Tuesday, July 26, 2022
6:00 PM
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dan Romero
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
Meeting Agenda
In-Person in Council Chambers or
Zoom ID: 863 9549 8475
Zoom Passcode: 143838
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
1 City Council Meeting Agenda July 26, 2022
See last pages of agenda for information regarding meeting procedures To view webcast of meetings, live or on demand, go to the City's website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us I. SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:
22-225 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Conference With Labor Negotiators - City Negotiators: Dante Hall, City Manager; Edwin Gato, Director of Finance; Boonmanus Seelapasay, relative to the following employee groups:
a. Teamsters Local 315 Employee Organizations
b. Hercules Police Officers Association
c. Hercules Senior Manager Employee Group
d. Confidential Unrepresented Employee Group
e. Mid Management Employee Group
IV. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL V. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
City of Hercules Page 2
2 City Council Meeting Agenda July 26, 2022
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This time is reserved for members of the public to address issues not included in the agenda. In accordance with the Brown Act, Council will refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time, and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.
In accordance with Executive Order N-25-20 and guidance from the California Department of Public Health on gatherings, remote public participation is allowed as follows:
The public may log into the Zoom meeting (refer to agenda cover for Zoom login information) and provide their public comment (3 minute time limit). If attending in-person, please fill out a speaker card and provide to the City Clerk.
When the public comment period is open for the item you wish to speak on, use the "raise hand" feature in Zoom (or press *9 if connecting via phone audio only) at the time the Mayor calls for public comment. Please wait your turn and once you are brought into the meeting, state your name and city of residence for the record.
For additional alternatives to providing public comments please refer to the Notice of Important Instructions on how to Participate and Watch the Hercules City Council Meeting on the back pages of the agenda. All public comments are allowed up to 3 minutes to relay their message or concern. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment at this point in the agenda. If any speakers remain at the conclusion of the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting to take the remaining comments.
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
22-240 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of July 12, 2022.
Attachments: Meeting Minutes July 12, 2022
22-230 Emergency Declaration Extension
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing virtual city council, commission and committee meetings during a declared state of emergency pursuant to government code 54953 (AB 361).
Staff Report AB 361
Attach 1 - AB 361 Resolution
Attach 2 - Contra Costa County Health Officer Memo July 5 2022 Attachments:
22-231 Revised Lease Agreement with New Cingular Wireless Recommendation: Approve an Amended & Restated Site Lease Agreement between the City of Hercules and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) and Authorize the City Manager Execute Related Documents.
Staff Report - 2010 Refugio Amended-Restated Site Lease with Cingular Wireless-ATT Attach 1 - 10101895_Refugio Valley Gen Site Lease_FINAL Attach 2 - CC Reso for Cingular Wireless-ATT Amended and Restated Site Lease Attachments:
City of Hercules Page 3
3 City Council Meeting Agenda July 26, 2022
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS
22-233 Bayfront Heights Public Outreach
Recommendation: Receive a presentation on the results of the outreach process and next steps, ask any questions, and take public comment. This item is for information and discussion only.
Staff Report - Bayfront Heights Public Outreach
Attach 1 - Summary_Herculesvirtualworkshop_22_0607
Attach 2 - Summary_Herculesworkshop_22_0615
Attach 3 - Summary_Herculesonsline survey_22_0718
Attach 4 - HerculesWDMP_22_0726
Attachments:
22-239 Report on Town Hall Meeting About Promoting Racial Equity, Combating Racial Violence Against Asian Americans and All People of Color, and Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion
Recommendation: Receive this report from Circle Up Education summarizing the comments of the town hall meeting on May 17, 2022.
SR - Promoting Racial Equity and Combating Racial Violence Attach 1 - City of Hercules - Community Town Hall Summary Report - 2022-06-29 Attach 2 - City of Hercules - Town Hall Summary Presentation - 2022-07-26 Attachments:
22-234 Report on Successor Agency to the Hercules Redevelopment Agency 2022 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
Recommendation: Receive an update on the refinancing of the former Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Bonds.
Attachments: 2022 TABs Refunding Update - Staff Report - Final - 7.18.2022 22-237 Hercules Special Event Funding Plan for FY 22-23 Recommendation: 1. Approve the proposed list of special events and maximum funding limits for FY 22-23; 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the with the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce to coordinate and operate four special events for the 22-23 fiscal year; 3.
Authorize the City Manager to work with the City of Pinole to plan a Co-sponsored Fourth of July Firework Celebration event for July 2023.
SR - Special Events 220726 7-19-22
Attach 1 - Resolution - Special Events (002)
Attach 2 - Bayfront Chamber - Proposed Special Events FY22-23 - 7-19-22 (005) Attachments:
XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This time is reserved for members of the public who were unavailable to attend the Public Communications period during Section X of the meeting, or were unable to speak due to lack of time. The public speaker requirements specified in Section X of this Agenda apply to this Section.
City of Hercules Page 4
4 City Council Meeting Agenda July 26, 2022
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.
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:00p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.
Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us and can receive e-mail notification of agenda and staff report postings by signing up to receive an enotice from the City’s homepage. Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (510) 799-8215 (Posted: July 21,2022)
City of Hercules Page 5
5 City Council Meeting Agenda July 26, 2022
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE AND WATCH THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING
COMMISSION HYBRID MEETINGS
Attend in Person: Hercules City Council Chambers – 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 Attend via Zoom Teleconference: Details provided below and zoom webinar login, passcode and phone numbers provided on the agenda cover.
Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety protocols will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Council Chambers.
How to Submit Public Comments
In Person: Attend meeting at the Hercules City Council Chambers, fill out a public speaker card located on the side table and submit it to the City Clerk.
Via Zoom: Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing.
Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here or go to: https://www.zoom.us/join. Zoom also allows you to join by phone at +1-669-900-6833 or +1-929-205-6099 or +1-253-215-8782. • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this information is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes to speak and provide comment. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment during the first public comment period on the agenda. If any speaker comments have not been accommodated prior to the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting for the remaining public comments. • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.
When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute.
Written Comments Submitted Electronically: All comments received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted to the City’s agenda website and located by clicking on the “meeting details” tab. Written comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be provided to City Council and posted to the agenda website the following day. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Email comments to [email protected]. Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.
Written comments submitted in person or via mail: Additional ways to provide your public comment is to either drop off your comment in person to the front desk receptionist located in the City Hall lobby or to mail your comment to City of Hercules, ATTN: City Clerk – Public Comment (Meeting Date), 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 in time to reach the City Clerk no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting or you can submit your comment by telephone by calling (510) 799-8215 no later than 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
If you need assistance with public comment, please contact: Lauren Berges, City Clerk at [email protected] or by calling (510) 799-8215.
All public comments will become part of the official meeting record. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the website will not be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your written comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the Council or Commission meeting.
City of Hercules Page 6
6 City Council Meeting Agenda July 26, 2022
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
Live on Channel 28: City Council meetings will replay the following Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 1:00 p.m.
Planning Commission meetings will replay the following Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 9:00 a.m.
Video Streamed Live on the City’s Website:
To view City Council and Planning Commission meeting videos online go to: Hercules Meeting Videos.
Instructions to view Live or On-Demand Videos from the City’s website:
1. Go to: Hercules Meeting Videos or https://hercules.legistar.com/calendar.aspx.
2. Locate the desired meeting and date.
3. Click the associated “Video” link (Video status is as follows):
Video = Video is available for on demand viewing.
In Progress = Video is available for viewing during live recording.
Not Available = Video is either unavailable or has not been recorded.
City of Hercules Page 7
7 City Council Meeting Agenda July 26, 2022
THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL ADHERES TO THE FOLLOWING POLICIES,
PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
1. SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special accommodations to participate at a City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 510-799-8215 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
2. AGENDA ITEMS: Persons wishing to add an item to an agenda must submit the final written documentation 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City retains the discretion whether to add items to the agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council otherwise may make comments during the Public Communication period of the meeting.
3. AGENDA POSTING: Agendas of regular City Council meetings are posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall, the Hercules Swim Center, Ohlone Child Care Center, Hercules Post Office, and on the City’s website (www.ci.hercules.ca.us),
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: Persons who wish to address the City Council should complete the speaker form prior to the Council's consideration of the item on the agenda.
Anyone who wishes to address the Council on a topic that is not on the agenda and is relevant to the Council should complete the speaker form prior to the start of the meeting. Speakers will be called upon during the Public Communication portion of the meeting. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not take action on items not listed on the agenda. The Council may refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.
In the interests of conducting an orderly and efficient meeting, speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes.
Anyone may also submit written comments at any time before or during the meeting.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Council or a member of the public prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion to adopt.
6. LEGAL CHALLENGES: If you challenge a decision of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the meeting or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the meeting. Actions challenging City Council decisions shall be subject to the time limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
City of Hercules Page 8
8 111 Civic Drive City of Hercules Hercules, CA 94547
Meeting Minutes
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dan Romero
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:00 PM
In-Person in Council Chambers or
Zoom ID: 830 4375 6249
Zoom Passcode: 482781
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
To view webcast of meetings, live or on demand, go to the City's website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us I. SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
Present: 4 -
Absent: 1 - Vice Mayor A. Walker-Griffin
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
No public comment.
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:
1. 22-215 Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9)
City of Long Beach, et al. versus Monsanto Company (class action)
2. 22-229 Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9)
City of Pinole et al. v. PG&E (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 19-30088)
City of Hercules Page 1
9 City Council Meeting Minutes July 12, 2022
IV. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
Present: 4 -
Absent: 1 - Vice Mayor A. Walker-Griffin
V. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Patrick Tang reported that the present councilmembers (4) voted unanimously to opt out of the class action settlement City of Long Beach, et al. versus Monsanto Company related to Monsanto Companies Manufacturer and Sale of PCBs. The County of Contra Costa and many other cities in the Bay Area have made the decision to initiate direct litigation against Monsanto to recover the clean up costs related to PCB contamination.
City Attorney Tang reported in the matter of City of Pinole et al. versus PG&E, the present councilmembers (4) voted unanimously to accept the settlement offer that PG&E has made of $110,000 in relation to this claim.
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Grimsley.
VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Bailey requested a moment of silence in honor of Japanese former Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who was assassinated on July 8th, 2022.
VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
None.
IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
City Manager Hall had no additions or deletions for the agenda.
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Public Speakers: Dineen Leong Roy; Susan Pricco, Lori Chinn XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 22-226 Resolution Calling an Election on November 8, 2022 for Voters to Consider a Ballot Measure to Extend the Existing Utility Users Tax at the Current Rate of 8%, submittal of the Ordinance to the Voters, and Requesting the County to Consolidate this Election with the Statewide General Election.
Presentation by City Manager Dante Hall and City Attorney Patrick Tang.
Councilmembers provided comment and discussion.
City of Hercules Page 2
10 City Council Meeting Minutes July 12, 2022
Public Speakers: Susan Pricco; Darrel Tucker; Wallie Moore; Glenna Phillips; Bob Antaki
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Grimsley. The motion failed by the following vote:
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, and Council Member C.
Kelley
3 -
Nay: 1 - Mayor D. Bailey
Absent: 1 - Vice Mayor A. Walker-Griffin
2. 22-227 Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Calling an Election on November 8, 2022 for Voters to Consider a Ballot Measure to make Hercules a Charter City and Establish by Ordinance a Local Real Property Transfer Tax, submittal of the Measure to the Voters, and Requesting the County to Consolidate this Election with the Statewide General Election.
Presentation by City Manager Dante Hall. Councilmembers provided comment.
Public Speakers: Darrel Jay Tucker; Susan Pricco; Glenna Phillips; Mark Shalz; Debi Mackey; Eric Meyers; Bob Antaki; Susan Keefe; Selina Williams; Tanya Little; Wallie Moore
Councilmember Grimsley made a motion to not adopt the resolution set before Council; Seconded by Councilmember Romero. Councilmembers provided discussion prior to voting and requested City Attorney Tang simplify the motion on the floor for clarity. City Attorney Tang clarifies the motion on the floor is to decline to direct staff to prepare a measure to approve a city charter and propose RPTT for the November 8th Election.
Councilmember Grimsley accepts the suggest change. Councilmember Romero seconded.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Council Member Romero to decline to direct staff to prepare a measure to approve a city charter and propose RPTT for the November 8th Election. The motion approved by the following vote:
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
4 -
Absent: 1 - Vice Mayor A. Walker-Griffin
3. 22-219 Mandatory Garbage/Solid Waste Disposal - Delinquent Accounts Recommendation: Conduct a Public Hearing and upon conclusion, consider adopting a Resolution confirming the report of delinquent accounts and placing liens on said properties and special assessments upon property taxes pursuant to City of Hercules Municipal Code Section 5-2.01 to 5-2.16, Mandatory Garbage/Solid Waste Disposal.
City of Hercules Page 3
11 City Council Meeting Minutes July 12, 2022
Presentation by City Manager Dante Hall. Councilmembers provided comment.
No public comment.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Romero, seconded by Council Member Kelley, to adopt Resolution 2022-058. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
4 -
Absent: 1 - Vice Mayor A. Walker-Griffin
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Grimsley, to adopt the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley
4 -
Absent: 1 - Vice Mayor A. Walker-Griffin
1. 22-228 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2022.
Approved.
2. 22-220 Agreement with M-Group for Planning Services
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group dba M-Group in the not-to-exceed amount of $106,000 for planning services.
Approved.
3. 22-221 Ordinance to amending the Hercules Municipal Code, adding Title 10 Chapter 2 Article 9 Urban Lot Split and Title 13 Chapter 36-36 Two Unit Development
Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 540 amending the Hercules Municipal Code, Land Use and Zoning Code sections to establish regulations for subdivision and two-unit developments to comply with SB 9.
Approved.
City of Hercules Page 4
12 City Council Meeting Minutes July 12, 2022
4. 22-222 Extension of Professional Services Agreement with Doherty Law Group for Legislative Advocacy Services.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution to extend the Doherty Law Group agreement from April 2022 to June 2022 for an additional cost of $18,000.
Approved.
5. 22-224 Update on the Sanitary Sewer Disposal System to be installed by the Developer for the Willow Avenue Self-Storage Project Recommendation: Receive a status update on the public sanitary sewer disposal system to be installed in Willow Avenue by Hercules Self-Storage Management, the Developer for the Self-Storage Project at 1444 Willow Avenue.
Approved.
XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS
1. 22-223 Receive the Finance Commission's Annual Report on Measure B and C for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021
Recommendation: Receive and file the Finance Commission's annual report on Measure B and C.
Presentation by Director of Finance Edwin Gato and Finance Commissioner Dennis Esselsagoe. Councilmembers provided comment.
No public comment.
XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
No public comment.
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
City Manager Hall and City Attorney Tang had no reports.
Councilmembers reported out on local and regional meetings and events.
Councilmember Romero requested the Council readdress the UUT measure at a future meeting. The members present agreed. The City Manager was directed to poll the members for a date in the near future to convene a special meeting to discuss the UUT.
City of Hercules Page 5
13 City Council Meeting Minutes July 12, 2022
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bailey adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
_________________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Lauren Berges, CMC
City Clerk
City of Hercules Page 6
14 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of July 26, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Lauren Berges, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Emergency Declaration Extension
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution authorizing virtual city council, commission and committee meetings during a declared state of emergency pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (AB 361)
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION: There are no direct financial impacts from enactment of the proposed resolution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
When the COVID-19 pandemic started, local agencies struggled to conduct their public meetings in compliance with the Brown Act’s public accessibility requirements while still abiding by stay-athome orders. As a result, Governor Newsom signed Orders N-25-20, N-29-20, and N-35-20 to grant local agencies the flexibility to meet remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. These orders expired on September 30, 2021.
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361 – Brown Act: Remote Meetings During Emergencies. AB 361 went into effect immediately upon signature by the governor. It amends the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue having purely virtual meetings using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology as long as there is a gubernatorial "proclaimed state of emergency," and either (1) state or local officials imposing or recommending measures that promote social distancing or (2) the legislative body finding that meeting in person would present an imminent safety risk to attendees.
There are key differences between the Executive Orders, which expired September 30, 2021, and AB 361. AB 361 imposes requirements with respect to public comment, however, the City of Hercules currently satisfies legal requirements with respect to live public comment via Zoom in alignment with AB 361. Additionally, public agencies must either make findings by majority vote that the state of emergency still exists and continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or that health officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. These conditions continue to exist. Determinations by the local agency that the emergency impacts the ability to meet safely in person must be revisited every 30 days. 15 Governor Newsom’s March 4, 2020 Proclamation of Emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is still in effect. In addition, the Contra Costa County Public Health Officer continues to recommend teleconferencing or social distancing to protect the public’s health and safety during local government meetings.
Continuing the remote meetings would provide for a consistent meeting format until the pandemic emergency is lifted.
DISCUSSION:
AB 361 amends Government Code Section 54953 to provide an alternative to the strict posting and public access requirements to teleconferencing locations. To teleconference public meetings, the City Council must pass a resolution stating that they have reconsidered the circumstances of the COVID-19 state of emergency and that any of the following circumstances exist:
1. The state of emergency as a result of COVID-19 continues to directly impact the ability of the members of City Council and the members of the City’s Commissions, and Committees to meet safely in person; and
2. The State of California and the City of Hercules continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
This Resolution makes the findings to confirm the current conditions to allow teleconference meetings pursuant to AB 361 for the City Council and on behalf of all of the commissions and committees created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b). The Resolution authorizes teleconference meetings including hybrid meetings held both via teleconference and in-person. This Resolution will allow members of the public to safely observe and participate in local government teleconference meetings during the continued pandemic.
AB 361 requires City Council to make these findings every 30 days to continue teleconference hearings. If adopted, staff will agendize this item once a month until the state of emergency is over, or City Council no longer believes teleconference meetings are necessary.
If the Resolution is not adopted, the City will be required to hold public meetings in-person or conduct teleconference meetings pursuant to subsection 54953(b)(3) of the California Government Code which will require posting of the agenda at each teleconference location and for the public to be admitted to each teleconference location.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Contra Costa County Health Services Recommendation
16 1
HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES
AUTHORIZING VIRTUAL CITY COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AND COMMITTEE
MEETINGS DURING A DECLARED STATE OF EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54953 (AB 361)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hercules is committed to ensuring public access to observe and participate in local government meetings; and WHEREAS, all meetings of the City Council and its other legislative bodies created pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, so that any member of the public may participate in local government meetings; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor signed Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings by teleconference or by other means; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21 which ended the provisions of Executive Order N-29-20 on September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 (2021) into law allowing legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions, including the requirement that the legislative body make specified findings. AB 361 (2021) took effect on October 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 authorizes local legislative bodies to continue using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology as long as there is a gubernatorial "proclaimed state of emergency," and either (1) State or local officials imposing or recommending measures that promote social distancing or (2) the legislative body finding that meeting in person would present an imminent safety risk to attendees; and WHEREAS, the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, related to the pandemic of coronavirus commonly as COVID-19 has not been rescinded and remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, new variants of COVID-19 have developed, and risks of illness or death due to such variants remains significant to the general public; and WHEREAS, State and local health officials have imposed and recommended social distancing measures for the protection of public health and safety in response to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Health Services Officer continues to recommend teleconferencing or social distancing during public meetings of all legislative bodies to protect the community’s health against the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, teleconference meetings may include hybrid meetings, in which all or some members of the legislative body meet in person while others attend by teleconference, and members of the public are either allowed to participate only by teleconference or both in person and by teleconference (“hybrid 17 2
meetings”). The purpose of hybrid meetings is to allow for multiple modes of attending meetings while reducing the risks of COVID-19, including its variants; and WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees, and other bodies that were created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate in and observe local government meetings.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules that:
Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 2. Current Conditions Authorize Teleconference Public Meetings of Legislative Bodies. Based on the California Governor’s continued declaration of a State of Emergency and the Contra Costa County Health Services Officer’s recommendation to continue teleconferencing or social distancing during public meetings, the City Council finds that the conditions continue to exist pursuant to Government Code sections 54952(e)(1) and 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to use teleconferencing to hold public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.
Section 3. Authorize Legislative Bodies to Conduct Teleconference Meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately and shall be in effect for a period of 30 days from the date of adoption. The City Council may reconsider the circumstances necessitating this resolution within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 26th day of July, 2022 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
18 Recommendations for safely holding public meetings
Each local government agency is authorized to determine whether to hold public meetings in person, on-line (teleconferencing only), or via a combination of methods. The following are recommendations from the Contra Costa County Health Officer to minimize the risk of COVID 19 transmission during a public meeting.
1. Online meetings (i.e. teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged, where practical, as these meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19. This is particularly important when community prevalence rates are high. Our current trends as of July 5, 2022 in Covid-19 case rate, test positivity, Covid-19 hospitalizations, and Covid-19 wastewater surveillance are increasing at this time. In addition to this, the predominant variant of Covid-19 being identified continues to be the Omicron variant and it’s subvariants the impact of which on the spread of Covid-19 has shown to dramatically increase COVID-19 transmission.
2. If a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended, when possible, to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person.
3. A written safety protocol should be developed and followed. It is recommended that the protocol require social distancing, where feasible – i.e. six feet of separation between attendees; and consider requiring or strongly encouraging face masking of all attendees and encouraging attendees to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccine.
4. Seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times.
5. Consider holding public meetings outdoors. Increasing scientific consensus is that outdoor airflow reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission compared to indoor spaces. Hosting events outdoors also may make it easier to space staff and members of the public at least 6 feet apart. If unable to host outdoors, consider ways to increase ventilation and flow of the indoor space to reduce the risk of COVID-19 while indoors.
6. Current evidence is unclear as to the added benefit of temperature checks in addition to symptom checks. We encourage focus on symptom checks as they may screen out individuals with other Covid-19 symptoms besides fever and help reinforce the message to not go out in public if you are not feeling well.
7. Consider a voluntary attendance sheet with names and contact information to assist in contact tracing of any cases linked to a public meeting.
Revised 7-5-2022
Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH
Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County
19 1
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
DATE: July 26, 2022
TO: Mayor Bailey and Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Timothy Rood, Community Development Director Patrick Tang, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Revised Lease agreement with New Cingular Wireless RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve an Amended & Restated Site Lease Agreement between the City of Hercules and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) and Authorize the City Manager Execute Related Documents.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:
Increased revenue to the City of $612.33 per month or $7,347.96 annually, with an annual CPI adjustment of 3-4%.
BACKGROUND:
Resolution #17-048, Contract #17-024 is an existing lease agreement between the City of Hercules CA and New Cingular Wireless for approximately 477 square feet for the right to maintain telecom equipment on a PG&E-owned tower on City-owned open space south of the intersection of Refugio Valley and Redwood Roads. The proposed Amended & Restated Site Lease Agreement is for approximately 620 square feet, which will include an area for an emergency generator for the site. This lease amendment increases the base lease amount owed to the City from $2,500 to $3,481 per month, to be increased annually by 3% or the CPI, whichever is higher, with a maximum cap at 4% increase as stated in the attached Lease. The length of the lease is 5 years, with two 5-year extensions under the same terms.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The adoption of the below Lease is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15378 and California Public Resources Code § 21065, as this ordinance is not a “project” because its adoption is not an activity that has the potential for a direct physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and that, even if this ordinance qualified as a “project” subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3), this Ordinance does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment as it does not allow for any new or expanded uses not otherwise permitted under 20 2
existing federal, state, and local regulations. The wireless communications facilities themselves are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Amended and Restated Site Lease signed by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) (See Exhibit B for depiction of project.)
2. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amended and Restated Site Lease
21 AMENDED AND RESTATED SITE LEASE
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED SITE LEASE (this "Lease") dated as of the last of the signature dates below (“Effective Date”), is by and between the City of Hercules, a municipal corporation ("Landlord"), and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Tenant").
BACKGROUND
A. Landlord owns that certain plot, parcel or tract of land, as legally described on Exhibit A, together with all rights and privileges arising in connection therewith, located in the City of Hercules, County of Contra Costa, State of California 94547 [APN: 407-290-007] (collectively, the “Property”). Tenant desires to use a portion of the Property in connection with its federally licensed communications business to provide space for certain of Tenant’s equipment necessary or advisable for the operation of its antennas and associated communications fixtures and equipment installed or to be installed on a tower antenna structure (the “Tower”) owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California corporation (“PG&E”), which Tower is located on the Property. Landlord desires to grant to Tenant the right to use a portion of the Property in accordance with this Lease.
B. Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Site Lease With Option with an effective date of March 11, 2009(“Existing Lease”) for use of the Property.
C. As of the Commencement Date (as defined in Section 2, Term, below), it is the intent of Landlord and Tenant to amend, restate and supersede all of the terms, covenants and conditions of the Existing Lease in their entirety with the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease as herein below set forth.
AGREEMENT
1. Lease of Premises. Landlord hereby leases to Tenant a certain portion of the Property containing approximately Six Hundred Twenty (620) square feet including the air space above such ground space, as described on attached Exhibit B (the “Premises”) for the placement of Tenant’s Wireless Communication Facility (as defined in Section 5, Permitted Use, below) and grants such easements as are necessary for installation of all equipment required or advisable to connect Tenant’s antennas located on the Tower owned PG&E with the Wireless Communication Facility.
2. Term. The initial term of this Lease shall be five (5) years (“Initial Term”), commencing on July 1, 2022 (the "Commencement Date") and terminating at midnight on June 30, 2027.
3. Renewal. Tenant shall have the right to extend this Lease for Two (2) additional five (5) year terms (the “Renewal Term”) on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein. This Lease shall automatically renew for the Renewal Term, unless Tenant notifies Landlord, in writing, of Tenant's intention not to renew this Lease at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, or if Tenant is in default under this Lease beyond any applicable notice and cure period on the date that is thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term. If Tenant shall remain in possession of the Premises at the expiration of this Lease without a written agreement, such tenancy shall be deemed a month-to-month tenancy under the same terms and conditions of this Lease, including the annual increase in Rent provision set forth in Section 4(b) below, which annual increase in Rent shall not require notice by Landlord to Tenant. The Initial Term and the Renewal Term, if exercised, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Term”. 22 4. Rent.
