Agenda Packet - UPDATED — Hercules City Council, February 11, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

Tuesday, February 11, 2025
6:00 PM
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Chris Kelley
Council Member Alex Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dilli Bhattarai
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Christie Crowl, City Attorney
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
Meeting Agenda
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 P.M., REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M
In-Person in Council Chambers or
Zoom ID: 857 6571 2746 Zoom Passcode: 226322
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
1 February 11, 2025City 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. SPECIAL 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
II.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:

1. 25-062 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Gov. Code section 54956.9(d)(1) (Bruce v. Garcia et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-01297-PHK)

2. 22-1013
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957.6 - City Negotiators: Dante Hall, City Manager; Edwin Gato, Director of Finance; relative to the following employee groups:
a. Teamsters Local 315 Employee Organizations

3. 25-046
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8. Property address: 1000 Alfred Nobel Drive, Hercules, CA 94547. Agency negotiators: Dante Hall, City Manager; Christie Crowl, City Attorney; Edwin Gato, Finance Director. Negotiating parties: City of Hercules, Bio-Rad.

IV. REGULAR MEETING – CONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - ROLL CALL - 7:00 P.M.

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

Page 2 ends

2 February 11, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
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. 25-049 Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2024 Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2025Attachments:

2. 25-037 Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2024 Staff Report - Investment Quarterly Report Ending December 2024 Attach 1 - Quarterly Investment Report December 2024
Attachments:

Page 3 ends

3 February 11, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda

3. 25-043 Waive Second Reading and Adopt Zoning Amendments to Implement the Housing Element, New State Laws and Other Needed Updates RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 25-XX (Attachment 1), the proposed amendments to Hercules Municipal Code Land Use Regulation Tables 13-6.1, 13-12.1, 13-15.1, 13-18.1, and 13-32.1; and amending Section 13-35.320 Accessory Dwelling Units, Chapter 13-36 Two-Unit Development, Chapter 13-42 Design Review, Chapter 13-53 Reasonable Accommodations For Persons with Disabilities, and Chapter 13-60 Definitions, to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element; comply with Senate Bills No. 450, 477, 745 and 1211, Assembly Bill No. 2162, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); correct identified inconsistencies and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Staff Report - Housing Element Text Amendments
Attach 1 - Ordinance
Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Resolution 24-08
Attachments:

Page 4 ends

4 February 11, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda

4. 25-045 Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist for 2022 and 2023 for allocation of Local Street Maintenance & Improvement Funds for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution (see Attachment 1) approving the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist for Calendar Years 2022 and 2023 with the attachments and authorize submittal to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for disbursement of Measure J Local Street Maintenance & Improvement Return-to-Source Funds for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Staff Report - Measure J GMP Checklist 2022-2023
Attach 1 - Resolution for Measure J GMP Checklist 2022-2023 Attach 2 - Calendar Years-2022-2023-GMP-Checklist-Hercules Checklist 3a - 2022 & 2023 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (Tables A -C) Checklist 3b - Hercules Circulation Plan link
Checklist 3c - CC Reso 13-008 - Complete Streets Policy Checklist 4a - Franklin Canyon Draft Traffic Impact Study Checklist 4a - Owl Ranch Traffic Impact Study
Checklist 6 - FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Plan
Checklist 7 - CC Reso 85-164 for Transportation System Management Checklist 8 - Hercules Urban Limit Line - CC Reso 09-007 Checklist 9 - CC Reso 13-118 Growth Management Element GP Amendment Checklist 9 - Growth Management Element - 2013
Checklist 10 - Willow_Palm Ped Project Signage 2023
Checklist 11 - FY 21-22 & FY 22-23 MOE
Checklist 12 - LSM Reporting for FY 21-22 and FY 22-23
Attachments:

XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS

1. 25-022 2025 Speed Survey and Recommended Speed Limit Changes RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a report on the 2025 Speed Survey, discuss recommended speed limit changes, and provide direction to staff.

Staff Report - for K-H's Speed Survey Acceptance
Attach 1 - Resolution
Attach 2 - Speed Limit Municipal Code
Attach 3 - Kimley Horn Hercules Speed Survey Final Report_January 2025 Attachments:

Page 5 ends

5 February 11, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda

2. 25-047 Juneteenth Event Planning
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council honor Juneteenth on Saturday, June 14, 2025, with a flag-raising ceremony and authorize staff to partner with the Hercules Library to provide a more robust event for the community.

Staff Report - Juneteenth EventAttachments:

3. 25-048 Community Volunteer Program for Housebound Residents RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report, discuss the information contained, and provide direction.

Staff Report-Community Volunteer Program for Housebound ResidentsAttachments:

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
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 Committee

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees

3. Commission Liaisons
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, February 25, 2025 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: February 6, 2025)

Page 6 ends

6 February 11, 2025City Council Meeting Agenda

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.

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 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.

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. As email containing public meeting comments are part of the official record, note that personal contact information may be published if it is included with your email. 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 7 ends

7 February 11, 2025City 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 8 ends

8 February 11, 2025City 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 9 ends

9 CONSENT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEM

1. 25-049

2. 25-037

3. 25-043

4. 25-045

10 111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547City of Hercules
Meeting Minutes
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Chris Kelley
Council Member Alex Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dilli Bhattarai
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Christie Crowl, City Attorney
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
6:00 PMTuesday, January 28, 2025
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 P.M., REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M
In-Person in Council Chambers or
Zoom ID: 811 4183 5833 Zoom Passcode: 825504
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
I. SPECIAL 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
Council Member Bhattarai arrived late and was not present when roll call was taken.

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

Present: 5 -
II.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
NONE
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
Council Member Dilli Bhattarai, Mayor D. Bailey, Vice Mayor C. Kelley, Council Member A. Walker-Griffin, and Council Member T. Grimsley

Present: 5 -
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:

City Attorney, Christie Crowl, read the titles of the items to be discussed in Closed Session. City Council and Staff recessed into Closed Session.

1. 25-041
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 - City Negotiators: Dante Hall, City Manager; Edwin Gato, Director of Finance; relative to the following employee groups:
a. Teamsters Local 315 Employee Organizations

Page 1 ends

25-049
11 January 28, 2025City Council Meeting Minutes

2. 25-042 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.

Mayor Bailey opened the Regular Meeting at 7:05pm.

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

Present: 5 -
V. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney, Christie Crowl, reported out that there was no final or reportable action taken in Closed Session.

VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was lead by Vice Mayor Kelley.

VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Bailey requested a Moment of Silence for the fires that continue to burn in southern California.

VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS

1. 25-044
Proclamation - Black History Month
Black History Month ProclamationAttachments:

Mayor Bailey presented the proclamation. Hercules resident, Tanya Little, accepted the proclamation. Council provided comment. Tanya Little provided a response. Susan Keefe provided public comment.

IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
NONE

Page 2 ends

12 January 28, 2025City Council Meeting Minutes
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
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

1. 25-032
Zoning Amendments to Implement the Housing Element, New State Laws and Other Needed Updates
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 25-XX (Attachment 1), the proposed amendments to Hercules Municipal Code Land Use Regulation Tables 13-6.1, 13-12.1, 13-15.1, 13-18.1, and 13-32.1; and amending Section 13-35.320 Accessory Dwelling Units, Chapter 13-36 Two-Unit Development, Chapter 13-42 Design Review, Chapter 13-53 Reasonable Accommodations For Persons with Disabilities, and Chapter 13-60 Definitions, to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element; comply with Senate Bills No. 450, 477, 745 and 1211, Assembly Bill No. 2162, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); correct identified inconsistencies and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Staff Report - Housing Element Text Amendments
Attach 1 - Ordinance
Attach 2 - Planning Commission Resolution 24-08
Presentation
Attachments:

Community Development Director, Tim Rood, introduced and presented the item. Council asked questions and provided comment. Director Rood provided a response. Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing. No public comment. Mayor Bailey closed the public hearing. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Kelley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to approve the first reading of Ordinance 554 and include the recommended change in section (10)(A)(3) of the report. The motion carried by the following vote:

Page 3 ends

13 January 28, 2025City Council Meeting Minutes

Aye: Council Member Dilli Bhattarai, Mayor D. Bailey, Vice Mayor C. Kelley, Council Member A. Walker-Griffin, and Council Member T. Grimsley 5 -
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Council Member Bhattarai, to adopt the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:

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

1. 25-033
Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of January 14, 2025 Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of January 14, 2025Attachments:

APPROVED
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS

1. 25-039 Service Levels for Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council provide direction to City Staff by minute order on the timing of the service level reductions for the residential parkway strips in the Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD)
Staff Report - Victoria by the Bay - FY 2024-25
Attach 1 - Oct 8 2024 LLAD Staff Report
Attach 2 - Aug 29 2024 LLAD Staff Report
Attach 3 - July 23 2024 25 LLAD Staff Report
Attach 4 - June 25 2024 LLAD Staff Report
Final Engineers Report
Attachments:

City Manager, Dante Hall, introduced and presented the item. Acting Public Works Director, Jeff Brown and representatives from Francisco Associates(via Zoom)were in attendance to answer questions. Public comment was provided by Tanya Little and Narissa Harris. Council asked questions and provided comment. City Manager Hall, Finance Director Edwin Gato and Francisco and Associates provided a response. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Kelley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to direct Staff to do the following:
- Prop 218 Hearing in June
- Provide a plan to reduce cost and provide adequate service to the Distrcts - Loan process to codify the debt
- Plan for sustainability
- if Prop 218 is not successful, the City will cut water to mow strips by July 1st.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Page 4 ends

14 January 28, 2025City Council Meeting Minutes

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

2. 25-034 Loan Administration Plan Policies and Procedures Manual RECOMMENDATION:

Approve a resolution adopting the City of Hercules Loan Administration Plan Policies and Procedures Manual.

Staff Report - Loan Administration Plan
Attach 1 - Resolution - Loan Administration Plan
Attach 2 - Hercules Loan Administration Plan Manual
Attachments:

Community Development Director, Tim Rood, introduced and presented the item. Representatives from RSG attended via Zoom to answer questions. No public comment. Council asked questions and provided comment. RSG, Community Development Director Rood and Finance Director, Edwin Gato, provided a response. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Vice Mayor Kelley, to adopt Resolution 25-003. The motion carried by the following vote:

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

3. 25-038
Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Master Salary Schedule pursuant to California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), Increase Minimum Wage Pay Rates, and Approve the FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 Executive Level Employees with Assignment of Assistant City Manager and City Manager Salary Schedules pursuant to CalPERS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to:

1. Approve a Master Salary Schedule effective July 1, 2024, pursuant to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Adoption of this master schedule will also include previously approved wage updates.

2. Increase the minimum pay rates of certain unrepresented temporary/seasonal classifications and two represented part-time classifications to conform to the California Minimum Wage Increase, effective January 1, 2025.

3. Approve the FY 2022-2023 Executive Level Employees with Assignment of Assistant City Manager and City Manager salary schedule effective July 1, 2022, pursuant to CalPERS.

4. Approve the FY 2023-2024 Executive Level Employees with Assignment of Assistant City Manager and City Manager salary schedule effective July

Page 5 ends

15 January 28, 2025City Council Meeting Minutes
1, 2023, pursuant to CalPERS.

Staff Report - Master Salary Schedule
Attach 1 - Resolution
Exhibit 1 - FY 24-25 Salary Schedule
Exhibit 2 - Executive Supplemental ACM and CM Pay Schedule FY 22-23
Exhibit 3 - Executive Supplemental ACM and CM Pay Schedule FY 23-24
Attachments:

Human Resources Manager, Kristi Karter, introduced and presented the item. No public comment. Council asked questions and provided comment. City Manager Hall provided a response. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Kelley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to adopt Resolution 25-004. The motion carried by the following vote:

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

4. 25-035
Fourth of July Fireworks Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive this report, discuss, and provide direction to staff.

Staff Report - Fourth of July Fireworks DiscussionAttachments:

Parks and Recreation Director, Christopher Roke, introduced and presented the item. Public comment was provided by Susan Keefe and Tanya Little. Council asked questions and provided comment. Director Roke and City Manager Hall provided a response. Action and direction was provided on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to direct Staff to do the following - Move forward with the Fireworks show for July 4th 2025 - The City will partner with Rotary Club on July 4th activities, with consideration of waiving fees
- pursue celebration of 125th Anniversary with an end of the year event.

Staff will provide an update on the celebration of the 125th Anniversary in the next 30-45 days. Staff will also provide more information on the end of the year ice rink during the regular budget process.

The motion carried by the following vote:

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

5. 25-036
FY 24-25 Co-sponsored Special Events Update
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on special events co-sponsored by the City and the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce

Page 6 ends

16 January 28, 2025City Council Meeting Minutes
during the current FY 24-25.

Staff Report - Special Events Update
Attach 1 - Special Events - Agreement with Chamber and
Expenditures to date - 2024-25FY
Attachments:

Parks and Recreation Director, Christopher Roke, introduced and presented the item. No public comment. Council provided comment. This was an informational item no action was taken.

6. 25-040
Programs and Initiatives to Encourage Residents to be Involved in Civic Affairs
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council receive this report, discuss the information contained, and provide direction to staff.

Staff Report - Programs and Initiatives to Encourage Residents to be Involved in Civic Affairs
Attachments:

City Manager, Dante Hall, introduced and presented the item. No public comment. Council asked questions and provided comment. City Manager Hall provided a response. Council provided Staff direction.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Kelley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to direct Staff to start with the Neighborhood Connections program and come back to Council with the framework for the program . The motion carried by the following vote:

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

1. Regional Committee

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees

3. Commission Liaisons
City Manager, Dante Hall, advertised the upcoming Lunar New Year Parade. City Attorney, Christie Crowl, had no announcements.

Page 7 ends

17 January 28, 2025City Council Meeting Minutes

1. Regional Committee
No reports were provided

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees
No reports were provided

3. Commission Liaisons
No reports were provided
Community Events-
Council Members reported out on events they attended throughout the City and County.

There were no future agenda items requests.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bailey adjourned the meeting at 10:04 P.M.
_________________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk

Page 8 ends

18 CONSE

NT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEM

2. 25-037
19 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 11, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Edwin Gato, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2024
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In accordance with California Government Code section 53646 and the City’s Investment Policy, a quarterly report and certification must be submitted to the City Council, City Manager, and City Independent Auditor. The Quarterly Investment Report will include a comprehensive description of the investment portfolio, detailing the types of investments, issuers, maturity dates, par values, and the dollar amounts invested in all securities. The certification must confirm that investments were made in compliance with the City’s Investment Policy and that the City will be able to meet its expenditure obligations for the next six months. The Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2024, is included as Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND:

To comply with state law and city policy, the City must present quarterly investment reports detailing the City's investment portfolio to the City Council, City Manager, and City Auditor. The Council's authority to invest in or reinvest funds or sell or exchange securities is delegated to the City's Finance Director, who also serves as City Treasurer. Pursuant to the Investment Policy, the City Treasurer may delegate some of their fiduciary responsibility to an outside investment management firm. An investment manager's fiduciary responsibility is a legal requi rement for registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisor Act 1940. Due to the specialized services and expertise required to assist the City with the varied investment options, the City has used the Local Investment Agency Fund (LAIF) and PARS experienced investment managers. 25-037
20 ANALYSIS:

This report presents the City's investment portfolio for the quarter ending December 31, 2024. It has been prepared to comply with California Government Code Section 53646 regulations and the City's Investment Policy. The report includes all cash and investments managed by the City, as well as City -related investments held by bond trustees for debt service obligations and funds held in the irrevocable trust with PARS for pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB). Additionally, the report provides details on each security's investment type, issuer, maturity date, cost, and current market value.

The City utilizes the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), a money market fund administered by the State Treasurer. LAIF includes many governmental agency participants and holds securities through its administrator. It offers local agencies a means to invest cash held in a treasury pool that can be withdrawn as needed on a same-day basis to meet cash flow needs, while still earning interest generated by the Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA). Furthermore, the investments held by Bond Trustees are managed according to individual bond indentures.

As of December 31, 2024, the overall average yield of the pooled investment portfolio (before adjustments for changes in market value) was 5.18%. This is higher than the two- year U.S. Treasury Note rate of 4.16% and the LAIF average monthly rate of 4.43%. The market value of the pooled portfolio was $21,652, reflecting a decrease of 0.03% from the book value. Since the City does not intend to sell its pooled investment portfolio securities before maturity, this will not impact the yield.

As of December 31, 2024, 81.50% of the total investment portfolio is allocated to LAIF.

Within LAIF's investment distribution, 81.2% is comprised of U.S. Treasuries and agency notes, while 8.5% is invested in certificates of deposit (CDs) and bank notes. The remaining

10.4% is allocated to various other investment types. For further insights, including Amount
Market Over/(Under) Average
Investment Type Value Cost Yield
Petty Cash $2,005 - 0.00%
Cash in Bank 5,414,633 - 0.00% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 57,257,465 ($21,652) 4.43% Irrevocable Trust (Pension) 2,462,740 - 6.81% Irrevocable Trust (OPEB) 2,974,222 - 6.81% Investments with Bond Trustees 2,148,037 - 4.29% Total Portfolio $70,259,102 ($21,652) 5.18%
21 economic summaries and detailed information on each investment advisor as well as LAIF, please refer to the Investment Portfolio Summary Report included in Attachment 1.

The City strategically manages its idle cash from all operating funds on a pooled basis to optimize returns. Earnings are allocated to each fund based on their respective average cash balances. It is important to note that the timing of revenue collections —such as property taxes, business licenses, and franchise taxes—can significantly influence quarterly investment income throughout the year. At present, the City maintains adequate cash reserves to meet anticipated obligations over the next six months.

In compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 40, the City is required to recognize the fair market value of its investments at the conclusion of each fiscal year. The market values noted in this report are sourced from the Stat e Controller’s office for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and from the City’s registered investment managers and bond trustees for all other investment vehicles. It is important to acknowledge that these market valuations are subject to daily fluctuations.

The distinction between market value and historical cost, referred to as Unrealized Investment Gains and Losses, represents temporary variances and does not reflect cash- related transactions. Given that the City intends to hold its investments un til maturity, at which point they will be redeemed at par value, any unrealized gains or losses will be reported exclusively at the end of the fiscal year in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

The total cash and investments reported include portions that are designated as unrestricted within the City’s General Fund, amounting to $24.2 million (34%), and the Internal Service Funds, which total $666,024 (1%). It is important to note that some of these amounts are committed to existing obligations or are allocated for specific purposes. In contrast, the remaining $45.4 million, or 65%, of the City’s cash and investments is restricted for designated uses in accordance with applicable federal, state, or local regulations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This is an information report with no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Quarterly Investment Report

22 1

INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ending December 31, 2024
City of Hercules, California
23 CITY OF HERCULES

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
111 CIVIC DRIVE
HERCULES, CALIFORNIA 94547-1771
PHONE: 510-799-8200
February 11, 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Council:

I verified that this investment portfolio, as of December 31, 2024 , conforms with all state laws and City’s investment policy. The City’s expenditures requirements for the next months are covered by anticipated revenues from City operations and liquidity from cash on deposit.

As of December 31, 2024, the City has sufficient funds to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

Sincerely,
Edwin Gato
Finance Director/City Treasurer
24 City of Hercules, California
Investment Portfolio Summary Report
For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2024
Book % of Average Market
Value Total Yield Value
Cash on Hand $2,005 $2,005
Cash on Deposit 5,414,633 5,414,633
Total Cash on Hand 5,416,638 7.71% 0.00% 5,416,638 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 57,279,117 81.50% 4.43% 57,257,465 Irrevocable Trust (Pension) 2,462,740 3.50% 6.81% 2,462,740 Irrevocable Trust (OPEB) 2,974,222 4.23% 6.81% 2,974,222 Investments with Bond Trustees 2,148,038 3.06% 4.29% 2,148,037 Total Portfolio $70,280,755 100.00% 5.18% $70,259,102
Amount over (under) Market Value vs. Book Value ($21,653) % of Portfolio -0.03%
Investments by Type
Cash on Hand
LAIF
Irrevocable Trust
(Pension)
Irrevocable Trust
(OPEB)
Investments with
Trustees
25 City of Hercules
Detail for Investment Portfolio Summary Report
For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2024
(DAYS)

BOOK PURCHASE MATURITY LIFE TO REMAINING PAR MARKET

DESCRIPTION VALUE YIELD DATE DATE MATURITY LIFE VALUE VALUE

CASH ON HAND
PETTY CASH 2,005.00 0.00% 2,005.00 $2,005.00

CASH IN BANK
MECHANICS BANK - GENERAL CHECKING 4,483,174.56 0.00% 4,483,174.56 4,483,174.56 MECHANICS BANK - HERCULES RDA 750,900.46 0.00% 750,900.46 750,900.46 MECHANICS BANK - PD ASSET SEIZURE 180,558.27 0.00% 180,558.27 180,558.27 TOTAL AND AVERAGES 5,414,633.29 5,414,633.29 5,414,633.29

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)
LAIF 57,279,116.93 4.43% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 57,279,116.93 57,257,464.56

IRREVOCABLE TRUST (PENSION/OPEB)
US BANK MUTUAL (PARS-OPEB) 2,974,222.12 6.81% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 2,974,222.12 2,974,222.12 US BANK MUTUAL (PARS-PENSION) 2,462,740.21 6.81% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 2,462,740.21 2,462,740.21 TOTAL AND AVERAGES 5,436,962.33 6.81% 92 - 5,436,962.33 5,436,962.33

INVESTMENTS WITH BOND TRUSTEES
THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) JM 05 1 RESERVE
FUND 55,797.47 4.29% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 55,797.47 55,797.47

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
HERCULES PFA WW INTEREST ACCT 21 A 2,887.50 4.29% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 2,887.50 2,887.50

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 REVENUE FUND) 774,228.60 4.29% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 774,228.60 774,228.60

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 DEBT SERV PRIN ACCT) 129,417.15 4.29% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 129,417.15 129,417.15

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 DEBT SERV INT ACCT) 260,923.93 4.29% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 260,923.93 260,923.93

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 RESERVE FD) 920,215.00 4.29% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 920,215.00 920,215.00

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES 2020 INT FD) 4,567.80 4.29% 9/30/2024 12/31/2024 92 - 4,567.80 4,567.80 TOTAL AND AVERAGES 2,148,037.45 4.29% 92 - 2,148,037.45 2,148,037.45 TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT $70,280,755.00 5.18% 92 - $70,280,755.00 $70,259,102.63 26 City of Hercules, California
Investment Portfolio Summary Report
For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2024
% of
Cash Description Book Value Total
Bond Trustee $2,148,037 3%
Irrevocable Trust 5,436,962 8%
Restricted 37,841,282 54%
General Fund 24,188,450 34%
Internal Service Funds 666,024 1%
Total, Book Value $70,280,755 100%
Restricted:

Wastewater 18,636,619
Successor Housing 5,883,496
Development Impact Fees 4,045,952
Successor Agency 2,598,968
Gas Tax & Measure J "Street" 1,078,409
SB1 RMRA 1,221,945
Solid Waste 932,658
Agency Fund 542,771
Landscape & Lighting 1,866,469
Asset Seizure 332,920
Capital Projects 479,854
COPS Program 221,221
37,841,282
Bond Trustee
3% Irrevocable Trust
8%
Restricted
54%
General Fund
34%
Internal Service Funds
1%
Cash by Fund
27 December 4.434
November 4.477
October 4.518
September 4.575
August 4.579
July 4.516
PMIA Average Life(1): 252
LAIF Fair Value Factor(1): 0.999621985
PMIA Daily(1): 4.40
PMIA Quarter to Date(1): 4.48
LAIF Apportionment Rate(2): 4.62
LAIF Earnings Ratio(2): 0.00012664187216722
LAIF Administrative Cost(1)*:0.28
Treasuries

55.91%
Agencies

25.25%
Certificates of
Deposit/Bank Notes

8.46%
Time
Deposits

3.27%
Commercial
Paper

6.40%
Corporate
Bonds

0.58%
Loans

0.13%
Notes: The apportionment rate includes interest earned on the CalPERS Supplemental Pension Payment pursuant to Government Code 20825 (c)(1) and interest earned on the Wildfire Fund loan pursuant to Public Utility Code 3288 (a). *The percentage of administrative cost equals the total administrative cost divided by the quarterly interest earnings. The law provides that administrative costs are not to exceed 5% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund. However, if the 13-week Daily Treasury Bill Rate on the last day of the fiscal year is below 1%, then administrative costs shall not exceed 8% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund for the subsequent fiscal year.

Source:
(1) State of California, Office of the Treasurer
(2) State of California, Office of the Controller
PMIA Average Monthly
Effective Yields(1)
PMIA/LAIF Performance
Report as of 12/31/24
Daily rates are now available here. View PMIA Daily Rates Quarterly Performance
Quarter Ended 12/31/24
Chart does not include $1,239,000.00 in mortgages, which equates to 0.001%. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Pooled Money Investment Account
Monthly Portfolio Composition (1)
12/31/24
$155.4 billion
28 CONSE

NT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEM

3. 25-043
29

Page 1 of 5 ends

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 11, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Timothy Rood, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Waive Second Reading and Adopt Zoning Amendments to Implement the Housing Element, New State Laws and Other Needed Updates
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL INTRODUCTION:

On December 2, 2024, at their regularly scheduled meeting, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 24-08 (Attachment 2), recommending City Council approval of the amended provisions of the Hercules Municipal Code to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element; comply with Senate Bills No. 450, 477, 745 and 1211, Assembly Bill No. 2162, and RLUIPA and to correct identified consistencies.

At its January 28, 2025 regular meeting, the City Council received written comments from a non-profit housing advocacy organization, the California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF), related to the proposed accessory dwelling unit text amendments. A clarifying modification 25-043
30

Page 2 of 5 ends

to Hercules Municipal Code Section 13 -35.320(10)(A)(3) was introduced to resolve the CalHDF concerns regarding allowable building height for certain ADUs. The City Council waived first reading and introduced the proposed Ordinance with the staff-recommended modification with a vote of 5-0.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Hercules has adopted an updated 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan to affirmatively further fair housing and accommodate the 995-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023 -2031 Housing Element cycle . In a letter dated October 21, 2024, the California Department of Housi ng and Community Development (HCD) confirmed that the Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. The content of the 2023-2031 Housing Element is structured for consistency with the requirements set forth in State law. In addition to responding to requirements of State law, the Housing Element also demonstrates the City’s strategy for meeting its locally determined housing needs, and that these needs are addressed through policies and programs outlined within the Housing Element. Public review and input has been a critical component of this 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.

During the Housing Element review and adoption process, HCD mandated that the Housing Element include a program to amend the Hercules Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, by January 31, 2025 to promote housing development and remove barriers to the development of housing. In addition to the mandated text amendments, City staff has also developed other changes to comply with new State laws and made other modifications for consistency purposes.

ANALYSIS:

In addition to the required Municipal Code text amendments resulting from the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element, several other modifications are needed to comply with State code and to correct other code inconsistencies. A complete overview of all of the proposed amendments is below:

Housing Element
Resulting from the Housing Element Program H3-1, the following revisions to the Hercules Municipal Code are required:

Promote Housing Development:
 Single-Family Homes: Remove the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) requirements for single-family homes and allow them by right in the RS-E and RS- L zones.
 Multi-Family Homes: Remove the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement and have all multi-family housing projects, regardless of the number of units , allowed by-right.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Hercules Municipal Code Tables 13 -6.1, 13-12.1, 13 -15.1 and 13-18.1, have been modified to allow Single -Family Home (RS-E & RS -L zones), Duet, Duplex, Multifamily Dwelling, Townhouse/Condominium, Transitional Housing, Senior Housing as Permitted (P) Uses.

 Manufactured Housing: A manufactured housing definition has been added to Hercules Municipal Code Section 13 -60.200. The definition provides that manufactured housing is al lowed in any residential zone where a conventional single-family detached dwelling is permitted subject to the same density and the same property development regulations.

Use Permit Findings: Hercules Municipal Code Section 13 -50.300, Finding 3, for Use Permit applications may be considered subjective due to the “compatible” requirement.

However, requirements for approval of a use permit are being eliminated for residential uses. Therefore, no change to the findings are required or proposed.

Design Review Findings: Hercules Municipal Code Section 13-42.500, required findings 4 and 5 for design review approval , contain subjective language that may serve as a constraint to development. The findings are proposed to be a mended to remove subjective language with language that promotes approval certainty for housing projects.

Residential Care Facilities: Hercules Municipal Code Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations:

Residential District and Chapter 13-60 Definitions have been modified to allow group homes that operate as single-family residences to locate in single-family neighborhoods, subject only to the generally applicable, nondiscriminatory health, safety, and zoning laws that apply to all single-family residences.

Reasonable Accommodati on Procedures: Hercules Municipal Code Section 13 -

53.150, Finding 6 in the Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities has been deleted to provide for approval certainty.

Emergency Shelters: Housing Element Program H3 -1 required the City to m odify parking requirements for Emergency Shelters to accommodate staff only, pursuant to State law. As of March 2024, the Zoning Code has already been updated to be consistent with AB 139 and AB 2339.

Supportive and Transitional Housing: Amend the Reside ntial Land Use Regulations table in the Zoning Ordinance, and associated text, to comply with:

 SB 745: requires transitional and supportive housing to be considered a regular residential use to be similarly permitted as other similar residential uses in the same zone.
 AB 2162: requires that supportive housing meeting specific criteria to be permitted by right in zones where multi -family and mixed-use developments are permitted.

Specific criteria include the size of the project and percentage set aside fo r target population, and specified amount of floor area for supportive services, among others. 32

Page 4 of 5 ends

For projects locating within 0.5 mile from transit, no minimum parking requirements may be applied. This is related to Housing Element Programs H3-1 and H3-2.

Hercules Municipal Code Tables 13-6.1, 13-12.1, 13-15.1, 13-18.1 and Chapter 13 -60 Definitions have been modified to accommodate the requirements of SB 745 and AB 2162.

Senate Bill No. 450
Planning and Zoning law require s no more than two (2) residential units within a single residential zone to be considered ministerially . Hercules Municipal Code Chapter 13 -36 Two-Unit Development, includes standards for this type of development. Senate Bill No. 450 further prohibits the City from imposing objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards and objective design standards that do not apply uniformly to development within the underlying zone, however a local agency may adopt or impos e objective zoning standards, objectiv e subdivision standards and objective design standards to the development if the standards are more permissive than applicable standards within the underlying zone. Upon review of this Chapter (HMC 13-36), the included Objective Zoning Standards (Section 13-36.400) and the Objective Design Review Standards (Section 13-

36.500) both contain requirements that are more restrictive than the underlying zone. The standards that are not more permissive are proposed to be removed , and the remaining subsections that pertain to Building Height, Lot Coverage, Minimum Living Area, Parking, Setbacks and Paving have been retained as they are no more restrictive than the underlying zoning minimum standards.

Senate Bill No. 477
Senate Bill 477 reorganized and consolidated Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws into Government Code Chapter 13, Accessory Dwelling Units. This requires an update of two (2) references that currently point to previous Government Code Section 65852.2. Updates are needed to Hercules Municipal Code Section 13-35.320(1 & 4.B.1) to remove the outdated references and replace them with the new Government Code Chapter reference.

Senate Bill No. 1211
Senate Bill No. 1211 increases the allowable detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling from no more than two (2) detached ADUs to no more than eight (8) detached ADUs . Hercules Municipal Code Section 13 -35.320 is proposed to be amended to increase the number of allowable ADUs from the existing two (2) to eight (8). It also prohibits a local agency from requiring replacement parking when an uncovered parking space is demolished or replaced with an ADU.

Other Text Amendment Updates
Religious Assembly is separately referenced in the Land Use Regulations tables . The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000 prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies or institutions . The Zoning Ordinance has historicall y regulated religious institutions differently than other general assembly uses; therefore, the Religious Assembly use is being removed and the City will rely on general assembly types of uses to regulate religious land uses. Changes can be found in Hercules Municipal Code Tables 13-

6.1 and 13-32.1.
33

Page 5 of 5 ends

Within the Land Use Regulations tables, Design Review Required (DR) is included within the Key to Land Use Regulations, however DR is not utilized within the table itself, therefore it is being removed from the Key and customers will rely on Hercules Municipal Code Chapter 13-42, Design Review, to understand the requirements.

The "Mobile Home" land use category is being removed from the Residential District zoning table (Section 13-6.1) to avoid confusion between “Mobile Home” and “Manufactured Home” classifications. However, any new or expanded mobile home park development will still be subject to Chapter 13-7, P-M Mobile Home Park District standards, including obtaining a use permit.

The Planned Unit Development (PUD) use is proposed to be removed from the Land Use Regulations tables. The Zoning Ordinance may have included standards for PUDs in the past, however these standards no longer exist within the Zoning Ordinance, therefore this reference is proposed to be removed from Hercules Municipal Code Tables 13-12.1, 13-

15.1 and 13 -18.1. Planned Development Plans (PDPs) continue to be allowed as an optional approval path pursuant to Hercules Municipal Code Chapter 13-48.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption in that the proposed ordinance would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construction or other groundbreaking activities. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance would result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

Further, none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

FISCAL IMPACT :

There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Draft Ordinance
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-08 Attachment 3 – Presentation

34 Ordinance No. ___

Page 1 of 29 ends

CITY OF HERCULES ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES AMENDING

PROVISIONS OF HERCULES MUNICIPAL CODE LAND USE REGULATION TABLES 13-6.1, 13-12.1, 13-15.1, 13-18.1 AND 13-32.1, AND AMENDING SECTION 13-35.320 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, CHAPTER 13 -36 TWO -UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CHAPTER 13 -42 DESIGN REVIEW, CHAPTER 13 -53 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, AND CHAPTER 13 -60 DEFINITIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT, SENATE BILL NO. 450, 477, 745 AND 1211, ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2 162, RELIGIOUS LAND

USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT , CORRECTING FOUND

INCONSISTENCIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

WHEREAS, the City of Hercules has adopted an updated 6 th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan , which substantially complies with state housing law, to actively promote fair housing and meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 cycle; and

WHEREAS, the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element has been designed to align with the requirements established by State law; and

WHEREAS, the Housing Element outlines the City’s approach to meeting local housing needs through policies and programs specified in the draft document; and

WHEREAS, these policies and programs include measures to remove barriers within the Hercules Municipal Code that may affect low and moderate -income households; and

WHEREAS, amendments to the Hercules Municipal Code are necessary to support the City’s commitment to expanding housing opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the Governor of California has enacted housing laws, including Senate Bills 450, 477, 745, and 1211, as well as Assembly Bill 2694; and

WHEREAS, the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws; and

WHEREAS, minor revisions to the Hercules Municipal Code are being made to ensure consistency and clarity; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2024, to consider the proposed Text Amendment and did hear and use 35 Ordinance No. ___

Page 2 of 29 ends

its independent judgement to consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its December 2, 2024, meeting passed Resolution #24-08 recommending City Council adoption of an ordinance to amend the Hercules Zoning Ordinance as proposed in order to implement the requirements of the 2023-2031 Housing Element , to comply with Senate Bills 450, 477, 745, and 1211, as well as Assembly Bill 2 162, land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and other minor revisions to the Hercules Municipal Code to ensure consistency and clarity; and

WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025 , the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Ordinance related to amendments to the Hercules Municipal Code, received the staff report and staff presentation, received comments from the public and interested parties and discussed the matter; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby incorporates the above recitals into this Ordinance by this reference.

