Hercules City Council
September 9, 2025

◦ Recommendation 4: Upgrade all marked crossings to high-visibility continental crosswalk striping.

The remainder of this memorandum provides more detail on our assumptions and findings on these topics.

Project Description
The Hercules Bayfront Blocks K, L, M, P, and O Project plans to develop 6.7 acres of land into residential housing and live-work units (Appendix A). The Project would consist of 140 townhomes and 28 live-work units across Blocks K, L, M, P, and O. The Project site surrounds the intersection of Bayfront Boulevard and John Muir Parkway.

The Project would provide 342 garage parking spaces and 89 surface parking spaces. Access to the units would be provided through multiple alleys that are accessible via Loop Road, Bayfront Boulevard, or John Muir Parkway.

VMT Assessment
This section presents the effects of the Project on VMT using guidelines, thresholds of significance, and screening criteria for evaluating VMT in CEQA documents as recommended by CCTA.

California Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changed the way transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include elimination of automobile delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. According to SB 743, these changes are intended to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” In December 2018, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) completed an update to the CEQA Guidelines to implement the requirements of SB 743. The Guidelines state that VMT must be the metric used to determine significant transportation impacts. The Guidelines require all lead agencies in California to use VMT-based thresholds of significance in CEQA documents published after July 2020.

The OPR Guidelines recommend developing screening criteria for development projects that meet certain criteria that can readily lead to the conclusion that they would not cause a significant impact on VMT. The OPR Guidelines also recommend evaluating VMT impacts using an efficiency-based version of the metric, such as VMT per resident for residential developments and/or VMT per worker for office or other employment-based developments. 196
John Santry
April 1, 2025

While the City of Hercules has not developed their screening criteria or thresholds of significance for VMT assessment, the CCTA, which supports travel demand modeling for all jurisdictions in the county, has developed VMT screening criteria, analysis methodologies, and thresholds of significance. Therefore, this analysis uses the screening criteria, analysis methodologies, and the thresholds of significance recommended by CCTA as described in the VMT Analysis Methodology for Land Use Projects in Contra Costa Technical Memorandum (CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum, March 2022).

VMT Definitions
Terms used for VMT screening and estimation are defined below:
• Home-based VMT – VMT for trips that begin or end at a residence. Home-based VMT per resident is defined as the total VMT that begins or ends at a residence in a geographic area on a typical weekday divided by the population in that geographic area. • Local Serving Uses – Land uses that are expected to draw users from a local area, typically no more than a 2- to 3-mile radius. The definition of local-serving uses may vary by jurisdiction. These uses may include local-serving public facilities such as a branch library, a police or fire station, neighborhood-based schools, and local-serving retail businesses such as grocery stores, coffee shops or dry cleaners. • Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) – TPAs are areas close to a significant transit mode, defined as one-half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. Public Resources Code, § 21064.3 defines “major transit stop” as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Public Resources Code, § 21155 defines a “high-quality transit corridor” as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

VMT Screening
According to the CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum, screening thresholds can be used to quickly identify projects that can be expected to cause a less than significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum recommended screening thresholds and their applicability to the Project are described below. • Small Projects – Projects that have fewer than 10,000 square feet of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less may be assumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact. Analysis: The Project would have over 20 residential units; therefore, it would not meet this screening threshold.
• Local-Serving Uses – Projects that consist of local-serving uses can be presumed to have a less than significant impact, since they would primarily draw users and customers from 197
John Santry
April 1, 2025

a small geographical area. Analysis: The Project would not meet this screening threshold since it is a residential development, not a local-serving public facility or business. • Located in TPAs – Projects located within a TPA can be presumed to have a less than significant impact, unless the project meets one or more of the following:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the lead agency (if the agency allows but does not require the project to supply a certain amount of parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)); or

4. Results in a net reduction in multifamily housing units.

Analysis: A portion of the development lies within a TPA as defined by the CCTA1 due to the planned train station and ferry terminal in Hercules. However, since the station's construction has not yet been funded, the Project does not currently meet the criteria for being in a TPA.
• Located in Low VMT Areas – Residential projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a less than significant impact. CCTA defines Low VMT areas as follows:
o For housing projects: Cities and unincorporated portions within CCTA’s five subregions that have existing home-based VMT per resident that is 85% or less of the existing County-wide average. Analysis: Based on the data developed by CCTA using the Countywide Travel Demand Model (CCTA Model), Hercules has an existing homebased VMT per resident of 18.5, which is greater than the existing County-wide average home-based VMT per resident of 17.3. Therefore, the Project would not meet this screening threshold.

Since the Project does not meet any of the screening thresholds, a more detailed evaluation of the Project’s VMT impact is required.

Detailed VMT Analysis
The detailed VMT evaluation for the Project is conducted using the CCTA Travel Demand Model.

The CCTA Model is a regional travel demand model that uses socio-economic data and roadway and transit network assumptions to forecast traffic volumes, transit ridership, and VMT using a four-step modeling process that includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment. This process accounts for changes in travel patterns due to future growth and expected changes in the transportation network. The CCTA Model, which encompasses the entire nine-county Bay Area region, with additional zonal and network detail within Contra Costa County, is based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2040 (i.e., 1 https://ccta1.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4135020bb272458f824152fedb78a088 198
John Santry
April 1, 2025

Sustainable Communities Strategy) transportation network and land uses for 2020 and 2040.

Travel models report data by travel analysis zones (TAZ), which are developed by planning agencies to represent geographic areas with similar travel characteristics.

As a regional planning tool, the CCTA Model was developed through an extensive model validation process and is intended to replicate existing vehicular travel behavior. Therefore, it can provide a reasonable estimate of the VMT generated in various geographic areas on a typical weekday, as well as estimate future VMT that reflects planned local and regional land use and transportation system changes.

Since the Project would be a residential project, the home-based VMT per resident metric is used to generate VMT estimates. As recommended in the CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum, the Project is added to the baseline land use database in the Model to estimate the home-based VMT per resident for the Project.

According to the CCTA, the project generated home-based VMT per resident constitutes a significant impact if it exceeds the following significance thresholds, whichever is less stringent: 1) 85% of the home-based VMT per resident in the subject municipality (i.e., City of Hercules), or 2) 85% of the existing County-wide average home-based VMT per resident. Since the existing average home-based VMT per resident is 18.5 for the City of Hercules and 17.3 for Contra Costa County, this analysis uses 85% of the existing City average home-based VMT per resident as the significance threshold.

Table 1 summarizes the 2020 home-based VMT per resident as estimated by the CCTA Model.

The table also compares the home-based VMT per resident for the Project with the City average and 85% of the City average, which is the significance threshold used to determine the significance of the VMT impact.

As shown in Table 1, the 2020 home-based VMT per resident for Project TAZ (10242) is estimated to be 14.6. The 2020 home-based VMT per resident for the Project would be below 85% of the City average (15.8). Thus, the Project impact on VMT is less than significant under CEQA, and no mitigation is required.

Table 1: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary
Geography 2020 Home-Based VMT per
Resident
City Average 18.5
85% of the City Average
(i.e., Significance Threshold) 15.8
Project (TAZ 10242) 14.6
Below Threshold? Yes
Source: CCTA Model, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2024.
199
John Santry
April 1, 2025

Trip Generation
Trip generation is the process of estimating the number of vehicles that would access the Project site. Fehr & Peers estimated the trip generation for the Project using the data and methodology in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The ITE Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation data for various land use types based on observations at comparable sites throughout the country.

New versions of the ITE Trip Generation Manual have been released since the last EIR, leading to changes in the appropriate ITE land use codes and associated trip generation equations used in this report for the Project site and the remaining buildout of the Bayfront area. The Project involves the development of townhouses, corresponding to ITE Land Use Code 220. The neighboring buildout includes office units (ITE Code 710), retail spaces (ITE Code 821), and hotel rooms (ITE Code 310).

Trip internalization reduction was calculated by applying the proportion of internal reduction from the previous EIR to the total trips in this analysis. The values for transit reduction in the previous EIR were applied in this analysis.

Table 2 and Table 3 present the trip generation equations and projected trips for the Project and buildout. The Project would generate 1,112 daily trips, with 58 trips during the AM peak hour and 78 trips during the PM peak hour.

Table 2: ITE Trip Generation Equations
ITE
Code
Land Use
Description Units Daily Trip Equations AM Peak Hour Trip Equations PM Peak Hour Trip
Equations
220 Townhouses
(Low-Rise) DU T = 6.41(X) + 75.31 T = 0.31(X) + 22.85 T = 0.43(X) + 20.55 710 Office KSF Ln(T) = 0.87*Ln(X) + 3.05 Ln(T) = 0.86*Ln(X)+1.16 Ln(T) = 0.83*Ln(X)+1.29 821 Retail KSF T = 67.52*X T = 1.73*X T = 5.19*X
310 Hotel Rooms T = 7.99*X T = 0.50*X - 7.45 T = 0.74*X - 27.89 Source: ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2024. 200
John Santry
April 1, 2025

Table 3: Trip Generation
Land Use Units Quantity Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Townhouses
/Live-Work
Units
(Project)1
DU2 171 1,112 14 44 58 49 29 78
Townhouses
/Live-Work
Units
(Buildout)
DU2 692 4,498 56 177 233 198 116 314
Office KSF3 1824 2,120 270 37 307 52 253 305
Retail KSF3 1444 9,690 154 94 248 365 380 745
Hotel Rooms 207 1,650 54 42 96 64 61 125
Subtotal 19,070 547 394 941 727 839 1,567
Total Internal Reduction
(Walk/Bike Trips) -2,674 0 0 0 -108 -108 -216
Transit Reduction -670 -33 -38 -71 -28 -35 -63
Net New External Project &
Buildout Trips 15,726 514 356 870 592 696 1,288
Notes

1. The analysis was based on 3 additional townhouses in Block K, bringing the total to 39 units in this block.

2. DU = dwelling units

3. KSF = thousand square feet

4. As per the previous EIR, the 134,000 square feet of buildout “flex space” was analyzed as 50% office use and 50% retail use for trip generation purposes and is included in the calculations above.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Traffic Operations Analysis
This section presents the traffic operations analysis completed for the Project. This section starts by describing trip distribution and trip assignment for the Project, describing the methodologies used to evaluate traffic operations, followed by selection of study intersections, summary of traffic operations under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions, summary of Project effects on delay and level of service (LOS) at the study intersections, and recommended improvements.

Trip Distribution, Trip Assignment, and Study Intersection Selection The trip distribution and assignment process estimate how vehicle trips generated by the Project and buildout will be distributed across the roadway network. Trip distribution is determined by applying ratios from the previous 2019 traffic analysis for the M/P and O development sites by 201
John Santry
April 1, 2025

Fehr & Peers and the previous EIR, each specifying the proportion of trips using Bayfront Boulevard versus John Muir Parkway. The ratios in each of these documents are applied to the generated trips for the Project and buildout, respectively. Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the distribution and assignment at the study intersections. Based on this analysis, 94% of AM and PM peak-hour Project trips are expected to use John Muir Parkway, while 6% will use Bayfront Boulevard. Additionally, 55% of AM and 71% of PM peak-hour buildout trips are expected to use John Muir Parkway, while 45% of AM and 29% of PM peak-hour buildout trips will use Bayfront Boulevard.

This analysis evaluates the AM and PM peak hour intersection operations at the following three study intersections under Existing, Existing Plus Project, and Existing Plus Project Plus Buildout conditions:

1. John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard

2. John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Apartments Driveway

3. John Muir Parkway/Tioga Loop
These intersections were selected for analysis because they serve as the primary entrance and exit points for Project trips, making them most susceptible to traffic impacts by the Project.

Analysis Methodology and Tools
Intersection operations are described using the term “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Letter grades range from LOS A, with no congestion and short delay, to LOS F, which represents over-capacity conditions with excessive vehicle delay. The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides a methodology to calculate LOS at intersections based on average vehicle delay. Appendix B describes the various LOS and the corresponding ranges of delays for both signalized and unsignalized intersections based on HCM 2010 methodology. The City of Hercules' General Plan aims to maintain LOS D at intersections along all Basic Routes, including John Muir Parkway and Bayfront Boulevard.

Synchro 11 software is used to estimate delays and the corresponding LOS. Synchro uses the equations provided in the HCM 6th Edition to calculate control delay. These equations use intersection characteristics, such as vehicle and pedestrian volumes, lane geometry, and intersection control, as inputs in estimating control delay.

Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes at both study intersections were collected on Thursday, May 23, 2024.

Appendix C presents the detailed volume data for the study intersections. Figure 3 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour intersection vehicle volumes (7:45 to 8:45 AM and 4:15 to 5:15 PM), lane configurations, and signal controls at the study intersections. Figure 3 also shows the traffic volumes for both the Existing Plus Project and Existing Plus Project Plus Buildout scenarios. 202
John Santry
April 1, 2025

These include the current traffic volumes combined with those generated by the Project alone and the Project plus full buildout. This analysis assumes the John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard intersection becomes all-way stop controlled under the Existing Plus Project and Existing Plus Project Plus Buildout scenarios.

Intersection LOS Analysis
Based on the volumes, intersection controls, and roadway configurations presented on Figure 3, Fehr & Peers calculated the AM and PM peak hour LOS at the study intersections using the methodologies presented above under Existing, Existing Plus Project, and Existing Plus Project Plus Buildout conditions. Table 4 summarizes the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS analysis results. Appendix D provides detailed calculation worksheets.

Table 4: Intersection LOS Summary
# Intersection
Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing No Project Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project
Plus Buildout
Delay
(Seconds)2
LOS2 Delay
(Seconds)2
LOS2 Delay
(Seconds)2
LOS2
1 John Muir
Parkway/Bayfront
Boulevard
All-Way
Stop1
AM 0 A 7 A 10 B
PM 0 A 7 A 22 C
2 John Muir
Parkway/Bayfront
Apartments
Driveway
Side-Street
Stop
AM 2 A 2 A 1 A
PM 1 A 1 A 0 A
3 John Muir
Parkway/Tioga
Loop
Side-Street
Stop
AM 0 A 0 A 0 A
PM 0 A 0 A 0 A
Notes

1. The existing intersection is uncontrolled.

2. Average intersection delay and LOS based on the HCM 6th method.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

As shown in Table 4, the John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard intersection operates at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours under the Existing, Existing Plus Project, and Existing Plus Project Plus Buildout conditions. Thus, the intersection would be consistent with the City’s LOS goal.

The uncontrolled John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard intersection operates at LOS A during both AM and PM peak hours under Existing Conditions. In the Existing Plus Project scenario, it is projected to maintain LOS A during both peak hours. In the Existing Plus Project Plus Buildout scenario, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the AM peak and LOS C during the PM peak.
203
John Santry
April 1, 2025

Recommendations:
 To improve future access and circulation at John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard, it is recommended to convert the intersection to an all-way stop control before Project occupancy. The results for the Existing Plus Project and Existing Plus Project Plus Buildout scenarios, presented in Table 4, show that the intersection maintains LOS C, aligning with the City’s LOS goal.

Site Access and Circulation Analysis
Below is a summary evaluation of access and circulation for all travel modes, comparing the Project’s design as per the site plan (Appendix A) against current standards, best practices, and requirements in the form-based code for the Project area outlined in the Waterfront District Master Plan.

Motor Vehicle Access and Circulation
John Muir Parkway, adjacent to the Project, features a 12-foot travel lane, 6-foot bicycle lane, and 8-foot parallel parking lane in each direction. The distance between the two main intersections providing Project access—John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard and Bayfront Boulevard Apartments Driveway/John Muir Parkway—is 325 feet, below the form-based code’s maximum limit of 400 feet.

Driveways at Blocks N, Q, and R, are 20 feet wide, adhering to the maximum width specified in the form-based code. Ensuring driveways at Blocks K, L, M, P, and O are also 20 feet wide will allow for adequate vehicle entry and exit.

Project alleys are designed to load traffic. The 95th percentile queue is less than one vehicle, indicating that queues will rarely exceed one car. Therefore, the Project alleys will effectively handle anticipated traffic queues.

