreen trees with no or very
limited leaf litter (ex: fruitless olive) – or – add a
small shade feature or shelter for each group of
courts.

3. Replace basketball pole, backboard and hoop
with new equipment that can withstand higher
intensity use. The current system gets bent when
players dunk, requiring constant repairs.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map)

4. Provide a 0.75-acre fenced dog park on grass
slope surrounding developed park to provide
a dog park on the west side of I-80. Consider
partitioning separate areas for more active/less
active dogs and include rules sign, agility features,
fountain, waste receptacles, dog bag stations,
shaded seating, etc.

5. Add a paved trail connection from the southwest
corner of park to Athena Road.
2 4
3 1
5 DUCK POND PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 6.8 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 102

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Basketball Court
Open Lawn Area
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Restrooms
Sign
Swings
Tennis Court
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Basketball Court
Open Lawn Area
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Restrooms
Sign
Swings
Tennis Court
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Barbecue Grill
•
Sign
•
Swings
•
Tennis Court
•
Tennis Court
•
Waking/Jogging Path
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Playground
•
Playground
•
Restrooms
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Basketball Court
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Waking/Jogging Path
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional
• Sign
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

FOXBORO PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 3.6 Acres
103
Recommended park additions include new playground equipment and renovation of tennis and basketball courts.

1. Improve the Foxboro Community Center to
support indoor/outdoor uses. (See Recreation
Facilities for details.)

2. Replace aging playground equipment and safety
surfacing.

3. Renovate tennis court surfacing and striping.

Reuse existing nets.

4. Renovate basketball court surfacing and striping;
reposition hoops and posts so that the backboard
protrudes four feet out from the baseline.

5. Renovate planting area at seat wall and add
drought tolerant pollinator species.

Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map) 2 4 3
1 5

FOXBORO PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 3.6 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore
104

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Baseball or Softball Field
Bench
Bleachers
Bridge
Drinking Fountain
Other
Parking (off-street)
Picnic Area or Table
Planting Area
Restrooms
Sign
Soccer Field
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Sign
•
Sign
•
Baseball or Softball Field
•
Bleachers
•
Bridge
•
Other
•
Other
•
Other
•
Parking (off-street)
•
Parking (off-street)
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Restrooms
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Waking/Jogging Path
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Sign
•
Soccer Field
•
Soccer Field
•
Soccer Field
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Waking/Jogging Path
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional
• Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Waking/Jogging Path

HANNA RANCH PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 10.2 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 105
Recommended park additions include artifical turf soccer field conversion, climbing wall, and picnic area. • Partner with West Contra Costa Youth Soccer League (WCCYSL) to improve fields. •
Explore options to partner with the School District to fund and add other recreation uses at the park, including sports courts or a climbing wall.

1. Take existing upper fields and renovate as 2 full-
size, regulation fields, with options for 4 micro
fields for children’s soccer.

2. Upgrade grass fields into artificial turf fields
through funding and partnership agreement with
WCCYSL.

3. Consider the addition of sports field lighting at
upper field in coordination with neighbors.

4. Add picnic tables near restroom.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map) 1 2
3 4

HANNA RANCH PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 10.2 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 106

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Bench
Bridge
Community Garden
Dog Park or Leash-Free Area
Drinking Fountain
Other
Pet Waste Station
Picnic Area or Table
Sign
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Bench
Bridge
Community Garden
Dog Park or Leash-Free Area
Drinking Fountain
Other
Pet Waste Station
Picnic Area or Table
Sign
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
• Sign
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Community Garden
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Pet Waste Station
•
Pet Waste Station
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Dog Park or Leash-Free
Area
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Other
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional
• Barbecue Grill
•
Bench
•
Bridge
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

OHLONE PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 8.2 Acres
107
Recommended park additions include an all play feature that uses the site’s topography, challenge element, and and an art wall element.
• Provide a site master plan to coordinate multiple, layered needs of Ohlone Park including ADA access, internal park circulation, proposed features, dog park, and functional adjacencies of new park features. •
Provide an accessible loop connecting all major park elements and key amenities (parking, dog park, community garden, proposed all ages play area).
•
Resurface paved asphalt path throughout park, providing minor reroutes as necessary (remove divots, cracks, shifts, tree root damage).
•
Add signage identifying park, features, and trail connections to adjacent open space (See Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan – Proposed Trail Segment 7) and adjacent neighborhoods.

1. Replace fence at dog park. Provide accessible
gates into dog park and accessible features inside
dog park.

2. Connect all concrete picnic pads to asphalt path
near dog park.

3. Remove eucalyptus trees at the dog park; add a
shade structure at dog park.

4. Removed patterned concrete paver section in dog
park and replace with asphalt path or reinforced
concrete path.

5. Provide a challenge/adventure type facility for
teens and young adults, such as a skate spot,
climbing wall or net, in a location with good
visibility and regular foot traffic.

6. Protect heritage oak tree on slope. Do not place
any development within the dripline of tree crown
given sensitivity of oak root systems.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map)

7. Add an all ages play feature that works with
the site’s natural topography – such as an
embankment slide and related elements.

8. Add a group picnic area/group seating/hang out
space near the all ages play feature; consider
an “art wall” installed in conjunction with youth
artists.

9. Expand community garden to address waitlist
backlog working with Hercules Community
Gardening Program.

10. Provide a soft surface path entrance into the park
from Turquoise Drive (between Opal Court and
Cinnabar Way).

11. In the long term, re-establish the natural
amphitheater on slope beyond oak dripline.
6 9
10 8
5 7
4 1
2 3
11 OHLONE PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 8.2 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 108

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Bench
Bike Rack
Drinking Fountain
Open Lawn Area
Other
Pet Waste Station
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Restrooms
Sign
Swings
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Bench
•
Bench
•
Other
•
Sign
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Pet Waste Station
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Playground
•
Restrooms
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Walking/Jogging Path
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional
• Bench
•
Bike Rack
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Other
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Swings
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Sign

SHORELINE PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 2.6 Acres
109
Recommended park additions include group study space, overlook seating that incorporates art, and group swing.

PLANTING AREAS
•
Add mulch to planter areas to meet elevation of adjacent paved walkways. •
Repair bald spots in turf lawn
•
Renovate empty planters throughout developed areas of park with salt-spray tolerant plants and drought toler- ant pollinators.

1. Renovate overlook seating at Bay edge of park
to enhance views, accommodate groups, add
signage and art.

2. Add another developed node on northeast corner
of park and provide passive/not noisy element(s)
for teens, adults, and seniors. Ideas include adult-
scaled swings, group swing, group study space/
community table/hangout space, shade sail, etc.

3. Add paved, accessible companion seating areas at
two benches spots along park paved loop.

4. Add mulch to planter areas to meet elevation of
adjacent paved walkways. Current walkways near
playground and restroom are 4” above planter
grade and present a fall/trip hazard.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map)

5. Add additional soft surface access point into park
from sidewalks.

6. Add Shoreline Park identification sign.

7. Replace drinking fountain.

8. Repaint restroom.

9. Improve access to picnic spots along Bay Trail.

Remove vegetation growing within pavement; add
paved access path to second picnic spot.
1 2
3 4
6 7 8
9 5

SHORELINE PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 2.6 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 110

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Baseball or Softball Field
Basketball Court
Bench
Drinking Fountain
Open Lawn Area
Other
Picnic Area or Table
Planting Area
Playground
Public Art
Restrooms
Sign
Soccer Field
Tennis Court
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Baseball or Softball Field
•
Bench
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Planting Area
•
Playground
•
Public Art
•
Sign
•
Soccer Field
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Basketball Court
•
Basketball Court
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Other
•
Planting Area
•
Restrooms
•
Sign
•
Soccer Field
•
Tennis Court
•
Tennis Court
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

WOODFIELD PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 6.0 Acres
111
Recommended park additions include pickleball courts, prefabricated restroom, and all-ages playground equipment. • Provide a site master plan to coordinate multiple, layered needs of Woodfield Park including field overlays and setbacks, replacing restroom, ADA access, circulation to/around proposed fields/courts, and functional adjacen- cies of new park features. Incorporate a preliminary sound study at this stage (or later during schematic design) to inform design as it relates to noise generating uses. •
Explore Joint Use Agreement to provide public access to school parking during non-school hours.

1. Renovate 2 existing basketball courts, including
court resurfacing, restriping, new posts, back-
boards, hoops, etc.

2. Renovate tennis courts to support one tennis
court and 2 pickleball courts, including court re-
surfacing, restriping, new nets, perimeter shaded
seating, and storage. Provide wind guard system
on court fencing.

3. Replace the current restroom. Select prefabri
-
cated restroom with two individual unisex stalls.

Provide water fountain at restroom.

4. Renovate grass fields, add drainage system, and
add overlay to baseball field for a multi-use rect-
angular turf grass field for youth sports. Replace
dugouts.

5. Add group picnic spot near restroom and grass
fields.

6. Provide an accessible route between the re-
stroom, fields, courts, playground, picnic areas,
and street parking. Reorient and enhance park
entry and location of restroom as needed.

7. Add off-street parking stalls across the street on
City-owned land.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map)

8. Given the wide range of ages the renovated park
will attract, all-ages play features should be incor-
porated. Replace aging younger children’s play-
ground with 2-3 freestanding, all-ages elements
such as spinner bowls and sticks, seesaw, balance
equipment, etc. As part of this, consider siting
these elements near the new restroom to provide
more circulation space and open areas around
courts.

9. Work with local artists to renovate wood totem
pole art. Add interpretive information about the
art piece. Consider relocating the piece within
the park so its visibility is prominent and comple-
ments other park elements.

10. Remove pines surrounding courts as they uplift
and damage pavement and create other main-
tenance issues for court use. Remove any other
hazardous trees.

11. Selectively prune other park trees to improve
visibility into park’s active areas.

12. Vegetate slopes along the asphalt path with new
plantings and temporary irrigation. Select low
growing vegetation to ensure visibility across the
park.
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 5

WOODFIELD PARK
Park Classification: Community Park
Park Size: 6.0 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 112

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Drinking Fountain
Kiosk
Open Lawn Area
Playground
Restrooms
Sign
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Drinking Fountain
Kiosk
Open Lawn Area
Playground
Restrooms
Sign
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
• Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Playground
•
Bench
•
Playground
•
Restrooms
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Kiosk
•
Restrooms
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional

BAYSIDE PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.7 Acres
113
Recommended park additions include a small shade structure with picnic tables, a public libray kiosk, and all-ages play equipment.
• Renovate planters where vegetation is dead or missing. Consider removing manicured shrubs in high traffic areas.

1. Consolidate the two separate small tot play areas
in one expanded area of the park. As part of this
process, replace tot play equipment and safety
surfacing.

2. Add a small shade structure with picnic tables
across from restrooms.

3. Add 1-2 all-ages play elements (balance, spinning,
rocking elements, etc.) to provide teens, adults,
and seniors something to do.

