Here is the text of the letter written by a group of Hercules residents asking the city to rescind some recent property sales by the city, alleging that the deals were crafted in violation of state open meeting laws.

Dear Honorable Hercules City Council Members, Steve Duran, and Patrick Tang,

This letter is both a Request to Cure and Correct and a letter intended to call your attention to substantial violations of central provisions of the Brown Act regarding governmental affairs of the City of Hercules, that otherwise should have provided for an adequate and fair degree of transparency to the public regarding the affairs mentioned herein. We are a group of concerned citizens from the Hercules Bayside Community who, after extensive research, believe that the Hercules City Council violated the Brown Act and other sections of the California Government code when the Council conducted the real estate negotiations for the purchase and sale of Sycamore Crossings, Parcel C, and Victoria Crescent.

The Bayside Community is already impacted negatively by the highly unexpected size and scope of Sycamore North, which has caused a deeper erosion of our housing's market values beyond that already provided for by the ongoing nature of the housing crisis. The Bayside Community would also be the most negatively impacted of all Hercules communities by the additional disparate, large-scale developments currently proposed by the City for Sycamore Crossings and Parcel C. The marketing of Victoria Crescent, in addition to Parcel C and Sycamore Crossings, is listed in this citizen complaint because it further establishes a pattern of secrecy and lack of transparency by the current City Council and City Manager, despite the recent cancelation of its Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Brown Act provides for the public addressing of the concerns of citizens most likely impacted by City Council actions, those with major interest in these affairs, such as ourselves, as persons within the Hercules Bayside Community and this is the principal reason why the Brown Act was enacted as a measure of good governance. Our concerns also extend to marked and undisclosed land use changes for these properties and the subsequent violations of the process by which the public to has the right to protest these aforementioned sales.

I. BROWN ACT

The Brown Act embodies the philosophy that public agencies exist for the purpose of conducting public business, and the public has the right to know how its "collaborative decisions" are being made. The actions surrounding and leading to the recent three real estate negotiations did not support this philosophy, both in the letter and spirit of the Brown Act.

The California Government Code section 54950 states:

"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

We are demanding that the Hercules City Council cure and correct the violations by rescinding the prior votes and by re-holding the open and closed sessions for the sale and purchase of the three aforementioned parcels in compliance with the California Government Code.

The actions taken by the Hercules City Council violated the following sections of the California Government Code:

1. Section 54954.5 -- Safe harbor closed session descriptions:

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS

Property: (Specify street address, or if no street address, the parcel number or other unique reference, of the real property under negotiation)

Agency negotiator: (Specify names of negotiators attending the closed session) (If circumstances necessitate the absence of a specified negotiator, an agent or designee may participate in place of the absent negotiator so long as the name of the agent or designee is announced at an open session held prior to the closed session.)

Negotiating parties: (Specify name of party (not agent))

Under negotiation: (Specify whether instruction to negotiator will concern price, terms of payment, or both)

Although the agency negotiators (city manager, city attorney) were disclosed, the negotiating parties (real estate broker, developers) were not named on any of the agenda descriptions for closed sessions.

The names of the developers were disclosed only during the open session, which occurred after several closed sessions and not before them in open session, as required by law.

2. Section 54956.8

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease. However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiators, the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate.

Note, however, that those are the minimum topics that must be disclosed in the open session. The fact that the Brown Act specifically requires that the parcel and negotiator be disclosed in open session does not mean that everything else may be discussed in closed session. To the contrary, the closed session is not permitted merely to consider the general wisdom of the transaction or other issues related to the possible transaction. Rather, the closed session is designed solely for the discussion of the price and other sale/lease terms that the negotiator may present during the course of the negotiations. See Shapiro v. City Council of San Diego, 96 Cal. App. 4th 904 (2002).

We suspect the City Council closed session discussions went beyond price and terms, since there were no previous open sessions identifying the negotiating parties.

II. PRELIMINARY OPEN SESSIONS ON PROPERTY TRANSFER AND SALES: NO REQUISITE ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT ABROGATE BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS

There were only two earlier open sessions pertaining to the sale of these properties, mentioned below, that are prior to the particular closed sessions that we declare in this letter as violations of the Brown Act. These violations relate to undisclosed major land use changes for each parcel, that were decided upon in subsequent closed session agreements between various undisclosed developers and the City Manager and City Council.