Recommendations:
 Provide 20 feet of red curb on either side of driveways, allies, and intersections to ensure adequate sight distance between drivers and pedestrians walking nearby.  Provide 20 feet of red curb adjacent to crosswalks to maintain clear sight lines between drivers and pedestrians.
 Convert John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard to an all-way stop-controlled intersection.

Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Sidewalks adjacent to the Project along John Muir Parkway between Bayfront Boulevard and the Bayfront Boulevard Apartments Driveway are primarily 14 feet wide, which aligns with requirements set by the form-based code. Moreover, these dimensions exceed guidelines set by 204
John Santry
April 1, 2025

the Public Right of Way Guidance (PROWAG), which require a minimum width of 4 feet and recommend at least 5 feet for sidewalks.

To the north of the Project site is the Bay Trail, a shared-use pedestrian and bicycle facility situated along the waterfront. The Project currently provides bicycle and pedestrian access to the Bay Trail through a connection north of the John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard intersection.

Recommendations:
 Upon development of the Project, maintain the pedestrian connection between the Project and the Bay Trail to preserve recreational access for residents and visitors.  Upgrade all marked crossings to high-visibility continental crosswalk striping.  Ensure 20 feet of red curb at new intersection, alley, and driveway approaches at intersections on John Muir Parkway, Bayfront Boulevard, and Project roads.

Bicycle Access and Circulation
Existing bicycle facilities in the Project vicinity include a Class II bike lane along John Muir Parkway, which extends east to connect with the bike lane on San Pablo Avenue, and a Class I shared-use path along the Bay Trail. Currently, a connection north of John Muir Parkway/Bayfront Boulevard to the Bay Trail provides access to the path.

A proposed Class I shared-use path in the 2009 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan2 is located near the project area. This path, running alongside Refugio Creek, will connect the existing Class I path along Refugio Valley Road, ending at Sycamore Avenue, to the Bay Trail. The proposed Class I path is also included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) 2023 Bay Trail Gap Closure Implementation Plan3.

Recommendations:
 Upon development of the Project, maintain the bicycle connection between the Project to the Bay Trail to preserve recreational access for residents and visitors.

Transit Access
WestCAT currently provides bus service in the vicinity of the Project, with the nearest stop located at the Hercules Hub Waterfront at Bayfront Boulevard/Sanderling Drive, approximately 700 feet away from the Project site. The stop serves as the terminal for the JX line, which offers direct service to El Cerrito del Norte BART station.
2 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009) (https://ccta.net/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/52ead8bcc30b4.pdf). 3 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) – Bay Trail Gap Closure Implementation Plan Prioritization (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/817c5f3b503848deb44e83d337285fd6/). 205
John Santry
April 1, 2025

The Hercules Hub Waterfront stop is currently missing a sidewalk, presenting a challenge for safe pedestrian access. Future buildout of the area should prioritize the inclusion of a sidewalk and ensure ADA accessibility at the stop to improve transit access and safety for all users.

On-Street and Off-Street Parking
The Project would include 435 parking spaces. The form-based code in the Waterfront District Master Plan requires 1 space per 1,500 square feet for residential use and live/work units under 2,500 square feet. While the exact square footage of townhomes and live/work units in the Project is unspecified in the site plan, assuming that each is 1,500 square feet would align with typical sizes (around 1,500 to 2,500 square feet). Based on these assumptions, the Project is only required to supply 171 parking spaces, resulting in an excess of 264 spaces (435 spaces minus 171 spaces).

Therefore, the Project provides more parking than required per the form-based code.

Parking demand is also estimated using the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6 th Edition, which
provides parking demand estimates for land use types based on nationwide observations. For the Project's townhouses (ITE Land Use Code 215), the weighted average parking demand is 241 spaces, and the 85th percentile demand is 388 spaces, as shown in Table 5.

The Project’s townhouses will provide 2 garage parking spaces per unit, totaling 342 spaces, which meets the average demand but falls short of the 85th percentile. If the project has excess demand, the additional 26 driveway, 14 surface, and 53 on-street spaces can act as overflow parking, increasing the parking supply to 435 total spaces (342 garage plus 26 driveway, 14 surface, and 53 on-street), accommodating the 85th percentile demand of 388 parking spaces.

Table 5: ITE Parking Generation
Statistic
ITE Code 215
Parking Demand
Rate (per unit)
Total Parking
Demand for Project
Weighted Average 1.41 241
85th Percentile 2.27 388
Source: ITE Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 2023.

While the form-based code may be an appropriate application for parking at buildout when the transit services and mix of land uses are provided in the neighborhood, it is unknown when the train station and fully functioning bus transit hub will be operational. Until then, the increased parking – two garage spaces per unit plus driveway, surface, and on-street parking – is necessary to accommodate need per the ITE Parking Generation Manual. In addition, the combined 93 driveway, surface, and on-street parking spaces provide an excellent amenity for visitors to the area’s coast and commercial establishments now and at buildout.

Per the Bayfront Project Parking Operations Agreement, the Owner commits to share 10% of parking spaces in Blocks E, G, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R for public use. The combined 93 206
John Santry
April 1, 2025

driveway, surface, and on-street parking spaces in the Project represent about 20% of the total parking supply provided by the Project, exceeding the parking operations agreement.

Attachments:

Figure 1 – Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 2 – Buildout Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 3 – Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configuration, and Traffic Controls Figure 4 – Recommendations
Appendix A – Project Site Plan
Appendix B – LOS Evaluation Criteria
Appendix C – Intersection Volumes
Appendix D – Intersection LOS worksheets
207
Project Site Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 1

1. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Blvd 2. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Apt Driveway 3. John Muir Pkwy/Tioga Loop Project Trips
0 (0)
6 (18)4 (13)
0 (2)
0 (2)
0 (0) 1 (0)
17 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)
12 (8)
D
D
D
D STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Blvd
14 (44)
0 (0)
40 (28)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
E
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Tioga Loop
10 (31)
4 (13)
29 (20)0 (0)
0 (0)
12 (8)
E
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Apt Driveway
STOP
#
Project Site
Study Intersection
Stop Sign
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes

XX (YY)
1 2
3 AM (PM) Peak Hour
Project Site Trip
Distribution
XX% (YY%)
94% (94%)
6% (6%)
208
Buildout Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 2

1. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Blvd 2. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Apt Driveway 3. John Muir Pkwy/Tioga Loop Project + Buildout Trips
286 (419)
0 (0)
194 (495)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
E
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Tioga Loop
284 (409)
3 (10)
187 (489)0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (6)
E
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Apt Driveway
277 (385)
4 (14)3 (10)
2 (6)
3 (8)
171 (474) 9 (3)
9 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (5)
7 (6)
D
D
D
D
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Blvd
STOP
#

XX (YY)
1 2
3 Project Site
Buildout
Study Intersection
Stop Sign
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Project + Buildout Trip
Distribution
XX% (YY%)
55% (71%)
45% (29%)
209
Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes,
Figure 3
48 (73)
68 (72)

1. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Blvd 2. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Apt Driveway 3. John Muir Pkwy/Tioga Loop Bayfront Blvd
John Muir Pkwy
F
A

1. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Blvd 2. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Apt Driveway 3. John Muir Pkwy/Tioga Loop

1. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Blvd 2. John Muir Pkwy/Bayfront Apt Driveway 3. John Muir Pkwy/Tioga Loop Existing Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus
Project + Buildout
48 (73)
6 (18)4 (13)
0 (2)
0 (2)
68 (72) 1 (0)
17 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (1)
12 (8)
D
D
D
D STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Blvd
48 (70)12 (33)
66 (68)2 (4)
0 (3)
38 (18)
E
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Apt Driveway
3 (2)58 (101)14 (13)
103 (84)1 (2)
2 (2)
24 (14)
HE
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Tioga Loop
3 (2)72 (145)14 (13)
144 (112)1 (2)
2 (2)
24 (14)
HE
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Tioga Loop
3 (2)
345 (520)
14 (13)
297 (579)1 (2)
2 (2)
24 (14)
HE
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Tioga Loop
58 (101)
16 (46)
95 (88)2 (4)
0 (3)
50 (26)
E
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Apt Driveway
332 (479)
15 (43)
253 (557)2 (4)
0 (3)
45 (24)
E
B
G
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Apt Driveway
325 (458)
4 (14)3 (10)
2 (6)
3 (8)
239 (546) 9 (3)
9 (9)
0 (0)
0 (0)
11 (5)
7 (6)
D
D
D
D
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Blvd
STOP
#
Project Site
Buildout
Study Intersection
Stop Sign
AM (PM) Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes

XX (YY)
1 2
3 210
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO © 2025 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023145 | 04-01-25 SP-14 HERCULES WATERFRONT DISTRICT - BLOCK K,L,M,O,P
HERCULES, CA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3RD SUBMITTAL

STREET AND CIRCULATION PLAN
Street Type Hierarchy
Street Name Public /
Private
Street
Hierarchy Street Type in WDMP
Bayfront Boulevard Public Primary Town Center Street I
John Muir Parkway Public Primary John Muir Parkway
Bayfront Loop Public Primary Neighborhood Street II
Shoreline Loop Public Secondary Transit Loop Drive Modified Alley A-J Private N/A Rear Loaded Alley
Frontage Type
Stoop
Landing Dock
Arcade
*

BAYFRONT BLVD

BAYFRONT LOOP
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)

SHORELINE LOOP
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)
ALLEY "C"
ALLLEY "F"
ALLEY "L"
ALLEY "M"
ALLEY "E"

JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
ALLEY "A"
ALLEY "G"
ALLEY "H"
ALLEY "I"
ALLEY "J"
ALLEY "K"
ALLEY "B"
ALLEY "D"

PRIMARY STREET

PRIMARY STREET

PRIMARY STREET

PRIMARY STREET

SECONDARY STREET
*
*
*
*
*
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO © 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023145 | 02-05-25

CONCEPTUAL ILLUSTRATIVE HERCULES, CA
Project Site Plan Recommendations—Blocks K, L, M, P, & O Figure 4
...\Bayfront Buildout Recommendations Figures\OK24-0555.02_3_SitePlanRec-KLMPO Install connection to
Bay Trail from the
project site in
accordance with the
updated Bay Trail
Design Guidelines
and Toolkit,
currently under
development
Install high-visibility
crosswalk striping
Install all-way stop control
with high-visibility
crosswalks at each
intersection leg
Install high-visibility
crosswalk striping at
each intersection leg
General Note:
- Maintain 20' clear at all
intersecting streets
211
Appendix A: Project Site Plan
212
ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANGELES . BAY AREA . SACRAMENTO © 2025 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023145 | 04-01-25 SP-14 HERCULES WATERFRONT DISTRICT - BLOCK K,L,M,O,P
HERCULES, CA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3RD SUBMITTAL

STREET AND CIRCULATION PLAN
Street Type Hierarchy
Street Name Public /
Private
Street
Hierarchy Street Type in WDMP
Bayfront Boulevard Public Primary Town Center Street I
John Muir Parkway Public Primary John Muir Parkway
Bayfront Loop Public Primary Neighborhood Street II
Shoreline Loop Public Secondary Transit Loop Drive Modified Alley A-J Private N/A Rear Loaded Alley
Frontage Type
Stoop
Landing Dock
Arcade
*

BAYFRONT BLVD

BAYFRONT LOOP
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)

SHORELINE LOOP
(PUBLIC R.O.W.)
ALLEY "C"
ALLLEY "F"
ALLEY "L"
ALLEY "M"
ALLEY "E"

JOHN MUIR PARKWAY
ALLEY "A"
ALLEY "G"
ALLEY "H"
ALLEY "I"
ALLEY "J"
ALLEY "K"
ALLEY "B"
ALLEY "D"

PRIMARY STREET

PRIMARY STREET

PRIMARY STREET

PRIMARY STREET

SECONDARY STREET
*
*
*
*
*
213
Appendix B: LOS Evaluation Criteria
214
Appendix B – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Criteria Intersection operations are evaluated using the methods provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). These methods use intersection characteristics to estimate average control delay and then assigns a Level of Service (LOS) value. Control delay is defined as the delay associated with deceleration, stopping, moving up in the queue, and acceleration experienced by drivers at a signalized intersection. Tables A-1 and A-2 describe the various LOS and the corresponding ranges of delays for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

TABLE A-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level
of Service Grade
Average Control Vehicle
Delay (Seconds) Description
A ≤10.0
Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Operations with very low delay, when signal progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green light phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.

B >10.0 and ≤20.0
Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: Generally occurs with good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized.

C >20.0 and ≤35.0
Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays:

Higher delays resulting from fair signal progression and/ or longer cycle lengths. Drivers begin having to wait through more than one red light. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

D >35.0 and ≤55.0
Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays result from unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop. Drivers may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues may develop, but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays.

E >55.0 and ≤80.0
Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. High delays indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection.

F >80.0
Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Occurs with oversaturation when flows exceed the intersection capacity. Represents jammed conditions. Many cycle failures. Queues may block upstream intersections.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. 215
TABLE A-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level
of Service Grade
Average Control Vehicle
Delay (Seconds) Description
A ≤10.0 Little or No Delays
B >10.0 and 15.0 Short Traffic Delays
C >15.0 and 25.0 Average Traffic Delays
D >25.0 and 35.0 Long Traffic Delays
E >35.0 and 50.0 Very Long Traffic Delays
F >50.0 Extreme Traffic Delays with Intersection Capacity Exceeded Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. 216
Appendix C: Intersection Volumes
217
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
5 30
10 13
11 19
22 22
132
0 0 0 5 37 7 15 64
13 27
Peak Hour 0 4 3 0 7 0 0
Count Total 0 8 5 0 13 0 0 1 0 1 11 81
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 5 4
0 0 0 17 0 5
3 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 4 12 0
2 3
8:15 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 4
7 3 3
8:00 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 3
6 7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 19 2
0 3 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 1 1 0 2
0 0 0
HV% - - - - 0% 0% - -
1 0
7:15 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4
West North South
7:00 AM 0 2 1
4 0 2 32 0 0 1 0 0 73 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
13% - - 4% - - - - 6%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 131 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0
0 108 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 6 68 0 0 0 0 206 0
2 10 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 29 104
0 0 0 31 107
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 20 0
19 104
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 10 0
0 10 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 25 108
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 18 0
32 102
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
0 11 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 28 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 21 0
23 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2 5 0
0 9 0 0 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 19 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway John Muir Pkwy Bayfront Blvd Driveway
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 05/23/2024
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB - -
TOTAL 6.5% 0.84
TH RT
WB 11.8% 0.77
NB 4.1% 0.88
Peak Hour: 7:15 AM 8:15 AM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
7 15
37 5
N
Bayfront Blvd
John Muir Pkwy
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Blvd
Driveway Driveway
TEV: 108
PHF: 0.84
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
32 34
75 2
73 0
0 33
74 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 218
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 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 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
1 8:30 AM
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
7 0
Interval
Start
Driveway John Muir Pkwy Bayfront Blvd Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 0 0 13 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
0 0 0 0 6
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 7
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 8
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway John Muir Pkwy Bayfront Blvd Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 219
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
18 17
6 20
20 10
23 17
131
4 0 7 4 32 20 14 70
30 40
Peak Hour 0 3 4 0 7 0 3
Count Total 0 8 7 0 15 0 3 6 2 11 8 53
5:45 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 3 3 8 4 2
0 1 0 12 7 4
3 5:30 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0
1 0 1 1 4 2
7 5
5:15 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
0 2 0 2 0 8
6 2 12
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 2 1 3 0
4 0 2
3 4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 4 7
0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 2 1 0 3
0 0 0
HV% - - - - 0% 0% - -
1 9
4:15 PM 0 1 2 0 3 0 0
0 0 1 1 1 7
West North South
4:00 PM 0 1 0
3 0 5 53 0 0 2 0 0 70 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
6% - - 6% - - - - 5%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 121 0
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0
0 130 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 13 102 0 0 0 0 238 0
3 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 33 130
0 0 0 33 123
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 23 0
29 121
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0
0 12 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 35 114
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 15 0
26 108
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 18 0
2 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 31 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 14 0
22 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 15 0
2 6 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 29 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 11 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway John Muir Pkwy Bayfront Blvd Driveway
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 05/23/2024
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB - -
TOTAL 5.4% 0.93
TH RT
WB 5.2% 0.73
NB 5.6% 0.72
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
0 0
0 0
00 03
1 1
0 2
20 14
32 4
N
Bayfront Blvd
John Muir Pkwy
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Blvd
Driveway Driveway
TEV: 130
PHF: 0.93
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
53 58
75 5
70 0
0 55
72 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 220
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
2 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 1
0 0 0 2 0 1
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 3 1 0 0 0 7
0 4 2 0 11 0
0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 7
1 7
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
6 5:30 PM
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 5
5:15 PM
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
4 5:00 PM
0 1 1 3
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
4:00 PM 1 0
RT
7 0
Interval
Start
Driveway John Muir Pkwy Bayfront Blvd Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 0 0 15 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 7
0 0 0 2 8
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
2 7
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 8
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
3 8
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway John Muir Pkwy Bayfront Blvd Driveway
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 221
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
3 4
5 6
10 7
13 6
54 0 0 1 5 1 4 18 28
10 35
Peak Hr 3 3 0 0 6 1 0
Count Total 5 6 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 1 8 1
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
0 0 2 0 0 11
5 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 2 0 0
1 7
8:15 AM 1 1 0 0 2 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
0 2 3
8:00 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 3
0 7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4
0 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 1
HV% - 0% 3% - - - - -
1 1
7:15 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
West North South
7:00 AM 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 44 10 0 0 0 0 1 39 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- 7% 0% - 0% 0% - 0% 3%
Peak
Hour
All 0 2 94
18 0 0 0 0 2
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0
1 191 0
HV 0 0 3 0 0
Count Total 0 2 172 0 0 0 84 61 0 1 340 0
0 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 40 171
8 0 0 49 188
8:45 AM 0 0 22 0
5 0 0 0 0 1
33 191
8:30 AM 0 0 22 0 0 0 13
0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
9 0 0 49 188
8:15 AM 0 1 11 0
3 0 0 0 0 1
57 169
8:00 AM 0 1 26 0 0 0 9
0 0 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
11 0 1 52 0
7:45 AM 0 0 29 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
30 0
7:30 AM 0 0 28 0 0 0 9
0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
7 0 0 30 0
7:15 AM 0 0 17 0
7:00 AM 0 0 17 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Bayfront Apartments Driveway 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 0.0% 0.85
TOTAL 3.1% 0.84