(a) From and after the Commencement Date, Tenant shall pay Landlord or Landlord’s designee, as rent, Three Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-One and No/I00 Dollars ($3,481.00.) per month ("Rent"). The first payment of Rent shall be due within thirty (30) days following the Commencement Date and shall be prorated based on the days remaining in the month following the Commencement Date, and thereafter Rent will be payable monthly in advance by the fifth (5th) day of each calendar month to Landlord at the address specified in Section 12, Notices, below. If this Lease is terminated for any reason at a time other than on the last day of a month, Rent shall be prorated as of the date of termination and all prepaid Rent shall be immediately refunded to Tenant.
(b) Annually and automatically without notification, on each anniversary of the Commencement Date during the Term, the then current base Rent shall be automatically increased (without the need for Landlord to notify Tenant of such automatic increase) by the greater of (i) three percent (3%) over the monthly Rent paid during the previous year, or (ii) any percentage increase which occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco - Oakland - San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area during the preceding year period, provided, however, that in no event shall an increase in the monthly Rent exceed four percent (4%) over the monthly Rent paid for the immediately preceding year. (c) In the event of any additions, changes or modifications of or to Tenant’s equipment that increase the size of the footprint of the Premises, Landlord shall have the right to increase the Rent by an amount equal to the then-current per square foot rental rate charged by Landlord to Tenant times the square footage of the ground space area in excess of the original footprint of the Premises leased by Landlord to Tenant hereunder.
5. Permitted Use. The Premises may be used by Tenant for the installation of an emergency back up generator, aautomatic transfer switch, support equipment ,transmission and reception of commercial wireless radio communication signals and for the construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, removal or replacement of its wireless communications fixtures and related facilities, including antennas, microwave dishes equipment shelters and/or cabinets (collectively, the “Wireless Communication Facility”) and related activities. Tenant further has the right, but not the obligation, to add, modify and/or replace equipment in order to be in compliance with any current or future federal, state or local mandated application, including, but not limited to, emergency 911 communication services.
6. Interference. Tenant shall not use the Premises in any way that causes Interference (as defined below) with the use of the Property by Landlord, or lessees or licensees of Landlord, so long as such uses of the Property are maintained in compliance with all applicable Laws (as defined in Section 22(b) below). Similarly, Landlord shall not use, nor shall Landlord permit its lessees, licensees, employees, invitees or agents to use, any portion of the Property in any way that causes Interference with the operations of Tenant. Such Interference shall be deemed a material default by the interfering party, who shall, upon written notice from the other, be responsible for terminating said Interference. In the event any such Interference does not cease promptly, the parties acknowledge that continuing Interference may cause injury and, therefore, the injured party shall have the right, in addition to any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, to bring a court action to enjoin such Interference or to require the other party to immediately cease all operations which are suspected of causing the Interference (except for intermittent testing to determine the cause of such Interference) until the Interference has been corrected or eliminated. For the purposes of this Lease, “Interference” may include, but is not limited to, any use on the Property that causes electronic or physical obstruction with, or degradation of, the communications signals from the Wireless Communication Facility or the communication facilities of Landlord, its lessees or licensees.
23 7. Improvements; Utilities; Access; Removal/Restoration. (a) Tenant shall have the right, at its expense, to erect and maintain on the Premises improvements, personal property and facilities necessary to operate its communications system, including, radio transmitting and receiving antennas, microwave dishes, tower and base, equipment shelters and/or cabinets and related cables and utility lines and a location based system, including, antenna(s), coaxial cable, base units, location based systems, and other associated equipment, all as part of the Wireless Communication Facility. Tenant shall have the right to alter, replace, expand, enhance and upgrade the Wireless Communication Facility within the Premises at any time during the Term of this Lease, pursuant to the conditions of Section 4(c) of this Lease. Tenant shall cause all construction to occur lien-free and in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances, and shall discharge or bond any mechanic's lien filed or recorded. The Wireless Communication Facility shall remain the exclusive property of Tenant.
Tenant shall have the right to remove the Wireless Communication Facility at any time during the Term and upon the expiration or termination of this Lease. (b) Tenant, at its expense, may use any and all appropriate and permitted means of restricting access to Tenant’s Wireless Communication Facility, including, without limitation, the construction of a fence, so long as such means does not block access to Landlord or any third party’s equipment that is legally occupying space at the Property or block Landlord’s access to any other portion of the Property.
(c) Tenant shall, at Tenant's expense, at all times keep and maintain its equipment and the Wireless Communication Facility now or hereafter located on the Property in a safe condition, and in compliance with the latest version of TIA 222 standards as regards the condition of the physical components of the Wireless Communication Facility, and for non-safety related matters in a commercially reasonable condition and repair during the Term of this Lease, normal wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Tenant’s control excepted. (d) Tenant shall have the right to install utilities, at Tenant's expense, and to improve the present utilities on the Property, including, but not limited to, the installation of emergency power generators. Landlord agrees to use reasonable efforts in assisting Tenant to acquire necessary utility service. Tenant shall, wherever practicable, install separate meters for utilities used on the Property by Tenant. Landlord shall diligently cooperate in good faith with Tenant and the utility company to correct any variation, interruption or failure of utility service. Landlord acknowledges that Tenant provides a wireless communication service which requires electrical power to operate and must operate twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week. If an interruption in electrical power service occurs for an extended period of time, in Tenant’s reasonable determination, Landlord agrees to allow Tenant the right to bring in a temporary source of power for the duration of the interruption.
(e) As partial consideration for Rent paid under this Lease, subject to Landlord’s consent as regards size and location, Landlord hereby grants Tenant a limited use easement in, under and across the Property for ingress, egress, utilities and access (including access for the purposes described in subsection 7(d)) to the Premises adequate to install and maintain utilities, which include the installation of power and telephone service, coaxial cable and fiber optic cable, and to service the Premises and the Wireless Communication Facility at all times during the Term of this Lease (collectively, the "Easements"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landlord hereby consents to the placement of Tenant’s utility infrastructure located on the Property existing as of the Effective Date. The location of any future utility easement shall be mutually agreed upon by Landlord and Tenant. The Easements provided hereunder shall have the same term as this Lease.
24 (f) Tenant shall have 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week vehicular and pedestrian access to the Premises ("Access") at all times during the Term of this Lease at no additional charge to the Tenant. In the event Landlord, its employees or agents deny or prevent Access for any impermissible reason to Tenant, its employees or agents, Tenant may, without waiving any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, deduct from Rent amounts due under this Lease an amount equal to the pro-rata number of days Access was denied or prevented based on the thencurrent monthly Rent amount owed under the Lease. (g) All portions of the Wireless Communication Facility brought onto the Property by Tenant will be and remain Tenant’s exclusive property and, at Tenant's option, may be removed by Tenant at any time during the Term. Landlord covenants and agrees that no part of the Wireless Communication Facility constructed, erected or placed on the Premises by Tenant will become, or be considered as being affixed to or a part of, the Property, it being the specific intention of Landlord that all improvements of every kind and nature constructed, erected or placed by Tenant on the Premises will be and remain the property of Tenant and may be removed by Tenant at any time during the Term. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the termination of this Lease, Tenant will remove all of Tenant’s above-ground improvements and Tenant will return the Premises to Landlord in good, usable condition, reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Tenant’s control excepted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant will not be responsible for the replacement of any trees, shrubs or other vegetation, nor will Tenant be required to remove from the Premises or the Property any structural steel or any foundations or underground utilities.
8. Termination. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease may be terminated, without any penalty or further liability as follows:
(a) by either party on thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other, if the other party remains in default under this Lease after the applicable notice and cure periods; (b) Immediately by Tenant if Tenant is unable to obtain or maintain any license (including, without limitation, an FCC license), permit or any Government Approvals (as defined in Section 21, Approvals, below) necessary to the installation and/or operation of the Wireless Communication Facility as now or hereafter intended by Tenant, or Tenant's business; or if Tenant determines, in its sole discretion that the cost of obtaining or retaining the same is commercially unreasonable;
(c) [Intentionally omitted];
(d) Immediately upon written notice by Tenant if the Premises or the Wireless Communication Facility are destroyed or damaged so as in Tenant's reasonable judgment to substantially and adversely affect the effective use of the Wireless Communication Facility to the extent that Tenant cannot provide service from the Facility; Tenant may temporarily, for no more than ninety (90) days, place upon the Property and operate a temporary cell site or cell-on-wheels (“COW”) until the damage is repaired, in which event, Tenant shall pay Rent to Landlord at a reduced rate which Landlord and Tenant shall mutually and reasonably determine for the period that Tenant operates a temporary cell site or COW on the Property. In the event that Tenant terminates this Lease pursuant to this Section 8(d), all rights and obligations of the parties shall cease as of the later of (1) the date of the damage or destruction or (2) the date that Tenant ceases operation of the temporary cell site or COW on the Property, and Tenant shall be entitled to the reimbursement of any Rent prepaid by Tenant. If (i) Tenant elects to continue this Lease, and (ii) none of Tenant, its contractors or subcontractors caused or were responsible for such damage or destruction, then all Rent shall abate until the Premises and/or the Communication Facility are restored to the condition existing immediately prior to such damage or destruction; 25 (e) At the time title to the Property transfers to a condemning authority, pursuant to a taking of all or a portion of the Property sufficient in Tenant's determination to render the Premises unsuitable for Tenant's use, Landlord and Tenant shall each be entitled to pursue their own separate awards with respect to such taking. Sale of all or part of the Property to a purchaser with the power of eminent domain in the face of the exercise of the power shall be treated as a taking by condemnation;
(f) by Tenant upon written notice to Landlord, if Tenant is unable to obtain a lease, license or similar agreement with PG&E for space on the Tower, if Tenant determines in its sole discretion that the cost of obtaining a lease, license or similar agreement with PG&E for space on the Tower is commercially impracticable, or if the lease, license or similar agreement between Tenant and PG&E for space on the Tower expires or is terminated for any reason; or (g) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 8 or elsewhere in this Lease, Tenant may terminate this Lease upon written notice to Landlord for any reason or no reason, so long as Tenant pays to Landlord concurrently with the written notice of termination an early termination fee equal to twelve (12) months’ Rent, at the then-current rate, provided, however, that no such termination fee will be payable on account of the termination of this Lease by Tenant under any other termination provision expressly contained in this Section 8. Such termination fee shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord prior to Tenant’s removal of any portion of the Wireless Communication Facility from the Premises.
9. Default and Right to Cure.
(a) The following will be deemed a default by Tenant and a breach of this Lease: (i) non-payment of Rent if such Rent remains unpaid for more than thirty (30) days after Tenant’s receipt of written notice from Landlord of such failure to pay; or (ii) Tenant's failure to perform any other term or condition under this Lease within thirty (30) days after Tenant’s receipt of written notice from Landlord specifying the failure. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, safety issues may be required to be remedied sooner than thirty (30) days in the event of an imminent threat, as reasonably determined by Landlord, of injury or damage to persons or property occurring as a direct result of the safety issue (“Imminent Safety Issue”). No such failure, however, will be deemed to exist if Tenant has commenced to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period or such shorter period as may be reasonably warranted by the occurrence of the Imminent Safety Issue, and provided that such efforts are prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence.
Delay in curing a default will be excused if due to causes beyond the reasonable control of Tenant.
If Tenant remains in default beyond any applicable cure period, Landlord will have the right to exercise any and all rights and remedies available to it under law and equity. (b) The following will be deemed a default by Landlord and a breach of this Lease: (i) Landlord’s failure to provide Access to the Premises as required by this Lease within twenty-four (24) hours after Landlord’s receipt of written notice of such failure; (ii) Landlord’s failure to cure an interference problem caused by Landlord, or any of its employees, agents, contractors, on the Property as required by this Lease within ten (10) days after Landlord’s receipt of written notice of such failure; or (iii) Landlord's failure to perform any term, condition or breach of any warranty or covenant under this Lease within thirty (30) days after Landlord’s receipt of written notice from Tenant specifying the failure. No such failure, however, will be deemed to exist if Landlord has commenced to cure the default within such period and provided such efforts are prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence. Delay in curing a default will be excused if due to causes beyond the reasonable control of Landlord. If Landlord remains in default beyond any applicable cure period, Tenant will have: (x) the right to cure Landlord’s default and to deduct the costs of such cure from any monies due to Landlord from Tenant, and (y) any and all other rights available to it under law and equity.
26 10.Taxes. Landlord shall pay, when due, all real property taxes for the Property, including the Premises. In the event that Landlord fails to pay any such real property taxes or other fees and assessments, Tenant shall have the right, but not the obligation, to pay such owed amounts and deduct them from Rent amounts due under this Lease on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall pay any personal property tax, real property tax or any other tax or fee which is directly attributable to the presence or installation of the Wireless Communication Facility, only for so long as this Lease has not expired of its own terms or is not terminated by either party.
Landlord hereby grants to Tenant the right to challenge, whether in a Court, Administrative Proceeding, or other venue, on behalf of Landlord, any personal property or real property tax assessments that may affect Tenant, so long as Tenant’s attorney has the right to participate at any time prior to or during the challenge, including any appeal of such matter until the matter is fully adjudicated. If Landlord receives notice of any personal property or real property tax assessment against Landlord, which may affect Tenant and is directly attributable to Tenant's installation, Landlord shall provide timely notice of the assessment to Tenant sufficient to allow Tenant to consent to or challenge such assessment. Further, Landlord shall provide to Tenant any and all documentation in its possession associated with the assessment and shall execute any and all documents reasonably necessary to effectuate the intent of this Section 10.
11.Insurance and Subrogation and Indemnification.
o (a) Tenant shall carry and maintain throughout the duration of this Lease commercial general liability insurance per ISO form CG 00 01 or equivalent with limits of $2,000,000.00 for bodily injury and property damage per occurrence and $5,000,000.00 aggregate, covering Tenant's use and occupancy of the Premises and operation of the Wireless Communication Facility. Including Landlord as an additional insured by endorsement as respects to this Agreement; the Commercial General Liability insurance policy shall specifically include the City of Hercules and its officers, City Council, employees, Commissions and Committee members, attorneys, agents and consultants as additional insureds by endorsement as respects to this Agreement. with a certificate of insurance to be furnished to Landlord within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Lease. Cancellation of any required coverage that is not replaced will not occur without Tenant providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to Landlord, except that only ten (10) days prior notice shall be required in the event of cancellation due to a failure to pay premiums. Furthermore:
(i) Tenant shall include as additional insureds the City of Hercules, and its respective directors, officers, employees, consultants and agents. Landlord’s additional insured status shall (A) be limited to bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury caused, in whole or in part, by Tenant, its employees, agents or independent contractors; (B) not extend to claims for punitive or exemplary damages arising out of the acts or omissions of Landlord, its employees, consultants, agents or independent contractors or where such coverage is prohibited by law or to claims arising out of the gross negligence of Landlord, its employees, consultants, agents or independent contractors; and (C) not exceed Tenant’s indemnification obligation under this Lease, if any. (ii) any insurance carried by Landlord shall be non-contributing. (b) Tenant shall also maintain standard form property insurance ("All Risk" coverage) equal to the full replacement cost covering all of Tenant's improvement, alterations, equipment and other personal property of Tenant on or about the Premises or the Property. Permission is granted to Tenant to self-insure the required property insurance. 27 (c) Landlord, following the expiration of each five-year term, has the right to cause Tenant to increase the above coverage to commercially reasonable levels and with regard to prevailing coverages customarily required by other municipalities in Contra Costa County to be maintained by wireless service providers such as Tenant. Landlord’s City Attorney, with the assistance from Landlord’s wireless consultant, will determine any reasonable increases in such coverage in accordance with this subsection (c), if applicable with a 60 day advanced written notice to Tenant.
(d) Notwithstanding the forgoing, Tenant may, self-insure any of the required insurance under the same terms as required by this Lease. In the event Tenant elects to selfinsure its obligation under this Lease to include Landlord and the parties named in paragraph 11(a)(i) of this Section as additional insureds, the following conditions apply:
(i) Landlord shall promptly and no later than thirty (30) days after notice thereof provide Tenant with written notice of any claim, demand, lawsuit, or the like for which it seeks coverage pursuant to this Section and provide Tenant with copies of any demands, notices, summonses, or legal papers received in connection with such claim, demand, lawsuit, or the like;
(ii) Landlord shall not settle any such claim, demand, lawsuit, or the like without the prior written consent of Tenant; and
(iii) Landlord shall fully cooperate with Tenant in the defense of the claim, demand, lawsuit, or the like.
(e) Landlord and Tenant hereby mutually release each other (and their successors or assigns) from liability and waive all right of recovery against the other for any loss or damage covered by their respective first party property insurance policies including any deductibles, selfinsured retentions and/or self-insurance for all perils insured thereunder . In the event of such insured loss, neither party's insurance company shall have a subrogated claim against the other.
To the extent loss or damage is not covered by their first party property insurance policies, Landlord and Tenant each agree to indemnify and hold harmless the other party from and against any and all claims, damages, cost and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, to the extent caused by or arising out of (a) the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct in the operations or activities on the Property by the indemnifying party or the employees and/or agents of the indemnifying party, or (b) a breach of any obligation of the indemnifying party under this Lease.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this indemnification shall not extend to indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities to the indemnified party or anyone claiming through the indemnified party. The indemnifying party's obligations under this section are contingent upon (i) its receiving prompt written notice of any event giving rise to an obligation to indemnify the other party, and (ii) the indemnified party's granting to the indemnifying party in writing the right to control the defense and settlement of the same at the time of notice. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Lease, the parties hereby confirm that the provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease. Tenant shall not be responsible to Landlord, or any third-party, for any claims, costs or damages (including, fines and penalties) attributable to any pre-existing violations of applicable codes, statutes or other regulations governing the Property, including the Premises. 28 12.Notices. All notices, requests and demands hereunder will be given by first class certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, postage prepaid, to be effective when properly sent and received, refused or returned undelivered. Notices will be addressed to the parties as follows:
If to Tenant:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Attn: Network Real Estate Administration
Re: Cell Site No.:CN4617
Search Ring Name: Refugio & Falcon
Cell Site Name: Refugio & Falcon (CA)
Fixed Asset No.: 10101895
1025 Lenox Park Blvd. NE
3rd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30319
With a copy to the AT&T Legal Department:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Attn: AT&T Legal Department – Network Operations
Re: Cell Site No.: CN46 I 7
Search Ring Name: Refugio & Falcon
Cell Site Name: Refugio & Falcon (CA)
Fixed Asset No.: 10101895
208 South Akard Street
Dallas, TX 75202-4206
If to Landlord:
City of Hercules
111 Civic Center Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Send Rent payments to:
City of Hercules
111 Civic Center Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
The copy sent to Tenant’s Legal Department is an administrative step which alone does not constitute legal notice. Either party hereto may change the place for the giving of notice to it by thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the other as provided herein.
13.Quiet Enjoyment. Title and Authority. Landlord covenants and warrants to Tenant that (i) Landlord solely owns the Property as a legal lot in fee simple; (ii) Landlord has full right, power and authority to execute this Lease and bind itself hereto through the party set forth as signatory for the Landlord below; (iii) it has good and unencumbered title to the Property free and clear of any liens or mortgages, except those disclosed to Tenant and which will not interfere with Tenant's rights to or use of the Premises, and that during the Term the Property will not be encumbered by any liens, restrictions, mortgages, covenants, conditions, easements, leases or any other agreements of record or not of record, which would adversely affect Tenant’s permitted uses and enjoyment of the Premises under this Lease; and (iv) Landlord’s execution and performance of this Lease will not violate any laws, ordinances, covenants, or the provisions of any mortgage, lease, or other 29 agreement binding on Landlord. Landlord covenants that at all times during the term of this Lease, Tenant's quiet enjoyment of the Premises or any part thereof shall not be disturbed as long as Tenant is not in default beyond any applicable grace or cure period.
14.Environmental Laws. Landlord represents that it has no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste (collectively, "Hazardous Substance") on the Property that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. Landlord and Tenant shall not introduce or use any Hazardous Substance on the Property in violation of any applicable law.
Landlord shall be responsible for, and shall promptly conduct any investigation and remediation as required by any applicable environmental laws, all spills or other releases of any Hazardous Substance not in any way caused by Tenant, that have occurred or which may occur on the Property. Each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against any and all administrative and judicial actions and rulings, claims, causes of action, demands and liability (collectively, "Claims") including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, fines, losses, judgments and reasonable attorney fees that the indemnitee may suffer or incur due to the existence or discovery of any Hazardous Substances on the Property or the migration of any Hazardous Substance originating from the Property to other properties or the release of any Hazardous Substance into the environment (collectively, "Actions"), to the extent that that same relate to or arise from the indemnitor's activities on the Property, except to the extent caused by the indemnitee’s (or its agents, employees or contractors) negligence or willful misconduct. The indemnifications in this section specifically include, without limitation, costs incurred in connection with any investigation of site conditions or any cleanup, remedial, removal or restoration work required by any governmental authority. This Section 14 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Lease.
15.Assignment and Subleasing. Following approval by all federal and state agencies having jurisdiction thereover, to the extent any such approval is required, Tenant shall have the right, upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to Landlord but without Landlord’s consent, to assign, sell or otherwise transfer this Lease and/or its use of the Premises, in whole or in part, to any non-foreign owned or controlled person or business entity which (a) is authorized pursuant to an FCC license to, operate a commercial wireless communications business, is a parent company, non-foreign controlled subsidiary or affiliate of Tenant or Tenant's parent company, a non-foreign controlled entity is merged or consolidated with Tenant or (b) purchases more than fifty percent (50%) of either an ownership interest in Tenant or the assets of Tenant in the "Metropolitan Trading Area" or "Basic Trading Area" (as those terms are defined by the FCC) in which the Property is located.
Upon such assignment, sale or other transfer, Tenant shall be relieved of all responsibility for all liabilities and obligations hereunder that occur after the date of the assignment, sale or transfer, as the case may be. For the purposes of recourse under this Lease and as intended in this paragraph, the term ‘Tenant’ shall not include any transferee of this Lease. In the event of a transfer and/or change in ownership or control of this Lease by Tenant, Tenant’s transferee shall also be responsible for the cure of any violations of Section 11, Insurance and Subrogation and Indemnification, not discovered by Landlord prior to the transfer. Tenant may sublease the Premises, upon written notice to Landlord only to any non-foreign owned or controlled affiliate of Tenant, which affiliate has not been convicted of a felony in a court of law. In such written notice Tenant shall disclose to Landlord the name of the affiliate of Tenant, and either a written description or a depiction of the additional equipment, if any, that such affiliate of Tenant will install within the Premises. Tenant may not otherwise assign, sell or otherwise transfer this Lease or sublease the Premises without the prior written approval of Landlord, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed, withheld, conditioned or denied. Assignment, sale or transfer of the Lease shall not be allowed to any person or entity previously convicted of a RICO violation. If Tenant attempts to assign or transfer this Lease or any rights hereunder without the consent of Landlord, to the extent that Landlord’s consent is required pursuant to this Section 15, the assignment or transfer shall be void.
30 16.Expansion of the Premises. Landlord grants to Tenant, to the extent practicable and on a space available basis, the right to enlarge the Premises or Landlord shall make space available on the Property for Tenant so that Tenant may implement any necessary modifications, supplements, replacements, refurbishments, or expansions to the Wireless Communication Facility or to any equipment related thereto. Should Tenant exercise the right to expand the Premises, Tenant will pay and Landlord will accept as additional Rent under this Lease a commercially reasonable amount to be negotiated at the time, but only for the additional area. Upon notice to Landlord, a description and/or depiction of the modified Premises ground will become part of the Lease without any additional action on the part of Tenant and Landlord; however, at the request of Tenant, the parties will execute a Memorandum of Lease in recordable form memorializing the modification of the ground space of Landlord's Property, which either party may record at its option.
17.Sale of Property.
(a) Landlord shall not be prohibited from the selling, leasing or use of any of the Property except as provided below.
(b) If Landlord, at any time during the Term of this Lease, decides to rezone or sell, subdivide or otherwise transfer all or any part of the Premises, or all or any part of the Property or surrounding property, to a purchaser other than Tenant, Landlord shall promptly notify Tenant in writing, and such rezoning, sale, subdivision or transfer shall be subject to this Lease and Tenant’s rights hereunder. In the event of a change in ownership, transfer or sale of the Property, within ten (10) days of such transfer, Landlord or its successor shall send the documents listed below in this subsection (b) to Tenant. Until Tenant receives all such documents, Tenant shall not be responsible for any failure to make payments under this Lease and reserves the right to hold payments due under this Lease.
(i) Old deed to Property
(ii) New deed to Property
(iii) Bill of Sale or Transfer
(iv) Copy of current Tax Bill
(v) New IRS Form W-9 & CA FTB Form 590
(vi) Completed and Signed AT&T Payment Direction Form
(vii)Full contact information for new Landlord including phone number(s) (c) Landlord agrees not to sell, lease or use any areas of the Property or surrounding property for the installation, operation or maintenance of other wireless communications facilities if such installation, operation or maintenance would interfere with Tenant’s permitted use or wireless communications equipment as determined by actual on-site radio propagation tests performed by Tenant in its sole discretion. If the radio frequency propagation tests demonstrate levels of interference that would effectively prohibit the provision of Tenant’s service, the parties will collectively work to find a solution and if none is found, Landlord will not sell or lease the property or use it as intended.