4. Repair the out-of-service restroom and repaint
both restroom buildings.

5. Replace message kiosk between restrooms with a
small neighborhood library (little free library)
Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map) 4 3
2 1
5 BAYSIDE PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.7 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 114

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Other
Parking (off-street)
Pet Waste Station
Swings
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Other
Parking (off-street)
Pet Waste Station
Swings
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
• Other
•
Swings
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Parking (off-street)
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional

BEECHNUT PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 4.7 Acres
115
Recommended park additions include a small skate spot, adult and youth swings, and soft surface pump track. • Add drought tolerant pollinator vegetation around developed park area.

1. Update park entry and access from driveway curb
cut. Add standard park sign.

2. Repurpose paved lot into active area for youth.

Add a tricycle loop or small skate spot and a
half-basketball court and appropriate screening
vegetation from neighbors.

3. Remove extraneous asphalt at paved lot.

4. Add a small shade feature with seating near the
tricycle loop.

5. Replace swings with 2 adult swings or group
swing. Add balance, spinning or other features
that can serve all-ages.

6. Add a small neighborhood library kiosk in a high
visibility area (little free library)

7. Remove dead or dying trees and select woody
vegetation to improve visibility across the park.

8. Provide a soft surface pump track, challenge or
bike skills course on upper slopes of park.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map) 2 7
8 3
1 6
5 4

BEECHNUT PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 4.7 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 116

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Bike Rack
Drinking Fountain
Gazebo
Open Lawn Area
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Public Art
Sign
Swings
Trash or Recycle Receptacle

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Bike Rack
Drinking Fountain
Gazebo
Open Lawn Area
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Public Art
Sign
Swings
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
• Open Lawn Area
•
Sign
•
Bike Rack
•
Gazebo
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Playground
•
Public Art
•
Drinking Fountain
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Playground
•
Public Art
•
Swings
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Sign
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional

FROG PAD PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 1.0 Acres
117
Recommended park additions include new playground equipment and planting to include drought tolerant pollinator species.
• Renovate planting beds throughout park with drought tolerant pollinator species.

1. Replace the playground and safety surfacing in
the next 5 years. Remove the concrete step up to
the new play feature to provide direct access for
those with mobility issues.

2. Repair and refinish gazebo shade structure.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map) 1 2

FROG PAD PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 1.0 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore
118

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Open Lawn Area
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Sign
Swings
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Bench
Open Lawn Area
Picnic Area or Table
Playground
Sign
Swings
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Open Lawn Area
•
Sign
•
Swings
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Playground
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Picnic Area or Table
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional

RAILROAD PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.6 Acres
119
Recommended park additions include new playground equipment and adding all-ages play equipment and half-court basketball.

1. Replace playground elements and safety surfacing
and use space more efficiently to provide more
opportunities. Provide equipment consistent with
the park’s “railroad” name. Swings appear to be in
good condition for reuse.

2. Add an all-ages play elements (e.g., balance,
spinning, rocking elements, etc.) to provide teens,
adults and seniors something to do.

3. Provide a half basketball court, by relocating
picnic tables/benches and adding appropriate
screening vegetation from neighbors.

Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map) 1 2
3 RAILROAD PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.6 Acres Capital Recommendation: Restore and Enhance 120

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Bench
Bike Rack
Open Lawn Area
Pet Waste Station
Picnic Area or Table
Planting Area
Playground
Shelter or Pavilion
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Bench
Bike Rack
Open Lawn Area
Pet Waste Station
Picnic Area or Table
Planting Area
Playground
Shelter or Pavilion
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Barbecue Grill
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bike Rack
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Pet Waste Station
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Planting Area
•
Playground
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Shelter or Pavilion
•
Planting Area
•
Waking/Jogging Path
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional

SHASTA PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.5 Acres
121
• This park is new and in excellent condition with no immediate improvements needed.

Sitewide Recommendations

SHASTA PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.5 Acres Capital Recommendation: None
122

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional

BY ASSET TYPE
Barbecue Grill
Bench
Bike Rack
Exercise Equiment
Open Lawn Area
Other
Pet Waste Station
Picnic Area or Table
Planting Area
Playground
Shelter or Pavilion
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Waking/Jogging Path
• Barbecue Grill
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bench
•
Bike Rack
•
Exercise Equiment
•
Exercise Equiment
•
Exercise Equiment
•
Exercise Equiment
•
Open Lawn Area
•
Other
•
Other
•
Pet Waste Station
•
Picnic Area or Table
•
Planting Area
•
Playground
•
Shelter or Pavilion
•
Shelter or Pavilion
•
Shelter or Pavilion
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Walking/Jogging Path
•
Barbecue Grill
•
Planting Area
•
Trash or Recycle Receptacle
Existing Assets Asset Condition Scoring (2023)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not
Functional

SIERRA PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.4 Acres
123
In the future, consider adding a nature play element along the paved path to provide something for children to do here. • This park is new and in excellent condition with no immediate improvements needed.

1. Consider the addition of a small (300 SF) nature
play node along curvilinear walkway to provide
something for children to do here.

Sitewide Recommendations
Location-Specific Recommendations (see keyed locations on map) 1 1

SIERRA PARK
Park Classification: Neighborhood Park
Park Size: 0.4 Acres Capital Recommendation: None
124

4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 38 Planned Sites – Waterfront District
Design standards for the six planned Waterfront District sites are provided by the 2008 Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP) by Opticos Design (see Chapter 3: Civic Space Standards). A summary of the 2008 plan recommendations is provided for each site, as are additions or changes recommended by this Master Plan.

The Master Plan classifies these planned sites as either Special Use Sites or Neighborhood Parks:
• Neighborhood Parks are small parks, typically less than one acre in size, that support a mix of play, picnicking, and leisure activities for residents that live within walking or biking distance. Typical facilities include playgrounds, group picnic areas, and open lawn areas. Small footprint active recreation facilities are encouraged. • Sp
ecial Use Sites are single-purpose sites or greenspace, such as urban plazas, promenades, waterfront parks, gardens, etc., intended to attract people from across the city. Their size is dependent on their specialized use, and they may include support amenities such as on-site parking, restrooms, shade, and seating for longer site visits. Special Use Sites often include art or other placemaking features to create a sense of identity associated with their specialized use. 125

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional
Recommended park additions include a shaded tot lot, challenge feature, and unique group seating. • The Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP) recommends developing Bayfront Creekside Park as a 0.35-acre passive, open space park with seating, civic elements, and plantings along Refugio Creek. In addition, develop Bayfront Creekside Park (Block K) to meet neighborhood needs, protect riparian greenspace, and support com- munity aesthetics.
•
Create a site master plan with a “natural” design theme to provide continuity between these two sites, to high- light Refugio Creek as a key feature, and to enhance views to San Pablo Bay. •
Landscape the sites with trees, shrubs and plantings that include native riparian species and natural forms but may include lawn to support other park functions.
•
Coordinate with the developer to ensure public access. Determine whether the site will be maintained by the City (potentially through an LLAD) or a Homeowners Association.

1. Provide an artistic painted crosswalk across Bay-
front Boulevard to ensure safe pedestrian cross-
ing and visually link these sites.

2. Create an intimate, shaded play space for ages
2-5 that incorporates nature play options and
adjacent shaded seating for families.

3. Provide more challenging climbers and features
for ages 5-12 or all ages.

4. Incorporate themed or interactive art, potentially
as part of the play space.

Sitewide Recommendations
Other Recommendations (locations to be determined)

5. Provide unique group seating arrangements (in
lieu of individual park benches) that maximize
creek and bay views. Include covered tables and
seating under a pergola or other unique shade
shelter.

6. Ensure access to the Creekside Trail.

7. Avoid elements such as traditional fountains that
would detract from the natural beauty of the park
and be costly to maintain.

BAYFRONT/CREEKSIDE PARK (BLOCK K)
Park Classification: Planned Neighborhood Park (Waterfront District Master Plan) Park Size: 0.35 Acres Capital Recommendation: Develop
126
• The WDMP recommends developing this site as a 0.6-acre neighborhood park with formal character and ter- races/levels that support events and group gatherings, with viewpoints that face outwards to the bay, a fenced playground, interactive art/fountains, and shaded casual seating. • Coordinate with the developer to ensure public access. Determine whether the site will be maintained by the City (potentially through an LLAD) or a Homeowners Association.

1. Add connections to the Bay Trail/Promenade

2. Provide active recreation spaces for teens, adults,
and older adults, including exercise equipment or
challenge features.

3. Connect this park to the adjacent neighborhood
square and activate it with residential and com-
mercial uses.

4. Consider adding a small outdoor amphitheater.

Sitewide Recommendations
Other Recommendations (locations to be determined)

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (BLOCK L&M)
Park Classification: Planned Neighborhood Park (Waterfront District Master Plan) Park Size: 0.6 Acres Capital Recommendation: Develop

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (BLOCK B)
Park Classification: Planned Neighborhood Park (Waterfront District Master Plan) Park Size: 0.6 Acres Capital Recommendation: Develop
•
The WDMP recommends developing Bayfront Creekside Park as a 0.6-acre neighborhood park that features views to Mt. Tamalpais with shade and casual along with active, passive and unstructured recreation. • Create a site master plan.
• Coordinate with the developer to ensure public access. Determine whether the site will be maintained by the City (potentially through an LLAD) or a Homeowners Association.

1. Provide play elements and features to expand use
to all ages.

2. Incorporate active recreation for teens, adults,
and older adults such as exercise equipment.

3. Provide safe access routes and protected spaces
(fencing or other barriers from roads).

4. Connect to the adjacent Bay Trail/Promenade.

Sitewide Recommendations
Other Recommendations (locations to be determined)
127

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional
Recommended park additions include spaces that can support fitness programming, interactive art, and rest zones. • The WDMP recommends developing this site as a 0.5-acre community plaza space with a large open area for gatherings, commercial activity, unstructured recreation and other passive uses. Shaded seating, landscaping, and a civic anchor element such as a fountain or kiosks can also be provided. This future civic plaza will have a relationship to a multimodal transit station envisioned to be constructed nearby as part of The Hub. •
Determine whether the site will be managed and maintained by the City or LLAD.

1. Provide rest zones and additional shaded seating
given the likelihood of higher visitor traffic, adja-
cency to the Bay Trail/Promenade, and planned
multimodal transit station.

2. Provide active fitness programming such as morn-
ing yoga or evening dance/exercise classes at this
site in lieu of fixed exercise equipment or other
active recreation elements that take up fixed
space.

Sitewide Recommendations
Other Recommendations (locations to be determined)

3. Provide well-designed connections to transit
stops/stations, bicycle parking, drop off areas, on-
street parking, and access to the Bay Trail given
the site will support civic gatherings and other
events.

4. Provide interactive public art for placemaking
purposes in lieu of fountains that may be costly to
maintain.

CIVIC PLAZA (BLOCK G)
Park Classification: Planned Special Use Site (Waterfront District Master Plan) Park Size: 0.5 Acres Capital Recommendation: Develop
128

BY CONDITION
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Functional
Recommended park additions include plaza space with gathering, resting, and casual dining. • The WDMP recommends developing this neighborhood as a 0.40-acre plaza space with commercial and civic activity, including gathering, resting and casual dining, food kiosks or carts, with a connection to the Bay Trail. •
Determine whether the site will be managed and maintained by the City or LLAD.