SECTION 2. Amendment. Deletions to the Hercules Municipal Code are shown in strikethrough. Additions are shown in bold/underline. T he City Council of the Ci ty of Hercules does hereby amend Hercules Municipal Code Tables 13-6.1, 13-12.1, 13-15.1, 13-18.1 and 13-32.1, and amending Section 13-35.320, Chapter 13-36, Chapter 13-42, Chapter 13-53 and Chapter 13-60 to read as follows:

Page 3 of 29 ends

Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations: Residential District RS-E RS-L RM-L RM-M RM-H See Also
Two-Unit Development P P — — — Section 13-36
Mobile Home A A A A —
Accessory Uses and Structures A(1) A(1) A(1) A A Section 13-

35.210

Rooming and Boarding Houses (4 or
less people)
A A A C —
Rooming and Boarding Houses (5 or
more people)
— — C C —
Family Daycare Homes (14 or fewer
children)

P P P P P

Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P Section 13-

35.320

Senior Housing C P(2) C P(2) C P(2) C P(2) C P(2)
Emergency Shelter — — P — — Section 13-

35.258
Single-Room Occupancy Units — — — — —
Supportive Housing (Apartment
Type)
P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2)
Supportive Housing (Residential Care
Facility Small Type)

Page 4 of 29 ends

Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations: Residential District RS-E RS-L RM-L RM-M RM-H See Also
Transitional Housing (Apartment
Type)
P(2) P(2) C P(2) C P(2) C P(2)
Transitional Housing (Residential
Care Facility Small Type)
A A A A —
Transitional Housing (Residential
Care Facility Large Type)
— — — C C
Commercial Uses
Home Occupation A A A A A Section 13-

35.270
Bed and Breakfast Inns C C C C — Section 13-

35.250
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Clubs and Lodges — — C C C
Libraries, Museums and Galleries — — C C C
Park and Recreation Facilities A A A A A
Public Safety Facilities A A A A A
Religious General Public Assembly C C C C C
Schools, Public or Private C C C C —
Utility Facilities C C C C —

Key to Land Use Regulations
A Administrative Use Permit Required
C Conditional Use Permit Required
DR Design Review Required
38 Ordinance No. ___

Page 5 of 29 ends

Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations: Residential District RS-E RS-L RM-L RM-M RM-H See Also
P Permitted Use
— Use Not Allowed
(1) Single story detached accessory structures under 120 square feet total on site are exempt from use permit requirements.
(2) Subject to only those standards that are applicable to other residential uses of a similar type within the same zoning district and in compliance with all relevant federal and state licensing requirements.

Page 6 of 29 ends

Table 13-12.1 Land Use Regulations: HTC Historic Town Center HTC See Also
Restaurants, Delicatessens and Bars A
With Liquor Service C
Services and Offices
Banks and Other Financial Services A
Business and Personal Services A
Business and Professional Offices A
Residential Uses
Caretaker, Guest and Employee Housing A
Multifamily Dwelling A P
Townhouse/Condominium A P
Planned Unit Development A
Rooming and Boarding Houses C
Family Daycare Home (14 or fewer children) P

Page 7 of 29 ends

Table 13-12.1 Land Use Regulations: HTC Historic Town Center HTC See Also
Daycare Facilities (for employees, visitors and
passengers)
A
Government Offices A
Libraries, Museums and Galleries A
Park and Recreation Facilities A
Public Safety Facilities C

Accessory Uses and Structures A(1)

Key to Land Use Regulations
A Administrative Use Permit Required
C Conditional Use Permit Required
P Permitted Use
(1)Facility or use is directly related to the primary use of site. (2) Subject to only those standards that are applicable to other residential uses of a similar type within the same zoning district, and in compliance with all relevant federal and state licensing requirements.

41 Ordinance No. ___

Page 8 of 29 ends

Chapter 13-15. PC-R Planned Commercial Residential Mixed-Use District

Table 13-15.1 Land Use Regulations: PC-R Planned Commercial Residential Mixed-Use District
PC-R See Also
Commercial Uses
Home Occupation A
Recreation and Entertainment C
Retail Sales
Outdoor Sales C
Retail Stores
2,000 sq ft or less A
More than 2,000 sq ft C
Restaurants and Delicatessens A
With Liquor Service C
Shopping Centers C
Services and Offices
Athletic Clubs C
Business Services A
Hotel C
Offices and Banks A
Personal Services A

42 Ordinance No. ___

Page 9 of 29 ends

Table 13-15.1 Land Use Regulations: PC-R Planned Commercial Residential Mixed-Use District
PC-R See Also
Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 13-35.320
Caretaker, Manager and Employee Housing A
Family Daycare Home (14 or fewer children) P

Live-Work Units A
Multifamily Dwellings A P
Townhouse/Condominiums A P
Planned Unit Development A
Supportive Housing (Apartment Type) P(2)
Transitional Housing (Apartment Type) A P(2)
Low-Barrier Navigation Center P Section 13-35.260
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Daycare Facilities (for employees and visitors) A
Government Offices A
Libraries, Museums and Galleries A
Public Safety Facilities A
Urgent Medical Care C
Utility Facilities C

43 Ordinance No. ___

Page 10 of 29 ends

Table 13-15.1 Land Use Regulations: PC-R Planned Commercial Residential Mixed-Use District
PC-R See Also
Accessory Uses and Structures A(1)

Key to Land Use Regulations
A Administrative Use Permit Required
C Conditional Use Permit Required
P Permitted Use
(1)Facility or use is directly related to the primary use of site. (2) Subject to only those standards that are applicable to other residential uses of a similar type within the same zoning district and in compliance with all relevant federal and state licensing requirements.

Chapter 13-18. NTC New Town Center District

Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
Commercial Uses
Recreational Facilities
Athletic Clubs A
Other Commercial Athletic Facilities C
Retail Sales
Convenience Stores C
Dry Cleaners and Laundries C
44 Ordinance No. ___

Page 11 of 29 ends

Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
Furniture, Furnishings, and Hardware Stores C
Grocery and Liquor C
Outdoor Retail Sales and Services
Permanent C
Temporary A
Recreation and Entertainment C
Restaurant, Delicatessen, and Bar A
With Liquor Service C
Retail Stores
2,000 sq ft or less A
More than 2,000 sq ft C
Services and Offices
Business Support Services A
Hotels, Motels, Inns C
Medical
Medical and Dental Clinics and Services A
Offices and Banks
2,000 sq ft or less A
More than 2,000 sq ft C
Personal Services A
45 Ordinance No. ___

Page 12 of 29 ends

Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
Video/Media Rentals C
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Daycare Facilities (for employees, residents and passengers) A General Daycare C
Government Offices A
Libraries, Museums and Galleries C
Park and Recreational Facilities A
Public Safety Facilities A
Transit Facilities
BART Stations C
Transit Transfer Stations C
Transit Malls C
Transit Offices and Support Facilities C
Utility Facilities C
Residential Uses
Caretaker, Guest, and Employee Housing A
Multifamily Dwelling A P
Townhouse/Condominium A P
Planned Unit Development A
46 Ordinance No. ___

Page 13 of 29 ends

Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
Family Daycare Home (14 or fewer children) P
Supportive Housing (Apartment Type) P(2)
Transitional Housing (Apartment Type) A P(2)
Low-Barrier Navigation Center P Section 13-35.260
Accessory Uses and Structures A(1)
Key to Land Use Regulations
A Administrative Use Permit Required
C Conditional Use Permit Required
P Permitted Use
(1)Facility or use is directly related to the primary use of site.

(2) Subject to only those standards that are applicable to other residential uses of a similar type within the same zoning district and in compliance with all relevant federal and state licensing requirements.

47 Ordinance No. ___

Page 14 of 29 ends

Chapter 13-32. Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities Table 13-32.1: Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements USE

PARKING
SPACES

LOADING SPACES
COMMENT—

PARKING
Public/Quasi-Public
Public,
government
and utility
offices and
buildings

1.0 per employee 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA and 1.0 per
additional 200,000 sf GFA
Additional spaces
provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
Parks,
playgrounds
and public
recreation
facilities

1.0 per employee Additional spaces
provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
General public
assembly

0.25 per seat 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA According to
permitted
occupancy
Church 0.5 per seat 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA According to permitted
occupancy
Libraries,
museums and
art galleries

1.0 per employee 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA Additional spaces provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
48 Ordinance No. ___

Page 15 of 29 ends

USE

PARKING
SPACES

LOADING SPACES
COMMENT—

PARKING
Day care center 1.0 per employee
+ 0.1 per student
None
Elementary and
middle schools

1.0 per employee 1.0 per 100,000 sf GFA Additional spaces provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
High school 1.0 per employee
+ 0.25 per student
of driving age

1.0 per 100,000 sf GFA Additional spaces
provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
Colleges and
instructional
schools

1.0 per employee
+ 0.6 per student

1.0 per 100,000 sf GFA Employees for
schools include
teachers,
administrators and
all other personnel

Chapter 13-35. Specific Land Use Requirements
Sec. 13-35.320 Accessory Dwelling Units.

Page 16 of 29 ends

housing to the City’s housing stock. ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot and are consistent with General Plan and zoning designations.

2. Building Permit Required. The Community Development Director shall ministerially approve building permits for ADUs in compliance with this Section. No public hearing or any additional permit shall be required of applicants seeking approval of an ADU pursuant to this Section. The Community Development Director shall act on the application to create an ADU within 60 days from the date an application is complete if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the application involves an ADU where there is also an application for a new single-family dwelling on the lot, then the Community Development Director may delay action on the ADU application to coincide with the single-family dwelling application as long as the Director applies the ministerial review required by this Section. Applicants may request a delay or waive the 60-day approval period. Applications for ADUs not meeting the requirements of this Section are subject to the administrative use permit requirements set forth in Chapter 13-50.

3. Definitions.
“Accessory dwelling unit (ADU)” shall consist of complete independent living facilities for 1 or more persons including permanent provisions for sleeping, living, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An ADU shall have exterior entrance separate from the primary dwelling.

An efficiency unit as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1 and a manufactured home as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 18007 are considered ADUs.
“ADU within existing space” or “JADU within existing space” means an ADU or JADU within the living area of an existing primary dwelling, within an attached or detached garage, or within other permitted accessory structure. An ADU within existing space may include an expansion of up to 150 square feet beyond the physical dimensions of the existing structure to accommodate ingress and egress. “Attached ADU” means an ADU that is attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling or accessory structure.
“Detached ADU” means an ADU that is not attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling or accessory structure.
50 Ordinance No. ___

Page 17 of 29 ends

“Junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU)” means an ADU that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single- family residence and which may or may not share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
“Living area” includes the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

4. Lot Requirements. ADUs are allowed in single-family and multifamily residential zoning districts where there is exactly 1 single-family residence or at least 1 multifamily building on the parcel or proposed for the parcel. Except as specified in subsection (10) of this Section, a maximum of 1 ADU is allowed on a single-family lot. The City will not approve a building permit for an ADU unless and until the City receives the following:

A. Deed Restriction. A copy of a recorded deed restriction that complies with Government Code Section 27281.5, and states that the ADU will not be rented for less than 30 days and that the ADU will not be sold separately from the primary residence; and
B. Fees.
1) ADUs containing 750 or more square feet are subject to any fees for residential units required by the City’s Master Fee Schedule as it exists at the time the ADU application is filed. Fees shall be charged in proportion to the square footage of the primary dwelling (e.g., a 1,000-square-foot ADU would be charged 50 percent of the applicable fee if the primary dwelling is 2,000 square feet). ADUs on lots with a single-family residence are subject to single- family unit fees, while ADUs on lots with a multifamily residence are subject to multifamily unit fees. All fees are subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.2 66324 and the Mitigation Fee Act.
2) ADUs within existing space and ADUs containing less than 750 square feet are not subject to fees under this subsection (4)(B).
3) Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection (4)(B), unless an ADU is constructed with a new single-family dwelling, it is not considered a “new” residential use for the purpose of calculating any connection fees, sewer facilities fees, or capacity charges. ADUs not constructed with a new single- 51 Ordinance No. ___

Page 18 of 29 ends

family home are only subject to connection fees, sewer facilities fees, and capacity charges to the extent that such fees and charges apply to existing uses.

5. Development Standards.

A. ADUs Within Existing Space. An ADU within existing space and a JADU within existing space are permitted as long as the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. No other development standards in this Section apply to ADUs and JADUs within existing space, except that:
1) Only 1 ADU within existing space and 1 JADU within existing space are allowed per lot unless a building permit or permits are obtained for multiple ADUs under subsection (10)(A) of this Section;
2) Garage spaces converted to ADUs shall replace garage doors with walls, windows, and/or doors rated by building code for habitable spaces.

B. Attached ADUs. Attached ADUs shall comply with the following requirements:
1) If the attached ADU contains 1 bedroom, it shall not exceed 850 square feet. If the attached ADU contains more than 1 bedroom, it shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. 2) All other development standards required by this subsection (5).

C. Detached ADUs. Detached ADUs shall comply with the following requirements:
1) If the detached ADU contains 1 bedroom, it shall not exceed 850 square feet. If the detached ADU contains more than 1 bedroom, it shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. 2) Detached ADUs shall have individual addresses separate from the primary residence. Addresses shall be displayed on the ADU building so that it is clearly visible and legible from the street or adjacent alley. If the ADU is located on the property such that it cannot be seen from a street or alley, the property shall post a sign or display some other type of marker in the front yard with the ADU address on it, subject to Fire District approval.
3) All other development standards required by this subsection (5). 52 Ordinance No. ___

Page 19 of 29 ends

D. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required for ADUs within existing space as long as side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. A setback of 4 feet from side and rear lot lines is required for all other ADUs. No ADU shall be built over utility easements or recorded setbacks. No passageway between an ADU and an existing dwelling shall be required. All ADUs are subject to the same front and corner setbacks as the primary residence, except that front setbacks may not preclude statewide exemption ADUs (see subsection (10) of this Section).

E. Height. An ADU shall conform to the applicable height limits of the zoning district in which it is located, except that:
1) No new detached ADU shall exceed 16 feet, or 18 feet if the accessory dwelling unit is within 0.5 mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or if the accessory dwelling unit is detached and on a lot that has an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling. ADUs shall be allowed 2 feet of additional roof height if necessary to align with the roof pitch of the existing primary dwelling. 2) Second-story ADUs are allowed on top of existing, legally approved detached structures, provided height does not exceed that of the existing primary residence.

F. Building Code Requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, all building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings apply to detached ADUs.

Notwithstanding any requirements of this subsection (5)(F), a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility is not required for either detached ADUs or attached ADUs unless a new or separate connection is necessary to serve the ADU due to:
1) The topography of the property;
2) Existing impediments such as trees, structures, or easements; 3) The location of the ADU on the property; or
4) Inadequate existing connections.

6. Design Standards. An ADU must conform to the design characteristics of the existing residence or residences. A determination of conformity shall be made if the ADU utilizes 53 Ordinance No. ___

Page 20 of 29 ends

all of the following features of the existing residence or residences: architectural features, building materials, and paint color. When an existing garage is converted to an ADU, windows and/or door features may be required for consistency with fire and building codes and in consultation with the Fire Marshal. ADUs constructed on any property that is designated in the California Register of Historic Resources as a historic contributing or landmark structure shall adhere to the Hercules Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation.

7. Fire Sprinklers. If the primary residence, whether existing or proposed, is required to contain fire sprinklers, then sprinkler installation is also required for the ADU.

8. Parking. In addition to the off-street parking spaces required for the existing residence, each ADU with 1 or more bedrooms must provide at least 1 off-street parking space; for ADUs without separate bedrooms (i.e., studios), additional off-street parking is not required. ADU parking spaces may be provided as tandem parking, including on an existing driveway or in paved setback areas, excluding the nondriveway front yard setback. Parking requirements shall be waived if the ADU is located: (A) within 0.5 mile walking distance of a public transit stop; (B) in a designated historic district; (C) in part of an existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure pursuant to subsection (5)(A) of this Section; (D) in an area requiring on-street parking permits not offered to the ADU occupant; or (E) within 1 block of a car-sharing pickup/drop-off location.

9. Replacement Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU (excluding JADUs), replacement parking shall not be required.

10. Statewide Exemption ADUs.

Page 21 of 29 ends

setbacks for fire and safety, and meets all requirements of subsection (11) of this Section.
3) One detached, new construction ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single- family dwelling that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear setbacks, that has a total floor area of no more than 800 square feet, and that does not exceed 16 feet in heightcomplies with the height limits set forth in subsection (5)(E)(1). An ADU approved pursuant to this subsection may be combined with a JADU described in subsection (10)(A)(2) of this Section.
4) Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with State building standards for dwellings. At least 1 ADU and up to 25 percent of the number of existing multifamily dwellings shall be allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling. No more than 2 detached ADUs are allowed on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, subject to a height limit of 16 feet and 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks. On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, not more than 8 detached accessory dwelling units or up to the number of existing units on the lot, whichever is less.

B. No applicant for a building permit sought under this subsection (10) shall be required to do, perform, or construct any of the following:
1) Correct nonconforming zoning conditions; or
2) Install fire sprinklers, unless they are required for the primary residence; or 3) Install new or separate utility connection or pay any connection fee, sewer facilities fee, or capacity charge, unless the ADU is constructed with a new single-family home.

C. ADUs constructed pursuant to this Section cannot be rented for a term less than 30 days.

D. An applicant for a building permit under this Section may be required to provide proof of a percolation test within the last 5 years (or 10 years if the percolation test has been recertified).

11. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). One JADU may be built per residential lot zoned for single-family residences with an existing or proposed single-family residence. 55 Ordinance No. ___

Page 22 of 29 ends

The owner of the existing or proposed single-family residence must reside in the JADU or the remaining portion of the single-family residence unless owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

A. Deed Restriction Required. The owner of the single-family lot upon which a JADU is constructed must record a deed restriction that: complies with Government Code Section 27281.5, runs with the land, states that the JADU cannot be separately sold from the single-family residence, states that the deed restriction can be enforced against future purchasers, and states that the size and attributes of the JADU must conform to the requirements of this Section and State law.

B. JADU Development Standards. The following development standards apply to JADUs:
1) Efficiency Kitchen. A JADU must have at least an efficiency kitchen, which includes a cooking facility with appliances, and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU. 2) Parking. JADUs are not subject to the parking requirements of subsection (8) of this Section but may provide 1 or more parking spaces at the option of the owner. 3) Utilities. For purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, including any connection fee, a JADU shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. No separate or new utility connections are required for JADUs. [Ord. 543 § 3, 2023; Ord. 531 § 2, 2021.]
Chapter 13-36. Two-Unit Development
Sec. 13-36.400 Objective Zoning Standards.

The following objective zoning standards supersede any other standards to the contrary that may be provided in the Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to a proposed housing development under Government Code Section 65852.21. Proposed housing developments shall be constructed only in accordance with the following objective zoning standards:

1. Building Height/Number of Stories. The maximum building height and maximum number of stories shall be as specified by the applicable zoning district. 56 Ordinance No. ___

Page 23 of 29 ends

2. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be as specified by the applicable zoning district, except if this standard would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units or would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet. Any modifications of development standards shall be the minimum modifications necessary to avoid physically precluding 2 units of 800 square feet on each parcel.

3. Minimum Living Area. The minimum living area of a primary dwelling unit shall be 150 square feet, subject to the restrictions specified by Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

4. Parking. One parking stall per primary dwelling unit shall be required, except for proposed housing developments located on parcels within 1/2 mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or within 1 block of a car share vehicle operating in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 22507.1. Parking stalls may either be uncovered or covered (garage or carport) in compliance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district and Chapter 13-32 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities).

5. Usable Open Space. Each parcel shall maintain a minimum of 500 square feet of private open space per primary dwelling unit except if this standard would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units or would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet. Any modifications of development standards shall be the minimum modifications necessary to avoid physically precluding 2 units of 800 square feet on each parcel.
6 7. Setbacks. Proposed housing developments shall be subject to the setback and building separation requirements specified by Table 13-6.1 (Land Use Regulations:

Residential District), except no more than 4 feet is required for rear and interior side setbacks. No setback shall be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. 7 8. Paving. Proposed paving shall be as specified by Section 13-30.750 (Paving Within Residential Front, Rear, and Side Yard Areas.), except to allow a driveway with a width dimension not exceeding 10 feet. [Ord. 540 § 3, 2022.]
Sec. 13-36.500 Objective Design Review Standards.
57 Ordinance No. ___

Page 24 of 29 ends

The following objective design review standards apply to construction of new primary dwelling units and to any addition and/or alteration to existing primary dwelling units as part of a proposed housing development. Existing features inconsistent with these standards may remain provided they are not altered or removed.

1. Existing Unit Conformity. If the proposed project contains an existing primary dwelling unit, new units shall conform to the design characteristics of the existing residence. A determination of conformity shall be made if the new unit utilizes all of the following features of the existing residence: architectural features, building materials, and paint color.

2. Balconies/Decks. Rooftop terraces and decks are prohibited. Balconies shall only be permitted on the front elevation of a primary dwelling unit(s).

3. Front Doors. Front door openings shall not exceed a width of 6 feet or a height of 9 feet. Front entry doors for duplex units in a side-by-side configuration shall be separated by a distance equal to half the linear length of the structure’s front elevation.

4. Front Step-Back. Second-story wall(s) that front a public street shall be recessed by 5 feet from the first-story exterior walls, as measured wall to wall.

5. Garages. Garages placed on the front elevation of a primary dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the linear extent of the front elevation.

6. Stairways. Exposed exterior stairways are prohibited. Stairways necessary to access a dwelling unit located on a second floor shall be entirely enclosed within the structure and shall be included in the allowable floor area of the dwelling unit that it serves.

7. Windows. All second-story windows less than 8 feet from rear and interior-side property lines shall be clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least 6 feet above the finished floor. All other second-story windows shall be limited to the minimum number and minimum size as necessary for egress purposes as required by the Building Code.

8. Landscaping. A hedge, consisting of 15-gallon minimum evergreen shrubs at maximum 5-foot intervals, shall be planted along the parcel line (and outside of any easement) adjacent to the wall of the SB 9 dwelling unit that is closest to the parcel line. [Ord. 540 § 3, 2022.]
Chapter 13-42. Design Review
58 Ordinance No. ___

Page 25 of 29 ends

Sec. 13-42.500 Required Findings.

The Planning Commission shall make the following findings prior to approving a design review plan:

1. The approval of the design review plan is in compliance with all provisions of this Chapter, pertinent provisions of Zoning Ordinance and applicable zoning and land use regulations, including but not limited to the Hercules General Plan as amended and any specific plan.

2. The approval of the design review plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

3. General site considerations, including site layout, open space and topography, orientation and location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, fences, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development.

4. General architectural considerations, including the character, scale, and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials, colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting and signing, and similar elements have been incorporated in order to insure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings are consistent with applicable design standards.

5. General landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials at the time of planting and after a 5-year growth period, provision for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to insure visual relief, to complement buildings and structures, and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public are consistent with applicable design standards. [Ord. 515 § 2, 2018; ZO § 42.500.]

Chapter 13-53. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities Sec. 13-53.150 Findings.

The following findings shall be made in approving the request:
59 Ordinance No. ___

Page 26 of 29 ends

1. The parcel and/or housing, as the subject of the reasonable accommodation request, will be occupied as the primary residence by an individual protected under the Fair Housing Laws.

2. The request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to 1 or more individuals protected under Fair Housing Laws.

3. The requested reasonable accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.

4. The requested reasonable accommodation will not require a fundamental alteration of the zoning laws of the City.

5. The requested reasonable accommodation will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.

6. The requested reasonable accommodation will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

Chapter 13-60. Definitions

Sec. 13-60.200 Definitions.

“Manufactured Home” shall mean the same as California Health and Safety Code Section 18007, as may be amended . Manufactured Homes are permitted in any residential zone where a conventional single -family detached dwelling is permitted subject to the same density and property development standards.

“Residential care facility” shall mean a building or portion designed or used for the purpose of providing 24 -hour-a-day nonmedical residential living accommodations, where the duration of tenancy is determined, in whole or in part, by the individual resident’s participation in group or individual activities such as counseling, recovery planning, medical, or therapeutic assistance. Residential care facility includes, but is not limited to, health facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code [H&SC] Section 1250 et seq.), community care facilities (H&SC Section 1500 et seq.), residential care facilities for the elderly (H&SC Section 1569 et seq.) or facilities for the mentall y disordered or otherwise handicapped (W&I Code Section 5000 et seq.), and alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (H&SC Section 11384.11), and other similar care facilities.

60 Ordinance No. ___

Page 27 of 29 ends

“Supportive housing” shall mean the same as California Governm ent Code Section 65582, as may be amended. (per California Government Code Section 65582[f], as may be amended) shall mean a dwelling unit oc cupied by a target population, with no limit on length of stay, that is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident(s) in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. A target population means persons with low incomes having 1 or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welfare and Institutions [W&I] Code Section 4500) and may include — among other populations —adults, emancipated youth, families, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people. Supportive housing may be designed as a residential group living facility or as a regular residential use and includes the following:

1. “Supportive housing—Apartment type” means 2 or more dwelling units on 1 parcel, where each unit functions as a single housekeeping unit and no on -site social services are provided.

2. “Supportive housing—Residential care facility small type” means 1 residential facility on a parcel with 6 residents or fewer (including minor children), excluding staff, that operates as a group living facility, where the residents share a common living area and a kitchen.

3. “Supportive housing—Residential care facility large type ” means a residential facility with 7 or more residents that operates as a group living facility where the residents share a common living area and a kitchen.

“Transitional housing” shall mean the same as California Government Code Section 65582, as may be amended. (per California Government Code Section 65582[h], as may be amended) shall mean buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than 6 months from the beginning of assistance.

Transitional housing may be designed as a residential group living facility or as a regular residential use and includes the following:

1. “Transitional housing—Apartment type” means 2 or more dwelling units on 1 parcel, where each unit functions as a single housekeeping unit and no on -site social services are provided.

2. “Transitional housing—Residential care facility small type” means 1 residential facility on a parcel with 6 residents or fewer (including minor children), excluding sta ff, that operates as a group living facility, where the residents share a common living area and a kitchen.
61 Ordinance No. ___

Page 28 of 29 ends

3. “Transitional housing—Residential care facility large type” means a residential facility with 7 or more residents that operates as a group living facility where the residents share a common living area and a kitchen.

SECTION 3. CEQA. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption in that the proposed ordinance would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construc tion or other groundbreaking activities. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. Further, none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 applies. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City of Hercules’ independent judgment and analysis.

SECTION 4. The Ordinance would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, as the proposed Ordinance will actively promote fair housing and meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 cycle of the Housing Element, bring the Hercules Municipal Code into compliance with housing laws, including Senate Bills 450, 477, 745, and 1211, as well as Assembly Bill 2162, provide updates that support the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA ) and minor modifications to ensure consistency and clarity;

SECTION 5. The Hercules City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the information prior to acting upon Ordinance.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be deleted.

SECTION 7. Codification. Section 2 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Hercules Municipal Code. Sections 1 and 3 through 8 shall not be so codified.

SECTION 8. Effective Date and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall publish or post the Ordinance as required by law. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from date of final adoption.

62 Ordinance No. ___

Page 29 of 29 ends

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the 28th day of January, 2025, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the 11th day of February, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Dion Bailey, Mayor

Eibleis Melendez
City Clerk

63 HERCULES PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-08

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY

COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND HERCULES MUNICIPAL CODE LAND USE REGULATION TABLES 13 -6.1, 13 -12.1, 13- 15.1, 13 -18.1, AND 13- 32.1; AND AMENDING SECTION 13 -35.320 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, CHAPTER 13 -36 TWO-UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CHAPTER 13 -42 DESIGN REVIEW, CHAPTER 13 -53

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, AND CHAPTER 13-60 DEFINITIONS, TO IMPLEMENT THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT; COMPLY WITH SENATE BILLS NO. 450, 477, 745 AND 1211, ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2162, AND THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT (RLUIPA); TO CORRECT IDENTIFIED INCONSISTENCIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

WHEREAS, the City of Hercules has prepared a draft update to the Housing Element of the General Plan to actively promote fair housing and meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 cycle; and

WHEREAS, the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element has been designed to align with the requirements established by State law; and

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development found the draft 2023- 2031 Housing Element to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law; and

WHEREAS, the Housing Element outlines the City’s approach to meeting local housing needs through policies and programs specified in the draft document; and

WHEREAS, these policies and programs include measures to remove barriers within the Hercules Municipal Code that may affect low and moderate-income households; and

WHEREAS, amendments to the Hercules Municipal Code are necessary to support the City’s commitment to expanding housing opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the Governor of California has enacted housing laws, including Senate Bills 450, 477, 745, and 1211, as well as Assembly Bill 2694; and

WHEREAS, minor revisions to the Hercules Municipal Code are being made to ensure consistency and clarity.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 64 WHEREAS, on December 2, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider these amendments and did hear and use its independent judgment to consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hercules recommends that the City Council:

1. Find that this draft ordinance (Attachment 1a hereto) is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption in that the proposed ordinance would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construction or other groundbreaking activities. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. Further, none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 applies. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City of Hercules’ independent judgment and analysis.

2. Amend Hercules Municipal Code Land Use Regulation Tables 13- 6.1, 13-12.1, 13-

15.1, 13-18.1, and 13- 32.1; and amending Section 13- 35.320 Accessory Dwelling Units, Chapter 13- 36 Two -Unit Development, Chapter 13- 42 Design Review, Chapter 13- 53 Reasonable Accommodations For Persons with Di sabilities, and Chapter 13-60 Definitions, to implement the 6
th Cycle Housing Element; comply with
Senate Bills No. 450, 477, 745 and 1211, Assembly Bill No. 2162, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); correct identified inconsistencies as noted by the additions and deletions shown in Attach 1a hereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Hercules on this 2 nd day of December 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: Schaufenbil, Rubio, Morrison, Bhattarai and Most-Walker

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

Robert Schaufenbil, Chair

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 65 ATTEST:

Timothy Rood, AICP
Community Development Director

Attach 1a: Draft Ordinance amending Hercules Municipal Code Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 66 CITY OF HERCULES ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES AMENDING

USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT , CORRECTING FOUND

INCONSISTENCIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

WHEREAS, the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element has been designed to align with the requirements established by State law; and

WHEREAS, the Housing Element outlines the City’s approach to meeting local housing needs through policies and programs specified in the draft document; and

WHEREAS, these policies and programs include measures to remove barriers within the Hercules Municipal Code that may affect low and moderate- income households; and

WHEREAS, amendments to the Hercules Municipal Code are necessary to support the City’s commitment to expanding housing opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the Governor of California has enacted housing laws, including Senate Bills 450, 477, 745, and 1211, as well as Assembly Bill 2694; and

WHEREAS, minor revisions to the Hercules Municipal Code are being made to ensure consistency and clarity; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2024, to consider the proposed Text Amendment and did hear and use its independent judgement to consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 67 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its December 2, 2024, meeting passed Resolution #24-XX recommending City Council adoption of an ordinance to amend the Hercules Zoning Ordinance as proposed in order to implement the requirements of the 2023-2031 Housing Element , to comply with Senate Bills 450, 477, 745, and 1211, as well as Assembly Bill 2 162, land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and other minor revisions to the Hercules Municipal Code to ensure consistency and clarity; and

WHEREAS, on January 14, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Ordinance related to amendments to the Hercules Municipal Code, received the staff report and staff presentation, received comments from the public and interested parties and discussed the matter; and

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby incorporates the above recitals into this Ordinance by this reference.

SECTION 2. Amendment. Deletions to the Hercules Municipal Code are shown in strikethrough. Additions are shown in bold/underline. T he City Council of the City of Hercules does hereby amend Hercules Municipal Code Tables 13-6.1, 13-12.1, 13-15.1, 13-18.1 and 13-32.1, and amending Section 13-35.320, Chapter 13-36, Chapter 13-42, Chapter 13-53 and Chapter 13-60 to read as follows:

Chapter 13-6. Residential Districts
Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations: Residential District RS-E RS-L RM-L RM-M RM-H See Also
Residential
Single-Family Home A P A P C C —
Duet (Single-Family Attached) — — A P A P —
Duplex — — A P A P —
Multifamily Dwelling — — C P C P C P
Townhouse/Condominium — — C P C P C P
Two-Unit Development P P — — — Section 13-36
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 68 Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations: Residential District RS-E RS-L RM-L RM-M RM-H See Also
Mobile Home A A A A —
Accessory Uses and Structures A(1) A(1) A(1) A A Section 13-

35.210

Rooming and Boarding Houses (4
or less people)
A A A C —
Rooming and Boarding Houses (5
or more people)
— — C C —
Family Daycare Homes (14 or
fewer children)

P P P P P

Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P Section 13-

35.320

Senior Housing C P(2) C P(2) C P(2) C P(2) C P(2)
Emergency Shelter — — P — — Section 13-

35.258
Single-Room Occupancy Units — — — — —
Supportive Housing (Apartment
Type)
P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2)
Supportive Housing (Residential
Care Facility Small Type)

A A P P P
Supportive Housing (Residential
Care Facility Large Type)
— — P P P
Residential Care Facility (6 or fewer
residents)
A P(2) A P(2) A P(2) A P(2) P(2)
Residential Care Facility (7+
residents)
— — — C C
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 69 Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations: Residential District RS-E RS-L RM-L RM-M RM-H See Also
Transitional Housing (Apartment
Type)
P(2) P(2) C P(2) C P(2) C P(2)
Transitional Housing (Residential
Care Facility Small Type)
A A A A —
Transitional Housing (Residential
Care Facility Large Type)
— — — C C
Commercial Uses
Home Occupation A A A A A Section 13-

35.270
Bed and Breakfast Inns C C C C — Section 13-

Key to Land Use Regulations
A Administrative Use Permit Required
C Conditional Use Permit Required
DR Design Review Required
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 70 Table 13-6.1 Land Use Regulations: Residential District RS-E RS-L RM-L RM-M RM-H See Also
P Permitted Use
— Use Not Allowed
(1) Single story detached accessory structures under 120 square feet total on site are exempt from use permit requirements.
(2) Subject to only those standards that are applicable to other residential uses of a similar type within the same zoning district and in compliance with all relevant federal and state licensing requirements.

Chapter 13-12. HTC Historic Town Center District
Table 13-12.1 Land Use Regulations: HTC Historic Town Center HTC See Also
Commercial Uses
Retail Stores
2,000 sq ft or less A
More than 2,000 sq ft C
Grocery and/or Liquor C
Home Occupation A
Bed and Breakfast Inn/Hotel C
Outdoor Retail Sales and Services
Permanent C
Temporary A
Recreation and Entertainment C
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 71 Table 13-12.1 Land Use Regulations: HTC Historic Town Center HTC See Also
Restaurants, Delicatessens and Bars A
With Liquor Service C
Services and Offices
Banks and Other Financial Services A
Business and Personal Services A
Business and Professional Offices A
Residential Uses
Caretaker, Guest and Employee Housing A
Multifamily Dwelling A P
Townhouse/Condominium A P
Planned Unit Development A
Rooming and Boarding Houses C
Family Daycare Home (14 or fewer
children)
P

Senior Housing C P(2)
Single-Room Occupancy Units C Section 13-35.332
Supportive Housing (Apartment Type) P(2)
Transitional Housing (Apartment Type) A P(2)
Low-Barrier Navigation Center P Section 13-35.260
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 72 Table 13-12.1 Land Use Regulations: HTC Historic Town Center HTC See Also
Daycare Facilities (for employees, visitors
and passengers)
A
Government Offices A
Libraries, Museums and Galleries A
Park and Recreation Facilities A
Public Safety Facilities C

Accessory Uses and Structures A(1)

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 73 Chapter 13-15. PC-R Planned Commercial Residential Mixed-Use District

Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 13-35.320
Caretaker, Manager and Employee Housing A
Family Daycare Home (14 or fewer children) P

Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Daycare Facilities (for employees and visitors) A
Government Offices A
Libraries, Museums and Galleries A
Public Safety Facilities A
Urgent Medical Care C
Utility Facilities C
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 75 Table 13-15.1 Land Use Regulations: PC-R Planned Commercial Residential Mixed-Use District
PC-R See Also

Accessory Uses and Structures A(1)

Key to Land Use Regulations
A Administrative Use Permit Required
C Conditional Use Permit Required
P Permitted Use
(1)Facility or use is directly related to the primary use of site. (2) Subject to only those standards that are applicable to other residential uses of a similar type within the same zoning district and in compliance with all relevant federal and state licensing requirements.