(d) The provisions of this Section shall in no way limit or impair the obligations or rights of Landlord under this Lease, including interference and access obligations. 31 18.Rental Stream Offer. If at any time after the Effective Date, Landlord receives a bona fide written offer from a third party seeking an assignment or transfer of the Rent payments associated with this Lease (“Rental Stream Offer”), Landlord shall immediately furnish Tenant with a copy of the Rental Stream Offer. Tenant shall have the right within forty-five (45) days after it receives such copy to match the Rental Stream Offer and agree in writing to match the terms of the Rental Stream Offer. Such writing shall be in the form of a contract substantially similar to the Rental Stream Offer. If Tenant chooses not to exercise this right or fails to provide written notice to Landlord within such forty-five (45) day period, Landlord may assign the right to receive Rent payments pursuant to the Rental Stream Offer, subject to the terms of this Lease. If Landlord attempts to assign or transfer Rent payments without complying with this Section, the assignment or transfer shall be void. Tenant shall not be responsible for any failure to make payments under this Lease if the obligations of Landlord set forth in this paragraph are not complied with, and reserves the right to hold payments due under this Lease until Landlord complies with this Section.
19.Successors and Assigns. This Lease and the Easements granted herein shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective successors, personal representatives and assigns.
20.Waiver of Landlord's Lien. Landlord hereby waives any and all lien rights it may have, statutory or otherwise, concerning the Wireless Communication Facility or any portion thereof, which shall be deemed personal property for the purposes of this Lease, whether or not the same is deemed real or personal property under applicable laws, and Landlord gives Tenant and its secured parties the right to remove all or any portion of the same from time to time, whether before or after a default under this Lease, in Tenant's and/or its secured parties' sole discretion and without Landlord's consent, as long as such removal does not constitute a de facto or de jure cancellation of the lease.
21.Approvals. Landlord agrees that Tenant's ability to use the Premises and Property for Tenant's permitted use is contingent upon the suitability of the Premises, Tenant’s ability to secure a lease or other agreement with PG&E for space on the Tower and such lease or other agreement remaining in full force and effect during the Term hereof, and Tenant's ability to obtain and maintain all governmental licenses, permits, approvals or other relief required of or deemed necessary or appropriate by Tenant for its use of the Premises, including without limitation applications for zoning permits , zoning ordinances, amendments, special use permits, and construction permits (collectively, the "Government Approvals"). Landlord authorizes Tenant to prepare, execute and file all required applications to obtain Government Approvals for Tenant’s permitted use under this Lease and agrees to reasonably assist Tenant with such applications and with obtaining and maintaining the Government Approvals to the extent that such Landlord assistance is permissible and does not create a conflict of interest under California law. In addition, Tenant shall have the right to initiate the ordering and/or scheduling of necessary utilities.
22.Miscellaneous.
(a) Either party will, at any time upon twenty (20) business days prior written notice from the other, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other a statement in writing (i) certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if modified, stating the nature of such modification and certifying this Lease, as so modified, is in full force and effect); (ii) the date to which the Rent and other charges are paid in advance, if any, and (iii) acknowledging that there are not, to such party’s knowledge, any uncured defaults on the part of the other party hereunder, or specifying such defaults if any are claimed.
32 (b) Tenant agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, orders, rules and regulations (“Laws”) applicable to Tenant’s use of the Wireless Communication Facility on the Property. Landlord agrees to comply with all Laws relating to Landlord’s ownership and use of the Property and any improvements on the Property.
(c) This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to this Lease must be in writing and executed by both parties.
(d) Each party agrees to reasonably cooperate with the other in executing any documents (including a Memorandum of Lease in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C) reasonably necessary to protect its rights or use of the Premises. The Memorandum of Lease may be recorded in place of this Lease by either party. In the event the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust, Landlord agrees, upon request of Tenant, to obtain and furnish to Tenant a non-disturbance and attornment agreement for each such mortgage or deed of trust, in a form reasonably acceptable to Tenant. Tenant may obtain title insurance on its interest in the Premises. Landlord agrees to execute such documents as the title company may require in connection therewith.
(e) This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. (f) If any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such finding shall not affect the remaining terms of this Lease, which shall continue in full force and effect. The parties agree that if any provisions are deemed not enforceable, they shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary to make them enforceable. Any questions of particular interpretation shall not be interpreted against the draftsman, but rather in accordance with the plain language and fair meaning thereof. No provision of this Lease will be deemed waived by either party unless expressly waived in writing signed by the waiving party. No waiver shall be implied by any delay or any other act or omission of either party. No waiver by either party of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed a waiver of such provision with respect to any subsequent matter relating to such provision.
(g) The persons who have executed this Lease represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Lease in their individual or representative capacity as indicated. (h) This Lease may be executed in any number of counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single instrument. (i) All Exhibits referred to herein and any Addenda hereto are deemed to be inseparable from this Lease and are incorporated herein for all purposes. The parties understand and acknowledge that Exhibit A (the legal description of the Property), Exhibit B (depiction of the Premises and Wireless Communication Facility located within the Property) and Exhibit C (Memorandum of Lease), may be attached to this Lease and the Memorandum of Lease (Exhibit C), in preliminary form. Accordingly, the parties agree that upon the preparation of final, more complete exhibits, Exhibits A, B and C, as the case may be, which may have been attached hereto in preliminary form, may be replaced by Tenant with such final, more complete exhibit(s).
The terms of all Exhibits are incorporated herein for any purposes and this Lease shall not be effective until all said exhibits are attached in final form. ---Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank---
33 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Lease to be effective as of the last date written below.
LANDLORD:
City of Hercules,
a municipal corporation
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date: , 2022
TENANT:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: AT&T Mobility Corporation
Its: Manager
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date: , 2022
Michael Guibord
Director RAN Construction
7/8/2022
34 EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The Property is legally described as follows:
35 EXHIBIT B
DEPICTION OF PREMISES AND COMMUNICATION FACILITY
The Premises and Wireless Communication Facility are generally depicted as follows:
However, it is expressly agreed and understood by and between the Landlord and Tenant that the exact and precise location of the Tenant's Wireless Communication Facility are subject to review and approval by the planning and/or zoning Boards having jurisdiction over the "Premises".
Therefore, it is expressly agreed and understood by and between Landlord and Tenant that the precise location of the Premises as shown on Exhibit B may be modified by Tenant in order to comply with and obtain necessary planning and/or zoning approvals, and any and all other approvals necessary for Tenant's intended use of the Property. The Premises as described herein may therefore be modified by the Tenant to reflect the final engineering design. An amended Exhibit B (if necessary) will be provided by the Tenant and attached to the lease in place of the existing Exhibit B, a copy of which will be provided to Landlord for review prior to being incorporated into the Lease.
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 EXHIBIT C
MEMORANDUM OF LEASE
[Appears on Following Pages]
55 MEMORANDUM OF LEASE
Recording Requested By
& When Recorded Return To:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Attn: Network Real Estate Administration
1025 Lenox Park Blvd. NE
3rd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30319
APN: 407-290-007
(Space Above This Line For Recorder’s Use Only)
Cell Site No.: CN4617
Search Ring Name: Refugio & Falcon
Cell Site Name: Refugio & Falcon (CA)
Fixed Asset No.: 10101895
State: California
County: Contra Costa
MEMORANDUM
OF
LEASE
This Memorandum of Lease is entered into on this ____ day of _______________, 2017, by and between the City of Hercules, a municipal corporation ("Landlord"), having a mailing address of 111 Civic Center Drive, Hercules, CA 94547, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Tenant"), having a mailing address of 1025 Lenox Park Blvd. NE, 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30319.
1. Landlord and Tenant entered into a certain Amended and Restated Site Lease dated as of _______________, 2022 (“Lease”), for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a communications facility and other improvements. All of the foregoing is set forth in the Lease.
2. The initial lease term will be five (5) years commencing on July 1, 2022, with two (2) successive five (5) year option to renew.
1. The portion (“Premises”) of the land (“Property”) being leased to Tenant and associated easements are described in Exhibit 1 annexed hereto.
2. This Memorandum of Lease is not intended to amend or modify, and shall not be deemed or construed as amending or modifying, any of the terms, conditions or provisions of the Lease, all of which are hereby ratified and affirmed. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Memorandum of Lease and the provisions of the Lease, the provisions of the Lease shall control. The Lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns, subject to the provisions of the Lease.
56 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Lease as of the day and year first above written.
LANDLORD:
City of Hercules,
a municipal corporation
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date: , 2021
TENANT:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: AT&T Mobility Corporation
Its: Manager
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date: , 2021
[ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING TWO (2) PAGES]
57 EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY & DEPICTION OF PREMISES
The Property is legally described as follows:
The Premises is generally depicted as follows:
58 RESOLUTION NO. 22-__
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hercules Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amended and Restated Site Lease with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC at the Existing Refugio & Falcon Cell Tower on APN#407-290-007 (aka Site CNU4617) WHEREAS, on January 27, 2009 the City Council passed Resolution No. 09-014 authorizing the City Manager to execute the initial “Site Lease Agreement” and “Memorandum of Lease” with AT&T to install their ground equipment for a cellular facility on City Property, with the cellular arrays being attached onto the existing PG&E power poles (which are under a separate private party lease); and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2009 the City executed a “Site Lease with Option” with Cingular Wireless PCS, with initial base lease rent of $1,800 per month, an annual consumer price index (“CPI”) increase, and a maximum term of 9 years; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the City passed Resolution No. 17-048 executing an “Amended and Restated Site Lease” with New Cingular Wireless PCS, with a term of 5 years commencing on April 1, 2018 and terminating at midnight on March 31, 2023, with an additional 5 year option to renew on the same terms and conditions, and an initial base lease rent of $2,500 per month with an annual consumer price index (“CPI”) increase, so that today’s current lease rate is $2,868.67 per month ($34,424.04 annually); and
WHEREAS, Cingular Wireless PCS desires to increase the site area leased from approximately 477 square feet to approximately 620 square feet to accommodate an emergency generator for the site; and
WHEREAS, the City’s consultant, Center for Municipal Solutions (CMS), negotiated a restated and amended 5 year agreement commencing July 1, 2022, that provides for a higher monthly lease rate of $3,481.00 per month, to be increased annually by 3% or the CPI, whichever is higher, with a maximum cap at 4% increase as stated in the attached Lease; and WHEREAS, an “Amended and Restated Site Lease Agreement” and “Memorandum of Lease” for recordation have been prepared, reviewed by the City Attorney, and executed by AT&T Mobility Corporation for their tenant New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for the City Council’s consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules that the project is exempt from CEQA, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hercules approves the attached “Amended and Restated Site Lease Agreement” and “Memorandum of Lease” with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and authorizes the City Manager to execute all lease related documents.
59 The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 26th day of July, 2022 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
60 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of July 26, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante G. Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Tim Rood, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Bayfront Heights Public Outreach
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive a presentation on the results of the outreach process and next steps, ask any questions, and take public comment. This item is for information and discussion only.
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this item.
BACKGROUND:
Following a presentation from Ledcor, the Bayfront project developer, and discussion by City Council on July 13, 2021, staff was directed to work with Ledcor to conduct public outreach on Ledcor’s alternative development concept for developing Bayfront Blocks A-B-C-D, an area formerly known as “The Bowl” (due to its amphitheater-like topography) and currently referred to as “The Heights.” The project area is regulated by the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP). As embodied in the WDMP, the Hercules Bayfront is envisioned as a transit-oriented, traditional neighborhood, mixeduse project anchored by the planned Regional Intermodal Transit Center, which would provide rail, bus, and eventually ferry access. The WDMP was prepared in 1999–2000 and unanimously adopted in July 2000. The WDMP is guided by the principles of “New Urbanism,” “Smart Growth,” and pedestrian-oriented development. Key objectives of the WDMP are to create a fully functional pedestrian- and transit-oriented community, where residents have easy access by foot or bike to ferry, bus, and rail service. The vision contained in the WDMP was the catalyst for the development of the community’s charette-based Regulating Code for the Central Hercules Plan adopted in 2001.
In 2008, the City Council adopted by resolution the Waterfront Now Initiative, a developer-led amendment to the WDMP for the project area known as the Bayfront Project, consisting of a total of 1,392 residential units, 115,000 sq. ft. non-flex office space, 90,000 sq. ft. non-flex retail space, and 84,000 sq. ft. flex space. The Bayfront Project, which was approved by City Council in 2012, included 61 2
a comprehensive Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and two Development Agreements.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The WDMP allows for the full scale of development analyzed in the EIR for the Bayfront Project, which assumed the Bowl Area’s portion of the overall project would include up to:
336 multi-family residential (non-flex) units;
75,000 square feet of office (non-flex) floor area, including adaptive re-use of the Administration Building and the Clubhouse (two historically designated buildings from the Hercules Powder Works);
125-room hotel (or alternatively, an additional 125 non-flex multi-family units); 12,500 square feet of retail (non-flex) space; and
30,000 square feet of flex space.
Ledcor’s conceptual alternative plan is a lower-density and less mixed-use plan that would include:
142 multi-family residential units (2- and 3-story townhouses); and Rehabilitation of the Administration Building as office/co-working space and of the Clubhouse as a community facility.
OUTREACH PROCESS
Staff, Ledcor, and the City’s consultants PlaceWorks collaborated to hold two community meetings:
a virtual meeting on June 6, 2022 attended by approximately 48 participants, and an in-person meeting on June 15, 2022 attended by approximately 69 participants. In addition, an online survey was introduced at the workshops and was open through June 29, 2022, during which a total of 109 survey responses were received. The meetings and survey were publicized through mailed notices to Bayfront residents and property owners, flyers, the City Manager’s bi-weekly newsletter, and the City website.
The City’s consultants from PlaceWorks will present a summary of the results of the two community meetings and the online survey. Summaries of the workshop input and the survey responses are attached to this report.
DISCUSSION
Prior to the Council discussion in 2021, staff had determined that the Ledcor alternative concept was inconsistent with the WDMP as adopted and codified in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, because the alternative concept does not adhere to major components of the WDMP, including the circulation layout, street designs, development capacity, mix of uses, building frontage, and particularly the proposed automobile orientation of the site plans, with access alleys proposed to provide both vehicular access to garages and pedestrian access to front doors of the residences.
Under the terms of the Bayfront Development Agreement, the WDMP can only be modified by mutual agreement of the City and the developer. Thus, in order to approve Ledcor’s alternative 62 3
conceptual plan, the Council would have to first either substantially rewrite or revoke the applicable sections of the WDMP.
After considering the online survey results, Ledcor representatives have indicated to staff that they do not intend to further pursue the alternative concept for the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The Council’s discussion of the alternative conceptual plan for Bayfront Blocks A-B-C-D is: (1) not a “project” as defined by CEQA Guidelines 15378; and (2) certain not to result in a significant effect on the environment under CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3). Any future project for Blocks A-B-C-D will undergo CEQA review. Projects involving activities outside the scope of the Bayfront EIR, including any amendments to the WDMP, may require preparation of additional environmental documents.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of June 6, 2022 virtual community meeting
2. Summary of June 15, 2022 in-person community meeting
3. Summary of online survey results
63 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: VIRTUAL WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 1 City of Hercules Waterfront Blocks ABCD Community Outreach
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Workshop #1: Virtual Community Workshop
Date/Time of Meeting: Tuesday, June 7, 2022, 6:30‐8:00 pm Format: Virtual (Zoom)
MEETING PURPOSE
The City of Hercules is seeking community input on the future development of Blocks ABCD of the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP). A developer, Ledcor Group, has submitted an initial development proposal for Blocks ABCD of the WDMP area that does not align with the design and development regulations from the form‐based code of the WDMP. Feedback from this virtual workshop, an in‐person workshop, and an online survey will help inform decision‐making of City officials for development of Blocks ABCD.
OVERVIEW
The first community workshop for the City of Hercules Waterfront Blocks ABCD Community Outreach was attended by approximately 48 community members. 99 people registered for the meeting on Eventbrite.
Project team members from the City, PlaceWorks, Ledcor Group, and WHA were also present. It took place in an online format via Zoom.
The meeting began with a welcome greeting from Tim
Rood, the City’s new Community Development Director.
At the beginning of the meeting, the project team
launched a Zoom icebreaker poll to get a sense of who
was joining the meeting. Most of the participants live
near the Hercules Waterfront. There were also several
people in attendance who live in another part of
Hercules, not near the Waterfront. Few people in
attendance live outside of Hercules.
Tim Rood and Bruce Brubaker, Principal of PlaceWorks,
gave a presentation on the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP). Tim Rood provided information on the background and previous planning efforts about the WDMP and the vision of the WDMP. Bruce Brubaker presented on the various standards required by the WDMP’s form‐based code, including block configuration and regulating zones, building heights, circulation, street design, civic spaces, public view corridors, and development potential.
The Development Director of Ledcor, Marni‐Lyn Fox, then presented an overview of the Ledcor proposal for Blocks ABCD that included an overview of the site plan and constraints with construction. Denise Ashton from WHA presented more detail on the Ledcor Proposal, showing images of renderings of the potential project at different viewpoints and providing a comparison of views from existing townhomes. A brief Q&A session followed the presentation.
64 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: VIRTUAL WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 2 Attendees participated in a breakout room discussions in four randomized groups of 10‐12 community members each. Each group had a PlaceWorks staff facilitator and a member of the Ledcor development team. Facilitators shared their screen and used Google Jamboard to present and compare the WDMP and Ledcor development schemes to help guide discussion, while taking notes in the form of “sticky notes” to record open‐ended questions, comments, and/or concerns made by the community members. Each group had the opportunity to discuss various topics that were described in the presentation, including the vision, block configuration and regulating zones, building heights, circulation, pedestrian circulation, street designs of Neighborhood Street II and Access Alleys, civic spaces, public view corridors, development potential, and bird’s eye view perspectives. The topics and key takeaways are described in the next section of this summary.
At the end of the meeting, PlaceWorks described the project’s next steps and encouraged everyone to take the online survey to give further input. The link to the online survey at https://arcg.is/1bjT4n was shared on the screen for people to access during the following report back (the survey will remain open until 6/29/22). Contact information for Hercules’ Community Development Director, Timothy Rood, was also provided at [email protected] or (510) 799‐8251.
Following the focus group discussions, facilitators for each group reported back to the entire group, highlighting key discussion items and themes from their group.
65 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: VIRTUAL WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 3 BREAKOUT ROOM DISCUSSIONS – KEY TAKEAWAYS
This section summarizes the key themes and commonly stated comments from the breakout room discussions. A sample of the Google Jamboard slides is attached at the end of this summary.
Vision
Ledcor’s Proposal is a departure from the WDMP and the character of Hercules should follow the WDMP.
Ledcor Proposal should consider for‐sale instead of rental of residential units to avoid saturating the market.
Hercules should not be solely a bedroom community.
Some like the Ledcor Proposal or prefer it over the WDMP because they do not want more retail in the City.
WDMP maintains the character of Hercules, while the Ledcor Proposal has standard “run‐of‐the‐mill” townhomes.
Ledcor Proposal lacks a town center.
The alley type streets in the Ledcor Proposal are mostly garage doors. Ledcor Proposal is lacking a lot of the amenities that the WDMP offers. People do not want to dismiss the possibility of a transit station in the WDMP and would like to see this factored into the design of Blocks ABCD.
Building Heights
Building heights of buildings directly adjacent to the bayfront should be zero to maintain access to the bay.
Circulation
Concern about traffic, access points for transit and ferries, along with vehicular access to the bayfront. Incorporate designated bike lanes into the street design.
Pedestrian Circulation
WDMP circulation scheme is desired because it puts a greater emphasis on the pedestrian environment and walkability, which is very important to the Hercules community. Concern that there is not enough parking on the site. The direct connection from the Administration Building to the bayfront was a favorable addition in the Ledcor Proposal. Ledcor Proposal does not seem very walkable; there are not many places to walk to in this layout, even with the proposed layout of open spaces.
Civic Spaces
Larger parks are desired over pocket parks. Suggestion to remove more homes to create space for larger park.
66 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: VIRTUAL WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 4 Civic space is lacking to create a walkable environment for the community, especially for adjacent residents.
Public View Corridors
Concern that views will be blocked in Block D in the Ledcor Proposal. One comment about highlighting view to Mount Tam.
Development Potential
Desire for more retail and office in this area of the waterfront rather than “privatization of the bayfront edge” with the building of primarily residential homes. With there being no retail and office space in Ledcor’s Proposal, this type of development should be at least reallocated to other parts of the WDMP instead of not building at all. Desire for economic development and opportunity.
Some felt Blocks ABCD was never a good location for retail. Historic building should be used as a community clubhouse, like the Brazil Room. Character and architecture of new residential should be consistent with the existing historic charm of the city.
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: IN-PERSON WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 1 City of Hercules Waterfront Blocks ABCD Community Outreach
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Workshop #2: In‐Person Community Workshop
Date/Time of Meeting: Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 6:30‐8:00 pm Location: The Grand (1st Floor Residential Lounge) at Bayfront Apartments (2200 John Muir Parkway Hercules, CA 94547)
MEETING PURPOSE
The City of Hercules is seeking community input on the future development of Blocks ABCD of the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP). A developer, Ledcor Group, has submitted an initial development proposal for Blocks ABCD of the WDMP area that does not align with the design and development regulations from the form‐based code of the WDMP. Feedback from this virtual workshop, an in‐person workshop, and an online survey will help inform decision‐making of City officials for development of Blocks ABCD.
OVERVIEW
The first community workshop for the City of Hercules Waterfront Blocks ABCD Community Outreach was attended by 69 community members. 86 people registered for the meeting on Eventbrite. Project team members from the City, PlaceWorks, Ledcor Group, and WHA were also present.
The meeting began with a welcome greeting from
Dante Hall, the City of Hercules’ City Manager. Tim
Rood and Bruce Brubaker, Principal of PlaceWorks, gave
a presentation on the Waterfront District Master Plan
(WDMP). Tim Rood provided information on the
background and previous planning efforts about the
WDMP and the vision of the WDMP. Bruce Brubaker
presented on the various standards required by the
WDMP’s form‐based code, including block
configuration and regulating zones, building heights,
circulation, street design, civic spaces, public view corridors, and development potential.
The Development Director of Ledcor, Marni‐Lyn Fox, then presented an overview of the Ledcor proposal for Blocks ABCD that included an overview of the site plan and constraints with construction. Denise Ashton from WHA presented more detail on the Ledcor Proposal, showing images of renderings of the potential project at different viewpoints and providing a comparison of views from existing townhomes.
A time for Q&A followed the presentation. Questions and comments received included inquiries about the future Intermodal Transit Center and how it affects Blocks ABCD, open space, parking, proximity to the Bay Trail, possibility of leaving the site as open space, retail feasibility, and project funding. After the Q&A, PlaceWorks described the project’s next steps and encouraged everyone to take the online survey to give further input. The link to the online survey at https://arcg.is/1bjT4n was shared on the screen for people 86 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: IN-PERSON WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 2 to access during the following report back (the survey will remain open until 6/29/22). Contact information for Hercules’ Community Development Director, Timothy Rood, was also provided at [email protected] or (510) 799‐8251.
Next, participants had an opportunity to preview boards describing and comparing the WDMP and Ledcor Proposals in an open house format. There were a total of four City/PlaceWorks‐led station comparing different topics, including Vision, Development Potential, Block Configuration and Regulating Zones, Building Heights, Circulation, Street Design, Civic Spaces, and Public View Corridors. Each station was 87 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: IN-PERSON WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 3 facilitated by PlaceWorks staff. Comments received during discussions were recorded and posted on the boards on sticky notes.
OPEN HOUSE STATIONS – KEY TAKEAWAYS
This section summarizes the key themes and commonly stated comments from the open house discussions. The photos of the boards are attached at the end of this summary.
Vision
In either scheme, there will be an increase in population and more people driving and parking, impacting walkability for others.
The WDMP provides amenities, restaurants, and job opportunities that are needed in Hercules. The Ledcor Proposal will not bring in these items and is not walkable.
Circulation
Adequate parking needs to be provided.
Civic Spaces
The Club House should be available for use by residents and not for private use or as a leasing office. 88 CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD COMMUNITY OUTREACH: IN-PERSON WORKSHOP SUMMARY| 4 Public View Corridors
Views from residents on Railroad Avenue should be considered.
Development Potential
Several people are in support of Ledcor’s Proposal because it proposes building less residential uses than the WDMP.
Some people feel that more housing is needed in Hercules, while others would like to see more options for shopping and dining instead.
Some people feel that Hercules should remain a bedroom community and not bring in more retail.
Existing retail is not doing well already.
Developer should contribute to build new City infrastructure. Developer and/or City should provide support for retail businesses to locate in Blocks ABCD.
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 MEMORANDUM
DATE July 18, 2022
TO Timothy Rood, Community Development Director
City of Hercules
FROM Janet Chang and Bruce Brubaker
SUBJECT Hercules Waterfront Blocks ABCD Community Outreach: Online Survey Results Summary Introduction
PlaceWorks is assisting the City of Hercules with community outreach on the future development of Blocks ABCD of the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP). A developer, Ledcor Group, has submitted an initial development proposal for Blocks ABCD of the WDMP area that does not align with the design and development regulations from the form-based code of the WDMP.
PlaceWorks worked with the City to create an online survey that would help collect input on the WDMP and Ledcor Proposal. Feedback from the online survey will help inform decision-making of City officials for development of Blocks ABCD.
Survey Format and Questions
The online survey comprised of two components. The beginning portion of the online survey was created with ArcGIS StoryMap and included a series of maps and images that compared the WDMP and Ledcor Proposal development schemes with descriptive text identifying how the Ledcor Proposal aligns or does not align with the WDMP across a range of development scheme elements. The narrative portion of the online survey can still be accessed at:
https://arcg.is/1bjT4n.
96 Sample of Narrative Portion of Online Survey
After the narrative segment, the survey asked some initial questions about participation at either the virtual or in-person workshop. If the survey responder indicated that they did not attend a workshop, there was also a follow-up question about whether they watched the recording of the virtual workshop, which includes presentations on the WDMP and Ledcor Proposal. The purpose of these questions was to understand whether the responder watched/listened to the workshop presentations, which provide context to the project, before completing the survey. The initial questions included:
1. Did you attend one of the community meetings on June 7 or 15, 2022? 1A. Did you watch the recording of the June 7th meeting? The main part of the survey included a series of questions to gauge the survey participant’s development scheme preferences across the various development scheme elements on a “sliding scale” of “Strongly Prefer WDMP,” “Somewhat Prefer WDMP,” “Neutral,” “Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal,” or “Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal.” The final sliding scale question asked the responder to indicate their overall preference for either development scheme. These questions included:
2. What is your preference for the building form and block configuration between the two development schemes?
3. What is your preference for the building heights between the two development schemes?
97 4. What is your preference for the
street types and circulation layout
between the two development
schemes?
