Blog Post < Previous | Next >
CVP
The Mill Valley School Board Pivots
One need only look at the chaos in Washington DC these days to be reminded that when our rules-based system is ignored to assuage one group’s feelings or beliefs or alternative “facts,” truth flies out the window. And though this trend is writ large on a national stage, it’s happens right here in Mill Valley.
At the Special Board meeting of the Mill Valley School District Board, on February 27th (Click to view the video), the Board begrudgingly reversed its decision to pursue the development of a new Middle School on Friends Field at the Mill Valley Community Center and, instead, consider the redevelopment of a new school in its existing location.
This decision was, in part, due to a comment letter submitted by the City of Mill Valley explaining that their plan was not legally permitted, combined with a groundswell of public opposition: a unanimity of opinion the likes of which is rarely seen in Mill Valley.
The MVSD Board said that they had decided to build on Friends Field when they learned that they owned the land. As such, and apparently without the benefit of qualified legal counsel, they hired high-paid consultants (who apparently had little historical knowledge about Mill Valley and didn’t bother to learn any) and rushed head-long into planning for what they called a “perfect” new middle school.
The Board believed (and appears to continue to believe) that if they owned a piece of land, they could do whatever they wanted with it. This ignores the simple fact that “ownership” and “land use (development) rights” are at all times, completely separate. Just because I own a piece of land doesn’t mean I can build an office building on it if it’s zoned for residential, or in this case, build a school on it if prevailing land use regulations restrict it to being only for “parks and recreation and municipal purposes.”
However, in the face of being made aware of this disappointing obstacle, instead of an appropriate mea culpa, the MVSD Board stridently portrayed themselves as victims. They chastised the City of Mill Valley for failing to “collaborate” with them and accused the City, community leaders, and sports organizations of not caring about “the children” of Mill Valley and alleged that the city was unfairly using “intimidation” tactics and "threats of litigation” to stop MVSD from doing their job.
The truth of the matter could not be more different.
The Facts
For weeks, leading up to the MVSD Board meeting on the 27th, the City and the community had submitted numerous comments, explaining in great detail why MVSD could not and should not build a new school on Friends Field. City officials and several community groups had also met with MVSD Board Members, one-on-one, to explain their opposition and offer alternative solutions. Their arguments were based on decades of real estate development experience and documents, legal records, binding agreements, and legislation going back more than 75 years.
For example, in its February 26th letter to the Chair and Members of the Measure G Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee Mill Valley School District (copied to the MVSD Board), the City of Mill Valley provided an exhaustive explanation of why the District could not act, unilaterally, and was legally prohibited from pursuing development of a new middle school on Friends Field. As anyone reading that letter can see, it was respectful, extraordinarily well-written, thoroughly researched, thoughtfully presented, and backed up by legal citations and documentation.
Among the issues raised in it were a 1948 deed restriction on the land that prohibited any use other than “parks and recreation,” 50+years of written agreements between the City of Mill Valley and the School District, and a ballot initiative passed by the “electors” (the voters of Mill Valley) in 1956, that enshrined that the land was only to be used for “parks and recreation,” and/or “municipal purposes” (a term that excludes the construction of schools).
The City explained that these land use rights cannot be overruled by either the City or MVSD because the voters of Mill Valley have the ultimate say in the matter. (Local laws passed by the voters can only be changed by the voters and cannot be overruled by elected representatives or any local agencies so long as those laws do not conflict with federal or state law.)
The City’s letter was a follow-up to prior courteous communications to MVSD, inviting MVSD to “collaborate” with the City to find an amicable solution and to revisit MVSD’s original 2023 plan to rebuild the Mill Valley Middle School in its present location.
The futility of denial
Listening to the MVSD Board Members at the February 27th meeting, it was obvious that they either had no idea about the situation they’d put themselves in or were intentionally promoting a false narrative to deflect blame even though no one would have blamed them for having made an honest mistake. Throughout, they framed their plight as being forced to capitulate, not because they had been wrong about Friends Field, but because they wanted to save the public from the time and costs of threatened litigation by those who didn’t care about "the children" as much as they did.
In spite of the voluminous evidence presented to them by the City and the community, the MVSD Board’s denial remained intact and their comments careened off the rails.
Board member Nakatani complained,
“We did not choose to create this firestorm. It was our fiduciary responsibility to explore it [Friends Field]. We expected collaboration from the city.”
To which board member Yoo added that MVSD was being unfairly pilloried,
“…because of some disinformation that we don’t have the rights [to build] on the field that we own.”
And she then added,
“I don’t think it’s right that we are, in this day and age, depending upon some handshake deal that was done even before I was born.”
“Some handshake deal”? “Before I was born”? (What does that have to do with anything?) Had she read anything that the City and community had presented? What was more unfortunate, however, was that not a single one of the other MVSD Board Members even raised an eyebrow to correct her.