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 5.6% 0.79
NB - -
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 3.1% 0.83
Date: 05/23/2024
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 1
0 0
0 0
4 18
1 5
N
Bayfront Apartments Driveway
John Muir Pkwy
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Apartments Driveway
John Muir Pkwy
TEV: 191
PHF: 0.84
139 41
13 1
10 44 54
133
0 94
2 96
45 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 222
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Count Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
6 0
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Bayfront Apartments Driveway 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 11 0
Peak Hour 0 0 3 0
Count Total 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
0 0 0 0 5
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 6
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 6
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 6
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Bayfront Apartments Driveway 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 223
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 5
8 9
4 6
6 14
54 0 0 1 6 4 5 11 26
14 20
Peak Hr 4 4 0 1 9 1 0
Count Total 6 7 0 1 14 1 0 0 2 3 10 10
5:45 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 3 7
0 0 1 2 2 1
1 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 4
1 2
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
1 0 4
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 4
2 3 2
3 4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 1 2 0 1 4
0 0 1
HV% - 33% 4% - - - - -
0 0
4:15 PM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 70 33 0 0 0 0 1 17 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- 6% 0% - 0% 6% - 0% 5%
Peak
Hour
All 0 3 71
50 0 0 0 0 1
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0
3 198 0
HV 0 1 3 0 0
Count Total 2 7 141 0 0 0 138 32 0 7 378 0
0 0 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 49 185
7 0 0 47 185
5:45 PM 0 1 21 0
6 0 0 0 0 0
37 189
5:30 PM 0 1 22 0 0 0 11
0 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
2 0 1 52 198
5:15 PM 1 0 16 0
10 0 0 0 0 0
49 193
5:00 PM 0 1 19 0 0 0 19
0 0 19 5 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0
6 0 1 51 0
4:45 PM 0 0 18 0
7 0 0 0 0 0
46 0
4:30 PM 0 1 16 0 0 0 20
0 0 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1
5 0 3 47 0
4:15 PM 0 1 18 0
4:00 PM 1 2 11 0 0 0 21 4 0 0 0 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Bayfront Apartments Driveway 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 4.8% 0.75
TOTAL 4.5% 0.95

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 3.9% 0.89
NB - -
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM 5:15 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 5.4% 0.93
Date: 05/23/2024
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
1 0
0 0
0 0
5 11
4 6
N
Bayfront Apartments Driveway
John Muir Pkwy
John Muir Pkwy
Bayfront Apartments Driveway
John Muir Pkwy
TEV: 198
PHF: 0.95
317 21
37 1
33 70 103
88 0
71 3
74 73
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 224
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Count Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0
0 0 1 0 1 2 3
0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
0 5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
9 0
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Bayfront Apartments Driveway 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 14 0
Peak Hour 0 1 3 0
Count Total 0 1 5 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
0 0 0 1 7
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 7
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 9
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 9
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Bayfront Apartments Driveway 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 225
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 3
4 4
8 7
8 11
47 0 0 1 0 4 7 16 27
14 27
Peak Hr 2 3 0 1 6 1 0
Count Total 6 7 0 1 14 1 0 0 0 1 0 6
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8
0 0 0 0 1 7
4 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 2
2 4
8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
1 2 1
8:00 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 2
0 7:30 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 2
0 4 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 1 0 1 2
0 0 0
HV% - 0% 2% - 0% - - -
1 1
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 2 2 0
0 0 3 0 61 14 0 0 0 0 0 24 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- 5% 0% - - 4% - 0% 3%
Peak
Hour
All 0 1 129
22 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0
2 234 0
HV 0 0 2 0 0
Count Total 0 4 231 0 4 0 103 38 0 4 406 0
0 0 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 50 210
4 0 0 59 234
8:45 AM 0 2 21 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
42 228
8:30 AM 0 1 32 0 1 0 19
1 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
7 0 1 59 220
8:15 AM 0 0 18 0
7 0 0 0 0 0
74 196
8:00 AM 0 0 33 0 0 0 11
1 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1
3 0 1 53 0
7:45 AM 0 0 46 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
34 0
7:30 AM 0 1 36 0 0 0 12
0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
3 0 0 35 0
7:15 AM 0 0 20 0
7:00 AM 0 0 25 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Tioga Loop
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 3.8% 0.65
TOTAL 2.6% 0.79

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 3.8% 0.89
NB - -
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.5% 0.71
Date: 05/23/2024
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
1 0
0 0
0 0
7 16
4 0
N
Tioga Loop
John Muir Pkwy
John Muir Pkwy
Tioga Loop
John Muir Pkwy
TEV: 234
PHF: 0.79
224 26
15 0
14 61 78
156
3 129
1 130
63 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 226
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Count Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
6 0
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Tioga Loop
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 14 0
Peak Hour 0 0 2 0
Count Total 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
0 0 0 1 6
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 7
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 9
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 2 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0
7:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Tioga Loop
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 227
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 4
12 9
8 8
4 16
61 0 0 0 0 5 13 15 33
26 24
Peak Hr 5 3 0 2 10 0 0
Count Total 8 7 0 2 17 1 1 0 0 2 0 11
5:45 PM 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 7 6
0 0 0 3 0 1
2 5:30 PM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 6
3 4
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 3 6
5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 4 4
1 4:30 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3
0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 1 0 2 5
0 0 0
HV% - 0% 6% - 0% - - -
0 0
4:15 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 1 0
0 0 2 0 103 13 0 0 0 0 0 14 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- 3% 0% - - 7% - 50% 5%
Peak
Hour
All 0 2 83
26 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10 0
2 219 0
HV 0 0 5 0 0
Count Total 0 5 170 0 5 0 188 26 0 4 424 0
1 0 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 52 206
7 0 1 54 205
5:45 PM 0 1 23 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
47 206
5:30 PM 0 0 28 0 1 0 16
0 0 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 53 219
5:15 PM 0 0 21 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
51 218
5:00 PM 0 1 18 0 0 0 29
0 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1
3 0 1 55 0
4:45 PM 0 1 18 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
60 0
4:30 PM 0 0 23 0 1 0 26
1 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
2 0 1 52 0
4:15 PM 0 0 24 0
4:00 PM 0 2 15 0 1 0 25 6 0 0 0 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Tioga Loop
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 12.5% 0.57
TOTAL 4.6% 0.91

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 2.5% 0.89
NB - -
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM 5:15 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 5.9% 0.89
Date: 05/23/2024
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
0 0
0 0
0 0
13 15
5 0
N
Tioga Loop
John Muir Pkwy
John Muir Pkwy
Tioga Loop
John Muir Pkwy
TEV: 219
PHF: 0.91
214 16
15 0
13 103 118
99 2
83 2
85 105
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 228
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 2
0 1
5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
10 0
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Tioga Loop
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 17 0
Peak Hour 0 0 5 0
Count Total 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7
0 0 0 3 10
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 9
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 10
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 10
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 2 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
John Muir Pkwy John Muir Pkwy N/A Tioga Loop
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 229
Appendix D: Intersection LOS
Worksheets
230
HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM
2: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Apartments Dwy 06/26/2024
AM 10:57 am 06/17/2024 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 66 48 12 38 0
Future Vol, veh/h 2 66 48 12 38 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 90 100 100 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 66 53 12 38 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 65 0 - 0 129 59
Stage 1 - - - - 59 -
Stage 2 - - - - 70 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1550 - - - 865 1007
Stage 1 - - - - 964 -
Stage 2 - - - - 953 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1550 - - - 864 1007
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 864 -
Stage 1 - - - - 963 -
Stage 2 - - - - 953 -
Approach SE NW SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.4

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWT NWR SEL SETSWLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1550 - 864
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.001 - 0.044
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 7.3 0 9.4
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 0.1
231
HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM
2: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Apartments Dwy 06/26/2024
PM 12:14 pm 06/21/2024 Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 68 70 33 18 3
Future Vol, veh/h 4 68 70 33 18 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 90 100 100 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 68 78 33 18 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 111 0 - 0 171 95
Stage 1 - - - - 95 -
Stage 2 - - - - 76 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1492 - - - 819 962
Stage 1 - - - - 929 -
Stage 2 - - - - 947 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1492 - - - 817 962
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 817 -
Stage 1 - - - - 926 -
Stage 2 - - - - 947 -
Approach SE NW SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 9.4

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWT NWR SEL SETSWLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1492 - 837
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.003 - 0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 7.4 0 9.4
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 0.1
232
HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Project AM
1: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Blvd 06/26/2024
AM 10:57 am 06/17/2024 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.1
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 68 0 17 1 48 6 4 12 2
Future Vol, veh/h 0 68 0 17 1 48 6 4 12 2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 68 0 17 1 48 7 4 12 2
Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach EB SE NW SW
Opposing Approach NW SE
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SE SW EB NW
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NW EB SW EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 6.7 7.2 7.5 7.3

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NWLn1 EBLn1 SELn1 SWLn1
Vol Left, % 83% 0% 0% 86%
Vol Thru, % 10% 0% 94% 0%
Vol Right, % 7% 100% 6% 14%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 58 68 18 14
LT Vol 48 0 0 12
Through Vol 6 0 17 0
RT Vol 4 68 1 2
Lane Flow Rate 59 68 18 14
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.069 0.065 0.02 0.016
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.213 3.442 4.086 4.204
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 851 1034 874 847
Service Time 2.234 1.486 2.119 2.25
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 0.066 0.021 0.017
HCM Control Delay 7.5 6.7 7.2 7.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.2 0.1 0
233
HCM 6th TWSC Existing + Project AM
2: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Apartments Dwy 06/26/2024
AM 10:57 am 06/17/2024 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 95 58 16 50 0
Future Vol, veh/h 2 95 58 16 50 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 90 100 100 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 95 64 16 50 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 80 0 - 0 171 72
Stage 1 - - - - 72 -
Stage 2 - - - - 99 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1531 - - - 819 990
Stage 1 - - - - 951 -
Stage 2 - - - - 925 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1531 - - - 818 990
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 818 -
Stage 1 - - - - 950 -
Stage 2 - - - - 925 -
Approach SE NW SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.7

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWT NWR SEL SETSWLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1531 - 818
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.001 - 0.061
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 7.4 0 9.7
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 0.2
234
HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Project PM
1: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Blvd 06/26/2024
PM 12:14 pm 06/21/2024 Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 72 0 12 0 73 18 13 8 1
Future Vol, veh/h 2 72 0 12 0 73 18 13 8 1
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 72 0 12 0 73 20 13 8 1
Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach SE NW SW
Opposing Approach NW SE
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SW EB NW
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB SW EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.8 7.4

HCM LOS A A A

Lane NWLn1 EBLn1 SELn1 SWLn1
Vol Left, % 70% 5% 0% 89%
Vol Thru, % 17% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 12% 95% 0% 11%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 104 76 12 9
LT Vol 73 4 0 8
Through Vol 18 0 12 0
RT Vol 13 72 0 1
Lane Flow Rate 106 76 12 9
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.122 0.076 0.014 0.011
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.158 3.587 4.164 4.31
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 863 987 855 822
Service Time 2.182 1.65 2.21 2.379
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.077 0.014 0.011
HCM Control Delay 7.8 6.9 7.3 7.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.2 0 0
235
HCM 6th TWSC Existing + Project PM
2: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Apartments Dwy 06/26/2024
PM 12:14 pm 06/21/2024 Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 88 101 46 26 3
Future Vol, veh/h 4 88 101 46 26 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 90 100 100 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 88 112 46 26 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 158 0 - 0 231 135
Stage 1 - - - - 135 -
Stage 2 - - - - 96 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1434 - - - 757 914
Stage 1 - - - - 891 -
Stage 2 - - - - 928 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1434 - - - 755 914
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 755 -
Stage 1 - - - - 888 -
Stage 2 - - - - 928 -
Approach SE NW SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 9.9

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWT NWR SEL SETSWLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1434 - 770
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.003 - 0.038
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 7.5 0 9.9
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 0.1
236
HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Buildout AM
1: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Blvd 06/26/2024
AM 10:57 am 06/17/2024 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 239 0 9 9 325 4 3 7 11
Future Vol, veh/h 3 239 0 9 9 325 4 3 7 11
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 239 0 9 9 325 4 3 7 11
Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach SE NW SW
Opposing Approach NW SE
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SW EB NW
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB SW EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.8 11.4 8

HCM LOS A B A
Lane NWLn1 EBLn1 SELn1 SWLn1
Vol Left, % 98% 2% 0% 39%
Vol Thru, % 1% 0% 50% 0%
Vol Right, % 1% 98% 50% 61%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 332 244 18 18
LT Vol 325 5 0 7
Through Vol 4 0 9 0
RT Vol 3 239 9 11
Lane Flow Rate 332 244 18 18
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.435 0.287 0.023 0.024
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.713 4.237 4.607 4.789
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 761 847 773 745
Service Time 2.753 2.262 2.66 2.832
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.436 0.288 0.023 0.024
HCM Control Delay 11.4 9 7.8 8
HCM Lane LOS B A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.2 1.2 0.1 0.1
237
HCM 6th TWSC Existing + Buildout AM
2: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Apartments Dwy 06/26/2024
AM 10:57 am 06/17/2024 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 253 332 15 45 0
Future Vol, veh/h 2 253 332 15 45 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 90 100 100 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 2 253 369 15 45 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 384 0 - 0 634 377
Stage 1 - - - - 377 -
Stage 2 - - - - 257 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 - - - 443 670
Stage 1 - - - - 694 -
Stage 2 - - - - 786 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 - - - 442 670
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 442 -
Stage 1 - - - - 693 -
Stage 2 - - - - 786 -
Approach SE NW SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 14.1