5. What is your preference for the
pedestrian circulation layout
between the two development
schemes?
6. What is your preference for the
number and types of Civic Spaces
between the two development
schemes?
7. What is your preference for the
provided public view corridors
between the two development
schemes?
8. What is your preference for the
street design of Neighborhood
Street II between the two
development schemes?
9. What is your preference for the street design of the Access Alleys between the two development schemes?
10. What is your preference for the development potential numbers between the two development schemes?
11. Overall, which development scheme do you prefer?
The survey followed with two open-ended questions:
12. If you would like to elaborate more on any of your selections in Questions 2-11, please describe below:
13. If you have any general comments, please let us know:
Finally, at the end of the survey, the participant could provide their name, email, phone number, street name, city, and/or zip code. All questions were optional. Attachment A shows screenshots of the narrative StoryMap portion of the survey with the survey questions following.
Sample of Sliding Scale Survey Question
98 Outreach and Participation
The online survey was first released to the public at the virtual workshop on June 7, 2022. At the in-person workshop on June 15, 2022, the project team handed out flyers to attendees that contained a URL link and QR code to the online survey. The online survey was also promoted on the City’s social media pages, including on Facebook, Instagram, and Nextdoor. The online survey closed on June 29, 2022.
Between June 7, 2022 to June 29, 2022, there were 108 survey responses. PlaceWorks enabled a setting that disabled the ability to submit multiple responses to the survey by the same user via browser cookies. Highest survey participation numbers occurred on June 7 (virtual workshop), June 24 (City social media blast), and June 28 (reminder email blast to June 7 and 15 workshop attendees).
Summary of Responses
This summary provides an overview and key takeaways from the 108 responses received to the online survey. The full summary and written comments can be reviewed in Attachment C, which includes graphic charts. Attachment D also includes all the written comments to the open-ended questions but sorted by how responders answered the question which asked which development scheme they preferred overall.
RESPONDER INFORMATION
Almost 60% of survey responders participated in at least one of the two workshops on June 7 or June 15, 2022.
Almost all survey responders who included their city name (97%) are Hercules residents. 46 people skipped this question.
99 DEVELOPMENT SCHEME PREFERENCE QUESTIONS
Table 1 provides a summary of how survey responders answered Questions 2 to 10 to indicate their preference on various elements between the WDMP and Ledcor Proposal development schemes. Question 11 asked for their overall development scheme preference. The green gradient color shows how the survey pool leaned with the darker gradient indicating the highest percentage and the lighter gradient indicating the lowest percentage. Some of the percentages below do not add up to 100% due to rounding or some responders skipping some questions.
Table 1. Summary of Responses to Sliding Scale Preference Questions Sliding Scale Preference Options
Question
#
Development Scheme
Elements
Strongly
Prefer
WDMP
Somewhat
Prefer
WDMP
Neutral
Somewhat
Prefer
Ledcor
Proposal
Strongly
Prefer
Ledcor
Proposal
2 Building Form and
Block Configuration 54.6% 11.1% 1.9% 17.6% 14.8%
3 Building Heights 34.2% 12.0% 10.2% 13.9% 28.7%
4 Street Types and
Circulation Layout 52.8% 10.2% 3.7% 12.0% 17.6%
5 Pedestrian Circulation
Layout 57.4% 13.0% 5.6% 10.2% 13.9%
6 Number and Types of
Civic Spaces 50.9% 10.2% 3.7% 15.7% 16.7%
7 Public View Corridors 42.6% 14.8% 8.3% 12.0% 21.3%
8 Street Design of
Neighborhood Street II 41.7% 11.1% 15.7% 13.0% 16.7%
9 Street Design of Access
Alleys 40.7% 10.2% 23.2% 8.3% 14.8%
10 Development Potential 45.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 19.4%
11 Overall Development
Scheme Preference 47.2% 14.8% 2.8% 11.1% 23.2%
Based on the answers to Questions 2 to 10, the majority of survey responders indicated that they strongly prefer the WDMP on a variety of elements, especially for the following:
Building Form and Block Configuration
Street Types and Circulation Layout
100
Pedestrian Layout
Number and Types of Civic Spaces
There was a wider range in preferences on elements including the following:
Building Heights
Street Design of Neighborhood Street II
Street Design of Access Alleys
Development Potential
It should be noted that a relatively higher number of responders indicated a “Neutral” preference to the Street Designs of Neighborhood Street II and Access Alleys elements, with 15.7% and
23.2% respectively.
For Question 11, when asking about the responder’s overall preference on a development scheme, only 2.8% indicated “Neutral.” 62% of responders indicated that they either strongly prefer or somewhat prefer the WDMP while 34% of responders indicated that they either strongly prefer or somewhat prefer the Ledcor Proposal.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
The following are key takeaways from the written comments to the open-ended questions (Questions 12 and 13), sorted by various topics. All comments below were made by multiple respondents. The full version of the comments can be reviewed in Attachments C and D.
General
Many people indicated that they have been waiting years for a town center and for the WDMP to come to fruition.
A common comment was the WDMP and its form-based code were meant to protect the citizens’ vision for the waterfront area. Development of Blocks ABCD should benefit existing Hercules residents.
Many mentioned the Ledcor Proposal lacks character and is a typical suburban residential development.
Many thought residential homes should be for sale rather than for lease. There were a few comments that said the development should include affordable units.
Building Heights
Lower building heights, as proposed in Ledcor Proposal’s, are desired by some. 101
Streets
Many comments indicated that the WDMP provides a more pedestrian-friendly and walkable environment.
Many feel that the Ledcor Proposal lacks adequate pedestrian access and circulation and pedestrian-oriented amenities.
Many indicated that the street types and layout of the Ledcor Proposal do not provide enough variety.
Several comments expressed that the proposed alleyways should be pedestrian friendly with more green space and trees.
Civic Spaces
Many indicated that the WDMP provides more variety of civic uses throughout the site and is a community-focused space.
Some like Ledcor’s proposed “Historic” Park that connects to the bayfront and the street event plaza
Historic Buildings
Several indicated that the historic buildings on the site should be preserved and have uses that benefit the community (not a leasing office).
Architectural Style
Some feel that the Spanish Revival architectural style shown in the Ledcor Proposal is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods or the two historic buildings.
Parking
Several feel that the Ledcor Proposal does not seem to provide adequate parking.
Development Potential
Many expressed that the Ledcor Proposal lacks the mix of uses such as retail, commercial, office, and flex space that the WDMP proposes. Hercules needs more amenities and sales and property tax revenue.
Many responders indicated that the Ledcor Proposal’s reduction in residential and commercial development from the WDMP is more favorable because it reduces traffic. Some desire townhomes in the Ledcor Proposal while others are opposed. 102
Some feel that the Ledcor Proposal for primarily townhomes and little retail is more realistic for current retail market conditions. Others disagree and feel retail should be in this area of the waterfront.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Online Survey StoryMap
Attachment B: Online Survey Questions
Attachment C: Overall Survey Results
Attachment D: Comments by Overall Development Scheme Preference 103
Survey Instructions
The City is seeking input from the community
on your preference between two different
development schemes for a vacant site along
the shore of Hercules.
City of Hercules Waterfront Blocks
ABCD Community Outreach
104
As you scroll through this webpage, you will learn more about the key differences between a proposal from Ledcor, a
developer who completed other projects in the waterfront area including the Exchange and the Grand, and the existing plan, called the Waterfront District Master Plan. After reviewing the differences, you will have an opportunity to voice your input by completing a survey.
If you would like to view any image at a larger scale, click the image to enlarge.
This survey is open from 6/7/22 to 6/29/22.
Introduction
The City of Hercules is seeking community input on the future development of Blocks ABCD (aka “The Heights” or “The
Bowl”) of the Waterfront District Master Plan. Ledcor, which is also the developer of “The Village” in the Bayfront project, has submitted an initial development proposal for Blocks ABCD.
The development proposal includes a mostly residential
community with 142 residential townhouses, parks, and a small area of live/work units. However, the proposal does not comply with the design and development regulations from the form-based code of the City’s Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP).
105
Background
Development of the waterfront and the creation of a town center has been a long-time vision and desire for Hercules residents. The plan for a town center is described in the 2000 Central Hercules Plan, which was created through an
intensive design charrette process. In 2001, the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP) set a vision of the Hercules waterfront area as a transit-oriented development (TOD) neighborhood mixed-use project. In 2008, Hercules citizens submitted a petition with over 3,500 signatures to amend the 2001 Plan and create the 2008 Waterfront District Master Plan Initiative, which amended the WDMP while keeping the
mixed-use TOD concept. The Initiative also led in 2012 to the developer and the City entering into two long-term
development agreements that stipulate certain benefits and obligations for the two parties, including the requirement to adhere to the Waterfront District Master Plan.
The WDMP vision puts a focus on creating a new “town
center” for Hercules, with a mix of land uses including retail, office, and residential, with a pedestrian-friendly
environment along a network of vehicular and pedestrianonly streets, and a variety of civic spaces, from large parks to small pocket plazas. The Village area of the WDMP is currently under construction by Ledcor in the northern portion of the shoreline area.
106
Comparison of Waterfront District Master
Plan (WDMP) vs. Ledcor Proposal
This next series of slides will compare the two development schemes for Blocks ABCD, WDMP versus Ledcor Proposal,
over a series of different topics:
Vision
Block Configuration and Regulating Zones
Building Heights
Circulation
Pedestrian Circulation
Street Design: Neighborhood Street II
Street Design: Access Alley
Civic Spaces
Public View Corridors
Development Potential
Bird's Eye View Perspectives
107
Vision
Waterfront District Master Plan
For Blocks ABCD, the WDMP vision is to create a vibrant, walkable medium-density residential neighborhood along
the bayfront that has convenient access to parks, plazas, community amenities, and views of San Pablo Bay. All
streets have sidewalks and there are additional streets dedicated to pedestrians only. A key component of this
neighborhood is a “main street” commercial destination on the waterfront within walking distance of homes. There
are also two historic buildings (Clubhouse and Administration Building) in the site near Railroad Avenue, which the WDMP shows as being preserved.
Ledcor Proposal
Ledcor’s Proposal reimagines Blocks ABCD as a
predominantly residential development (two- and threestory townhomes) with a small amount of live/work units (ground-floor work space with residential above) at the north end of the property abutting Bayfront Boulevard. All streets include sidewalks to allow for pedestrian circulation
throughout the development. It also includes a public park along Railroad Avenue and other parks at key locations.
Ledcor also proposes to preserve and rehabilitate the
historic Clubhouse and Administration Building, to become a community gathering space and office use, respectively. 108
Block Configuration and Regulating Zones
Waterfront District Master Plan
The WDMP divides the project area into four major blocks: A, B, C, and D. Block C is further divided into three sub-blocks: C1, C2, and C3. The regulating zones in the WDMP are based on “transects” or neighborhoods with differing intensity and character, ranging from T5 at a high intensity to T4 at a lower intensity.
Each of these Regulating Zones has a unique purpose with different standards for land use mix, setbacks, heights, frontage types, and parking. Below is a summary of the
purpose for each of the regulating zones:
T5-CC Clubhouse Center (shown in red). To provide
flexibility of use required for the appropriate integration of the existing historic buildings.
T5-MS Bayfront Boulevard Main Street (shown in blue).
To enhance the vibrant, pedestrian-oriented character of Bayfront Boulevard by creating a “main street” commercial area and to take advantage of views along the Bay. Under the WDMP, Block D is of a larger size and configuration to accommodate a potential hotel.
T4-NG Neighborhood General (shown in yellow). To
encourage a wide variety of housing types to enable a wide diversity of residents in a manner that yields medium
109
densities and to provide a choice of residences with
spectacular views of the bay.
Ledcor Proposal
Ledcor’s Proposal does not follow the geographic locations of WDMP’s block configuration but includes areas of
development that could be considered similar to those in the WDMP Building Form Regulating Plan, including:
Two blocks encompassing the two historic buildings which could be considered as a T5-CC Clubhouse Center zone.
Two large blocks with residential development which could be considered the T4-NG Neighborhood General zone.
One block with three live/work units (ground-floor work space with residential above) which could be considered the T5-MS Bayfront Boulevard Main Street zone. This block is configured for live/work units like the existing ones on Railroad Avenue.
Although these blocks are categorized into the WDMP’s
Regulating Zones, they do not meet all the standards of the WDMP for these zones, such as for setbacks, frontage types, and parking design.
Building Heights
Waterfront District Master Plan
The WDMP allows development with a minimum of two
110
stories and a maximum of four stories. Areas in which higher building heights are allowed are situated along view corridors and civic spaces. Areas which allow up to 4 stories are shown in dark red.
Ledcor Proposal
The buildings in Ledcor’s Proposal are arranged in rows of alternating building heights so that the rooftops are staggered to maximize views so that from each residential unit, one can look out to the bay over the residence below. Residential buildings are proposed to be two- to three-stories tall.
Circulation
Waterfront District Master Plan
Street Types
In Blocks ABCD of the WDMP, there are five street types that include: Neighborhood Street II (shown in dark blue),
Cascade (shown in light red), Edge Street I (shown in
bright blue), Paseo (shown in light orange), and Walk
Street (shown in red).
The Cascade, Paseo, and Walk Street allow for pedestrian-only circulation (no cars) to create a pedestrian-friendly
environment. Each of these street types have standards
related to widths, lane types, edges, intersections, and speed. 111
Site Entries
There are two entries into the site, both along Railroad Avenue, connecting to an Edge Street I and a Neighborhood Street II.
Ledcor Proposal
Street Types
The Ledcor Proposal includes three WDMP street types:
Neighborhood Street II (shown in dark blue), Edge Street I (shown in bright blue), and Access Alley (shown in bright green). The Ledcor Proposal also shows two additional street types not included in the WDMP: One-Way Entry Street
(shown in peach) and Two-Way Entry Street (shown in
orange). All of these street types allow for vehicular travel.
Due to Ledcor Proposal’s different block configuration, the location of the Neighborhood Street II differs from that of the WDMP Circulation Plan.
Site Entries
The Ledcor Proposal shows two main vehicular entries: one entry at the top of the bowl/Railroad Avenue and one entry from Bayfront Boulevard.
The Neighborhood Street II and Access Alley street types are described and compared in more detail below.
112
Pedestrian Circulation
Waterfront District Master Plan
The WDMP provides pedestrian-only circulation (no cars) on several street types, including the Walk Street, Cascade, and three Paseos. The Cascade and one of the Paseos provides pedestrian-only access from Railroad Avenue to the
Neighborhood Street II, which has sidewalks on both sides of the street. From Neighborhood Street II, there is pedestrianonly access across Block B via two Paseos which connect to the Walk Street. The Walk Street lines the bayfront and provides pedestrian circulation to a Neighborhood Park that fronts the bay and a connection to the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Ledcor Proposal
In the Ledcor Proposal, sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street for pedestrian circulation throughout the site, including on Access Alleys, Neighborhood Street II, One-Way Entry Streets, and Two-Way Entry Streets. The Neighborhood Street II provides pedestrian access from the Neighborhood Park along Railroad Avenue, across the roundabout at the northern end of the site, and to the waterfront Neighborhood Park, providing a straight connection to the San Francisco Bay Trail. Community uses, including the Clubhouse,
Administration Building, Neighborhood Parks, and Historic Square, are adjacent to and accessible via streets with sidewalks. The One-Way Entry Streets connecting to Railroad Avenue can be temporarily closed-off to vehicles to become pedestrian-only streets for special events.
113
Street Design: Neighborhood Street II
Waterfront District Master Plan
The Neighborhood Street II street type in the WDMP is meant to be a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined residential street. The street has two lanes for vehicle travel, on-street parking on both sides, and sidewalks on both sides with landscaped parkways. Building frontages for commercial and residential uses front directly onto the sidewalk.
114
Street Design: Neighborhood Street II
Ledcor Proposal
Ledcor Proposal’s Neighborhood Street II street type is consistent with the WDMP in overall widths and width of street elements like parking lanes, walkways/sidewalks, and parkways. The key difference is that there is more separation, in the form of a landscaped slope with stair access, from the building frontage (or front stoops) to the sidewalk in the Ledcor Proposal.
115
Street Design: Access Alley
Waterfront District Master Plan
The Access Alley is a street type in the WDMP but is not an approved street type in Blocks ABCD of the WDMP. It is instead located between Blocks E and G in the WDMP. In the WDMP, the Access Alley has narrow sidewalks and is not used for pedestrian access within Blocks ABCD.
116
Street Design: Access Alley
Ledcor Proposal
Ledcor’s Proposal uses the Access Alley street type for neighborhood circulation, providing access to residences as well as sidewalks for pedestrians. As shown in the Ledcor Proposal graphics, houses line the Access Alley street with garages at the ground floor. Landscaped forecourts, or
pathways, located between buildings provide access to
residential entries.
Civic Spaces in the WDMP
Civic spaces in the WDMP include a variety of types of parks, public plazas, and other publicly accessible spaces. The WDMP includes five civic space types in Blocks ABCD. All these civic spaces have their own standards relating to character,
amenities, and width. Photos of the five WDMP civic space types are shown on this page and described below:
Historic Squares reinforce the importance of the existing, historic buildings (Clubhouse and Administration Building), providing space for civic purposes and unstructured
recreation. Fronting buildings should provide entries that engage the space.
117
Neighborhood Parks provide secondary focal points
within the Neighborhood General Zones. These parks
accommodate a wide-range of activities and should vary in character, sensitive to its specific needs and surroundings.
Generally, these parks are located in more intimate
locations, often mid-block or tucked away from the street and often irregularly shaped.
Pocket Plazas function in a similar manner and follow the same rules as the larger plazas but may occur within the development. They create a more intimate place for seating or dining and provide a place where commercial and
neighborhood activity can spill into. These plazas can also be used to create a formal space in front of a prominent building entrance.
Cascades are pedestrian walkways or service ways
between buildings, connecting two streets at different
levels. A cascade is always sloped, typically with an
integrated set of steps, terraces, or a drive depending on the clearance. Surrounded by buildings on two sides, this condition can either be open to the air or closed with a trellis.
Paseos are intimate passageways through buildings and
provide direct pedestrian access to residential or
commercial addresses, creating unique spaces for
frontages to engage with passersby. Paseos allow for social and commercial activity to spill into the public realm. 118
Civic Spaces in the Ledcor Proposal
The civic spaces in the Ledcor Proposal are described below with image examples on the same page:
Neighborhood Parks have been placed throughout the site to provide views out to San Pablo Bay. This includes open space and seating elements at the rear of both the
Clubhouse and Administration Building as well as a
Neighborhood Park at the terminus of the Neighborhood
Street II adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Trail. The
Neighborhood Parks are connected by a pedestrian
sidewalk network.
One of the Neighborhood Parks, the Neighborhood
“Historic” Park, is designed as a centralized open space amenity which connects the Clubhouse, Administration
Building, as well as the adjacent residential uses. This public park would be a gathering place for picnics in the park and special events. The park is intentionally located at the top of the site to provide a straight connection to the San Francisco Bay Trail through the project and to the
existing live/work buildings on Railroad Avenue. There is a public view corridor from the western edge of the park to San Pablo Bay.
The Historic Square adjacent to the Administration
Building is designed as a plaza at the second floor entry to the Administration Building. This plaza will have public access and includes seating areas to enjoy the view of the Neighborhood “Historic” Park.
Special Event Street Plaza is made of up of the proposed One-Way Entry Streets on either side of the Neighborhood “Historic” Park, which have the opportunity to be
temporarily closed off for special events thus allowing gathering space to spill out from the formal park space.
Potential activities could include farmers’ markets, food truck vendors, and holiday events such as 4th of July and Christmas.
119
Civic Spaces in Blocks ABCD
Waterfront District Master Plan
The five civic space types shown in the WDMP for Blocks ABCD are distributed throughout the site. These civic spaces include and are located in the following areas:
Neighborhood Park (shown in green) that wraps around
the western side of Block B along the bayfront to provide views toward Mt. Tamalpais. This park includes a tot lot.
Historic Square (shown in brown) at the north (entry)
face of the Administration Building in Block C to occupy the entire space between the building and the street and
provide entries that engage the Historic Square space.
Pocket Plaza (shown in yellow) in Block B.
Cascade (shown in pink) or pedestrian walkway
connecting two streets at different levels between Blocks D and C3.
Three Paseos (shown in peach), all connecting higher
streets to lower streets in Blocks B and C.
The WDMP does not address water quality treatment areas.
Portions of open space/parkland and/or additional areas may need to be reserved for water quality treatment.
Note: Specific acreages and amenities of these civic spaces are not assigned in the WDMP.
120
Ledcor Proposal
The Ledcor Proposal includes three WDMP civic space types:
Neighborhood Park, Historic Square, and Plaza which are focused more along the edges of the site. These civic spaces include:
Five Neighborhood Parks (shown in green), including an
approximately 0.3-acre “Historic Park” at the entry of the site along Railroad Avenue, one along the bayfront adjacent to the roundabout, one next to the Clubhouse, one next to the Administration Building, and one at the southern end of the site.
Historic Square (shown in brown) next to the
Administration Building.
Plaza (shown in red) in front of the proposed live/work units along the bayfront at the end of Bayfront Boulevard and overlooking the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The Ledcor Proposal also includes a Civic Space type not included in the WDMP: Special Event Street Plaza (shown in peach). This is the Entry Street area between the
Neighborhood “Historic” Park and historic buildings. Ledcor proposes that this area can be closed off to cars and be used as a gathering space for temporary commercial, unstructured recreation, and Clubhouse-related activities, such as farmers’ markets and food truck events.
The Ledcor Proposal also includes two Water Quality
Treatment Areas (open space) along the bayfront and at
Bayfront Boulevard; however, these areas would not be
publicly accessible.
121
Public View Corridors
The purpose of view corridors is to maintain meaningful views from public streets and open spaces to knit the different blocks together and take advantage of bay views.
Waterfront District Master Plan
In the WDMP, there are four public view corridors within Blocks ABCD: two view corridors on Block B toward the
waterfront Neighborhood Park, one view corridor from the historic Clubhouse building to the west, and one view corridor near the Pocket Plaza between Blocks A and B to the west.
There is also a public view corridor toward San Pablo Bay just outside of Blocks ABCD at the intersection of Bayfront
Boulevard and Railroad Avenue.
Ledcor Proposal
The Ledcor Proposal includes two publicly accessible view corridors within Blocks ABCD: one primary view corridor down the middle of the development from the proposed
Neighborhood “Historic” Park at the top of the site down to the waterfront Neighborhood Park and one view corridor
from the historic Clubhouse building to the west (similar to the WDMP view corridor). Similar to the WDMP, there is also a public view corridor toward San Pablo Bay outside of Blocks ABCD at the intersection of Bayfront Boulevard and Railroad Avenue.
122
Development Potential
This table compares the number or residential units, office, retail, and flexible spaces for the WDMP and Ledcor’s
Proposal. In the case of the WDMP, these numbers are the maximum numbers allowed at build-out of the project studied in the Bayfront Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the WDMP; the EIR does not use/include minimum
development potential numbers for its study. In the case of the Ledcor Proposal, the numbers are total proposed in the
development. Ledcor’s Proposal meets the WDMP’s
regulations for parking requirements.
The Bayfront Project EIR assumed a significantly higher amount of residential and non-residential uses, including retail and office, compared to the development in the Ledcor Proposal.
123
Bird’s Eye View Perspectives
These illustrations compare the two development schemes conceptually at a bird’s eye view perspective above the bay looking inland toward residences.
Waterfront District Master Plan
Residential buildings nearest the bay are two- to three-stories tall. All the buildings are oriented to face the pedestrian-only Walk Street that separates the residences from the
Neighborhood Park and San Francisco Bay Trail. This
rendering shows buildings in a Spanish Revival architectural style, although several architectural styles are allowed in the WDMP. One of the Neighborhood Parks is shown located along the bayfront with a sloped terrain in response to the site's topography. Taller four-story buildings are located further from the bayfront.
Note: Rendering image of WDMP created by Ledcor.
124
Bird’s Eye View Perspectives
Ledcor Proposal
Residential Spanish Revival-style buildings are shown
throughout the site. Buildings range from two- to three-stories tall. Two-story residences show roof decks with a small towerlike space above the top story for access stairs. One of the Neighborhood Parks is shown along the bayfront, adjacent to a roundabout.
Note: Rendering image of Ledcor Proposal created by Ledcor. 125
Survey
Now that you have reviewed the key differences between the Waterfront District Master Plan and Ledcor’s Proposal, we want to hear from you!
Please scroll down to view and participate in a brief survey. If you are using a smart phone or would like to view the survey in a separate window, click here.
126
City of Hercules Blocks ABCD Online Survey
After reviewing the key differences between the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP) and Ledcor Proposal, please answer the following questions.
IMPORTANT: It may be helpful to view this part of the survey in a separate window to refer back to the graphics and narrative information as you answer these questions. To view the survey in a separate window, click the button of an arrow within a square at the top right.
If you did not attend the community meetings on June 7 or 15, 2022, you may want to watch the recording of the virtual meeting, also available on the City website, before completing the survey.
