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.
July 18, 2022 | Page 2
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?
July 18, 2022 | Page 3
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
July 18, 2022 | Page 4
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.
July 18, 2022 | Page 5
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
July 18, 2022 | Page 6
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.
July 18, 2022 | Page 7
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.
July 18, 2022 | Page 8
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 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
ATTACHMENT A
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).
ATTACHMENT A
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 pedestrian- only 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.
ATTACHMENT A
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
ATTACHMENT A
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 three-
story 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.
ATTACHMENT A
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
ATTACHMENT A
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
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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 pedestrian- only 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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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 tower- like 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.
ATTACHMENT A
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.
ATTACHMENT A
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? S
trongly 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? S
trongly Prefer WDMP Somewhat Prefer WDMP Neutral Somewhat Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Strongly Prefer Ledcor Proposal
Reset
Robert
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
Street Name
City
Zip Code
Submit
Reset
Robert
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT C
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
AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage
ATTACHMENT C
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
AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage
ATTACHMENT C
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
AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage
ATTACHMENT C
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
AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage
ATTACHMENT C
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
AnswersAnswers CountCount PercentagePercentage
ATTACHMENT C
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
spaceplan
WDMP
Hercules Street
Waterfront
building
city
original
pedestrian -
residential
units
area access
office
traffic people
prefer
public
townhomes
historicpark
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
plansClubhouse Fewer
district
alleys
layout
Railroad
view
feel
lot
commercial
don’t
lower
spaces character
city.
current
housing
space.
mixed
tax
love
potential
street.
tractit.
built
site
SF
-I2
20 461
possible.
City’srealize B.
site.
makes
hard
kind
sides end
realhere.
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
ResponseResponseResponseResponseResponse CountCountCountCountCount
ATTACHMENT C
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 ATTACHMENT C
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
ATTACHMENT C
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 middle- class workers (I think), so perhaps the city should grow as needed to accommodate them. 1 ATTACHMENT C
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 CityWaterfront
plan community
development
proposal
WDMP
retail
years
design
space
parking
Ledcor's
original
neighborhood
vision
area
residents
property
Housing
traffic
live proposedstyle
Bayresidential make
love
publicbuild
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
Spanishhistoric
back
here.
people plans
benefit
citizens
Sell
Great
place
Grand
quality
site
family
large
units.
making
office
project costsknew
ago.
taxescompletion
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 ResponseResponseResponseResponseResponseResponseResponse CountCountCountCountCountCountCount
ATTACHMENT C
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 ATTACHMENT C
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
ATTACHMENT C
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 ATTACHMENT C
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
ATTACHMENT C
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 ATTACHMENT C
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
ATTACHMENT C
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
ATTACHMENT C
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
ATTACHMENT D
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.
ATTACHMENT D
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.
ATTACHMENT D
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.
ATTACHMENT D
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, transit- oriented, 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.
ATTACHMENT D
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
ATTACHMENT D
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
ATTACHMENT D
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.
ATTACHMENT D
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
ATTACHMENT D
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.
ATTACHMENT D
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,
ATTACHMENT D
- 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.
ATTACHMENT D
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 over- build, 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:
ATTACHMENT D
-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
ATTACHMENT D