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWT NWR SEL SETSWLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1186 - 442
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.002 - 0.102
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8 0 14.1
HCM Lane LOS - - A A B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 0.3
238
HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Buildout PM
1: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Blvd 06/26/2024
PM 12:14 pm 06/21/2024 Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 22.3
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 546 0 9 3 458 14 10 6 5
Future Vol, veh/h 8 546 0 9 3 458 14 10 6 5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 546 0 9 3 458 16 10 6 5
Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Approach SE NW SW
Opposing Approach NW SE
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SW EB NW
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB SW EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 9.3 23.9 9.3

HCM LOS A C A
Lane NWLn1 EBLn1 SELn1 SWLn1
Vol Left, % 95% 3% 0% 55%
Vol Thru, % 3% 0% 75% 0%
Vol Right, % 2% 97% 25% 45%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 482 560 12 11
LT Vol 458 14 0 6
Through Vol 14 0 9 0
RT Vol 10 546 3 5
Lane Flow Rate 484 561 12 11
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.754 0.759 0.02 0.019
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.61 4.876 6.114 6.096
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 643 746 582 583
Service Time 3.653 2.876 4.191 4.174
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.753 0.752 0.021 0.019
HCM Control Delay 23.9 21.5 9.3 9.3
HCM Lane LOS C C A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 6.8 7.1 0.1 0.1
239
HCM 6th TWSC Existing + Buildout PM
2: John Muir Pkwy & Bayfront Apartments Dwy 06/26/2024
PM 12:14 pm 06/21/2024 Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 557 479 43 24 3
Future Vol, veh/h 4 557 479 43 24 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 100 100 90 100 100 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 557 532 43 24 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 575 0 - 0 1119 554
Stage 1 - - - - 554 -
Stage 2 - - - - 565 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 229 532
Stage 1 - - - - 575 -
Stage 2 - - - - 569 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1008 - - - 228 532
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 228 -
Stage 1 - - - - 572 -
Stage 2 - - - - 569 -
Approach SE NW SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 21.5

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NWT NWR SEL SETSWLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1008 - 245
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.004 - 0.112
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.6 0 21.5
HCM Lane LOS - - A A C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - 0.4
240

HERCULES PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 25-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERCULES

RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRP) #24-02, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (VTM) #24-01 AND A COMBINED INITIAL AND FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) #24-01 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED ON BAYFRONT BLOCKS K-L-M-O-P, CONSISTING OF 168 ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS (INCLUDING 10 AFFORDABLE UNITS) LOCATED WITHIN PARCELS 19, 21, 23, 27, AND 28 OF THE HERCULES WATERFRONT VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, ON PORTIONS OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 404-730-012-6, 404-730-003-5, 404-730-008-4, 404-730-009-2, AND 404-730-006-8 WHEREAS, in 2000 the City adopted the “Waterfront District Master Plan” (WDMP) and amended it in September 2001. In 2008 the “Waterfront Now Initiative” was presented to the City Council, and the Council adopted without alteration the language of the ballot initiative by adding “Section 4” to the original WDMP (often called the Bayfront Waterfront Plan, or the Initiative Plan, or in this approval the WDMP) via Initiative Ordinance 440 on July 22, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Hercules Bayfront Draft and Final EIR documents (collectively, the “EIR”) were certified by the City Council through Resolution No. 11-140 on December 13, 2011. The EIR evaluated development of the WDMP area in accordance with a development proposal known as the Bayfront Project. The Bayfront Project divided the WDMP area into three Sub-Areas, referred to as The Bowl (containing Blocks A, B, and C), Bayfront Boulevard (containing Blocks D–J), and The Village (containing Blocks K– R), which together allow for a total of 1,392 residential units, 115,000 square feet of nonflex office space, 90,000 square feet of non-flex retail space, and an additional 134,000 square feet of flex space (which can convert to 134 units of residential use); and WHEREAS, further amendments to the Initiative, General Plan Amendment, updates to exhibits, and refinements to the WDMP document were adopted through Council Ordinance 464 on January 10, 2012, to conform the WDMP to the EIR documents; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2012, the City Council approved a Vesting Tentative Map, a Vesting Development Agreement, and an Implementing Development Agreement (which was recorded June 15, 2012) covering the entire Bayfront area of the Waterfront District and establishing various rights and obligations between the owner and the City regarding development of the area; and
WHEREAS, the last minor amendment to the WDMP was initiated by the City and approved by the owner by a Council action taken on May 10, 2016, though Ordinance 494 to include the already developed Railroad Avenue Live–Work block for the sole purpose of using the T5-MST land use table to simplify the implementation of use permits; and
Docusign Envelope ID: E72BFB3D-FDA0-4A40-9FC3-6C80D2184E64 241
WHEREAS, Exhibit B to this resolution contains Exhibit L from the Implementing Development Agreement which contains a complete list of Conditions of Approval that are applicable to the larger Bayfront Project that the developer is responsible for; and WHEREAS, Exhibit G of the Implementing Development Agreement (which is not contained herein) shows the City Public Improvements required to be carried out by the City as part of the larger Bayfront Project, with many of the public improvements already completed by the City; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2024, Hercules Land Partners LP (applicant) submitted to the City a Senate Bill (SB) 330 preliminary application pursuant to California Government Code Section 65941.1 for the proposed project located on Blocks K-L-M-OP, including 28 live-work units and 143 multifamily residential units, including 10 lowincome units; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2024, Hercules Land Partners LP (applicant) submitted to the City the following application concurrently and collectively related to the proposed project located on Blocks K, L, M, O, and P:
• Design Review Permit (DRP) #24-02 in accordance with Section 13-42.200 of the Hercules Municipal Code and the Implementing Development Agreement; and • Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) #24-01 to vest current land use regulations, realign the Shoreline Loop, and subdivide the existing two parcels (7.04 acres) into a condominium project; and
• Initial and Final Planned Development Plan (PDP) #24-01 per the Implementing Development Agreement for all developments exceeding five acres; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within the Transit Village (a.k.a., “The Village”) planning subarea of the larger Hercules Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP), which consists of eight city blocks (Blocks K, L, M, N, O, P, Q & R); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff reviewed the EIR to determine whether the development proposal for Blocks KL-M-O-P are within the scope of the development program evaluated in the EIR, and staff’s analysis and findings are contained in the attached Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 21, 2025 to consider Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Planned Development Plan of the proposed project on Blocks K-L-M-O-P, and after considering input from City staff, the applicant, and the public, the Planning Commission reviewed the project plans, evaluated the project’s conformance with various City codes, and considered the certified EIR and the required findings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission in reviewing this material finds that the proposed project will not result in any new, significant impacts that were not examined in the 2011 Certified EIR, and that none of the circumstances that would require preparation of an addendum or a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA exists; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 21, 2025, incorporated herein by reference, describes and analyzes the subject application for DRP Docusign Envelope ID: E72BFB3D-FDA0-4A40-9FC3-6C80D2184E64 242
#24-02, VTM #24-01 and PDP #24-01, and the Planning Commission concurs with staff’s analysis and findings regarding how the project meets the required Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Planned Development Plan Findings that are contained in the attached Exhibit E; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received oral and written comments from the general public, property owners, and interested parties, and has thoroughly considered all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony, and used its independent judgment before making a decision or taking any action on the Project; and WHEREAS, during the July 21, 2025 public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed concerns regarding building and property maintenance responsibilities, street intersection geometry and street lighting;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission after due study, deliberation, and public hearing for the proposed Design Review Permit (DRP) #24- 02, Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) #24-01, Initial/Final Planned Development Plan (PDP) #24-01, and finds and determines that:
• The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution by this reference.
• After due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the Planning Commission makes specific findings and determinations below which are supported by facts stated in the Planning Commission staff report of July 21, 2025, which are incorporated herein by reference, and the attached Exhibit E.
• The proposal would not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, and public interest of the City so long as the applicant adheres to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A and those listed in Exhibit B from previous Project Approvals and the attached approved drawings.
• The proposal is internally consistent and does not conflict with the purposes, regulations, and required findings of the Zoning Ordinance so long as the applicant adheres to the Conditions of Approval contained herein as Exhibit A and B from previous Project Approvals and the attached approved drawings in Exhibit C. • The Planning Commission finds that all elements, requirements, and below conditions for the 168-unit townhouse development proposed on Blocks K-L-M-OP within the Bayfront “Village” subarea are a reasonable and appropriate manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work or visit or live in this development based on the Findings with Facts attached in Exhibit E supporting the Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Plan related Findings, as well as information contained in the July 21, 2025, Planning Commission staff report.
• The Planning Commission concerns expressed during the public hearing and related to building and property maintenance responsibilities, street intersection geometry and street lighting shall be forwarded for City Council consideration in the associated staff report.

Docusign Envelope ID: E72BFB3D-FDA0-4A40-9FC3-6C80D2184E64 243
• General underground utility considerations, including the location, type, and size, are not included in this approval. A review of exact locations, type, and size will be performed by Engineering as part of the final project design. • Applicant agrees with the necessity of, and accepts all elements, requirements, and below conditions for the 168-unit townhouse development proposed on Blocks K-L-M-O-P (of which 10 units will be affordable) as reasonable and appropriate to preserve, protect, provide for, and foster the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who work or visit or live in this development in particular, based on the Findings with Facts attached in Exhibit E supporting the Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and Planned Development Plan related Findings, as well as information contained in the July 21, 2025, Planning Commission staff report.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds the following regarding the proposed Design Review Permit #DRP 24-02 in accordance with Chapter 13- 42 of the Hercules Municipal Code zoning section that:

1. The approval of the design review plan complies with all provisions of Chapter 42, Design Review section of the City of Hercules Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 13-42), as well as other pertinent provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and applicable zoning and land use regulations, including, but not limited to, the Hercules General Plan as amended and any specific plan, such as the Hercules Waterfront District Master Plan (HWDMP).

2. The approval of the design review plan is in the best interest 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, heights, 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 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 ensure the compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings.

5. General preliminary landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials at the time of planting and after a fiveyear growth period, provision for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to ensure visual relief, to complement buildings and structures, and to provide an attractive environment for the enjoyment of the public.

6. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves DRP #24- 02 for the Project Site known as Blocks K-L-M-O-P subject to Conditions of Approval contained herein in Exhibit A.

Docusign Envelope ID: E72BFB3D-FDA0-4A40-9FC3-6C80D2184E64 244
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds the following regarding the proposed Vesting Tentative Map VTM #24-01 in accordance with Title 10, Chapter 2 (Subdivisions) of the Hercules Municipal Code:

1. VTM #24-01 is consistent with the General Plan;

2. VTM #24-01 is consistent with the PC-R zoning of the property, which allows the proposed uses;

3. VTM #24-01 is consistent with the Waterfront District Master Plan;

4. VTM #24-01 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances in Title 10, Chapter 2 (Subdivisions) of the Hercules Municipal Code;

5. The design and improvements of VTM #24-01 are consistent as they relate to the Project Site;

6. VTM #24-01 is consistent with the PDP #24-01 for the Block K-L-M-O-P project and therefore consistent with the Zoning Ordinance;

7. Project design, architecture, and concept are suitable for the Project Site created by VTM #24-01 and therefore, the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed;

8. The 2011 Certified EIR Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring program are appropriate for addressing any potential environmental impacts identified;

9. The design of VTM #24-01, will not conflict with easements or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; and

10.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve VTM #24-01 for the Project Site known as Blocks K-L-M-O-P subject to Conditions of Approval contained herein in Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds the following regarding the proposed Initial/Final Planned Development Plan (PDP) #24-01 in accordance with Section 13- 48 of the Hercules Municipal Code Zoning Section as it relates to approval of a Planned Development Plan:

1. The proposed use and densities are consistent with the General Plan.

2. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the proposed project exceeding those anticipated in the Initial Study and updated Traffic Analysis contained therein.

3. That any exceptions from standard ordinance requirements are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated in the approved PDP #24-01 drawings Docusign Envelope ID: E72BFB3D-FDA0-4A40-9FC3-6C80D2184E64 245
and approved exceptions regarding lot size, lot width, lot depth, and corner side yards.

4. The area surrounding the Project Site can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development so long as the conditions of approval are met.

5. The existing and proposed utility services are adequate for development densities proposed and will comply with the improvement standards required by VTM #24-01.

6. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves PDP #24-01 for the Project Site known as Blocks K-L-M-O-P subject to Conditions of Approval contained herein in Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds and the Applicant agrees (as stated in the public hearing) with the necessity of and accepts all elements, requirements and conditions of the DRP #24-02 , VTM #24-01, and PDP #24- 01, and the above referenced for the Blocks K-L-M-O-P project as being a reasonable manner of preserving, protecting, providing for, and fostering the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry in general and the persons who live in this development in particular.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if there is any conflict between the attached Approved Blocks K-L-M-O-P Development Plans contained in Exhibits C and/or the conditions of approval in Exhibit A, the Community Development Director shall reasonably resolve the issues based on the general intent discussed in the staff reports, environmental documents, and City policy.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Hercules held on the 21st day of July 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Morrison, Jimenez, Rubio, Most-Walker and Schaufenbil NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Hector Rubio, Chair
ATTEST:

Timothy Rood, AICP
Community Development Director
Docusign Envelope ID: E72BFB3D-FDA0-4A40-9FC3-6C80D2184E64 246
Exhibits:

Exhibit A – Hercules Bayfront Blocks K-L-M-O-P Project Conditions of Approval Exhibit B – Applicable Conditions of Approval from the Implementing Development Agreement (IDA) for the Hercules Bayfront Project (Exhibit L) Exhibit C – Development Plans (includes General Information, Architectural, Civil, and Landscape Plans)
Exhibit D – CEQA Findings Concerning the Approval of the Bayfront Blocks K-L-M-O-P Project
Exhibit E – Findings with Facts
Exhibit F – Bayfront Blocks K-L-M-O-P - Traffic Report
Docusign Envelope ID: E72BFB3D-FDA0-4A40-9FC3-6C80D2184E64 247
Design Review Permit 24-02
Vesting Tentative Map 24-01
Planned Development Plan 24-01
Bayfront Blocks K-L-M-O-P

CI TY OF HERCULES CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 9 , 2025
248
Recommended Action

1. Receive staff presentation

2. Open public hearing

3. Receive applicant presentation

4. Accept public comments

5. Close hearing and discuss

6. Adopt Resolution Approving KLMOP
Development Proposal
249
Project Overview
• 168 residential units (141 townhomes + 27 live/work)
• 10 affordable units
• 25 three-story buildings
• Vesting Tentative Map realigns Shoreline Loop
• Includes civic spaces and infrastructure
250
Project Site
Location
• Bayfront Blocks K-LM-O-P
• Waterfront District
Master Plan (WDMP)
• Transit Village SubArea
251
Background & Prior Approvals
2019
Supersedes approved DRP #19-01
(2019) – 476 apartment units
Preliminary Application submitted
17 Apr. 2024
8 July 2024
Formal Applications submitted
252
State Housing Law Context

SUBJECT TO HOUSING

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HAA)

SUBJECT TO HOUSING CRISIS
ACT OF 2019 (SB 330)