Chapter 13-18. NTC New Town Center District

Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
Commercial Uses
Recreational Facilities
Athletic Clubs A
Other Commercial Athletic Facilities C
Retail Sales
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 76 Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
Convenience Stores C
Dry Cleaners and Laundries C
Furniture, Furnishings, and Hardware Stores C
Grocery and Liquor C
Outdoor Retail Sales and Services
Permanent C
Temporary A
Recreation and Entertainment C
Restaurant, Delicatessen, and Bar A
With Liquor Service C
Retail Stores
2,000 sq ft or less A
More than 2,000 sq ft C
Services and Offices
Business Support Services A
Hotels, Motels, Inns C
Medical
Medical and Dental Clinics and Services A
Offices and Banks
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 77 Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
2,000 sq ft or less A
More than 2,000 sq ft C
Personal Services A
Video/Media Rentals C

Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Daycare Facilities (for employees, residents and
passengers)
A
General Daycare C
Government Offices A
Libraries, Museums and Galleries C
Park and Recreational Facilities A
Public Safety Facilities A
Transit Facilities
BART Stations C
Transit Transfer Stations C
Transit Malls C
Transit Offices and Support Facilities C
Utility Facilities C

Residential Uses
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 78 Table 13-18.1 Land Use Regulations: NTC District
NTC
Caretaker, Guest, and Employee Housing A
Multifamily Dwelling A P
Townhouse/Condominium A P
Planned Unit Development A
Family Daycare Home (14 or fewer children) P
Supportive Housing (Apartment Type) P(2)
Transitional Housing (Apartment Type) A P(2)
Low-Barrier Navigation Center P Section 13-

35.260

Accessory Uses and Structures A(1)
Key to Land Use Regulations
A Administrative Use Permit Required
C Conditional Use Permit Required
P Permitted Use
(1)Facility or use is directly related to the primary use of site.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 79 Chapter 13-32. Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities Table 13-32.1: Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements USE

PARKING
SPACES

LOADING SPACES
COMMENT—

PARKING
Public/Quasi-Public
Public,
government
and utility
offices and
buildings

1.0 per employee 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA and 1.0
per additional 200,000 sf GFA
Additional spaces
provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
Parks,
playgrounds
and public
recreation
facilities

1.0 per employee Additional spaces
provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
General public
assembly

0.25 per seat 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA According to
permitted
occupancy
Church 0.5 per seat 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA According to permitted
occupancy
Libraries,
museums and
art galleries

1.0 per employee 1.0 after 5,000 sf GFA Additional spaces provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 80 USE

PARKING
SPACES

LOADING SPACES
COMMENT—

PARKING
Day care
center

1.0 per employee
+ 0.1 per student
None
Elementary
and middle
schools

1.0 per employee 1.0 per 100,000 sf GFA Additional spaces provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
High school 1.0 per employee
+ 0.25 per
student of driving
age

1.0 per 100,000 sf GFA Additional spaces
provided for
visitors as
Commission
requires
Colleges and
instructional
schools

1.0 per employee
+ 0.6 per student

1.0 per 100,000 sf GFA Employees for
schools include
teachers,
administrators
and all other
personnel

Chapter 13-35. Specific Land Use Requirements
Sec. 13-35.320 Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Purpose. This Section is intended to implement the General Plan policies which encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on residential parcels, and is also intended to address the State’s ADU provisions as set forth in Government Code Section 65852.1 66310 through 66342 as may be amended. ADUs are commonly referred to as second units, in-law-units, and accessory-apartments, and contribute needed Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 81 housing to the City’s housing stock. ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot and are consistent with General Plan and zoning designations.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 82 “Junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU)” means an ADU that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single- family residence and which may or may not share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
“Living area” includes the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.

5. Development Standards.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 84 D. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required for ADUs within existing space as long as side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety. A setback of 4 feet from side and rear lot lines is required for all other ADUs. No ADU shall be built over utility easements or recorded setbacks. No passageway between an ADU and an existing dwelling shall be required. All ADUs are subject to the same front and corner setbacks as the primary residence, except that front setbacks may not preclude statewide exemption ADUs (see subsection (10) of this Section).

F. Building Code Requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, all building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings apply to detached ADUs.

6. Design Standards. An ADU must conform to the design characteristics of the existing residence or residences. A determination of conformity shall be made if the ADU utilizes Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 85 all of the following features of the existing residence or residences: architectural features, building materials, and paint color. When an existing garage is converted to an ADU, windows and/or door features may be required for consistency with fire and building codes and in consultation with the Fire Marshal. ADUs constructed on any property that is designated in the California Register of Historic Resources as a historic contributing or landmark structure shall adhere to the Hercules Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation.

7. Fire Sprinklers. If the primary residence, whether existing or proposed, is required to contain fire sprinklers, then sprinkler installation is also required for the ADU.

10. Statewide Exemption ADUs.

A. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Section, only building permits shall be required for ADUs and JADUs in the following circumstances:
1) One ADU within existing space of an existing or proposed single-family dwelling if the ADU has exterior access separate from the primary dwelling and sufficient side and rear setbacks for fire and safety.
2) One JADU within existing space of an existing or proposed single-family dwelling that has exterior access separate from the single-family dwelling, sufficient side and rear Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 86 setbacks for fire and safety, and meets all requirements of subsection (11) of this Section.
3) One detached, new construction ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed single- family dwelling that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear setbacks, that has a total floor area of no more than 800 square feet, and that does not exceed 16 feet in height. An ADU approved pursuant to this subsection may be combined with a JADU described in subsection (10)(A)(2) of this Section.
4) Multiple ADUs within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with State building standards for dwellings. At least 1 ADU and up to 25 percent of the number of existing multifamily dwellings shall be allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling. No more than 2 detached ADUs are allowed on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, subject to a height limit of 16 feet and 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks. On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling, not more than 8 detached accessory dwelling units or up to the number of existing units on the lot, whichever is less.

C. ADUs constructed pursuant to this Section cannot be rented for a term less than 30 days.

D. An applicant for a building permit under this Section may be required to provide proof of a percolation test within the last 5 years (or 10 years if the percolation test has been recertified).

11. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). One JADU may be built per residential lot zoned for single-family residences with an existing or proposed single-family residence.

The owner of the existing or proposed single-family residence must reside in the JADU Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 87 or the remaining portion of the single-family residence unless owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

1. Building Height/Number of Stories. The maximum building height and maximum number of stories shall be as specified by the applicable zoning district.

2. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be as specified by the applicable zoning district, except if this standard would have the effect of physically precluding the Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 88 construction of 2 units or would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet. Any modifications of development standards shall be the minimum modifications necessary to avoid physically precluding 2 units of 800 square feet on each parcel.

3. Minimum Living Area. The minimum living area of a primary dwelling unit shall be 150 square feet, subject to the restrictions specified by Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

The following objective design review standards apply to construction of new primary dwelling units and to any addition and/or alteration to existing primary dwelling units as Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 89 part of a proposed housing development. Existing features inconsistent with these standards may remain provided they are not altered or removed.

2. Balconies/Decks. Rooftop terraces and decks are prohibited. Balconies shall only be permitted on the front elevation of a primary dwelling unit(s).

4. Front Step-Back. Second-story wall(s) that front a public street shall be recessed by 5 feet from the first-story exterior walls, as measured wall to wall.

5. Garages. Garages placed on the front elevation of a primary dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the linear extent of the front elevation.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 90 The Planning Commission shall make the following findings prior to approving a design review plan:

2. The approval of the design review plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Chapter 13-53. Reasonable Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities Sec. 13-53.150 Findings.

The following findings shall be made in approving the request:

1. The parcel and/or housing, as the subject of the reasonable accommodation request, will be occupied as the primary residence by an individual protected under the Fair Housing Laws.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 91 2. The request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to 1 or more individuals protected under Fair Housing Laws.

3. The requested reasonable accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.

4. The requested reasonable accommodation will not require a fundamental alteration of the zoning laws of the City.

5. The requested reasonable accommodation will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.

6. The requested reasonable accommodation will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

Chapter 13-60. Definitions

Sec. 13-60.200 Definitions.

“Residential care facility” shall mean a building or portion designed or used for the purpose of providing 24- hour-a-day nonmedical residential living accommodations, where the duration of tenancy is determined, in whole or in part, by the individual resident’s participation in group or individual activities such as counseling, recovery planning, medical, or therapeutic assistance. Residential care facility includes, but is not limited to, health facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code [H &SC] Section 1250 et seq.), community care facilities (H&SC Section 1500 et seq.), residential care facilities for the elderly (H&SC Section 1569 et seq.) or facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped (W&I Code Section 5000 et seq.), and alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (H&SC Section 11384.11), and other similar care facilities.

“Supportive housing” shall mean the same as California Government Code Sectio n 65582, as may be amended. (per California Government Code Section 65582[f], as may be amended) shall mean a dwelling unit occupied by a target population, with no limit on length of stay, that is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident(s) in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. A target Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 92 population means persons with low incomes having 1 or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welfare and Institutions [W&I] Code Section 4500) and may include— among other populations —adults, emancipated youth, families, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people. Supportive housing may be designed as a residential group living facility or as a regular residential use and includes the following:

1. “Supportive housing—Apartment type” means 2 or more dwelling units on 1 parcel, where each unit functions as a single housekeeping unit and no on- site social services are provided.

3. “Supportive housing—Residential care facility large type” means a residential facility with 7 or more residents that operates as a group living facility where the residents share a common living area and a kitchen.

Transitional housing may be designed as a residential group living facility or as a regular residential use and includes the following:

1. “Transitional housing—Apartment type” means 2 or more dwelling units on 1 parcel, where each unit functions as a single housekeeping unit and no on- site social services are provided.

2. “Transitional housing—Residential care facility small type” means 1 residential facility on a parcel with 6 residents or fewer (including minor children), excluding staff, that operates as a group living facility, where the residents share a common livi ng area and a kitchen.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 93 SECTION 3. CEQA. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption in that the proposed ordinance would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construc tion or other groundbreaking activities. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. Further, none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 applies. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City of Hercules’ independent judgment and analysis.

SECTION 4. The Ordinance would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, as the proposed Ordinance will actively promote fair housing and meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 cycle of the Housing Element, bring the Hercules Municipal Code into compliance with housing laws, including Senate Bills 450, 477, 745, and 1211, as well as Assembly Bill 2162, provide updates that support the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and minor modifications to ensure consistency and clarity;

SECTION 5. The Hercules City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the information prior to acting upon Ordinance.

SECTION 6. S everability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be deleted.

SECTION 7. Codification. Section 2 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Hercules Municipal Code. Sections 1 and 3 through 8 shall not be so codified.

Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 94 THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the _____ day of _______, 202 5, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the ____ day of 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABS
ENT:

ABSTAIN:

Dion Baile
y, Mayor
Eibleis
Melendez
City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: FAC57CD1-E939-4CF4-AD09-D7FD0B77CEF9 95 CONSEN

T CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEM

4. 25-045
96

Page 1 of 3 ends

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 11, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Timothy Rood, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist for 202 2 and 202 3 for allocation of Local Street Maintenance & Improvement Funds for Fiscal Years 202 2–23 and 2023–24
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution (see Attachment 1) approving the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist for Calendar Years 202 2 and 202 3 with the attachments and authorize submittal to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for disbursement of Measure J Local Street Maintenance & Improvement Return -to- Source Funds for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022–23 and 2023–24.

BACKGROUND:

In 1988, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, which authorized a half-cent sales tax increase for gasoline sales throughout the County. The funds raised with this special tax have been used for road, highway, and transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvements within Contra Costa County. M easure C expired on March 31, 2009, but Measure J (approved by voters in November 2004) extended the half cent sales tax until the year 2034.

ANALYSIS:

To receive its share of funds from the Measure J Local Street Maintenance and Improvement (LSM) progra m and to be eligible for funds from the Transportation for 25-045
97

Page 2 of 3 ends

Livable Communities (CC-TLC) program, each jurisdiction in Contra Costa County must comply with all components of the Growth Management Program (GMP). Every two years, CCTA assesses compliance with the GMP through the review and approval of each jurisdiction’s GMP Compliance Checklist. Each jurisdiction must complete the checklist, prepare the detailed information requested in the attachments section, approve the completed Checklist and attachments at the City Council level, and transmit a fully - executed and signed original to CCTA. Jurisdictions that comply with the Growth Management Checklist requirements receive funds to be used for local roadway maintenance projects. The City of Hercules has participated in this Checklist Compliance procedure since FY 1991–92. As a reference, the City of Hercules received $450,134 for the 2021-22 fiscal year and anticipates $510,780 for fiscal year 2022-23.

For the Calendar Years 2022 & 2023 reporting period, the Checklist is due no later than June 30, 2025. Provided the City demonstrates compliance with the GMP, the City will be eligible to receive Measure J funds in August following the close of each fiscal year. For this reporting period, the funds received are used to fund transportation projects identified in the Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan, which the City Council last reviewed and adopted as part of the FY 2024-25 Annual Budget on June 11, 2024 (Resolution No. 24-035).

The Growth Management Checklist requires that jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, including Hercules, comply with the following requirements:
 Implement Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance;  Adopt a Development Mitigation Program (i.e., establish and collect transportation impact mitigation fees);
 Demonstrate reasonable progress in providing housing options and job opportunities through General Plan Housing Element compliance with State requirements, while incorporating bicycling, walking, and transit into development review;
 Prepare traffic impact studies for new projects and development for regional peer review when projects involve more than 100 net new vehicle trips in the peak hour;
 Participate in ongoing, cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning (e.g., West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee membership);  Adopt a five-year Capital Improvement Program;
 Have a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program in place;  Adopt a General Plan Growth Management Element (GME) that complies with the intent of the Measure J Model GME (2007);
 Comply with a voter-approved Urban Limit Line; and,
 Expend a designated minimum amount of non-Measure J and other transportation funding sources on transportation projects (Maintenance of Effort). 98

Page 3 of 3 ends

If a jurisdiction is found to be non -compliant with program requirements, the CCTA may withhold that jurisdiction's share of the "Return -to-Source" sales tax revenues intended for local street maintenance and improvements. For the fiscal year 2023-24, the retroactive, pro -rated distribution of street maintenance funds to the City of Hercules amounts to $ 493,303, and for the fiscal year 2024 -25, it is yet to be determined .

Distribution becomes available in July 2025 and is based upon several factors: actual sales tax revenues; Hercules’ 58.48 miles of roads (1.84% of all 3,186 miles of eligible roads in the County); the City’s January 2023 population of 26,297 residents (2.29% of the 20 jurisdictions’ total population); and an initial (i.e., base) allocation of $100,000.

FISCAL IMPACT:

By demonstrating to CCTA compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program through approval of the Compliance Checklist, the City ensures its ability to receive its share of 18% plus 2.09% Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds (Measure J Return-to-Source sales tax dollars) in August following the close of each fiscal year. There will be a projected positive fiscal impact of approximately $100,000 on the City’s Measure J Local Street Maintenance & Improvement Funds based on Return-To-Source sales tax dollars received by CCTA for FY 2021-22 and 2022-23 combined. The City anticipates receiving allocations in two separate disbursements, pending CCTA approval of the Measure J GMP Compliance Checklist for Calendar Years 2022 & 2023 (see Attachment 2).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attach 1- Draft Resolution
Attach 2- Measure J Growth Management Program Compliance Checklist

99 1

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT T O THE CONTRA COSTA

TRANSPORTATION AUTHO RITY THE MEASURE J GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (GMP) COMPLI ANCE CHECKLIST FOR C ALENDAR YEARS 2022 AND 2023 TO RECEIVE ALLOCATI ONS OF LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND

IMPROVEMENT FUNDS (MEASURE J RETURN-TO-SOURCE GAS TAX DOLLAR S) ESTIMATED TO BE $493,303 FOR FY 2023-24 AND AN AS YET UNDET ERMINED AMOUNT FOR FY 2024-25.

WHEREAS, in July 2024, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) released the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist covering Calendar Years 2022 and 2023; and

WHEREAS, in order to be eligible to receive Local Street Maintenance Funds for Fiscal Years 20 23-24 and 2024-25, each jurisdiction needs to complete and submit to CCTA the Growth Management Program (GMP) Compliance Checklist by June 30, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the Checklist topics focus on (1) implementation of Action Plan policies, (2) Development Mitigation Programs, (3) housing options and job opportunities and policies and standards that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in new developments, (4) traffic impact studies for projects that generate more than 100 net new peak-hour vehicle trips, (5) participation in cooperative, multi -jurisdictional planning, (6) five-year capital improvement program, (7) transportation systems management program, (8) adoption of a voter-approved Urban Limit Line, (9) adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element, (10) posting of signs at projects exceeding $250,000 in Measure J funds, (11) Maintenance of Effort expenditures of non -Measure J funds to exceed a m inimum of $338,152 each fiscal year, and (12) reporting of Local Street Maintenance and Improvements for eligible expenditures; and

WHEREAS, the City of Hercules has completed the Compliance Checklist for Calendar Years 20 22 & 20 23 and demonstrated how it satisfies the requirements of Measure J as shown in the GMP Checklist.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. The Measure J Growth Management Program Compliance Checklist for Calendar Years 2022 & 2023 is approved; and

2. The City Manager is authorized to submit the Checklist to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for its review prior to disbursement of allocated 100
2 Measure J Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25 (Return-to-Source funds).

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 11th day of February 2025, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Dion Bailey, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk

101
Measure J G
rowth Management Program Compliance Checklist

1. Action Plans YES NO N/A
a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the applicable Action Plan for all designated Routes of Regional Significance within the jurisdiction?
b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as outlined in the Implementation Guide and the applicable Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance?
i. Circulation of environmental documents,
ii. Analysis o
f the impacts of proposed General Plan amendments
and recommendation of changes to Action Plans, and
iii. Conditio
ning the approval of projects consistent with Action
Plan policies?
c. Has the j
urisdiction followed the procedures for RTPC review of
General Plan Amendments as called for in the Implementation Guide?

2. Development Mitigation Program YES NO
a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a local development mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the impact mitigation costs associated with that development?
b. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented the regional transportation mitigation program, developed, and adopted by the applicable Regional Transportation Planning Committee, including any regional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other mitigation as appropriate?
102

3. Address Housing Options YES NO
a. Has the jurisdiction prepared and submitted a report to the Authority demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels under its Housing Element? The report can demonstrate progress by
(1) comparing the number of housing units approved, constructed, or occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the number of units needed on average each year to meet the housing objectives established in its Housing Element; or
(2) illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use plans and regulatory systems which provide
opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development; or
(3) illustrating how its General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate improvement or development of sufficient housing to meet the Element’s objectives.

Note: A copy of the local jurisdiction’s annual progress report (Tables A thru C) to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is sufficient.
b. Does the jurisdiction’s General Plan—or other adopted policy document or report—consider the impacts that its land use and development policies have on the local, regional, and countywide transportation system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided?
c. Has the j
urisdiction incorporated policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in new developments?
103

4. Traffic Impact Studies YES NO N/A
a. Using the Authority’s Technical Procedures, have traffic impact studies been conducted as part of development review for all projects estimated to generate more than 100 net new peak-hour vehicle trips? (Note: Lower traffic generation thresholds established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply).
b. If the answer to 4.a. above is “yes”, did the local jurisdiction notify affected parties and circulate the traffic impact study during the environmental review process?

5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional
Planning YES NO
a. During the reporting period, has the jurisdiction’s Council/Board representative regularly participated in meetings of the appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC), and have the jurisdiction’s local representatives to the RTPC regularly reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or board? (Note: Each RTPC should have a policy that defines what constitutes regular attendance of Council/Board members at RTPC meetings.)
b. Has the local jurisdiction worked with the RTPC to develop and implement the Action Plans, including identification of Routes of Regional Significance, establishing Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and defining actions for achieving the MTSOs?
c. Has the l
ocal jurisdiction applied the Authority’s travel demand model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and developments exceeding specified
thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system, including on Action Plan MTSOs?
104
YES NO
d. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the countywide transportation computer model, data on proposed improvements to the jurisdiction’s transportation system, including roadways, pedestrian circulation, bikeways, and trails, planned and improved development within the jurisdiction, and traffic patterns?

6. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program YES NO
Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five-year capital improvement program (CIP) that includes approved projects and an analysis of project costs as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements? (The transportation component of the plan must be forwarded to the Authority for incorporation into the Authority’s database of transportation projects)

7. Transportation Systems Management Program YES NO
Has the jurisdiction adopted a transportation systems management ordinance or resolution that incorporates required policies consistent with the updated model ordinance prepared by the Authority for use by local agencies or qualified for adoption of alternative mitigation measures because it has a small employment base?

8. Adoption of a voter-approved Urban Limit Line YES NO N/A a. Has the local jurisdiction adopted and continually complied with an applicable voter-approved Urban Limit Line as outlined in the Authority’s annual ULL Policy Advisory Letter?
105
b. If the ju
risdiction has modified its voter approved ULL or approved a major subdivision or General Plan Amendment outside the ULL, has the jurisdiction made a finding of consistency with the Measure J provisions on ULLs and criteria in the ULL Policy Advisory Letter after holding a noticed public hearing and making the proposed finding publicly available?

9. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management
Element YES NO N/A
Has the local jurisdiction adopted a final GME for its General Plan that substantially complies with the intent of the Authority’s adopted Measure J Model GME?

10. Posting of Signs YES NO N/A
Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects exceeding $250,000 that are funded, in whole or in part, with Measure C or Measure J funds?

11. Maintenance of Effort (MoE) YES NO
Has the jurisdiction met the MoE requirements of Measure J as stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation
Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (as amended)? (See the Checklist Instructions for a listing of MoE requirements by local jurisdiction.)

12. Submittal of LSM Reporting and Audit Forms YES NO
Has the local jurisdiction submitted a Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Reporting Form and Audit Reporting Form for eligible expenditures of 18 percent funds covering FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23?

YES NO N/A
106

13. Other Considerations YES NO N/A
If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure J have been satisfied in a way not indicated on this checklist, has an explanation been attached below?
Review and Approval of Checklist
This Measure J G
MP Compliance Checklist was prepared by:

Signature Date
Name & Title (print)
Phone Email
The Council/Board of ___________ has reviewed the completed Checklist and found that the policies and programs of the jurisdiction as reported herein conform to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program.

Certified Signature (Mayor or Chair) Date
Name & Title (print)
Attest Signature (City/Town/County Clerk) Date
Name (print)
107
Measure J GMP Compliance Checklist
Reporting Jurisdiction: _______________________________________ For Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25
Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2022 & 2023
Supplementary Information (Required)

1. Action Plans
a. Please summarize steps taken during the reporting period to implement the actions, programs, and measures called for in the applicable Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance:
b. Attach, li
st, and briefly describe any General Plan Amendments that were approved during the reporting period. Please specify which amendments affected ability to meet the standards in the Growth Management Element and/or affected ability to implement Action Plan policies or meet Multimodal Traffic Service Objectives (MTSOs). Indicate if amendments were forwarded to the jurisdiction’s RTPC for review, and describe the results of that review relative to Action Plan implementation:
108
Provide a
summary list of projects approved during the reporting period and the conditions required for consistency with the Action Plan:

2. Development Mitigation Program
a. Describe progress on implementation of the regional transportation mitigation program:

3. Address Housing Options
a. Please attach a report demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels. (Note: A copy of the local jurisdiction’s annual report (Tables A thru C) to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is sufficient).

Add Attachments
109
Please attach the jurisdiction’s adopted policies and standards that ensure consideration of and support for walking, bicycling, and transit access during the review of proposed development.

Add Attachments

4. Traffic Impact Studies
Please list all traffic impact studies that have been conducted as part of the development review of any project that generated more than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips. (Note:

Lower traffic generation thresholds established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply).

Note whether the study was consistent with the Authority’s Technical Procedures and whether notification and circulation were undertaken during the environmental review process.

5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning No attachments necessary
110

6. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
Please attach the transportation component of the most recent CIP version, and list the resolution number and date of adoption of the most recent five-year CIP.

7. Transportation Systems (Demand) Management Program
Please attach a copy of the jurisdiction’s TSM (TDM) ordinance or list the date of ordinance or resolution adoption and its number.
111

8. Adoption of a voter-approved Urban Limit Line
The local jurisdiction’s adopted ULL is on file at the Authority offices. Please specify any actions that were taken during the reporting period regarding changes or modifications to the voter approved ULL, which should include a resolution making a finding of consistency with Measure J and a copy of the related public hearing notice.

9. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element
Please attach the adopted Final Measure J Growth Management Element to the local jurisdiction’s General Plan or list the date of ordinance or resolution adoption and its number.

10. Posting of Signs
Provide a list of all projects exceeding $250,000 within the jurisdiction, noting which ones are or were signed according to Authority specifications.
112

11. Maintenance of Effort (MoE)
Please indicate the jurisdiction’s MoE requirement and MoE expenditures for the past two fiscal years (FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23). See the Instructions to identify the MoE requirements.

12. Submittal of LSM Reporting Form and Audit Reporting Form Please attach LSM (Summary) Reporting and LSM Audit (Detail) Forms for FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23.

Add Attachments

13. Other Considerations
Please specify any alternative methods of achieving compliance for any components for the Measure J Growth Management Program
113
Jurisdiction Name
Reporting Calendar Year
First Name
Last Name
Title Click here to download APR Instructions
Email
Phone
Street Address
City
Zipcode
12_28_22
Optional: Click here to import last year's data. This is best used when the workbook is new and empty. You will be prompted to pick an old workbook to import from. Project and program data will be copied exactly how it was entered in last year's form and must be updated. If a project is no longer has any reportable activity, you may delete the project by selecting a cell in the row and typing ctrl + d.
111 Civic Drive
Hercules
94547
Please Start Here
General Information
2022
Hercules
Contact Information
Timothy
Rood
Community Development Director
[email protected]
5107998251
Mailing Address
Annual Progress Report January 2020
114
Optional: This runs a macro which checks to ensure all required fields are filled out. The macro will create two files saved in the same directory this APR file is saved in. One file will be a copy of the APR with highlighted cells which require information. The other file will be list of the problematic cells, along with a description of the nature of the error.

Optional: Save before running. This copies data on Table A2, and creates another workbook with the table split across 4 tabs, each of which can fit onto a single page for easier printing. Running this macro will remove the comments on the column headers, which contain the instructions. Do not save the APR file after running in order to preserve comments once it is reopened.

Optional: This macro identifies dates entered that occurred outside of the reporting year. RHNA credit is only given for building permits issued during the reporting year.

Link to the online system: https://apr.hcd.ca.gov/APR/login.do Submittal Instructions
Please save your file as Jurisdictionname2022 (no spaces). Example: the city of San Luis Obispo would save their file as SanLuisObispo2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) forms and tables must be submitted to HCD and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on or before April 1 of each year for the prior calendar year; submit separate reports directly to both HCD and OPR pursuant to Government Code section 65400. There are two options for submitting APRs:

1. Online Annual Progress Reporting System - Please see the link to the online system to the left. This allows you to upload the completed APR form into directly into HCD’s database limiting the risk of errors. If you would like to use the online system, email [email protected]
and HCD will send you the login information for
your jurisdiction. Please note: Using the online system only provides the information to HCD. The APR must still be submitted to OPR. Their email address is [email protected].

2. Email - If you prefer to submit via email, you can complete the excel Annual Progress Report forms and submit to HCD at [email protected] and to OPR at
[email protected]. Please send the Excel workbook, not a scanned or PDF copy of the tables.
115
Jurisdiction Hercules ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
2 3 4 6 7 8 9
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted+
(see
instructions)
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total PROPOSED
Units by Project
Total

APPROVED
Units by project
Total

DISAPPROVED
Units by Project
Was APPLICATION

SUBMITTED
Pursuant to GC
65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining)
Ddi the housing
development
application seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government Code
section 65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 404-480-065 2033 Railroad Ave BIR21-012517 ADU O 1/24/2022 1 1 No No 406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road BIR22-001457 ADU O 6/15/2022 1 1 No No 406-293-004 151 Daisy Court BIR22-02395 ADU O 4/12/2022 1 1 No No 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
51 Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bo Applica
10 Housing Development Applications Submitted
116
Table A2
2 3 5 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Entitlement
Date Approved # of Units issued
Entitlements
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 1 0 1 0 38 40
362-340-052 148 Bonaire Ave BIR20-011540 ADU O 0
404-480-067 2045 Railroad BIR21-007346 ADU O 0
362-320-028 296 Carson BIR21-008434 ADU O 0
404-020-012 215 Skelly FPDP#22-01 SFD O 1 1 38 9/27/2022 40 404-480-065 2033 Railroad Ave BIR21-012517 ADU O 0
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road BIR22-001457 ADU O 0
406-293-004 151 Daisy Court BIR22-02395 ADU O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 4
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement 117
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 8 9
Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Building Permits
Date Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
362-340-052 148 Bonaire Ave 0
404-480-067 2045 Railroad 0
362-320-028 296 Carson 0
404-020-012 215 Skelly 0
404-480-065 2033 Railroad Ave 1 1/24/2022 1
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road 1 6/15/2022 1
406-293-004 151 Daisy Court 1 4/12/2022 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 7
Project Identifier Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits 118
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 11 12
Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions) Date
Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
362-340-052 148 Bonaire Ave 1 4/26/2022 1
404-480-067 2045 Railroad 1 5/6/2022 1
362-320-028 296 Carson 1 5/2/2022 1
404-020-012 215 Skelly 0
404-480-065 2033 Railroad Ave 0
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road 0
406-293-004 151 Daisy Court 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 10 Project Identifier
119
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Streamlining Infill
Housing without Financial
Assistance or Deed
Restrictions
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Current APN Street Address Project Name+
How many of the
units were
Extremely Low
Income?+
Was Project
APPROVED using
GC 65913.4(b)?
(SB 35 Streamlining)
Y/N
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance Programs
for Each Development
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
For units affordable without
financial assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how the
locality determined the units
were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability or
Deed Restriction (years)
(if affordable in perpetuity
enter 1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Dest
royed Units
Demolished or
Destroyed Units
Demolished/Des
troyed Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus Applied to
the Project (Percentage
Increase in Total Allowable
Units or Total Maximum
Allowable Residential Gross
Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions, Waivers,
or Other Modifications
Given to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project receive a
reduction or waiver of
parking standards? (Y/N)
0 0 0 0
362-340-052 148 Bonaire Ave N
404-480-067 2045 Railroad N
362-320-028 296 Carson N
404-020-012 215 Skelly 0 N Y INC 55
404-480-065 2033 Railroad Ave 0 N
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road 0 N
406-293-004 151 Daisy Court 0 N
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Demolished/Destroyed Units Density BonusProject Identifier 120
Jurisdiction Hercules ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
1 Projection Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation by
Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date (all years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - 1 - - 15 - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - 217 - - - - Above Moderate 244 - 190 30 41 227 17 4 4 3 - 516 - 682
- 190 31 41 227 249 4 4 3 - 749 322 5 6 7
Extremely low-Income
Need 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date
Total Units
Remaining
110 - - - - - - - - - - 110 102
Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column.

Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Extremely Low-Income Units*
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income RHNA progress and must be reported as very low-income units in section 7 of Table A2. They must also be reported in the extremely low-income category (section 13) in Table A2 to be counted as progress toward meeting the extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). *Extremely low-income houisng need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Value in Section 5 is default value, assumed to be half of the very low-income RHNA. May be overwritten.

Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).

Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
-
-
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
217
Moderate
220
118
100
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 16 2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
220
121
Jurisdiction Hercules ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date of Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of Rezone Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate- Income
Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning Minimum
Density Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed
Realistic
Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of Existing
Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
83 Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
122
Jurisdiction Name
Reporting Calendar Year
First Name
Last Name
Title Click here to download APR Instructions
Email
Phone
Street Address
City
Zipcode
v_2_15_24
Click here to add rows to a table. If you add too many rows, you may select a cell in the row you wish to remove and type ctrl + d.
111 Civic Drive
Hercules
94547
Timothy
Rood
Community Development Director
[email protected]
5107998251
Mailing Address
Please Start Here
General Information
2023
Hercules
Contact Information
Optional: Click here to import last year's data. This is best used when the workbook is new and empty. You will be prompted to pick an old workbook to import from. Project and program data will be copied exactly how it was entered in last year's form and must be updated. If a project is no longer has any reportable activity, you may delete the project by selecting a cell in the row and typing ctrl + d.

Annual Progress Report January 2020
123
Jurisdiction Hercules
Reporting Year 2023
Housing Element Planning Period 6th Cycle
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
3 3
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
Single-family Attached 0 0 0
Single-family Detached 0 0 0
2 to 4 units per structure 0 0 0
5+ units per structure 0 0 0
Accessory Dwelling Unit 0 3 0
Mobile/Manufactured Home 0 0 0
Total 0 3 0
Infill Housing Developments and Infill Units Permitted # of Projects Units 3 3
0 0
3 3
0 0
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Very Low 0 0 0
(Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits
Number of SB 35 Streamlining Applications Approved
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions - Applications
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Number of SB 35 Streamlining Applications
Above Moderate
Indicated as Infill
Not Indicated as Infill
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
124
Low 0 0 0
Moderate 0 0 0
Above Moderate 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Streamlining Provisions Used - Permitted Units # of Projects Units SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone 0 0
SB 9 (2021) - Residential Lot Split 0 0
AB 2011 (2022) 0 0
SB 6 (2022) 0 0
SB 35 (2017) 0 0
Ministerial and Discretionary Applications # of Applications Units Ministerial 3 3
Discretionary 0 0
Density Bonus Applications and Units Permitted
Number of Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Units in Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 0 Number of Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0
Number of Units in Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0 Housing Element Programs Implemented and Sites Rezoned Count 35 0
Programs Implemented
Sites Rezoned to Accommodate the RHNA
125
Jurisdiction Hercules ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2023 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
2 3 4 6 7 8 9
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total PROPOSED
Units by Project
Total

APPROVED
Units by project
Total

DISAPPROVED
Units by Project
Please select
streamlining
provision/s the
application was
submitted pursuant
to.

Did the housing
development
application seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government Code
section 65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 406-291-001 214 Poppy Court BIR23-009985 ADU O 11/20/2023 1 1 NONE No 404-490-059 1172 Promenade
Street BIR22-014245
ADU O 4/25/2023 1 1 NONE No
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road BIR22-001457 ADU O 1/30/2023 1 1 NONE No 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
51 Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bo Applica
10 Housing Development Applications Submitted
126
Table A2
2 3 5 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Entitlement
Date Approved # of Units issued
Entitlements
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406-291-001 214 Poppy Court BIR23-009985 ADU 0
404-490-059 1172 Promenade
Street BIR22-014245 ADU 0
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road BIR22-001457 ADU 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 4
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement 127
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 8 9
Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Building Permits
Date Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
406-291-001 214 Poppy Court 1 11/20/2023 1
404-490-059 1172 Promenade
Street 1 4/25/2023 1
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road 1 1/30/2023 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 7
Project Identifier Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits 128
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 11 12
Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions) Date
Issued
# of Units issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406-291-001 214 Poppy Court 0
404-490-059 1172 Promenade
Street 0
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 10 Project Identifier
129
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Streamlining Infill
Housing without Financial
Assistance or Deed
Restrictions
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Current APN Street Address Project Name+
How many of the
units were
Extremely Low
Income?
Please select the
streamlining
provision the project
was APPROVED
pursuant to. (may
select multiple)
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance Programs
for Each Development
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
For units affordable without
financial assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how the
locality determined the units
were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability or
Deed Restriction (years)
(if affordable in perpetuity
enter 1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destroyed
Units
Demolished or
Destroyed Units
Demolished/De
stroyed Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus Applied to
the Project (Percentage
Increase in Total Allowable
Units or Total Maximum
Allowable Residential Gross
Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions, Waivers,
or Other Modifications
Given to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project receive a
reduction or waiver of
parking standards? (Y/N)
0 0
406-291-001 214 Poppy Court NONE Y
404-490-059 1172 Promenade
Street NONE Y
406-343-002 2081 Lupine Road NONE Y
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Demolished/Destroyed Units Density BonusProject Identifier 130
Jurisdiction Hercules ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2023 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
1 Projection Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation by
Income Level
Projection Period -
06/30/2022-
01/30/2023
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Units to Date (all years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Above Moderate 327 1 2 - - - - - - - - 3 324 995
1 2 - - - - - - - - 3 992 5 6 7
Extremely low-Income
Need 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Units to Date
Total Units
Remaining
172 - - - - - - - - - - 172 VLI Deed Restricted
VLI Non Deed Restricted
Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
126
-
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
-
Moderate
344
198
126
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here -
2 Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
344
198
Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column.

Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).

Please Note: Table B does not currently contain data from Table F or Table F2 for prior years. You may login to the APR system to see Table B that contains this data. 131
Jurisdiction Hercules ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2023 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Date of Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of Rezone Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate- Income
Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning Minimum
Density Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed
Realistic
Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of Existing
Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
83 Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
132

GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/173/636700226852830000

133
Attachment 3b
134
135
136
137
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Contra Costa County
March 18, 2020
Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf CourseFranklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared by:

Abrams Associates
1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
138
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 1 ends

Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course
Contra Costa County

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This traffic impact study describes the existing and future conditions for transportation with and without the proposed RV resort development. The study presents information on the regional and local roadway networks, pedestrian and transit conditions, and provides an analysis of the effects on transportation facilities associated with the project.

