Planning Commission Responds to Safeway Station
— by Mike Bowermaster — 4 August 2009 — 6 comments below »
The July 20th meeting was the only Planning Commission meeting we’ve had in three months. April 20th was the last meeting and June 1st was the station unveiling. Needless to say, there was a lot to be said. I probed the Commission about the direction and lack of public involvement with the process of developing our transit station. They then reiterated my concerns back at the City. Let’s underscore the point that the Planning Commission has had absolutely no involvement with any aspect of Safeway Station before June 1st. By that point the biggest components of the design were finished with zero public input.
Here is the video of my comments to the Commission (the transcript follows below):
And here is a portion of the Commission’s response:
The transcript of my comments:
I’m here tonight because of the lack of public involvement with the design process for our proposed intermodal transit station (before June 1st). The station will be arguably the most significant building to break the skyline of Hercules. By ferry, train, or bus, it will be the new GATEWAY to our city. Why hasn’t there been a stronger emphasis on open public dialog, recent design charettes, or design competitions to democratically harness the prominence of this building? The entire new station design, up until June 1st of this year, has been done behind closed doors to the general public. The last publicly seen elevation or perspective drawing of the station was of the enclosed landmark ferry-building concept from late 2007.
For at least 13 months the public has been in the dark.
During this time of deliberate silence, the City went off in an odd direction and chose an architect to design us a transit station with no relevance to the existing context of the waterfront or the broader community. At the June 1st presentation, I probed the question of how the design relates to its context. The architect threw up his hands and said, “I don’t know,” (check out the video from the presentation). He said he could perhaps alter the brick and window mullion patterns which are small, trivial details that could be changed after the fact. All the major work the architect did up until June 1st was akin to designing the station in a vacuum.
Why no public input with the new design, after all the lessons learned from the fiasco of the 2007 Szabo “big-box” plan? During the early 2008 series of public workshops the landmark ferry-building concept was backed by the majority of the general public. Why did no one from the city tell the new project manager for the station, Lisa Hammon, about all the wisdom and feedback gained from these early 2008 meetings? Why did no one remind the new station team that the local residents are very, very interested in the project? Where is our design leadership?
If we had a good and effective town architect for the waterfront, I wouldn’t be speaking here tonight and “Safeway Station” would have been nipped in the bud and corrected early on. We need some design leadership to be watching out for the interests of the people of Hercules, from the project’s beginning, so that we don’t have to micromanage the City’s work, after the fact.
This is of utmost importance because on June 1st, the first time the new concept was released publicly, the majority of the station design was set. The design of the train station shed, the piece of the project that most looks foreign to our waterfront and is the largest and most weighty aspect of the project, has been confirmed to be locked and finalized. I understand and hope that the tower and bathroom building will be effectively restyled, but the giant shed is unchangeable at this point. June 1st was way too late for public input on the project. Grants and funding commitments have been made, EIR work has been completed, and engineering work have been started as if the general public had already bought off on the design.
Please tell me why no one at the City told the project manager that the local residents are very interested and invested in the project and should be engaged right away, not after it’s too late. Why did the transit station team deliberately wait until June 1st to go public? Simple sketches on a cocktail napkin pined to a wall a half a year ago is all we needed to provide feedback. This is a decision consciously made by the City, and I would like to know why.
Nice job, Mike!
“Why no public input with the new design, after all the lessons learned from the fiasco of the 2007 Szabo “big-box” plan?” Try this twisted logic out for size: The June 1st Safeway “bomb drop” IS a direct result of the lessons learned from the Szabo big box ordeal. What better way to avoid the hassle and embarrassment of a poor design than just skipping public input?!?!?! They made it clear then it was all about “people moving”, a phrase that lingers today. Why entertain a design with all the flowery public input (read: annoying and time consuming) that’s counter to one’s people-moving agenda? It’s even more effective when you dodge the planning commission. After all, it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Ask yourself- how much humble pie did Oliva, Szabo, et al. consume over that piece-of-shit design and the traveling clown show infomercial? Consider it payback.
That said, keep up the good fight Mike!
Why are you so inflexible about a more contemporary or “retro” style of design for the train station which reminds me of architecture found in Portland Oregon, the country of Germany and Emeryville, Ca. The old design has all the character of a building found at the Santa Cruz Boardwalk, circa late 1800′s- early 1900′s. I like the design of the station and am anxious to see its completion.
Signed,
A person from the hills of Hercules and thus generally disdained by you Herc Bay types.
Great presentation Mike! BTW, despite Balico’s statement that the city council is responsive to the community, I have received no acknowledgement of my letter to them 2 weeks ago on this subject. I wasn’t expecting much, but at least something to indicate “thanks for your concern” and taking the time to write, or somesuch . So much for responsiveness! Placing something so large, garish and in conflict with all the other proposed designs is truly hard to understand. For those of us who have seen the plans, the issue is clear. It may not be to others who haven’t seen the developer’s plans. The fact that the city and Anderson did not communicate with each otherand the city also left its own Planning Commission in the dark is inexcusable. I can only conclude it was deliberate since we have had no response explaining anything. I hope we will remember these back-door machinations and the weak city council that apparently is afraid to ask questions or deal with anything remotely controversial at the next election! They are supposed to be responsive to the community! It is the community they serve- not the City Manager. He works for them and they work for us.I guess its time for some changes!
Flexibility to a “retro” style train station is not the issue. The issue is building a station without public input. Had public input been sought out and used to make the final design, there would be far less issue with the station (whatever the final design was). Even “a person from the hills” could provide input on design, regardless of where they live or their poor taste.
Thank you Mike – great job! I think this issue (of not informing the public and not following due process) has come up before. I am glad to hear Planning Commissioner Mitchell speak to the problem of the city having pet projects, or what I have experienced, as more of a hidden agenda, and just going forward doing whatever they want to do and manipulating due process along the way. I still remember how land that was zoned park/quasi park was mysteriously rezoned, and by the time the public found out, it was too late to change it. When asked, the response was all too familiar – it was Anderson’s fault, city’s fault, then cancelling planning meetings and attempting to silence public outcry. I think our city officials need to be held more accountable for their actions or lack of communication. Additionally, there is supposed to be a design protocol based on historic buildings of Hercules. If this is going to be dropped, there should be a formal announcement. Thanks again!