CITY REVIEW LIMITED TO

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
253
Regulatory
Context
General Plan: Planned
Commercial Residential
Mixed Use
Zoning: PC-R Planned
Commercial Residential
Mixed-Use District
254
Overlay Districts
• Waterfront District Master Plan
(WDMP)
• Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay
District
255
WDMP Regulating Zones
• Block K: T5 – MST
• Block L: T5 – MST
• Block M: T5 – VN
• Block O: T5 – MST & T5 – VN
• Block P: T5 – VN
The shaded area represents additional permitted uses
256
Objective Standards within WDMP
➢Building Placement
(Build-to Line)
➢Setbacks
➢Building Height (in
stories)
➢Lot Size
➢Frontage Types
➢Encroachment allowance
➢Parking minimum, location,
and standards
➢Allowed architectural styles
by regulating zone
➢Street and circulation
standards
➢Civic space standards
257
Affordable Housing
• 10 affordable units (5%) per Development Agreement
• Meets requirement: 25 affordable units within first 500 Bayfront homes
• Affordable units dispersed by type and location
258
Private Alleys
Interior Block Alleys are:
• Are private
• Not WDMP streets
• Not subject to the WDMP street standards
• Not subject to WDMP frontage requirements
259
• Private Alleys in
Yellow
• Public Streets in
Blue
260
Shoreline
Loop
Shoreline Loop realigned meets
street and access standards
261
Civic
Spaces
Neighborhood Square
(5,600 sf), Paseo (4,200 sf),
Neighborhood Park (12,800
sf)
Public access easements for
all civic spaces
Additional garden paths and
Bay Trail overlook deck
262
Block K
263
Blocks
L & M
264
Blocks
O & P
265
Required Findings
• Consistent with the General Plan
• Compliance with objective standards of the Hercules
Municipal Code, WDMP, and Subdivision Map Act
• Findings detailed in the draft Resolution and Exhibit E 266
Environmental Review
• Relies on 2011 Certified EIR
• Within scope of prior CEQA analysis
• No new impacts identified
• Mitigation measures from MMRP apply
267
Planning Commission
Recommendation
July 21, 2025, Public Hearing
➢ Recommended Approval to City Council

PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERN COA RESOLUTION
Color Palette COA #5
Street Lighting COA #20
Bayfront Loop Geometry COA #16
Building Brick Maintenance COA #21
Fixture Repair Due to Ground Settlement COA #21
Stucco Maintenance to Repair Cracks COA #21
Pet Waste Management Plan COA #21
268
Recommendation
City Council Approval of:
• Design Review Permit 24-02
• Vesting Tentative Map 24-01
• Initial/Final Planned Development Plan 24-01
269
Hercules Bayfront Development
– Blocks K,L,M,P,O
270
Project Information
• Part of overall approved Hercules Bayfront Master Plan • 168 Townhomes
• 10 (6%) are set aside for Low AMI qualified buyers
• 9.34 Acres; 4.46 Acres net
• Proposed density: 25.5 DUA
• 1.1 acres of public and community open space
• June 6, 2025, project was found to align with the applicable city objective standards
271
K
L
O
M&P
Subject Sites
272
TH
TH TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
BtoB
BtoB
BtoB
BtoB
BtoB
BtoB
BtoB
BtoB
BtoB
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
273
Three varying façade
designs
• Per design requirements
• Street and common area
activation
Loading Dock
274
Live/Work Units
Waterfront Warehouse
275
Live/Work Units
Spanish Revival
276
Back-to-Back Units
Gold Rush
277
Back-to-Back Units
Waterfront Warehouse
278
Row Townhome Units
Waterfront Warehouse
279
Row Townhome Units
Spanish Revival
280
Loading Dock
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
SB 330
This project is what is commonly known as a “SB 330” Project. This means it qualifies for processing and protections under the Housing Accountability Act (or “HAA”), as bolstered by the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (also known as “SB 330”). 289
SB 330
As part of adopting these laws, the California Legislature has declared that the State of California is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply. In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita.

The Legislature has also declared that California is in a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.
290
SB 330
Because this is a housing development project under the HAA and SB 330, it cannot legally be denied by the City unless the City can make written findings, that must be supported by a preponderance of evidence in the administrative record for the project, that the project (1) would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, and (2) that no feasible alternative or mitigation exists to avoid the adverse impacts to public health and safety. A specific adverse impact is defined as “A significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”
291
SB 330
It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects that contribute to meeting the needs discussed the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Crisis Act without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.
292
Q&A
Thank you for your time today
293

CONSENT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEMS

1. 25-229

2. 25-228

3. 25-226

4. 25-225
294
111 Civic Drive City of Hercules Hercules, CA 94547
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
Tuesday, July 22, 2025 5:30 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 P.M.,REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M
In-Person in Council Chambers or Via Zoom:

Zoom ID: 831 2741 2946 Zoom Passcode: 221988
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
I. SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION – CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - 5:30 P.M.

IA. 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 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
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:

The City Attorney read the titles of the items to be discussed in Closed Session. City Council and Staff recess into Closed Session.

1. 25-220 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) - one case.

2. 25-216 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Conference With Labor Negotiators - City Negotiators: Dante Hall, City Manager; Edwin Gato, Director of Finance; relative to the following employee groups:
a. Teamsters Local 315 Employee Organizations
b. Hercules Police Officers Association
City of Hercules Page 1
295
City Council Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025
c. Hercules Senior Manager Employee Group
d. Confidential Unrepresented Employee Group
e. Mid Management Employee Group
IV. REGULAR MEETING – CONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - ROLL CALL - 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Bailey convened the regular meeting at 7:05 P.M.

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
There was no final or reportable action taken in Closed Session.

VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was lead by Council Member Walker-Griffin.

VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
NONE
VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
Update on Solid Waste Services - Republic Services
Mayor Bailey turned to CIty Manager, Dante Hall, to provide an update on this item. City Manager Hall read a statement provided by Republic Services and provided an update on garbage services. City Manager Hall also clarified the Cities relationship with Republic Services as a third party contractor. Public comment was provided by Gilberto Ramirez, Cheryl Wright, Dorris Sykes and Sherry McCoy. Council provided remarks. No action was taken on this item.

IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
NONE
City of Hercules Page 2
296
City Council Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Public comment was provided by Sherry MCoy.

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

1. 25-206 Public Hearing to Consider Whether to Adopt Proposed Sewer Rate Increases Pursuant to Proposition 218
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing pursuant to Section 6(a)(2) of Article XIII D of the California Constitution regarding the proposed changes to the sewer rates. During the Public Hearing, consider all protests against the proposed changes to the sewer rates;

2. Close the Public Hearing

3. If written protests against the proposed sewer rates are presented by a majority of the affected parcels of real property, the proposed sewer rates cannot be adopted; or

4. If written protests against the proposed sewer rates are presented by less than a majority of the affected parcels of real property, adopt the following Resolution titled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HERCULES FINDING THAT NO MAJORITY PROTEST
EXISTS AND ADOPTING SEWER RATES. "
Staff Report - Sewer Rate Hearing
Attach 1 - Resolution
Attach 2 - Hercules 2025 Prop 218 Sewer Rate Notice
Attachments:

Public Works Director, Glenn Dombeck, introduced the item. A representative from Wildan presented. Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing. Public comment was provided by Adrian Boyant-Reid, Cheryl Wright, Leslie Manzoni(on-line), anonymous. Mayor Bailey brought it back to Council for discussion. Director Dombeck provided a response. Council City of Hercules Page 3
297
City Council Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025
asked questions and provided comment. Director Dombeck, City Manager Dante Hall, Finance Director Edwin Gato and Wildan provided a response. Mayor Bailey closed the Public Hearing. Public Works Director Dombeck confirmed that 59 protest letters were received. Which was below the majority vote required. The adoption of the resolution did proceed and action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Kelley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to adopt Resolution 2-044. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Council Member Dilli Bhattarai, Mayor D. Bailey, Vice Mayor C. Kelley, and Council Member A. Walker-Griffin
4 -
Abstain: 1 - Council Member T. Grimsley
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Vice Mayor Kelley, 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. 25-217 Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of July 8, 2025 Attachments: Meeting Minutes fro the Regular Meeting of July 8, 2025

APPROVED
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS

1. 25-207 Declare Results of Protest Balloting Proceedings and Confirm Fiscal Year 2025/26 Assessments for Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1
RECOMMENDATION:

City staff is recommending City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt a Resolution Declaring the Results of the Ballot Tabulation Regarding the Proposed Increase to the Maximum Assessment Rate for Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1 commencing Fiscal Year 2025/26; and

2. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Final Engineer’s Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessments, and Ordering Levy of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2025/26 for Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and

3. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager and Finance Director City of Hercules Page 4
298
City Council Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025
to Execute Any and All Necessary Documentation to Repay the General Fund for Monies Loaned to Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting District in an Amount Not to Exceed $700,000 Over 10 Years and will bear no interest.

Staff Report - Victoria by The Bay LLAD
Attach 1 - RESOLUTION DECLARING RESULTS OF THE PROTEST
BALLOTING 2002-1
Attach 2 - RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENTS 2002-1v2
Attach 3 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF

REPAYMENT DOCUMENTS
Attach 4 - L2002-1-2526 Final Engineer's Report
Attachments:

Public Works Director, Glenn Dombeck, introduced the item which is a continued item from the June 24, 2025 City Council meeting. Francisco and Associates presented. No public comment. Council made remarks.

Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Council Member Bhattarai, to adopt Resolution 25-045. 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 -
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Kelley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to adopt Resolution 25-046. 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 -
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Vice Mayor Kelley, to adopt Resolution 25-047. The motion carried by the following vote:

2. 25-208 Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, for the development of an Information Technology Strategic Plan (ITSP) in an amount not to exceed $84,150
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with SDI Presence, LLC, for the development of an Information Technology Strategic Plan (ITSP) in an amount not to exceed $84,150.

Staff Report - SDI Contract Award
Attach 1 - Resolution
Attach 2 - SDI Response to City of Hercules IT Strategic Plan RFP 25-001
Attachments:

Finance Director, Edwin Gato, introduced and presented the Item. SDI Presence, LLC attended via Zoom to answer any questions. No public City of Hercules Page 5
299
City Council Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025
comment. Council asked questions and provided comment. Director Gato and SDI provided a response. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Walker-Griffin, seconded by Vice Mayor Kelley, to adopt Resolution 25-048. 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. 25-195 Discussion Regarding Potential Revenue-Generating Options RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report on potential revenue-generating options and, by minute order, provide guidance to staff on which option or options to pursue.

Staff Report - Revenue Enhancement Options
Attach 1 - Staff Report - RPTT Charter City Discussion
Attach 2 - Presentation
Attachments:

City Manager. Dante Hall, introduced the item. Finance Director, Edwin Gato, presented. Public comment was provided by Sherry McCoy, Leslie Mazoni(Via Zoom) and Jason Bellevue. Council asked questions and provided comment. Finance Director Gato and City Manager Hall provided a response. This was an informational item but Council did provide Staff direction for next steps.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Kelley, seconded by Council Member Grimsley, to direct staff to move forward with surveying the public on a future tax measure. The three potential tax measures being considered are Real Property Transfer Tax, General Obligation(GO) Bonds and a sales tax option. No decision was made by Council at this time. 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. 25-210 Update on the Hercules Police Department
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive an update on the Hercules Police Department
Staff Report - Hercules Police Department Annual Report 2025 Presentation
Attachments:

Police Chief, Joe Vasquez, introduced and presented the item. Public comment was provided by Dorris Sykes. Council asked questions and provided comment. Chief Vasquez provided a response. This was an informational item. No action was taken on this item.

XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
City of Hercules Page 6
300
City Council Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025
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
a. Contra Costa Mayors Conference
b. Hercules/ Pinole - WasteWater Management
c. League of Cities
d. Water Emerg. Transportation Authority
e. WCCIWMA
f. WCCTAC
g. West Co. Mayors & Supervisors Assoc. Meeting
h. WestCat
I. MCE
j. CCTA
k. East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees
a. Econ. Dev. Subcommittee
b. Traffic and Public Safety Committee
c. East Bay Economic Development Alliance
d. Education Subcommittee

3. Commission Liaisons
a. Community & Library Services Commission
b. Finance Commission
c. Planning Commisison
City Manager Hall promoted National Night Out and also noted that the Annual Report and Parks and Recreation Fall Guide is now available. City Attorney Crowl had no announcements.

1. Regional Committees
Vice Mayor Kelley reported out on the Contra Costa Mayors Conference and Contra Costa Transportation Authority meeting. Council Member Grimsley reported out on the WestCat Board of Directors meeting. Council Member Walker-Griffin attended the Contra Costa Mayors Conference and City of Hercules Page 7
301
City Council Meeting Minutes July 22, 2025
Mayor Bailey reported out on the West Cat Board of Directors meeting and the Marin Clean Energy Board meeting.

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees
Council Member Walker-Griffin reported out on the Green Empowerment Zone meeting

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

There were no future agenda item requests.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bailey adjourned the meeting at 10:04 P.M.
_________________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
City of Hercules Page 8
302

CONSENT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEMS

2. 25-228
303
111 Civic Drive City of Hercules Hercules, CA 94547
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
Tuesday, July 29, 2025 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 P.M., SPECIAL MEETING - 7:00 P.M
In-Person in Council Chambers or Via Zoom:

Zoom ID: 827 4859 6029 Zoom Passcode: 656349
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
I. SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION – CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - 6:00 P.M. *Vice Mayor Kelley will be participating in the meeting from the following remote location: 152 Whig Street, Dennis, MA 02638
A. 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 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
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:

City Attorney, Christie Crowl, read the title of the item to be discussed in Closed Session. City Council and Staff recessed 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 -

1. 25-223 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Conference With Labor Negotiators - City Negotiators: Dante Hall, City Manager; Edwin Gato, Director of Finance; relative to the following employee groups:
a. Teamsters Local 315 Employee Organizations
City of Hercules Page 1
304
City Council Meeting Minutes July 29, 2025
b. Hercules Police Officers Association
c. Hercules Senior Manager Employee Group
d. Confidential Unrepresented Employee Group
e. Mid Management Employee Group
IV. SPECIAL MEETING – CONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - ROLL CALL - 7:00 P.M.

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
The City Attorney Crowl reported out that there was no final or reportable action taken in Closed Session.

VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Staff and Council stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.

VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Bailey requested a moment of silence for former City Council Member Herman Blackmon who recently passed away.

VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
NONE
IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
NONE
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.

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

1. 25-221 Public Hearing to Consider Whether to Adopt the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Sewer Service Charge Report and Authorize Collection of Proposed Sewer Service Charges on the Tax Roll in the Same Manner, by the Same Persons, and at the Same Time As, Together With and Not Separately City of Hercules Page 2
305
City Council Meeting Minutes July 29, 2025
From, General Taxes
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing and if protests are not made by a majority of the affected parcels, adopt a resolution adopting the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Sewer Service Charge Report and authorizing the collection of sewer service charges on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, general taxes.

Staff Report - Sewer Rate Hearing - Adopt Tax Roll
Attach 1 - Resolution Sewer Rate Tax Roll
Attach 2 - City of Hercules Sewer Service Charge Roll FY25-26 Attachments:

Public Works Director, Glenn Dombeck, introduced and presented the item. A representative from Francisco and Associates was in attendance via Zoom to answer any questions. No comments and questions from Council. Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing. No public comment.

Council provided remarks. Mayor Bailey closed the public hearing. Action was taken on this item.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bhattarai, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, to adopt Resolution 25-049. 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 -
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Council Member Walker-Griffin, 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. 25-222 Award of a Contract to Valentine Heating and Air, Inc. for the Swim Center Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Replacement Project RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Valentine Heating and Air, Inc. (Valentine) in the amount of $151,100 for the Swim Center HVAC Replacement Project with an additional expenditure of up to $15,100 for a 10% contingency on said contract, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $166,200.

Staff Report - Swim Center HVAC Award
Attach 1 - Resolution
Attachments:

Resolution 25-050, APPROVED.

City of Hercules Page 3
306
City Council Meeting Minutes July 29, 2025
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS
NONE
XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
This time is reserved for members of the public who were unavailable to attend the Public Communications period during Section X of the meeting, or were unable to speak due to lack of time. The public speaker requirements specified in Section X of this Agenda apply to this Section.

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

COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

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

1. Regional Committee
a. Contra Costa Mayors Conference
b. Hercules/ Pinole - WasteWater Management
c. League of Cities
d. Water Emerg. Transportation Authority
e. WCCIWMA
f. WCCTAC
g. West Co. Mayors & Supervisors Assoc. Meeting
h. WestCat
I. MCE
j. CCTA
k. East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees
a. Econ. Dev. Subcommittee
b. Traffic and Public Safety Committee
c. East Bay Economic Development Alliance
d. Education Subcommittee

3. Commission Liaisons
a. Community & Library Services Commission
b. Finance Commission
c. Planning Commisison
No announcements from the City Manager or City Attorney.