This study also describes the regulatory setting; the criterion used for determining the significance of environmental impacts; and summarizes potential environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. This study has been conducted in accordance with the requirements and methodologies set forth by Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA), Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of CEQA. Based on this analysis the project would not cause significant impacts in the study area and no off-site vehicular traffic mitigations would be required.
2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves construction of an RV resort with 160 RV spaces and 22 walk-in campsites with tent bungalows provided. The project would eliminate the existing 18-hole golf course but would retain the existing driving range and involve construction of a new 18-hole putting course. The project would also include a 50 space RV storage facility and is proposing to include provide a staging area for the John Muir Land Trust with a restroom, drinking fountain, picnic tables and 50 parking spaces. The project is located south of State Highway 4 at the existing Franklin Canyon Golf Course in unincorporated Contra Costa County. All access to the site will be from the existing access to the golf course on State Highway 4. A secondary access onto Christie Road is proposed for emergency vehicles only. Figure 1 shows the location of the project and the surrounding roadway network. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan for the project.
3) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section of the report describes the roadways, traffic conditions and other existing transportation characteristics in the vicinity of the project. The primary basis of the analysis is the peak hour level of service for the key intersections. The hours identified as the “peak” hours are generally between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. for the majority of the transportation facilities described. Throughout this report, these peak hours will be identified as the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
139
N

FRANKLIN CANYON

GOLF COURSE
John Muir Parkway
Franklin Canyon Rd

CHRISTIE RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Contra Costa County
FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
140
N
Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Contra Costa County
FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
141
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 4 ends

3.1 Project Study Intersections

Based on the project’s trip generation and the potential for traffic impacts the only intersection analyzed was the main project entrance onto State Route 4, which is subject to approval by County staff. Figure 1 shows the location of the project study intersection. As mentioned above, all access to the site will be from this existing access to the Franklin Canyon Golf Course, which is currently controlled with a stop sign on the side street approach. Please note there were no intersections identified where over 50 peak hour trips could potentially be added, requiring analysis in accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Technical Procedures (January, 2013) and Caltrans’ Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002).

3.2 Traffic Analysis Scenarios

The study intersections were evaluated for the following six scenarios:

 Scenario 1: Existing Conditions – Level of Service (LOS) based on existing peak hour volumes and existing intersection configurations.

 Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project – Existing traffic volumes plus trips from the proposed project.

 Scenario 3: Baseline (No Project) Conditions – The Baseline scenario is based on the existing volumes plus growth in background traffic (for three years) and accounts for traffic from all reasonably foreseeable developments that could substantially affect the volumes at the project study intersections.

 Scenario 4: Baseline Plus Project Conditions – This scenario is based on the Baseline traffic volumes plus the trips from the proposed project.

 Scenario 5: Cumulative Conditions – This scenario includes year 2040 cumulative volumes based on planned and approved projects and the most recent release of the Countywide Travel Demand Model.

 Scenario 6: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – This scenario includes year 2040 cumulative volumes based on the most recent release of the Countywide Travel Demand Model plus the trips from the proposed project.

3.3 Existing Roadway Network

As discussed previously, the project location and the surrounding roadway network are illustrated in Figure 1. The following is a more detailed description of the roadways that could be affected by the project:

 State Route 4 – SR 4 is the primary east-west corridor in northern Contra Costa County. It connects Interstate 80 in the city of Hercules to the west with the cities of Oakley and Brentwood to the east. SR 4 is currently a four-lane highway with limited access in the vicinity of the proposed project and a speed limit of 55 mph

 Christie Road – Christie Road is a two lane dead end local road that extends south from SR 4 just east of the proposed project and has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph.
142
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 5 ends

3.4 Ramp Merge Analysis Methodology

Highway Capacity Software was used to analyze the ramp merge area at the existing access to the Franklin Canyon Golf Course. Ramp area operating conditions are dependent upon traffic volumes and the ramp characteristics. These characteristics include the length and type of acceleration/deceleration lanes, free-flow speed of the ramps, number of freeway and acceleration/deceleration lanes, grade along the facility, and the types of facilities that a ramp connects to. Table 1 summarizes the density thresholds for level of service A to F for ramp merge/diverge areas. The HCM ramp merge/diverge methodology does have certain limitations.

It does not apply when the traffic along a segment is influenced by downstream blockages or queuing, nor does it apply when free-flow speeds are below 55 miles per hour (mph). Also, the Highway Capacity Manual requires that several criteria be considered in addition to density so that LOS F is assumed to be automatically attained for a ramp if:

At an on-ramp, volume exceeds capacity in:

 The segment of a freeway downstream, or
 The merge-area defined by the on-ramp and the two adjacent fre eway lanes,

Or at an off-ramp volume exceeds capacity in:

 The segment of a freeway upstream OR downstream,
 The off-ramp itself, or
 The diverge-area defined by the two adjacent freeway lanes app roaching the ramp.

TABLE 1

LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DENSITY FOR RAMP MERGE / DIVERGE AREAS

LEVEL OF SERVICE MAXIMUM DENSITY
(pc/mi/ln)
A 10
B 20
C 28
D 35
E >35
F Demand Exceeds Capacity

SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition.

NOTES: Density is presented in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane.

3.5 State Route 4 Delay Index Methodology - The delay index measures travel congestion and is expressed as the ratio of the time required to travel between two points during the peak hour (the congested travel time) and the time required during un-congested off-peak times.1 A delay index of 2.0 means that congested travel time is twice as long as during an off- peak travel time. The following shows the formula for calculating delay indices:

Delay Index = Free Flow Travel Time / Measured Peak Hour Travel Time

1 Technical Procedures, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA, January 16, 2013. 143
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 6 ends

3.6 Existing Capacity Conditions (Scenario 1)

Traffic counts at the existing access to the Franklin Canyon Golf Course and on the adjacent segment of State Route 4 were conducted in September of 2018 at times when local schools were in session. The existing intersection geometry at the project entrance and the existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. Table 2 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Please note that the corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the technical appendix to this report. As shown in Table 2, the ramp merge at the existing golf course entrance on State Route 4 currently has acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

TABLE 2

EXISTING RAMP MERGE AREA LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

LOCATION PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING
Density LOS
Franklin Canyon Golf Course On-Ramp Merge With Eastbound SR 4 AM 24.5 C PM 22.4 C

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2019
NOTES: Density is presented in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane.

3.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following three classes:

Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.

Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

Class III – Provides a route designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

There are no sidewalks or bicycle lanes along State Route 4 in the project study area.

3.8 Transit Service

Transit service in Western Contra Costa County is provided by Westcat. Bus Route 30Z to Martinez operates on the adjacent segment of State Route 4 but there are no bus stops near the project site. The nearest bus stops are located about 3 miles away in the City of Hercules.

From the Hercules Transit Center there are connections to BART which provides regional transportation connections to much of the Bay Area. It runs from the North Bay Area in Richmond to the South Bay Area in Fremont and in the east-west direction it runs from Antioch to the San Francisco Airport.

144

FRANKLIN CANYON

GOLF COURSE
STOP
John Muir Parkway
Franklin Canyon Rd

CHRISTIE RD

EXISTING AM(PM)

PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
2 (23)
2620 (2483)
29 (15)

EXISTING

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE

LANE CONFIGURATION
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
STOP
Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Contra Costa County
FIGURE 3 EXISTING AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LANE CONFIGURATIONS Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
145
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 8 ends

4) REGULATORY CONTEXT

Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below.

4.1 State

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over State highways.

The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies provides consistent guidance for Caltrans staff reviewing development/land use change proposals. The Guide also informs local agencies about information needed for Caltrans to analyze the traffic impacts to state highway facilities which include freeway segments, on- or off-ramps, and signalized intersections.

4.2 Local

Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan Update (2014) - The transportation policies that are currently applicable within Contra Costa County are based on the Contra Costa County Transportation Plan. This document identifies standards and procedures for analyzing transportation impacts in the county.

Contra Costa County General Plan - The Transportation and Circulation Element included in the Contra Costa County General Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 65302(b) of the California Government Code. The Transportation and Circulation Element addresses existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the County will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the County.

4.3 Significance Criteria

The goal of Contra Costa County is to maintain LOS D or better at all intersections and the West County Action Plan also establishes a maximum delay index of 2.0.2 Please note that for the Caltrans freeway facilities in the area the operational standards and significance criteria are established by the CCTA acting as the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) representing the jurisdictions of Contra Costa County. As the acting CMA the CCTA establishes the traffic LOS standards for all state highway facilities in Contra Costa County, which supersede the general Caltrans operational standard for all state highways. As the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) representing the jurisdictions of Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (the Authority) is responsible for preparing and adopting a Congestion Management Program (CMP). Consistent with the CMP legislation, the Authority establishes the level-of-service standards for the CMP network.

Intersection Significance Thresholds - Project-related operational impacts on the signalized study intersections in Contra Costa County are considered significant if project-related traffic causes the Level of Service (LOS) rating to deteriorate beyond Level of Service (LOS) D during the peak commute hours.

2 West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, Fehr & Peers, Walnut Creek, CA, September, 2017.
146
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 9 ends

State Route 4 Delay Index - For State Route 4 freeway the West County Action Plan specifies a maximum delay index of 2.0. It is important to note that achievement of the MTSO delay index and average speed for the segment adjacent to the proposed project is measured from Interstate 80 to the Cummings Skyway.

According to CEQA guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would:
 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit.  Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level-of-service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.  Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).  Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

5) IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Project Trip Generation

The proposed project would involve construction of 160 RV spaces and 22 walk-in campsites with tent bungalows provided. The project would eliminate the existing 18-hole golf course but would retain the existing driving range and involve construction of a new 18-hole putting course.

For the purposes of the trip generation forecasts it was assumed the proposed putting course would generate approximately the same amount of traffic as a 9-hole golf course. Therefore the trip generation only accounts for removal of the traffic associated with the 9 holes that would be displaced by the RV Resort portion of the project. The project would also include a 50 space RV storage facility and is proposing to include provide a staging area for the John Muir Land Trust with a restroom, drinking fountain, picnic tables and 50 parking spaces. Please note the campground trip generation is based on the number of occupied campsites and for the purposes of these calculations it is assumed the average peak campground occupancy (on weekends) would be 80%. The trip generation calculations are shown in Table 3. They are based on rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition.

147
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 10 ends

TABLE 3

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS

Land Use Size ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Campground/RV Park Trip Rates
(ITE Land Use Code 416) 0.95 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.27 Unadjusted Campground/RV
Park Trip Generation 182 sites 173 14 24 38 32 17 49
Reduction for Occupancy (20%) 35 3 5 8 6 4 10
Net New Campground/RV Park
Trip Generation 138 11 19 30 26 13 39
RV/Self-Storage Trip Rates
(ITE Land Use Code 151) 17.96 0.71 0.68 1.39 0.977 0.98 1.95 RV Storage Facility Trip
Generation 5 0 u n i t s 9 1 0 1 0 1 1
Subtotals for the
Proposed Project 147 12 19 31 26 14 40
Golf Course Trip Rates
(ITE Land Use Code 430) 30.38 1.39 0.37 1.76 1.54 1.37 2.91 Existing Portion of the Golf
Course Being Removed 9 holes 273 13 3 16 14 12 26
Net New Project
Trip Generation -126 -1 16 15 12 2 14

The total trip generation reflects all vehicle trips that would be counted at the project driveways, both inbound and outbound. As shown in Table 3, the project is forecast to generate approximately 15 net new vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours. To determine the worst-case impacts, the trips generated are estimated for the peak commute hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., which represent the peak of “adjacent street traffic”.

This is when the project traffic would contribute to the greatest amount of congestion.

5.2 Project Trip Distribution

The trip distribution assumptions are based on the project’s proximity to regional roadways, the directional split at nearby intersections, and the land use patterns in the area. Figure 4 shows the project traffic that is forecast to be added at the entrance to the Franklin Canyon Golf Course.

5.3 Existing Plus Project Traffic Capacity Conditions (Scenario 2)

This scenario evaluates the existing conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. The capacity calculations for the Existing Plus Project scenario are shown in Table 4 and the resulting volumes at the project study intersections are shown in Figure 4. Please note that the corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Technical Appendix to this report. As shown in Table 4, the ramp merge at the existing golf course entrance on State Route 4 is forecast to continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

148

FRANKLIN CANYON

GOLF COURSE
STOP
John Muir Parkway
Franklin Canyon Rd

CHRISTIE RD

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT

AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
18 (25)
2620 (2483)
29 (27)

PROJECT AM(PM)

PEAK HOUR TRIPS

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
16 (2)
0 (12)
Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Contra Costa County
FIGURE 4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
149
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 12 ends

TABLE 4

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT RAMP MERGE AREA LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING EXISTING PLUS

PROJECT
Density LOS Density LOS
1 SOMERSVILLE ROAD & JAMES DONLON BOULEVARD Highway Ramps AM 24.5 C 24.7 C PM 22.4 C 22.4 C

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2019
NOTES: Density is presented in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane.

5.4 Baseline Traffic Capacity Conditions (Scenario 3)

The Baseline scenario evaluates the existing conditions with the addition of traffic from reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. As a worst case assumption the general baseline growth in traffic was developed based on the assumption that the project completion date would be 2021. This scenario includes one percent per year growth in background traffic for three years. No other approved projects were identified that would significantly alter the traffic volumes at the project study intersections. Figure 5 presents the resulting baseline volumes at each of the project study intersections. Table 5 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the Baseline weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Technical Appendix to this report. As shown in Table 5, the ramp merge at the golf course entrance on State Route 4 is forecast to continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

TABLE 5

BASELINE AND BASELINE PLUS PROJECT RAMP MERGE AREA

LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION PEAK
HOUR

BASELINE BASELINE PLUS

PROJECT
Density LOS Density LOS
Franklin Canyon Golf Course On-Ramp Merge With Eastbound SR 4 AM 25.3 C 25.4 C PM 23.1 C 23.1 C

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2019
NOTES: Density is presented in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane.

5.5 Baseline Plus Project Traffic Capacity Conditions (Scenario 4)

The Baseline plus proposed project traffic forecasts were developed by adding project-related traffic to the baseline traffic volumes. Figure 5 presents the Baseline Plus Project traffic volumes that were used in the analysis. Table 5 summarizes the LOS results for the Baseline and Baseline Plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Please note that the corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the technical appendix to this report. As shown in Table 5, the ramp merge at the existing golf course entrance on State Route 4 is forecast to continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

150

FRANKLIN CANYON

GOLF COURSE
STOP
John Muir Parkway
Franklin Canyon Rd

CHRISTIE RD

BASELINE AM(PM)

PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
2 (24)
2699 (2558)
30 (15)

BASELINE PLUS PROJECT

AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
18 (26)
2699 (2558)
30 (27)
Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Contra Costa County
FIGURE 5 BASELINE AND BASELINE PLUS PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
151
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 14 ends

5.6 Cumulative Traffic Capacity Conditions (Scenario 5)

For the cumulative conditions, the intersection traffic volumes were based on the existing turning movements with the addition of traffic from all planned projects plus the addition of incremental growth in background traffic estimated by the County’s traffic model for the area, which equates to one half percent per year to the year 2040. Figure 6 presents the cumulative build-out traffic volumes for the project study intersections. Table 6 summarizes the LOS results for the Cumulative (Year 2040) traffic conditions at each of the project study intersections. No other cumulative roadway improvements were assumed for the area. As shown on Table 6, the ramp merge at the golf course entrance on State Route 4 is forecast to continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

TABLE 6

CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT RAMP MERGE AREA

LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION PEAK
HOUR

CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE

PLUS PROJECT
Density LOS Density LOS
Franklin Canyon Golf Course On-Ramp Merge With Eastbound SR 4 AM 27.7 C 27.9 C PM 25.3 C 25.4 C

SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2019
NOTES: Density is presented in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane.

5.7 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Capacity Conditions (Scenario 6)

Figure 6 presents the cumulative build-out traffic volumes including the traffic from the proposed commercial project. Table 7 summarizes the LOS results for the Cumulative Plus Project (Year 2040) traffic conditions at each of the project study intersections. As shown on this table, the ramp merge at the existing golf course entrance on State Route 4 is forecast to continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

5.8 Internal Circulation and Access

No internal site circulation or access issues have been identified that would cause a traffic safety problem or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. At the project entrance there were no sight distance issues and no capacity problems were identified with the use of the existing golf course access. However, it should be noted that access to and from the site can be rather circuitous for motorists leaving the site and heading west on State Route 4. The nearest shopping is located to the west in Hercules but because there is no access to westbound State Route 4 at the site and motorists must first travel east. From the project site it is about 6.5 miles to shopping in Martinez. However, although the site is only about 3 miles from Hercules the circuitous route required to head westbound from the site means it’s actually about a 6 mile drive. Again, this is because to head this direction (westbound) on State Route 4 from the site requires travelling east for about one and half miles to the Cummings Skyway interchange where a motorist can then access westbound State Route 4 to head back towards Hercules. A similar situation exists for motorists attempting to access the site from westbound State Route 4.

When travelling westbound on State Route 4 a motorist must go about three quarters of a mile west of the site to the Franklin Canyon Road interchange. From there a motorist can exit 152

FRANKLIN CANYON

GOLF COURSE
STOP
John Muir Parkway
Franklin Canyon Rd

CHRISTIE RD

CUMULATIVE AM(PM)

PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
2 (26)
2967 (2812)
33 (16)

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT

AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

FRANKLIN CANYON

RV PARK ENTRANCE
(SR-4) JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
18 (28)
2967 (2812)
33 (28)
Franklin Canyon RV Resort and Golf Course

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Contra Costa County
FIGURE 6 CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
153
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 16 ends

westbound State Route 4 to access the eastbound direction of the highway and the project entrance. It should also be noted there is a substantial uphill grade on eastbound State Route 4 between the site and the Cummings Skyway. However, vehicles exiting the site onto State Route 4 have an acceleration lane to safely merge with traffic before the hill. Because the speed limit is only 55 mph in this area any vehicles merging onto State Route 4 in this area typically have a minimal impact on the regular flow of traffic.

One potential safety benefit of the project would be through the potential to direct more park users to the trailhead proposed at the entrance to the project. Currently the main access and trailhead for the Fernandez Ranch Open Space is accessed via Christie Road. Christie Road appears to be a less desirable access point for the public to reach the open space, from a traffic safety perspective. This is because the intersection of Christie Road with State Route 4 has no acceleration or deceleration lanes provided and it is located right before the steepest part of the grade in this area where it can be difficult to find a gap to merge with traffic on State Route 4 during peak hours. It can also take a little longer for motorists to get up to the speed of traffic on State Route 4 before the adjacent uphill grade.

5.9 Parking Impacts

The proposed project would provide an adequate supply of off-street parking based on the County’s requirements. The project is currently proposing to meet the County’s parking requirements. Subject to final County approval of the proposed parking plan there would be no significant parking impacts expected to the surrounding properties.

5.10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts

Employees and guests of the project could potentially generate a limited amount of additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area, thereby potentially increasing conflicts between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. However, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) or generate pedestrian, bicycle, or transit travel demand that would not be accommodated by transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and plans. Based on our review there would be no significant impacts to bicycle or pedestrian safety in the area and no mitigations or improvements are recommended at this time.

5.11 Transit Impacts

The proposed project would not interfere with any existing bus routes and would not remove or relocate any existing bus stops. The proposed Project could also potentially help support existing bus services with additional transit ridership and would not conflict with any transit plans or goals of the County or Westcat. Although the proposed project does have the potential to increase patronage on bus lines in the area, based on this analysis the project would not result in degradation of the level of service (or a significant increase in delay) on any roadway segments currently being utilized by bus transit in the area and, as such, no significant impacts to transit are expected. As a result, the project would not be expected to result in any significant impacts to transit service in the area.

154
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 17 ends

5.12 Impacts to the State Route 4 Freeway

As noted previously, the delay index measures travel congestion and is expressed as the ratio of the time required to travel between two points during the peak hour (the congested travel time) and the time required during un-congested off-peak times. The denominator of the delay index formula, the measured peak hour travel time, was determined from speed runs conducted along State Route 4 during the AM and PM peak hours in the spring of 2017 as part of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) 2017 Monitoring Report.
3 The numerator of the delay index formula, the free flow travel time is defined as “the time it takes to traverse a roadway segment at the speed limit including the average uncongested delay experienced at traffic signals.” It is important to note that achievement of the MTSO delay index and average speed for the segment adjacent to the proposed project is measured from Interstate 80 to the Cummings Skyway. For this segment of State Route 4 the 2017 CMP Monitoring Report reported a delay index of 1.1 for both directions. Under cumulative (2040) conditions the West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance indicates that the delay index on State Route 4 is forecast be 1.2 for both directions, which is within the 2.0 delay index standard established for this segment. It should also be noted the development of the proposed project would increase the total traffic on SR 4 during both AM and PM peak hours but the increase to any one segment is forecast to be less than one half of a percent and well under 50 trips per hour.

5.13 Recommended Mitigation Measures

The project would not cause any intersections in the study area to exceed County or Caltrans standards and no vehicular traffic mitigations would be required.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The following is a list of potential transportation impacts of the project. With the implementation of the proposed measures described in this section, all project transportation impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

TR-1 Impacts related to pedestrian facilities.

The proposed project would generate additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area, thereby potentially increasing conflicts between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Based on the County’s significance criteria the project’s impacts on pedestrian travel would be considered less than significant and no mitigations would be required.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

3 Contra Costa Sub-Regional Action Plans for the Routes of Regional Significance Multimodal Traffic Service Objectives (MTSO) Draft 2017 Monitoring Report, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, CA, March, 2018 155
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 18 ends

TR-2 Impacts related to bicycle facilities.

Although the proposed project would increase vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the project vicinity it is not expected to significantly impact or change the design of any existing bicycle facilities or create any new safety problems for bicyclists in the area.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

TR-3 Impacts related to transit facilities.

The proposed project has the potential to increase patronage on bus lines in the area.

However, based on this analysis the project would not result in degradation of the level of service (or a significant increase in delay) on any roadway segments currently being utilized by bus transit in the area and, as such, no significant impacts to transit are expected. The project contribution to key roadway segments in the area would not result in any significant changes to travel speeds. As a result, the project would not be expected to result in any significant impacts to transit service in the area.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

TR-4 Construction activities associated with the proposed proj ect would result in an increase in traffic to and from the site and could lead to unsafe conditions near the project site.

The increase in traffic as a result of construction activities associated with the proposed project has been quantified assuming a worst-case single phase construction period of 24 months.

Heavy Equipment

Approximately eight pieces of heavy equipment are estimated to be transported on and off the site each month throughout the construction of the proposed project. Heavy equipment transport to and from the site could cause traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project site during construction. However, each load would be required to obtain all necessary permits, which would include conditions. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project applicant would be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan.

The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and the freeway, as determined by the County Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveways to the project site and construction activities may require installation of temporary (or ultimate) traffic signals as determined by the County Engineer; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress; warning signs indicating frequent truck entry and exit would be posted on adjacent roads; and any debris and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. In addition, eight loads of heavy equipment being hauled to and from the site each month would be short-term and temporary.

156
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 19 ends

Employees

The weekday work is expected to begin around 7:00 AM and end around 4:00 PM. The construction worker arrival peak would occur between 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM, and the departure peak would occur between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM. It should be noted that the number of trips generated during construction would not only be temporary, but should also be less than the proposed project trip generation at buildout. Based on past construction of similar projects, construction workers could require parking for up to 40 vehicles during the peak construction period. Additionally, deliveries, visits, and other activities may generate peak non-worker parking demand of 10 to 20 trucks and automobiles per day. Therefore, up to 60 vehicle parking spaces may be required during the peak construction period just for the construction employees. Furthermore, the Traffic Control Plan will require construction employee parking be provided on the project site or in off-site parking lots to eliminate conflicts with nearby residential areas.

The construction of the project can also be staggered so that employee parking demand can be met by using on-site parking. Therefore, the impacts of construction-related employee traffic and parking are considered less-than-significant.

Construction Material Import

The project would also require the importation of construction material, including raw materials for the building pads, the buildings, the parking areas, and landscaping. Under the provisions of the Traffic Control Plan, if importation and exportation of material becomes a traffic nuisance, then the County Engineer may limit the hours the activities can take place.

Traffic Control Plan

The Traffic Control Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. This analysis assumed construction of the entire project in one phase to identify the potential worst-case traffic effects. If the project is built in phases over time, the effects of each phase will be the same or less. Each phase will be subject to a Traffic Control Plan and oversight by the County Engineer. The last phase may require added worker parking measures, depending on the circumstances, as there will not be any remaining vacant land for parking. Therefore, the construction activities associated with the proposed project or its individual phases would not lead to noticeable congestion in the vicinity of the site or the perception of decreased traffic safety resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

TR-5 Impacts to freeway operations.

The development of the proposed project would increase the total traffic on SR 4 during both AM and PM peak hours but the increase to any one segment is forecast to be less than one half of a percent and well under 50 trips per hour. As described in Section

5.12, the project also would not conflict with any standards established by the county congestion management agency (the CCTA) and therefore the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to freeway operations.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.
157
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Page 20 ends

TR-6 Impacts related to site access and circulation.

The proposed project would have one unsignalized driveway and one secondary access for emergency vehicles only. Based on a review of the proposed site plan it was determined that the site circulation should function well and would not cause any safety or operational problems. The project site design has been required to conform to County design standards and the plan is not expected to create any significant impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists or traffic operations. Therefore, impacts related to site access and circulation to the proposed project would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

TR-7 Impacts regarding emergency vehicle access on and surroun ding the proposed project site.

Sufficient emergency access is determined by factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations. The land use plan for the proposed project includes a primary entrance onto State Route 4 along with secondary entrance onto Christie Road for emergency vehicles only. All lane widths within the project should meet the minimum width that can accommodate emergency vehicles and the final emergency vehicle access plan would be subject to final approval from the Fire Department. Therefore, the development of the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts regarding emergency vehicle access.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

158
Transportation Analysis
159

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
160

Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report
215 Skelly Residential Development
February 28, 2022
City of Hercules, California

161
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Page | i
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Study Scenarios ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Study Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Level of Service Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Level of Service Standards ..................................................................................................................................................10

3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System ...........................................................................................................................12

3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................12

3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................15

3.4 Existing Transit Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................17

3.5 Existing Traffic Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................19

3.6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions .................................................................................21

4.0 Existing plus Project Conditions .......................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled .........................................................................................................................................................23

4.2 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................23

4.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ...................................................................................................................24

4.5 Intersection Queuing Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................26

5.0 Cumulative No-Project Conditions (2040) .......................................................................................... 29

5.1 Intersections Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative No-Project Conditions ................................................29

6.0 Cumulative plus Project Conditions .................................................................................................... 31

6.1 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions ................................................31

7.0 Additional Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 33

7.1 Site Access ................................................................................................................................................................................33

9.2 On-Site Circulation ................................................................................................................................................................34

9.3 Parking........................................................................................................................................................................................34 162
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Page | ii

9.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................................35

Tables
Table 1: Signalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions ................................................................................................ 9 Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions........................................................................................ 10 Table 3: Existing Bus Services ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 21 Table 5: Year 2020 VMT Generation .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 6: Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 7: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions .................................................. 26 Table 8. 95th Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes: .................................................................................... 27 Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 27 Table 12: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions ................................................................. 29 Table 13: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions ........................................ 31 Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 5: Existing Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6: Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls ...................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 22 Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 9: Existing plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 28 Figure 10: Cumulative No-Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 30 Figure 11: Cumulative plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 32

Appendices
Appendix A – Existing Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B – Existing Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets 163
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Page | iii
Appendix C - CCTA TAZ Boundaries
Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix E – Cumulative Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets Appendix F – Cumulative plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets 164
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed residential development located at 215 Skelly in the City of Hercules. The project would replace a former horse ranch with 40 single family homes.

The purp
ose of this report is to provide summaries of changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic impacts on the surrounding transportation system with the proposed project. The VMT analysis is based on the methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). To evaluate the effects on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project, an LOS analysis was conducted to determine consistency with City of Hercules and CCTA plans and standards.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
In the project vicinity, the CCTA Travel Demand Model generates daily residential VMT per resident of 14.7 for 2020, well below the countywide average of 19.78. Based on the CCTA VMT screening threshold of

16.81 this is considered a low-VMT area, and there is no substantial evidence that the project would generate high VMTs for this location. The project is expected to cause a less-than-significant impact under CEQA and is exempt from further VMT analysis.

Project Trip Generation
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation (11th Edition). TJKM used published trip rates for the ITE land use Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) for this project. The proposed project is expected to generate 377 total daily trips, including 28 net new a.m. peak hour trips (7 in, 21 out) and 38 net new p.m. peak hour trips (24 in, 14 out).

Existing Conditions
Under this scenario, both of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and both intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The two-way stop-controlled intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly operates at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS B during the p.m. peak hour. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue operates at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour.

Existing plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, both of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during a.m. peak hour, and both study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The two-way stop-controlled intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly operates at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue operates at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. The project would be consistent with level of service standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and CCTA Congestion Management Program.
165
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 2
Cumulative Conditions
The Cumulative No-Project Conditions analysis forecasts how the study area’s transportation system would operate with the full build-out of the project in combination with the growth and changes of the surrounding community by the year 2040.

Under this scenario, both of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during both peak hours. The two-way stop-controlled intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly would continue to operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS B during the p.m. peak hour. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue would continue to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour.

Cumulative plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, both of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during both peak hours. The two-way stop-controlled intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly would continue to operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour, and deteriorate to LOS C during the p.m. peak hour with an increase in delay of 2.2 seconds. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue would continue to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour, and deteriorate to LOS D during the p.m. peak hour with an increased delay of 0.9 seconds. The project would be consistent with level of service standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and CCTA Congestion Management Program.

Site Access and On-Site Circulation
TJKM concluded that the site plan will operate acceptably and provide adequate on-site vehicle circulation and access to parking spaces. The proposed project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities and will add trips to existing transit facilities, which can be accommodated by the existing transit capacity. Site access and circulation for vehicles are considered adequate, but on-site pedestrian circulation could be improved with additional curb ramps.

Parking
The project would require 80 off-street parking spaces for the 40 dwelling units. The proposed project would construct two-car garages with driveway aprons for each dwelling unit, providing 80 covered spaces satisfying City requirements, as well as 80 uncovered spaces. The proposed parking supply would therefore be more than adequate under City of Hercules requirements and would not produce any parking impacts on surrounding parcels or roadways.

Queuing Analysis
Queuing operations were analyzed at the one signalized intersection with dedicated left- and right-turn lanes, under Existing and Cumulative Conditions, with and without the proposed project. Under Existing Conditions, the signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue would experience queue overflows in the eastbound left turn lane during PM peak hours, and overflows in the southbound left turn lane during one or both peak hours. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, the same turn lanes would continue to experience overflows during the same peak hours, with mild increases in queue lengths in the southbound left turn lane during the AM peak hours and a 20ft increase in queue lengths in the 166
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 3
eastbound left turn lane during PM peak hours. The addition of project trips would not cause any new queue overflows.

Recommendations
TJKM recommends the following:
 The grading plans for the site should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the finished grade and landscaping do not create any visual obstructions for vehicles exiting the driveways.  Add curb ramps to provide accessible throughout the development.

167
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed residential development located at 215 Skelly in the City of Hercules. The proposed project would replace a former horse ranch with 40 single family homes. Primary access to the project site would be provided by a private street connecting to Skelly at the location of the existing driveway. This chapter discusses the TIS purpose, project study area, and analysis scenarios. Figure 1 shows the study area and project site location. Figure 2 shows the project site plan, dated November, 2021.

1.1 STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide summaries of changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic impacts on the surrounding transportation system. The VMT analysis is based on the methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). To evaluate the effects on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project, an LOS analysis was conducted to determine consistency with City of Hercules and CCTA plans and standards.

1.2 STUDY INTERSECTIONS
TJKM evaluated traffic conditions at two study through remote field review.

The study intersections were selected based on TJKM’s working knowledge of the area with input and approval from the City of Hercules. San Pablo Avenue is identified as a Route of Regional Significance within the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) West County Action Plan. Due to ongoing traffic irregularities associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, observed traffic volumes were increased by an adjustment factor to estimate typical traffic volumes. This is discussed further in section 3.5.

The peak periods observed were between 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. The study intersections and associated traffic controls are as follows:

1. Hercules Avenue and Skelly/Zeus (Two-Way Stop)

2. Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue (Signalized)

1.3 STUDY SCENARIOS
The roadway operations analysis addresses the following four traffic scenarios:
 Existing Conditions – This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on adjusted existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traffic controls.
 Existing plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.
 Cumulative Conditions (2040) – This scenario considers the development of the city and surrounding communities to the year 2040, projecting existing traffic volumes to the year 2040 using an annual growth factor of 0.27 percent per year. This growth factor was derived from 2016 and 2040 traffic volumes contained in The Veranda Shopping Center TIS (2016, Kittelson & Associates), and ultimately based on the 2040 CCTA traffic model.
168
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 5
 Cumulative plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Cumulative Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.
169
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 6
Figure 1: Vicinity Map

170
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 7
Figure 2: Site Plan

171
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 8

2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Traffic impacts related to the proposed project were evaluated for both compliance with applicable regulatory documents and environmental significance as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA analysis was conducted in accordance with the Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the July 1, 2020, Technical Memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers describing the VMT methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). As of July 1, 2020, intersection level of service (LOS) can no longer be used to determine significant CEQA impacts. However, an LOS analysis was conducted to determine consistency with City of Hercules and CCTA plans and standards.

2.1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
This study evaluates project-related VMT as outlined in the adopted CCTA VMT methodology. The methodology and implementation guidelines were adopted by CCTA in July 2020. The City of Hercules has adopted CCTA VMT procedures and standards.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (December 2018) provides guidance to analysts and local jurisdictions for implementing VMT as a metric for determining the transportation impact for land use projects. The OPR guidelines state that for analysis purposes, “VMT” refers to automobile VMT, specifically passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy truck traffic is typically excluded.

The CCTA guidelines include a screening process that describes five scenarios in which a project would be with exempted from a VMT analysis requirement: 1) projects exempt from CEQA analysis, 2) small projects, 3) local serving projects, 4) projects in transit priority areas, and 5) projects in low VMT areas.

Using the CCTA methodologies, it appears that the proposed residential project will meet the exemption requirements for a low-VMT area. It should be noted that even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if there is evidence that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT.

The following language is from the Project Screening section of the CCTA VMT methodologies and was applied to the proposed project:

2.5: Projects Located in Low VMT Areas. Residential and employment-generating projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. A low VMT area is defined as follows:
 For housing projects: Cities and unincorporated portions within CCTA’s five subregions that have existing home-based VMT per capita that is 85% or less of the existing County-wide average.

2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Although Level of Service (LOS) is no longer relevant to CEQA, LOS can be used to determine conformity with an adopted general plan or congestion management program. LOS is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and 172
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 9
passengers. The LOS generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The operational LOS are given letter designations from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions (free- flow) and F the worst (severely congested flow with high delays). Intersections generally are the capacity- controlling locations with respect to traffic operations on arterial and collector streets in urban areas.

Signalized Intersections
The study intersection under traffic signal control was analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 6th (HCM) Operations Methodology for signalized intersections described in Chapter 18. This methodology determines LOS based on average control delay per vehicle for the overall intersection during peak hour intersection operating conditions. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections was calculated using Synchro 10 analysis software and was correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table

1. Table 1: Signalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions Level of Service Description
Average
Control
Delay
A
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

10.0 or less
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

10.1 to 20.0
C
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

20.1 to 35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0
E
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

55.1 to 80.0
F
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major-contributing causes of such delay levels. greater than

80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Ed., Chapter 18 (Transportation Research Board, 2010) Average Control Delay per Vehicle in seconds

173
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 10
Unsignalized Intersections
The study intersection under stop control (unsignalized) was analyzed using the HCM Operations Methodology (HCM 6th Ed.) for unsignalized intersections described in Chapter 20. LOS ratings for stop- sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At the side street, one-way or two-way stop controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The weighted average delay for the entire intersections is presented for all-way stop controlled intersections. The average control delay for unsignalized intersections was calculated using Synchro 10 analysis software and was correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Delay and LOS Definitions Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Chapter 20 (Transportation Research Board, 2010) Average Control Delay per Vehicle in seconds

2.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Although level of service is no longer used for identifying impacts under CEQA, level of service analysis is still used for determining consistency with adopted agency plans and standards. Where standards refer to significant environmental impacts, this analysis instead identifies these as significant inconsistencies with adopted plans.