1. Provide walkable connections eastward along
Bayfront Boulevard towards Refugio Creek, the
Creekside Trail, and to the Civic Plaza site.

2. Provide visual connections such as street trees,
other landscaping, or lighting cues to create a
coherency and sense of place to define the water-
front district.

Sitewide Recommendations
Other Recommendations (locations to be determined)

PLAZA (BLOCK D&E)
Park Classification: Planned Special Use Site (Waterfront District Master Plan) Park Size: 0.4 Acres Capital Recommendation: Develop
129

4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 43 Proposed Site
This Master Plan proposes the development of one new park, in addition to the park sites previously planned and described above. The impetus for this new park is a lack of park and recreation space within the Birds and Gem Stones neighborhoods based on the access analysis conducted in this plan. Taking advantage of existing open space, the plan recommends the development of a Nature Park. This park classification is defined below:
• Nature Parks are mid-size parks, typically two to five acres in size, that protect wildlife habitat, conserve natural resources, and support ecological functions, while also providing recreation opportunities. These sites may serve nearby neighbors while also providing unique recreation options that attract residents from across the city. Typical facilities include nature trails, viewpoints, picnic areas, interpretive features, and other compatible recreation uses that are carefully considered to minimize wildfire risks and reduce impacts to natural areas. 130
Recommended park additions include a shaded gathering area, nature play, and disc golf. • Identify an open space site suitable for one 2–4-acre Nature Park. Taking into account land availability, access, topography, and development potential, consider a site on City-owned open space in the Birds/Gem Stones neighborhoods.
•
Consider objectives (Objective 1 and Objective 6) and related policies in the City’s Open Space Element regarding presence of threatened or endangered species such as the Alameda whipsnake, California red legged frog, and Contra Costa goldfields (plant).
•
Provide ADA accessibility to extent feasible given the surrounding steep topography. • Provide a self-guided nature trail with interpretive signage. Consider options to create an app with additional information about local natural features.

SUPPORT ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORS

1. Provide multiple pedestrian and bike access
points.

2. Provide adequate visitor parking that does not
excessively impact surrounding residential prop-
erties.

3. Integrate public transit accessibility when siting
the new park. There are existing bus stops (Bus
#10) along Pheasant Drive and Turquoise Drive.

4. Connect the Nature Park to existing and/or pro-
posed trail networks.

DEVELOP SITE AS A NATURE PARK

5. Provide nature-themed playground or nature play
with shaded seating.

6. Add par course features along a trail or a fitness
zone to support active uses and fitness.

7. Provide a 9- or 18-hole disc golf course with pads,
baskets, golf signage, as well as site signage to
eliminate user safety conflicts. Work with EBRPD
for potential partnership.

Sitewide Recommendations
Other Recommendations (locations to be determined)

8. Consider additional education/interpretation
space, such as kiosks or an outdoor classroom
shelter.

9. Provide a trailhead that includes shaded picnic ta-
bles, benches, and wayfinding signage. If feasible,
provide a restroom and drinking fountain. Do not
provide barbecues.

10. Activate and program the site with nature-themed
events such as stargazing, educational events,
trail hiking, and scouts’ camp use.

11. If a utility corridor is present (such as the sites along Pheasant Drive), consider only suitable rec-
reational activities to be coordinated with impact-
ed utilities or districts.

Potential nature park site (2 sites under consideration) GEMS NATURE PARK (Proposed Site)
Park Classification: Proposed Nature Park
Park Size: 2 to 4 Acres Capital Recommendation: Develop 131

4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 45 Greenways and Trails
All Trails
• Add paved multiuse trail connections to improve east/west access for pedestrians and bicyclists through Hercules and along San Pablo Bay. • Add connections between unconnected open space trail segments (See Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan). Coordinate with utilities and HOAs as necessary. • Provide a range of compatible amenities along soft surface open space trails such as wayfinding, rules signage at trailheads, trash receptacles, viewpoints, seating, or par course/outdoor fitness stations along trail.
• Utilize fire roads as trails with wayfinding/signage and connections.

Existing Greenways and Trails
Refugio Valley Trail
Capital recommendation: Improve and Enhance
• Replace aging exercise equipment along Refugio Valley Trail. Cluster equipment together in groups near parking lots to improve access to and visibility around equipment.
• Equipment should be accessible from the side of the trail and include safety surfacing.
• Install equipment out of drip lines of mature trees.
• Repair the pathway and add new surfacing where needed.

Bay Trail (Segment #1 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Crack and seal existing Bay Trail.
• Construct a 1120’ lineal feet (LF) (0.21 mi) multiuse trail as part of completion of the Bay Trail.
• Match existing trail cross section dimensions. Include space for future crosswalks to reach planned multimodal transit station (The Hub) and civic plaza. • Install promenade in vicinity of The Hub.

Proposed Greenways and Trails
John Muir Parkway Trail (Segment #2 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct a 960’ LF (0.18 mi) multiuse trail along south side John Muir Parkway between Sierra Park and San Pablo Avenue.
• Match existing pathway width on John Muir Parkway. Use concrete to match existing paved trail.
132

4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 46 Sycamore Ave Trail (Segment #3 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct a 2800’ LF (0.53 mi) multiuse trail along south side John Muir Parkway between Sierra Park and San Pablo Avenue.
• Use a 10’ paved trail width.
• This multiuse trail connection will provide critical east-west pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to below I-80 and over railroad tracks.
• Project will require working with CALTRANS and impacted railroad to identify appropriate design standards, details, materials, and safety requirements.

Trestle Cove Connection (Segment #4 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct a 1200’ LF asphalt trail connection between Trestle Cove and Victoria Crescent West.
• Use a 6’ paved trail width.
• Coordinate with Bio-Rad and adjacent HOAs.

Pinole Creek Connection (Segment #5 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct an 820’ LF asphalt trail connection along the existing maintenance road between San Pablo Ave and the east side of Pinole Creek Trail. • Use a 6’ paved trail width.
• Coordinate with City of Pinole and obtain easements from adjacent landowners.

Gem Stones Trail (Segment #6 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct a 1600’ LF soft surface trail connection underneath an overhead voltage corridor to connect Bay Area Ridge to Gem Stones neighborhood open space. • Use a 3’ soft surface trail width.
• Coordinate with affected utilities.

Ohlone Creek Trail (Segment #7 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Improve and Enhance
• Construct a 7550’ LF soft surface trail connection between Ohlone Park and Gems and Birds neighborhoods open space.
• Use a 3’ soft surface trail width.
• 825’ LF through HOA-owned open space dependent on use agreement between HOA and City.
133

4.2 Preliminary Site Recommendations
Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan | 47 Birds Trail (Segment #8 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct a 2400’ LF soft surface trail connection through Birds neighborhood open space and existing trail that links to Refugio Valley Road. • Use a 3’ soft surface trail width.
• Coordinate with affected HOAs.

Refugio Creek Loop Trail (Segment #9 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Improve and Enhance
• Construct a 5515’ LF soft surface trail connection between Hercules Community Center and Lavender Place and Redwood Road.
• Use a 3’ soft surface trail width.
• Coordinate with affected HOAs.

Flowers Trail (Segment #10 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct a 3925’ LF soft surface trail connection between Woodfield Park and Shephard Street.
• Use a 3’ soft surface trail width.
• Coordinate with affected HOAs.

Upper Watershed Loop Trail (Segment #11 on Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan) Capital recommendation: Develop
• Construct a 3700’ LF soft surface trail connection between Refugio Valley Road and Armstrong Street through Beechnut Park and adjacent HOA open space. • Use a 3’ soft surface trail width.
• Coordinate with affected HOAs.
• Completion of this segment will complete the Upper Watershed Loop Trail (segment south of Refugio Valley Road already exists)
134
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Council Update
Prioritization and Draft Plan Development
September 12, 2023 @ 7:00PM
City of Hercules | Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 135
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan AGENDA
Meeting Purpose and Project Status
Recommendations Overview
Project Costs
Anticipated Funding Approach
Prioritization Process and Findings
Potential Priority Projects
Discussion Questions
AGENDA
136
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Meeting Purpose
• Discuss i nput received from the public and project Steering Committee • Provide a high-l evel overview of plan recommendations and costs • Get Council feedback on the preliminary priority projects identified by the project’s le
adership team:
• How do they fit in with the City’s sustainability goals? • Do they reflect what the City can deliver in 10 years? 137
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan 1 2
34 Draft Master Plan
Presentation to
Council:
mid-November
138
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Tasks Completed Since Last Council Update (June 25)
Draft Site
Recommendations
and Map
Steering
Committee
Meeting #3 &
Prioritization
Activity
Draft Project List
& Estimated
Costs
Online
Prioritization
Activity
139
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Master Plan Recommendations Overview
a. S ite Recommendations
a.Existing Parks
b.Planned Waterfront Parks
c. Proposed Parks
d.Existing Greenways and Trails
e.Proposed Greenways and Trails
b. O perational Recommendations
a.Maintenance levels
b.Recreation programming
 Comprehensive list of
desired projects
 Applies to existing,
planned, and proposed
parks & trails
 More than can be
accomplished in next 10
years
 Positions City for grant
funding, donations and
partner support
140
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Recommendations for Existing Sites
141
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Recommendations for Existing Sites
142
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Recommendations for New Parks
 6 proposed waterfront parks
• 4 small neighborhood parks
• 2 plazas
 1 proposed nature park
(open space conversion)
 Summary of Recommendations
for New Parks
143
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan  11 proposed trail segments to
address gaps and access
improvements
• 3 multiuse trails
• 2 paved trails
• 6 unpaved trails in open
space
Recommendations
for New Trails
144
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Facility Recommendations
The parks master plan provides capital
recommendations focused on new facility needs and
operational considerations that factor in facility age
and current uses.

The City is currently completing a systems
assessment of recreation facilities and Kidz Centers as part of a Building Facilities Assessment
.