City of Hercules Page 4
307
City Council Meeting Minutes July 29, 2025
Council Member Grimsley expressed her condolences to Herman Blackmon's family.

1. Regional Committees
No reports were provided

2. City Council Committees and Subcommittees
No reports were provided

3. Commission Liaisons
No reports were provided
There were no future agenda item requests.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bailey closed the meeting in honor of former Council Member Herman Blackmon. He adjourned the meeting at 7:24pm.
_________________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
City of Hercules Page 5
308

CONSENT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEMS

3. 25-226
309

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 9, 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 June 30, 2025

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to California Government Code section 53646 and the City’s Investment Policy, a quarterly report and certification shall be provided to the City Council, City Manager, and City Independent Auditor. The Quarterly Investment Report shall include a complete description of the portfolio, the type of investments, the issuers, maturity dates, par value, and dollar amounts invested in all securities. The certification must ensure that investments were made consistently with the City’s Investment Policy and that the City will meet its expenditure obligations for the next six months. The Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2025, is provided as Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND
To ensure compliance with state law and municipal policies, the City is mandated to present quarterly investment reports that provide a comprehensive overview of the City’s investment portfolio to the City Council, City Manager, and City Auditor. The authority to manage investments, reinvestment, sales, or exchanges of securities is delegated to the Finance Director, who concurrently holds the position of City Treasurer.

In accordance with the Investment Policy, the City Treasurer has the option to delegate certain fiduciary responsibilities to an external investment management firm. It is important to note that any investment manager engaged for this purpose must adhere to fiduciary obligations as stipulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940.
310
To effectively address the specialized services and expertise required for a diverse array of investment options, the City has engaged with the Local Investment Agency Fund (LAIF) as well as experienced investment managers from PARS.

DISCUSSION
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the City's investment portfolio for the quarter ending June 30, 2025. It is prepared in compliance with California Government Code Section 53646 and adheres to the City's Investment Policy. The report encompasses all cash and investments managed by the City, along with City-related investments held by bond trustees for debt service obligations and funds in the irrevocable trust with PARS for pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB). Additionally, it includes detailed information on each security's investment type, issuer, maturity date, cost, and current market value.

The City participates in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), a money market fund overseen by the State Treasurer. LAIF includes multiple governmental agency participants and holds securities managed by its administrator. This fund provides local agencies with a mechanism to invest cash held in a treasury pool, allowing for same-day withdrawals to facilitate cash flow needs while earning interest from the Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA). Moreover, investments managed by bond trustees are conducted in accordance with the terms of individual bond indentures.

As of June 30, 2025, the average yield of the pooled investment portfolio, prior to adjustments for fluctuations in market value, is reported at 5.69%. This yield exceeds the two-year U.S. Treasury Note rate of 3.72% and the average monthly rate of 4.269% for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The market value of the pooled portfolio stands at $73,757, indicating a modest increase of 0.09% from its book value. Given that the City does not intend to sell its pooled investment portfolio securities before maturity, this decision will not impact on the overall yield.

As of June 30, 2025, 74.88% of the total investment portfolio is allocated to the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). Within this allocation, 80.6% is comprised of U.S. Treasuries and agency notes, while 9.1% is invested in certificates of deposit (CDs) and bank notes. The remaining 10.3% is distributed among various other investment types. For a comprehensive Amount
Market Over/(Under) Average
Investment Type Value Cost Yield
Petty Cash $2,005 - 0.00%
Cash in Bank 12,544,581 - 0.00%
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 61,624,212 $73,757 4.27% Irrevocable Trust (Pension) 2,643,261 - 8.71%
Irrevocable Trust (OPEB) 3,121,688 - 8.71%
Investments with Bond Trustees 2,341,375 - 4.09%
Total Portfolio $82,277,122 $73,757 5.69%
311
overview, including economic summaries and detailed information, 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 State 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 cashrelated transactions. Given that the City intends to hold its investments until 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 several components that are classified as unrestricted. Within the City’s General Fund, this amounts to $24.5 million (30%), while the Internal Service Funds contribute an additional $1,924,294 (2%). It is essential to recognize that a portion of these funds is committed to pre-existing obligations or allocated for specific purposes. Conversely, the remaining $55.8 million, representing 68% of the City’s cash and investments, is restricted for designated uses by applicable federal, state, or local regulations.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION
This is an information report with no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Quarterly Investment Report
312
1 INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ending June 30, 2025
City of Hercules, California
313

CITY OF HERCULES

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
111 CIVIC DRIVE
HERCULES, CALIFORNIA 94547-1771
PHONE: 510-799-8200
September 9, 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Council:

I hereby affirm that the investment portfolio, as of June 30, 2025, complies with all relevant state laws and conforms to the City’s investment policy. The anticipated revenues from ongoing City operations, coupled with the available liquidity from cash deposits, sufficiently cover the City’s expenditure requirements for the upcoming months.

As of June 30, 2025, the City possesses adequate financial resources to meet its expenditure obligations for the next six months.

Sincerely,
Edwin Gato
Finance Director/City Treasurer
314
City of Hercules, California
Investment Portfolio Summary Report
For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2025
Book % of Average Market
Value Total Yield Value
Cash on Hand $2,005 $2,005
Cash on Deposit 12,544,581 12,544,581
Total Cash on Hand 12,546,586 15.26% 0.00% 12,546,586
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 61,550,455 74.88% 4.27% 61,624,212 Irrevocable Trust (Pension) 2,643,261 3.22% 8.71% 2,643,261 Irrevocable Trust (OPEB) 3,121,688 3.80% 8.71% 3,121,688 Investments with Bond Trustees 2,341,375 2.85% 4.09% 2,341,375 Total Portfolio $82,203,365 100.00% 5.69% $82,277,122
Amount over (under) Market Value vs. Book Value $73,757 % of Portfolio 0.09%
Investments by Type
Cash on Hand
LAIF
Irrevocable Trust
(Pension)
Irrevocable Trust
(OPEB)
Investments with
Trustees
315
City of Hercules
Detail for Investment Portfolio Summary Report
For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2025
(DAYS)

BOOK MARKET 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 3,449,893.00 0.00% 3,449,893.00 3,449,893.00 MECHANICS BANK - HERCULES RDA 8,898,559.82 0.00% 8,898,559.82 8,898,559.82 MECHANICS BANK - PD ASSET SEIZURE 196,128.40 0.00% 196,128.40 196,128.40 TOTAL AND AVERAGES 12,544,581.22 12,544,581.22 12,544,581.22

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)
LAIF 61,550,455.45 4.27% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 61,550,455.45 61,624,211.98

IRREVOCABLE TRUST (PENSION/OPEB)
US BANK MUTUAL (PARS-OPEB) 3,121,687.54 8.71% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 3,121,687.54 3,121,687.54 US BANK MUTUAL (PARS-PENSION) 2,643,260.92 8.71% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 2,643,260.92 2,643,260.92 TOTAL AND AVERAGES 5,764,948.46 8.71% 91 - 5,764,948.46 5,764,948.46

INVESTMENTS WITH BOND TRUSTEES
THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) JM 05 1 RESERVE
FUND 55,797.47 4.09% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 55,797.47 55,797.47

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
HERCULES PFA WW INTEREST ACCT 21 A 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - - -

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 REVENUE FUND) 739,038.61 4.09% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 739,038.61 739,038.61

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 DEBT SERV PRIN ACCT) 310,001.00 4.09% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 310,001.00 310,001.00

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 DEBT SERV INT ACCT) 311,754.78 4.09% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 311,754.78 311,754.78

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES PFA 09 RESERVE FD) 920,215.00 4.09% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 920,215.00 920,215.00

THE BANK OF NEW YORK (BNY) MELLON TRUST
(HERCULES 2020 INT FD) 4,567.80 0.00% 3/31/2025 6/30/2025 91 - 4,567.80 4,567.80 TOTAL AND AVERAGES 2,341,374.66 4.09% 91 - 2,341,374.66 2,341,374.66 TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT $82,203,364.79 5.69% 91 - $82,203,364.79 $82,277,121.32 316
City of Hercules, California
Investment Portfolio Summary Report
For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2025
% of
Cash Description Book Value Total
Bond Trustee $2,341,375 3%
Irrevocable Trust 5,764,948 7%
Restricted 47,682,787 58%
General Fund 24,489,961 30%
Internal Service Funds 1,924,294 2%
Total, Book Value $82,203,365 100%
Restricted:

Wastewater 18,703,435
Successor Housing 5,893,882
Development Impact Fees 4,439,128
Capital Projects 2,777,499
Landscape & Lighting 2,021,151
SB1 RMRA 1,570,261
Gas Tax & Measure J "Street" 1,266,656
Successor Agency 8,898,560
Solid Waste 838,612
Agency Fund 837,832
Asset Seizure 354,949
COPS Program 80,822
47,682,787
Bond Trustee
3% Irrevocable Trust
7%
Restricted
58%
General Fund
30%
Internal Service Funds
2%
Cash by Fund
317
June 4.269
May 4.272
April 4.281
March 4.313
February 4.333
LAIF Apportionment Rate(2): 4.40
LAIF Earnings Ratio(2): 0.00012059828906715
LAIF Administrative Cost(1)*: 0.18
PMIA Average Life(1): 248
LAIF Fair Value Factor(1): 1.001198310
PMIA Daily(1): 4.26
PMIA Quarter to Date(1): 4.27
Treasuries

55.09%
Agencies

25.48%
Certificates of
Deposit/Bank Notes

9.12%
Time
Deposits

2.96%
Commercial
Paper

6.67%
Corporate
Bonds

0.53%
Loans

0.15%
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 6/30/25
Daily rates are now available here. View PMIA Daily Rates Quarterly Performance
Quarter Ended 6/30/25
Chart does not include $1,063,000.00 in mortgages, which equates to 0.001%. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Pooled Money Investment Account
Monthly Portfolio Composition (1)
6/30/25
$178.1 billion
318

CONSENT CALENDAR

AGENDA ITEMS

4. 25-225
319

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 9, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Timothy Rood, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement Amendment 1 with M-Group RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution which authorizes the City Manager to sign Amendment 1 (Attachment 2) to the original Professional Services Agreement with M-Group, Agreement No. 25-040 (Agreement), increasing the contract maximum from $125,000 to $166,133 using existing funding.

BACKGROUND
The City’s consultant, M-Group, provides part-time staffing services to the Community Development Department by providing the services of an Associate Planner averaging 16 hours per week. The Fiscal year 2025-26 budget for M-Group’s contract staffing services was approved through the Community Development Department’s budget as $136,133; however, the authorizing resolution associated with the 2025-26 annual contracts (City Council Resolution 25-031) inadvertently listed the amount as $125,000.

In order to maintain continuity of service, Professional Services Agreement No. 25-040 for $125,000 was executed and became effective on July 1, 2025. The Agreement was executed with the understanding that an amendment would be needed to amend the original agreement and add the remaining $11,133, bringing the total to the approved Community Development Department’s budgeted amount of $136,133.

In addition to the M-Group budget correction, there is an additional $30,000 in developer deposit accounts that should also be allocated to M-Group for review of specific Planned Development Plans (PDP). An applicant who submits a PDP application is required to 320
submit $10,000 as an application fee deposit to be utilized by all personnel involved, and the City’s costs are passed through to the developer per the Master Fee Schedule.

The Associate Planner from M-Group is currently reviewing three (3) submitted PDPs for Bayfront Blocks A-B-C-D-J and K-L-M-O-P and the Emblem Hercules (Loop Site). The PDP deposits are from Ledcor on behalf of Hercules Land Partners LP and from Quarterra Multifamily Communities, LLC. The additional $30,000 in the M-Group staffing contract will allow the City to use the deposit account funds to pay for the Associate Planner’s additional time to review these PDP submittals

ANALYSIS
The resolution authorizes the City Manager to sign Amendment 1 to the approved Professional Services Agreement with M-Group for 2025-26 fiscal year planning services, increasing the not-to-exceed amount from $125,000 to $166,133 using existing funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Amendment 1 adjusts the not-to-exceed amount for M-Group, updating it from the previously indicated $125,000 in the Budget Resolution to the budgeted figure of $136,133, an increase of $11,133; in addition, the Amendment adds an additional $30,000 from Planned Development Plan application fee deposits for pass-through planning services to review PDP applications for three projects. In summary, Amendment 1 revises the not-to-exceed figure for Fiscal Year 2025-26 to $166,133, or $41,133 more than the cited amount in the approved Budget Resolution.

Funds are available within the Community Development Department Professional Services budget and developer deposit accounts and these will be appropriately allocated for this expenditure as outlined in the following table:

Funding Source: Account Number Amount
Professional Services /
Engin/Inspection / Planning Services 100-5235-611.50-00 $ 11,133 Ledcor Group – P25002 100-0000-204.00-00 $ 20,000
Quarterra - P25004 100-0000-204.00-00 $ 10,000
$ 41,133
Expenditure account: Account Number Amount
Proposed - Professional Services /
Engin/Inspection / Planning Services 100-5235-611.50-00 $ 41,133 $ 41,133
321
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Draft Professional Services Agreement – Amendment 1 322

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 25-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AMENDMENT 1 TO THE ORIGINAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH M-GROUP INCREASING THE CONTRACT MAXIMUM FROM $125,000 TO $166,133

USING EXISTING FUNDING
WHEREAS, pursuant to Professional Services Agreement 25-040, M-Group provides part-time staffing services to the Community Development Department by providing the services of an Associate Planner averaging 16 hours per week; and WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget for M-Group’s contract staffing services was approved through the Community Development Department’s budget as $136,133; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution 25-031 approved the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget plan and references M-Group funding as $125,000, which is $11,133 less than the approved appropriation for this service; and
WHEREAS, In order to maintain continuity of service, Professional Services Agreement No. 25-040 for $125,000 was executed and became effective on July 1, 2025.

The Agreement was executed with the understanding that an amendment would be needed to add the remaining $11,133, bringing the total to the budgeted amount of $136,133; and WHEREAS, there is an additional $30,000 in developer deposits that should also be allocated to M-Group for review of Planned Development Plans (PDP); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to sign a Professional Services Agreement Amendment 1 that is substantially similar to Exhibit A, which increases the M-Group budget by $41,133 for a total of $166,133 for services provided during fiscal year 2025-

26. 323
The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 9
th day of September, 2025 by the following
vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Draft Amendment 1 to Professional Services Agreement 25-040 324
Original Agreement No.25-040
City Council Resolutions: 25-031 & 25-XXX
M-Group Contract – CDD PT Associate Planner FY 2025-26
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Approving Additional Compensation of $41,133 for the purpose of authorizing the full budgeted amount for M-Group and reflecting additional Planned Development Plan funds

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Hercules, a public body corporate and the following named Contractor:

M-Group
Attn.: Tom Ford
2808 Adeline Street, Unit 1, Berkeley, CA 94703
(510)473-3090 / [email protected]
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

2. Purpose. This Amendment No. 1 is being entered into to amend an existing contract between the City and Contractor which was approved by the City Manager of the City of Hercules on June 23, 2025. Said contract shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Contract" and is incorporated herein by reference.

3. Original Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Original Contract, and any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment Agreement.

4. Amendment. This Amendment No. 1 is intended to amend the Original Contract to provide for additional compensation in an amount not to exceed $41,133, for a revised total contract amount of $166,133.