1. Did you attend one of the community meetings on June 7 or 15, 2022?* Yes
2. What is your preference for the building form and block configuration between the two development schemes? Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Building Form and Block Configuration Plan Comparison
3. What is your preference for the building heights between the two development schemes? Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Reset Robert
127
Building Heights Plan Comparison
4. What is your preference for the street types and circulation layout between the two development schemes? Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Street and Circulation Plan Comparison
5. What is your preference for the pedestrian circulation layout between the two development schemes? Reset Robert
128
Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Pedestrian Circulation Plan Comparison
6. What is your preference for the number and types of Civic Spaces between the two development schemes? Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Civic Space Plan Comparison
Reset Robert
129
7. What is your preference for the provided public view corridors between the two development schemes? Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Public View Corridors Plan Comparison
8. What is your preference for the street design of Neighborhood Street II between the two development schemes? Reset Robert
130
Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Neighborhood Street II Section Comparison
9. What is your preference for the street design of the Access Alleys between the two development schemes? Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Access Alley Section Comparison
Reset Robert
131
10. What is your preference for the development potential numbers between the two development schemes? Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Development Potential Table
11. Overall, which development scheme do you prefer?
Strongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Development Plan Comparison
Reset Robert
132
12. If you would like to elaborate more on any of your selections in Questions 2-11, please describe below:
1000
13. If you have any general comments, please let us know:
1000
Name
Email
Phone
14. Please tell us about yourself. (optional)
Reset Robert
133
Street Name
City
Zip Code
Submit
Reset Robert
134
City of Hercules Waterfront District Blocks ABCD
1. Did you attend one of the community meetings on June 7 or 15, 2022? Answered: 108 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Yes 64 59.26%
No 44 40.74%
1A. Did you watch the recording of the June 7th meeting? Answered: 44 Skipped: 64
No
Yes
No 31 28.7%
Yes 13 12.04%
Answers Count Percentage
Answers Count Percentage
135
City of Hercules Waterfront District Blocks ABCD
2. What is your preference for the building form and block configuration between t… Answered: 108 Skipped: 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 59 54.63%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 12 11.11%
Neutral 2 1.85%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 19 17.59%
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 16 14.81%
3. What is your preference for the building heights between the two development… 0 10
20 30
40 Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 37 34.26%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 13 12.04%
Neutral 11 10.19%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 15 13.89%
Answers Count Percentage
Answers Count Percentage
136
Answered: 107 Skipped: 1
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 31 28.7%
4. What is your preference for the street types and circulation layout between the t… Answered: 104 Skipped: 4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 57 52.78%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 11 10.19%
Neutral 4 3.7%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 13 12.04%
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 19 17.59%
5. What is your preference for the pedestrian circulation layout between the two… 0 10
20 30
40 60
70 50
Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 62 57.41%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 14 12.96%
Neutral 6 5.56%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 11 10.19%
Answers Count Percentage
Answers Count Percentage
137
Answered: 108 Skipped: 0
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 15 13.89%
6. What is your preference for the number and types of Civic Spaces between the t… Answered: 105 Skipped: 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 55 50.93%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 11 10.19%
Neutral 4 3.7%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 17 15.74%
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 18 16.67%
7. What is your preference for the provided public view corridors between the two… 0 10
20 30
40 50
Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 46 42.59%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 16 14.81%
Neutral 9 8.33%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 13 12.04%
Answers Count Percentage
Answers Count Percentage
138
Answered: 107 Skipped: 1
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 23 21.3%
8. What is your preference for the street design of Neighborhood Street II between… Answered: 106 Skipped: 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 45 41.67%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 12 11.11%
Neutral 17 15.74%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 14 12.96%
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 18 16.67%
9. What is your preference for the street design of the Access Alleys between the t… 0 10
20 30
40 50
Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 44 40.74%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 11 10.19%
Neutral 25 23.15%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 9 8.33%
Answers Count Percentage
Answers Count Percentage
139
Answered: 105 Skipped: 3
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 16 14.81%
10. What is your preference for the development potential numbers between the tw… Answered: 106 Skipped: 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 49 45.37%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 12 11.11%
Neutral 12 11.11%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 12 11.11%
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 21 19.44%
11. Overall, which development scheme do you prefer?
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Strongly Prefe... Somewhat Prefe... Neutral Somewhat Prefe... Strongly Prefe...
Strongly Prefer WDMP 51 47.22%
Somewhat Prefer WDMP 16 14.81%
Neutral 3 2.78%
Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal 12 11.11%
Answers Count Percentage
Answers Count Percentage
140
Answered: 107 Skipped: 1
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal 25 23.15%
12. If you would like to elaborate more on any of your selections in Questions 2-11, please… Ledcor
proposal
retail
plan space
WDMP
Hercules Street
Waterfront
building
city
original
pedestrian -
residential
units
area access
office
traffic people
prefer
public
townhomes
historic park
development
parking
design
WDMP.
community
center
area.
buildings
bay
make
views homes
civic
Proposal.
neighborhood
small
good
Ledcor's
Master
existing
Bayfront
support
plan.
town
green
Clubhouse plans Fewer
district
alleys
layout
Railroad
view
feel
lot
commercial
don’t
lower
spaces character
city.
current
housing
space.
mixed
tax
love
potential
street.
tract it.
built
site
SF
2 -I
20 461
possible.
realize City’s
B.
site.
makes
hard
kind
sides end
real here.
low
visit
3 142
800
1500
costs Blvd
data.
A)
spot
mass
Ft
Hold
&
1)
2)
3)
+
–
fan
4. 5.
8. Would really love to keep the neighborhood as residential as possible. The small business there are good e nough and the planned transit center will already bring in too much traffic. 1 While the city’s WDMP looks amazing, is it practical to realize today. 461 units seem to be an over-build, es pecially considering traffic impacts, prohibitive construction costs, potential non-use of retail space, and othe r elements that have yet to be identified as potential concerns for residents and neighbors. 1 While the City’s plan is esthetically pleasing then and possibly now, there would be potential traffic impacts t o the area. Additionally, the massive retail space is not practical for what Hercules can attract. 1 While I like Ledcor's 'rightsizing' the plan from 461 to 142 units, it's overall proposal aesthetically deviates fr om the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP). It ignores the walkable nature of the existing Promenade n eighborhood and substitutes Townhomes on garage-lined alleys, whereas the original WDMP provided for tr ee-lined, pedestrian friendly streets. I do like the Ledcor proposal for the use of the historic buildings and pa rk with a street leading down to the bay, but would rather, otherwise to keep the WDMP street layout with tre e-lined streets. It is much more pedestrian/community friendly. Traffic is going to be a nightmare for resident s. The new development MUST provide direct access to Bayfront Blvd through Block D, which it appears th e Ledcor plan provides. Traffic on Sycamore and Railroad Avenue will otherwise be too congested. 1 We need to move forward with the original waterfront district master plan to make Hercules a destination cit y
1 We are being asked to choose between Options A and B. There are more than two options for this site. Neit her of the two proposals really shows many pictures of "what it would be like to walk through or experience" either option. It is difficult to make good decisions from the data. I mostly support the Ledcor proposal howe ver, - It is not clear what architectural style the buildings would be in. - It is not clear if they would be rentals or for sale. I only support the latter, in either plan. - Clearly a 400-person unit (Plan A) makes no sense. We don't like "The Exchange" model of towering condos with a non-public plaza inside. The bowl is tucked awa y in a small spot and it won't have room for parking (or even walking) for 800 people. - I would purchase one of the Ledcor units if it had a view of the bay, and I suspect others will feel the same. - There has been a lot of discussion that the ledcorp design doesn't "match the intended architectural style", but is hard to see in A or B.
1 WDMP is supremely better. 1
Response Count
141
Too many people, with the waterfront design. The impact on the environment, water usage, electricity, traffi c, congestion will all go up. It has 3x’s the amount of residential with more commercial office place. We don’t need that in our beautiful area. Also as a resident who lives next door to the powder keg I bought my house with wonderful views. Keep the buildings lower do not obstruct the views of the people on my street. Ledcor is environmentally friendly, keeps congestion, Power, and water usage down. Will also give better views to t he people who currently have them.
1 This proposal is really insulting to anyone with even a cursory understanding of New Urbanism or the WDM P. It is not remotely New Urbanist. These are tract homes... Townhomes, but tract homes none the less. Thi s kind of “thinking” about city planning was obsolete in the 1980’s, at least here in America. You tried to mak e it seem like your proposal is more-or-less compliant with the WDMP. It isn't. You insinuated that your prop osal is actually BETTER than the type of development proscribed by the WDMP, because of “the different m arket conditions” that exist today. It isn’t, that’s just Canadian Baloney. You falsely claimed that no retailers o r commercial tenants are interested doing business in Hercules. Why? Because no one wanted to lease the ridiculously small spaces you’ve created on the waterfront without the critical mass of an anchor business d uring a pandemic. Well duh!
1 This Ledcor plan is very similar to a plan proposed in 1999. The Waterfront District Master Plan was prepar ed in order to implement the General Plan's intention of a pedestrian-oriented, transit-oriented, mixed-use to wn center on the Bay. I know this because I prepared it. The "public realm plan" for this Ledcor proposal is n othing more than a standard Orange County tuck-under townhouse project like thousands of others around the state and around the country, on a one-of-a-kind town center site. The triangular green by the admin buil ding could be very nice, as could the central street front that green to the Bay - if it were designed with buildi ng frontages rather than just stairs up to the sides of the end units. Calling the driveway aprons in the alleys "sidewalks" is just silly and insulting. Some of the drawings show sidewalks along the tops and toes of the sl ope banks between the pads and some do not. Designed right, those could become "frontages". As is, all "b ackages."
1 There is not enough parking in Ledcor. Furthermore, this plan looks to have no actual courtyards or actual ci vic center. The plans for the historical homes included “leasing office?”” First of all that implies these homes are going to be rental; which is not what’s best for Hercules- no pride of ownership and more money to deve loper. Secondly, these are historic spaces that should be dedicated to the citizens of Hercules and not part o f leasing spaces!
1 There is no character to the ledcor plan that adheres to the WDMP. Please start over. L 1 The WDMP can be built without using expensive "podium" structures. The existing building on Railroad Ave nue is an example of an alternative building type. The Ledcor plan has only one neighborhood street. the re st of the site is a succession of alleys and narrow pedestrian green spaces. There is no provision for interact ion between neighbors as included in the WDMP. 1500 Ft of "Flex space" is not enough. 1 The questions do not do justice to the real issues. Building heights and street scapes and views are minor y et important parts of the Developer Agreement and Master Plan. The real differences are not being address ed. Thye are in fact being ignored by both the developer and the City. 1 The preference for the WDMP is for the character / community spaces that the proposal contained. The Led cor proposal looks very generic, like a development that could be plugged in anywhere. While I like the lowe r building heights and I understand the challenges the site presents, this development doesn't seem to be v ery appealing
1 The pedestrian circulation and civic space are an unacceptable deviation from the current plan. The bay fro nt row of how homes would need to be removed and swapped for park space to even begin being consider ed. Renovating the Historic building to use as a “leasing office” is a joke. Additionally, I am sad to see that th e alleyways discussed in the proposal appear to be concrete treeless spaces. 1 The original plans have a much nicer flow and feel and the clubhouse area would enable space to include p arking, which seems ignored in the Ledcor plans. I realize there are garages in the proposed homes, but as we all have seen, people do not park in their garages and HOAs do not enforce that they do. Without the ret ail space there will not be additional revenues to the city to help pay for services that the additional resident s will need from the city, so we will be at a deficit.
1 142
The Hercules Waterfront should be developed as a city center destination with retail, housing and office spa ce as well as community gathering space including parks and access to the Bayfront Trail. This area should not just be built for the privileged few who lease townhomes here. It should maximize walking areas and be safe for pediatricians and minimize vehicular traffic since it is a gateway for walking and bicycling in the area and in between Hercules and Pinole. The 100% lack of retail is unacceptable in the Ledcor plan. Retail and office space should be of varying sizes to accommodate small businesses and not just flagship, anchor, larg e retail companies. Retail that encourages walking instead of driving (corner markets, small shops) should b e prioritized to minimize driving. The complete abandonment of the WDMP by Ledcor is shocking. 1 The fewer number of units, the better. Also like lower busking heights. 1 Prefer a larger civic area and waterfront park than what is currently in the Ledcor proposal. Also prefer main taining building character and frontages contained in the WDMP. Prefer more retail space added to Ledcor p roposal in Civic area. Overall love the townhouse high low height and layout of the Ledcor proposal - just ne eds more retail and larger waterfront park.
1 Please stick to the original water district plan as much as possible. We’ve been waiting 20 years for this. 1 Please do not get rid of the historic building and don’t build townhomes that block existing views. Hold to the original plan.
1 Parking, parking, parking…..! 1
Overall my preference is for residential townhomes (towards home ownership) of Ledcor’s plans but like the WDMP’s pedestrian and public view of the Bay plans, and for sure less retail (we have empty retail shops at the Exchange and the Grand yet to be filled).
1 Not understanding why we don’t have the chance to object ti thus all together. 1 No Retail! No Retail! No Retail! Fewer homes, nothing over 3 stories and prefer 2 stories. Master Plan is dat ed and I wish the city could move past it. After 20 years here I am tired of it and feel fewer people support it.
Parking seems unreasonable. Neighborhood feel and walkability important. We visit more with alley neighbo rs than across the street. Would prefer units are for sale not rentals. Happy Ledcor will redevelop historic bu ildings but need to know more about their plans. In general, much happier with Ledcor proposal. 1 Neither Plan is ideal, but the WDMP seems more aesthetically pleasing/ beneficial to our community. We ne ed to stop with cramming in all the skinny, yardless houses! Our community needs space to breathe & come together!!
1 Need a railroad station in the town. 1
Most renter’s prefer townhomes with personal garages. 1 Ledcor’s proposal is clearly not in the best interests of Hercules and its residents. The original plan is at lea st inclusive and beautiful. If that beautiful plot of land is going to be developed, it should be done so with car e and taste. Ledcor doesn’t exhibit either with this proposal. It’s hideous. 1 Ledcor could profitably comply with the principles of the WDMP, using current townhouse product types, by using a competent design firm and communicating the proposal in good faith. It has chosen not to do so. 1 Key elements and commitments were made to the Community since 1999: 1) The outstanding views would not be privatized (the outer perimeter of the subject site would be part of the public realm via public street (s)); 2) that the original historic street frontage along the clubhouse and Adm Building would be maintained; 3) The subject area would be broken down into blocks formed by public streets which would maximize publi c pedestrian access to this area (the Ledcor proposal only has one public street the balance are alleys whic h as set forth in the Central Hercules Plan by definition must have a corresponding primary street to exist).
Extensive design work was prepared in the formalization of the original and the current WDMP which maxim ize the reuse of the clubhouse as a quasi-public space. Bixby and Oso Trabuco as part of an agreement to sell the clubhouse to the City spent a significant sum to correcting geotechnical issues so King Street could be constructed.
1 its hard to pick between 2 alternatives that i dont like. 1 143
I'm in favor of more green space around the Clubhouse + Admin bldg...but not if it requires acceptance of th e rest of Ledcor's proposal...
1 I think this is a more realistic proposal. I like the increased walkability and view options. 1 I think there has to be a compromise. Ledcor need to stick closer to the WDMP but I wouldn't have a proble m if the number of residential units, retail SF, office SF and flex SF was reduced. 1 I think a lot still depends on the likelihood of a train station - that's what gets the increased traffic for retailer s. I rather like the park with the two historic buildings in the Ledcor, but would want the street to go behind th e buildings and have the park fill the whole area. As drawn it doesn't seem big enough to be a town center.
However - it would need substantial parking! In the original Waterfront design, the town center was to be by the train station. I think that still makes more sense, as the problem with making this a town center is it is acr oss from pure residential! Down on Bayfront, both sides of the street are commercial on the ground floor, an d there is to be substantial parking there. The Ledcor design just looks like more suburbia. This is supposed to be a different kind of neighborhood! I understand the problem with the pedestal buildings; hopefully ther e's a way to compromise between the two designs.
1 I see the Ledcor proposal as a more feasible option and preferable for the use of space. The original plan w ould put too many cars on the road. I also don’t see a need for more retail space as there is plenty of space in the area that is currently unused. I also believe that if we stick to the original plan nothing will be built due to the economics involved.
1 I like the parks, the bay views, and the rooftop patios in the proposal. However, the proposal lacks enough p edestrian-only walkways and plazas for people to meander and linger. Also, the street layout and overall de sign is bland – with long blocks and rows of spaced-out buildings. It needs more pedestrian access between blocks; pocket plazas; a more interesting street and walkway layout (perhaps also with brick or stone pavin g); and more building density to make it compatible with the cozy, walkable "European Hilltown" vision mand ated in the WDMP. There should be retail space here. The lack of retail in blocks N and Q may be due to th e undersized retail units, a lack of reasons for people to visit and linger, high lease rates, and low residential density. Adopting my suggestions and developing the rest of the Waterfront will make a more inviting retail e nvironment. One other option is that portions of the lot could be subdivided and sold to retailers to construct their own buildings.
1 I like components from both: -I prefer the park in the Ledcor proposal -I think we should be realistic on the re tail space. Maybe Hercules cannot support as much retail as the WDMP, but having something where Bayfr ont intersects Railroad would be a nice. Not a big fan of a Hotel as I imagine it will be a lower end hotel, but I do like the idea of capping Bayfront with some retail/office space. -I think townhomes are a good idea. Her cules already has a number of large apartments near the proposed ITC 1 I have mixed opinions on the WDMP versus Ledcor Proposal. I especially like the street and pedestrian circ ulation plan of the WDMP because it allows public access to the view of the waterfront. The WDMP gives m ore public access and views of the waterfront. However, I like the Ledcor proposal for fewer units across the board. Fewer residential, office, and flex space will maintain the sophistication of the Hercules Waterfront ne ighborhood by reducing the amount of traffic in this residential area. The Ledcor Proposal gave up on retail and I think that the Waterfront area has a future with smaller scale retail. For the sake of city revenues, the Ledcor proposal does not produce tax revenue for the city. Leasing residential units, office space, and mixe d use does not produce tax revenue for Hercules. The City of Hercules needs sales tax revenue, so I still su pport the idea of building retail units along the Waterfront to attract businesses. Hercules needs sales tax re venue.
1 Do not make yard space in the Ledcor Proposal conducive to ADUs. Housing is needed but ADUs will down grade the development's design and flow.
1 Assuming the residential, office, and retail spaces are sold or leased fully, Hercules will be well on its way to becoming a vibrant city. There are advantages that come with that: easy access to shopping, entertainment, restaurants; increased appeal to events organizers; well-attended events; diversity in the overall culture of t he city. I appreciate the advantages, but I love the quiet, unhurried air of Hercules, that exists now. Still, noth ing is going to stop people from coming here to buy or rent housing, given that it is still affordable for middleclass workers (I think), so perhaps the city should grow as needed to accommodate them. 1 144
Answered: 45 Skipped: 63
As a Hercules resident that plans to be here for years, I strongly prefer the WDMP. Primarily, I want The Bo wl reserved for civic use and community circulation near a beloved area of our city as well mixed use from a n economic development and access via pedestrian and bicycle pathways. Overall the proposal seems to re move a lot of civic space and mixed use, lacks bicycle and sufficient pedestrian access and seems to prioriti ze the commercial interest of the residential development over community inclusion and economic develop ment in the WDMP for the benefit of our city beyond that of the developer. The only office space I heard in t he meeting was a leasing office (for the developer!) in the refurbished administration building in direct comp etition with the community use. It was good to learn in the meeting that the gates on streets were removed fr om the proposal, but the appearance of them to begin with tells a story of who controls the space - and for whose benefit and enjoyment.
1 4. Design: Ledcor's proposal is in NOT in keeping with the existing architecture of the area. 5. Pedestrian ac cess: Ledcor's is a poor design. It squeezes pedestrian areas to a tiny bit of green and vastly encroaches o n current and WFMP areas. 8. Street Design: changing the topography is a bad and ecologically unwise ide a. Ledcor's proposal looks like a generic tract housing area - totally out of character with existing structures and residences.
1 13. If you have any general comments, please let us know:
Hercules
Ledcor City Waterfront
plan community
development
proposal
WDMP
retail
years
design
space
parking
Ledcor's
original
neighborhood
vision
area
residents
property
Housing
traffic
live proposed style
residential Bay make
love
public build
Feel
park
transit
Hercules.
access
buildings
area.
building
existing
center
-
home
development.
units
Limited
restaurants
City.
residents.
open
town
good
work
spaces
small
architectural
rent
similar developers
bought
historic Spanish
back
here.
people plans
benefit
citizens
Sell
Great
place
Grand
quality
site
family
large
units.
making
office
project knew costs
ago.
completion taxes
San
side
etc.
add
year
tax
sale.
it.
&
10 20
35 1999
sold
(at
idea
it?
eat SF
stay
1. 2.
I’m St
2 15
17 27
48 lot
part
hold
LA
(of
room
fit.
–
fell
--
void
3. 4.
Would like to see development proceed in this area. Given economic headwinds, demanding a lot of retail a nd office space as part of the plan will delay development. 1 Would like to see attractive landscaping. Yard should not be conducive to ADU's as project is already dens e. Added density will downgrade the community, overall look and feel of being on the waterfront. There nee ds to be guest parking and some community parking space by the community parks. 1 Will the City of Hercules have enough self-sustaining income after the Ledcor Developement, assuming the neighborhood homes get filled up?
1 While I understand that building costs have increased during the pandemic, Ledcor knew what the develop ment requirements were when they purchased the parcel. It is not the burden of the city to help Ledcor defr ay those costs at the expense of the vision created for the area over 20 years ago. I strongly urge the City C ouncil to adhere to the Waterfront development plan when evaluating plans for the area. Ledcor's proposal eliminated all benefits to the City of Hercules (retail space, property taxes from higher quantity of sold units).
If Ledcor's proposal is accepted then they receive all the profits from leasing the units and the City will see minimal benefit except for the park areas (at the expense of parking, which is already limited in that area). P lease listen to your citizens and hold Ledcor to developing the area under the existing parameters. 1 We should form a local citizens steering committee to establish a targeted group of retail and restaurants th at we would like to recruit to the waterfront. This committee can then put an action plan on how to approach these vendors and how advocate and sell our city. No one will be more passionate about The benefits of doi ng business in our community than the residents.
1 Response Count
145
We desperately need more transit in Hercules. To continue building housing and rely on the freeway is nuts.
Any new development, especially of housing, should contribute substantially to completion of a BART train c onnection.
1 Very excited about Ledcor’s developments. The Projects completed are beautiful! I believe the townhomes will be a great addition!
1 Ultimately, I like the idea of getting this project moving towards completion so we can have the amenities of Bayfront boulevard.
1 Traffic there aren't stop signs in place now at the intersections where the exchange and the grand are. I thin k open park space should be considered families need places for children 1 Traffic on San Pablo Ave should be addressed before building more housing in Hercules. During commute h ours in the afternoon, traffic on this avenue can be backed up all the way to Pinole. It should NOT take more than 10 minutes to get from one side of Hercules to the other side. At present, San Pablo Ave and I-80 are t he only ways to get from the Hercules/Pinole side to the other side of Hercules in one direct, straight shot. T heses two routes are usually bumper-to-bumper in the afternoon. Finding solutions to this traffic, such as ad ding more thoroughfares, would improve the quality of life for Herculeans and prevent more pollution from id ling vehicles.
1 This is a difficult site. We prepared multiple design studies in 1999-2001, our colleagues at Opticos Design prepared more for the Waterfront Initiative. Over the years, we have seen very strong support for staying wit h the original conceptual plan that I drew in January 2000. Not in all details of course, there are many great variations. This proposal is in no way consistent with that town center vision that the community so warmly e mbraced. It is lowest common denominator "tuck-under product" on a sloping site. We are seeing this same thing in the low desert, Inland Empire, Orange County, LA, etc. Is there a place for it? Sure, we have rework ed plans like this to add in real streets and frontages, as are REQUIRED by the Waterfront Plan. When you do that on a sloping site like this, will it deliver the target density? Nope. That requires more complex, urban building types, which Ledcor has been doing a pretty good job of across the creek. Just say no to sprawl. A gain.
1 These are two very different visions. The WDMP is much more attractive and, in my opinion could lead to a very much needed 'town center' for Hercules. If the City adopts the Ledcor plan this vision will effectively die and Hercules will just be another suburban town with ZERO character and just a place to live, eat, work, sle ep. How sad that would be. We moved to Hercules (Bayside area/Tsushima St) just over a year ago from th e City, one of the reasons (of many) was the potental of the Bayfront. The Ledcor plan is not what we expec ted. Finally - NO ONE addressed my question on the impact, if any, that the proposed new transit center wo uyld have on the retail opportunities - one that Ledcor have clearly given up on. 1 There was no mention of the price ranges of the Ledcor units or the WDMP housing. Will this housing be aff ordable for a two-income family earning $55k per year, for example? (The $55k figure is an approximation b ased upon a website that says the median income in Hercules is 86% of the national average of $63,214.) 1 The reason I invested and relocated to Hercules, was because of the original vision that puts a focus on cre ating a new “town center”, with a pedestrian-friendly environment and a variety of civic spaces, from large p arks to small pocket plazas. Ledcor proposed just another housing development 1 The proposed architecture for the Ledcor proposal is dismal, monotonous, and not in keeping with the archit ectural style of adjacent new urbanist neighborhood design of Promenade. The street design and pedestria n experience for the Ledcor design is horrible and not pedestrian friendly, nor does it provide adequate roo m for tree planting along frontages. The open space area in the Ledcor proposal is not good as its surround ed by asphalt whereas the Waterfront Plan open spaces are adjacent and afford views of the Bay Area and Bay Trail. The lack of housing and retail in the Ledcor plan is also concerning, resulting in no potential sales tax revenue from the retail component and fewer property taxes from the residential component - not good g iven the dire financial situation of the City. Finally, the site plan of the Ledcor proposal is a 1970s track home cheap design, which is not consistent with the original community driven, multiyear process to develop the Waterfront Plan. Not good
1 146
The major missing piece of this entire plan and the community meeting was a discussion of rent vs own. I d on't know how Ledcorp got away with turning the exchange into a rental block - it never should have been al lowed. Before I moved to Hercules 1.5 years ago, I was trying to buy property here, and there was very little on the market. Hercules should be producing more houses FOR SALE. It is not clear whether all the units in either Option A or Option B are for sale. Renters are very different neighbors than owners, and a "rental offi ce" is different than private owners renting. I encourage the planning committee to be more transparent on t his topic. Ledcorp should be banned from producing rentals. This survey was very nicely designed! (and I a m a designer)
1 The ledcor proposal looks very flat and sprawling. Please make the hercules waterfront unique and appealin g so tourists and visitors will stop by local businesses and enjoy the beauty of San Pablo bay. This is a great opportunity that should not be wasted.