Recommendations from the parks master plan will be
looked at in coordination with recommendations of
the Building Facilities Assessment, targeted to be
complete in spring 2024.
145
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Facility Recommendations
146
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Project Costs
Classification Park System Preliminary
Planning Level CIP Costs
Estimated Annual
Maintenance Costs
Existing Parks $38,522,000 $668,000
Planned Waterfront Parks $5,325,000 $28,000
Proposed Parks $1,650,000 $24,000
Existing Greenways and
Trails
$6,417,000 $320,000
Proposed Greenways and
Trails
$3,293,000 $17,000
Existing and Proposed
Facilities (TBD)
TOTALS $55,210,000 $1,050,000
There are more needs than funding likely allows. An action plan of priority projects is needed to identify those that can be funded in the 10-year horizon. 147
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan 70%
10%
3%
11%
6%
Preliminary Park System Planning Level CIP Costs
Existing Parks
Planned Waterfront Parks
Proposed Parks
Existing Greenways and Trails
Proposed Greenways and Trails
Project Costs
148
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Anticipating Funding Approach
• Identify potential funding sources
• Identify priority projects can be accomplished in the 10-y ear horizon Considerations:
• Consider both capital and operations costs
• Diversify funding sources
• Enhance the park system in a fiscally responsible way • Seek grant funding
149
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Prioritization Feedback – Online Survey Findings
150
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Prioritization Process – Online survey findings
151
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Prioritization Process – Online survey findings
152
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Prioritization Process – Steering Committee Direction
• Focus on existing sites and addressing gaps in the trail system to better co
nnect Hercules
• Concentrate efforts at some of Hercules’ larger, aging parks that will pro
vide visible results to the community
• Provide improvements that serve everyone (safety and restrooms) alon
gside major investment in active recreation, fields, courts, play • Implement small projects that have a big impacts
153
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Potential Priority Projects for 10-Year Action Plan
for Council Discussion
Site Project Preliminary Capital
Costs (rounded)
Refugio Valley Park and
Tennis Courts
Restore and enhance entire site, includes
pond dredging
$9.2 million
Woodfield Park Restore and enhance entire site $5.2 million Hanna Ranch Park Restore and enhance entire site, focus on artificial turf conversion with youth sports
league partnerships*
$9.6 million*
Sycamore Avenue
Multiuse Trail
Provide multiuse trail under I-80 and over
railroad tracks to connect to RVP
$2.4 million
Bay Trail Complete multiuse trail along bay shore $345,000 Playground project Update playground at Foxboro $650,000 Small project/big impact Add half basketball court at Railroad Park $80,000 Others for discussion Likely waterfront parks/plazas?
Total $27.5 million
Funding target TBD
154
City of Hercules | Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan Discussion:
• What are the top priorities to advance in the next 10 years? • Should the City concentrate on Hanna Ranch, Refugio Valley, and Wo
odfield Parks initially?
155

DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION

AGENDA ITEM

2. 22-634
156

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Mike Roberts, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Negotiation Points for Solid Waste Franchise Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:
a) Receive a report from staff regarding the recommended negotiation points for the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with Republic Services; and b) Discuss and provide direction on the negotiation points to staff, if any; and c) Authorize staff to proceed with negotiations.

BACKGROUND:

The City first entered into a Franchise Agreement (Agreement) with Pinole Garbage Service, a division of Richmond Sanitary Service (dba Republic Services) for collection of solid waste and collection and processing of source separated recyclable materials, organic materials, and construction and demolition debris (Collection Services) in 1986.

The current Agreement ends on June 30, 2025. The City should have an extension or new agreement in place for Collection Services by January of 2024.

In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) into law, which directs the Department of Resources Recycling & Recovery (CalRecycle) to adopt regulations and requirements to achieve statewide goals of reducing organic waste disposal by 75% and to recover at least 20% of surplus food currently being disposed by 2025. SB 1383 is California's most significant waste reduction mandate in the last 30 years. The City must expand commercial and residential organics waste collection programs, develop edible food recovery programs, and instill procurement mechanisms for SB 1383 qualifying recycled content products. The Cit y will also be expected to 22-634
157
enforce, track, and report on organic waste diversion goals. Adding additional provisions related to SB 1383 compliance will assist in clarifying roles and responsibilities in relation to this new State law.

ANALYSIS:

Republic has already implemented extensive adjustments to their collection services to facilitate state law compliance, including automatic roll -out of organics service to customers who generate sufficient quantities of solid waste to be required to subscr ibe under State law, as well as extensive additional recordkeeping and reporting.

Some businesses in Hercules do not currently have separate bins for the collection of organic material (i.e., food scraps, food soiled paper, and yard waste). SB 1383 requires all residents and businesses to have bins for the separate collection and disposal of organic material unless they receive a waiver.

In addition to providing for the separate collection and processing of organic material, Republic Services will be requ ired to promote and enforce proper sorting of organic material. These efforts will include inspecting bins for contamination (e.g., trash in an organics container), notifying customers of contamination issues, and promoting proper sorting to residents and businesses through public outreach and technical assistance.

Republic Services will also be required to provide detailed tracking and reporting on these activities.

Staff is recommending that the City pursue several objectives in relation to the proposed Agreement extension:

1. Restatement of existing franchise agreement

2. The addition of provisions related to SB 1383, detailed above

3. Contract duration of sufficient length to recover the cost of any capital investments (10+ years)

4. The addition of Bulky Item Pic kup for single-family and potentially multi-family customers at minimal additional cost

5. Adjustments to some of the City fees related to mitigation of street damage related to solid waste collection services, and other nexuses currently being explored
Republic has preliminarily requested a new contract restatement . Staff is in agreement that a new contract would save time and result in improved clarity around contract provisions. The City expects that any rate adjustments would be directly associated with program improvements and not a result of the negotiated extension. Any additional costs associated with the formulation of the new contract would be paid by Republic. Republic has also requested that the City conduct three Public Hearings per year to place of liens on private property for delinquent waste collection charges. The City currently holds two Public Hearings per year for this purpose.
158

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct financial impact associat ed with the recommended action. Staff will bring back to Council a recommended draft agreement and discuss potential financial impacts in detail at that time.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

159

DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION

AGENDA ITEM

3. 22-630
160

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 12, 2023
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Edwin Gato, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Receive the Finance Commission’s Annual Report on Measures B and C for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive the Finance Commission’s Annual Report on Measures B and C for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022.

COMMISSION/SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Finance Commission recommends that the City Council receive their Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022, Annual Report on Measures B and C.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION: None as a result of this action, though Measures B and C provide a significant level of revenues in support of the City’s General Fund.

DISCUSSION: The City’s Finance Commission serves as the citizen’s oversight body for Measures B and C, which are voter approved local sales tax and utility user tax measures respectively. Each year, the Finance Commission undertakes a review of the revenues generated in the prior fiscal year by these Measures as required by the Measures. The Finance Commission review takes place after the City’s independent auditors completed their annual audit and the Agreed-Upon-Procedures (AUP) Report for each measure. The Finance Commission reviewed and approved the annual report at their special meeting on August 2, 2023. A copy of the report is attached for the City Council’s review and receipt.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Finance Commission Annual Report on Measures B and C for the year ended June 30, 2022.
22-630
161
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Report to City Council on
Measure B and C Revenue
for Fiscal Year 2022
Prepared by Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Sub -Committee:

Commissioner Barinder Dhillon Flanagan
Commissioner Edward Ulle
Commissioner Dennis Aselage
Prepared July, 16, 2023
162
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 2 of 18 ends

Table of Contents
Purpose.................................................................................................................................................3 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................3 Measure B: ........................................................................................................................................3 Measure C:........................................................................................................................................3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................4 Reporting Period and Scope ................................................................................................................4 Actions Taken .......................................................................................................................................4 Findings.................................................................................................................................................5 Measure B: ........................................................................................................................................5 Measure C:........................................................................................................................................7 Effect on General Fund ........................................................................................................................9 References..........................................................................................................................................14 Appendix 1: Measure “O” Background ...............................................................................................15 Appendix 2: Measure “A” Background ...............................................................................................16 Appendix 3: Measure “B” and Measure “C” Background...................................................................17 Appendix 4: Finance Commission Background .................................................................................18 163
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 3 of 18 ends

Purpose
This is the Annual Report by the Fin ance Commission as the Oversight Committee for Measure B - Transactions and Use Tax Revenues (originally adopted as Measure O in June 2012) and Measure C - Utility Users Tax Rate Revenues (originally adopted as Measure A in June 2013). This report fulfills the Finance Commission requirements specified in City of Hercules Municipal Code to:
● Provide oversight under Title 8 (Finance Revenue and Taxation), Chapter 9 (Temporary Transaction and Use Tax).
● Provide oversight under Title 8 (Finance Revenue and Taxation), Article 4 (Continuation of Increase to Utility Users Tax Rate).

Conclusions
Measure B:

For Fiscal Year ending June 30, 20 22, the local add-on half cent (0.50%) transaction and sales tax revenues, approved by Hercules voters, was $2,051,658. With an outstanding payment due of $189,154, for a total of $2,240,812. These tax revenues were spent in accordance with the voter approved Measure O adopted in June 2012 and subsequently extended by the voter approved Measure B adopted November 2015. Measure B would retain the half cent (0.50%) add-on until such time as the City Council determines it is no longer necessary.

Henceforth in this document, we will use Measure B to reference this voter approved measure.

Measure C:

For Fiscal Year ending June 30, 20 22, the incremental two percent (2%) Utility User Tax (UUT) funds, approved by Hercules voters, was $1,357,369. These funds were spent in accordance with the voter approved Measure A adopted in June 2013 and subsequently extended by the voter approved Measure C adopted November 2015.

The City of Hercules established a UUT of six percent (6%) which will expire on January 1, 2025. In 2013 voters approved measure A which established a two percent (2%) increase to the UUT to a total of eight percent (8%) which would expire in 2018. In 2015 voters approved measure C which would extend the two percent (2%) UUT increase until January 1, 2025.

Henceforth in this document, we will use Measure C to reference this voter approved measures.
164
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 4 of 18 ends

Recommendations
● Recommend that the incremental transaction and use tax provided for in Measure B be retained since the City of Hercules has not yet achieved long term financial stability with adequate financial reserves.
● Recommend that the incremental Utility User tax provided for in Measure C be retained since the City of Hercules has not yet achieved long term financial stability with adequate financial reserves.
● Monitoring of revenue from Measures B and C shall be a part of every regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance Commission.

Reporting Period and Scope
This annual report covers the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 20 22. This report focuses on the General Fund because it provides the funding for the concerns expressed on the Measure B and Measure C ballot measures .

Actions Taken
The Finance Commission provided Oversight for Measure “B” and Measure “C” by the following actions:

1. The Finance Commission convened seven times on the following dates: May 18, 2022, June 8, September 21, November 16, 2022 January 18, 2023, March 15 and on April 19, 2023. These meeting were held to review various financial reports submitted to the commission by staff. The May18 meeting included the review of the Finance Subcommittee Report on Measure B & C for FY 2021. The FY 2021 report was presented to the Hercules City Council at their Ju ly 12, 2022 meeting. On April 19, 2023 the audited Measure B & C Revenues for FY 202 2 were provided to the commission by staff, at which time a subcommittee was formed to prepare this report.

2. Reviewed the Budgets, Financial Reports and variance analyses for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022.

3. Reviewed periodic Long -Term Forecasts and Working Cash Balance reports prepared by City of Hercules Finance staff.

4. Reviewed City of Hercules audited Annual Financial Reports for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2022.

5. Reviewed The Pun Group report on “Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures on Measure B Transactions and Use Tax Revenue” 7.

6. Reviewed The Pun Group report on “ Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures on Measure C Utility Users Tax Rate Revenue” 14. 165
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 5 of 18 ends

Findings
Measure B:

Measure B Transaction and Use Tax Revenue receipts are summarized as follows:

For Fiscal Year 2022 the tax revenue received for Measure B was $2,051,658. The budgeted tax revenue for Measure B was $1,525,000. This resulted in a net excess revenue of $526,658.