5. Amendment Approval: This Amendment No. 1 is hereby approved by the City Manager of the City of Hercules on this _______ day of _____________, 2025. 325

6. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:

City of Hercules
s/_______________________________
Dante Hall, City Manager
Date: ___________________________
Approved as to form:

By ______________________________
Christie Crowl, City Attorney
M-Group
s/_______________________________
_________________________________
Name/Title
Date: ___________________________
s/_______________________________
_________________________________
Name/Title
Date: ___________________________
Attachments:

Attachment A: Scope of Service & Payment
326

DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEM

AGENDA ITEMS

1. 25-233

2. 25-230

3. 25-231

4. 25-227
327

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 9, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Glenn Dombeck, Public Works Director/City Engineer Christopher Roke, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Foxboro Playground Equipment Pre-Purchase and Amendment to the fiscal year 2025-26 Budget Appropriation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with Gametime, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $142,599.79 to provide playground equipment for use at Foxboro Park and Amend the fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 Budget by $550,000 to allocate funds from the General Fund/Capital Reserve to pay for the associated equipment, materials and improvements.

BACKGROUND:

The City is in the process of finalizing construction documents for a park improvement project consisting of the construction of shade structures at Refugio Park and the renovation of the basketball court at Foxboro Park. Construction on the Refugio and Foxboro Park Improvement Project will occur later in FY 25-26.

The City’s CIP identifies additional improvements to the playground at Foxboro Park for the following FY 2026-27. These improvements consist of replacing the playground equipment, which is approximately 23 years old and nearing the end of its useful life, and replacing the synthetic playground surface, which is showing signs of moderate deterioration.
328
ANALYSIS:

It is proposed to accelerate the timing of the Foxboro Park playground improvements by incorporating the work into the current Refugio and Foxboro Park Improvement Project.

This will improve economies of scale for the playground work by eliminating a separate bidding process and contractor mobilization.

Another reason for accelerating the project is to take advantage of a grant opportunity for playground equipment offered by Gametime, Inc. Gametime is offering a 42.4 percent discount for grant recipients who pay by check. Council approval is needed to execute this equipment pre-purchase and secure the grant. The pre-purchase will also reduce the lead time associated with the equipment procurement and facilitate the construction schedule. The City-furnished playground equipment will be installed by the Contractor awarded the project.

Renderings of the playground equipment can be seen in Attachment 3. A pour-in-place (PIP) surface shown in the renderings is one of two surfacing replacement options under consideration. Replacement of the playground surfacing will be included in the competitively bid project, but is not included in this playground equipment pre-purchase.

A final selection for the playground surfacing will be made prior to issuance of documents for bid.

The playground equipment proposed for replacement includes play structures for ages 2- 5 and ages 5-12, a Prime Time ADA Zero-G swing and a belt swing, an Inclusive Whirl and an Inclusive Seesaw, all aligned to meet the National Demonstration Site (NDS) Play On! design criteria. The six key elements of the Gametime Play On! design include:
 Balancing Increases understanding of efficient body positioning and control, promotes muscular strength
 Swinging Promotes aerobic fitness, muscular force, and whole-body awareness  Brachiating Improves muscular strength and endurance. Promotes hand-eye coordination and rhythmic body movement.
 Sliding Enhances core stability, dynamic balance, and the leg and hip flexibility  Spinning Develops kinesthetic awareness and postural control, improves understanding of speed, force, and directional qualities of movement  Climbing Enhances spatial awareness and coordination, fosters muscular strength, endurance and flexibility
Through the CPRS and GameTime Statewide Funding Initiative, the City of Hercules will receive a 41% discount towards the playground equipment for Foxboro Park, so long as payment is made by check after City Council approval. Retail price for this playground equipment is $203,802.70. The grant discount is $86,470.69, or 42.4 percent. Total cost including the grant discount, taxes and shipping is $142,599.79. 329
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, which consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Refugio and Foxboro Park Improvement Project (Shade Structures and Basketball Court only) is fully funded for this fiscal year. The proposed funding for these activities is as follows:

Funding Sources: Refugio
Picnic Area
Foxboro
Basketball
Foxboro
Playground
Total
General Fund/Capital
Reserves
$537,917 $118,241 $50,000 $706,158
Community
Development Tax
$170,000 -- -- $170,000
Total Revenue $707,917 $118,241 $50,000 $876,158
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) currently estimates an allocation of $550,000 for the Foxboro Playground project in fiscal year 2026-27; however, this amount is presently unfunded. To advance this project, it is proposed that an amendment be made to the fiscal year 2025-26 budget to designate $550,000 of General Fund/Capital Reserve. This funding in conjunction with the previously allocated $50,000 for the Foxboro Playground in FY 2025-26, will fully fund the contract work for the project, including the equipment pre-purchase and construction activity. Furthermore, the Foxboro Pavement Rehabilitation Project has adequate funds to support the design phase work occurring this fiscal year.

With this budget amendment, the Refugio and Foxboro Park Improvement Project (Refugio Shade Structures, Foxboro Basketball Court and Foxboro Playground) will be fully funded for this fiscal year. The proposed amended funding allocation for these activities is as follows:

Funding Sources: Refugio
Picnic Area
Foxboro
Basketball
Foxboro
Playground
Total
General Fund/Capital
Reserves
$537,917 $118,241 $600,000 $1,256,158
Community
Development Tax
$170,000 -- -- $170,000
Total Revenue $707,917 $118,241 $600,000 $1,426,158
330
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Purchase Order for Foxboro Playground Equipment from Gametime, Inc.

3. Renderings of Foxboro Park Playground Equipment from Gametime, Inc. 331
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH GAMETIME, INC. FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $142,599.79 TO PROVIDE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR USE AT FOXBORO PARK AND AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET BY $550,000 TO ALLOCATE

FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND/CAPITAL RESERVE TO PAY FOR THE ASSOCIATED MATERIALS AND IMPROVEMENTS.

WHEREAS, the City is in the process of finalizing construction documents for a park improvement project consisting of construction of shade structures at Refugio Park and renovation of the basketball court at Foxboro Park and construction on the Refugio and Foxboro Park Improvement Project will occur later this fiscal year 2025-26.

WHEREAS, The City’s Capital Improvement Program identifies additional improvements to the playground at Foxboro Park for the following fiscal year 2026-27. These improvements consist of replacing the playground equipment, which is approximately 23 years old and nearing the end of its useful life, and replacing the synthetic playground surface, which is showing signs of moderate deterioration.

WHEREAS, the Foxboro Park Playground project is currently budgeted at $50,000 of General Fund/Capital Reserves in fiscal year 2025-26. However, the project remains unfunded for the fiscal year 2026-27, with an estimated cost of $550,000..

WHEREAS, It is proposed to accelerate the timing of the Foxboro Park playground improvements by incorporating the work into the current Refugio and Foxboro Park Improvement Project. This will improve economies of scale for the playground work by eliminating a separate bidding process and contractor mobilization.

WHEREAS, it is desired to pre-purchase the Foxboro playground equipment in order to facilitate the construction schedule and to take advantage of a 42 percent discount grant available to recipients who pay by check.

WHEREAS, The owner-furnished playground equipment will be installed by the Contractor awarded the project.

WHEREAS, there is sufficient fund available in the General Fund/Capital Reserve to fully fund the Foxboro Playground Project construction contract.

WHEREAS, this Project involves construction work for an existing playground and does not authorize new construction and is therefore exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15301 (existing facilities) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that such replacement will not have a direct or indirect impact on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules that the City Council hereby adopts a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with Gametime, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $142,599.70 to provide playground equipment for use 332
at Foxboro Park and amend the fiscal year 2025-26 budget by $550,000 to allocate funds from the General Fund/Capital Reserve to pay for the associated materials and improvements.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 9th day of September 2025 by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
333

PURCHASE ORDER
Qty Product Description Unit price Subtotal

1.0 RDU GameTime - Custom PrimeTime 2-5 Play Structure $48,394.04 $48,394.04

1.0 RDU GameTime - Custom PowerScape 5-12 Play Structure $125,158.66 $125,158.66

1.0 RDU GameTime - PrimeTime ADA swing with (1) Zero-G 5-12 Swing and (1) Belt Swing
$3,684.00 $3,684.00

1.0 6264 GameTime - Inclusive Whirl - Playful $16,933.00 $16,933.00

1.0 6299 GameTime - Inclusive Seesaw $9,633.00 $9,633.00

1.0 14927 GameTime - NDS Play On Sign Package -- --

1.0 Discount Contract: OMNIA #2017001134 ($86,470.69) ($86,470.69) Subtotal $117,332.01
Sales Tax
(9.2500%)
$10,853.21
Labor / Fees --
Shipping $14,414.57
Total $142,599.79
____________________________________________________
Public Works Director

THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED BELOW Comments
 Price is based on Statewide Initiative Funding.
 A check for the FULL PAYMENT is due with the order.
 Credit card or purchase orders do not qualify for this discount percentage.  OMNIA Partners f/n/a USC Contract #2017001134 Vendor #121531. Please supply your OMNIA registration # or Federal Tax ID #:
________________
 Supply only. Site preparation and safety surfacing are not included in this proposal.  CUSTOMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OFF-LOADING OF EQUIPMENT FROM DELIVERY TRUCK.  Please note: The sales tax rate shown on the quote is determinant on the final end use location, which is 1025 Canterbury, Hercules, CA 94547. Any variation will result in a review of the appropriate tax rate, which will be applied to your final order.  Due to the market volatility of raw materials, pricing is valid for 30 days after date of quotation. All quotes must be reviewed after 30 days.

City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, California 94547
P.O. Number
Shipping Address
Hercules Corporation Yard
1000 Sycamore Ave.

Hercules, California 94547
Vendor Address
Gametime Inc.

C/O MRC
P.O. Box 225250
San Francisco, CA 94122
334

CITY OF HERCULES PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The following Purchase Order Terms and Conditions (“Terms”) apply to the Purchase Order (“Order”) issued by the City of Hercules (“City”) to Vendor. The term “Vendor” means the seller or supplier of goods or services named in the Order and includes Vendor’s employees, subcontractors, and agents.

1. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS: Written acknowledgement or performance under this Order by Vendor constitutes acceptance of the Order by Vendor, including the Terms stated herein. The Order, along with the Terms, constitute a legally binding contract between City and Vendor. Vendor will comply with these Terms, including any written amendments hereto, and all other specifications or documents referenced in City’s Order. Any additional or different terms and conditions proposed by Vendor or used by Vendor in the course of business are rejected, unless expressly agreed to in writing by City. If the goods or services named in the Order are also governed by a separate written agreement signed by City and Vendor, the terms of that agreement will govern over any inconsistent or conflicting provisions in these Terms.

2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Timely performance and deliveries are essential to this Order. If Vendor believes goods or services will not be provided as scheduled, Vendor must immediately notify City, in writing, stating the cause of the delay.

3. INVOICES AND PAYMENT: Following City’s receipt of the goods or services, Vendor will render invoice(s) to City at the address specified on the Order. An invoice must correspond to only one Order and must include the Order number, the item number, a description of the goods or services and the date provided, quantitie s, unit price(s), and the total purchase price. Invoices must conform to the line items and unit prices stated on the Order. If no price is set forth on the Order, the goods or services will be billed at the price last quoted by Vendor or at the prevailing market price, whichever is lower. In no event will goods or services under this Order be billed at a price higher than last quoted or charged to City without City’s specific written authorization. City will not be liable for goods or services furnished without an authorized Order. Prices and quantities shown on the Order are the maximum amounts authorized under this Order, unless City amends the Order. City anticipates that it will pay undisputed amounts in an invoice within 30 days of City’s approval of the invoice. City will not be responsible for late payment charges. All claims for money due or to become due from City will be subject to deduction by City for any setoff or counterclaim arising out of this or any other City Order with Vendor.

4. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE: City reserves the right to inspect the goods and services, at all times and location(s), as specified by City. Goods and services are subject to final inspection and acceptance by City, in its sole discretion. Vendor owns the title to all goods and services and bears all risk of loss, damage, or delay of the goods and services, until receipt, inspection, and acceptance of the goods and services by City. City reserves the right to reject and return damaged shipments, at Vendor’s sole expense.

5. WARRANTIES: Vendor warrants that the goods and services will conform to the specifications, drawings, and other requirements specified by City in the Order and will be suitable for the intended use, of good quality, merchantable, in good working order, and free from defects in design, material, and workmanship. All goods will be new and unused.

Vendor warrants that the goods and services, including any material incorporated therein, do not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any third party and that title to goods and services will pass to City free of any claims, liens, or encumbrances upon payment to Vendor. Vendor’s guarantees the goods and services meet the requirements herein for a period of at least one year from City’s acceptance, unless otherwise stated in the Order and except when a longer guarantee is customarily provided by Vendor. City’s inspection, testing, acceptance, use, or payment for all or part of any goods and services will not affect City’s warranty rights or Vendor’s obligations hereunder, nor will such actions constitute an assumption by City of Vendor’s responsibility or liability for any defect in the goods and services.

Any attempt by Vendor to limit, disclaim, or restrict these warranties or any remedies of City, by acknowledgment or otherwise, will be null, void, and ineffective without City’s written consent. If City has access to confidential information of Vendor, City warrants that it will not disclose that information, unless required by Laws, as defined in Section 8.

6. CORRECTION OF DEFECTS: If City discovers defective or deficient goods or services, Vendor will correct such defect or make replacement at no cost to City and will reimburse City for any costs incurred due to the defective or deficient goods or services, including any shipping or storage costs.

7. CHANGES: City may direct changes to this Order in writing, including changes in quantities, specifications or drawings, methods of shipment and packing, schedules, or place(s) of delivery. If necessary, an equitable adjustment in price or time for performance will be made; but any claim by Vendor for such adjustment must be submitted to City within five days after notification of the City-directed change. Nothing in this Section, including any disagreement with City as to any claimed adjustment, will excuse Vendor from proceeding with the change prior to negotiation of any requested adjustment. Changes to this Order will not be binding on City, except as confirmed in writing by the authorized City representative.
335

8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Vendor must comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and rules, including City ordinances (“Laws”). Vendor will obtain and pay for all licenses, permits, and inspections required by Laws and by City in connection with the furnishing of goods and services listed in the Order.

9. INDEMNIFICATION: To the full extent permitted by law and subject to any applicable limitations in Civil Code §§ 2782 and 2782.8, Vendor will indemnify, defend with counsel acceptable to City, and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers, and consultants from and against any and all liability, demands, loss, damages, injuries, claims, settlements, expenses, and costs (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, and costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Vendor’s acts or omissions under this Order, except to the extent caused by the active negligence, sole negli gence, or willful misconduct of City. This indemnity requirement applies to any and all intellectual property claims. Vendor assumes full responsibility for the acts or omissions of its employees, subcontractors, or agents as they relate to the goods or services to be provided under the Order.

10. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the maximum extent permitted by law, City will not be liable under this Order for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect, or punitive damages, including, without limitation, l ost revenues, even if City has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

11. INSURANCE: Vendor will, at its expense, maintain commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance (including contractual liability coverage, insuring the liabilities assumed in these Terms), automobile liability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance (as required by Laws). Each policy must include an endorsement providing that the carrier will waive any right of subrogation it may have against City, and the CGL and automobile liability policies must name City, including its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers, and consultants, as an additional insured. At City’s request, Vendor will furnish City with proof of insurance coverage in th e form of certificates and endorsements acceptable to City. Each certificate of insurance must state that the coverage afforded by the policies will not be reduced, cancelled, or allowed to expire without at least 30 days written notice to City, unless due to non-payment of premiums, in which case ten days written notice must be made to City.

12. SAFETY: All goods and services must comply with all applicable Laws regarding health and safety, including, but not limited to, OSHA. All shipments of hazardous and toxic material must include Safety Data Sheets pursuant to Labor Code § 6360 et seq. and 8 CCR § 5194. If Vendor’s work under this Order requires Vendor to be on City premises, Vendor will take all necessary precautions to prevent injury to persons or damage to property.

13. PREVAILING WAGE: If the Order requires services that are subject to prevailing wage requirements pursuant to California Labor Code § 1720 et seq., Vendor must comply with the requirements set forth in this Section and in Labor Code § 1720 et seq. and related regulations. Vendor and its subcontractors must pay no less than the current prevailing wage rates to all workers. These prevailing wage rates are on file with City and are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR. The schedule of per diem wages is based upon a working day of eight hours. The rate for holiday and overtime work must be at least time and one-half. City may not enter into a contract with Vendor without proof that Vendor is registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to pe rform public work pursuant to Labor Code § 1725.5, subject to limited legal exceptions. The services will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR, pursuant to Labor Code § 1771.4.