1 The Ledcor proposal is similar to Victoria By The Bay layout where I live and I love this layout. Very walkabl e and access to SF Bay Trail for pedestrians is key - we use several times a week and already walk along t he proposed area. A large waterfront park area is vital for family picnics on the water near bay trail. Limiting public vehicle access to SF bay trail area vital to protect safety and quiet time for residences in the area. Do n’t want it becoming a place for public late night drinking and fireworks gatherings like what is occurring at ot her waterfront locations. Limited parking for public to access retail during day and residential vehicular acce ss in evening with limited public vehicular corridors will be safer for residents. 1 The City should not allow the developers request to do away with the City Master Plan or the Waterfront De veloper Agreement. The developer knew what they bought when they bought it and should build as planned or sell it to a new developer.
1 The architectural style of the proposed development is similar to Spanish Revival. Although this style is com patible the WDMP guidelines, it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods or the two historic bui ldings that will be integrated into it. Any of the other allowable architectural styles in the WDMP, especially G old Rush, would be a better fit. The Spanish Revival design, as presented, is a severely stripped-down versi on with little variation among the buildings, tending to make it boring and ugly. If Spanish Revival unfortunat ely ends up being the selection, there needs to be a greater variety of models and a stricter adherence to th e elements that make up Spanish Revival to avoid a stripped-down, cookie-cutter appearance. The city sho uld insist on public art installations at the entrance to the neighborhood between the historic buildings and at any park near the shoreline. I suggest a statue of Hercules would be appropriate – one once graced the wat erfront years ago.
1 Please stay with the original WDMP. The plan to have retail, office and flex space is critical to the design an d concept for the Waterfront. The Ledcor proposal is nothing more than a condominium complex. It does not align with the original vision for the Waterfront. I am an original owner in Baywood and have waited for year s, (over 15) for the Waterfront to be developed. Now let’s please stay with the original plan that brought so many of us to this neighborhood. Thank you Niel VanWinkle 1 Please keep the original plans. 1
Please ensure that the appropriate species of tree is chosen for this development. 1 Overall my preference is for residential townhomes (towards home ownership) and less retail (we have emp ty retail shops at the Exchange and the Grand yet to be filled). The city should limit purchase intended to be owner occupied, not to corporations or investors who intend to rent the property. Also I hope that the survey also reaches out to our younger adult and family raising young kids of Hercules. It seems that attendees on June 17 and the vocal ones for this survey are representatives from our senior residents. I am not too far fro m being a senior citizen but I would like to hear from our younger adult residents. I moved to Hercules in my early 30s and raised a 2 year old and new born here, and wish I was asked by the city developers what I tho ught back then!
1 No matter what layout please take parking into consideration for those of us that already live here. There we re talks in the past about parking permits for residents and it’s a ridiculous thought having to make residents pay to park by their homes when we already pay so much to live here. I love our small city, I am happy that we are advancing, but I would really love to preserve the small town charm that I fell in love with over 15 ye ars ago.
1 Need much more detailed information on the historic buildings 1 147
My biggest concern with the Ledcor design is whether or not the townhomes will be available for sale or if th ey will be leased. I do prefer most design aspects of the Ledcor design I think it takes into account the curre nt community feel that Hercules offers us as residents. If I had to complain about anything it would be that I would love to see these up for sale. If for whatever reason they would be leased by Ledcor I'd rather them n ot be built. In my opinion we need more townhomes available in the City of Hercules. Over the last 20 years we haven't had any new townhome developments built and I think it would a nice add on to the selection of properties here in the City of Hercules. My reason for that is because there are many younger homebuyers and empty nesters that would love beautiful townhome to jump into the market or downsize. Currently we do n't have enough supply here.
1 More input needs to be sought before moving ahead 1
Less density and a more open plan appeals to me. The primary appeal of the waterfront is its open space a nd I think Ledcor's plan best retains that quality. I feel that Ledcor's completed structures, (The Grand and E xchange) where well executed stylistically, so am inclined to trust that they would accomplish something of s imilar quality in this case. However without the presence of any elevation plans it's difficult to know. 1 Ledcor's proposal shall be deemed incomplete and non-compliant after application for sub-district plan unde r Chapters 27 and 48 of the Zoning Ordinance.
1 Ledcor! 1
Ledcor plan has little to no character, community/public spaces are too limited and a total absence of retail.
Limited community/public spaces and no retail means that residents of this development would virtually hav e exclusive use/access of this waterfront area. Hercules needs amenities -- retail including restaurants. Anot her neighborhood composed exclusively of homes will add more traffic as these residents will need to leave their neighborhood to access necessary neighborhood services and amenities. I have lived in Hercules for 3 5 years. Many developers have said that Hercules is not attractive for retail. I have accessed retail, includin g restaurants, in other communities for 35 years. Ledcor stated that the work environment is more flexible n ow and advises against a large amount of office space. If many Hercules residents are now working at hom e, they are in the city and can access retail including restaurants during the workweek and on weekends as are retirees such as me.
1 It seems worth putting further energy and effort into the inter-modal transit center (RITC) adoption and comp letion and see if that energizes the interest of retailers that could keep the proposed development in line wit h the initial plans for the space. Until then, it seems fine to wait on the development of the ABCD parcel. 1 I'm well aware of the amount of money (millions) and time (years) it took to develop the WDMP. Why in the world would the city council even come up with this"workshop" scenario to allow Ledcor to try to manipulate the residents of Hercules into believing that not complying to the WDMP standards would be no big deal, ev en beneficial? It is an insult to everyone who worked extensively on the WDMP to safeguard the health of o ur current and future city. Ledcor purchased the property in 2016 with very specific zoning and land-use reg ulations attached to it, and six years later does not want to comply. Ledcor, such a wealthy giant, seemed to want some sort of sympathy from the residents today because of high building costs and the recession? Co vid and the recession cannot be used as excuses to no longer adhere to the WDMP standards. I'm frustrate d by the city council's decision to "workshop" the issue. I'm asking our city representatives to reject Ledcor's non-compliant proposal.
1 I'm not sure the Mediterranean style will look right with the current Promenade development and existing bui ldings, I think the main street style would look better. 1 If you wish to abandon the WDMP, please refer back to the original Bixby plan prepared by "Sargent Town P lanning" which would allow you to build a greater variety and number of units. The Hercules Waterfront visio n has been years in the making and there is no reason to change a concept that has worked so well. 1 148
If I understood the presentation correctly, this would be a build-to-rent development. This does not feel like a wise move for the city or the community. 1. In a previous meeting, a reference was made to the developers preferring build to rent, at least for 10 years, due to statute of limitations on construction lawsuits. This is a h uge red flag. Ownership creates more of an community investment. Also, why on earth would the city want prospective owners in ten years to be saddled with potential issues from crappy construction? The city must demand quality construction and not allow Ledcor to build anything they would expect to field a lawsuit for.
2. The proposal to change the existing plan feels like a bait and switch for residents who bought in to the co mmunity when “not privatizing the bay edge of the waterfront” was a thing. They purchased the property kno wing the plan existed, and now they say they can’t do it? Vote no on the build to rent/bait and switch propos al.
1 I'd love it if the development in the Waterfront area of Hercules include more restaurants and small business es to go to. I know the developer said that retail was hard to attract, but I generally leave Hercules to shop, eat, etc., unless I need something from Lucky's or Home Depot. 1 I’m looking to buy in Hercules and I’d love to live in a home with a water view. 1 I wasn't a Hercules resident when the WDMP was implemented. If a reset happened and we went back to t he drawing board I would turn the bowl area into a small outside music venue/public park. Similar to Red Ro cks in Denver, CO but on a much smaller scale. I know something will be built on that land, I just hope it ble nds in with Hercules as it is and doesn't become a private community. Thank You. 1 I was disappointed the Ledcor proposal seems to undermine the spirit of the WDMP - primarily as a commu nity focused space. The proposal seems to me primarily a residential complex owned by a corporation that f ences off large areas controlled by that corporation. I am concerned about the long term stewardship of this land, the cultural development of our town and accessibility of our people to enjoy The Bowl in the years an d generations to come.
1 I live in Pinole. I ride a bike through Hercules to rodeo. Great city 1 I live in bayside which has a serious parking problem. The HOA can not enforce occupants to park in Garag es. Otherwise I am happy with this lower density plan
1 I like the residential focus of the Ledcor plan, but the prospect of a corporate owned and leased waterfront d evelopment in a largely owned residential neighborhood doesn’t feel right. Is this an extension of the neighb orhood or a cash machine? I’d prefer an extension of the neighborhood. The Spanish revival style shown in the renderings doesn’t match with the style of the surrounding area. While it would look nice by itself, it wo n’t exist by itself. Matching or complementing the architectural style of the adjacent neighborhoods would be important to making it feel like a continuation of the community rather than apart from it. If we’re going for a European village on a hill look, this development block isn’t the entire village. I would appreciate seeing ren derings with the existing community not shown as a smudged blur in the background. A virtual walking tour i s relatively straightforward to create with current architectural software and would help visualize the compac t footprint.
1 I like that the Ledcor proposal had an event space option for farmers' market and holiday celebrations. I ove rall like the WDMP version more for the increased commercial opportunities and a "main street" which is wh at Hercules desperately needs.
1 I cannot conceive of the idea of using the historical dynamite building as a leasing office. It is far too beautif ul and has far too much Hercules history in its bones for something so meaningless. I always envisioned it a s a museum with a cafe on the roof. It would be heartbreaking for this community to see it turned into a leasi ng office. This entire proposal screams “Greed!” It’s just gross. 1 I believe my comments will be discounted as they differ from City Council. 1 149
I believe Ledcor should build townhouses and condos for sale rather than just for lease. All of the benefit of the Waterfront are going to Ledcor only if these properties are simply rentals/leases. Hercules will not gener ate one cent of tax revenue if Ledcor simply leases townhouses. If Ledcor sells townhouses and condos, th e City of Hercules will benefit from City transfer taxes and property taxes. The City of Hercules should requir e developers to sell units rather than just rent units. Since I live near The Grand and The Exchange, I see th at both are still quite vacant because the rental rates are as high as mortgage payments. Individuals who ca n afford the rent would opt to purchase in other areas. Ledcor rentals will become cannibalistic as the vacan t units will compete against each other for the same market of renters. Having a rental village does not bene fit the property values of houses in the nearby Promenade and Taylor Morrison home communities. 1 Huge thanks to the City Council over the years, staff, and all involved in working so hard, with vision, to mov e Hercules forward.
1 Housing being built on the waterfront should be pedestrian and bicyclist friendly and should plan for the Amt rak transit station. Housing should also be a mixed of owned and leased as well as should include affordabl e units. The waterfront should not just be for the wealthy elite who can afford high rents. This area should al so highlight and restore the historic Hercules Powder Company brick headquarters and clubhouse buildings to celebrate and teach the history of the town. Community space (open and building) should also be provide d to build the strength of residents of our city.
1 Hercules needs more shops, restaurants & public spaces, not more residential. The “bowl” would be a perfe ct location for a community amphitheater & park for food truck & public theater/music events….why can’t He rcules ever have anything nice? We could be the next 4th St in Berkeley, or Bay St in Emeryville….there’s ju st so much potential, it hurts to see the space crammed in with more residential units. …also, I’m tired of ha ving to travel to get a “downtown” experience.
1 Hercules has a historic opportunity to develop the Waterfront District, we should NOT squander it. The Cent ral Waterfront (Promenade) neighborhood sets the standard for future waterfront development. The Promen ade and the adjacent New Urbanism styled neighborhood evoke the past and amazes visitors from outside t he community. When the final Waterfront buildout is completed, Hercules will have a defined city center that is sorely missed today. While the WDMP outlined the objective plan for the community, we may have to mod ify it somewhat, but not destroy it for the sake of development. 1 Having the transit center available would certainly help in moving the project forward 1 Has Curry sold the buildings to the city or Ledcor? How about Anderson, is he still in the picture for the Bayf ront property? We were the 5th family to move into Promenade and have participated in the design from the beginning. We care! Please let us continue to work with you to revise this plan so that it is both aesthetically pleasing to the community and cost effective for the developer. 1 Further–as you well know–your proposal will void the Waterfront Agreement, and undo decades of work by t he citizens of this community to realize the goal of a New Urbanist waterfront in Hercules. Why didn't you re veal this and explain what the ramifications of this serious change to the WDMP in your presentation so the attendees could make an informed decision about your proposal? You glossed over the virtual elimination of retail, commercial and flex space in your proposal, even though these are the types of development that will make Hercules a livable community and provide the city with tax revenues far greater than any predominant ly residential development could. You knew about the WDMP and Waterfront agreement when you bought t hese properties. Now, you want to build something completely different because you’ll make more money. D o yourself and us a big favor. Sell these properties to an competent, honest, and ethical developer. 1 Dont understand why we can’t object to this whole thing all together. Where are people parking. If train com es in parking probs. Emg getting out of Hercules w cars Emg police and fire is this company paying for thes e services
1 Do not change the original vision based on temporary issues like the pandemic, economy etc. Due to the ec onomy downturn in the past the finalization of Aventine was delayed a couple of years. The framing was ex posed for years but the vision continued until finally completed. We waited many years for the development of the former transit center block where Safeway is now standing. Hercules is unique and that is what attract ed the majority of us here. The history and the leadership is what makes it unique in terms of pressing forwa rd keeping the vision and overcoming humongous obstacles and deceiving tactics like the case of Walmart here. Do not let smoke screens deceive you. We have one shot at this lets make it count. Keep the WDMP alive and moving forward. God bless!
1 150
Answered: 61 Skipped: 47
Because Ledcor has already signed long-term agreements to adhere to the WDMP and its regulations, I do not and can not support their significant divergence from most/all of the essential elements that the WDMP contains. The WDMP codifies and regulates the future look/use of this site and, if Ledcor (at some point) det ermined that they could no longer uphold/comply with the WDMP and their signed agreements with the City of Hercules, Ledcor could have (should have) withdrawn their participation as site developer... 1 As a property owner in the Waterfront and as the person which proposed the original Waterfront District Mas ter Plan back 1999, and entitled and oversaw the development of all the Waterfront (Promenade, Baywood, Railroad Live-Work) until Ledcor's recent work. I have a deep history and understanding of all the discussio ns and commitments which have been made to the citizens of Hercules thorough a extensive public proces s. The decision to use a prescriptive form-base code was deliberate, and used so what was represented an d agreed upon, would be built. It was used to protect the collective vision. It was also established so to lowe r the development risks for builders which follow the prescriptive form-based code. As far back as 1999, mer chant builders submitted similar designs as proposed by Ledcore, which were rejected. Numerous design st udies have been conducted by skilled architects who have clearly illustrated that the community's visions ca n be done. Feel free to contact me.
1 all the promises we've gotten about the so-called Waterfront and transit focus (train and ferry station) has go tten mostly more residences and very little else. oh, except traffic congestion. this is a community from whic h people go elsewhere for entertainment, good food, quality of life. "move here, bring your kids and cars, dri ve to work and then go somewhere else if you want to have some fun." that's the Dynamic City. i wonder wh at all those folks that participated in the charette's have to say about what they've gotten in return. 1 1. Ledcor's proposal is about packing more people into a tight space without regard to the existing residents and the infrastructure requirements. 2. All aspects of Ledcor's proposal would incur negative impacts on traf fic, parking, pedestrian access and the ambience of the area (very different from the WFMP's "European se aside town" atmosphere.) 3. Already the City of Hercules infrastructure appears to be stretched, as can be s een by e.g. rising crime rates and traffic and safety issues. It is hard to imagine Ledcor's proposal not makin g things significantly worse. 4. Ledcor's parking provisions are totally inadequate. It would be making the exi sting parking problems even worse. 4.Many people have bought houses in the Waterfront District AFTER ca reful research of the City's development plan, including examining the WFMP. It is unacceptable that the pla n would be changed to something that solely benefits Ledcor and negatively impacts the community. 1 City
Answered: 62 Skipped: 46
Hercules Santa
Barbara
Los
Angeles
Hercules 60
Santa Barbara 1
Los Angeles 1
Response Count
151
Zip Code
Answered: 64 Skipped: 44
94547
90014
94547-2723
94547-2719
93105-4478
94547 60
90014 1
94547-2723 1
94547-2719 1
93105-4478 1
Word Count
152
ATTACHMENT D
COMMENTS BY OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME PREFERENCE
The comments in this attachment are responses to the two open-ended questions (Questions 12 and 13) in the online survey. These questions were optional, and thus not all survey participants provided a response.
The responses to Questions 12 and 13 have been combined for this attachment and are numbered by each individual responder. The comments are sorted by how people answered Question 11 regarding which development scheme, overall, the responder preferred (on a sliding scale): Strongly Prefer WDMP, Somewhat Prefer WDMP, Neutral, Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal, or Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal.
NEUTRAL
1. There is not enough parking in Ledcor. Furthermore, this plan looks to have no actual courtyards or actual civic center. The plans for the historical homes included “leasing office?”First of all that implies these homes are going to be rental; which is not what’s best for Hercules- no pride of ownership and more money to developer. Secondly, these are historic spaces that should be dedicated to the citizens of Hercules and not part of leasing spaces!
2. There is no character to the ledcor plan that adheres to the WDMP. Please start over.
3. Need a railroad station in the town. I live in Pinole. I ride a bike through Hercules to rodeo. Great city
4. The preference for the WDMP is for the character / community spaces that the proposal contained.
The Ledcor proposal looks very generic, like a development that could be plugged in anywhere. While I like the lower building heights and I understand the challenges the site presents, this development doesn't seem to be very appealing
5. I'd love it if the development in the Waterfront area of Hercules include more restaurants and small businesses to go to. I know the developer said that retail was hard to attract, but I generally leave Hercules to shop, eat, etc., unless I need something from Lucky's or Home Depot.
STRONGLY PREFER WDMP
1. Please do not get rid of the historic building and don’t build townhomes that block existing views.
Hold to the original plan.
More input needs to be sought before moving ahead
2. Ledcor plan has little to no character, community/public spaces are too limited and a total absence of retail. Limited community/public spaces and no retail means that residents of this development would virtually have exclusive use/access of this waterfront area. Hercules needs amenities -- retail including restaurants. Another neighborhood composed exclusively of homes will add more traffic as these residents will need to leave their neighborhood to access necessary neighborhood services and amenities. I have lived in Hercules for 35 years. Many developers have said that Hercules is not attractive for retail. I have accessed retail, including restaurants, in other communities for 35 years.
Ledcor stated that the work environment is more flexible now and advises against a large amount of 153
office space. If many Hercules residents are now working at home, they are in the city and can access retail including restaurants during the workweek and on weekends as are retirees such as me.
3. These are two very different visions. The WDMP is much more attractive and, in my opinion could lead to a very much needed 'town center' for Hercules. If the City adopts the Ledcor plan this vision will effectively die and Hercules will just be another suburban town with ZERO character and just a place to live, eat, work, sleep. How sad that would be. We moved to Hercules (Bayside area/Tsushima St) just over a year ago from the City, one of the reasons (of many) was the potential of the Bayfront.
The Ledcor plan is not what we expected. Finally - NO ONE addressed my question on the impact, if any, that the proposed new transit center would have on the retail opportunities - one that Ledcor have clearly given up on.
4. Please stay with the original WDMP. The plan to have retail, office and flex space is critical to the design and concept for the Waterfront. The Ledcor proposal is nothing more than a condominium complex. It does not align with the original vision for the Waterfront. I am an original owner in Baywood and have waited for years, (over 15) for the Waterfront to be developed. Now let’s please stay with the original plan that brought so many of us to this neighborhood. Thank you
5. Ledcor’s proposal is clearly not in the best interests of Hercules and its residents. The original plan is at least inclusive and beautiful. If that beautiful plot of land is going to be developed, it should be done so with care and taste. Ledcor doesn’t exhibit either with this proposal. It’s hideous.
I cannot conceive of the idea of using the historical dynamite building as a leasing office. It is far too beautiful and has far too much Hercules history in its bones for something so meaningless. I always envisioned it as a museum with a cafe on the roof. It would be heartbreaking for this community to see it turned into a leasing office. This entire proposal screams “Greed!” It’s just gross.
6. I like the parks, the bay views, and the rooftop patios in the proposal.
However, the proposal lacks enough pedestrian-only walkways and plazas for people to meander and linger. Also, the street layout and overall design is bland – with long blocks and rows of spaced-out buildings. It needs more pedestrian access between blocks; pocket plazas; a more interesting street and walkway layout (perhaps also with brick or stone paving); and more building density to make it compatible with the cozy, walkable "European Hilltown" vision mandated in the WDMP.
There should be retail space here. The lack of retail in blocks N and Q may be due to the undersized retail units, a lack of reasons for people to visit and linger, high lease rates, and low residential density.
Adopting my suggestions and developing the rest of the Waterfront will make a more inviting retail environment. One other option is that portions of the lot could be subdivided and sold to retailers to construct their own buildings.
The architectural style of the proposed development is similar to Spanish Revival. Although this style is compatible the WDMP guidelines, it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods or the two historic buildings that will be integrated into it. Any of the other allowable architectural styles in the WDMP, especially Gold Rush, would be a better fit. The Spanish Revival design, as presented, is a severely stripped-down version with little variation among the buildings, tending to make it boring and ugly. If Spanish Revival unfortunately ends up being the selection, there needs to be a greater variety of models and a stricter adherence to the elements that make up Spanish Revival to avoid a stripped-down, cookie-cutter appearance.
154
The city should insist on public art installations at the entrance to the neighborhood between the historic buildings and at any park near the shoreline. I suggest a statue of Hercules would be appropriate – one once graced the waterfront years ago.
7. Neither Plan is ideal, but the WDMP seems more aesthetically pleasing/ beneficial to our community.
We need to stop with cramming in all the skinny, yardless houses! Our community needs space to breathe & come together!!
Hercules needs more shops, restaurants & public spaces, not more residential. The “bowl” would be a perfect location for a community amphitheater & park for food truck & public theater/music events….why can’t Hercules ever have anything nice? We could be the next 4th St in Berkeley, or Bay St in Emeryville….there’s just so much potential, it hurts to see the space crammed in with more residential units. …also, I’m tired of having to travel to get a “downtown” experience.
8. This proposal is really insulting to anyone with even a cursory understanding of New Urbanism or the WDMP. It is not remotely New Urbanist. These are tract homes... Townhomes, but tract homes none the less. This kind of “thinking” about city planning was obsolete in the 1980’s, at least here in America. You tried to make it seem like your proposal is more-or-less compliant with the WDMP. It isn't. You insinuated that your proposal is actually BETTER than the type of development proscribed by the WDMP, because of “the different market conditions” that exist today. It isn’t, that’s just Canadian Baloney. You falsely claimed that no retailers or commercial tenants are interested doing business in Hercules. Why? Because no one wanted to lease the ridiculously small spaces you’ve created on the waterfront without the critical mass of an anchor business during a pandemic. Well duh!
Further–as you well know–your proposal will void the Waterfront Agreement, and undo decades of work by the citizens of this community to realize the goal of a New Urbanist waterfront in Hercules.
Why didn't you reveal this and explain what the ramifications of this serious change to the WDMP in your presentation so the attendees could make an informed decision about your proposal? You glossed over the virtual elimination of retail, commercial and flex space in your proposal, even though these are the types of development that will make Hercules a livable community and provide the city with tax revenues far greater than any predominantly residential development could. You knew about the WDMP and Waterfront agreement when you bought these properties. Now, you want to build something completely different because you’ll make more money. Do yourself and us a big favor. Sell these properties to an competent, honest, and ethical developer.
9. Please stick to the original water district plan as much as possible. We’ve been waiting 20 years for this.
The ledcor proposal looks very flat and sprawling. Please make the hercules waterfront unique and appealing so tourists and visitors will stop by local businesses and enjoy the beauty of San Pablo bay.
This is a great opportunity that should not be wasted.
10. The WDMP can be built without using expensive "podium" structures. The existing building on Railroad Avenue is an example of an alternative building type.
The Ledcor plan has only one neighborhood street. the rest of the site is a succession of alleys and narrow pedestrian green spaces. There is no provision for interaction between neighbors as included in the WDMP.
1500 Ft of "Flex space" is not enough.
155
If you wish to abandon the WDMP, please refer back to the original Bixby plan prepared by "Sargent Town Planning" which would allow you to build a greater variety and number of units. The Hercules Waterfront vision has been years in the making and there is no reason to change a concept that has worked so well.
11. I'm well aware of the amount of money (millions) and time (years) it took to develop the WDMP. Why in the world would the city council even come up with this "workshop" scenario to allow Ledcor to try to manipulate the residents of Hercules into believing that not complying to the WDMP standards would be no big deal, even beneficial? It is an insult to everyone who worked extensively on the WDMP to safeguard the health of our current and future city. Ledcor purchased the property in 2016 with very specific zoning and land-use regulations attached to it, and six years later does not want to comply. Ledcor, such a wealthy giant, seemed to want some sort of sympathy from the residents today because of high building costs and the recession? Covid and the recession cannot be used as excuses to no longer adhere to the WDMP standards. I'm frustrated by the city council's decision to "workshop" the issue. I'm asking our city representatives to reject Ledcor's non-compliant proposal.
12. Do not change the original vision based on temporary issues like the pandemic, economy etc. Due to the economy downturn in the past the finalization of Aventine was delayed a couple of years. The framing was exposed for years but the vision continued until finally completed. We waited many years for the development of the former transit center block where Safeway is now standing. Hercules is unique and that is what attracted the majority of us here. The history and the leadership is what makes it unique in terms of pressing forward keeping the vision and overcoming humongous obstacles and deceiving tactics like the case of Walmart here. Do not let smoke screens deceive you. We have one shot at this lets make it count. Keep the WDMP alive and moving forward. God bless!