The first of these open sessions prior to the violations of the subsequent closed session negotiations was made on March 8, 2011, whereby the Hercules Redevelopment Agency transferred four properties (Sycamore Crossings, Parcel C, Victoria Crescent, and Yellow Freight sites) to the City of Hercules in order to maintain continuity for insuring that the properties are used in accordance with the redevelopment plan and land use plans and to repay the City of Hercules for Funds advanced to the RDA for various obligations.

On October 11, 2011, the City Council had approved a resolution to market for sale the Sycamore Crossing, Parcel C and Victoria Crescent properties and authorizing the solicitation of proposals from qualified real estate brokers. The resolution stated the following:

WHEREAS, the City currently owns the Sycamore Crossing (6.37 acres), Parcel C (17.27 acres) and Victoria Crescent (11.43 acres) sites; and

WHEREAS, staff has estimated the value of the three properties at approximately $13 to $15 million, less dirt removal, utility relocations and removal of a deed restriction, estimated at approximately $5 million; and

WHEREAS, staff recommend soliciting proposals from three brokers for each property the land use designations differ, Parcel C -- Planned Office, Research and Development, Sycamore Crossings -- Planned Commercial/Residential and Victoria Crescent -- Retail only ...

Importantly, that the Council had authorized the property land use designations as:

Parcel C -- Planned Office, Research and Development

Sycamore Crossings -- Planned Commercial/Residential

Victoria Crescent -- Retail only

It should be noted that in our research, we have not found any City Council resolutions authorizing the city manager to solicit uses radically different from the land use designations authorized on the October 11, 2011 Resolution. The public was only aware of the revised land use designations during much later open sessions, specifically:

1. January 24, 2012 for Sycamore Crossings from mixed use to big-box Safeway store and at least 16 pumps gas station. There are no resolutions approved by City Council to revise the land use designation from planned commercial/residential to big-box Safeway and 16-pump gas station development.

2. Parcel C and Victoria Crescent, when the City Council voted to approve Non-Binding Term Sheets for Parcel C and Victoria Crescent on March 27, 2012. The Term Sheets were approved for residential even though the City Council did not authorize the city manager to solicit residential offers in any open session.

Thus, we can safely conclude that closed session authorization to revise the land's end uses were given by the City Council during the closed session meetings, a violation of the Brown Act, since price and terms were only allowed to be discussed in those sessions.

In summary and with additional complaints, there were no requisite open sessions announcing the real estate negotiations, the brokers hired, the potential buyers, appraisal value nor land use specification changes prior to several closed sessions for each and all of the properties, a pattern of substantial and ongoing violation of the Brown Act.

III. THE SPECIFIC CLOSED CITY SESSIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT

A. Sycamore Crossings:

For the Sycamore Crossings negotiation, the Council held three (3) closed sessions for the Sycamore Crossings parcel: November 22, 2011, January 10, 2012, and January 24, 2012. All three closed sessions did not name the party negotiating with the City of Hercules.[SEE APPENDIX A: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR SYCAMORE CROSSINGS]

On January 24, 2012, the City Council held its first open session meeting regarding the Sycamore Crossing site sale to Property Development Centers for the development of a Safeway Anchored Shopping Center. This was the first time the negotiating party was disclosed. During this meeting, the Council voted to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to finalize and execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Property Development Centers.

B. Parcel C:

The Hercules City Council held four (4) closed sessions for Parcel C before its first open session. The closed sessions were held on February 16, 2012, March 6, 2012, March 13, 2012, and March 27, 2012. The developer negotiating with the city was not named on the agenda for closed session.[SEE: APENDIX B: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR PARCEL C]

DeNova Homes, the developer which negotiated with the City of Hercules for Parcel C, was named only during the March 27, 2012 open session, when the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the city manager to finalize and execute a Non-Binding Term Sheet with DeNova Homes for Parcel C.

Another closed session, on May 8, 2012, was held with DeNova Homes for Parcel C, and again, DeNova was not named on the closed session agenda, listed herein.

MAY 8, 2012

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL

PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- The Property Subject To Negotiation Is Generally

Described As Parcel C, Assessor's Parcel Number 404-020-076-0. The City's

Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney. Under

Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms.

On May 10, 2012, the City Council and city manager held a Town Hall meeting, after the community complained about the non-transparency of the real estate negotiations and the choice of residential uses instead of retail/commercial, as the zoning and General Plan had specified for the three parcels: Sycamore Crossings, Parcel C, and Victoria Crescent. During the town hall meeting, a panel of realtors explained to the public their vision of retail in Hercules, with the citizens questioning their supposed expert opinions.