14. DEFAULT: City may terminate this Order, in whole or in part, based on Vendor’s default under this Order, including (1) failure to make delivery or to perform within the time specified in the Order or any extension thereof; (2) delivery of nonconforming goods; (3) failure to perform in accordance with the provisions of this Order or any written agreement executed in relation to this Order; (4) evidence of Vendor’s insolvency, bankruptcy, or lack of financial capacity to perform under the Order; or (5) for any other material default of Vendor. In the event of any such default, City will provide Vendor with written notice of default. If City determines that the default is curable, City may afford Vendor the opportunity to cure the default within ten days of the notice, or within a period reasonably necessary for such cure (including a shorter time, if applicable), as specified by City in writing. If Vendor fails to cure the default within the ti me specified, then City may terminate the Order for cause, in which case City will only owe Vendor payment for goods or services satisfactorily provided prior to the effective date of termination and may deduct from that payment the costs incurred by City, if any, because of Vendor’s default.

15. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: City may terminate this Order, in whole or in part, for convenience, by providing written notice of termination to Vendor, effective upon the date stated in the notice. Upon receipt of the notice, Vendor will immediately discontinue performance under the Order, unless otherwise specified in the notice , and deliver, if and as directed by City, all completed and partially completed items and work in progress. If City elects to terminate the Order for convenience, it will pay Vendor for goods and services satisfactorily provided as of the effective date of termination.

16. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: If this Order bears a statewide contract number or other government contract number (e.g., for purposes of a leveraged procurement agreement or other cooperative agreement), Vendor will comply 336

with all applicable provisions of that statewide or other government contract, which are incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the statewide or other government contract will be given to Vendor upon request.

17. WORK PRODUCT: All work product created by Vendor under this Order is the property of City. Vendor will promptly deliver all such Work Product to City following City’s receipt of the goods and services, upon termination, or upon request by City.

18. RECORDS: Vendor will maintain records related to this Order for a period of four years from City’s acceptance of the goods and services or termination of this Order. Vendor will permit City to inspect and audit Vendor’s records relevant to this Order at any reasonable time.

19. MISCELLANEOUS:
(a) Shipping: Unless otherwise specified in the Order, Vendor will be responsible for delivery of goods and will prepay all related shipping and delivery charges. All goods are to be shipped F.O.B. destination, freight prepaid. City reserves the right to request and receive a copy of the bill of lading on all purchases. The Order number must be clearly stated on each parcel and packing slip. All items must be prepared and packed for shipment in a manner that will prevent damage in transit.
(b) Discounts: Any discount period will begin on the date of acceptance or the date of City’s receipt of the invoice, whichever is later.
(c) Actual Needs: City’s purchases are based on its actual needs and requirements. City will only purchase those items and quantities that it needs and requires, regardless of any estimated quantities provided to Vendor. (d) Assignment: Any subletting or assignment of this Order, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of City, will be void.
(e) Remedies: All of City’s rights and remedies under this Order will be construed as cumulative, and not exclusive, and City reserves all rights to all remedies available under law or equity as to any dispute arising from or relating to the Order.
(f) Documentation: Technical documentation and other literature necessary for the proper use of the goods and services will be provided to City, at Vendor’s sole cost. (g) Independent Contractor: Vendor and its employees, subcontractors, and agents are independent contractors and not employees or agents of City.
(h) Force Majeure: City may delay delivery and/or acceptance due to causes beyond its reasonable control. (i) Governing Law and Venue: The Order, including the Terms herein, will be governed by California law and venue for any dispute in connection with the Order will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place. (j) Survival: Vendor’s obligations under Sections 5, 9, 10, and 19 will survive any termination or expiration of this Order. (k) Waiver: A waiver by City of any breach of any term or condition of this Order will not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term or condition contained herein, regardless of the character of any such breach. No waiver is effective unless in writing and signed by City. (l) Modifications: No amendment or modification of this Order, including these Terms, will be binding unless it is in a writing duly authorized and signed by City and Vendor.
(m) Notices: All notices and other communications under this Order will be in writing and delivered to the other party at the address on the Order. A party may change its contact information by providing written notice of any change to the other party.
(n) Nondiscrimination: Vendor and its subcontractors will not discriminate against any person in the performance of this Order on the basis of race, religious creed, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, ancestry, disability, medical condition, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or any other protected class, and will comply with a ll applicable nondiscrimination Laws. (o) Provisions Deemed Inserted: Every provision of law required to be inserted in this Order is deemed to be inserted, and the Order will be construed and enforced as though such provision has been included. (p) Entire Agreement: Unless the parties have entered into a separate written agreement in connection with this transaction, this Order, including the Terms and such other documents that are expressly incorporated herein, and authorized amendments thereto, constitute the final, complete, and exclusive terms of the agreement between City and Vendor.
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346

DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEM

AGENDA ITEMS

2. 25-230
347

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 9, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Glenn Dombeck, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. for the Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project and Appropriating $17,756.60 from the SB1 RMRA Fund to Fully Fund the Contract
RECOMMENDATION ACTION:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. in the amount of $77,505.60 for the Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project authorizing an additional expenditure of up to $7,751 for a 10% contingency on said construction contract, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $85,256.60 and appropriating $17,756.60 from the SB1 RMRA Fund to fully fund the Contract work.

BACKGROUND:

The Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project was advertised for bids in the West County Times on July 14th and 21st, 2025 and in 5 regional plan rooms. A total of 6 bids were received at the bid opening deadline of 2 pm on Tuesday, August 12, 2025. Upon opening and reviewing the 6 bids received, E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $77,505.60, which was determined to be responsive.

E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. is based in Martinez, has been in business for 77 years, and has general building experience on public works projects, including in Rodeo, Mill Valley, Napa County, Vacaville, and Martinez. Their references and bid were thoroughly checked. E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. was determined to be a responsible bidder. 348
The project consists of the construction of a repair to a sinkhole that formed on a private property adjacent to the retaining wall on the Bay Trail. The retaining wall is a soil nail wall construction and requires restoration of the sinkhole to protect the integrity of the retaining wall. The work will add a concrete filled trench at the base of the retaining wall to prevent future sinkhole development. The site above the retaining wall will be backfilled and the associated drainage features will be restored.

Construction is anticipated to take approximately two-and-a-half months following notice to proceed. Following the award of the construction contract, staff will meet with the contractor to firm up the schedule. Construction management for this project will be handled by CSWST2 who also prepared the project plans and specifications. CSWST2 will handle contract administration, invoicing and management of the project through the closeout phase.

ANALYSIS:

The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, which consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

Bidder's Name Bid Proposal
1 E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. $ 77,505.60
2 FJ&I Engineering, Inc. $ 83,420.00
3 Michael Roberts Construction, Inc. $ 84,671.27
4 Valentine Corporation $ 103,369.00
5 American Enviro Services, Inc. $ 137,510.40
6 Kerex Engineering, Inc. $ 179,315.00
349
FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed budget for the Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project is as follows:

Funding Sources:

SB1 RMRA $100,000
Total Revenue $100,000
Expenditure accounts:

Construction Contract $ 77,505.60
10% Contingency $ 7,751.00
Engineering Services During Construction (CSWST2) $ 32,500.00 Total Expenditures $ 117,756.60
This project was identified in the 2025 Capital Improvement Program along with other Facilities and Parks improvements. In anticipation of the associated cost, SB1 RMRA funds have been allocated to generate the required funding resources. However, despite this advanced financial planning, there remains insufficient funding available to cover the cost related to this contract and the supporting construction management contract.

To address this funding gap, it is proposed that an additional $17,756.60 of SB1 RMRA funds, originally appropriated from the Foxboro Pavement Rehabilitation Project, be redirected to fully fund the contract. The Foxboro Pavement Rehabilitation Project currently has adequate funds to cover the design phase work planned this fiscal year, even with the proposed budget transfer.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project – Location Map 350
Financial Impact
Description: Expenditure amount not to exceed $117,756.60 Funding Source:

SB1 RMRA Fund Fund No. 268 $100,000 Bay Trail
SB1 RMRA Fund Fund No. 268 $17,756.60 Foxboro Paving
Budget Recap:

Total Estimated cost: $117,756.60 New Revenue: $
Amount Budgeted: $117,756.60 Lost Revenue: $
New funding required: $ New Personnel: $
Council Policy Change: Yes No
351
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH E.E. GILBERT CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,505.60 FOR THE BAY TRAIL SOIL NAIL WALL

SINKHOLE REPAIR PROJECT AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $7,751 FOR A 10% CONTINGENCY ON SAID CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $85,256.60 AND APPROPRIATING $17,756.60 FROM THE SB1 RMRA FUND TO FULLY FUND THE CONTRACT.

WHEREAS, the Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project was advertised for bids in the West County Times on July 14th and 21st, 2025 and in 5 regional plan rooms; and WHEREAS, a total of 6 bids were received at the bid opening deadline of 2 pm on Tuesday, August 12 and upon opening and reviewing the 6 bids received, E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $77,505.60; and
WHEREAS, no protests were received within the required timeframe.

WHEREAS, E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. has been determined to be a responsible bidder and their bid has been determined to be responsive; and
WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding in the Adopted FY 2025-26 Budget to fully fund the construction, although there is not sufficient funding in the Adopted FY 2025-26 Budget to fully fund the construction contract and the construction management contract.

WHEREAS, there is sufficient additional SB1 RMRA funding in the Adopted FY 2025-26 Budget for the Foxboro Pavement Rehabilitation Project to fully fund the Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project construction contract and the construction management contract.

WHEREAS, this Project involves repair work for an existing retaining wall and associated drainage facilities and does not authorize new construction and is therefore exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15301 (existing facilities) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that such replacement will not have a direct or indirect impact on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules that the City Council hereby adopts a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with E.E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. in the amount of $77,505.60 for the Bay Trail Soil Nail Wall Sinkhole Repair Project authorizing an additional expenditure of up to $7,751 for a 10% contingency on said construction contract, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $85,256.60 and appropriating $17,756.60 from the Foxboro Pavement Rehabilitation Project SB1 RMRA Fund to fully fund the contract.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 9th day of September 2025 by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:
352
ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
353

LOCATION MAP

VICINITY MAP
354

DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEM

AGENDA ITEMS

3. 25-231
355

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 9, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Glenn Dombeck, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to GSP Construction, Inc. for the Police Lobbies Project
RECOMMENDATION ACTION:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with GSP Construction, Inc. in the amount of $255,216 for the Police Lobbies Project authorizing an additional expenditure of up to $25,522 for a 10% contingency on said construction contract, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $280,738.

BACKGROUND:

The Police Lobbies Project was advertised for bids in the West County Times on June 23 and 30, 2025 and in 5 regional plan rooms. A total of 5 bids were received at the bid opening deadline of 2 pm on Tuesday, July 29, 2025. Upon opening and reviewing the 5 bids received, GSP Construction, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $255,216, which was determined to be responsive.

Bidder's Name Bid Proposal
1 GSP Construction, Inc. $ 255,216.00
2 DMR Builders, Inc. $ 259,216.00
3 FRC, Inc. $ 311,216.00
4 CB2 Builders, Inc. $ 407,205.89
5 CWS Construction Group, Inc. $ 449,216.00
356
GSP Construction, Inc. is based in Rancho Cordova, has been in business for six years, and has general building experience on public works projects, including in the Sacramento Valley, Napa, and Fremont. Their references and bid were thoroughly checked. GSP Construction, Inc. was determined to be a responsible bidder.

The project consists of the improvements to two existing lobbies at the Hercules Police Department. The renovations are focused on increasing the security of the lobbies by updating public-facing walls to be bullet proof, adding a transaction counter, and spatially separating the lobbies from the main police department office.

Construction is anticipated to take approximately three months and the start date will be dependent upon availability of materials. Following the award of the construction contract, staff will meet with the contractor to firm up the schedule.

ANALYSIS:

The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, which consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed budget for the Police Lobbies Project is as follows:

Funding Sources:

Police Impact Fee $200,000
Asset Seizure Fund $112,722
Total Revenue $312,722
Expenditure accounts:

Construction Contract $255,216
10% Contingency $25,522
Total Expenditures $280,738
This project was identified in the 2025 Capital Improvement Program along with other Facilities improvements. In anticipation of the associated cost, police impact fees and asset seizure funds have been set aside to generate the needed funding. As a result of this advanced financial planning, there is sufficient funding available to cover the cost of this contract, which is included in the adopted FY 25-26 Budget. 357
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Police Lobbies Project – Location Map
Financial Impact
Description: Expenditure amount not to exceed $280,738
Funding Source:

Police Impact Fee Fund No. 244 $200,000
Asset Seizure Fund Fund No. 101 $112,722
Budget Recap:

Total Estimated cost: $280,738 New Revenue: $
Amount Budgeted: $312,722 Lost Revenue: $
New funding required: $ New Personnel: $
Council Policy Change: Yes No
358
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GSP CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $255,216 FOR THE POLICE LOBBIES PROJECT AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $25,522 FOR A 10% CONTINGENCY ON SAID

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $280,738.

WHEREAS, the Police Lobbies Project was advertised for bids in the West County Times on June 23 and 30, 2025 and in 5 regional plan rooms; and
WHEREAS, a total of 5 bids were received at the bid opening deadline of 2 pm on Tuesday, July 29 and upon opening and reviewing the 5 bids received, GSP Construction, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $255,216; and
WHEREAS, the second lowest bidder, DMR Builders, Inc. submitted a protest on July 31, 2025 claiming that GSP Construction, Inc. did not list any subcontractors in their bid package and does not hold a C10 license.

WHEREAS, the protest was reviewed by City staff in an August 5, 2025 letter and determined to lack merit.

WHEREAS, GSP Construction, Inc. has been determined to be a responsible bidder and their bid has been determined to be responsive; and
WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding in the Adopted FY 2025-26 Budget to fully fund the construction contract.

WHEREAS, this Project involves renovation of an existing City-owned building interior and does not authorize new construction and is therefore exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15301 (existing facilities) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that such replacement will not have a direct or indirect impact on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules that the City Council hereby adopts a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with GSP Construction, Inc. in the amount of $255,216 for the Police Lobbies Project authorizing an additional expenditure of up to $25,522 for a 10% contingency on said construction contract, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $280,738.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 9th day of September 2025 by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
359
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
360

LOCATION MAP
City of Hercules
361

DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEM

AGENDA ITEMS

4. 25-227
362

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of September 9, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Eibleis Melendez, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and General Assembly Meeting RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Designate a voting delegate and alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and General Assembly Meeting to be held October 8-10, 2025 in Long Beach, CA.

DISCUSSION:

The League of California Cities bylaws outline the procedures regarding the designation of delegates and alternates by the City Council.

The League’s 2025 Annual Conference is scheduled for October 8-10, 2025 in Long Beach, CA at the Long Beach Convention Center. An important part of the Annual Conference is the General Assembly meeting at which the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy.

To vote during the General Assembly, the City Council must formally designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.

The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. In order to cast a vote, at least one must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of a voting card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting card at the voting delegates’ desk. This will enable the delegate to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during General Assembly.
363
At the General Assembly, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area.

Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with the special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.

The voting card may be transferred between the voting delegate and alternates only.

Transferring voting cards to non-designated individuals is not allowed. If the voting delegate and alternates are unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Following council action this evening, the City Clerk will submit the names of the voting delegate and up to two alternates for the City of Hercules to Cal Cities by Wednesday, September 24th, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost for a city delegate and alternate to attend the League Annual Conference is included in the FY 2025/26 annual budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. LOCC Memo and Voting Procedures and Guidelines
364

DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2025
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 8-10, 2025 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Oct. 10, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 24. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

Council Action Advised by September 24, 2025
365
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 24. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 366
General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
367
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 368