13. As a Hercules resident that plans to be here for years, I strongly prefer the WDMP. Primarily, I want The Bowl reserved for civic use and community circulation near a beloved area of our city as well mixed use from an economic development and access via pedestrian and bicycle pathways. Overall the proposal seems to remove a lot of civic space and mixed use, lacks bicycle and sufficient pedestrian access and seems to prioritize the commercial interest of the residential development over community inclusion and economic development in the WDMP for the benefit of our city beyond that of the developer. The only office space I heard in the meeting was a leasing office (for the developer!) in the refurbished administration building in direct competition with the community use. It was good to learn in the meeting that the gates on streets were removed from the proposal, but the appearance of them to begin with tells a story of who controls the space - and for whose benefit and enjoyment.
I was disappointed the Ledcor proposal seems to undermine the spirit of the WDMP - primarily as a community focused space. The proposal seems to me primarily a residential complex owned by a corporation that fences off large areas controlled by that corporation. I am concerned about the long term stewardship of this land, the cultural development of our town and accessibility of our people to enjoy The Bowl in the years and generations to come.
14. Ledcor could profitably comply with the principles of the WDMP, using current townhouse product types, by using a competent design firm and communicating the proposal in good faith. It has chosen not to do so.
Ledcor's proposal shall be deemed incomplete and non-compliant after application for sub-district plan under Chapters 27 and 48 of the Zoning Ordinance.
156
15. WDMP is supremely better.
Please keep the original plans.
16. This Ledcor plan is very similar to a plan proposed in 1999. The Waterfront District Master Plan was prepared in order to implement the General Plan's intention of a pedestrian-oriented, transitoriented, mixed-use town center on the Bay. I know this because I prepared it. The "public realm plan" for this Ledcor proposal is nothing more than a standard Orange County tuck-under townhouse project like thousands of others around the state and around the country, on a one-of-a-kind town center site. The triangular green by the admin building could be very nice, as could the central street front that green to the Bay - if it were designed with building frontages rather than just stairs up to the sides of the end units. Calling the driveway aprons in the alleys "sidewalks" is just silly and insulting.
Some of the drawings show sidewalks along the tops and toes of the slope banks between the pads and some do not. Designed right, those could become "frontages". As is, all "backages." This is a difficult site. We prepared multiple design studies in 1999-2001, our colleagues at Opticos Design prepared more for the Waterfront Initiative. Over the years, we have seen very strong support for staying with the original conceptual plan that I drew in January 2000. Not in all details of course, there are many great variations. This proposal is in no way consistent with that town center vision that the community so warmly embraced. It is lowest common denominator "tuck-under product" on a sloping site. We are seeing this same thing in the low desert, Inland Empire, Orange County, LA, etc.
Is there a place for it? Sure, we have reworked plans like this to add in real streets and frontages, as are REQUIRED by the Waterfront Plan. When you do that on a sloping site like this, will it deliver the target density? Nope. That requires more complex, urban building types, which Ledcor has been doing a pretty good job of across the creek. Just say no to sprawl. Again.
17. While I understand that building costs have increased during the pandemic, Ledcor knew what the development requirements were when they purchased the parcel. It is not the burden of the city to help Ledcor defray those costs at the expense of the vision created for the area over 20 years ago. I strongly urge the City Council to adhere to the Waterfront development plan when evaluating plans for the area. Ledcor's proposal eliminated all benefits to the City of Hercules (retail space, property taxes from higher quantity of sold units). If Ledcor's proposal is accepted then they receive all the profits from leasing the units and the City will see minimal benefit except for the park areas (at the expense of parking, which is already limited in that area). Please listen to your citizens and hold Ledcor to developing the area under the existing parameters.
18. The questions do not do justice to the real issues. Building heights and street scapes and views are minor yet important parts of the Developer Agreement and Master Plan. The real differences are not being addressed. They are in fact being ignored by both the developer and the City.
The City should not allow the developers request to do away with the City Master Plan or the Waterfront Developer Agreement. The developer knew what they bought when they bought it and should build as planned or sell it to a new developer.
19. Please ensure that the appropriate species of tree is chosen for this development.
20. 4. Design: Ledcor's proposal is in NOT in keeping with the existing architecture of the area.
5. Pedestrian access: Ledcor's is a poor design. It squeezes pedestrian areas to a tiny bit of green and vastly encroaches on current and WFMP areas.
157
8. Street Design: changing the topography is a bad and ecologically unwise idea. Ledcor's proposal looks like a generic tract housing area - totally out of character with existing structures and residences.
1. Ledcor's proposal is about packing more people into a tight space without regard to the existing residents and the infrastructure requirements.
2. All aspects of Ledcor's proposal would incur negative impacts on traffic, parking, pedestrian access and the ambience of the area (very different from the WFMP's "European seaside town" atmosphere.)
3. Already the City of Hercules infrastructure appears to be stretched, as can be seen by e.g. rising crime rates and traffic and safety issues. It is hard to imagine Ledcor's proposal not making things significantly worse.
4. Ledcor's parking provisions are totally inadequate. It would be making the existing parking problems even worse.
4.Many people have bought houses in the Waterfront District AFTER careful research of the City's development plan, including examining the WFMP. It is unacceptable that the plan would be changed to something that solely benefits Ledcor and negatively impacts the community.
21. The reason I invested and relocated to Hercules, was because of the original vision that puts a focus on creating a new “town center”, with a pedestrian-friendly environment and a variety of civic spaces, from large parks to small pocket plazas. Ledcor proposed just another housing development
22. Not understanding why we don’t have the chance to object ti thus all together.
Dont understand why we can’t object to this whole thing all together. Where are people parking. If train comes in parking probs. Emg getting out of Hercules w cars Emg police and fire is this company paying for these services
23. We need to move forward with the original waterfront district master plan to make Hercules a destination city
We should form a local citizens steering committee to establish a targeted group of retail and restaurants that we would like to recruit to the waterfront. This committee can then put an action plan on how to approach these vendors and how advocate and sell our city. No one will be more passionate about The benefits of doing business in our community than the residents.
24. The proposed architecture for the Ledcor proposal is dismal, monotonous, and not in keeping with the architectural style of adjacent new urbanist neighborhood design of Promenade. The street design and pedestrian experience for the Ledcor design is horrible and not pedestrian friendly, nor does it provide adequate room for tree planting along frontages. The open space area in the Ledcor proposal is not good as its surrounded by asphalt whereas the Waterfront Plan open spaces are adjacent and afford views of the Bay Area and Bay Trail. The lack of housing and retail in the Ledcor plan is also concerning, resulting in no potential sales tax revenue from the retail component and fewer property taxes from the residential component - not good given the dire financial situation of the City. Finally, the site plan of the Ledcor proposal is a 1970s track home cheap design, which is not consistent with the original community driven, multiyear process to develop the Waterfront Plan. Not good
158
25. The original plans have a much nicer flow and feel and the clubhouse area would enable space to include parking, which seems ignored in the Ledcor plans. I realize there are garages in the proposed homes, but as we all have seen, people do not park in their garages and HOAs do not enforce that they do. Without the retail space there will not be additional revenues to the city to help pay for services that the additional residents will need from the city, so we will be at a deficit.
It seems worth putting further energy and effort into the inter-modal transit center (RITC) adoption and completion and see if that energizes the interest of retailers that could keep the proposed development in line with the initial plans for the space. Until then, it seems fine to wait on the development of the ABCD parcel.
26. Key elements and commitments were made to the Community since 1999: 1) The outstanding views would not be privatized (the outer perimeter of the subject site would be part of the public realm via public street(s)); 2) that the original historic street frontage along the clubhouse and Adm Building would be maintained; 3) The subject area would be broken down into blocks formed by public streets which would maximize public pedestrian access to this area (the Ledcor proposal only has one public street the balance are alleys which as set forth in the Central Hercules Plan by definition must have a corresponding primary street to exist). Extensive design work was prepared in the formalization of the original and the current WDMP which maximize the reuse of the clubhouse as a quasi-public space.
Bixby and Oso Trabuco as part of an agreement to sell the clubhouse to the City spent a significant sum to correcting geotechnical issues so King Street could be constructed.
As a property owner in the Waterfront and as the person which proposed the original Waterfront District Master Plan back 1999, and entitled and oversaw the development of all the Waterfront (Promenade, Baywood, Railroad Live-Work) until Ledcor's recent work. I have a deep history and understanding of all the discussions and commitments which have been made to the citizens of Hercules thorough a extensive public process. The decision to use a prescriptive form-base code was deliberate, and used so what was represented and agreed upon, would be built. It was used to protect the collective vision. It was also established so to lower the development risks for builders which follow the prescriptive form-based code. As far back as 1999, merchant builders submitted similar designs as proposed by Ledcore, which were rejected. Numerous design studies have been conducted by skilled architects who have clearly illustrated that the community's visions can be done.
Feel free to contact me.
27. The Hercules Waterfront should be developed as a city center destination with retail, housing and office space as well as community gathering space including parks and access to the Bayfront Trail.
This area should not just be built for the privileged few who lease townhomes here. It should maximize walking areas and be safe for pediatricians and minimize vehicular traffic since it is a gateway for walking and bicycling in the area and in between Hercules and Pinole. The 100% lack of retail is unacceptable in the Ledcor plan. Retail and office space should be of varying sizes to accommodate small businesses and not just flagship, anchor, large retail companies. Retail that encourages walking instead of driving (corner markets, small shops) should be prioritized to minimize driving. The complete abandonment of the WDMP by Ledcor is shocking.
Housing being built on the waterfront should be pedestrian and bicyclist friendly and should plan for the Amtrak transit station. Housing should also be a mixed of owned and leased as well as should include affordable units. The waterfront should not just be for the wealthy elite who can afford high rents. This area should also highlight and restore the historic Hercules Powder Company brick 159
headquarters and clubhouse buildings to celebrate and teach the history of the town. Community space (open and building) should also be provided to build the strength of residents of our city.
28. The pedestrian circulation and civic space are an unacceptable deviation from the current plan. The bay front row of how homes would need to be removed and swapped for park space to even begin being considered.
29. Renovating the Historic building to use as a “leasing office” is a joke.
Additionally, I am sad to see that the alleyways discussed in the proposal appear to be concrete treeless spaces.
If I understood the presentation correctly, this would be a build-to-rent development. This does not feel like a wise move for the city or the community.
1. In a previous meeting, a reference was made to the developers preferring build to rent, at least for 10 years, due to statute of limitations on construction lawsuits. This is a huge red flag. Ownership creates more of an community investment. Also, why on earth would the city want prospective owners in ten years to be saddled with potential issues from crappy construction? The city must demand quality construction and not allow Ledcor to build anything they would expect to field a lawsuit for.
2. The proposal to change the existing plan feels like a bait and switch for residents who bought in to the community when “not privatizing the bay edge of the waterfront” was a thing. They purchased the property knowing the plan existed, and now they say they can’t do it? Vote no on the build to rent/bait and switch proposal.
SOMEWHAT PREFER WDMP
1. I think there has to be a compromise. Ledcor need to stick closer to the WDMP but I wouldn't have a problem if the number of residential units, retail SF, office SF and flex SF was reduced.
I wasn't a Hercules resident when the WDMP was implemented. If a reset happened and we went back to the drawing board I would turn the bowl area into a small outside music venue/public park.
Similar to Red Rocks in Denver, CO but on a much smaller scale. I know something will be built on that land, I just hope it blends in with Hercules as it is and doesn't become a private community. Thank You.
2. I have mixed opinions on the WDMP versus Ledcor Proposal. I especially like the street and pedestrian circulation plan of the WDMP because it allows public access to the view of the waterfront. The WDMP gives more public access and views of the waterfront. However, I like the Ledcor proposal for fewer units across the board. Fewer residential, office, and flex space will maintain the sophistication of the Hercules Waterfront neighborhood by reducing the amount of traffic in this residential area.
The Ledcor Proposal gave up on retail and I think that the Waterfront area has a future with smaller scale retail.
For the sake of city revenues, the Ledcor proposal does not produce tax revenue for the city. Leasing residential units, office space, and mixed use does not produce tax revenue for Hercules. The City of Hercules needs sales tax revenue, so I still support the idea of building retail units along the Waterfront to attract businesses. Hercules needs sales tax revenue. 160
I believe Ledcor should build townhouses and condos for sale rather than just for lease. All of the benefit of the Waterfront are going to Ledcor only if these properties are simply rentals/leases.
Hercules will not generate one cent of tax revenue if Ledcor simply leases townhouses. If Ledcor sells townhouses and condos, the City of Hercules will benefit from City transfer taxes and property taxes.
The City of Hercules should require developers to sell units rather than just rent units. Since I live near The Grand and The Exchange, I see that both are still quite vacant because the rental rates are as high as mortgage payments. Individuals who can afford the rent would opt to purchase in other areas.
Ledcor rentals will become cannibalistic as the vacant units will compete against each other for the same market of renters. Having a rental village does not benefit the property values of houses in the nearby Promenade and Taylor Morrison home communities.
3. While I like Ledcor's 'rightsizing' the plan from 461 to 142 units, it's overall proposal aesthetically deviates from the Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP). It ignores the walkable nature of the existing Promenade neighborhood and substitutes Townhomes on garage-lined alleys, whereas the original WDMP provided for tree-lined, pedestrian friendly streets.
I do like the Ledcor proposal for the use of the historic buildings and park with a street leading down to the bay, but would rather, otherwise to keep the WDMP street layout with tree-lined streets. It is much more pedestrian/community friendly.
Traffic is going to be a nightmare for residents. The new development MUST provide direct access to Bayfront Blvd through Block D, which it appears the Ledcor plan provides. Traffic on Sycamore and Railroad Avenue will otherwise be too congested.
Hercules has a historic opportunity to develop the Waterfront District, we should NOT squander it.
The Central Waterfront (Promenade) neighborhood sets the standard for future waterfront development. The Promenade and the adjacent New Urbanism styled neighborhood evoke the past and amazes visitors from outside the community. When the final Waterfront buildout is completed, Hercules will have a defined city center that is sorely missed today.
While the WDMP outlined the objective plan for the community, we may have to modify it somewhat, but not destroy it for the sake of development.
4. Assuming the residential, office, and retail spaces are sold or leased fully, Hercules will be well on its way to becoming a vibrant city. There are advantages that come with that: easy access to shopping, entertainment, restaurants; increased appeal to events organizers; well-attended events; diversity in the overall culture of the city. I appreciate the advantages, but I love the quiet, unhurried air of Hercules, that exists now. Still, nothing is going to stop people from coming here to buy or rent housing, given that it is still affordable for middle-class workers (I think), so perhaps the city should grow as needed to accommodate them.
There was no mention of the price ranges of the Ledcor units or the WDMP housing. Will this housing be affordable for a two-income family earning $55k per year, for example? (The $55k figure is an approximation based upon a website that says the median income in Hercules is 86% of the national average of $63,214.)
5. Parking, parking, parking…..!
6. I think a lot still depends on the likelihood of a train station - that's what gets the increased traffic for retailers. I rather like the park with the two historic buildings in the Ledcor, but would want the street 161
to go behind the buildings and have the park fill the whole area. As drawn it doesn't seem big enough to be a town center. However - it would need substantial parking! In the original Waterfront design, the town center was to be by the train station. I think that still makes more sense, as the problem with making this a town center is it is across from pure residential! Down on Bayfront, both sides of the street are commercial on the ground floor, and there is to be substantial parking there.
The Ledcor design just looks like more suburbia. This is supposed to be a different kind of neighborhood! I understand the problem with the pedestal buildings; hopefully there's a way to compromise between the two designs.
Has Curry sold the buildings to the city or Ledcor? How about Anderson, is he still in the picture for the Bayfront property?
We were the 5th family to move into Promenade and have participated in the design from the beginning. We care! Please let us continue to work with you to revise this plan so that it is both aesthetically pleasing to the community and cost effective for the developer.
7. its hard to pick between 2 alternatives that i dont like. all the promises we've gotten about the so-called Waterfront and transit focus (train and ferry station) has gotten mostly more residences and very little else. oh, except traffic congestion. this is a community from which people go elsewhere for entertainment, good food, quality of life. "move here, bring your kids and cars, drive to work and then go somewhere else if you want to have some fun." that's the Dynamic City.
i wonder what all those folks that participated in the charette's have to say about what they've gotten in return.
8. I like that the Ledcor proposal had an event space option for farmers' market and holiday celebrations.
I overall like the WDMP version more for the increased commercial opportunities and a "main street" which is what Hercules desperately needs.
9. I'm in favor of more green space around the Clubhouse + Admin bldg...but not if it requires acceptance of the rest of Ledcor's proposal...
Because Ledcor has already signed long-term agreements to adhere to the WDMP and its regulations, I do not and can not support their significant divergence from most/all of the essential elements that the WDMP contains. The WDMP codifies and regulates the future look/use of this site and, if Ledcor (at some point) determined that they could no longer uphold/comply with the WDMP and their signed agreements with the City of Hercules, Ledcor could have (should have) withdrawn their participation as site developer...
STRONGLY PREFER LEDCOR PROPOSAL
1. I think this is a more realistic proposal. I like the increased walkability and view options.
2. I live in bayside which has a serious parking problem. The HOA can not enforce occupants to park in Garages. Otherwise I am happy with this lower density plan
3. No Retail! No Retail! No Retail!
4. Fewer homes, nothing over 3 stories and prefer 2 stories. 162
Master Plan is dated and I wish the city could move past it. After 20 years here I am tired of it and feel fewer people support it.
Parking seems unreasonable.
Neighborhood feel and walkability important. We visit more with alley neighbors than across the street.
Would prefer units are for sale not rentals.
Happy Ledcor will redevelop historic buildings but need to know more about their plans.
In general, much happier with Ledcor proposal.
I believe my comments will be discounted as they differ from City Council.
5. Would really love to keep the neighborhood as residential as possible. The small business there are good enough and the planned transit center will already bring in too much traffic.
No matter what layout please take parking into consideration for those of us that already live here.
There were talks in the past about parking permits for residents and it’s a ridiculous thought having to make residents pay to park by their homes when we already pay so much to live here. I love our small city, I am happy that we are advancing, but I would really love to preserve the small town charm that I fell in love with over 15 years ago.
6. Prefer a larger civic area and waterfront park than what is currently in the Ledcor proposal. Also prefer maintaining building character and frontages contained in the WDMP. Prefer more retail space added to Ledcor proposal in Civic area. Overall love the townhouse high low height and layout of the Ledcor proposal - just needs more retail and larger waterfront park.
The Ledcor proposal is similar to Victoria By The Bay layout where I live and I love this layout. Very walkable and access to SF Bay Trail for pedestrians is key - we use several times a week and already walk along the proposed area. A large waterfront park area is vital for family picnics on the water near bay trail. Limiting public vehicle access to SF bay trail area vital to protect safety and quiet time for residences in the area. Don’t want it becoming a place for public late night drinking and fireworks gatherings like what is occurring at other waterfront locations. Limited parking for public to access retail during day and residential vehicular access in evening with limited public vehicular corridors will be safer for residents.
7. Most renter’s prefer townhomes with personal garages.
Very excited about Ledcor’s developments. The Projects completed are beautiful! I believe the townhomes will be a great addition!
8. Less density and a more open plan appeals to me. The primary appeal of the waterfront is its open space and I think Ledcor's plan best retains that quality. I feel that Ledcor's completed structures, (The Grand and Exchange) where well executed stylistically, so am inclined to trust that they would accomplish something of similar quality in this case. However without the presence of any elevation plans it's difficult to know.
9. We are being asked to choose between Options A and B. There are more than two options for this site. Neither of the two proposals really shows many pictures of "what it would be like to walk through or experience" either option. It is difficult to make good decisions from the data. I mostly support the Ledcor proposal however,
163
- It is not clear what architectural style the buildings would be in. - It is not clear if they would be rentals or for sale. I only support the latter, in either plan. - Clearly a 400-person unit (Plan A) makes no sense. We don't like "The Exchange" model of towering condos with a non-public plaza inside. The bowl is tucked away in a small spot and it won't have room for parking (or even walking) for 800 people.
- I would purchase one of the Ledcor units if it had a view of the bay, and I suspect others will feel the same.
- There has been a lot of discussion that the ledcorp design doesn't "match the intended architectural style", but is hard to see in A or B.
The major missing piece of this entire plan and the community meeting was a discussion of rent vs own. I don't know how Ledcorp got away with turning the exchange into a rental block - it never should have been allowed. Before I moved to Hercules 1.5 years ago, I was trying to buy property here, and there was very little on the market. Hercules should be producing more houses FOR SALE. It is not clear whether all the units in either Option A or Option B are for sale. Renters are very different neighbors than owners, and a "rental office" is different than private owners renting. I encourage the planning committee to be more transparent on this topic. Ledcorp should be banned from producing rentals.
This survey was very nicely designed! (and I am a designer)
10. I see the Ledcor proposal as a more feasible option and preferable for the use of space. The original plan would put too many cars on the road. I also don’t see a need for more retail space as there is plenty of space in the area that is currently unused. I also believe that if we stick to the original plan nothing will be built due to the economics involved.
Having the transit center available would certainly help in moving the project forward
11. The fewer number of units, the better. Also like lower busking heights.
I’m looking to buy in Hercules and I’d love to live in a home with a water view.
12. While the City’s plan is esthetically pleasing then and possibly now, there would be potential traffic impacts to the area. Additionally, the massive retail space is not practical for what Hercules can attract.
13. Will the City of Hercules have enough self-sustaining income after the Ledcor Development, assuming the neighborhood homes get filled up?
14. My biggest concern with the Ledcor design is whether or not the townhomes will be available for sale or if they will be leased. I do prefer most design aspects of the Ledcor design I think it takes into account the current community feel that Hercules offers us as residents. If I had to complain about anything it would be that I would love to see these up for sale. If for whatever reason they would be leased by Ledcor I'd rather them not be built. In my opinion we need more townhomes available in the City of Hercules. Over the last 20 years we haven't had any new townhome developments built and I think it would a nice add on to the selection of properties here in the City of Hercules. My reason for that is because there are many younger homebuyers and empty nesters that would love beautiful townhome to jump into the market or downsize. Currently we don't have enough supply here.
164
15. Overall my preference is for residential townhomes (towards home ownership) of Ledcor’s plans but like the WDMP’s pedestrian and public view of the Bay plans, and for sure less retail (we have empty retail shops at the Exchange and the Grand yet to be filled).
Overall my preference is for residential townhomes (towards home ownership) and less retail (we have empty retail shops at the Exchange and the Grand yet to be filled). The city should limit purchase intended to be owner occupied, not to corporations or investors who intend to rent the property. Also I hope that the survey also reaches out to our younger adult and family raising young kids of Hercules. It seems that attendees on June 17 and the vocal ones for this survey are representatives from our senior residents. I am not too far from being a senior citizen but I would like to hear from our younger adult residents. I moved to Hercules in my early 30s and raised a 2 year old and new born here, and wish I was asked by the city developers what I thought back then!
16. Would like to see attractive landscaping. Yard should not be conducive to ADU's as project is already dense. Added density will downgrade the community, overall look and feel of being on the waterfront.
There needs to be guest parking and some community parking space by the community parks.
17. Do not make yard space in the Ledcor Proposal conducive to ADUs. Housing is needed but ADUs will downgrade the development's design and flow.
Would like to see development proceed in this area. Given economic headwinds, demanding a lot of retail and office space as part of the plan will delay development.
SOMEWHAT PREFER LEDCOR PROPOSAL
1. Need much more detailed information on the historic buildings
2. I like the residential focus of the Ledcor plan, but the prospect of a corporate owned and leased waterfront development in a largely owned residential neighborhood doesn’t feel right. Is this an extension of the neighborhood or a cash machine? I’d prefer an extension of the neighborhood. The Spanish revival style shown in the renderings doesn’t match with the style of the surrounding area.
While it would look nice by itself, it won’t exist by itself. Matching or complementing the architectural style of the adjacent neighborhoods would be important to making it feel like a continuation of the community rather than apart from it. If we’re going for a European village on a hill look, this development block isn’t the entire village. I would appreciate seeing renderings with the existing community not shown as a smudged blur in the background. A virtual walking tour is relatively straightforward to create with current architectural software and would help visualize the compact footprint.
3. While the city’s WDMP looks amazing, is it practical to realize today. 461 units seem to be an overbuild, especially considering traffic impacts, prohibitive construction costs, potential non-use of retail space, and other elements that have yet to be identified as potential concerns for residents and neighbors.
Huge thanks to the City Council over the years, staff, and all involved in working so hard, with vision, to move Hercules forward.
4. I'm not sure the Mediterranean style will look right with the current Promenade development and existing buildings, I think the main street style would look better.
5. I like components from both:
165
-I prefer the park in the Ledcor proposal
-I think we should be realistic on the retail space. Maybe Hercules cannot support as much retail as the WDMP, but having something where Bayfront intersects Railroad would be a nice. Not a big fan of a Hotel as I imagine it will be a lower end hotel, but I do like the idea of capping Bayfront with some retail/office space.
-I think townhomes are a good idea. Hercules already has a number of large apartments near the proposed ITC
Ultimately, I like the idea of getting this project moving towards completion so we can have the amenities of Bayfront boulevard.
6. Traffic on San Pablo Ave should be addressed before building more housing in Hercules. During commute hours in the afternoon, traffic on this avenue can be backed up all the way to Pinole. It should NOT take more than 10 minutes to get from one side of Hercules to the other side. At present, San Pablo Ave and I-80 are the only ways to get from the Hercules/Pinole side to the other side of Hercules in one direct, straight shot. Theses two routes are usually bumper-to-bumper in the afternoon. Finding solutions to this traffic, such as adding more thoroughfares, would improve the quality of life for Herculeans and prevent more pollution from idling vehicles.