Fiscal Year
(Ending June 30)
Actual Received Per General Ledger
20142 $952,255
20152 $863,323
20163 $1,181,605
20173 $1,130,251
20183 $1,275,479
20194 $1,403,874
20205 $1,473,913
20216 $1,847,749
20227 $2,051,658
166
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 6 of 18 ends

Transaction and Use Tax revenue received in Fiscal Year 2022 under Measure B has been properly collected and paid into the General Fund a s required per Ordinance 470 Section

8.9.12 “Use of Tax Proceeds” which state s that “All proceeds of the tax levied and imposed under thi s Article shall be paid into the general fund for use b y the City of Hercules.” This conclusion i s based on the Finance Commission’ s review of the City’s audited Annual Financial Reports, the Quarterl y Financial Statements, and The Pun Group report on “Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying A greed-Upon Procedures on Measure B Transactions and Use Tax Revenue” - January 31, 2023, which states that “Proceeds of taxes levied and confirmed under Measure B were paid into the City’ s General Fund for use b y the City with no exceptions”.
167
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 7 of 18 ends

Measure C:

Measure C Utility Users Tax (UUT) Rate Revenues are summarized as follows:

For Fiscal Year 2022 the tax revenue received for Measure C was $1, 357,369. The budgeted tax revenue for Measure C was $ 1,244,121. This resulted in a net excess revenue of $113,248.

Fiscal Year
(Ending June 30)
Actual UUT w/
Measure C
Estimated UUT
w/o Measure C
Increase in
Revenue due
to Measure C
20148 $3,182,013 $2,201,950 $980,063
20158 $3,439,914 $2,163,601 $1,276,313
20169 $3,515,565 $2,224,000 $1,291,565
201710 $3,576,053 $2,306,607 $1,269,446
201810 $3,642,120 $2,310,030 $1,332,091
201911 $3,502,264 $2,219,720 $1,282,545
202012 $3,483,843 $2,200,886 $1,282,957
202113 $3,590,649 $2,302,961 $1,287,687
202214 $3,828,410 $2,471,041 $1,357,369
168
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 8 of 18 ends

Utility Users Tax revenue received under Measure C has been properly collected and paid into the General Fund per Ordinance 481, Section 8 -8.402 “Use of Additional Tax Proceeds” which states that “All proceeds of the tax levied and imposed under this Article shall be paid into the general fund for use by the City of Hercules”. This conclusion is based on the Finance Commission’s review of the City’s audited Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022, and The Pun Group report on ““Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures on Measure C Utility Users Tax Rate Revenue” – January 31, 2023. 169
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 9 of 18 ends

Effect on General Fund
The General Fund had a net increase in Fiscal Years ending June 30, 2014 -June 30, 2019 as shown by the Annual Reports for each respective year. However, for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2020 the General Fund had a net d ecrease, primarily due to the DOF Settlement of $1,812,075. For Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 the General Fund had a net surplus of $2,327,475 of which $766,219 was transferred, reducing the surplus to $1,561,256. $150,000 was received due to AB 3229 COPS grant for Public Safety, ($312,194) was transferred out for debt service payment for SunTrust Lease and for 2020 Library Lease Revenue Bond, and ($604,025) was transferred out for Department of Finance Due Diligence Review Annual Settlement payment. For Fiscal Year ending June 20, 2022 the General Fund Revenue minus Intergovernmental Revenue is $16,650,894.

Fiscal Year General Fund
Revenue15
General Fund
Expenses15
(Deficit) / Surplus
2014 $12,638,059 $11,200,782 $1,437,277
2015 $13,573,615 $10,213,252 $3,360,363
2016 $14,018,112 $11,046,540 $2,971,572
2017 $14,859,520 $11,784,637 $3,074,883
2018 $16,490,956 $12,929,170 $3,561,786
2019 $17,563,562 $14,615,734 $2,947,828
2020 $16,706,848 $18,541,346 ($1,834,498)
2021 $16,463,953 $14,136,478 $2,327,475
2022 $16,650,894 $16,109,032 $541,862
Measure B and Measure C revenues increased revenue to the General Fund starting in Fiscal Year 2014.
170
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 10 of 18 ends

The following is a summary for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2014 through June 30, 2022:

Fiscal Year
Revenue Source
General Fund Measure B Measure C Total
2014 $10,844,803 $952,256 $841,000 $12,638,059
2015 $11,588,959 $863,323 $1,121,333 $13,573,615
2016 $11,544,942 $1,181,605 $1,291,565 $14,018,112
2017 $12,459,823 $1,130,251 $1,269,446 $14,859,520
2018 $13,883,386 $1,275,479 $1,332,091 $16,490,956
2019 $14,827,597 $1,403,874 $1,332,091 $17,563,562
2020 $13,949,978 $1,473,913 $1,282,957 $16,706,848
2021 $13,328,517 $1,847,749 $1,287,687 $16,463,953
2022 $13,241,867 $2,051,658 $1,357,369 $16,650,894
Fiscal Year
Revenue Source
General Fund Measure B Measure C Total
2014 85.8% 7.5% 6.7% 100%
2015 85.4% 6.4% 8.3% 100%
2016 82.4% 8.4% 9.2% 100%
2017 83.9% 7.6% 8.5% 100%
2018 84.2% 7.7% 8.1% 100%
2019 84.4% 8.0% 7.6% 100%
2020 83.5% 8.8% 7.7% 100%
2021 81.0% 11.2% 7.8% 100%
2022 79.5% 12.3% 8.2% 100%
171
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 11 of 18 ends

Without the Measure B or Measure C revenues, the City would have had a deficit in Fiscal Year 2014, 2020 and 2022. The City would have had much smaller surpluses for the Fiscal Years 2015 through 20 19.
172
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 12 of 18 ends

The following is a summary for Fiscal Years ending June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2022 if Measure B and C Revenues were excluded.

Fiscal Year Revenue
(excluding Measures B & C)
Expenditures (Deficit) / Surplus
2014 $10,844,803 $11,200,782 $(355,979)
2015 $11,588,959 $10,213,252 $1,375,707
2016 $11,544,942 $11,046,540 $498,402
2017 $12,459,823 $11,784,637 $675,186
2018 $13,883,386 $12,929,170 $954,216
2019 $14,827,597 $14,615,734 $211,863
2020 $13,949,978 $18,541,346 ($4,591,368)
2021 $13,328,517 $14,136,478 ($807,961)
2022 $13,241,867 $16,109,032 ($2,867,165)
The General Fund is used to account for all revenue and expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the City that are not accounted for through other funds. For the City, the General Fund includes such activities as police, planning, engineering, public works, operations and maintenance, and legal and administrative services.

The General Fund provides the funding for the issues expressed in the Measure “O” and Measure “A” ballot language:

1. Measure O (Measure B): "Local Temporary Emergency Funding Measure. To address Hercules' Fiscal Emergency, stabilize city finances, offset budget shortfalls/the impact of State budget cuts on local services, prevent reductions to the number of police officers/crime investigators, protect/maintain crime prevention, childcare, youth sports and recreation programs and other general City services, shall the City of Hercules establish a 1/2 cent sales tax legally ending after 4 years, with Independent Citizens' Oversight, Independent Audits and no money for Sacramento?”

2. Measure A (Measure C): “City of Hercules Fiscal Accountability/Services Protection Measure. To restore Hercules to fi nancial stability, enhance fiscal accountability, continue to maintain our own local Police Department, and prevent drastic cuts to neighborhood police officers, youth/senior programs, and other services, shall Hercules modernize its utility users tax with equal treatment of taxpayers regardless of technology, increase the rate by 2% for 5 years, maintain current low -income exemptions, with citizens’ oversight, independent audits, and local control of revenues.” 173
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 13 of 18 ends

Based on the impartial ballot analysis by t he City Attorney, Measure “O” did not limit use of Measure “O” funding to a specific purpose:
“Because Measure O does not limit the use of tax revenue to a specific purpose, the proposed tax is a general tax, requiring a majority vote (approval by more than fifty percent (50%) of City voters voting in the election) for passage. Therefore, the City shall use the funds for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to addressing the City's Fiscal Emergency; increasing police officer staffing, which is below Recommended Safety Levels; maintaining current levels of emergency services; providing additional funding for neighborhood police patrols, emergency response times, crime prevention and investigation resources; earthquake preparedness; after-school programs for children and teens; senior services; and parks.”
Based on the impartial ballot analysis by the City Attorney, Measure “A” did not limit the Measure “A” funding to a specific purpose:
“Because Measure A does not limit the use of tax revenue to a specific purpose, the City may use the funds for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to maintaining financial stability and accountability; maintaining the Hercules Police Department; maintaining neighborhood police patrols, impro ving 9-1-1 response times; expanding neighborhood crime prevention programs; attracting business to Hercules; and preventing cuts to street maintenance.”
According to page 98 of the 2021-2022 Annual Comprehensive Report, the balance in the Fiscal Neutrality Fund for Fiscal Year 2022 is $4,034,517 for the City of Hercules.

Finance Commission Members:

Edward Ulle, Chair
Dennis Esselsagoe , Vice-Chair
Barinder Dhillon -Flangan
Terrell Kingwood
Orit Sampson
Report approved by the Finance Commission on August 2, 2023 174
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 14 of 18 ends

References

1. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Annual Budget

2. Fiscal Year 2014 and Fiscal Year 2015 were based on Gallina, LLP reports on Agreed Upon Procedures – Measure B for the periods July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015

3. For periods July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 were based on CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP report on Agreed Upon Procedures – Measure O for the period ending June 30, 2016 and Agreed Upon Procedures- Measure B for the period ending June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018.

4. For period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 is based on CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP report “Measure B – Transaction and Use Tax Revenues, Agreed-Upon Procedures”, November 21, 2019.

5. For period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 is based on The Pun Group report on Independent Accountants’ Report On Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures – Measure B for the period ending June 30, 2020

6. For period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 is based on The Pun Group report on “Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures on Measure B Transactions and Use Tax Revenue” - January 19, 2022

7. For period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 based on The Pun Group report on “Independant Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures on Measure B Transactions and Use Tax Revenue” - January 31, 2023.

8. For the periods July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 based on Gallina LLP’s reports on Agreed Upon Procedures for Measure A

9. For FY 2016 the CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP’s report “Agreed-Upon Procedures Measure A – Utility Users Tax Rate Revenues, June 30, 2016“

10. For FY 2017 and 2018 “Agreed Upon Procedures Measure C- Utility Users Tax Rate Revenues, June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018”

11. For period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 is based on CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP report on Agreed Upon Procedures – Measure C for the period ending June 30, 2019

12. For period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 is based on The Pun Group report on Independent Accountants’ Report On Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures – Measure C for the period ending June 30, 2020

13. For period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 is based on The Pun Group report on “Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures on Measure C Utility Users Tax Rate Revenue” – January 19, 2022

14. For period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 is based on The Pun Group report on “Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures on Measure C Utility Users Tax Rate Revenues” – January 31, 2023

15. Audited Year End Results, including transfer to reserves and outstanding encumbrances. 175
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 15 of 18 ends

Appendix 1: Measure “O” Background
On July 24, 2012, Measure O, “Transactions and Use Tax Revenues” was passed by a majority vote of the City of Hercules and the Hercules City Council passed and adopted Ordinance 470 amending the Hercules Municipal Code by establishing a four year temporary transactions and use tax of 0.50% to be administered by the State Board of Equalization.