On May 22, 2012, another closed session was held to negotiate for the sale of Parcel C. Again, DeNova was not named on the agenda item.

MAY 22, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

On June 6, the City Council held an open session and voted 4-1 to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to finalize and execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with DeNova Homes for the sale of Parcel C.

The process of the purchase and sale for Parcel C to DeNova Homes violated both sections of the Brown Act in its agenda description, and also by the series of closed session meetings made before the requisite revelatory open sessions, that failed to disclose to the public the negotiation party, namely DeNova Homes.

C. Victoria Crescent:

Similar to Parcel C real estate negotiations, the City Council held four (4) closed session meetings before the open session. The closed sessions occurred on February 16, 2012, March 6, 2012, March 13, 2012, and March 27, 2012. The developer negotiating with the city was not disclosed in any of the closed sessions. [SEE: APPENDIX C: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR VICTORIA CRESCENT- PART A]

An open session was finally held on March 27, 2012, wherein the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the city manager to finalize and execute a Non-Binding Term Sheet with Union Community Partners for the sale of Victoria Crescent.

Another closed session was held on May 8, 2012, then the town hall meeting on May 10, 2012, followed by three more closed sessions, on May 22, 2012 and on June 6, 2012 and June 19, 2012. During one of the three closed sessions, the City Council authorized the city manager to negotiate with SummerHill Homes because Union Community Partners had backed out. Both Union Community Partners and SummerHill Homes were never named on any of the closed sessions.[SEE: APPENDIX C: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR VICTORIA CRESCENT- PART B]

On June 26, the Hercules City Council held an open session and voted 4-1 to adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to finalize and execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Summerhill Homes for Victoria Crescent parcel. Neither real estate broker nor developer attended the meeting to answer any questions the Council may have had.

The process of the purchase and sale of Victoria Crescent to SummerHill Homes violated both sections of the Brown Act in its agenda description and by the closed session meetings held prior to open sessions to announce to the public the negotiation party, instead of holding an open session prior to the closed session.

On the August 28, 2012 Hercules City Council meeting is scheduling a closed session regarding the Victoria Crescent real estate negotiations without any open session indicating negotiators prior to the closed session.

6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL

PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- The Property Subject To Negotiation Is Generally

Described As Victoria Crescent, Assessor's Parcel Number 404-040-062-6. The City's

Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney. Under

Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms.

IV. FOR ALL THREE PARCELS: APPRAISAL ISSUES AND UNDISCLOSED LAND USE CHANGES

A. SALE OF CITY SURPLUS PROPERTY: Sections 54220 to 54232

In addition to the violation of the Brown Act, the City Council also may have violated Sections 54220 to 54232, Sale of City Surplus Property. It is our understanding that prior to the disposal of city real property, the City Manager should have reported to the City Council the surplus property and the City Council should have declared the properties as surplus and in this process, should have directed the City Manager to prepare a written estimate of the parcels' market value. The City Manager did not follow the above-mentioned process of declaring the properties surplus.

The City Manager did prepare a written estimate of the parcels' suspected market values on the October 11, 2011 resolution, as such:

WHEREAS, staff has estimated the value of the three properties at approximately $13

million to $15 million, less dirt removal, utility relocations and removal of a deed restriction, estimated at approximately $5 million;

However, most importantly, the staff report did not attach any formal, written real estate appraisals of the properties to support such estimates. Furthermore, on comparing the March 8, 2011 resolution when the properties were transferred from the Redevelopment Agency to the City, the values were based on purchase price of acquisition as follows:

Parcel C -- which the Agency acquired in 2008 for $13,916,084.44.

Sycamore Crossings property -- acquired in 2007 for 14,488,510.20.

The Victoria Crescent property -- which the Agency acquired in 2008 for $3,418,192.66.

Prior to the disposal of the real property by public sale, the City Manager should have provided written notice to public agencies in the manner prescribed by California Government Code Section 54220. If the property was not purchased by a public agency pursuant, to Section 54222, the City Manager should have then negotiated to dispose of the property to the highest responsible bidder who most closely meets the terms and conditions of the public notice inviting bids.

B. REFUTATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO

It may be possible for the City Manager to claim that the early closed sessions did not list specific companies because the Council was looking at multiple proposals from multiple companies, and not negotiating with any specific party. Under such a scenario, after the Council narrowed down the list of proposals, only then could they identify the party with whom to negotiate. However, in such a case, there would still be a Brown Act violation, for if during the closed session, the City Council and City manager were deciding amongst the broker's offers, the brokers (CBRE and Cassidy Turley) were also not named in the agenda. This is a critical point.

Moreover, if the Council is looking at multiple offers with different land uses, and trying to decide which is the optimum use, then it should not be in closed session because it is actually making land use policy. If that were the case, then such a discussion should have occurred in a public open session. This is another critical point.

In cases where the City wishes the surplus property to be developed or used in a manner to support specified economic development, retail, industrial or housing goals and policies, the notice inviting bids should have required the bidders to publicly specify end-uses for the property. Therefore, preference should have been given to the bid with the highest monetary purchase price, which most closely accomplishes the end-use goals.

C. SPECIFIC LAND USE CHANGES IN VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT

The Oct 11th 2011 resolution authorized solicitation from qualified brokers of these city parcels that were to be marketed according to previously specified end uses, specifically:

Parcel C -- Planned office, Research and Development

Sycamore Crossing -- Planned Commercial/Residential

Victoria Crescent -- Retail Only.

The City Council resolution of Oct 11th specified land use purposes of these properties that was consistent with the earlier March 8th 2011 council resolution authorizing city ownership and development of these previous RDA properties, in according to the city's existing land use plans within the previous five years. The previous five-year plan was consistent with the 2000 Hercules charrette that called for pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use land use with both residential and small-to-mid scale commercial development of these properties on the San Pablo Bay side of Interstate 80. Importantly, the drastic changes of end-purposes for the properties were never authorized by resolution nor discussed in a city council open session.

Sycamore Crossing's land use was never discussed in public until the Purchase and Sale Agreement was disclosed and immediately approved in open session on January 24, 2012. Citizen input was not entertained before negotiating with Safeway.

As stated in the Sycamore Crossing IPDP approved on June 8, 2010:

The Sycamore Crossing Initial Planned Development Plan (IPDP) helps fulfill the goals of the Central Hercules Plan to develop a central mixed-use commercial and residential heart of the city. The plan envisions a vibrant, mixed-use quarter centered along SycamoreAvenue that combines locally-serving retail, professional office, and residential uses, complementing the commercial character of San Pablo Avenue to the southeast and the mixed-use character of the New Town Center district to the east. The development extends the qualities of Central Hercules through a pedestrian-oriented network of walkable streets, appropriately scaled mixed-use buildings, and new landscape improvements.

In contrast, the Sycamore Crossing PSA with Property Development Centers LLC on January 24, 2012, called for a giant sixty thousand square foot Safeway grocery store and a Gasoline Fueling Facility, described as containing at least 16 gas pumps along with a convenience store, radically different from the mixed-used walkable, pedestrian-friendly plan as set forth in the Sycamore Crossing Initial Planned Development Plan.

The public was only made aware of the revised land use designations to residential for Parcel C (350 unit apartment building) and Victoria Crescent (40 units single homes), when the City Council voted to approve Non-Binding Term Sheets for Parcel C and Victoria Crescent on March 27, 2012. The Term Sheets were approved for residential even though the City Council did not authorize the city manager to solicit residential offers in any open session.

The drastically revised land use designations of these parcels would ultimately affect the properties' sales prices and future city tax revenues, an important financial issue that was also never discussed with the public in open session. Moreover, these matters would need to be weighed, with due diligence, into any discussion regarding the long-term financial justification for revisions in land end-use of these three properties. For example, a Safeway food store itself would provide little sales taxes and Parcel C apartments would generate no yearly property taxes and would require more services, draining the general fund.

V. SALE OF BUILDINGS AND SITES: HEARING PROTESTS

California Government Code Sections 37420. — 37430

When the legislative body of a city finds the public interest and convenience require the sale of any public building and site dedicated to a public use, it may adopt a resolution of its finding and intention to sell the property. The resolution shall:

(a) Fix a time for hearing protests to the sale.

(b) Provide for publication of the notice of hearing.

(c) Fix the time final action will be taken.

(d) Contain an accurate description of the property to be sold.