City of Hercules
The City of Hercules General Plan has established performance benchmarks for signalized intersections and roadway segments within its jurisdiction. The City’s policy is to maintain LOS D as the desired level of service on intersections along all Basic Routes, which includes all arterials, collectors, and local roads that are not Regional Routes. One exception to this standard is the City’s policy that Collector Roads operating worse than LOS D are not considered deficient if the intersection does not meet a Caltrans signal warrant.

This avoids over-signalizing intersections with low side-street volumes.

There is no specified criteria for determining significant impacts to unsignalized intersections. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that an unsignalized intersection experiences a significant inconsistency if the LOS falls below LOS D, and the intersection meets the MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant during the same peak hour.

Level of Service Description Average Control Delay
A Little or no traffic delay ≤10
B Short Traffic delays >10 – 15
C Average traffic delays >15 – 25
D Long traffic delays >25 – 35
E Very long traffic delays >35 – 50
F Extreme traffic delays >50
174
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 11
Contra Costa Transportation Authority CMP Intersections In the project vicinity, San Pablo Avenue is designated as a Route of Regional Significance (RORS). The intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Hercules Avenue is part of the CCTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) and subject to regular monitoring and separate LOS standards. The Congestion Management Program specifies level of service standards for intersections and RORS, but it does not provide specific thresholds of significance.

The LOS Standard for the San Pablo Avenue and Hercules Avenue is LOS E. The project-generated increase in traffic is considered to have a significant inconsistency with the CMP if an intersection meets either of the following criteria:
 If intersection operations degrade from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F).
 For transportation facilities that fail to meet LOS standards (as defined above) under no project conditions, an increase in the volume/capacity ratio by 0.03 or greater above no project conditions is considered to be significant.

175
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 12

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and available transit service. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for the study intersections, including the results of LOS calculations.

3.1 EXISTING SETTING AND ROADWAY SYSTEM
Relevant roadways adjacent to the project site are discussed below:

Interstate 80 (I-80) From the Alameda County line to the Solano County line. I-80 is the primary interregional commute corridor through West County, and has major regional significance to the Bay Area. I-80 is an eight- to twelve-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour (mph). The north-south freeway connects Hercules with nearby cities, such as Richmond and Vallejo, and regional destinations, such as San Francisco and Sacramento. It also provides access to the greater freeway network with direct connections to Interstate 580, Interstate 680, Interstate 780, State Route 4, State Route 29, and State Route 37.

San Pablo Avenue. From the Alameda County line to I-80/Pomona Street in Crockett. San Pablo Avenue is the most important corridor for inter-city travel in West County: it is the primary transit spine of the region, it travels through all of the West County cities (in many cases, functioning as “Main Street”), and it is the primary reliever route to I-80 during periods of severe freeway congestion. San Pablo is a four-lane major arterial that runs generally east-west in the immediate project vicinity with a posted speed limit of 25-40 mph. On-street parking is prohibited, and intermittent sidewalks are provided along particular sections of the corridor. This roadway is also designated as a Route of Regional Significance by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Routes of Regional Significance are the most important streets in the County as designated by CCTA.

Skelly is a two-lane, east-west to north-south meandering street with a posted speed of 25 mph, which changes designation at Hercules Avenue. North of Hercules Avenue, Skelly becomes “Zeus,” a local street that provides access to the Olympic Hills HOA. South of Hercules Avenue, Skelly is a local street. On-street parking is permitted south of Hercules Avenue.

Hercules Avenue is a four-lane, generally north-south collector with a posted speed of 25 mph. Hercules Avenue extends from O’Neill Circle in the north to Village Parkway in the south. Sidewalks are provided on both sides, and on-street parking is generally permitted north of San Pablo Avenue.

3.2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Walkability is defined as the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal “walkable” community includes wide sidewalks, a mix of land uses such as residential, employment, and shopping opportunities, a limited number of conflict points with vehicle traffic, and easy access to transit facilities and services. 176
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 13
Pedestrian facilities consist of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access the destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities.

In the project vicinity, the study intersection which is signalized is equipped with pedestrian signal heads and cross walks. A crosswalk is present on the southeast leg of the unsignalized intersection along Hercules Avenue at the crossing of Skelly. There are continuous sidewalks present on Hercules Avenue and Skelly. Sidewalks are present in most sections, but not continuous, on portions of San Pablo Avenue.

There is a gap in the sidewalk on the both sides San Pablo Avenue between the eastbound pedestrian pathway outlet south of the project site and the westbound pedestrian pathway outlet which terminates near Charles Avenue on San Pablo Avenue. The existing asphalt concrete pathways along the south side of the project site function as sidewalks along much of their length but may include sloping sections that reduce accessibility. Most nearby bus stops are accessible from the project site via existing sidewalks and crosswalks within the vicinity of the project site. The existing pedestrian facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 3.

177
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 14
Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian Facilities

178
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 15

3.3 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following three classes:

1. Class I Multiuse Trail – a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.

2. Class II Bike Lane –a designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

3. Class III Bike Route –a route designated by signs or pavement markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

4. Class IV Separated Bikeway – an on-street facility reserved for use by bicyclists, with physical separation between the bikeway and travel lanes. Physical separation consists of vertical elements that may include curbs, landscaping, bollards, or parking lanes.

There are existing Class II bike lanes provided on San Pablo Avenue east of Hercules Avenue; an extension of the Class II bike lane is proposed in the Hercules 2018 General Plan Circulation Element. A multi-use trail is present along Pinole Creek to the west of the project site. The existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 4.

179
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 16
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Facilities

180
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 17

3.4 EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES
Existing transit service to the project is provided by the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART). Such services are described below. It should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in substantially decreased transit demand throughout the region, leading to reduced service hours and frequency across multiple transit agencies. It is expected that service hours and frequency will be expanded when transit demand returns to more typical levels.

WestCAT – WestCAT provides bus service to various communities in West Contra Costa County including Hercules. It operates local, express, and regional bus lines as well as the Lynx transbay service. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, Bus Routes #J, #JPX, #C3, and #19, provide service to the project site and vicinity. Table 3 summarizes existing bus service in the project vicinity.

BART - BART provides passenger service within the metropolitan Bay Area. BART currently has five main operating lines: Antioch-SFO/Millbrae, Dublin/Pleasanton-Daly City, Berryessa/North San Jose-Richmond, Berryessa/North San Jose-Daly City, and Richmond-Millbrae There are also connectors to Oakland International Airport (OAK) and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). BART operates between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends. During the a.m. and p.m. peak commute periods, train service runs at 15-minute intervals to each destination. The closest BART station is located in El Cerrito del Norte on the east side of San Pablo Avenue near County Center.

The existing transit facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 5.

Table 3: Existing Bus Services
Route
# From To
Weekdays Weekend
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
J Hercules
Transit Center El Cerrito BART 4:24 a.m. –
11:33 p.m. 36 7:10 a.m. –
9:15 p.m. 45
JPX Hercules
Transit Center El Cerrito BART 5:14 am. –
8:46 p.m. 26 … …
C3 Hercules
Transit Center
Contra Costa
College
7:06 a.m. –
8:01 p.m. 20 … …
19 Hercules
Transit Center Hilltop Mall … … 8:59 a.m. –
9:00 p.m. 13
Source: WestCAT website https://www.westcat.org/home/SchedSysMap accessed February 8, 2022 181
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 18
Figure 5: Existing Transit Facilities

182
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 19

3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
TJKM evaluated existing traffic conditions at two study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on a typical weekday. Intersection turning movement counts of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians were collected during weekday a.m. peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak period (4:00-6:00 p.m.) on January 13, 2022.

Due to ongoing traffic irregularities associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, historical counts at one intersection were used as a basis of adjusting new turning movement volumes to estimated typical volumes. The adjusted volumes were then used as the basis for analyzing Existing Conditions. The most recent historical counts in the study area were collected in 2016 at Hercules & San Pablo Avenue, as part of the DEIR for the 2018 update to the Circulation Element of the Hercules General Plan. For the a.m. peak hour, 2022 volumes were increased by 24.8 percent to match total volumes in 2016. For the p.m. peak hour, 2020 volumes were increased by 42.7 percent.

The traffic count data are included in Appendix A. The existing lane geometries and traffic control at each study intersection are illustrated on Figure 6 and intersection turning movement volumes at each study intersection are illustrated on Figure 7.
183
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 20
Figure 6: Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls

184
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 21

3.6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS This scenario evaluates the study intersections based on existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traffic controls, as described above. The peak hour factors calculated from the existing turning movement counts were used for the study intersections for the Existing Conditions analysis. The results of the LOS analysis using the HCM 6th Edition methodology and Synchro 10 software program for Existing Conditions are summarized in Table 4. Field verification of existing intersections, lane configurations, and traffic controls were also conducted remotely and provided the basis for the LOS analysis for Existing Conditions.

Under this scenario, both of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and both study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue & San Pablo Avenue operates at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. The unsignalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly/Zeus operates at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS B during the p.m. peak hour. It should be noted that at this intersection, the southbound approach on Zeus experiences higher delay than the northbound approach on Skelly during both peak hours. The northbound approach experiences 9.6 seconds of delay in both peak hours. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix B.

Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions ID Intersection Intersection
Control Peak Hour
Existing Conditions
Average Delay¹ LOS²
1 Hercules Ave & Skelly/Zeus Two-Way
Stop Control
AM 12.4 B (SB)
PM 13.4 B (SB)
2 Hercules Ave & San Pablo Avenue Signal AM 24.1 C
PM 25.0 C
Notes:

AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour

1. Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst movement is presented for side-street stop – controlled intersections.

2. LOS = Level of Service
* CMP intersections with LOS E threshold
Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicable jurisdictional standards.

185
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 22
Figure 7: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

186
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 23

4.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This analysis scenario presents the impacts of the proposed project at the study intersections and surrounding roadway system. This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. The project would replace an existing horse ranch property with 40 single family homes.

4.1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
As noted in section 2.1, the proposed project was evaluated using screening criteria adopted by CCTA, based on existing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated in the project area. For projects in areas with a similar mix of existing uses, residential projects are screened out if the home-based VMT per resident is at least 15 percent below the countywide average.

It should be noted that the CCTA travel demand model year 2020 is a simulation, based on data collected prior to the most recent decennial model update in 2016. The 2020 simulated baseline traffic conditions are therefore unaffected by actual pandemic-related traffic disruptions that occurred in 2020.

VMT Generated Per resident
The proposed project would construct 40 new single family homes on a site surrounded by similar low- density single family residential developments. The CCTA travel demand model generates simulated daily weekday VMT per capita by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within Contra Costa County and throughout the Bay Area, for commute VMT per employee and residential VMT per capita. The project site is within the boundaries of an existing TAZ (#10236) that contains similar single family residential subdivisions under existing conditions. As shown in Table 5, the residential VMT per capita generated in this TAZ is 14.45. A map showing TAZ boundaries is included in Appendix C.

For the year 2020, the countywide residential VMT per capita generated by the CCTA travel demand model is 19.78. The corresponding threshold to consider a location to have low VMT, 15 percent below the countywide average, is 16.81. There is no apparent evidence that the project would generate more VMT than the surrounding area. Based on the CCTA screening criteria, the proposed project is expected to cause a less-than-significant impact under CEQA and is exempt from further VMT analysis.

Table 5: Year 2020 VMT Generation
TAZ # Description Population
Total Residential
VMT
Residential VMT
per Capita
10236 North of San Pablo Ave., between Hercules
Ave and Pinole Creek 1,036 8,288 14.45
Notes:

Source: CCTA travel demand model, baseline year 2020, Kittelson & Associates (2016)

4.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation (11th Edition). TJKM used published trip rates for 187
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 24
the ITE land use Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) for this project. The proposed project is expected to generate 377 total daily trips, including 28 net new a.m. peak hour trips (7 in, 21 out) and 38 net new p.m. peak hour trips (24 in, 14 out).

Table 6 shows the trips expected to be generated by the proposed project.

Table 6: Project Trip Generation
Land Use2 Size2
Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Proposed Uses
Single-Family Detached
Housing (210) 40 DU 9.43 377 0.70 26:74 7 21 28 0.94 63:37 24 14 38 Total 337 7 21 28 24 14 38
Notes:

1. Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2017

2. DU: dwelling unit

4.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would be expected to travel between the project site and various destinations outside the project study area. Assignment determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the calculated trip distribution. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed development project were developed based on the existing travel patterns and TJKM’s knowledge of the study area. The distribution assumptions for the proposed project are as follows:

It should be noted that, the distribution of those trips is approximate. The distribution assumptions applied to the existing use are as follows:
 60 percent to/from San Pablo Avenue West, to Richmond Parkway  40 percent to/from San Pablo Avenue East, to I-80 and SR-4 Figure 8 illustrates the trip distribution and trip assignment at the study intersections. The project trips were then added to traffic volumes under Existing Conditions to generate Existing plus Project Conditions traffic volumes.
188
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 25
Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
189
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 26

4.4 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions The intersection LOS analysis results for Existing plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 6.

Under this scenario, both of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and both study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The two-way stop-controlled intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly/Zeus operates at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour with an increased delay of 0.8 seconds, and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour with an increased delay of 1.8 seconds. It should be noted that at this intersection, the southbound approach on Zeus would continue to experience higher delay than the northbound approach on Skelly during both peak hours. The northbound approach would experience 9.8 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, an increase of 0.2 seconds, and 9.5 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour, a decrease of 0.1 seconds. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue would continue to operate at LOS C with an increased delay of 0.6 seconds during both peak hours. The project would be consistent with level of service standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and CCTA Congestion Management Program.

Figure 9 shows projected turning movement volumes at both of the study intersections for Existing plus Project Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

Table 7: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions ID Intersection Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing plus
Project Conditions
Average
Delay¹ LOS² Average
Delay¹ LOS² Change in
Delay3

1 Hercules Ave & Skelly/Zeus Two-Way
Stop Control
AM 12.4 B 13.2 B (SB) 0.8
PM 13.4 B 15.2 C (SB) 1.8
2 Hercules Ave & San Pablo
Avenue Signal AM 24.1 C 24.7 C 0.6
PM 25.0 C 25.6 C 0.6
Notes: AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour, Weekend – Saturday noon peak hour, Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicable jurisdictional standards. Red indicates significant impact.

2. LOS = Level of Service

3. Change in average delay between Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions. Average delay may be reduced with the addition of project traffic to non-critical movements.

4. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Existing and Existing plus Project Condition * CMP intersections with LOS E threshold.

4.5 INTERSECTION QUEUING A

NALYSIS
The 95th percentile queue lengths were calculated at the signalized study intersection under Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions. The project would add trips to dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at the intersection with dedicated turn lanes, Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. Table 8 details the existing traffic volumes, added project trips, and queue lengths at all dedicated turn lanes at the signalized study intersection. For locations with dual turn lanes providing varying amounts of storage, the average storage length is provided. The 95th percentile queue lengths are rounded to the nearest five feet 190
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 27
and assume an average vehicle length of 25 feet. Queue lengths are averaged among all lanes within a lane group.

Under Existing Conditions, the intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue would experience queue overflows in the eastbound left turn lane during PM peak hours, and in the southbound left turn lane during all peak hours, during one or both peak hours. Under Existing plus Project Conditions, the same turn lanes would continue to experience overflows during the same peak hours, with some increases in queue lengths. The addition of project trips would not cause any new queue overflows but would increase existing overflows in the Eastbound Left turn lane and the Southbound Left turn lane. Queuing worksheets for each scenario are provided in Appendix B and Appendix D.

Table 8. 95th Percentile Queue Lengths at Selected Turn Lanes:

Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Existing plus
Project Conditions
ID Study Intersection Lane
Group
Storage
Length
Peak
Hour
Existing
Volume
Net
Project
Trips
Queue
Length
Queue
Length
Change
in Queue
2 Hercules Ave & San
Pablo Avenue
Eastbound
Left 155 AM 87 4 120 123 5
PM 178 14 175 195 20
Eastbound
Right 160 AM 55 0 0 0 0
PM 201 0 60 60 0
Westbound
Left 300 AM
PM
84 137
0 0
100
180
100
185
0 5
Westbound
Right 165 AM
PM
126
157
3 10
35 20
40 25
5 5
Southbound
Left 90 AM
PM
166
106
8 6
125
100
130
100
5 0
Notes:
95th percentile queue lengths expressed in feet, rounded to the nearest five feet * Average storage per lane, where dual turn lanes provide different storage lengths Bold indicates queue length exceeds storage capacity
Red indicates queue length increases by more than one vehicle length

191
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 28
Figure 9: Existing plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

192
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 29

5.0 CUMULATIVE NO-PROJECT CONDITIONS (2040)
The Cumulative No-Project Conditions analysis forecasts how the study area’s transportation system would operate with the growth and changes of the surrounding community by the year 2040. Corridor volumes on Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue in the immediate project vicinity were obtained from baseline year 2018 and horizon year 2040 in the CCTA traffic model. Based on the growth in these corridor volumes, an annual compounding linear growth rate of 0.82% was applied to adjusted Existing Conditions to project future 2040 traffic volumes.

Figure 10 shows projected turning movement volumes at the study intersections for Cumulative Conditions for a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

5.1 INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE NO-

PROJECT CONDITIONS
The intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative No-Project Conditions are summarized in Table 12.

Under this scenario, both of the study intersections operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue would continue to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. The unsignalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly would continue to operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS B during the p.m. peak hour, with a greater average delay in the southbound direction. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix E.

Table 12: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions ID Intersection Intersection
Control Peak Hour
Cumulative Conditions
Average Delay¹ LOS²
1 Hercules Ave and Skelly/Zeus Two-Way Stop
Control
AM 13.5 B (SB)
PM 14.9 B (SB)
2 Hercules Ave and San Pablo
Ave Signal AM 31.7 C
PM 34.3 C
Notes:

AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour

2. LOS = Level of Service
* CMP intersections with LOS E threshold
Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicable jurisdictional standards.

193
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 30
Figure 10: Cumulative No-Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

194
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 31

6.0 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This scenario is identical to Cumulative No-Project Conditions, but with the addition of projected traffic from the proposed project. Trip generation, distribution, and assignment for the proposed project are identical to that assumed under Existing plus Project Conditions.

6.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 13.

Under this scenario, both of the study intersections would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during both peak hours. The signalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue would continue to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour, with an increase in average delay, and degrade to LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. The unsignalized intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly would continue to operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour with a 1-second increase in average delay, and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour with a 2.2-second delay increase, with worse conditions in the southbound direction. The project would be consistent with level of service standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and CCTA Congestion Management Program.

Figure 13 shows projected turning movement volumes at all the study intersections for Cumulative plus Project Conditions. LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F.

Table 13: Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions ID Intersection Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Cumulative
Conditions
Cumulative plus
Project Conditions
Average
Delay¹ LOS² Average
Delay¹ LOS² Change in Delay3
1 Hercules Ave and Skelly/Zeus Two-Way Stop
Controlled
AM 13.5 B (SB) 14.5 B (SB) 1.0
PM 14.9 B (SB) 17.1 C (SB) 2.2
2 Hercules Ave and San Pablo
Ave Signal AM 31.7 C 32.7 C 1.0
PM 34.3 C 35.2 D 0.9
Notes: AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour, Weekend – Saturday noon peak hour, Bold indicates unacceptable operational conditions based on applicable jurisdictional standards. Red indicates significant impact.

2. LOS = Level of Service

3. Change in average delay between Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions. Average delay may be reduced with the addition of project traffic to non-critical movements.

4. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions * CMP intersections with LOS E threshold.

195
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 32
Figure 11: Cumulative plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

196
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 33

7.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
The following sections provide additional analyses of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including:
 Site access and impacts
 On-site circulation
 Parking analysis
 Recommendations
The analyses in these sections are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineers. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment.

7.1 SITE ACCESS
This section analyzes site access for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles based on the site plan presented in Figure 2 (dated November, 2021).

Vehicle Access
Primary access to the project site would be provided by a direct connection to Skelly at the location of the existing driveway. TJKM recommends that the grading plans for the site be carefully evaluated to ensure that the finished grade and landscaping do not create any visual obstructions for vehicles exiting the driveway. Vehicle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby roadways.

Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access would be via internal sidewalks connecting to existing sidewalks on Skelly, and via a pedestrian trail to the south of the project site connecting Skelly to San Pablo Avenue. There is one crosswalk at the intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly, and there are 4-way signalized crosswalks at the intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. Existing pedestrian facilities provide continuous paths to nearby bus stops on San Pablo Avenue and to nearby shopping centers to the southwest of the project site, primarily via trail access. However, as shown in Figure 3, existing sidewalk facilities on San Pablo Avenue to the southwest of the project site terminate between the two pedestrian trail outlets to San Pablo Avenue. This disruption separates pedestrians from nearby shopping centers west of Pinole Creek when travelling along San Pablo Avenue, and may pose accessibility challenges due to the slope of the trail at some points.

A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to pedestrians facilities or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of pedestrian facilities. The proposed project will not result in any such conflicts. Pedestrian access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby pedestrian facilities. 197
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 34
Bicycle Access
There are existing Class II bike lanes provided on San Pablo Avenue east of Hercules Avenue; an extension of the Class II bike lane is proposed in the Hercules 2018 General Plan Circulation Element. A multi-use trail is present along Pinole Creek to the west of the project site.

An impact to bicyclists occurs if the proposed project disrupt existing bicycle facilities; or conflict or create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to bicycle facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of bicycle facilities. The proposed project will not result in any such conflicts. Bicycle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby bicycle facilities.

Transit
A proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if it conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities, or is expected to generate additional transit trips and does not provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops. The project site is adequately served by the transit service, as shown in Figure 5. Transit stops on San Pablo Avenue are within a one- half mile walk from the project site. Spread among multiple bus routes, the existing transit service can accommodate the proposed demand. Therefore, transit access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network.

9.2 ON-SITE CIRCULATION
This section analyzes internal circulation based on the site plan presented in Figure 2 (dated November, 2021).

As shown in Figure 2, the street connecting all homes forms a loop, with westward extension in line with the access point from Skelly providing garage access to four homes. The street is 34-45 feet wide throughout, including sidewalks and on-street parking spaces. There is adequate space for vehicles to maneuver into and out of parking spaces and garages. The project would also provide adequate space for trucks and emergency vehicles to access the site and maneuver as needed, with adequate turning radii for truck access. There are no curb ramps or interior pedestrian crossings within the access loop. In order to ensure accessible pedestrian circulation between all homes and the nearest roadways, at least two curb ramps should be included on the inner side of the loop opposite new ramps on the outer edge of the loop, and a pair of ramps should be added near the connection point to Skelly. On-site circulation for vehicles is considered adequate, but pedestrian circulation could be improved with additional curb ramps.

9.3 PARKING
Under the City of Hercules zoning regulations, the proposed project, consisting of single family residential homes, would be classified as single family residential. The City of Hercules requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (per Article 84-4.12); the proposed project provides 2 covered parking spaces and 2 uncovered parking spaces per unit, with additional overflow parking within the access loop. 198
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

P a g e | 35
As shown in the site plan dated November, 2021 (Figure 2), the proposed project will construct 40 new dwelling units. The project would require 80 parking spaces for the main dwelling units. The proposed project would construct two-car garages with driveway aprons for each dwelling unit, providing 80 covered spaces, exceeding City requirements, as well as 40 uncovered spaces. The development would also provide 4 parallel on-street parking spaces. All on-street spaces would be marked and contained within the project site, on the private street shared by the planned development and within close proximity to the homes. The proposed parking supply would therefore be more than adequate under City of Hercules requirements and would not produce any parking impacts on surrounding parcels or roadways.

9.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
TJKM recommends the following:
 The grading plans for the site should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the finished grade and landscaping do not create any visual obstructions for vehicles exiting driveways.  Add curb ramps to provide accessible crossings of loop road near Skelly and the pedestrian path to San Pablo Avenue.

199
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Appendix A – Existing Turning Movement Counts

200
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080016-001 Day:

City: Hercules Date:

AM 10 3 3 1 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 10 2 1 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0100 0 3 002 2
1 132 0 84
000 00 807
103 0 TEV 288 0 276 0 100
130 0 68 1 PHF 0.92 0.79
102 0 0010

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0118 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0008 AM
0 NONE
04:00 pm - 05:00 pm 34
Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Skelly/Zeus Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 1/13/2022
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM

PEAK HOURS
07:45 am - 08:45 am 24 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
98 0 171
Cars (AM) 10 HT (AM)
Hercules Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Hercules Ave
85 0 134

CONTROL
2-Way Stop(NB/SB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 8

NORTHBOUND
Skelly/Zeus
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)

NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
1 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
1 0
0 3 2
0 0
1 0
0 5
0 2
4 0
5 1
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 00
3 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
29 132
82 68
3 1
0 21
8 1
1 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 83
71 127
1 1
0 32
8 0
0 201
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: 2-Way Stop(NB/SB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 002130000 1 5 002600 29
7:15 AM 003050000 3 1 001 1 0 40 54
7:30 AM 0040 1 1 0201 2 7 000960 60
7:45 AM 001080100 4 7 001 1 3 70 78
8:00 AM 0020 1 2 0000 2 6 000 2 0 1 1 0 71
8:15 AM 002090001 3 3 004 2 8 00 77
8:30 AM 003040010 2 4 102 2 3 40 62
8:45 AM 003060000 2 2 002 2 1 10 55

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 00 2 0 1 5 8 0312 2 2 5 10 1 2 1 3 0 3 3 0 4 8 6 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 95.24% 4.76% 93.55% 0.00% 4.84% 1.61% 0.88% 98.68% 0.44% 0.00% 6.86% 74.29% 18.86% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0080 3 3 0111 1 3 0 107 8 4 2 2 0 2 8 8
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.000 0.688 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.691 0.25 0 0.000 0.438 0.750 0.500 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 001050000 2 1 102 4 8 90 87
4:15 PM 113060000 1 2 102 2 2 60 54
4:30 PM 002080101 1 7 001 2 5 90 64
4:45 PM 002020002 1 8 003 3 7 61 71
5:00 PM 003040000 1 6 002 3 1 60 62
5:15 PM 003060210 1 9 001 2 9 91 71
5:30 PM 003020101 2 6 102 2 4 70 67
5:45 PM 001030001 1 7 002 2 5 30 52

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 11 1 8 0 3 6 0415 1 4 6 30 1 5 2 4 1 5 5 2 5 2 8 APPROACH %'s : 5.00% 5.00% 90.00% 0.00% 87.80% 0.00% 9.76% 2.44% 3.25% 94.81% 1.95% 0.00% 4.79% 77.00% 17.57% 0.64% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1180 2 1 0103 6 8 208 1 3 2 3 0 1 2 7 6
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.667 0.000 0.656 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.375 0.81 0 0.500 0.000 0.667 0.688 0.833 0.25 0 22-080016-001
1/13/2022
Data - Total
Skelly/Zeus Skelly/Zeus Hercules Ave Hercules Ave
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.9230.667 0.729 0.702 0.883
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
04:00 pm - 05:00 pm

0.7930.500 0.611 0.830 0.725
202
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: 2-Way Stop(NB/SB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 002030000 1 4 002500 26
7:15 AM 003050000 3 1 001940 53
7:30 AM 0040 1 1 0201 2 6 000940 57
7:45 AM 001080100 4 5 001 1 2 60 74
8:00 AM 0020 1 2 0000 2 6 000 2 0 1 0 0 70
8:15 AM 002080001 3 2 004 2 8 00 75
8:30 AM 003040010 2 4 102 2 3 40 62
8:45 AM 003060000 2 2 002 2 1 10 55

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 00 2 0 0 5 7 0312 2 2 0 10 1 2 1 2 7 2 9 0 4 7 2 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 0.00% 93.44% 0.00% 4.92% 1.64% 0.90% 98.65% 0.45% 0.00% 7.14% 75.60% 17.26% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0080 3 2 0111 1 2 7 107 8 3 2 0 0 2 8 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.000 0.667 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.706 0.250 0.000 0.438 0.741 0.50 0 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 001050000 2 1 102 4 8 90 87
4:15 PM 113060000 1 2 102 2 2 50 53
4:30 PM 002080101 1 7 001 2 5 90 64
4:45 PM 002020002 1 8 003 3 7 61 71
5:00 PM 003030000 1 6 002 3 1 60 61
5:15 PM 003060210 1 9 001 2 9 91 71
5:30 PM 003020101 2 6 102 2 4 70 67
5:45 PM 001030001 1 7 002 2 5 30 52

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 11 1 8 0 3 5 0415 1 4 6 30 1 5 2 4 1 5 4 2 5 2 6 APPROACH %'s : 5.00% 5.00% 90.00% 0.00% 87.50% 0.00% 10.00% 2.50% 3.25% 94.81% 1.95% 0.00% 4.81% 77.24% 17.31% 0.64% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1180 2 1 0103 6 8 208 1 3 2 2 9 1 2 7 5
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.667 0.000 0.656 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.375 0.81 0 0.500 0.000 0.667 0.688 0.806 0.250 22-080016-001
1/13/2022
04:00 pm - 05:00 pm

0.7900.500 0.611 0.830 0.720
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.937
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.667 0.708 0.717 0.859
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Cars
Skelly/Zeus Skelly/Zeus Hercules Ave Hercules Ave
203
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: 2-Way Stop(NB/SB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 0001000001000100 3
7:15 AM 0000000000000100 1
7:30 AM 0000000001000020 3
7:45 AM 0000000002000110 4
8:00 AM 0000000000000010 1
8:15 AM 0000100001000000 2
8:30 AM 0000000000000000 0
8:45 AM 0000000000000000 0

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0001100005000340 1 4
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 42.86% 57.14% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 00001000030001207
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:15 PM 0000000000000010 1
4:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:45 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:00 PM 0000100000000000 1
5:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:45 PM 0000000000000000 0

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 00001000000000102
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 00000000000000101
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 22-080016-001
1/13/2022
04:00 pm - 05:00 pm

0.2500.250
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.438
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.250 0.375 0.375
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - HT
Skelly/Zeus Skelly/Zeus Hercules Ave Hercules Ave
204
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: 2-Way Stop(NB/SB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 0000000000000000 0
7:15 AM 0000000000000000 0
7:30 AM 0000000000000000 0
7:45 AM 0000000000000000 0
8:00 AM 0000000000000000 0
8:15 AM 0000000000000000 0
8:30 AM 0000000000000000 0
8:45 AM 0000000000000000 0

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 00000000000000000
APPROACH %'s :

PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 00000000000000000
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 0100010001000100

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:45 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:45 PM 0000000000000000 0

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 00000000000000000
APPROACH %'s :

PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 00000000000000000
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22-080016-001
1/13/2022
04:00 pm - 05:00 pm
07:45 am - 08:45 am
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Bikes
Skelly/Zeus Skelly/Zeus Hercules Ave Hercules Ave
205
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement CountLocation: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave Project ID:

City: Hercules Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 00000000 0
7:15 AM 00120000 3
7:30 AM 10200000 3
7:45 AM 21120000 6
8:00 AM 10010000 2
8:15 AM 11000000 2
8:30 AM 10000000 1
8:45 AM 00000010 1

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 62450010 1 8
APPROACH %'s : 75.00% 25.00% 44.44% 55.56% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 39 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 52130000 1 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.625 0.500 0.250 0.375
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 12001000 4
4:15 PM 11201100 6
4:30 PM 10000000 1
4:45 PM 12000001 4
5:00 PM 12000000 3
5:15 PM 00100000 1
5:30 PM 21000000 3
5:45 PM 10000000 1

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 88302101 2 3
APPROACH %'s : 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 286 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 45202101 1 5
PEAK HR FACTOR : 1.000 0.625 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.250
22-080016-001
1/13/2022

0.6250.750 0.250 0.375 0.250
04:00 pm - 05:00 pm

0.4580.583
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.333
07:45 am - 08:45 am
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Skelly/Zeus Skelly/Zeus Hercules Ave Hercules Ave
206
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080016-002 Day:

City: Hercules Date:

AM 125 2 133 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 88 10 71 3 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1110 1 110 0 101
2 346 0 596
003 01 9 506 5
70 0 122 1 TEV 1743 0 1867 0 102
353 0 710 2 PHF 0.93 0.92
44 0 141 1 0 1 0.5 0.5

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 7 01 38 3 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 110 5 137 AM
0 NONE
04:45 pm - 05:45 pm 248
Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Hercules Ave Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 1/13/2022
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM

PEAK HOURS
07:45 am - 08:45 am 176 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
865 0 625
Cars (AM) 247 HT (AM)
San Pablo Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
San Pablo Ave
831 0 507

CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 111

NORTHBOUND
Hercules Ave
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)

NOONAM PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
0 0
1 1
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 0 4
0 2
3 0
2 1
0 3
2 0
1 0
9 01
12 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
29 11
14 1
2 0
3 1
0 2
110
337
95140
698
122
88 10
71 83
13 70
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 99
567
6443
339
69 123
2 130
136
5 108
207
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 1 802 201 602 30 53 40 0 46 96 0 197
7:15 AM 24 1 16 0 16 1 36 0 12 46 11 0 6 132 10 0 311
7:30 AM 28 1 18 0 31 0 32 0 10 53 4 0 13 12 4 61 321
7:45 AM 34 1 31 0 37 2 43 0 15 109 9 0 12 157 17 1 468
8:00 AM 25 2 48 0 41 0 25 0 19 81 5 0 7 14 4 24 0 421
8:15 AM 28 2 33 0 38 0 32 0 18 98 15 0 13 147 30 0 454
8:30 AM 23 0 25 0 17 0 25 0 18 65 15 0 33 148 30 1 400
8:45 AM 21 1 15 0 21 0 35 0 14 70 12 1 12 88 21 0 311

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 201 8 208 0 217 3 251 0 111 556 71 1 100 1009 14 4 3 2883 APPROACH %'s : 48.20% 1.92% 49.88% 0.00% 46.07% 0.64% 53.29% 0.00% 15.02% 75.24% 9.61% 0.14% 7.96% 80.33% 11.46% 0.24% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 110 5 137 0 133 2 125 0 70 353 44 0 65 596 101 2 1743 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.809 0.625 0.71 4 0.000 0.811 0.25 0 0.727 0.000 0.921 0.81 0 0.733 0.00 0 0.492 0.949 0.842 0.500 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 10 1 11 0 17 1 19 0 45 177 19 0 26 97 25 0 448
4:15 PM 14 0 12 0 18 1 14 0 26 151 27 0 29 90 24 0 406
4:30 PM 20 2 11 0 12 2 23 0 31 196 28 1 18 79 22 0 445
4:45 PM 10 7 19 0 14 1 20 2 34 16 4 3 5 2 1 99 42 7 0 448 5:00 PM 17 2 20 0 20 3 16 1 29 177 26 1 28 73 25 0 438
5:15 PM 22 3 23 0 17 5 21 0 30 20 4 3 4 0 3 38 13 6 1 510 5:30 PM 21 1 21 1 20 1 31 0 29 165 46 0 15 98 22 0 471
5:45 PM 8 0 19 0 20 1 12 0 32 166 41 0 23 84 17 0 423

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 122 16 136 1 138 15 156 3 256 1400 256 4 191 696 198 1 3589 APPROACH %'s : 44.36% 5.82% 49.45% 0.36% 44.23% 4.81% 50.00% 0.96% 13.36% 73.07% 13.36% 0.21% 17.59% 64.09% 18.23% 0.09% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 70 13 83 1 71 10 88 3 122 710 141 3 95 346 110 1 186 7 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.795 0.46 4 0.902 0.250 0.888 0.500 0.710 0.375 0.89 7 0.870 0.766 0.375 0.72 0 0.883 0.76 4 0.250 22-080016-002
1/13/2022
Data - Total
Hercules Ave Hercules Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.9310.840 0.793 0.878 0.901
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
04:45 pm - 05:45 pm