7. Traffic there aren't stop signs in place now at the intersections where the exchange and the grand are.
I think open park space should be considered families need places for children 166
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH
City of Hercules Waterfront
Blocks ABCD
City Council Hearing
July 26, 2022
167
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Process and Schedule
2 Online Survey
Open for
Comment
Comparison
Review
Virtual
Workshop
In-Person
Workshop
Online
Survey
Closed for
Comment
City
Council
Hearing
March-June
2022
June 7, 2022
June 15, 2022 June 29, 2022 July 26, 2022
168
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP WDMP and Ledcor Comparison
PlaceWorks worked with
City staff to review
several aspects:
Block Configuration
Building Heights
Circulation
Civic Space
View Corridors
Development Capacity
3 169
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Community Engagement
Following detailed review, the project team
engaged the community in multiple ways:
One Virtual Workshop
One In-person Workshop
Community Survey
There were over 225 responses for two
workshops and survey.
4 170
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Outreach Campaign
Registration via Eventbrite for both
workshops
Printed and digital flyers
City’s website
City’s social media
Facebook, Instagram, and Nextdoor
5 171
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Virtual Workshop
June 7, 2022 evening
Online Zoom meeting
48 attended / 99 registered
Presentations by City,
PlaceWorks, and Ledcor
Q&A
4 facilitated breakout rooms
Discussion using Google
Jamboard
Shared link to online survey
6 172
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP In-Person Workshop
June 15, 2022 evening
Held at The Grand residential lounge at
Bayfront Apartments
69 attended / 86 registered
Same presentations by City, PlaceWorks,
and Ledcor as virtual workshop
Q&A
Open house format for discussion and
comments
Passed out flyer with link/QR code to
online survey
7 173
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Community Survey
Survey open from 6/7 to 6/29
108 responses
60% responders indicated they
attended one of the workshops
Introductory narrative “StoryMap”
Survey with:
10 sliding scale questions on development
scheme preferences on various topics
2 open-ended comments questions
8 174
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Table shows
percentages of how
all survey responders
answered the survey’s
sliding scale
questions
Darker gradients
indicate higher
percentages
9 Development Scheme Preference Questions
175
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Key Takeaways from Survey Comments and Workshop Feedback Many have been waiting for a town center and development prescribed in the form-based code of the WDMP
Ledcor Proposal lacks character and is a typical suburban residential development that is not consistent with Hercules’ character
Historic buildings on the site should be preserved and be used for the community
Adequate parking should be provided
10 176
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Key Takeaways from Survey Comments and Workshop Feedback Desired amount of development is split
Some want more development as in the WDMP
Some want less as proposed in the Ledcor Proposal
Lower building heights are favorable in the Ledcor Proposal Siting, size, and design of “historic park” in Ledcor Proposal and its connection to the waterfront are favorable
11 177
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Key Takeaways from Survey Comments and Workshop Feedback WDMP offers a more pedestrian-friendly and walkable
environment
WDMP provides a wider variety of street types and civic spaces WDMP promotes a mix of uses such as retail, commercial, office, and flex space, which would provide needed amenities to Hercules and tax revenues for the city
12 178
CITY OF HERCULES WATERFRONT BLOCKS ABCD OUTREACH
THANK YOU!
Contact Timothy Rood, Community Development Director
at [email protected] or (510) 799-8251
for questions and comments.
179
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of July 26, 2022
TO: Mayor Bailey and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Town Hall Meeting about Promoting Racial Equity, Combating Racial Violence Against Asian Americans and All People of Color, and Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Receive this report from Circle Up Education summarizing the comments of the town hall meeting held on May 17, 2022, and
2. Provide additional comments or direction to staff moving forward.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no cost associated with receiving this report. Based on the direction provided by City Council tonight on this item, staff will return to the Council with programmatic details (if any) and potential costs.
BACKGROUND:
Mayor Bailey requested that the City Council discuss and consider hosting a community workshop to discuss combating racism and intolerance against Asian Americans and other people of color. Tiffany Hoang, Co-founder of Circle-Up Education was engaged to develop the subject matter content, facilitate a virtual town hall meeting on the subject (conducted on May 17, 2022), and prepare a summary of the meeting with recommendations to the City moving forward.
180
DISCUSSION:
According to the Associated Press, since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic in early 2020, harmful rhetoric related to the geographic origins of this disease resulted in a rise in reported hate incidents and acts of violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islander (AAPI) individuals, communities, and businesses throughout the state and the country. Similarly, communities throughout California and the nation were outraged by the circumstances that led to the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other men and women, whose lives were taken much too soon. Taken together, these events have sparked civil unrest in many communities and heightened our awareness regarding ongoing racism, racial injustice, inequity, and violence against Asian Americans and all people of color.
Hercules is a diverse and inclusive city, and the Hercules community values the safety of its residents and those who work in and visit the City. The members of the Hercules City Council and City staff are committed to listening and learning to make those changes necessary to root out racism, discrimination, and hate crimes in our community. As a continuing step in this direction, Mayor Bailey proposed that the City host a community town hall to engage our community on the topics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and racial justice.
The town hall meeting was conducted on May 17, 2022. This evening, Tiffany Hoang will make a presentation on the results of the town hall meeting.
Attachment 1 - Community Town will Hall Summary Report
Attachment 2 – Town Hall Summary Presentation
181
Community Town Hall
Summary Report
Diversity & Inclusion
Prepared by CircleUp Education
City of Hercules
Date of Town Hall: May 17, 2022
182
Overview
The purpose of Community Town Hall was to gather information about Diversity & Inclusion in the City of Hercules. Participants were asked questions in an interactive setting and encouraged to share their thoughts and experiences freely with other participants, City staff and attending City Council Members.
Summary
All responses were summarized into the themes listed below in order to accurately reflect the sentiments of City residents, and maintain objectivity. Responses were gathered from the Town Hall and from the Pre-Town Hall Survey. (#) indicates the number of times the theme was brought up by different participants.
1. Diversity & Inclusion in Hercules
Guiding Question: “What might the City need to be aware of when seeking to understand the current climate in the City in regards to diversity, inclusion and belonging? Please share with us positives and challenges.”
I. Positive Aspects
A. The city is diverse and inclusive (5)
1. The Hercules community is closer, more connected, and diverse compared to other communities
2. Hercules has a nice familial environment
3. There is a growing Black/ African American Community
4. There is a growing Nepalese Community
5. Hercules feels like a great city
B. Community driven groups and events help bring the community together (3)
1. There is a Facebook group for black residents that is exciting
2. Past events such as the 4th of July, Cultural Fair, and other event hosted by Parks and Recreation have helped bring the community together II. Challenges and Concerns
A. There is a lack of community action and political engagement (2)
1. The city is sensitive to racial issues, but not enough to where it is moved to take action
2. There is a lack of public engagement and political apathy in Hercules that is disappointing. This may be a result of being a “Bedroom Community” B. People are well intended but have biases they are not aware of.
C. People are starting to be aware when they are not being inclusive or say things that are unintentionally offensive
D. There were past concerns around policing that led to the creation of the group FREED two years ago as a result of George Floyd
E. There are no public spaces outside of commercial businesses for community members to come together and congregate
183
F. The City’s reluctance to display the Gay Pride rainbow flag a couple of years ago was dissapointing and reinforces harm and trauma on the LGTBQ community and allies
G. Affordability of housing is an issue in the City
2. Policy Making Considerations
Guiding Question: “What might the City need to take into consideration when making policy decisions to ensure it is being equitable and inclusive and its impact on residents, visitors, and business owners?”
1. Include different voices when making decisions (2)
a. Think about physically challenged community members
b. Think about including youth in conversations
2. Be mindful of referring to people in a homogenous way (2) a. Consider the needs of diversified residents and their objectives
3. Enact policies that reflect the income variables of its residents, visitors and business owners in order to be fair and equitable (2)
a. Remember that even though the median income level in Hercules is higher than most other cities, this may mean something different for different households.
Some households may have multiple dependents.
4. Provide a place where residents can express themselves and be heard publicly to share input in decision making processes
5. Listen to visitor experiences with an open mind and make sure to address their concerns
6. Listen to business owners to ensure they are treated well
7. Consider health and environmental effects of residents who live near the refinery
3. Celebrating Diversity
Guiding Question: “What can the City do to celebrate diversity and promote more inclusion and belonging among residents and visitors?”
1. Bring back the cultural festival and other events (3) a. The cultural festival was a great way to bring cultures and communities together b. Consider an event such as music in the park
2. Consider creating a youth commission or start a program for youth to get involved with city government (3)
3. Continue to host Town Halls and Forums (3)
a. Host dialogue to help community come together to learn about each other’s differences
b. Keep the conversation going in the City - when the conversations stops is when it becomes a concern
4. Acknowledge and Recognize the Presence of Different Cultures (3) a. Continue acknowledging the presence of the Nepalese community to make the community feel like they belong and bring more Nepalese-owned businesses to Hercules
184
b. Recognize African American culture and make that part of the many cultures that are part of cultural recognition ceremonies happening in the City c. Recognize the growing percentage of African American Residents in Hercules is to 20%
5. Create a compelling reason for people to come out because it is hard for people to come together (2)
a. Encourage residents and visitors to participate in activities that promote community partnership, awareness of diversity
b. Provide opportunities to do challenging projects that enhance leadership
6. Listen to the needs of local businesses and business owners (2) a. Have specific channel to gather input and concerns from business owners - perhaps create a matrix to determine if its something the city can address b. Reach out to the Chamber of Commerce and small business to listen to their needs and suggestions
7. Adopt principles or a statement to declare the City’s values and guide its decision making (2)
a. Consider adopting principles similar to the UN Rights of a Child that reflect the city’s fundamental beliefs around diversity, inclusion and equality that will also help to set policy direction for the City and staff
b. Publish a statement about Hercules’ intent toward equity, inclusion and caring for all people
8. Do not spend City resources for diversity and inclusion efforts (2)
9. Recognize Juneteenth as a City (2)
10. Display the Gay Pride flag during Pride Month
11. Raise the Pan African flag
12. Encourage schools to sensitize children about different cultures and how to treat each other with kindness
13. Continue to step in and speak up against public shaming
14. Provide translation services so more people can attend forums like the Town Hall
15. Consider offering or building affordable housing in Hercules
16. Be honest, be fair, be professional to ensure people do not take advantage of others in issues that are about things the City has control via documented facts and figures
17. Treat all citizens the same way under the same/similar circumstances. Avoid lawsuits. 185
Community Town Hall
City of Hercules
Community Town Hall Summary
186
Topic of Town Hall
Diversity and Inclusion
1. Current climate around diversity, equity and inclusion in Hercules
2. What the City should take into consideration when making decisions to further Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
3. Suggestions on what the City can do to further celebrate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
187
1.Diversity & Inclusion in
Hercules
“What might the City need to be aware of when
seeking to understand the current climate in the City in regards to diversity, inclusion and belonging? Please
share with us positives and challenges.”
188
Diversity & Inclusion in Hercules
Positives
● The city is diverse and inclusive (5)
● Community driven groups and
events help bring the community
together (3)
“The Hercules community is closer, more
connected, and diverse compared to other
communities.”
Challenges and Concerns
● There is a lack of community action
and political engagement (2)
● People are well intended but have
biases they are not aware of.
● The City’s reluctance to display the
Gay Pride rainbow flag a couple of
years ago was dissapointing
● There are no public spaces for
community members to come
together and congregate
189
2.Diversity & Inclusion in
Hercules
“What might the City need to be aware of when
seeking to understand the current climate in the City in regards to diversity, inclusion and belonging? Please
share with us positives and challenges.”
190
Policy Making Considerations
1. Include different voices when making decisions (2)
a. Think about physically challenged community members and youth
2. Be mindful of referring to people in a homogenous way (2) a. Consider the needs of diversified residents and their objectives
3. Enact policies that reflect the income variables of its residents, visitors and business owners in order to be fair and equitable (2)
a. Remember that even though the median income level in Hercules is higher than most other cities, this may mean something different for different households. Some households may have multiple dependents.
4. Provide a place where residents can express themselves and be heard publicly to share input in decision making processes
5. Listen to visitor experiences with an open mind and make sure to address their concerns
6. Listen to business owners to ensure they are treated well
7. Consider health and environmental effects of residents who live near the refinery 191
3. Celebrating Diversity
“What can the City do to celebrate diversity and
promote more inclusion and belonging among
residents and visitors?”
192
Celebrating Diversity & Inclusion in Hercules
Most mentioned
1. Bring back the cultural festival and other events (3)
2. Consider creating a youth commission or start a program for youth to get involved with city government (3)
3. Host dialogue to help community come together to learn about each other’s differences (3)
4. Continue to host Town Halls and Forums (3)
5. Acknowledge and Recognize the Presence of Different Cultures (3) 193
Celebrating Diversity & Inclusion in Hercules
Other suggestions
1. Create a compelling reason for people to come out because it is hard for people to come together (2)
2. Listen to the needs of local businesses and business owners (2)
3. Adopt principles or a statement to declare the City’s values and guide its decision making (2)
4. Do not spend City resources for diversity and inclusion efforts (2)
5. Recognize Juneteenth as a City (2)
6. Display the Gay Pride flag during Pride Month
7. Raise the Pan African flag
8. Provide translation services so more people can attend forums like the Town Hall
9. Consider offering or building affordable housing in Hercules
10. Continue to step in and speak up against public shaming 194
Next Steps to Consider
● Review community input, especially common themes
● Consider what the City can do now, in the near future, and in the long term
● Provide ongoing updates to community regarding DEI efforts and developments that reflect the City’s DEI values
195
4869-4635-2169v2/200861-0005
STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE HERCULES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: Regular Meeting of July 26, 2022
TO: Board of Directors of the Successor Agency to the Hercules Redevelopment Agency
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Edwin Gato, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Report on Successor Agency to the Hercules Redevelopment Agency 2022 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2022 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (“2022 Bonds”) refunded all outstanding tax allocation bonds with net present value savings of approximately $2.17 million or 2.40% of the principal refunded, and gross nominal savings of over $13.0 million.
FINANCING OVERVIEW:
Purpose: The 2022 Bonds were issued to refund all the current Successor Agency to the Hercules Redevelopment Agency’s outstanding tax allocation bonds, to purchase a municipal bond insurance policy and surety reserve policy, and to pay other costs of issuance. The 2022 Bonds were issued in two series: the tax-exempt $29.51 million Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2022A and the $51.18 million Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2022B (Federally Taxable).
Security: The 2022 Bonds are secured by Pledged Tax Revenues, which is tax increment (the portion of property tax revenues collected above project area base year values) generated in the Merged Project Area after payment of certain County administrative fees. The Indenture also allows for the payment of Developer Agreements prior to the 2022 Bonds, as described below. In the postdissolution era, the Agency must submit annual payment schedules (known as "ROPS") listing all its obligations for approval by an oversight board and the State Department of Finance before funds can be transferred to it by the County Auditor-Controller in each semi-annual period.
Negotiated and Statutory Pass-Through Payments: Under the Dissolution Act, certain payments of tax increment to Contra Costa County, pursuant to a negotiated agreement, and to other taxing entities, 196
4869-4635-2169v2/200861-0005
pursuant to AB1290 statutory pass-through formulas, are required to be paid out of the Agency’s Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund prior to payment of the Agency’s bonds and other enforceable obligations, unless such taxing entity payments are subordinated to Agency debt. The County Auditor-Controller, not the Agency or the City, is responsible for calculating these taxing entity payments (sometimes referred to as “pass through payments”) and paying the required amounts to the County and other taxing entities. The Agency pursued the statutory 45-day notice process to subordinate the AB1290 payments to the 2022 Bonds and secured affirmative consent from the County to subordinate the County Agreement to the 2022 Bonds. In preparing the tax increment projections for this financing, the fiscal consultant discovered that the County Auditor-Controller had not properly calculated these amounts over the past several years. The County Auditor-Controller now recognizes these amounts as past due and payable, on a basis subordinate to the 2022 Bonds.
Lien Priority of Various Developer Agreements and Pass-Through Payments: The Agency has outstanding two Developer Agreements, recognized as enforceable obligations, which have not been expressly subordinated to the Agency’s bonds. The County Auditor-Controller interprets the Dissolution Law as prohibiting the subordination of pass-through payments to enforceable obligations other than “bonded debt.” Consequently, the Auditor-Controller intends to repay the current year passthrough payments and past due pass-through amounts after debt service but before the Developer Agreements. The 2022 Bonds were structured to facilitate rapid repayment of past due pass-through payments and restoration of current year Developer Agreement payments by the second installment of fiscal year 2024 (ROPS 23-24B), and repayment of past due Developer Agreement payments by the first installment of fiscal year 2025 (ROPS 24-25A) (based on the fiscal consultant’s projections of available tax increment revenues).
It is important to note that, if the Agency had not issued the 2022 Bonds to refund its prior bonds for debt service savings, it would have taken longer to repay the past due pass-through payments; and therefore, residuals to the affected taxing entities and Developer Agreement payments would have been deferred for a longer period of time.
Ratings: S&P assigned an underlying rating of “A-” to the 2022 Bonds, noting the strong local economy and wealth levels, the strong growth in Merged Project Area assessed values, low volatility ratio and strong debt service coverage, tempered by the relatively concentrated tax base. Debt service payments on all maturities of the 2022 Bonds will be insured by Assured Guaranty (AGM); as a result, the 2022 Bonds were sold on the basis of AGM’s “AA” rating.
Market Conditions: The 2022 Bonds came to market at a time of rising interest rates, weakened investor demand, and economic uncertainty. Inflationary pressure and Federal Reserve actions to aggressively combat inflation and taper its market support have driven interest rates up dramatically since January 2022. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and resulting sanctions increased geopolitical tensions and heightened economic uncertainty and market volatility. Federal Reserve Open Market Committee raised the short-term rate by 25 basis points in March and telegraphed expectations for multiple additional rate hikes in 2022, including the expected 50 basis point hike in May. Treasury yields climbed sharply across the yield curve since January 2022 with the short end rising fastest to create an extremely flat yield curve; by April 28th, the 2-year Treasury rate of 2.63% was within 29 basis points of the 30-year rate of 2.92%. Municipal rates followed a similar trajectory – increasing by over 166 basis points in every maturity since January, amidst the pressure of rising Treasury yields 197
4869-4635-2169v2/200861-0005
exacerbated by large outflows from municipal bond funds. After inflows into municipal bond funds through much of 2020 and 2021, investors withdrew funds from this asset class in 10 of the 11 weeks leading up to the Agency’s bond sale. In just the week prior to sale, investors withdrew $3.5 billion from municipal bond funds.
Pricing: The tax-exempt 2022A Bonds were structured with two term bonds, both priced with 5% coupons. The 2022A Bonds priced at yields of 3.70% in 2037 and 3.85% in 2042, both assuming a par call on August 1, 2032. The federally taxable 2022B Bonds were priced at par with yields ranging from 2.568% to 5.013%.
Call Features: The 2022A Bonds maturing on or after September 1, 2033, are callable on any date on or after September 1, 2032, at 100% of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. The 2022B Bonds were sold as non-callable given their 2034 final maturity.
Structure and Refunding Results: The 2022 Bonds refunded all four outstanding series of tax allocation bonds with net present value savings of approximately $2.17 million or 2.40% of the principal refunded and gross nominal savings of over $13.0 million. The 2022 Bonds were carefully structured to comport with the Agency’s previously submitted ROPS requests to facilitate rapid repayment of past due amounts arising from the County Auditor-Controller’s miscalculations of certain prior year pass through payments. Principal on the 2022 Bonds was deferred in full in 2023 and in part in 2024 to enable rapid repayment of the past due pass-through amounts. Based on the previously submitted ROPS requests and the restructured debt payments, the Agency will need to submit Notices of Insufficient Funds for each semi-annual period until past amounts are paid to ensure that the Agency receives sufficient moneys from the RPTTF to pay debt service on the 2022 Bonds.
Based on projected Pledged Tax Revenues, the Agency is not expected to have sufficient funds to pay the Developer Agreements in the second installment of FY22, all of FY23, and a portion of FY24.
Current amounts are expected to be timely paid beginning with the second installment of FY24, and past due amounts are projected to be repaid in full in the first half of FY25. Current year and past due other enforceable obligations, including the Agency’s administrative cost allowance, are also projected to be repaid by FY25. After all payments are brought current, residuals will be restored and cash flow savings from the refunding will benefit affected taxing entities. Without the refunding, it would have taken longer to repay the past due pass-through payments; and therefore residuals to the affected taxing entities and Developer Agreement payments would have been deferred for a longer period of time.
Financial Impact
Description:
Funding Source:
Budget Recap:
Total Estimated cost: $ New Revenue: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Lost Revenue: $
New funding required: $ New Personnel: $
Council Policy Change: Yes No
198
4869-4635-2169v2/200861-0005
199
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of July 26, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Christopher Roke, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Hercules Special Event Funding Plan for FY 22-23 RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the proposed list of special events and maximum funding limits for FY 22-23; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce to coordinate and operate four special events for the 22-23 fiscal year for an amount not to exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000); and
3. Authorize the City Manager to work with the City of Pinole to plan a Co-sponsored Fourth of July Firework Celebration event for July 2023 for an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
FISCAL IMPACT:
During the FY 2022-23 budget sessions, the Hercules City Council earmarked sixty-thousand dollars ($60,000) to be used for special events. Staff has identified five special events to be coordinated in partnership with the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce and the City of Pinole.
BACKGROUND:
In the FY 2021-22, the Hercules City Council entered into an agreement with the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce to implement five (5) special events for the City of Hercules with compensation not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). Additionally, City Council allocated seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) and authorized staff to explore the potential to work with the City of Pinole to co-sponsor a fireworks celebration on July 4, 2022. 200
Due to the continued impacts of COVID-19, only 3 of the 5 events planned with the Chamber were held, resulting in a savings of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Staff also entered into a partnership with the City of Pinole to co-sponsor and split the costs of a fireworks celebration, resulting in a saving of forty-three thousand dollars ($43,000). Taken together, approximately fifty-three thousand dollars ($53,000) allocated for special events in FY 21-22 can be returned to the general fund for future uses.
DISCUSSION:
During the FY 2022-23 budget sessions, the City Council earmarked sixty-thousand dollars ($60,000) for special events. Staff recommends partnering with the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce again this year to coordinate National Night Out, Bayfront Festival & Fun Run, Bottles and Bites, and a Cultural Festival for an amount not to exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) and exploring another partnership opportunity with the City of Pinole to host a Fourth of July Fireworks Celebration next year for an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). The chart below and the reports attached to this report provide additional details on the proposed special events for FY 22-23.
PROPOSED
EVENT DATE EVENT TITLE PROPOSED CITY CONTRIBUTION
August 2, 2022 National Night Out (at Refugio Valley Park) $5,000 October 2, 2022 Bayfront Festival and Run (at the Bayfront) $7,500 March 26, 2023 Bottles and Bites (at the Community Swim Center) $5,000 June 3, 2023 Cultural Festival (at Refugio Valley Park) $17,500 July 4, 2023 Fourth of July Celebration and Fireworks Show $25,000 TOTAL $60,000
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution
2. Description of Proposed City-Chamber Events for FY 22-23 201
HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE BAYFRONT CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE TO PROVIDE A SERIES OF SPECIAL EVENTS FOR THE CITY OF HERCULES IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000; AND ALLOCATING $25,000 FOR A FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION IN FY 22-23
WHEREAS, the City of Hercules agrees to work with the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce to identify a series of special events for the City of Hercules; and
WHEREAS, the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce will run these agreed upon events in the City of Hercules during the 2022-23FY; and
WHEREAS, the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce will provide a written recap of the event at the conclusion of each event; and
WHEREAS, the Bayfront Chamber of Commerce will provide a detailed account of how money was spent for each event.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract with Bayfront Chamber of Commerce to provide a series of special events in the amount of $35,000, and explore the possibility of working with the City of Pinole to host a joint Fourth of July 2023 celebration for an amount not to exceed $25,000.
The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 26thday of July 2022 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren Berges, CMC
City Clerk
202
2022-23 EVENTS PROPOSAL WITH FUNDING
National Night Out
Tuesday, August 2, 2022 - Refugio Valley Park - $5,000
After the 2021 being so successful we anticipate the attendance to increase. This is an opportunity for the community to meet their neighbors, non-profits and members of the business community. The event will include similar items from the 2021 event like the Train in the park and a car show, but will also include additional items like a Dunk Tank, Lawn Bowling, Rock Painting, a Pop-a-shot, face-painting and a lot more Bay Front Festival & Run
Sunday, October 2, 2022 - Bayfront Blvd - $7,500
An increase of $2,500 from previous year. Additional funding will cover cost increases for goods and services and will allow us to improve the entertainment portion of the festival. With 300 runners and approximately 2,000 in attendance at the festival it was great marketing for our community. Along with Hercules residents, this event brings in visitors from all over the bay area. Many have not been to Hercules and this event brings them to the Bayfront area which promotes the housing in the area and may bring potential businesses to the area.
Bottles & Bites
TBA (likely Saturday, March 26, 2023, but still TBA) - Hercules Community Center - $5,000 While all the other events held are family oriented this event gives our adult residents an opportunity to enjoy an afternoon of food tastings, adult beverages, music and mingling with other members of the community. We also provide a free child watch for young families to give parents the opportunity to participate.
Hercules Cultural Festival
Saturday, June 3, 2023 - Refugio Valley Park - $17,500
We would like to bring back this event to our community as a one-day event. Traditionally this was two-day event that our community looked forward to. It was well attended but was cut due to cost. Unfortunately, we will not get large sponsor funding as we have a small pool of large businesses who are already sponsoring other annual events for our community. We plan on having two stages, one with community acts such as local dance schools, martial arts demonstrations among others. On the main stage we will have three bands providing music through out the day. Funding would help fund the two stages, canopies for both the stages and audience, generators, sound, three bands, and staff. Although we will rely heavily on volunteers to run the event, key paid staff will be required. Considering the amount requested is about a fifth of what was spent on this event in the past and inflation in costs this is going to be done using the money received as prudently as possible. 203