The resolution shall be published at least once in a daily newspaper published and circulated in the city or, if there is none, the legislative body shall designate a newspaper published in the county. It shall also be posted for not less than ten days in at least three conspicuous places upon each parcel of real property affected.

At any time prior to final action, any person interested may protest the proposed sale. The protest may be written and delivered to the clerk of the legislative body or oral at the meeting considering the resolution. The legislative body shall hear and pass upon the protest. If no protests are received or the legislative body overrules the protests by a four-fifths vote of its members, it may proceed with the sale.

The City Council and City Manager did not follow the above-mentioned process, thus the public were not given an opportunity to protest the sale.

VI. Formal Demand as Required by Law:

As provided by Section 54960.1 you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to either cure or correct the challenged actions or to inform us of your decision not to do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave us no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged actions pursuant to Section 54960.1, in which case we would seek the award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Section 54960.5.

We respectfully request you abide by the law and rescind the votes made in violation of the Brown Act and California Government Code Sections 37420. — 37430 (Sale of City Property) and California Government Code Sections 54220 to 54232, (Sale of City Surplus Property) regarding the real estate negotiations for Sycamore Crossings, Parcel C, and Victoria Crescent and to re-hold the open and closed sessions for all three parcels. We request you sufficiently notify the public prior to taking further action on these issues as required by law.

We also request the City Council to refrain from reaching a collective concurrence before public meetings are held. As you are aware, meetings demand transparency and public participation and thus as public servants, you should do everything you can in furtherance of this in support of the intent behind the Brown Act.

It is not our intention to engage in litigation. We are fully aware of the recent budget issues that have plagued our City and the need to sell real property assets to prevent declaring bankruptcy. Therefore, we hope that you correct the problem as requested so that this City is not burdened with further unnecessary expenses.

Respectfully Yours,

Concerned Citizens of the Hercules Bayside Community:

APPENDICES: A, B, C-A, C-B

[Note, from p. 2: "Although the agency negotiators (city manager, city attorney) were disclosed, the negotiating parties (real estate broker, developers) were not named on any of the agenda descriptions for closed sessions", as specified by the Brown Act, Section 54954.5 -- Safe harbor closed session descriptions.]

I. APPENDIX A: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR SYCAMORE CROSSINGS

NOVEMBER 22, 2011

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR — Regarding Assessor's Parcel Numbers 404-020-057-0 and 404-020-058-8, Generally Described As Sycamore Crossing. The City's/Agency's Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager/Executive Director, Frank Fox, Real Property Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney/Agency Counsel. Under Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms.

JANUARY 10, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

II. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

JANUARY 24, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

II. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CLOSED SESSION

3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR — Regarding Assessor's Parcel Numbers 404-020-057-0 and 404-020-058-8, Generally Described As Sycamore Crossing. The City's/Agency's Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager/Executive Director, Frank Fox, Real Property Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney/Agency Counsel Under Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms.

II. APPENDIX B: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR PARCEL C

FEBRUARY 16, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

MARCH 6, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- The Property Subject To Negotiation Is Generally Described As Parcel C, Assessor's Parcel Number 404-020-076-0. The City's/Agency's Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney. Under Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms.

MARCH 13, 2012

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

MARCH 27, 2012

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

III. APPENDIX C: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR VICTORIA CRESCENT- PART A FEBRUARY 16, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

MARCH 6, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- The Property Subject To Negotiation Is Generally Described As Victoria Crescent, Assessor's Parcel Number 404-040-062-6. The City's Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney. Under Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms

MARCH 13, 2012

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

MARCH 27, 2012

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

APPENDIX C: CLOSED SESSIONS FOR VICTORIA CRESCENT- PART B

MAY 8, 2012

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- The Property Subject To Negotiation Is Generally Described As Victoria Crescent, Assessor's Parcel Number 404-040-062-6. The City's Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney. Under Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms

MAY 22, 2012

HERCULES CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

JUNE 6, 2012

SPECIAL HERCULES COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- The Property Subject To Negotiation Is Generally Described As Victoria Crescent, Assessor's Parcel Number 404-040-062-6. The City's Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney. Under Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms.

JUNE 19, 2012

SPECIAL HERCULES CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -- The Property Subject To Negotiation Is Generally Described As Victoria Crescent, Assessor's Parcel Number 404-040-062-6. The City's Negotiators are Steven Duran, City Manager and Patrick Tang, City Attorney. Under Negotiation Will Be Price And Terms.