0.9150.870 0.827 0.910 0.914
208
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 1 702 201 602 30 43 00 0 46 56 0 187
7:15 AM 24 1 16 0 16 1 35 0 12 41 11 0 6 129 9 0 301
7:30 AM 2 811 803 103 20 94 74 01 3 1 1 9 5 1 308
7:45 AM 34 1 30 0 35 2 42 0 14 10 4 9 0 11 153 16 1 452 8:00 AM 25 2 48 0 41 0 25 0 19 76 5 0 7 131 23 0 402
8:15 AM 27 2 33 0 38 0 31 0 18 95 14 0 13 141 30 0 442
8:30 AM 22 0 25 0 16 0 25 0 18 64 15 0 33 142 30 1 391
8:45 AM 21 1 15 0 21 0 34 0 14 64 12 1 12 78 20 0 293

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 198 8 207 0 21 4 3 247 0 108 521 70 1 99 958 139 3 277 6 APPROACH %'s : 47.94% 1.94% 50.12% 0.00% 46.12% 0.65% 53.23% 0.00% 15.43% 74.43% 10.00% 0.14% 8.26% 79.90% 11.59% 0.25% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 108 5 136 0 130 2 123 0 69 339 43 0 64 567 99 2 168 7 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.794 0.625 0.70 8 0.000 0.793 0.25 0 0.732 0.000 0.908 0.815 0.71 7 0.000 0.485 0.92 6 0.825 0.50 0 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 10 1 11 0 17 1 19 0 45 173 19 0 26 94 25 0 441
4:15 PM 14 0 12 0 18 1 14 0 26 145 27 0 29 85 23 0 394
4:30 PM 20 2 11 0 12 2 23 0 31 193 28 1 18 75 22 0 438
4:45 PM 10 7 19 0 14 1 20 2 34 159 34 2 19 90 27 0 438
5:00 PM 17 2 20 0 20 3 16 1 29 175 26 1 28 71 25 0 434
5:15 PM 22 3 23 0 17 5 21 0 30 201 34 0 33 79 36 1 505
5:30 PM 21 1 21 1 20 1 31 0 29 163 46 0 15 97 22 0 468
5:45 PM 8 0 19 0 19 1 12 0 32 163 41 0 21 82 17 0 415

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 122 16 136 1 137 15 156 3 256 1372 255 4 189 673 197 1 3533 APPROACH %'s : 44.36% 5.82% 49.45% 0.36% 44.05% 4.82% 50.16% 0.96% 13.57% 72.71% 13.51% 0.21% 17.83% 63.49% 18.58% 0.09% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 70 13 83 1 71 10 88 3 122 698 140 3 95 337 110 1 1845 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.795 0.46 4 0.902 0.250 0.888 0.500 0.710 0.375 0.89 7 0.868 0.761 0.375 0.72 0 0.869 0.764 0.250 22-080016-002
1/13/2022
04:45 pm - 05:45 pm

0.9130.870 0.827 0.908 0.911
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.933
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.830 0.807 0.888 0.888
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Cars
Hercules Ave Hercules Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
209
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 1000000014000400 10
7:15 AM 0000001005000310 10
7:30 AM 0000000016000510 13
7:45 AM 0010201015001410 16
8:00 AM 0000000005000 1 3 10 19
8:15 AM 1000001003100600 12
8:30 AM 1000100001000600 9
8:45 AM 0000001006000 1 0 10 18

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 301030403 3 5 101 5 1 50 1 0 7
APPROACH %'s : 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 42.86% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% 7.69% 89.74% 2.56% 0.00% 1.75% 89.47% 8.77% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 201030201 1 4 101 2 9 20 5 6
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.375 0.00 0 0.500 0.000 0.250 0.700 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.558 0.500 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000004000300 7
4:15 PM 0000000006000510 12
4:30 PM 0000000003000400 7
4:45 PM 0000000005100400 10
5:00 PM 0000000002000200 4
5:15 PM 0000000003000200 5
5:30 PM 0000000002000100 3
5:45 PM 0000100003002200 8

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 000010000 2 8 102 2 3 10 5 6
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 96.55% 3.45% 0.00% 7.69% 88.46% 3.85% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 000000000 1 2 100900 2 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.600 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.563 0.00 0 0.000 22-080016-002
1/13/2022
04:45 pm - 05:45 pm

0.5500.542 0.563
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.737
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.750 0.417 0.667 0.571
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - HT
Hercules Ave Hercules Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
210
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave
City: Hercules Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 0000000000000000 0
7:15 AM 0000000003000000 3
7:30 AM 1000000000000000 1
7:45 AM 0100000000000000 1
8:00 AM 0000000000000100 1
8:15 AM 0000000001000000 1
8:30 AM 0000000000000000 0
8:45 AM 0000000000000000 0

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 11000000040001007
APPROACH %'s : 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 01000000010001003
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SB L SBT SBR SBU EB L EBT EBR EBU WB L WBT WBR WBU 1 0 . 5 0 . 5 0111012101210

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:15 PM 0000000000000010 1
4:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:45 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:30 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:45 PM 0000000000000000 0

NL NT N R NU S L ST SR SU E L ET E R EU W L WT W R WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 00000000000000101
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00 % 0.00%
PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 00000000000000000
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22-080016-002
1/13/2022
04:45 pm - 05:45 pm
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.750
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.250 0.250 0.250
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Bikes
Hercules Ave Hercules Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
211
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement CountLocation: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave Project ID:

City: Hercules Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 01000010 2
7:15 AM 00030020 5
7:30 AM 10000020 3
7:45 AM 01000000 1
8:00 AM 00000001 1
8:15 AM 11002110 6
8:30 AM 01000120 4
8:45 AM 01000001 2

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 25032282 2 4
APPROACH %'s : 28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 80.00% 20.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 39 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 13002231 1 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.750 0.250 0.500 0.375 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 10003110 6
4:15 PM 01001000 2
4:30 PM 00012000 3
4:45 PM 10000100 2
5:00 PM 00003110 5
5:15 PM 00001100 2
5:30 PM 11000000 2
5:45 PM 00000000 0

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 3201 1 0 420 2 2
APPROACH %'s : 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 100.00% 71.43% 28.57% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 289 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 21004310 1 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.250 0.333 0.750 0.250
22-080016-002
1/13/2022

0.5500.375 0.438 0.250
04:45 pm - 05:45 pm

0.5000.500
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.333 0.500
07:45 am - 08:45 am
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Hercules Ave Hercules Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
212

HERCULES AVE HERCULES AVESAN PABLO AVESAN PABLO AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 13 HERCULES AVE & SAN PABLO AVE AM
Tuesday, December 6, 2016Date and Start Time:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
379 108
1,026
719
30879
462
1,269

0.96 N
S
EW

0.89 0.87

0.84 0.91
(260)(662)
(2,000)
(1,265)
(2,360)
(883)
(513)(173)
207
1 167
47 926
51 24
382
56 2
0 4136
4 168
0 SAN PABLO AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

HERCULES AVE

HERCULES AVE
9 8
3 5
N
S
EW
44 30
7 2
1 4
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 38 1 0 37 10 12 63 0 7 243 480 2 1 0 22,1315 11 24 38 7:15 AM 0 34 1 1 26 20 11 57 2 5 288 536 1 3 0 52,1755 12 32 60 7:30 AM 0 34 0 0 37 10 15 97 0 9 252 549 2 1 1 02,1338 4 33 59 7:45 AM 0 39 0 0 60 00 12 117 0 12 203 566 2 3 1 22,0656 17 53 47 8:00 AM 0 29 3 0 44 10 18 111 0 25 183 524 0 1 0 21,9275 14 50 41 8:15 AM 0 28 0 1 44 00 12 83 0 24 201 494 3 2 1 110 29 24 38 8:30 AM 0 19 0 0 23 01 22 87 1 23 223 481 2 0 0 08 21 21 32 8:45 AM 0 27 1 0 25 00 21 91 1 10 159 428 5 1 0 06 21 22 44 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
TotalLeft Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeft Thru RightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 2 0 0 2 0 40 0 0 0
Lights 136 4 168 166 4 20353 363 24 49 898 46 2,1170 2 0 1 Mediums 0 0 0 1 0 43 17 0 2 26 1 540 0 0 0
Total 56 382 24 51 926 47 136 4 168 167 4 207 2,1750 2 0 1 213

HERCULES AVE HERCULES AVESAN PABLO AVESAN PABLO AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 13 HERCULES AVE & SAN PABLO AVE PM
Tuesday, December 6, 2016Date and Start Time:

Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM
156 320
721
1,454
142240
1,646
651

0.91 N
S
EW

0.83 0.83

0.87 0.93
(630)(296)
(1,334)
(2,772)
(1,183)
(3,164)
(262)(471)
89 0
57 130
492
98 132
1,333
181
1 0
1070
9 63
0 SAN PABLO AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

HERCULES AVE

HERCULES AVE
9 13
0 4
N
S
EW
94 00
0 9
4 0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 7 2 0 8 10 49 258 0 16 91 521 2 5 1 12,47528 19 23 19 4:15 PM 0 17 2 0 21 10 53 365 0 31 65 635 0 2 1 02,57131 22 11 16 4:30 PM 0 16 2 0 20 40 47 357 0 25 115 678 1 0 0 02,66531 25 11 25 4:45 PM 0 23 1 0 16 40 46 324 0 23 99 641 1 6 0 02,63725 39 17 24 5:00 PM 0 15 2 0 13 10 35 311 1 23 113 617 2 3 0 92,58139 28 18 18 5:15 PM 0 16 4 0 8 10 53 341 0 27 165 729 0 3 0 037 38 17 22 5:30 PM 0 15 2 0 13 20 50 305 0 31 148 650 0 3 0 025 26 13 20 5:45 PM 0 13 0 0 18 13 59 267 1 39 98 585 1 4 0 125 26 15 20 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
TotalLeft Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeft Thru RightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
Lights 69 9 63 56 10 88178 1,316 132 98 473 129 2,6220 1 0 0 Mediums 1 0 0 1 0 13 16 0 0 19 1 420 0 0 0
Total 181 1,333 132 98 492 130 70 9 63 57 10 89 2,6650 1 0 0 214
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Appendix B – Existing Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets

215
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: AM Peak
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Conditions, 01/13/2022 7:00 am Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 162 1 9 105 27 0 0 10 42 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 1 162 1 9 105 27 0 0 10 42 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 04407000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 70 70 88 88 88 67 67 67 73 73 73
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 1 231 1 10 119 31 0 0 15 58 0 1

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 157 0 0 236 0 0 393 415 236 403 400 142 Stage 1 - ----- 2 3 8 2 3 8- 1 6 2 1 6 2-
Stage 2 - ----- 1 5 5 1 7 7- 2 4 1 2 3 8-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1423 - - 1331 - - 566 528 803 558 538 906 Stage 1 - ----- 7 6 5 7 0 8- 8 4 0 7 6 4-
Stage 2 - ----- 8 4 7 7 5 3- 7 6 2 7 0 8-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1414 - - 1326 - - 559 517 800 540 527 900 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- 5 5 9 5 1 7- 5 4 0 5 2 7-
Stage 1 - ----- 7 6 1 7 0 4- 8 3 3 7 5 3-
Stage 2 - ----- 8 3 9 7 4 2- 7 4 7 7 0 4-

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 9.6 12.4

HCM LOS A B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 800 1414 - - 1326 - - 545
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.001 - - 0.008 - - 0.108
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 7.5 0 - 7.7 0 - 12.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.4
216
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: AM Peak 2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Conditions, 01/13/2022 7:00 am Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 440 55 84 744 126 137 6 171 166 2 156 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 440 55 84 744 126 137 6 171 166 2 156 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 500 62 93 827 140 163 7 204 210 3 197 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 127 1047 459 120 1032 448 210 10 277 273 409 345 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1559 1781 3554 1541 1781 52 1511 1781 1870 1576 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 500 62 93 827 140 163 0 211 210 3 197 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1559 1781 1777 1541 1781 0 1563 1781 1870 1576 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 6.9 1.7 3.1 12.8 4.2 5.3 0.0 7.6 6.8 0.1 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 6.9 1.7 3.1 12.8 4.2 5.3 0.0 7.6 6.8 0.1 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 1047 459 120 1032 448 210 0 287 273 409 345 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.48 0.14 0.78 0.80 0.31 0.78 0.00 0.74 0.77 0.01 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 164 1089 478 206 1173 508 445 0 492 537 686 578 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 17.3 15.5 27.4 19.6 16.5 25.6 0.0 23.0 24.3 18.2 20.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.4 0.3 0.1 10.3 3.6 0.4 6.0 0.0 3.7 4.5 0.0 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 2.5 0.6 1.5 5.1 1.3 2.5 0.0 2.9 3.1 0.0 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 17.6 15.6 37.7 23.2 16.9 31.6 0.0 26.7 28.8 18.3 22.3 LnGrp LOS D B B D C B C A C C B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 661 1060 374 410
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 23.7 28.8 25.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 15.5 8.5 22.1 11.5 17.6 8.7 21.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.8 6.9 18.3 14.9 21.9 5.5 19.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 9.6 5.1 8.9 7.3 8.7 5.3 14.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.9 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 2.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.1
HCM 6th LOS C
217
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: PM
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Conditions, 01/13/2022 4:00 pm Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 97 3 13 188 43 1 1 11 30 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 97 3 13 188 43 1 1 11 30 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 02209103301
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 73 73 73 50 50 50 61 61 61
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 5 117 4 18 258 59 2 2 22 49 0 2

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 326 0 0 123 0 0 457 493 124 477 466 298 Stage 1 - ----- 1 3 1 1 3 1- 3 3 3 3 3 3-
Stage 2 - ----- 3 2 6 3 6 2- 1 4 4 1 3 3-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1234 - - 1464 - - 514 477 927 498 494 741 Stage 1 - ----- 8 7 3 7 8 8- 6 8 1 6 4 4-
Stage 2 - ----- 6 8 7 6 2 5- 8 5 9 7 8 6-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1223 - - 1461 - - 504 463 923 472 479 734 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- 5 0 4 4 6 3- 4 7 2 4 7 9-
Stage 1 - ----- 8 6 8 7 8 3- 6 7 2 6 2 9-
Stage 2 - ----- 6 7 5 6 1 0- 8 3 1 7 8 1-

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.4 9.6 13.4

HCM LOS A B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 809 1223 - - 1461 - - 477
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.004 - - 0.012 - - 0.107
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 8 0 - 7.5 0 - 13.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.4
218
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: PM 2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Conditions, 01/13/2022 4:00 pm Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 178 1013 201 137 494 157 101 19 118 106 14 126 Future Volume (veh/h) 178 1013 201 137 494 157 101 19 118 106 14 126 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 196 1113 221 151 543 173 116 22 136 128 17 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 242 1329 584 189 1222 531 150 33 204 183 315 263 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1561 1781 3554 1545 1781 220 1361 1781 1870 1565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 196 1113 221 151 543 173 116 0 158 128 17 152 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1561 1781 1777 1545 1781 0 1581 1781 1870 1565 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 19.2 6.9 5.6 8.0 5.6 4.3 0.0 6.4 4.7 0.5 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.2 19.2 6.9 5.6 8.0 5.6 4.3 0.0 6.4 4.7 0.5 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242 1329 584 189 1222 531 150 0 237 183 315 263 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.84 0.38 0.80 0.44 0.33 0.77 0.00 0.67 0.70 0.05 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 1452 638 209 1222 531 328 0 437 476 673 563 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 19.2 15.4 29.4 17.1 16.3 30.2 0.0 27.0 29.2 23.5 25.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.0 4.2 0.4 17.9 0.3 0.4 8.1 0.0 3.2 4.8 0.1 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 7.6 2.2 3.1 2.9 1.8 2.1 0.0 2.5 2.2 0.2 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.3 23.4 15.8 47.3 17.4 16.7 38.2 0.0 30.2 34.0 23.6 27.8 LnGrp LOS D C B D B B D A CCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1530 867 274 297
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.9 22.4 33.6 30.2
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 14.6 11.6 29.7 10.2 15.8 13.7 27.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.6 7.9 27.5 12.4 24.2 13.7 21.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 8.4 7.6 21.2 6.3 8.0 9.2 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.6 0.0 3.9 0.1 0.5 0.2 3.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0
HCM 6th LOS C
219
Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak
2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Conditions, 01/13/2022 7:00 am Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 500 63 93 827 140 163 211 210 3 197 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.43 0.10 0.49 0.76 0.25 0.54 0.58 0.60 0.01 0.50 Control Delay 51.5 20.5 0.3 38.9 26.9 5.3 31.4 12.3 30.9 23.5 9.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.5 20.5 0.3 38.9 26.9 5.3 31.4 12.3 30.9 23.5 9.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 78 0 33 141 0 56 2 71 1 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #118 147 0 #98 #288 37 111 47 123 7 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 442 438 310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 160 300 165 90
Base Capacity (vph) 156 1156 607 196 1120 583 423 615 511 655 675 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.43 0.10 0.47 0.74 0.24 0.39 0.34 0.41 0.00 0.29 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
220
Queues Timing Plan: PM
2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Conditions, 01/13/2022 4:00 pm Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 1113 221 151 543 173 116 158 128 17 152 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.82 0.31 0.77 0.47 0.26 0.49 0.55 0.50 0.06 0.39 Control Delay 40.0 27.2 6.0 60.5 22.4 2.3 36.8 16.2 35.5 28.6 6.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.0 27.2 6.0 60.5 22.4 2.3 36.8 16.2 35.5 28.6 6.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 78 217 10 65 98 0 47 9 52 7 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #176 #408 60 #182 174 19 100 57 98 22 24 Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 442 438 310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 160 300 165 90
Base Capacity (vph) 340 1365 714 196 1157 661 307 515 446 632 650 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.82 0.31 0.77 0.47 0.26 0.38 0.31 0.29 0.03 0.23 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
221
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Appendix C – CCTA TAZ Boundaries

222
223
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets

224
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: AM Peak
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing plus Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 162 1 16 105 27 0 0 31 42 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 1 162 1 16 105 27 0 0 31 42 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 04407000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 70 70 88 88 88 67 67 67 73 73 73
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 1 231 1 18 119 31 0 0 46 58 0 1

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 157 0 0 236 0 0 409 431 236 435 416 142 Stage 1 - ----- 2 3 8 2 3 8- 1 7 8 1 7 8-
Stage 2 - ----- 1 7 1 1 9 3- 2 5 7 2 3 8-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1423 - - 1331 - - 553 517 803 531 527 906 Stage 1 - ----- 7 6 5 7 0 8- 8 2 4 7 5 2-
Stage 2 - ----- 8 3 1 7 4 1- 7 4 8 7 0 8-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1414 - - 1326 - - 544 503 800 491 513 900 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- 5 4 4 5 0 3- 4 9 1 5 1 3-
Stage 1 - ----- 7 6 1 7 0 4- 8 1 7 7 3 5-
Stage 2 - ----- 8 1 7 7 2 5- 7 0 4 7 0 4-

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 9.8 13.2

HCM LOS A B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 800 1414 - - 1326 - - 496
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 0.001 - - 0.014 - - 0.119
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 7.5 0 - 7.8 0 - 13.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.4
225
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: AM Peak 2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing plus Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 91 440 55 84 744 129 137 6 171 174 2 169 Future Volume (veh/h) 91 440 55 84 744 129 137 6 171 174 2 169 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 500 62 93 827 143 163 7 204 220 3 214 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 132 1049 460 120 1024 444 210 9 276 282 417 352 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1559 1781 3554 1541 1781 52 1511 1781 1870 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 103 500 62 93 827 143 163 0 211 220 3 214 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1559 1781 1777 1541 1781 0 1563 1781 1870 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 7.0 1.8 3.1 13.1 4.4 5.4 0.0 7.7 7.2 0.1 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 7.0 1.8 3.1 13.1 4.4 5.4 0.0 7.7 7.2 0.1 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 132 1049 460 120 1024 444 210 0 285 282 417 352 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.48 0.13 0.78 0.81 0.32 0.78 0.00 0.74 0.78 0.01 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 1072 470 203 1154 500 438 0 484 529 675 569 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 17.5 15.7 27.8 20.0 16.9 26.0 0.0 23.4 24.5 18.3 21.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.9 0.3 0.1 10.3 3.9 0.4 6.1 0.0 3.7 4.7 0.0 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 2.5 0.6 1.6 5.2 1.4 2.5 0.0 3.0 3.3 0.0 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 17.9 15.8 38.2 23.9 17.3 32.1 0.0 27.2 29.2 18.3 22.9 LnGrp LOS D B B D C B C A C C B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 665 1063 374 437
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 24.3 29.3 26.0
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 15.6 8.6 22.4 11.6 18.0 9.0 22.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.8 6.9 18.3 14.9 21.9 5.5 19.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 9.7 5.1 9.0 7.4 9.4 5.4 15.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.6 0.0 2.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7
HCM 6th LOS C
226
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: PM
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Plus Project Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 97 3 37 188 43 1 1 25 30 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 97 3 37 188 43 1 1 25 30 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 2 2 0 9 1 0 3 3 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 73 73 73 50 50 50 61 61 61
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 117 4 51 258 59 2 2 50 49 0 2

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 326 0 0 123 0 0 523 559 124 557 532 298 Stage 1 - - - - - - 131 131 - 399 399 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 392 428 - 158 133 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1234 - - 1464 - - 465 438 927 441 453 741 Stage 1 - - - - - - 873 788 - 627 602 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 633 585 - 844 786 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1223 - - 1461 - - 446 413 923 396 427 734 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 446 413 - 396 427 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 868 783 - 619 571 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 604 555 - 791 781 -

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 1 9.5 15.2

HCM LOS A C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 850 1223 - - 1461 - - 402
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.064 0.004 - - 0.035 - - 0.126
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 8 0 - 7.6 0 - 15.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.4
227
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: PM 2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Plus Project Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 192 1013 201 137 494 167 101 19 118 112 14 134 Future Volume (veh/h) 192 1013 201 137 494 167 101 19 118 112 14 134 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 211 1113 221 151 543 184 116 22 136 135 17 161 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 258 1324 582 189 1186 515 150 33 204 189 321 269 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1561 1781 3554 1545 1781 220 1361 1781 1870 1566 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 211 1113 221 151 543 184 116 0 158 135 17 161 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1561 1781 1777 1545 1781 0 1581 1781 1870 1566 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 19.4 7.0 5.6 8.1 6.1 4.3 0.0 6.4 5.0 0.5 6.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 19.4 7.0 5.6 8.1 6.1 4.3 0.0 6.4 5.0 0.5 6.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 1324 582 189 1186 515 150 0 237 189 321 269 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.84 0.38 0.80 0.46 0.36 0.77 0.00 0.67 0.71 0.05 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 360 1442 633 208 1186 515 326 0 434 473 668 559 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.1 19.4 15.5 29.6 17.8 17.1 30.4 0.0 27.2 29.3 23.5 25.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 4.4 0.4 18.2 0.3 0.4 8.1 0.0 3.2 4.9 0.1 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 7.7 2.2 3.2 3.0 2.0 2.1 0.0 2.6 2.3 0.2 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.0 23.8 16.0 47.8 18.0 17.5 38.5 0.0 30.5 34.2 23.5 28.1 LnGrp LOS D C B D B B D A C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1545 878 274 313
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 23.0 33.8 30.5
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 14.6 11.7 29.7 10.2 16.1 14.3 27.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.6 7.9 27.5 12.4 24.2 13.7 21.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 8.4 7.6 21.4 6.3 8.4 9.8 10.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.6 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.5 0.2 3.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6
HCM 6th LOS C
228
Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak
2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/26/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing plus Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 500 63 93 827 143 163 211 220 3 214 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.43 0.10 0.49 0.76 0.25 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.01 0.52 Control Delay 54.0 20.6 0.3 39.1 27.1 5.5 31.6 12.4 31.3 23.5 9.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 54.0 20.6 0.3 39.1 27.1 5.5 31.6 12.4 31.3 23.5 9.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 80 0 33 142 0 56 2 75 1 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #123 147 0 #98 #288 39 111 47 129 7 34 Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 442 438 310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 160 300 165 90
Base Capacity (vph) 155 1151 605 195 1114 581 421 613 509 652 683 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.43 0.10 0.48 0.74 0.25 0.39 0.34 0.43 0.00 0.31 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
229
Queues Timing Plan: PM
2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Existing Plus Project Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 1113 221 151 543 184 116 158 135 17 161 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.82 0.31 0.77 0.48 0.28 0.49 0.55 0.51 0.06 0.41 Control Delay 41.7 27.6 6.1 61.2 22.9 2.7 37.0 16.2 35.7 28.5 7.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.7 27.6 6.1 61.2 22.9 2.7 37.0 16.2 35.7 28.5 7.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 84 220 10 65 100 0 47 9 55 7 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #197 #412 61 #183 176 25 101 58 102 22 29 Internal Link Dist (ft) 335 442 438 310
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 160 300 165 90
Base Capacity (vph) 338 1359 712 195 1132 652 306 513 445 629 648 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.82 0.31 0.77 0.48 0.28 0.38 0.31 0.30 0.03 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
230
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Appendix E – Cumulative Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets

231
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: AM Peak
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Cumulative Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 188 1 10 122 31 0 0 12 49 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 1 188 1 10 122 31 0 0 12 49 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 0 4 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 70 70 88 88 88 67 67 67 73 73 73
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 269 1 11 139 35 0 0 18 67 0 1

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 181 0 0 274 0 0 455 479 274 467 462 164 Stage 1 - - - - - - 276 276 - 186 186 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 179 203 - 281 276 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1394 - - 1289 - - 515 486 765 506 497 881 Stage 1 - - - - - - 730 682 - 816 746 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 823 733 - 726 682 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1385 - - 1284 - - 508 475 762 487 486 875 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 508 475 - 487 486 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 726 679 - 809 733 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 813 721 - 708 679 -

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 9.8 13.5

HCM LOS A B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 762 1385 - - 1284 - - 491
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 0.001 - - 0.009 - - 0.139
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 7.6 0 - 7.8 0 - 13.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.5
232
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: AM Peak 2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Cumulative Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 101 510 64 97 862 146 159 7 198 192 2 181 Future Volume (veh/h) 101 510 64 97 862 146 159 7 198 192 2 181 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 580 73 108 958 162 189 8 236 243 3 229 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 144 1045 458 138 1032 448 236 10 296 298 431 364 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1558 1781 3554 1541 1781 51 1512 1781 1870 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 115 580 73 108 958 162 189 0 244 243 3 229 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1558 1781 1777 1541 1781 0 1563 1781 1870 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 9.3 2.4 4.0 17.8 5.7 7.0 0.0 10.1 8.9 0.1 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 9.3 2.4 4.0 17.8 5.7 7.0 0.0 10.1 8.9 0.1 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 1045 458 138 1032 448 236 0 306 298 431 364 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.56 0.16 0.78 0.93 0.36 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.82 0.01 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 1045 458 181 1032 448 391 0 433 473 604 509 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.6 20.2 17.7 30.7 23.4 19.1 28.6 0.0 26.0 27.2 20.1 23.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.8 0.6 0.2 14.8 13.9 0.5 6.2 0.0 6.8 6.0 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 3.5 0.8 2.2 8.6 1.9 3.3 0.0 4.2 4.2 0.0 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 20.8 17.9 45.5 37.3 19.6 34.8 0.0 32.7 33.2 20.1 25.3 LnGrp LOS E C B D D B C A C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 768 1228 433 475
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.9 35.7 33.6 29.3
Approach LOS C D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 17.8 9.8 24.4 13.5 20.1 10.0 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.8 6.9 18.3 14.9 21.9 5.5 19.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.9 12.1 6.0 11.3 9.0 10.9 6.3 19.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.7
HCM 6th LOS C
233
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS 4:00 pm 01/13/2022 Cumulative Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 112 3 15 218 50 1 1 13 35 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 5 112 3 15 218 50 1 1 13 35 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 2 2 0 9 1 0 3 3 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 73 73 73 50 50 50 61 61 61
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 6 135 4 21 299 68 2 2 26 57 0 2

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 376 0 0 141 0 0 528 569 142 550 537 343 Stage 1 - - - - - - 151 151 - 384 384 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 377 418 - 166 153 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1182 - - 1442 - - 461 432 906 446 450 700 Stage 1 - - - - - - 851 772 - 639 611 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 644 591 - 836 771 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1172 - - 1439 - - 450 416 902 418 434 693 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 450 416 - 418 434 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 844 766 - 629 594 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 630 574 - 803 765 -

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.4 9.7 14.9

HCM LOS A B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 788 1172 - - 1439 - - 423
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.005 - - 0.014 - - 0.14
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 8.1 0 - 7.5 0 - 14.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.5
234
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS 4:00 pm 01/13/2022 Cumulative Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 206 1174 233 159 572 182 117 22 137 123 16 146 Future Volume (veh/h) 206 1174 233 159 572 182 117 22 137 123 16 146 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 226 1290 256 175 629 200 134 25 157 148 19 176 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 270 1335 586 192 1181 513 171 35 217 198 327 274 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1561 1781 3554 1545 1781 217 1364 1781 1870 1566 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 226 1290 256 175 629 200 134 0 182 148 19 176 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1561 1781 1777 1545 1781 0 1581 1781 1870 1566 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 26.1 9.0 7.1 10.5 7.3 5.4 0.0 8.0 5.9 0.6 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 26.1 9.0 7.1 10.5 7.3 5.4 0.0 8.0 5.9 0.6 7.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 270 1335 586 192 1181 513 171 0 252 198 327 274 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.97 0.44 0.91 0.53 0.39 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.75 0.06 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 333 1335 586 192 1181 513 302 0 402 438 618 518 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.2 22.4 17.1 32.3 19.8 18.8 32.4 0.0 29.2 31.5 25.2 28.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.3 17.2 0.5 40.7 0.5 0.5 7.6 0.0 3.9 5.5 0.1 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 12.7 2.9 5.0 4.0 2.4 2.6 0.0 3.2 2.8 0.3 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.5 39.6 17.6 73.0 20.3 19.2 40.0 0.0 33.1 37.0 25.3 30.6 LnGrp LOS D D B E C B D A C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1772 1004 316 343
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.1 29.3 36.1 33.1
Approach LOS D C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 16.2 12.4 32.0 11.5 17.3 15.6 28.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.6 7.9 27.5 12.4 24.2 13.7 21.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 10.0 9.1 28.1 7.4 9.7 11.0 12.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 3.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.3
HCM 6th LOS C
235
215 Skelly Residential Traffic Impact Study

Appendix F – Cumulative plus Project Conditions Intersections Level of Service Worksheets
236
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: AM Peak
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 188 1 17 122 31 0 0 33 49 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 1 188 1 17 122 31 0 0 33 49 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 0 4 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 70 70 88 88 88 67 67 67 73 73 73
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 269 1 19 139 35 0 0 49 67 0 1

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 181 0 0 274 0 0 471 495 274 498 478 164 Stage 1 - - - - - - 276 276 - 202 202 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 195 219 - 296 276 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1394 - - 1289 - - 503 476 765 483 486 881 Stage 1 - - - - - - 730 682 - 800 734 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 807 722 - 712 682 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1385 - - 1284 - - 494 463 762 443 472 875 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 494 463 - 443 472 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 726 679 - 794 717 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 793 705 - 665 679 -

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 10.1 14.5

HCM LOS B B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 762 1385 - - 1284 - - 447
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.065 0.001 - - 0.015 - - 0.153
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 7.6 0 - 7.8 0 - 14.5
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.5
237
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: AM Peak 2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 105 510 64 97 862 149 159 7 198 200 2 194 Future Volume (veh/h) 105 510 64 97 862 149 159 7 198 200 2 194 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 119 580 73 108 958 166 189 8 236 253 3 246 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.79 0.79 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 143 1035 454 138 1025 444 235 10 296 307 441 372 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1558 1781 3554 1541 1781 51 1512 1781 1870 1577 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 119 580 73 108 958 166 189 0 244 253 3 246 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1558 1781 1777 1541 1781 0 1563 1781 1870 1577 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 9.4 2.4 4.1 17.9 5.9 7.0 0.0 10.2 9.4 0.1 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 9.4 2.4 4.1 17.9 5.9 7.0 0.0 10.2 9.4 0.1 9.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 143 1035 454 138 1025 444 235 0 306 307 441 372 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.56 0.16 0.78 0.94 0.37 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.82 0.01 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 143 1035 454 180 1025 444 388 0 430 469 599 505 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.0 20.5 18.0 30.9 23.7 19.4 28.8 0.0 26.2 27.3 20.0 23.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.8 0.7 0.2 15.1 15.0 0.5 6.3 0.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 3.6 0.8 2.2 8.8 2.0 3.3 0.0 4.2 4.4 0.0 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.7 21.2 18.2 46.0 38.7 19.9 35.1 0.0 33.2 34.3 20.0 25.7 LnGrp LOS E C B D D B D A C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 772 1232 433 502
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.3 36.8 34.0 30.0
Approach LOS C D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.3 17.9 9.8 24.4 13.5 20.6 10.0 24.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.8 6.9 18.3 14.9 21.9 5.5 19.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.4 12.2 6.1 11.4 9.0 11.7 6.5 19.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
238
HCM 6th TWSC Timing Plan: PM
1: Skelly/Zeus & Hercules Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 112 3 39 218 50 1 1 27 35 0 1
Future Vol, veh/h 5 112 3 39 218 50 1 1 27 35 0 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 0 2 2 0 9 1 0 3 3 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 73 73 73 50 50 50 61 61 61
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 6 135 4 53 299 68 2 2 54 57 0 2

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 376 0 0 141 0 0 592 633 142 628 601 343 Stage 1 - - - - - - 151 151 - 448 448 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 482 - 180 153 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1182 - - 1442 - - 418 397 906 395 414 700 Stage 1 - - - - - - 851 772 - 590 573 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 595 553 - 822 771 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1172 - - 1439 - - 399 372 902 351 388 693 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 399 372 - 351 388 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 844 766 - 581 541 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 565 522 - 764 765 -

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 1 9.7 17.1

HCM LOS A C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 826 1172 - - 1439 - - 356
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 0.005 - - 0.037 - - 0.166
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 8.1 0 - 7.6 0 - 17.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.6
239
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Timing Plan: PM 2: Hercules Ave & San Pablo Ave 01/28/2022
215 Skelly Residential TIS: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 220 1174 233 159 572 192 117 22 137 129 16 154 Future Volume (veh/h) 220 1174 233 159 572 192 117 22 137 129 16 154 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 242 1290 256 175 629 211 134 25 157 155 19 186 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 285 1328 584 191 1141 496 171 35 217 205 333 279 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1561 1781 3554 1544 1781 217 1364 1781 1870 1566 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 242 1290 256 175 629 211 134 0 182 155 19 186 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1561 1781 1777 1544 1781 0 1581 1781 1870 1566 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.7 26.3 9.0 7.2 10.7 7.9 5.4 0.0 8.0 6.2 0.6 8.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 26.3 9.0 7.2 10.7 7.9 5.4 0.0 8.0 6.2 0.6 8.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 1328 584 191 1141 496 171 0 251 205 333 279 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.97 0.44 0.91 0.55 0.43 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.76 0.06 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 332 1328 584 191 1141 496 300 0 400 436 615 515 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.0 22.6 17.3 32.5 20.6 19.6 32.5 0.0 29.4 31.5 25.1 28.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.5 18.2 0.5 41.9 0.6 0.6 7.7 0.0 3.9 5.6 0.1 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.2 12.9 3.0 5.1 4.1 0.1 2.7 0.0 3.3 2.9 0.3 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.5 40.8 17.8 74.4 21.2 20.2 40.2 0.0 33.3 37.1 25.2 30.9 LnGrp LOS D D B E C C D A C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1788 1015 316 360
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.3 30.1 36.2 33.3
Approach LOS D C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 16.2 12.4 32.0 11.6 17.6 16.3 28.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.6 7.9 27.5 12.4 24.2 13.7 21.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 10.0 9.2 28.3 7.4 10.1 11.7 12.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 3.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.2
HCM 6th LOS D
240

HERECULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 24-035

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 CITY OF HERCULES BUDGET PLAN WHICH INCLUDES THE FIRST YEAR (202 4-25 FISCAL YEAR) OF THE TEN -YEAR (202 5-34 FISCAL

YEARS) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET AND MAKING CERTAIN DESIGNATIONS, CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER’S CONTRACT AUTHORITY, AND APPROVING ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,618,056.