Per Section 8.9.13 of Ordinance 470:
“The Finance Commission, created pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, shall meet pursuant to Section 2-2.607 to oversee expenditures of the revenues received by the City from the sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to this Chapter, and to ensure that tax revenues are spent by the City in a manner consistent with the voter appr oved measure adopting this Chapter as well as any voter approved or Council approved priorities adopted to implement the provisions of this Chapter. (Ord. 528 § 1 (part), 2020: Ord. 488 § 1 (part), 2015: Ord. 481 § 3 (part), 2014: Ord. 470 § 2 (part), 2012)”
Per Section 8-9.14 paragraph (a) of Ordinance 470:
(a) The Commission is charged with the following responsibilities: (1) reviewing all appropriations of revenues received by the City from the sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the provisions of t his Chapter to determine whether such funds are to be used as provided for in this Chapter and the voter approved measure that adopted this Chapter; (2) reviewing the audit prepared by an independent auditor retained by the City to perform the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to determine whether such funds have been spent as provided for in this Chapter and the voter approved measure; (3) prepare and issue the Commission’s own annual report setting forth their findings in regard to the foregoin g; and (4) determining when the City has met its goal of achieving long term financial stability with adequate financial reserves, and issuing a report to Council detailing such findings, pursuant to Sec. 8-9.01(d).
(b) The Commission shall, for the purpos e of fulfilling oversight responsibilities pursuant to Measure O, confine itself specifically to funds received by the City from the sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. (c) In order to preserve the integrity and independ ence of the oversight process, Commission members will not play a formal role in decision -making on spending priorities, financing plans, or tax rate projections or assumptions. (Ord. 488 § 1 (part), 2015: Ord. 481 § 3 (part), 2014:

Ord. 470 § 2 (part), 2012. Formerly 8-9.17)
On August 20, 2014, the Measure O Citizen’s Oversight Committee approved the Measure O Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 2013 (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013). 176
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 16 of 18 ends

Appendix 2: Measure “A” Background
On June 4, 2013, Measure A “Utility Users Tax Rate Revenues” was passed by a majority vote of the City of Hercules and the Hercules City Council passed and adopted Ordinance 475 modernizing Title 8, Chapter 8 of the Hercules Municipal Code with respect to the existing 6% Utility Users Tax, and establishing a five year temporary increase of 2% to the Utility Users Tax. The Ordinance established citizens’ oversight with the existing Citizens Finance Advisory Committee (which became the Citizen’s Finance Commission) appointed by the Her cules City Council.

Per Section 8-8.404 of Ordinance 475:

The Finance Commission, created pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, or a subcommittee of the Commission established for this purpose, shall meet pursuant to Section 2-2.607 and review all revenues and expenditures under this Chapter in order to ensure that the funds are spent in accordance with the voter a pproved measure adopting this Chapter as well as any voter approved or Council approved priorities adopted to implement the provisions of this Chapter. (Ord. 528 § 1 (part), 2020: Ord. 489 § 1 (part), 2015: Ord. 481 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 2013)
Per Section 8-8.406 of Ordinance 475:
(a) The Commission is charged with the following responsibilities: (1) reviewing all appropriations of revenues received by the City from the sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter to determine whether such funds are to be used as provided for in this Chapter and the voter approved measure that adopted this Chapter; (2) reviewing the audit prepared by an independent auditor retained by the City to perform the City’s Comprehensive An nual Financial Report to determine whether such funds have been spent as provided for in this Chapter and the voter approved measure; (3) prepare and issue the Commission’s own annual report setting forth their findings in regard to the foregoing; and (4) determining when the City has met its goal of achieving long term financial stability with adequate financial reserves, and issuing a report to Council detailing such findings, pursuant to Section 8-8.409.
(b) In order to preserve the integrity and independence of the oversight process, Commission members will not play a formal role in contracting, project management, construction, or any other aspect of the funding. In addition, the Commission is not charged with decision -making on spending priorities, construction schedules, project details, funding source decisions (e.g., leveraged funds, developer fees, etc.), financing plans, tax rate assumptions, or selection of consultants, design, and construction firms. (Ord. 489 § 1 (part), 2015: Ord. 481 § 2 (part), 2014: Ord. 475 § 1 (part), 2013)
177
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 17 of 18 ends

Appendix 3: Measure “B” and Measure “C” Background
On July 28, 2015 the Hercules City Council unanimously approved placing the City of Hercules Financial Stability and Essential Services Continuation Measures, on the November 3, 2015 ballot to protect and maintain essential city services and fiscal stability.

On November 3, 2015, Measure B, “Transactions and Use Tax Revenues” was passed by a majority vote of the City of Hercules. Measure B extends indefinitely the Measure “O” half-cent per dollar local sales tax previously scheduled to end in 2016.

Measure B states, “Whereas the tax extension would be in effect until the Finance Commission finds, and the City Council approves by a 2/3 vote, that the City has achieved long term financial stability with adequate financial reserves.”
On November 3, 2015, Measure C “Utility Users Tax Rate Revenues” was passed by a majority vote of the City of Hercules. Measure C extends the Measure “A” 2 percent utility user’s tax that was previously scheduled to sunset in 2018, now scheduled to sunset in 2025.

Measure C states, “Measure C would extend the 2013 voter approved two percent (2%) UUT increase. If adopted, Measure C would make the eight percent (8%) total rate effective until January 1, 2025. The City Council could terminate the two percent (2%) increase at any time before January 1, 2025 and reduce the total UUT rate to six percent (6%) either on its own initiative or at the recommendation of the City’s Finance Commission upon a determination that the additional two percent (2%) increase provide for in Measure C is no longer n ecessary because the City has met its goal of achieving long term financial stability with adequate financial reserves. ”
178
City of Hercules Finance Commission
Measure B and Measure C Annual Report
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022

Page 18 of 18 ends

Appendix 4: Finance Commission Background
On November 23, 2014, the Hercules City Council passed and adopted Ordinance 481 amending the Hercules Municipal Code as follows:

1. Added Title 2, article 6, Section 202.601 through Section 2 -2.609 to create the Finance Commission.

2. Amended Title 8, Chapter 8, Article 4, to provide for the Finance Commission oversight of Measure A, “Utility Users Tax Rate Revenues”

3. Amended Title 8, Chapter 8, Article 9, to provide for the Finance Commission oversight of Measure O, “Transactions and Use Tax Revenues”
Per Section 2.2.609 of Ordinance 481 :

The Finance Commission shall be advisory to the City Council with no authority to direct staff, and shall have the following duties:
(a) Quarterly review of City’s financial status; review and comment on audit reports; review and comment on the proposed budget; and review and comment on items of extraordinary financial impact.
(b) Make recommendations to the City Council with respect to budget priorities. (c) Review and comment on the City’s annual operating and capital improvement budgets. (d) Advise the City Council on matters of policy and public interest related to the management of the City’s finances and budget.
(e) Serve as the Oversight Committee for Measure “A,” including providing an annual report, to ensure that utility user tax funds are spent in accordance with the voter approved measure adopted in June 2013.
(f) Serve as the Oversight Committee for Measure “O,” including providing an annual report, to ensure that the sales tax revenues approved by Hercules voters are spent in accordance with the voter approved measure adopted in June 2012.
(g) Take on any additional review and advisory functions assigned by the City Council by duly adopted resolution. (Ord. 519 § 2 (part), 2019: Ord. 481 § 1 (part), 2014) 179

DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION

AGENDA ITEM

4. 22-640
180

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Patrick Tang, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Local Small Business Preference for Goods and Services

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review and discuss report; provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND:

At the Council meeting of December 13, 2022, the Council approved Mayor Alex Walker- Griffin’s request to schedule a discussion on the merits of developing a Local Small Business Preference Program to promote local businesses located in and/or in the vicinity of Hercules. As a starting point for discussion, t his report is intended to provide general information regarding Local Small Business Preference programs.

DISCUSSION:

Ordinances providing preferences to local firms for the purchase of certain goods and services are generally considered to be legally permissible. However, where a contract is required to be given by law to the lowest responsible bidder (for instance public works contracts subject to Public Contracts Code low bid requirements), a preference in favor of local businesses is not valid.

Local S mall Business Preference programs are permitted if the city council makes adequate findings to es tablish that the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The Attorney General has opined that local small business preference ordinances for goods and services not subject to lowest bid requirements do not conflict with state public bidding statutes. 72 Ops. Cal Atty Gen 86 (1989). California Public Contract Code Section 2002 expressly allows for small business preferences and sets forth detailed requirements for such programs, stating in part:
22-640
181
“(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law requiring a local agency to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, any local agency may do any of the following in facilitating contract awards to small businesses:
(1) Provide for a small business preference in construction, the procurement of goods, or the delivery of services where responsibility and quality are equal.

How a Local Preference Works . While there are a number of variations, typically a Local Small Business Preference Program will include the following:

1) Purpose: Adopt contracting practices to promote a healthy local economy by preserving and supporting local businesses; typically this takes the form of a 5% preference for a local business when bidding for goods and services otherwise not required to be given by law to the lowest responsible bidder. 2) Determine the types of businesses eligible for the preference; typically to be considered a “local business ” eligible for a preference , the business must have its principal business office located within the city. Sometimes a satellite office staffed with one or more full time employees is sufficient to meet the “local business” designation. 3) The preference can be awarded when the lowest responsible bidder is a local business and is within a certain percentage (not to exceed 7 percent) of the lowest responsible bidder who is not a local business. When a local business and a non -local business submit equivalent bids, the city will typically give preference to the local business.

By way of example, the City of San Pablo has included within its Purchasing and Payables Guidelines1 the following provision for a Local Preference:

“5.5 LOCAL PREFERENCE Purchasing goods and services from local vendors is desired because it stimulates the local economy and recognizes that our local vendors are valued members of our community. For the purchase of goods or services, excluding public works contracts or procurements subject to the Federal Procurement Requirements, if factors such as quality, previous performance, and availability are equal among vendors, a vendor whose business is located in City of San Pablo shall be awarded a contract if their quote or bid is within 5% of the low bid (SPMC §3.16.100.C).”

1 https://sanpabloca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3339/Purchasing-Policy?bidId= 182
Establishing, implementing, and maintaining a Local Small Business Preference Program would require the Council to first decide on the scope of the program, and might take some time for staff to fully integrate into the City’s current contracting protocols and procedures.

CONCLUSION:

Public Contract Code Section 2002 authorizes local agencies to provide a small business preference when there is no requirement to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder (in other words, excepting public works contracts) ; however, there are detailed statutory requirements set forth in that section that must be met.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If a Local Business Preference were to be adopted, there would be staff and legal expenses related to the development and implementation of the policy, and the procurement of goods and services subject to the policy could become marginally more expensive.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Public Contract Code Section 2002

2. San Pablo Municipal Code Section 3.16.100 “Lowest Responsible Bidder and Local Business Preference”

183
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE Section 2002
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law requiring a local agency to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, any local agency may do any of the following in facilitating contract awards to small businesses:
(1) Provide for a small business preference in construction, the procurement of goods, or the delivery of services where responsibility and quality are equal.