Their repeated accusations that their critics didn’t care about “the children” were particularly uncalled for. I’m pretty sure that all the people who voted for the ballot initiative, back in 1956, that enshrined that Friends Field could only be used for parks and recreation, and all the parents who put so much time and money into our local sports teams, for decades, cared just as much about children as the MVSD Board members do.
The fact is that the City of Mill Valley was just doing its job… a job they were legally obligated to do: to prosecute the laws and regulations that everyone, including MVSD, is required to adhere to.
To state it, again, as clearly as possible, MVSD does not presently have nor has it ever had the legal right to build a school on Friends Field. As the public record clearly shows, that right was and still is ultimately in the hands of the registered voters of the City of Mill Valley, and not even the City has higher authority to decide what can and cannot be built on Friends Field outside of what is narrowly defined as parks, recreation, and municipal services.
End of story.
So, why is the MVSD Board continuing to deny this? And why wasn’t the MVSD Board aware of all of this legal history before they started hiring consultants to submit proposals to build on Friends Field?
Knowing what we don’t know
They say the most important thing to know in life is to know what we don’t know. And when we don’t know something, to seek qualified help. It is concerning that the Board apparently never consulted qualified legal counsel (about their land use rights) and never consulted experts in real estate development, construction management, or finance (as any normal real estate developer would) but, instead, chose to rely solely on the advice of planning consultants, whose only interest appears to be limited to designing new schools on vacant land.
But, let’s be clear: This entire boondoggle was one of MVSD’s own making. They never should have raised false expectations in the community. They should have done their homework. To blame the inevitable outcome on the City and community opposition is sad. MVSD should be thanking the opposition for helping them avoid more wasted time and money.
The Board has also argued that they needed to be “financially prudent” and have a “fiduciary responsibility” to look at all options. So as an architect and real estate developer, I have to ask, how do they explain why the most obvious option – to renovate and remodel and add to the existing middle school – was never even considered?
All of the architects, contractors, and real estate development professionals who weighed in on this project found this inexplicable.
The net result of this is that MVSD must now look at how to build a new middle school that meets all their requirements, on the existing site. However, MVSD’s consultants never presented any proposals for the renovation of or additions to the existing school (remodeling and repurposing of existing spaces, retrofitting of mechanical systems, etc.). They only submitted proposals that required the complete demolition of the existing middle school buildings, which requires toxic remediation of the entire site and hauling away all debris to landfills out of state and is the most expensive option.
Meanwhile, even the consultant’s proposals for a brand new school on the present site are amateurish, at best. They have all the design sensibility of prison cell blocks and the charm of army barracks without expressing any relationship whatsoever to this unique location, existing site opportunities, or environmental considerations.
This is particularly galling since it’s somewhat obvious that a terrific 21st-Century middle school can be achieved by remodeling the existing structures: one that is suitable for staged construction planning, minimizes site excavation and off-haul, and reduces development costs.
The existing buildings appear to be well-suited for redevelopment and offers an opportunity to achieve something that the school has always lacked: a cohesive “campus” that creates “a sense of place.”
But it is what it is. And these are the people we have empowered to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of our taxpayer money, so I suggest we all roll up our sleeves and help them do that correctly. I sincerely hope they will let us do that.
Coda
If you throw a rock in Mill Valley, you will either hit a realtor, a contractor, an architect, or a real estate developer/investor. MVSD needs to tap that vast reservoir of local (and likely pro-bono) talent by forming a task force of professional advisors to help guide them through this very complicated process. Or, what about issuing an RFP for renovation concepts: something that would likely spark considerable interest?
That said, I sat down for a few hours and sketched some conceptual ideas for a renovation and re-imagining of a new Mill Valley Middle School. I offer this as just one of many possible design concepts. But MVSD needs to start down this path because most of us in the community also believe that their vision of a “perfect” new middle school is still within reach.
The plan, below, attempts to achieve MVSD’s goals. This is not a refined proposal but a schematic conceptual plan showing some of the expansion/renovation opportunities available.(A PDF copy is attached.)
Click on the image to enlarge it
As we can see, there is ample space on the site for additions that pull the design together as one campus. The potential exists to add as much as 50,000 sf of new classroom space that could include a new Arts, Music & Drama wing, 5,000 sf of multi-purpose activities areas, 16,000 sf of new meeting spaces and study halls with a new Library, and a new, 10,000 sf Administration Offices wing. Portable classrooms would no longer be needed once the project is completed and lost parking and recreation areas would be reclaimed.
The simple rectangular footprints of existing structures are well-suited for use-changing, interior remodeling. The exterior fenestration and materials can easily be redesigned and replaced and new communications and energy-saving technologies and materials can be fully integrated.
It's time for us all to pull in the same direction, together, to achieve the best outcome we possibly can for everyone. We all hope that the MVSD Board will hit the restart button with this shared goal in mind.
Bob Silvestri is a long-time Mill Valley resident, the Editor of the Marin Post, and the founder and president of Community Venture Partners, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit community organization funded by individuals and nonprofit donors.