WHEREAS, the City of Hercules (City) has prepared and adopted annually the operating and capital budgets of the various funds of the City with the intent of providing a policy program for City services and a financial system to carry out the planned program of services; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager has prepared and is submitting an operating and capital budget for FY 2024-25; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager and Finance Director have reviewed the proposed budget with the City Council and Finance Commission; and

WHEREAS, those reviews included consideration of the capital projects listed to be funded by the various City funds, and the presentation of individual operating budgets in those funds; and

WHEREAS, the operating and capital budget program reflects cost containment efforts in all departments and funds; and

WHEREAS, the budget, as presented, does not include provisions for any additional State or Federal takeaways or legislation that might adversely affect the proposed budget; and

WHEREAS, all grants received shall be appropriated and spent according to grant guidelines; and

WHEREAS, it will be necessary to carry over certain encumbrances and committed expenditures from FY 2023-24 to FY 2024-25; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed budget for FY 202 4-25 at Public Hearings on May 28, 2024, and June 11, 2024, held for the purpose of reviewing and discussing FY 2024-25 operating and capital budgets and providing the opportunity for public input and discussions.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EBDBB41-92DD-45A6-BF57-C94D70ECC848 241

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. The City Council hereby approves the FY 2024-25 operating and capital budgets for all City funds as detailed in attachments hereto.

2. The City Council hereby adopts the FY 2024-25 Annual Budget.

3. The City Council hereby approves the ten-year FY 2024-25 through FY 2033-34 Capital Improvement Budget in concept, recognizing that all listed projects may not currently be fully funded, but that staff will pursue any and every funding opportunity that is available to accomplish the desired capital program.

4. The City Council hereby authorizes the use of Available Fund Balances in those funds where projected expenditures are greater than projected revenues, and that the Treasurer and/or the Finance Director be authorized to make loans during the fiscal year from one fund or entity to another fund or entity as deemed necessary and as appropriate.

5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Treasurer and/or Finance Director and/or his/her designee to carry over from FY 2023-24 to FY 2024-25 any encumbered amounts and associated appropriations, or any other amounts for items that are deemed necessary to the continuity of providing service to the community or are necessary for the initiation and completion of planned projects, programs, or services.

6. The City Council authorizes the City Manager and the Finance Director and/or their designees to approve and make payment for goods and services received by the City in accordance with the City’s approved budgets, programs, and policies.

7. The City Council authorizes the City Manager and his/her designee to expend budgeted City funds as set forth below without further City Council authorization, such as the purchasing process for Council’s award of bid or award of services contract:

CONTRACT TYPE LIMIT
General Contracts $50,000
Public Works Construction
Contracts
$100,000
Fully Reimbursed General
Contracts
$100,000
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EBDBB41-92DD-45A6-BF57-C94D70ECC848 242

Except as provided above, all City expenditures shall require City Council authorization.

8. The City Council authorizes the City Manager and his/her designee, without further City Council approval, to expend up to $50,000 per expenditure, subject to an aggregate limit of $50,000, for non-budgeted emergency expenses during any fiscal year. However, the City Manager must report any action taken under this paragraph of this Resolution back to the City Council.

9. The City Council authorizes the City Manager and his/her designee, the foregoing notwithstanding and without further City Council approval, to: (1) pay all amounts allowed under contracts approved by the City Council regardless of the amount of any such payment(s) (in the case of the City, any project contracts approved and authorizing the City Manager authority to administer the entire contract, any principal and interest payments on debt issues, and any pass-through collected for other agencies), (2) make any transfer of funds, or transfer of bond proceeds for capital projects in other funds, as identified in the City budget, (3) authorize change orders for any contract approved by the City Council in an aggregate amount not to exceed $50,000 or 10% of the contract price, whichever is less, and (4) enter into and bind the City to contracts that are budgeted as set forth in Section 7 above.

10. The City Council hereby makes or confirms the following General Fund reserves or designations:

City Council Designations FY 24-25
Economic Uncertainty (25% target) $4,862,987
CalHFA Loan Repayment 2,500,000
Capital Projects 1,488,109
Earthquake Insurance Deductible 500,000
PEG Fees 274,000
Reusable Bags (remaining) 13,930
Total, Designations $9,639,026
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EBDBB41-92DD-45A6-BF57-C94D70ECC848 243

11. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute the following annual contracts:

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at the City Council meeting of the City of Hercules held on the 11th of June 2024, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES: Council Members: T. Grimsley, C. Kelley, A. Walker-Griffin Vice Mayor D. Bailey and Mayor Walker-Griffin
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

____________________________
Dan Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:

___________________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk

No. Vendor Name Service Description FY 24/25
1 AMS.Net Network Support & Maintenance $117,000
2 Superion, LLC (Central Square) Financial & Business Aplications Support & Maintenance & Training Subscription
108,000
3 M-Group Associate Planner 119,480
4 CSG Consultant Code Enforcement 120,000
5 Pacific Site Maintenance Landscaping 639,000
6 Andre, Mechanical Service Lift Station Maintenance /Electrical Trouble Shooting
64,000
7 Kleen Tech Janitorial (Citywide) 155,000
8 Clean Streets Street sweeping 79,000
9 Contra Costa County Animal Control 287,151
10 H&R Plumbing Storm Drain & Sewer Cleaning 155,000
11 Hercules Tree Tree Work 100,000
12 City of Pinole Sewer Plant Engineering Services 2,674,425 TOTA L: $4,618,056
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0EBDBB41-92DD-45A6-BF57-C94D70ECC848 244

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 245
Public infrastructure includes the City’s streets,
sewers, storm drains, transportation, facilities,
and parks. While this CIP plans for ten years, the
City Council will only allocate funds for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2024-25. This CIP and budget will be
proposed, along with the City’s operating budget
for approval by the City Council during the
adoption of the annual budget.

The CIP outlines the vision for short- and
long-range project delivery and funding for
maintaining, improving, and building new
and existing infrastructure assets to benefit
our residents, businesses, property owners,
and visitors. The CIP links the General Plan,
Parks Master Plan, and various master planning
documents, as well as available resources, to
provide a means for planning, scheduling,
and implementing capital projects over the
next ten years.

The CIP is intended to incorporate the City’s
investments in infrastructure development and
maintenance (i.e., capital improvements) with
other significant capital expenditures that add to
or strategically invest in the City’s inventory of
assets. Projects included in a CIP are defined as
any long-term investment that builds, replaces,
or improves an asset (e.g. facilities, roads, parks,
sewer, and drainage lines, etc.), have a useful
life of at least five years and a minimum cost of
$50,000. A critical distinction between the capital
and operating budget is that capital projects are
approved in one year, but their completion can take
years. In contrast, operating budgets are typically
focused on ongoing maintenance and are “use-
it-or-lose-it” at year’s end, with unspent funds
returned to the fund.
2024-25 CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET &

TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
Hercules Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) aims to maintain and improve our City’s aged public infrastructure as best it can with available resources. Taking care of existing infrastructure is an important part of building a resilient city.

As such, the capital improvements in this plan balance the need of rehabilitating aged infrastructure while also embarking on key enhancement projects that address critical priorities, such as street safety and sustainability.

This Capital Improvement project emphasizes:
• Substantial capital work has been completed and proposed in light of grant-funded (and locally matched) transportation projects. • A “fix it first” approach where proper maintenance of Hercules existing infrastructure is prioritized above requests for “new” infrastructure. • Additional revenue or funding is needed to maintain our existing infrastructure adequately.

CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET & TEN-YEAR CIP 246
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET & TEN-YEAR CIP Projects in the Ten-Year CIP were prioritized
according to the Ten-Year Action Plan of the
recently completed Parks Master Plan, the
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, the City’s Pavement
Management Program, and the Draft Building
Facilities Assessment. Proposed FY 2024-25
recommended projects include:
• Construction of the Refugio Park picnic area
and shade structure project
• Completion of the final design of Beechnut
Park
• Resurfacing the Foxboro Basketball Court
• Repairs to the Bay Trail Wall
Also included is the design of the Upper Sycamore
Sewer main replacement while Falcon Way is to
be resurfaced from Wren Court to Refugio Valley
Road. Ten of the City’s public buildings are
proposed to receive upgrades, including painting,
and recarpeting the first half of City Hall, pool
repairs and HVAC replacement in the Community
Swim Center, and bathroom renovations in the
Ohlone Community Center. The summary of
the Ten-Year CIP is listed in Attachment 2 and
detailed descriptions of all the proposed CIP
projects are included in Attachment 3 to 7.

The FY 2024-25 Proposed CIP are fully funded
by various funding sources as specified below.

The Capital Improvement Projects are funded
almost exclusively with revenues from restricted
funds.
• The Sewer Fund is restricted to maintenance
and replacement of the City’s sewers. Much of
the available funding for the capital budget is,
in fact, devoted to the Sewer Fund.
• Transportation Fund includes Gas Tax,
Measure J, and SB1 Road Maintenance
and Repair Account are the result of
voters’ approval of increases dedicated to
transportation infrastructures. Transportation
projects also are supplemented by Development
Impact Fees (DIF), which are paid for by new
residential and commercial developments.

However, these fees are highly variable and
have categorical restrictions.
• Facilities Replacement – Internal Service
Fund (ISF) is used for capital improvements to
city-owned buildings and is paid through their
operating budget.
• The General Fund, though historically a small
contributor to the overall capital budget, is the
only non-restricted funding source that can
support any public infrastructure expense. This
year, due to limited resources from restricted
funds, staff are proposing to fund 50% of the
FY 2024-25 CIP.
247
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET & TEN-YEAR CIP However, the Ten-Year CIP identified a
significant number of unfunded projects. The
total number of unfunded projects identified in
the Ten-Year CIP is approximately $118 million,
or 85% of the total Ten-Year CIP: $101 million
for Hercules HUB, $9.6 million for streets, $4.1
million for parks, and $3.6 million for facilities
as summarized in Attachment 2. Staff
recommend looking for other alternatives to fund
the projects. The following are financing or
funding options for the City Council to
explore regarding potential funding for the
future CIP.
•Capital Grants – the City acquired the
services of grant writing consultant, California
Consulting to continue efforts to identify,
and apply for, available grants applicable to
approved Capital Improvement Projects.
• Bond Financing (Attachment 8)
• General Obligation Bonds, which are also
referred to as GOs, are municipal bonds
which provide a way for state and local
governments to raise money for projects that
may not generate a revenue stream directly.

They are called “general obligation” bonds
because they are not backed by a specific
revenue producing project or asset. Instead,
they are backed by the “full faith and credit”
of the issuer. In simple terms that means
the bonds are backed by the state or local
government’s ability to tax, and to raise taxes
to pay bondholders. For cities, it normally
comes in the form of propert
y taxes.
• Lease Revenue Bonds is an effective
and increasingly popula
r vehicle for state
and local governments or cities to finance
and refinance equipment acquisitions, the
construction of public facilities and the
expansion and rehabilitation of existing
public facilities. Lease financing enables
cities to finance a variety of governmental
projects without incurring a “debt” or an
“indebtedness” that is subject to the voter
approval process.

Projects with prior City Council appropriations
that were not fully expended have remaining
appropriation balances included as carryover
amounts. These amounts are strictly estimates
and will be trued up at year-end close. Amounts
reflected in the projected carryover column
should not be construed as funds available for
commitment. The carryover estimate often
includes funds encumbered/committed due to an
executed contract for services or goods.

The ten-year CIP coordinates physical
improvements with financial planning, allowing
maximum benefits from available funding sources.

It relies on funding from various sources, primarily
retained in the capital and special revenue funds,
with uses usually restricted to specific purposes.

Funding sources are each further described in the
City’s adopted budget. The City also adopted a
policy to set aside money for a capital reserve to
utilize as a funding source for capital needs.

Because staff identified many unfunded projects
in the next ten years, staff recommend that the
City Council explore financing these projects by
issuing bonds. By issuing long-term debt for costly
infrastructure projects with long service lives,
the City can increase equity between generations
without disrupting the operating budget.
248
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET CIP SPENDING PLAN

CITY OF HERCULES

TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM SPENDING PLAN FY 2024-2034

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PROGRAM SPENDING PLAN FY 2024-25
Prior FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Project Name Carryover Proposed Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection City Hall - 137,170 337,700 - - - - - - - - 474,870 Senior Center - 22,715 19,250 41,965 Library 100,000 15,000 - - - - - - - - - 115,000 Community Swim Center - 132,638 94,160 - - - - - - - - 226,798 Teen Center - 20,460 11,000 - - - - - - - - 31,460 Hanna Ranch Childcare Center - 6,820 34,650 - - - - - - - - 41,470 Lupine Kidz Center - 17,380 17,160 - - - - - - - - 34,540 Public Works Maintenance Yard - 30,000 - - - - - - - - - 30,000 Ohlone Community Center - 113,905 37,620 - - - - - - - - 151,525 Foxboro Community Center - 9,735 - - - - - - - - - 9,735 - 200,000 - - - - - - - - - 200,000 57,918 117,000 - - - - - - - - - 174,918 Leila's By The Bay Roof 30,000 30,000
Fire Station #76 Parking Lot 250,000 250,000
Future Facility Capital Improvement
Project - - - 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 3,320,000 Total, Facilities 157,918 822,823 831,540 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 5,132,281 - 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - 1,000,000 - 250,000 - - - - - - - - - 250,000 - - 750,000 - - - - - - - - 750,000 - 150,000 250,000 - - - - - - - - 400,000 - - 100,000 - - - - - - - - 100,000 - - - 250,000 - - - - - - - 250,000 - - - 100,000 - - - - - - - 100,000 - - 150,000 1,150,000 - - - - - - - 1,300,000 Green Infrastructure Project - - 250,000 - - - - - - - - 250,000 - - - - 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,750,000 - - - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 700,000 - - - - 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 8,050,000 Countywide Smart Signals - 65,100 - - - - - - - - - 65,100 Total, Streets - 1,865,100 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 15,365,100 Sycamore Ave (Upper Trunk Main) - - - - - - - - - - - - Sycamore Ave (Lower Trunk Main) - 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 Promenade Lift Station - - 185,000 1,170,450 - - - - - - - 1,355,450 Repair/Replace Sewer Lines under SR-4
& Along Willow Avenue - - 200,000 100,000 1,080,000 - - - - - - 1,380,000 Total, Sewer - 1,100,000 385,000 1,270,450 1,080,000 - - - - - - 3,835,450 25,000 35,000 - - - - - - - - - 60,000 - 3,500 190,500 - - - - - - - - 194,000 - - 150,000 - - - - - - - - 150,000 Foxboro Playground - - 50,000 550,000 - - - - - - - 600,000 Foxboro Basketball Court - 145,000 - - - - - - - - - 145,000 76,450 500,000 - - - - - - - - - 576,450 - 170,000 - - - - - - - - - 170,000 Refugio Tennis Court - - 55,000 270,000 - - - - - - - 325,000 - 100,000 50,000 450,000 - - - - - - - 600,000 - - 70,000 225,000 - - - - - - - 295,000 Woodfield Basketball Court - - 215,000 - - - - - - - - 215,000 Woodfield Tennis Court - - - 320,000 - - - - - - - 320,000 Woodfield Replace Restroom - - - - - - 465,000 - - - - 465,000 Woodfield Accessibility Route - - - - 55,000 273,000 - - - - - 328,000 - - - - 240,000 - - - - - - 240,000 - - - - - 1,440,000 - - - - - 1,440,000 Slurry Seal the Bay Trail - - - 132,000 - - - - - - - 132,000 Bay Trail Wall Repair - 100,000 - - - - - - - - - 100,000 Total, Parks 101,450 1,053,500 780,500 1,947,000 295,000 1,713,000 465,000 - - - - 6,355,450 735,030 89,000 2,909,500 1,289,000 5,022,530 150,000 150,000
850,000 850,000
2,329,500 2,329,500
4,250,000 29,085,319 30,162,080 30,162,080 7,540,520 101,199,999 Total, Transportation 735,030 1,089,000 7,159,500 32,703,819 30,162,080 30,162,080 7,540,520 - - - - 109,552,029 Total, CIP 994,398 5,930,423 10,656,540 37,836,269 33,452,080 33,790,080 9,920,520 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,915,000 140,240,310 FFuunnddiinngg SSoouurrcceess::

CITY OF HERCULES

TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM SPENDING PLAN FY 2024-2034

Grant Funds 760,030 1,127,500 3,100,000 1,289,000 - - - - - - - 6,276,530 Parks Impact Fee - - 150,000 - - - - - - - - 150,000 Transportation Impact Fee - - - - 240,000 - - - - - - 240,000 Police Impact Fee - 200,000 - - - - - - - - - 200,000 General Fund/Capital Reserves 176,450 2,250,823 1,351,540 2,779,500 - - - - - - - 6,558,313 State Gas Tax Fund - 262 - - - 250,000 - - - - - - - 250,000 SB1 RMRA - 715,100 250,000 - 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2,715,100 Asset Seizure Fund 57,918 117,000 - - - - - - - - - 174,918 Facility Maintenance Fund - - - - - - - - - - - - Measure J Fund - 263 - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 900,000 Solid Waste Fund - 250,000 - - - - - - - - - 250,000 Sewer Fund - 421 - 1,100,000 385,000 1,270,450 1,080,000 - - - - - - 3,835,450 Community Development Tax - 170,000 - - - - - - - - - 170,000 Public Benefit Fee - - - - - - - - - - - - Unfunded - Hercules HUB - - 4,250,000 29,085,319 30,162,080 30,162,080 7,540,520 - - - - 101,199,999 Unfunded - Facilities - - 280,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 415,000 3,600,000 Unfunded - Streets - - 400,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 9,600,000 Unfunded - Parks - - 390,000 1,497,000 55,000 1,713,000 465,000 - - - - 4,120,000 Total, Funding 994,398 5,930,423 10,656,540 37,836,269 33,452,080 33,790,080 9,920,520 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,915,000 1,915,000 140,240,310 Refugio Picnic Area
Dredge Refugio Lake
Sycamore Avenue Bicycle
Hercules - The HUB
Police Department Lobbies
Falcon Way
Foxboro
Hercules By The Bay
Annual Street Repair Project
Beechnut Park
250
Project Funding Source: Prior FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection City Hall General Fund/Capital Reserves $ - $ 137,170.00 $ 337,700.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 474,870$ Senior Center General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 22,715.00$ 19,250.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,965$ Library General Fund/Capital Reserves 100,000.00$ 15,000.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 115,000$ Community Swin Center General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 132,638.00$ 94,160.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 226,798$ Teen Center General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 20,460.00$ 11,000.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,460$ Hanna Ranch Childcare Center General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 6,820.00$ 34,650.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,470$ Lupine Kidz Center General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 17,380.00$ 17,160.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34,540$ Ohlone Childcare Center Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Public Works Maintenance Yard General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 30,000.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000$ Ohlone Community Center General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 113,905.00$ 37,620.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 151,525$ Foxboro Community Center General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 9,735.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,735$ Police Development Impact Fee - $ 200,000.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000$ Asset Seizure Fund 57,918.00$ 117,000.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 174,918$ Leila's By The Bay Roof Unfunded - $ - $ 30,000.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000$ Fire Station #76 Parking Lot Unfunded - $ - $ 250,000.00$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000$ Future Facility Capital Improvement
Project Unfunded - $ - $ - $ 415,000.00$ 415,000.00$ 415,000.00$ 415,000.00$ 415,000.00$ 415,000.00$ 415,000.00$ 415,000.00$ 3,320,000$ Total 157,918$ 822,823$ 831,540$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 5,132,281$ Funding Source:
- $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ General Fund/Capital Reserves 100,000$ 505,823$ 551,540$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,157,363$ Police Development Impact Fee - $ 200,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000$ Facility Maintenance Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Asset Seizure Fund 57,918$ 117,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 174,918$ Unfunded - $ - $ 280,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 3,600,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Total 157,918$ 822,823$ 831,540$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 415,000$ 5,132,281$ City of Hercules
Facilities CIP Summary
Police Department Lobbies
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 251
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 137,170$ 337,700$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 474,870$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 137,170$ 337,700$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 474,870$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
City Hall
FY 24-25
ADA Transition Plan $25,000
Carpet/Paint $75,000
Rebuild Entrance Garden / Fountain / Lighting $20,000
Exit Lights $4,200
FY 25-26
Exterior Paint $50,000
ADA Transition $25,000
Carpet/Paint $75,000
Repave Parking Lot $150,000
Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 252
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 22,715$ 19,250$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,965$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 22,715$ 19,250$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,965$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Senior Center
FY 24-25
Fence around inground transformer Transformer $3,000
ADA Steps , Ramps and walkways at Senior Center $15,000 Inspect and update Exit Lights as needed $2,100
FY 25-26
Repair / Replace roof gutters $2,000
Repaint Outside Senor Center $8,000
Repaint inside Senor Center $5,000
Carpet $2,500
Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 253
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

FY 24-25
Seal Starry Cone $15,000
Elastomeric paint could prevent leaking from re-occurring for 2-3 Years.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 254
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 132,638$ 94,160$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 226,798$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 132,638$ 94,160$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 226,798$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Community Swin Center
FY 24-25
Pool Deck slot drain Repair $25,000 Replace electrical Panel Cover $1,200 HVAC Repair/Replacement $79,080 AC compressor Electrical Disconnects $3,500 Filter Flow Meters $3,600
Inspect and update Exit Lights as needed $2,100
FY 25-26
Ada Steps , Ramps and walkways at Senior Center $25,000 Flow Meters $5,400 ADA Striping $3,000 Pool Deck Lighting $18,000
Shower Benches $12,000 UPS To Phone System $1,200
Replace Diving Board $15,000 Pool Filter Media $3,600 Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 255
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 20,460$ 11,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,460$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 20,460$ 11,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31,460$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Teen Center
FY 24-25
ADA Steps , Ramps and walkways at Teen Center $15,000
Bathroom Exhaust Fans $3,600
FY 25-26
Kitchen Range Hood $2,000
Exterior Paint $8,000
Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 256
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 6,820 $ 34,650$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,470$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 6,820 $ 34,650$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 41,470$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Hanna Ranch Childcare Center
FY 24-25
Kitchen Range Hood $2,000
Inspect and update Exit Lights as needed $4,200
FY 25-26
VCT Flooring in Classrooms $25,000
Interior Cabinet Repair and Refresh $6,500
Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 257
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 17,380$ 17,160$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34,540$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 17,380$ 17,160$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34,540$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Lupine Kidz Center
FY 24-25
Restroom Exhaust Fans $5,400
Kitchen Range Hood $2,000
Inspect and update Exit Lights as needed $8,4000
FY 25-26
Slurry Seal Parking Lot $3,500
Restripe Parking Lot $2,500
Inspect and update Fire Alarm as needed $9,600
Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 258
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Faility is owned by school district.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 259
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 260
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 113,905$ 37,620$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 151,525$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 113,905$ 37,620$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 151,525$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Ohlone Community Center
FY 24-25
Redesign and Renovate Bathrooms $56,000 Water Heater $3,500 HVAC Repair and or Replacement $22,950 Inspect and update Exit Lights as needed $2,100 Interior Cabinet Repair and Refresh $6,500 Install Parking lot Lights $10,500 FY 25-26
Exterior Paint $8.,000
ADA Transition $10,000
HVAC Repair and or Replacement $16,200
Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 261
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 262
Project Number: BDP#22-3
Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Police Development Impact Fee - $ 200,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000$ Asset Seizure Fund 57,918$ 117,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 174,918$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total 57,918$ 317,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 374,918$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Police Department Lobbies
This project will remove the decrepit, abandoned modular building in front of City Hall and replace it with police lockers, Including private restrooms and showers, and a workout/training area. The project is on hold until sufficient developer impact fees have been deposited into the fund, which would occur for example when the Bayfront developer pulls permits for The Mint private residential development project.

The Locker room and restrooms used by Police Staff are too small and are in greatly deteriorated condition as they are utilized 24 hours a day/seven days a week. In addition, as our Police staffing has become more diverse with more female officers, space needs to be reallocated to accommodate this shift.

A remodel and upgrade of the existing locker rooms and restrooms was evaluated but is not feasible. The new facilities will provide more space and allow for increased diversity and inclusion.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 263
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The shingles are worn and the roof is due for replacement.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 264
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The Portland cement concrete parking lot has many cracks and the worst areas have been patched with asphalt. A permanent repair is needed.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 265
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

FY 26-27 through FY 33-34
Per Draft Building Assessment
Identified in the Draft Building Assessment 10-Year CIP for health, safety, building longevity, and service to the community.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 266
Project Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 1,000,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ SB1 RMRA - $ 300,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ SB1 RMRA - $ 100,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$ Solid Waste Fund - $ 250,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ General Fund/Capital Reserves $ - $ - $ 750,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 750,000$ SB1 RMRA $ - $ 150,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 400,000$ Measure J Fund - 263 $ - $ - $ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 100,000$ SB1 RMRA $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 250,000$ Measure J Fund - 263 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 100,000$ Unfunded $ - $ - $ 150,000.00 $ 1,150,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,300,000$ Green Infrastructure Project Unfunded $ - $ - $ 250,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 250,000$ SB1 RMRA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 1,750,000$ Measure J Fund - 263 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 700,000$ Unfunded $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000.00 $ 1,150,000.00 8,050,000$ Countywide Smart Signals SB1 RMRA $ - $ 65,100.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 65,100$ Total - $ 1,865,100$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 15,365,100$ Funding Sources:

General Fund/Capital Reserves -$ 1,000,000$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,750,000$ SB1 RMRA - $ 615,100$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 2,865,100$ Measure J Fund - 263 - $ -$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 900,000$ Solid Waste Fund - $ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Unfunded - $ -$ 400,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 9,600,000$ Total - $ 1,865,100$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 15,365,100$ Annual Street Repair Project
City of Hercules
Streets CIP Summary
Falcon Way
Foxboro
Hercules By The Bay
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 267
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:
v
Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 1,000,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000$ SB1 RMRA - $ 300,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000$ Measure J Fund - 263 - $ 100,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000$ Solid Waste Fund - $ 250,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 1,650,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,650,000$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Falcon Way
Repair and resurface Falcon Way from Wren Court to Refugio Valley Road This section of Falcon Way which serves as a collector for the Birds neighborhood is in extremely poor condition and on a steep downgrade with curves.

Design = $100,000
Construction =1,500,000
Contract Project Management Cost = $50,000
Design and construct FY24-25
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 268
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The Foxboro neighborhood, as a whole, has the most degraded streets in Hercules.

Design = $100,000
Construction = $1,100,000
Contract Project Management Cost = $50,000
Design FY24-25
construct FY25-26
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 269
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:
v
Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Hercules By The Bay, as a whole, has the most degraded streets in Hercules excepting the Foxboro neighborhood
Design = $100,000
Construction = $1,500,000
Contract Project Management Cost = $50,000
Design FY25-26
construct FY26-27
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 270
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:
v
Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Unfunded - $ - $ 250,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ - $ 250,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Green Infrastructure Project
Green Infrastructure (GI) refers to the construction and retrofit of storm drainage to reduce runoff volumes, disperse runoff to vegetated areas, harvest and use runoff where feasible, promote infiltration and evapotranspiration, and use bioretention and other natural systems to detain and treat runoff before it reaches our creeks and Bay. Green infrastructure facilities include, but are not limited to, pervious pavement, infiltration basins, and bioretention facilities or “raingardens”.

Provision C.3.j.i of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) requires the City to treat 1.58 acres through Green Infrastructure by June 30, 2027.

FY25/26
$250k
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 271
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:
v
Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection SB1 RMRA - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,750,000$ Measure J Fund - 263 - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 700,000$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,150,000$ 8,050,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 10,500,000$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Annual Street Repair Project
Repair and Resurface City streets at miscellaneous locations.

CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 272
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ SB1 RMRA - $ 65,100$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65,100$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ 65,100$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65,100$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Countywide Smart Signals
This is a part of a County-wide traffic signal improvement and coordination project that will be funded and administered by CCTA through a grant they received and for which Hercules will provide the local match. Signals to be included are along the San Pablo Corridor including: Hercules Av, Sycamore Av, Market Dr, John Muir Parkway, and Victorial Crescent East. The improvements will include video detection, back up batteries, traffic signal synchronization, and controller updates.

CCTA's SHare of cost $502,506
City Match $65,000
Signal improvements will increase traffic efficiencies at each signal and County wide, provide needed updates to the controllers, and the backup batteries will ensure the signals function during power outages.

CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 273
Project Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Sycamore Ave (Upper Truck Main)
DELETED Sewer Fund - 421 -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ -$ Sycamore Ave (Lower Truck Main) Sewer Fund - 421 -$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,100,000$ Promenade Lift Station Sewer Fund - 421 -$ -$ 185,000$ 1,170,450$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,355,450$ Repair/ Replace Sewer Lines under
SR-4 & Along Willow Ave Sewer Fund - 421 -$ -$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 1,080,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,380,000$ Total -$ 1,100,000 $ 385,000$ 1,270,450$ 1,080,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 3,835,450$ City of Hercules
Sewer CIP Summary
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 274
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The wet weather hydraulic modeling that ocuurred over winter indicated this project did not need to be constructed.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 275
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

This section of pipe is 30 feet deep and under the effluent force main and requires special design and installation.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 276
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The relocation is required by the Development Agreement.

Design = $135,000
Construction = $1,170,450
Contract Project Management = $50,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 277
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Repair existing main under SR-4 between Willow and Foxboro and 2 sections of main along Willow near Sycamore.

FY 25-26 Replace 2 Sections of pipe
FY 26-27 Design remaining sections, including under SR-4 FY 26-27 Construction
Prior cleaning/video inspection has determined the pipes are in poor condition and should be repaired. Additional analysis during design will determine extent of repair needed.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 278
Project Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Eastbay Regional Park District WW
Grant Funds $ 25,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 60,000.00$ Prop. 64 Grant Funds - $ 3,500.00$ 190,500.00$ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 194,000.00$ Parks Impact Fee Fund - $ - $ 150,000.00$ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 150,000.00$ Foxboro Playground Unfunded $ - $ - $ 50,000.00 $ 550,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 600,000.00$ Foxboro Basketball Court General Fund/Capital Reserves - $ 145,000.00$ - $ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 145,000.00$ General Fund/Capital Reserves $ 76,450.00 $ 500,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 576,450.00$ Community Development Tax Fund $ - $ 170,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 170,000.00$ Unfunded $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ Refugio Tennis Courts Unfunded $ - $ - $ 55,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 325,000.00$ General Fund/Capital Reserves $ - $ 100,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 450,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 600,000.00$ Unfunded $ - $ - $ 70,000.00 $ 225,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 295,000.00$ Woodfield Basketball Court Unfunded $ - $ - $ 215,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 215,000.00$ Woodfield Tennis Court Unfunded $ - $ - $ - $ 320,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 320,000.00$ Woodfield Replace Restroom Unfunded $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 465,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - 465,000.00$ Woodfield Accessibility Route Unfunded $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,000.00 $ 273,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 328,000.00$ Transportation Impact Fee Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 240,000.00$ Unfunded $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,440,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1,440,000.00$ Slurry Seal the Bay Trail Unfunded $ - $ - $ - $ 132,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 132,000.00$ Bay Trail Wall Repair State Gas Tax Fund - 262 $ - $ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 100,000.00$ Total 101,450$ 1,053,500$ 780,500$ 1,947,000$ 295,000$ 1,713,000$ 465,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,355,450$ Funding Source:

Transportation Impact Fee Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 240,000$ Eastbay Regional Park District WW
Grant Funds 25,000$ 35,000$ - $ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 60,000$ Prop. 64 Grant Funds - $ 3,500$ 190,500$ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 194,000$ General Fund/Capital Reserves 76,450$ 745,000$ 50,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 1,321,450$ Parks Impact Fee Fund - $ - $ 150,000$ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 150,000$ Community Development Tax Fund - $ 170,000$ - $ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 170,000$ State Gas Tax Fund - 262 - $ 100,000$ - $ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 100,000$ Unfunded - $ - $ 390,000$ 1,497,000$ 55,000$ 1,713,000$ 465,000$ - $ - $ - $ -$ 4,120,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ -$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ -$ Total 101,450$ 1,053,500$ 780,500$ 1,947,000$ 295,000$ 1,713,000$ 465,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,355,450$ Sycamore Avenue Bicycle
City of Hercules
Parks CIP Summary
Dredge Refugio Lake
Beechnut Park
Refugio Picnic Area
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 279
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Eastbay Regional Park
District WW Grant Funds 25,000 $ 35,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000$ Prop. 64 Grant Funds - $ 3,500 $ 190,500$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 194,000$ Parks Impact Fee Fund - $ - $ 150,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total 25,000 $ 38,500$ 340,500$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 404,000$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Beechnut Park Improvement Project
Improve Beechnut Park utilitzing grant funding. Improvements are to be determined but could include a half play court with basketball hoop, play structures, picnic area, and turf play area. There is an easement for the overhead electric transmission lines which needs to be modified by PG&E and approved by the CPUC prior to improvements being constructed. This process is expected to occur over FY 24-25 along with the preliminary design, with final design and construction taking place FY 25-26.

Beechnut Park is the most in need of enhancing and has been essentially unimproved for many years.

Council appropriated the grant funding for Beechnut Park in a prior year. This project is included in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Design = $63,500
Construction = $340,500
Contract Project Management = In house, no additional cost CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 280
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Replace the playground equipment and safety surfacing
Both the playground equipment and safety surfacing are in poor condition and need to be replaced.

This project is included in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Design = $25,000
Construction = $550,000
Contract Project Management =$25,000
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 281
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The surfacing is uneven in places and very rough. The hoops do not have the standard setback. This project is included in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Construction = $135,000
Contract Project Management $10,000
Timeline FY 24-25
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 282
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection General Fund/Capital Reserves 76,450 $ 500,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 576,450$ Community Development Tax Fund - $ 170,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 170,000$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total 76,450 $ 670,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 746,450$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Refugio Valley Park Picnic Area & Shade Structure Improvement Project This project will add 2 shade structures over the picnic areas to replace the shade provided by the eucalyptus trees that were removed, renovate the picnic area surfacing and furniture, and provide accessible parking stalls in the parking lot and path of travel to these facilities.

These facilities are in need of a renovation and this project was included in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan
Final Design & Construction Support = $76,450
Construction = $670,000
Contract Project Management = inhouse, no additional cost CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 283
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Unfunded - $ - $ 55,000 $ 270,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 325,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ - $ 55,000 $ 270,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 325,000$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Refugio Tennis Courts Circulation and Safety Improvement Project This project will renovated the circulation system between the parking lot, practice wall, group picnic area, tennis courts, and Turquoise Avenue including replacing the wood railroad tie stairs, steps, and other connecting features with concrete and provide a marked accessible parking spot and accessible route from the parking lot to the tennis courts and gathering areas.

The safety and accessibility enhancements are needed to fully utilize the site and these improvements were included in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Design = $35,000
Construction = $270,000
Contract Project Management = $20,000
Funding - Unfunded
Timeline FY 26-27
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 284
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

If the lake is not dredged soon, it will continue to fill in. This project was listed in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Preliminary Design, Environmental, Permits = $100,000
Final Design = $50,000
Construction = $675,000
Contract Project Management = $70,000
Timeline Preliminary Design/Permits FY 25-26
Final Design & Construction FY 26-27
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 285
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Surfacing and basketball hoops/posts are in very poor shape and this project is listed in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Basketball Court Renovation Project
Construction Cost = $200,000
Contract Project Management $15,000
FY 25-26
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 286
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Court surfacing and appurtenant facilities are in very poor condition and need of renovation. This project is listed in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Construction Cost $300,000
Contract Project Management $20,000
FY 26-27
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 287
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The building and facilities are in extremely poor condition and need of replacement. This project is listed in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Construction Cost $450,000
Contract Project Management $15,000
FY 29-30
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 288
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Accessible route connecting existing park features will enhance the park for all-ability users. This project is listed in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Design = $30,000
Construction Cost = $273,000
Contract Project Management = $25,000
Construction FY27-28
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 289
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

Funding Source: Prior Year FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Transportation Impact Fee Fund - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000$ Unfunded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,440,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,440,000$ Adjustment - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ Total - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000$ 1,440,000$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,680,000$ City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Sycamore Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian East-West Connector Project Install multiuse pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the north side of Sycamore and Class II bicycle facilities on the south side under I-80/BNSF RR to connect the east and west sides of the City.