The local agency shall set the percent and financial value of a preference. The maximum percentage of a preference shall be 7 percent of the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications and the maximum financial value shall be one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) for any bid. (2) Establish a subcontracting participation goal for small businesses on contracts and grant a preference, pursuant to paragraph (1), to those bidders who meet the goal. (3)(A) Require bidders to make good faith efforts to meet a subcontracting participation goal for small business contracts. Bidders that fail to meet the goal established by the local agency, shall demonstrate that they made good faith efforts to meet the goal. (B) A prime contractor may, subject to the approval of the local agency, substitute a subcontractor with another small business as applicable. A local agency shall approve the substitution of a subcontractor only in the instance where the substitution meets the requirements of paragraph (6) of subdivision (d) and the local agency's adopted policy.
(4) Set additional guidelines for local preference purposes. (b)(1) The local agency shall define the eligibility for a preference authorized pursuant to this section.
(2) In defining eligibility for a “small business,” a local agency shall, at a minimum, include businesses meeting the requirements of a small business enterprise certified pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 14835) of Chapter 6.5 of Part

5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(c) Every local agency that offers a preference, pursuant to this section, shall, prior to offering a preference, adopt a procurement policy that includes, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A definition of an eligible entity for each preference category being utilized by the local agency.
(2) The percentage and maximum financial value of a single preference. 184
(3) A requirement that a preference only be awarded to a small business that performs a commercially useful function, as defined in subdivision (e). (4) A policy regarding oversight and potential fraudulent behavior on the part of a contractor, subcontractor, or individual for the purpose of qualifying as a small business and being awarded a preference.
(5) A policy for determining whether a contractor has made a good faith effort, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).
(6) A policy on how a prime contractor may substitute a subcontractor, pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a). This policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(A) The identification of the condition or conditions for which a substitution of subcontractors is authorized.
(B) A requirement that construction subcontractors awarded construction subcontracts under this section shall be afforded all the protections of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 4100)). (C) A requirement that a subcontractor that served to qualify the bid package for a preference shall be replaced only with a subcontractor meeting the eligibility requirements of subdivision (b).
(D) A requirement that the condition qualifying the substitution be verified with the subcontractor.
(d) Every entity used to qualify a bid for a preference pursuant to this section shall perform a commercially useful function. A “commercially useful function” means:
(1) A contractor is deemed to perform a commercially useful function if the contractor, including a subcontractor, does all of the following:
(A) Is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of the contract. (B) Carries out its obligation by actually performing, managing, or supervising the work involved.
(C) Performs work that is normal for its business services and functions. (D) Is responsible, with respect to products, inventories, materials, and supplies required for the contract, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering, installing, if applicable, and making payment.
185
(E) Is not further subcontracting a portion of the work that is greater than that expected to be subcontracted by normal industry practices.
(2) A contractor or subcontractor shall not be considered to perform a commercially useful function if the contractor's or subcontractor's role is limited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, contract, or project through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of a small business.

186
San Pablo Municipal Code
Chapter 3.16

PURCHASING SYSTEM

3.16.010 Adoption.

In order to establish efficient procedures for the purchase of supplies, services and equipment, to secure for the city supplies, services and equipment at the lowest possible cost commensurate with quality needed, to exercise positive financial control over purchases, to clearly define authority for the purchasing function and to assure the quality of purchases, a purchasing system is adopted. (Ord. 672 § 1, 1975)

3.16.020 Purchasing officer.

The finance director is appointed the purchasing officer having general supervision of the purchasing department. The purchasing officer shall have the authority to:

A. Purchase or contract for supplies, services and equipment required by any using department in accordance with purchasing procedures prescribed by this chapter, such administrative regulations as the purchasing officer shall adopt for the internal management and operation of the purchasing department and such other rules and regulations as shall be prescribed by the city council and city manager. Notwithstanding Section 1.16.010, all contracts and purchase orders entered into pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be authorized and signed by the purchasing officer or city manager. Any purchase or contract whose cost to the city exceeds fifty thousand dollars shall be authorized by the city council;
B. Negotiate and recommend execution of contracts for the purchase of supplies, services and equipment;
C. Act to procure for the city the needed quality in supplies, services and equipment at least expense to the city;
D. Discourage uniform bidding and endeavor to obtain as full and open competition as possible on all purchases;
E. Prepare and recommend to the city council revisions and amendments to the purchasing rules; F. Keep informed of current developments in the field of purchasing, prices, market conditions and new products;
G. Prescribe and maintain such forms as reasonably necessary to the operation of this chapter and other rules and regulations;
187
H. Supervise the inspection of all supplies, services and equipment purchased to insure conformance with specifications;
I. Recommend the transfer of surplus or unused supplies and equipment between departments as needed and the sale of all supplies and equipment which cannot be used by any department or which have become unsuitable for city use;
J. Inspect supplies and equipment delivered, and contractual services performed, to determine their conformance with the specifications set forth in the order or contract. The purchasing officer shall have authority to require chemical and physical tests of samples submitted with bids and samples of deliveries which are necessary to determine their quality and conformance with specifications. (Ord. 2017-001 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2009-008 §§ 1, 2, 2009; Ord. 98-004 §§ 1, 2, 1998; Ord. 672 § 2, 1975)

3.16.030 Decentralized purchasing.

The purchasing officer may authorize any department to purchase or contract for specified supplies, services and equipment independently of the purchasing department, but he shall require that such purchases or contracts be made in conformity with the procedures established by this chapter, and may further require periodic reports from the department on the purchases and contracts made under such authorization. (Ord. 672 § 3, 1975)

3.16.040 Estimates of requirements.

All using departments shall file detailed estimates of their requirements in supplies, services and equipment in such manner, at such time, and for such future periods as the purchasing officer shall prescribe. (Ord. 672 § 4, 1975)

3.16.050 Purchases.

Purchase orders may be used for the purchase of supplies, services and equipment. If a purchase order is not used, the purchasing officer prescribes using approved invoices coded and signed by appropriate staff.” (Ord. 98-004 § 3, 1998: Ord. 672 § 5, 1975) (Ord. No. 2009-008, § 3, 11-16-09)

3.16.060 Encumbrance of funds.

Except in cases of emergency, the purchasing officer shall not issue any purchase order for supplies, services or equipment unless there exists an unencumbered appropriation in the fund account against which said purchase is to be charged. (Ord. 98-004 § 4, 1998: Ord. 672 § 6, 1975)

3.16.070 Public projects.

A. Public projects, as defined by Section 20002 of the California Public Contract Code, of forty-five thousand dollars or less may be performed by city employees by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order. Public projects of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars or less may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in this section. Public projects of more than one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars shall, except as otherwise provided herein, be awarded following formal bidding procedure. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, these monetary thresholds and all other procedural requirements shall be adjusted automatically so as to 188
remain in conformance with the limits and requirements set forth in Section 22032 of the Public Contract Code, as it may be amended from time to time.

B. Informal Bid Procedures for Public Contracts.

1. Contractors’ List. The public works director shall develop and maintain a list of contractors in accordance with the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 22034 and the criteria promulgated from time to time by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission (“Commission”).

2. Notice Inviting Informal Bids.
a. If a public project subject to the provisions of this subsection is to be performed, a notice inviting informal bids shall be mailed to all contractors for the category of work to bid as shown on the list referred to above or to all construction trade journals as specified by the commission in accordance with Section 22036 of the Public Contract Code.

Additional contractors and/or construction trade journals may be notified at the discretion of the department soliciting bids; provided, however:
i. If there is no list of qualified contractors maintained by the city for the particular category of work to be performed, the notice inviting bids shall be sent only to the construction trade journals specified by the commission; and ii. If the project or service is proprietary in nature such that it can be obtained only from a certain contractor or contractors, then the notice inviting formal bids may be sent exclusively to such contractor.
b. All mailing of notices to contractors and construction trade journals pursuant to this subsection shall be completed not less than ten calendar days before bids are due. c. The notice inviting informal bids shall describe the project in general terms and how to obtain more detailed information about the project, and state the time and place for the submission of bids.
d. If all bids received are in excess of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars, the city council may, by adoption of a resolution by a four-fifths vote, award the contract, at one hundred eighty-seven thousand five hundred dollars or less, to the lowest responsible bidder, if it determines the cost estimate was reasonable.

3. Award of Contracts. The city manager is authorized to award and execute all contracts of fifty thousand dollars or less. The city manager or designee shall make recommendations to the city council for purposes of award of all other contracts under this section.

C. Formal Bid Procedures for Public Contracts.

1. As set forth in Public Contract Code Section 22037, notice inviting formal bids shall state the time and place for the receiving and opening of sealed bids and distinctly describe the project. The notice shall be published at least fourteen calendar days before the date of opening the bids in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the jurisdiction of the city; or, if there is no newspaper printed and published within the jurisdiction of the city, 189
in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated within the jurisdiction of the city, or, if there is no newspaper which is circulated within the jurisdiction of the city, publication shall be by posting the notice in at least three places within the jurisdiction of the city as have been designated by ordinance or regulation of the city as places for the posting of its notices. The notice inviting formal bids shall also be mailed to all construction trade journals specified in Public Contract Code Section 22036. The notice shall be mailed at least thirty calendar days before the date of opening the bids.

2. In its discretion, the city may reject any bids presented, if the city, prior to rejecting all bids and declaring that the project can be more economically performed by its own employees, furnishes a written notice to an apparent low bidder. The notice shall inform the bidder of the city’s intention to reject the bid and shall be mailed at least two business days prior to the hearing at which the city intends to reject the bid. If after the first invitation of bids all bids are rejected, after reevaluating its cost estimates of the project, the city shall have the option of either of the following:
a. Abandoning the project or readvertising for bids. b. By passage of a resolution by a four-fifths vote declaring that the project can be performed more economically by the employees of the city, may have the project done by force account without further complying with this section. c. If a contract is awarded, it shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the city may accept the one it chooses. d. If no bids are received through the formal or informal procedures, the project may be performed by city employees by force account, or negotiated contract without further complying with this section.

3. The city council shall adopt plans, specifications, and working details for all public projects exceeding one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars. Any person may examine the plans, specifications, or working details, or all of these, adopted by the city for any project.

D. Emergencies. In cases of emergency when repair or replacements are necessary, the city manager is delegated the authority to take any action pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 22050) of the Public Contract Code. In such an emergency and notwithstanding subsection A of this section, the city manager is also delegated the authority to make a purchase or enter into a contract in an amount up to and including one hundred thousand dollars which shall be reported to the city council at its next regularly scheduled meeting. In the event of a declaration of emergency and activation of the emergency operations center pursuant to Chapter 2.36, those procedures shall apply and not be subject to the contracting authority limits in this chapter.

E. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22160 et seq., the city is authorized to use design-build contracts for public works projects as defined in Public Contract Code Section 22161 over one million dollars with an award of contract either to the low bid or the best value as defined by statute or in any other situations that may be authorized by state law. As required by Section 22162, a design professional or other consultant who under contract with the city provides assistance related to the design-build procurement, including but not limited to preparing the documents for the request for qualifications or request for proposals documents envisioned in Section 22164 shall be prohibited from participating with the design-build entity. (Ord. 2018-003 § 1, 190
2018; Ord. 2017-001 §§ 2, 3, 2017; Ord. 2015-006 § 1, 2015: Ord. 2009-008 § 4, 2009: Ord. 98-004 § 5, 1998: Ord. 672 § 7, 1995)

3.16.080 Formal bid requirements—Contracts exceeding twenty- five thousand dollars.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, purchases and contracts for nonpublic projects, as that term is defined in Public Contract Code Section 20002, or for supplies, services and equipment, for which the city’s expenditure exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars, shall be by written contract with the lowest responsible bidder pursuant to the procedure prescribed in this section.

A. Notice Inviting Bids. Notices inviting bids shall include a general description of the articles to be purchased, shall state where bid blanks and specifications may be secured, the location at which completed bids shall be delivered to the city, and the time and place for opening bids.

1. Reasonable Method. The purchasing officer shall solicit bids by written requests to prospective vendors, by telephone, by email or Internet inquiry, or by any other reasonable method.

2. Bidders’ List. The purchasing officer shall also solicit sealed bids from all responsible prospective suppliers whose names are on a bidders’ list or who have requested their names to be added thereto.

3. Website. The purchasing officer shall also advertise pending purchases by a notice posted on the city’s website.

B. Bidder’s Security. When deemed necessary by the purchasing officer, bidder’s security may be prescribed in the public notices inviting bids. Bidders shall be entitled to return of bid security; provided, that a successful bidder shall forfeit his bid security upon refusal or failure to execute the contract within ten days after the notice of award of contract has been mailed, unless the city is responsible for the delay. The city council may, on refusal or failure of the successful bidder to execute the contract, award it to the next lowest responsible bidder. If the city council awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder’s security shall be applied by the city to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder.

C. Bid Opening Procedure. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the purchasing officer and shall be identified as bids on the envelope. Bids shall be opened in public at the time and place stated in the public notice. A tabulation of all bids received shall be open for public inspection during regular business hours for a period of not less than thirty calendar days after the bid opening.

D. Rejection of Bids. In its discretion, the city council may reject any and all bids presented. If all bids are rejected or if no responsive bids are received, the council may readvertise for new bids, or authorize the city manager to negotiate in the open market for a contract at a reasonable price.

E. Award of Contracts. Contracts shall be awarded by the city council to the lowest responsible bidder except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

F. Tie Bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal and if the public interest will not permit the delay of readvertising for bids, the 191
city council may accept the one it chooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tie bidders at the time of the bid opening.

G. Performance Bonds. The city council shall have authority to require a performance bond before entering a contract in such amount as it shall find reasonably necessary to protect the best interests of the city. If the city council requires a performance bond, the form and amount of the bond shall be described in the notice inviting bids. (Ord. 2016-002 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2015-006 § 2, 2015: Ord. 2009- 008 § 5, 2009: Ord. 98-004 § 6, 1998: Ord. 84-017 § 2, 1984: Ord. 672 § 8, 1975)

3.16.090 Informal bid requirements—Contracts under twenty-five thousand dollars.

Purchases and contracts for nonpublic projects, supplies, services and equipment, for which the city’s expenditure is twenty-five thousand dollars or less, may be by written contract or purchase order with the lowest responsible bidder pursuant to the open market procedure prescribed in this section.

A. Minimum Number of Bids. Open market purchases shall, wherever possible, be based on at least three bids.

B. Notice Inviting Bids. The purchasing officer shall solicit bids by written requests to prospective vendors, by telephone, by email or Internet inquiry, or by any other reasonable method.

C. Purchases Under Five Thousand Dollars. Where an open market purchase will be less than five thousand dollars, the purchasing officer may, but need not, solicit informal bids, where in his or her judgment such a solicitation would be advantageous to the city. For those purchases where informal bids are not requested, the city manager shall adopt regulations to encourage city staff to encourage and maximize the award of such contracts to small local businesses. (Ord. 2016-002 § 2, 2016; Ord. 2010-005 § 3, 2010; Ord. 2009-008, § 6, 11-16-09; Ord. 98-004 § 7, 1998: Ord. 84-017 § 3, 1984:

Ord. 672 § 9, 1975)

3.16.100 Lowest responsible bidder and local business
preference.

A. For purposes of this chapter, “lowest responsible bidder” means that bidder which best responds in price, quality, service, fitness, or capacity to the particular requirements of the city, as recommended by the city manager or determined by the city council. Price alone shall not be the determining factor but shall be considered along with other factors including, but not limited to, the ability, capacity and skill of the bidder; whether the bidder can perform promptly, without delay or interference; the character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the bidder; the quality of the bidder’s performance of previous city contracts or service; previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or service; sufficiency of the financial resources and ability of the bidder to perform; quality, availability, and adaptability of the supplies or contractual service to the particular use required and conformance to specifications; ability to provide future maintenance and service; and the number and scope of conditions attached to the bid.

B. Whenever it is recommended that the bid be awarded to other than the lowest monetary bidder, reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard shall be given to such bidder before the award is made.
192
C. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, and to the extent not prohibited under state or federal law, regulations, or funding restrictions, formal or informal bids for nonpublic projects, supplies, services and equipment that are made by small local businesses, as defined by this section, shall be tabulated as if five percent below the figure actually set forth in the bid for the purpose of determining the lowest responsible bidder, so long as the bids are otherwise equal in responsibility and quality. The total amount of preference granted in a single bid shall not exceed five thousand dollars. The city, when seeking bids for commodities, supplies, equipment, and nonprofessional services, will notify bidders that bids will be evaluated on the basis of a local preference of five percent of the bid price.

D. A business shall be deemed a “small local business” for the purposes of this chapter if it has a place of business (other than a post office box) within the city and has a valid, current business license issued by the city. To qualify as a small local business under this chapter, the business shall submit with its bid a completed affidavit that documents that it has a facility within the city of San Pablo and with a San Pablo address; that it will attribute sales tax from the sale to the City of San Pablo, if applicable; that the business has had a city of San Pablo business license for at least three months prior to the opening of the bid; and that it either employs fewer than fifty employees or has average annual gross receipts of two million dollars or less. A business shall qualify even though it is a franchisee of a larger chain. (Ord. 2010-005 § 2, 2010: Ord. 98-004 § 8, 1998: Ord. 672 § 10, 1975)

3.16.110 Exceptions to bid policy.

The bidding procedures may be dispensed with in the following circumstances:

A. Consultants. Contracts involving the acquisition of professional or specialized services, such as but not limited to services rendered by architects, attorneys, engineers, accountants and other classes where the city must depend upon the skill, integrity, judgment and ability of the service, are exempted from the formal and informal contracting requirements of this chapter. All such contracts shall be awarded by the city to the consultant whose proposal is evaluated to be the most responsive to the needs of the city, as determined by the city manager or, in the case of contracts exceeding fifty thousand dollars, the city council.

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contracts for architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project management services, and any other profession set forth in Government Code Section 4525, shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of services required and not solely on price, pursuant to Government Code Section 4529.10, et seq.

2. Where the department head for whom such services are to be performed and the city’s purchasing officer determine that the services needed are more of a technical nature and involve little professional judgment, they may determine that requiring bids pursuant to this chapter would be in the public interest.

B. Specialized Services Combined With Equipment and/or Products. Contracts involving the acquisition and/or installation of equipment, intellectual property or other tangible products (collectively referred to as “products”) and the retention of specialized services, such as consulting, training, installing, maintaining or servicing the products, which are an integral or important part of the use, operation, or functionality of the products, are exempted from the formal and informal bidding requirements of this chapter.
193
C. Sole Source Contracts.

1. Sole source contracts shall be excepted from the formal and informal bidding requirements of this chapter. A sole source contract shall exist where the city’s requirements can be met only by a single patented article or process, or when there is only one feasible source that meets the city’s requirements.

2. Except as provided for in Public Contract Code Section 3400, specifications for contracts for the construction, alteration or repair of public works shall not be drafted in such a manner as to limit the bidding, directly or indirectly, to any one specific concern, brand or trade name.

D. Emergency. When an emergency requires the immediate procurement of supplies, equipment or services, such procurements are exempted from the formal and informal bid requirements of this chapter. For the purposes of this section, an emergency shall be deemed to exist only if:

1. There is a great public disaster; or

2. There is an immediate need to prepare for national or local defense; or

3. There is a breakdown in machinery or an essential service which requires the immediate procurement of supplies and equipment to protect the public health, welfare or safety; or

4. An essential departmental operation affecting the public health, welfare or safety would be greatly hampered if the prescribed purchase would cause an undue delay in the procurement of the needed item; or

5. The city manager determines that an emergency purchase is necessary to ensure operational efficiency and/or fiscal responsibility for the city.

In such an emergency and notwithstanding subsection A of this section, the city manager is delegated the authority to make a purchase or enter into a contract in an amount up to and including one hundred thousand dollars which shall be reported to the city council at its next regularly scheduled meeting. In the event of a declaration of emergency and activation of the emergency operations center pursuant to Chapter 2.36, those procedures shall apply and not be subject to the contracting authority limits in this chapter.

E. Cooperative Purchasing. The city may join with other government agencies for the joint purchase of equipment, materials, supplies and services. The city may also buy directly from a vendor at a price established by competitive bidding by another public jurisdiction even if the city had not joined with that public agency in a cooperative purchase. The city may also purchase from the United States of America or any state, municipality or other public corporation or agency, or through a cooperative purchasing program established by the state or the United States, without calling for bids.

F. Leases and Lease Purchases. The city may contract to lease or lease-purchase materials, vehicles and equipment without calling for bids.

G. Used Items. The city may purchase used items without calling for bids. (Ord. 2021-004 § 4, 2021; Ord. 2018-003 § 2, 2018; Ord. 2017-001 § 4, 2017; Ord. 2010-005 § 4, 2010; Ord. 98-004 § 9, 1998: Ord. 672 § 11, 1975)
194

3.16.120 Surplus supplies and equipment.

A. All using departments shall submit to the purchasing officer, at such times and in such form as he shall prescribe, reports showing all supplies and equipment which are no longer used or which have become obsolete or worn out. The purchasing officer shall have authority to exchange or trade in all such supplies, equipment and materials; to sell by public auction, sealed bid, or agreement with other public agencies; or sell by direct negotiated agreement, or on a consignment basis. In the event the purchasing officer determines that any such obsolete or surplus property has no salvage value, he may dispose of it as he deems advisable.

B. The purchasing officer shall have the authority to sign bills of sale or any other papers or documents evidencing the transfer of the title of obsolete or surplus personal property for and on behalf of the city.

C. Prior to disposing of any obsolete or surplus personal property having an apparent market value, the purchasing officer shall inform the council of the nature of the personal property proposed for disposition and the price offered, if known, and obtain the council’s approval for disposition. (Ord. 98-004 § 10, 1998: Ord. 672 § 12, 1975)

195

Hercules City CouncilSeptember 12, 2023

Hercules City Council
September 12, 2023