I-80 divides the City and safety enhancements are needed on Sycamore so bicyclists and pedestrians have connectivity to the ease and west sides of the City. This project is listed in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Design = $160,000
Construction = $1,440,000
Contract Project Management = $80,000
Funding Future Grants
Timeline TBD, dependent upon funding
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 290
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

The trail is highly used and needs regular maintenance to ensure the surfacing is safe and usable. This project is listed in the 5-Year Action Plan of the Parks Master Plan.

Project Cost
Construction Cost = $120,000
Contract Project Management = $12,000
FY 26-27
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 291
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Projected Timing:

Estimated Start Date:

Estimated End Date:

This work is needed to protect the property above the wall and prevent soil from encroaching onto the Bay Trail.

Project Cost
Construction Cost = $100,000
FY 24-25
CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 292
Project Number:

Project Name:

Description:

Justification:

Phase: Funding Source: Prior FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 FY 2029-30 FY 2030-31 FY 2031-32 FY 2032-33 FY 2033-34 Total Budget Carryover Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Env - Reporting & Field
Monitoring Grant Measure J SP - 89,000 89,000 89,000 - - - - - - - 267,000 Env - Conservation Easement Public Benefit Fee Funds - - - - - - - - - - - - Grant Measure J TLC 130,527 - - - - - - - - - - 130,527 Grant WCCTAC STMP Funding 604,503 150,000 150,000 - - - - - - - - 904,503 Grant WCCTAC STMP Funding - - 800,000 - - - - - - - - 800,000 Grant TIRCP - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 - - - - - - - 2,400,000 Grant Garamendi Earmark 850,000 850,000
General Fund - - 670,500 - - - - - - - - 670,500 Unfunded - - 4,250,000 4,250,000 - - - - - - - 8,500,000 General Fund - - 2,329,500 - - - - - - - 2,329,500 Unfunded - - 24,835,319 - - - - - - - 24,835,319 Construction Unfunded - - - 30,162,080 30,162,080 7,540,520 - - - - 67,864,680 Adjustment - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 735,030 1,089,000 7,159,500 32,703,819 30,162,080 30,162,080 7,540,520 - - - - 109,552,029 ROW/Utility Relocations
City of Hercules
Capital Improvement Plan
Fiscal Years 2024-25 through 2033-34
Hercules - The Hub
Design
Environmental mitigation work from previous construction phases is on-going. A funding plan has been created to complete the final design, utility relocations, and construction of the remainder of the Hub. The budget in coming years is dependent upon recieving grants. The City set aside $3M in the General Fund/Capital Reserves as the City's local contribution. Most recently, the City was successful in securing $2.4M of State TIRCP funds towards final design.

Moving forward, a total of $107.7M is needed to complete the infrastructure for a train stop, of which it is proposed $104.7M be funded with grants.

CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGETCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 293
Federal Grants - CIP
Fund Summary - Fund 295
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
Federal Grants - $ 19,885 $ - -
Interest Income - - - -
Miscellaneous Revenues - - - -
- 19,885 - -
Transfers In - - - -
- 19,885 - -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - -
Contractual Services - - - -
Utilities - - - -
Maintenance & Repairs - - - -
Other Expenses - - - -
Cost Allocation - - - -
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) - 492,000 - -
Debt Service - - - -
- 492,000 - -
Transfer Out - - - -
- 492,000 - -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity - $ (472,115) - -
Ending Available Fund Balance - $ - $ - $
This fund accounts for funds expended for Projects funded by federal grants utilized in acquiring or constructing capital assets for the City.

CAPITAL PROJECT FUND CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 294
State and Local Grants - CIP
Fund Summary - Fund 296
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
State/Local Grants - $ - $ 502,506 38,500
Interest Income - - - -
Miscellaneous Revenues - - - -
- - 502,506 38,500
Transfers In - - - -
- - 502,506 38,500
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - -
Contractual Services - - - -
Utilities - - - -
Maintenance & Repairs - - - -
Other Expenses - - - -
Cost Allocation - - - -
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) - 193,541 502,506 38,500 Debt Service - - - -
- 193,541 502,506 38,500
Transfer Out - - - -
- 193,541 502,506 38,500
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity - $ (193,541) - -
Ending Available Fund Balance - $ - $ - $
This fund accounts for funds expended for Projects funded by state and local grants utilized in acquiring or constructing capital assets for the City.

CAPITAL PROJECT FUND CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 295
City - Capital Projects
Fund Summary - Fund 300
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
Fees - $ - - -
Interest Income - - - -
Miscellaneous Revenues 2,000 - - -
2,000 - - -
General Fund Capital Reserves 450,000 500,000 450,000 2,350,823 452,000 500,000 450,000 2,350,823
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - -
Contractual Services - - - 200,000
Utilities - - - -
Maintenance & Repairs - - - -
Other Expenses - - - -
Cost Allocation - - - -
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 45,926 1,288,400 450,000 2,150,823 Debt Service - - - -
45,926 1,288,400 450,000 2,350,823
Transfer Out 310,257 - - -
356,183 1,288,400 450,000 2,350,823
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 95,817 $ (788,400) - -
Ending Available Fund Balance - $ - $ - $
This fund accounts for funds expended for major capital improvement projects associated with City-owned facilities including police, parks, community centers, and city buildings. This fund is funded primarily by General Fund.

CAPITAL PROJECT FUND CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 296

HERCULES HUB
Fund Summary - Fund 354
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
Grant 288,348 $ (46,226)$ 300,000 1,089,000 Interest Income - - - -
Miscellaneous Revenues - - - -
288,348 (46,226) 300,000 1,089,000
Transfers In - - - -
288,348 (46,226) 300,000 1,089,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - -
Contractual Services 181,926 - - -
Utilities - - - -
Maintenance & Repairs - - - -
Other Expenses - - - -
Cost Allocation - - - -
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) - (14,003) 300,000 1,089,000 Debt Service - - - -
181,926 (14,003) 300,000 1,089,000
Transfer Out - General Fund (Loss of Revenue) - 50 - - 181,926 (13,953) 300,000 1,089,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 106,422 $ (32,273)$ - - Ending Available Fund Balance - $ - $ - $
This fund accounts for funds expended for the Hercules Hub (The Hub) Projects. The project is funded by multiple funding sources, including but not limited to, Federal, State, and Local grants. The Hercules Hub (The Hub) will create a regional, state-of-the-art housing and transportation community on the waterfront overlooking the San Pablo Bay. The Hub will connect thousands of housing units with a new train stop along the Capitol Corridor, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, bus routes, carpool options, and ferry service.

CAPITAL PROJECT FUND CITY OF HERCULES FY 2024-25 ANNUAL BUDGET 297
Attachment 7
298
299
300
301
Attachment 9.i
302
X. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Intent
The City of Hercules strives to sustain a desirable life -style by, in part, providing well designed and maintained local streets and public facilities and the services that they support. City economic development planning has shown that maintaining this life -style will require both developing the non- residential sector of the community and continuing to provide high quality public facilities and services. In fact, additional non- residential revenue will provide the revenue to maintain these facilities. This Element integrates performance standards for these facilities into the development review process so that new development helps to maintain and improve the quality of life in Hercules.

This element is also intended to comply with the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP). By adopting and implementing this Element, the City intends to establish a comprehensive, long- range program that will match the demands for multi-modal transportation facilities and services generated by new development with plans, capital improvement programs, and development mitigation programs. The Urban Limit Line is intended to promote compact urban development patterns that promote efficient use of existing and future infrastructure and restrict the extension of infrastructure into areas where urban development is not planned.

B. Background
Measure J: The Measure J GMP , adopted by voters of Contra Costa County in November 2004, is a 25 -year extensio n of the previous Measure C Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program approved by voters in 1988. Both programs include a ½ percent transportation and retail transactions and use tax intended to address existing major regional transportation problems; Measure J extended the countywide sales tax through the year 2034. The Growth Management component is intended to assure that future residential, business, and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. Measure J requires that tax revenues be dedicated to transportation projects in Contra Costa County and to the implementation of a Growth Management Program by all the cities and the County.

Specifically, Measure J provides funding for three categories of transportation projects:

1. Transportation projects identified in Measure J;

2. Paratransit programs; and

3. Transportation projects funded by Local Street Maintenance and Improvement or “Return-to-Source” funds.

Return-to-Source funds are revenues derived from the additional sales tax that are distributed to participating general purpose governments in Contra Costa County. The system of distribution is based on a formula which includes the jurisdiction’s population and the miles of streets and highways within the jurisdiction. To qualify for its share of the 303
Measure J Return-to-Source funds, as well as Transportation for Livable Community Funds from the Transportation Authority, the City of Hercules is required to:

1. Adopt a Growth Management Element as part of the General Plan;

2. Adopt a development mitigation program (adopted by Resolution 09-136 on September 8, 2009, and Resolution 11-132 on November 8, 2011);

3. Provide diverse housing options for people who live and work in Hercules ( refer to Chapter 5 of the City of Hercules Housing Element Update 2009–2014, adopted by Resolution 13-075 on July 9, 2013);

4. Participate in cooperative multi- jurisdictional planni ng ( Hercules continues to be an active participant on the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee);

5. Maintain the adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL) ( adopted by Resolution 09-007 on January 13, 2009);

6. Implement a five -year Capital Improvement Program ( the 5 -year CIP is updated annually); and

7. Adopt a Transportation Systems Management Ordinance or Resolution (adopted by Ordinance 334 on December 9, 1997).

This element satisfies the requirement for the City of Hercules and is consi stent with the standards established by Measure J and the Contra Costa County General Plan.

Economic Development: This Element expands upon the fundamental goals in this General Plan for new development. The Introduction of the General Plan calls for the City to develop as a balanced community, with a mixture of residential, commercial, office, industrial, and public uses. The City’s Economic Development Strategy Plan (adopted in June 1990) points out that the quality of life in Hercules is dependent on the adequate provision of economic opportunities and City services.

At present, achieving this vision of a balanced community means promoting the development of non- residential areas. The City now provides a variety of housing opportunities and residentially-oriented series, but employment and shopping opportunities are severely limited. Therefore, the intent of this Element is not to limit new development, but to manage new development in order to maintain, and enhance, the quality of life in Hercules.

C. Authority
California law authorizes cities and counties to adopt general plan elements in addition to the seven required elements. Section 65303 of the California Government Code states, “The General Plan may include any other elements or address any other subj ects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city.”
304
As discussed above, this Element is included in the General Plan to establish city goals and policies to accommodate new development consistent with traffic service standards and the performance standards for public facilities.

This Element also is consistent with the requirements of Contra Costa’s Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (Measure J), approved by Contra Costa County voters in 2004, and as amended by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

D. Relation to Other Plan Elements
As one of the adopted Elements of the City ’s General Plan, this Element will help achieve the fundamental City goals of providing a desirable quality of life. In addition, the policies in this Element help to define the goals in other Elements by providing quantified standards for public facilities. New development will be evaluated for conformance with these standards, as well as the goals and policies in the other Elements.

E. Organization
The structure of this Element is based on the model element published by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Section II provides the goals, objectives , and policies for the traffic standards. Section III presents the goal s, objectives, and policies for the six other types of public facilities.

II. TRAFFIC SERVICE STANDARDS AND PROGRAMS

A. Introduction
Unlike the preceding Measure C that it replaced, Measure J does not require a qualifying Growth Management Element to include traffic level-of- services (LOS) standards for local streets (those streets not designated as “regional routes”). However, local jurisdictions can elect to maintain performance standards and LOS stan dards for non- regional routes and policies and programs to achieve and maintain those standards. This section presents those standards for the City of Hercules, as implemented under Measure C and continued by the City under Measure J. These standards will allow the City to evaluate the traffic impacts of new development (through project traffic studies) and to verify adequate traffic operations (through annual review of key City intersections).

Traffic service standards apply to signalized intersections bec ause current traffic engineering analysis methods do not provide an estimate of overall LOS for unsignalized intersections.

B. Definitions
Measure C established two separate programs for managing traffic operations : one for “Routes of Regional Significance ” and the other for “ Basic Routes.” Routes of Regional Significance are designated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in consultation with affected cities, the County, and the regional transportation planning committees. In general, these routes connect two or more regions of the county, or connect the county to other counties. As with Measure C, Measure J assigns planning responsibility 305
for Routes of Regional Significance to regional transportation planning committees, including the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) in West County. WCCTAC includes the five West County cities (Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, El Cerrito, and Richmond), plus Contra Costa County, and is responsible for developing an Action Plan (including t raffic service standards and impact mitigation measures) for these routes. Each West County city and the county must participate in WCCTAC and implement the Action Plan in order to remain in compliance with Measure J. CCTA has designated three Routes of Regional Significance in Hercules: I -80, SR 4, and San Pablo Avenue.

Streets not designated as Routes of Regional Significance are considered “Basic Routes,” for which each individual agency has responsibility for traffic operations on these streets in its jurisdiction.

In recognition that different streets serve different functions, LOS standards for Basic Routes vary for different land use types. Two of these types are found in Hercules, and are defined as follows:
• Suburban – Areas designated in the Gener al Plan for low - and medium-density single- family homes, low -density multi- family residences, low -density neighborhood and community-oriented commercial/industrial uses, and other accompanying uses. This land use type encompasses most of the residential areas in Hercules (except where residential development adjoins commercial or industrial development).

• Urban – Areas designated in the General Plan primarily for multi- family housing, with smaller areas designated for high-density single family homes; low to moderate density commercial/industrial uses , and many other accompanying uses. This land use type encompasses the commercial and industrial areas of Hercules.

In addition, segments of Willow Avenue and Sycamore Avenue function more like streets in a “ Major Commercial Center, ” because these street segments serve as the only connection between the east and west sides of the City, and the I-80 on- and off-ramps.

C. Goals
The following goals are adopted for traffic operations in the City of Hercules:

1. The City shall maintain traffic operations on streets that are designated as “ Basic Routes” at the standard described below. These goals replace the Level -of-Service policy in the Circulation Element (page 11, policy 2a).

2. The City shall participate in the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee regarding traffic operations on Routes of Regional Significance and objectives for multi-modal transit serv ice, and shall help meet the goals and multi-modal service standards for these routes by implementing the Action Plans for those routes, as adopted by the City and Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

306

3. New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of improving existing City streets so that compliance with the designated LOS is maintained.

4. New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of improving regional routes so that compliance with the service standard specified in the Action Plan (when adopted) is maintained.

Additional goals regarding the City circulation system are contained in the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element.

D. Traffic Service Standards for Basic Routes (Local Streets)

1. Traffic operations on City Basic Routes shall meet the following standards.

LOS High-D to Low-E (maximum v/c ratio is 0.94)
− Sycamore Avenue (from Willow Avenue to San Pablo Avenue) − Willow Avenue (from I-80 ramps to Sycamore)
LOS High-D – (maximum v/c ratio is 0.89)
− Sycamore Avenue (SR-4 – Willow)
− Refugio Valley Road (Sycamore – Redwood/Falcon)
− Alfred Nobel Drive
− Linus Pauling Drive
− James Watson Drive
− John Muir Parkway
LOS “Low” D – (maximum v/c ratio is 0.84)
− All other Basic Routes (except Routes of Regional Significance) Compliance with these standards shall be determined through preparation of a traffic study for each proposed project that would generate 100 or more peak hour trips (morning or evening). This study would estimate the existing LOS and project the future LOS (seven years after scheduled project occupancy) at all signalized intersections that would be affected by the proposed project. (Arterial streets are shown on the Circulation Plan in the Circulation Element.) The calculation of the future LOS will take into account all existing, approved, and proposed projects (for which entitlement applications are complete when the traffic study is begun) and all existing and programmed street and highway improvements.

At the intersection of Willow Avenue and Sycamore Avenue , a LOS range is established to require careful consideration of the benefits of a project that would cause the LOS to each Low -E. Projects that would not cause an exceedence of LOS High -D would be reviewed through the normal process. Projects that could r esult in Low -E would require approval by the City Council. The City Council could approve such projects if it finds that the project provides substantial benefit to the City or the community through either the creation of substantial jobs, creation of a su bstantial long-term revenue potential to support City services, or the provision of a substantial amount of affordable housing. 307
Projects for which this finding could not be made would not be approved through this process.

2. Objectives and Standards for Regio nal Routes in Hercules will be included in the Action Plan for those routes, and will be incorporated into this Element upon completion and adoption.

3. At intersections on Basic Routes where physical or environmental conditions make further improvements to the intersection infeasible or inappropriate , the City may make a “Finding of Special Circumstances.” Approval of a finding for a particular intersection will include alternative mitigation; projects that will generate traffic that will impact such an intersection shall be required to implement or participate in the alternative mitigation.

E. Implementing Policies and Programs

1. The LOS standards in this Element will be used to evaluate the traffic impacts of new developments, and no application shall be approved which may cause a violation of these standards unless either:

a. Improvements that will mitigate the projected LOS impact are programmed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program; or,
b. A Finding of Special Circumstances has been made for the intersection; or, c. Improvements will be made by a project sponsor as part of a project.

2. The City shall develop and implement a mitigation program to insure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of maintaining adequate operations on the Basic Routes and the Routes of Regional Significance. The revenue provided from Measure J will not be used to replace developer funding that has or would have been committed to any transportation project.

3. As mentioned above, a traffic study shall be performed for any proposed project that may generate 100 or more vehicle trips during the morning or afternoon peak hour.

This traffic study shall be prepared in compliance with the technical guidelines issued by the Contra Cost Transportation Authority, and shall be funded by the project sponsor under the direction of City staff.

4. Mitigation measures and conditions of project approval may include payment of fees to fund improvements on Basic Routes or Routes of Regional Significance. Fees for improvements to Basic Routes shal l be deposited in a separate City Traffic Mitigation Fund. Fees for improvements to a regional route shall be handled in accordance with the Action Plan for the affect regional route.

5. Improvements to Basic Routes shall be programmed through the City ’s Capi tal Improvement Program.
308

6. Improvements to a Route of Regional Significance which are sponsored by the City of Hercules shall also be programmed through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

7. Improvements to a Route of Regional Significance that are not sponsored by the City of Hercules shall be programmed by the sponsoring agency, and may be acknowledged in the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

8. The City shall require new development to incorporate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access where feasible and appropriate, consistent with the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, and the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

9. The City shall continue to participate actively (at both the staff and the policy level) in the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Participation in these agencies shall include, but may not be limited to , full implementation of adopted Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance in order to promote acceptable traffic movement on these routes. In the event that problems/issues cannot be resolved through discussion among the affected parties, the City will participate in CCTA’s conflict resolution process.

10. The City shall report annually regarding compliance wi th the Measure J Growth Management Program, or as may be requested by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

11. The City shall adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program, including the required policies adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Such a program may be jointly implemented in Western Contra Costa County by the five cities and the County through the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee.

12. The City shall assist the Contra Costa Transportation Authority in maintaining its travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed transportation improvements, including those adopted as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program, planned and approved development within the City , and long- range plans relative to the Association of Bay Area Governments projections for households and jobs within the City of Hercules.

III. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES

A. Introduction
The Introduction to the City’s General Plan calls for development of a balanced community. This section of the GME states specific performance standards to define and achieve that “ balance” with regard to capital facilities , which are the physical basis for public services provided by the City, the Rodeo– Hercules Fire Protection District, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (water). These performance standards take into account fiscal constraints and the City’s development review process , with the intent of more fully integrating facility planning into the City’s devel opment review process and ensuring that 309
new development does not exceed the capacity of capital facilities for the cited services without providing funding for improvements to accommodate the new demand.

Improvements or expansions to these facilities will be programmed through the City ’s Capital Improvement Program and budget, or the budgets of the service -providing agencies, as appropriate.

The City has determined performance standards, maintained through capital projects, for the following services:

1. Fire

2. Police

3. Parks

4. Sanitary Facilities (sewer)

5. Water

6. Flood Control
This element also includes a performance standard for stormwater drainage facilities to respond to federal requirements to control pollution in stormwater run-off.

B. Goals
The Introduction to this General Plan states a primary objective of all the General Plan Elements is to “provide a functional and compatible arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, public uses, and open spaces.” The performance standards in this Element are intended to help achieve this goal and the following goals:

1. Provide adequate service capacity in public facilities to support the provision of public services to existing and new development.

2. Develop facilities that meet specific identified needs, while placing stron g emphasis on facilities that can adapt to the needs of changing activities and programs.

3. Coordinate City projects with plans of other agencies that could contribute to the success of projects in Hercules and surrounding areas.

C. Existing Facilities

1. Fire Di strict Service: The Rodeo/Hercules Fire Protection District provides fire, emergency medical , and related services in the City. The District provides primary response in the City from the station at 1680 Refugio Valley Road. This 3- bay station provides garage space for up to six fire engines/trucks. It also provides living and sleeping areas for three -person fire crews operating 24-hours- per-day. Facilities are provided for both male and female fire fighters. Back- up response is provided from the Rodeo station, which includes two equipment bays and living/sleeping accommodations for three-person crews.

The Hercules station was opened in 1991 and also serves are the headquarters for the District. It was designed and built by the City on City -owned land, and paid for with 310
City and developer funds. The station is owned by the City and is leased to the District for $1.00/year.

2. Police: Police service is provided by the Hercules Police Department. The Department operates out of the Hercules City Hall. Existing facilities include investigative and administrative offices, evidence storage, detention area, and related facilities. Police dispatch is provided jointly with the City of Pinole through the Pinole Police Department.

3. Parks: The City maintains one community and ten neighborhood parks , and plans to develop a second community park. The community parks include Refugio Valley Park, and the planned Waterfront Park. Refugio Valley Park encompasses Refugio Lake and surrounding facilities (near the intersection of Refugio Valley Road and Pheasant Drive), the Linear Park along Refugio Creek (on the north side of Refugio Valley Road), and the Community and Swim Center (near the intersection of Refugio Valley Road and Redwood R oad). These facilities encompass a total of 66.26 acres. The planned Waterfront Park is located along San Pablo Bay near the intersection of Railroad Avenue and Santa Fe. At present, it encompasses 7.14 acres, most of which is owned by the State of California and is leased to the East Bay Regional Parks District.

The Land Use Element and Waterfront District Master Plan call for expansion of this park along the Bay front, including Hercules Point.

The ten neighborhood parks dispersed throughout the city encompass about 38 acres.

The City also maintains systems of trails and open space areas, distributed throughout the City. These open space areas encompass a total of approximately 950 acres. The open space areas and the City parks together account for approximately ½ of the total land area within the existing City limits. In addition, the homeowners ’ association for the Refugio Valley Ranch development also owns about 320 acres of permanent open space.

4. Sanitary Facilities (Sewer): Sewer treatment capacity is provided at the Pinole/Hercules Plant, which the City jointly owns with the City of Pinole. In 1983, the City established an assessment district to fund an expansion of the Pinole/Hercules Plant. Through that assessment district, properties in Hercules are allocated approximately 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of treatment capacity. The City of Pinole also owns about 2.0 mgd of capacity, and operates the plant through a contract with the City of Hercules.

The plant provide s secondary treatment, as required by State regulations. Treated effluent is pumped through a force -main and gravity flow system to the site of the Rodeo Sanitary District Treatment Plant , where it is combined with effluent from the Rodeo Treatment Plant, and then discharged through a deep- water outfall into San Pablo Bay.

5. Stormwater Drainage: The City maintains stormwater drainage facilities in the incorporated area. Stormwater is collected and conveyed to existing creek channels or San Pablo Bay. In 2005, the City adopted Ordinance 404 to implement federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) requirements. 311

6. Water: The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) provides water services in the City of Hercules. EBMUD ’s Maloney pressure zone provides services to properties up to an elevation of 200 feet above sea l evel. Water mains are extended, and new connections provided, when properties are developed. Water service above the 200- feet elevation cannot be provided from the Maloney pressure zone. In these areas, water service is generally provided by constructing water reservoirs to serve specific areas.

Sufficient storage capacity is provided to accommodate both normal use and emergency water requirements.

7. Flood Control: Existing City ordinance requires new development to provide on- site flood protection (see Hercules Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 7, “ Flood Damage Prevention”). Flood Hazard areas are defined in this ordinance according to designations on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Map, which is generally based on the 100-year flood.

D. Proposed New Facilities Improvements

1. Park: A new community park (about 10 acres) is planned at Hercules Point as part of development of the Waterfront District. Additional neighborhood parks may be located in new developments, if needed, to serve new residences at those properties.

2. Franklin Canyon include s about 483 acres of open space that the Muir Heritage Land Trust will open to the public. On-site trails will connect to the regional trail system.

3. Sanitary Facilities (Sewer): The City of Hercules shares with the City o f Pinole a wastewater treatment facility located at 11 Tenn ant Avenue in Pinole. The dry weather permitted flows are currently 3.52 mgd (million gallons per day) with a current wet weather flow capacity of approximately 10.3 mgd. The two cities are currently under design to increase the capacity of the plant. The new dry weather flow capacity will be

4.06 mgd, and the wet weather flows capacity will be approximately 20mgd. In addition, the City of Hercules will be rehabilitating approximately one mile of 24 -inch gravity line.

4. Stormwater Drainage: Existing stormwater facilities will be upgraded to meet NPDES requirements. At the Sphere of Influence properties, facilities will be incorporated into construction plans, and will be installed as part of property development.

5. Water: Facilities to provide adequate water serv ice to undeveloped properties in the City and the Sphere of Influence (including mains, service pipes, and reservoirs) will be installed as part of property development. Water service infrastructure will be designed to conform with EBMUD requirements and will be funded by project sponsors.

6. Flood Control: Flooding hazards in the area west of San Pablo Avenue will be resolved by installing flood control improvements along Refugio Creek and Chelsea Wetlands adjacent to Pinole Creek . These improvements will be installed prior to or as part of development of the affected or neighboring properties. On- site retention will be incorporated into development plans, as needed, to avoid causing down-stream flooding 312
during a 100 -year storm. The Chelsea wetland restoration is scheduled to begin in spring of 2014.

E. Performance Standards for Capital Facilities
The following standards for the City of Hercules are intended to reflect the ability of the City or the responsible agency to provide and maintain capital facilities, consistent with other uses of scarce revenues. Changes in the City ’s fiscal situation may require adjusting or reducing these standards in order to maintain a balance between funding for these capital facilities and funding for other facilities and services. The City would consider such revision through an amendment to this Element.

1. Fire District Services: Fire Station(s) shall be located in the City so that five minutes emergency response time may be achieved by first response units for 90% of all emergency calls. Fire stations shall be sized to accommodate a minimum of two (2) engines/trucks and three-person, 24-hour crews.

2. Police: Office and supporting facilities shall be provided in a central headquarters facility. Communication equipment (including repeater stations) shall be provided to allow communication between dispatch and police units throughout the service area.

3. Parks:
• Neighborhood Parks: A minimum of 1. 75 acres of neighborhood parks shall be provided for each 1,000 residents.
• Community Parks: A minimum of 3. 25 acres of community park space shall be provided for each 1,000 residents.
• Open Space: A minimum of 34 acres of open space (public and private combined) shall be provided for each 1,000 residents.

4. Sanitary Facilities (Sewer): Capability to transmit and treat waste water from all residential and non -residential developments to standards set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

5. Stormwater Drainage: Meet federal NPDES requirements for stormwater run-off.

6. Water: Capability to provide potable water supply to all residential and non- residential developments.

7. Flood Control: All new structures shall be located outside the Flood Zones A & B as designated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); or, insure that the finished floor elevation is at least 1 foot above the flood elevation as determined by FEMA. Development of any property shall not significantly increase the flooding potential at downstream areas, or otherwise significantly impact or aggravate a flooding problem at downstream properties. 313
F. Implementing Policies and Programs

1. The City shall review all development plans for conformance with the performance standards in this Element. The City will approve a development application only after making findings that one or more of the following conditions are met:
a. Assuming participation in adopted mitigation programs, performance standards will be maintained following the project occupancy; or
b. Because of the characteristic of the devel opment project, project-specific mitigation measures are needed in order to insure maintenance of standards, and such measures will be required of the project sponsor; or
c. Capital projects in the Capital Improvements Program (or planned by service - providing special districts) will result in maintenance of a performance standards.

2. The City will establish and implement a development mitigation program to insure that new growth is paying its share of the cost associated with the maintenance of these standards. The revenue provided from Measure J will not be used to replace developer funding that has or would have been committed to any transportation project.

3. The City shall require all new development to contribute to or participate in the improvement of the above- mentioned facilities and systems in proportion to the demand generated by project occupants and users.

4. Fees collected pursuant to these policies shall be deposited in special funds, and shall be used to support construction of improvements to the above -mentioned facilities/improvements, as programmed through the City ’s Capital Improvement Program and budget.

5. The City will:
a. Demonstrate reasonable progress in implementation of the adopted Housing Element and subsequent Housing Plan.
b. Consider impacts of land use and development policies on the transportation system.
c. Document how policies that support bicycle and pedestrian access in new development ha ve been incorporated into the City ’s planning and regulatory documents.

6. The City will abide by and use the “ Principles of Agreement” described in Attachment A of Measure J, as amended by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, for the maintenance of and any future amendments to its adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL). 314
City of Hercules
Signs for Measure J-Funded Project Over $250,000 – 2022 and 2023

Willow/Palm Ave Pedestrian Improvement (Fall 2023)

315
City of Hercules
Maintenance of Effort (MoE) - Measure J
Funding Sources FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Measure J 628,325 478,345 441,001 418,300 Gas Tax 577,801 566,712 618,998 664,094 General Fund 204,782 199,906 173,349 280,436 Total LSM Expenditures* 1,410,908 1,244,963 1,233,348 1,362,830 City of Hercules Annual MoE Requirement 338,152 338,152 338,152 338,152 Non-Measure J LSM Expenditures 782,583 766,618 792,347 944,530 * Total LSM (Local Street Maintenance) expenditures include the cost to maintain roadway pavement, traffic signals, street lights, street signs, and sidewalks within the City's right of way. 316
317
318
DISCUS

SION AND/OR ACTION

AGENDA ITEMS

1. 25-022

2. 25-047

3. 25-048
319

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of February 11, 2025
TO: The Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Nanda Gottiparthy, Acting City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2025 Speed Survey and Recommended Speed Limit Changes RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive a report on the 2025 Speed Survey, discuss recommended speed limit changes, and provide direction to staff.

DISCUSSION:

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) generally requires that cities prepare Engineering and Traffic Surveys (i.e. speed surveys) every 5 years for most types of roads in order to allow the continued use of radar for traffic enfor cement of posted speed limits. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) was commissioned in the Fall of 2024 to complete a new speed survey by 2025.

Kimley-Horn performed radar speed surveys along a total of 1 7 street segments in the City to determine if changes to the current posted speed limits are necessary and justified. The speed survey (attached) includes detailed information.

Based on the speed survey results, Kimley-Horn recommended that the speed limits for the 17 street segments remain unchanged from the existing posted speed limits.

Various City speed limits are codified in Section 3-4.1601 “Changed Speed Limits” of the Hercules Municipal Code (attached) and require an amendment adopted by ordinance to change them. Kimley-Horn’s speed survey included 4 new street segments (Nos. 4, 13, 16 & 17) that are not included in the Hercules Municipal Code, as well as 4 existing street segments (Nos. 8, 9-11, 12 & 13) whose speed limits are currently shown inaccurately in 25-022
320

the Code. For that reason, staff is recommending the amendments to Section 3-4.1601 as outlined in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1

STREET SEGMENTS WITH RECOMMENDED MUNI CODE CHANGES

STREET

BETWEEN Municipal
Code (current)
Speed Limit
(MPH)
Posted
Speed Limit
(MPH)
Revision to
Municipal Code
Speed Limit
(MPH)
8 Refugio
Valley Rd.

Falcon
Way-
Redwood
Road
Bonaire
Avenue
40 35 35
9-11 San Pablo
Avenue
City Limit City Limit 45 40 45
12 Sycamore
Avenue
Civic
Drive
Palm/
Sycamore
40 35 40
14 Turquoise Sycamore Cinnabar 30 25 30
4 John Muir
Parkway
Alfred
Noble Dr.

Bayfront
Blvd,
25 25
13 Sycamore
Avenue
Palm Ave. SR-4
Ramps
40 40
16 Willow Ave. Canterbury Palm Ave. 35 35
17 Willow Ave. Palm Ave. Sycamore 35 35

Kimley-Horn’s Traffic Engineer who prepared the speed survey will attend the Council meeting and respond to any questions.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

There will be no financial impact from receiving the report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Speed Limits in Municipal Code
Attachment 3 - 2025 Speed Survey
321

322

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION
NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES ,

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE “ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY FOR SPEED LIMITS FINAL REPORT” PREPARED BY KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED JANUARY 9 TH, 2025, AND PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3 -4.1601 “CHANGED SPEED LIMITS” TO

REFLECT THE SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

WHEREAS, the California Ve hicle Code (CVC) generally requires Engineering and Traffic Surveys (i.e. speed surveys) to be prepared every 5 years to allow for the continued use of radar for traffic enforcement of posted speed limits ; and

WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley -Horn) was commissioned in the Fall of 2024 to complete a new speed survey in 2025; and

WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn performed radar speed surveys along a total of 1 7 street segments in the City to determine if changes to the current posted speed limits are necessary and justified; and

WHEREAS, based on their speed survey results, Kimley -Horn recommended that the speed limits for the 17 street segments remain unchanged from the existing posted speed limits; and

WHEREAS, speed limits are codified in Section 3 -4.1601 “Changed Speed Limits” of the municipal code (attached) and require a new ordinance to change. Kimley-Horn’s speed survey included 4 new street segments (Nos. 4, 13, 16 & 17) that are not included in the municipal code, as well as 4 existing street segments (Nos. 8, 9 -11, 12 & 13) whose speed limits are shown inaccurately in the Code. For that reason, staff is recommending the municipal code changes as outlined in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1

STREET SEGMENTS WITH RECOMMENDED MUNI CODE CHANGES

STREET

BETWEEN CODE
(MPH)

POSTED
(MPH)
8 Refugio
Valley Rd.

Falcon
Way-
Redwood
Road
Bonaire
Avenue
40 35
9-11 San Pablo City Limit City Limit 45 40
323

Avenue
12 Sycamore
Avenue
Civic Drive Palm/
Sycamore
40 35
14 Turquoise Sycamore Cinnabar 30 25
4 John Muir
Parkway
Alfred
Noble Dr.

Bayfront
Blvd,
25 13 Sycamore
Avenue
Palm Ave. SR-4
Ramps
40 16 Willow
Ave.

Canterbury Palm Ave. 35
17 Willow
Ave.

Palm Ave. Sycamore 35

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to accept the recommendations in the “Engineering and Traffic Survey for Speed Limits Final Report” prepared by Kimley-Horn, dated January 9th, 2025.

3. The City Council directs City staff to prepare a new ordinance to change Hercules Municipal Code Section 3-4.1601 “Changed Speed Limits” to reflect the speed limits described in Table 1 of the Recitals above.

4. The activities described above are administrative and organizational only and do not authorize any construction or other actions that could impact the environment and therefore are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the _____ day of ______________ , 2025 by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor

ATTEST:

324

________________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk

325
Article 16. Special Speed Zones
Sec. 3-4.1601 Changed Speed Limits.

When the Director of Public Works has determined upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that speed limits other than those prescribed by State law are necessary for the safe operation of vehicles, the City Council may by ordinance designate those streets or portions of streets where such changed speed limits shall apply. The Director of Public Works shall place and maintain appropriate signs giving notice of such speed limits.

Pursuant to the provisions of this section, changed speed limits are in effect on the following streets:

STREET LOCATION SPEED LIMITS

ALFRED NOBEL DRIVE
John Muir Parkway to
End
35 BAYBERRY STREET
Sycamore to End 40

BONAIRE AVENUE
Mandalay to End 25

CANTERBURY DRIVE
Brighton to Willow 25

CARSON STREET
Coronado to Refugio
Valley
25 CORONADO STREET
Refugio Valley to Carson 30
Carson to End 25

FALCON WAY
Refugio Valley to Sparrow 25

HERCULES AVENUE
Village Parkway to Titan 25
Titan to Fawcett 25
HIGHWAY 4

Page 1 of 3 ends

Hercules City CouncilFebruary 11, 2025

Hercules City Council
February 11, 2025