I was on an airplane this week, found this magazine cover in the seat pocket and immediately thought of Grant Avenue and how depressing that it is to drive down the street. From Seventh Street to Redwood Boulevard, it reminds me of a strip mall. From Redwood to Railroad Avenue, it reminds me of a depressed small town, not to mention other areas in town.
This weekend I was in St Louis Park, Minn., where the town administration is plowing ahead to approve the realignment of a freight rail route that winds through the city and passes close to two schools one of which is adjacent to a switch where trains will sit idling while another passes. The railroad plans to run 10 to 15 trains of up to 100 cars with four to six engines per day. There are only grade crossings in major streets leading to major highway. The community is furious, but the train is coming.
I thought that I was having a Yogi Berra minute and was not disappointed when I got home and found the Novato City Council plowing ahead with its plans for downtown. It was interesting to see the number of buildings that were evaluated but found wanting for several reasons. Perhaps I am naïve but it seems to me that the current worldwide, national, state and local financial situation would mitigate against spending $12 million to $15 million on Class A offices when a more conservative approach would be the more prudent course of action given the apparent community opposition.
So it appears that those of us who do not question the need for city-owned offices but oppose the location and costs are standing on the tracks with a train speeding toward us ignoring the warning lights.
Many people are up in arms about the city choosing to build from scratch over purchasing an existing building, like the IJ property, which has more than enough parking and space to house city employees for years to come. The only reason given so far is its location in southern Novato. However, it is right off the freeway with bus service and across the bridge is the new Hamilton development with restaurants, Safeway and shops. This property costs $5,850,000.00 or $91 a square foot. It has three separate buildings including a 34,342 square foot office space, and then another 30,000+ square foot warehouse. http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/2/B/7/2B7ED662-CD89-471E-AA9E-802AB2C4139D.pdf It makes no sense to put city offices downtown at a cost of $700 a square foot when that land is prime space for retail or mixed use. The biggest surprise is why the council did not put this decision to a vote. $16 million dollars for offices to house fewer than a hundred employees. This with a five year projected budget deficit. Below is a link to the petition to stop the train wreck. Please forward to like minded individuals living in Novato. http://www.change.org/petitions/the-novato-city-council-stop-the-spending-of-15-million-to-build-new-city-offices-in-old-town
Another existing option is 7200 Redwood Blvd (3 blocks from city hall). "Class A" office building, $7.9 million, 45,593 sq ft of which 74% is leased with a first year projected net income of around $670,000. Any needed improvements could be paid for out of lease revenue. If the City insists on building on the City the Hall Campus (which the current council is intent on doing), they should at least start by re-building the Community House and accommodating the offices there. This would bring the offices back downtown, would re-open the Community House, and would not have an adverse affect on parking. In fact, they could put a level of parking under the the new Community House and parking would be improved. Wouldn't this achieve all of various goals and be more fiscally responsible? This past week I met with 3 of the current council members. 2 of them said the Community House wasn't brought up because it is too hot of a topic. Some will want the renovate and some will want to rebuild. They did say that the Community House is next on the list & they want to get working on another bond sale to raise more funds for it. This befuddles me. We raised $17mm+ from the recent bond sale (which will cost us $42mm over the next 30 years). Let's use the money we have to rebuild or remodel the Community House to accommodate 60-70 city employees.
I thought there was a measure that prevented the council from expenditures of this size without a vote. The Redwood Building sounds like an even better option in terms of location and revenue. It just doesn't make sense to me why we would pour this much money into a structure that is for the sole purpose of housing city staff. Could you also explain the drama around these older buildings? Why must the Community House be rebuilt or renovated, along with the other older houses on Sherman? I am frustrated because we so desperately need to maintain city services. I don't understand why we are pouring money into this particular project.
I share your frustration. I have met with and talked to most of the council members about this. One told me flat out that, although she didn't buy into it, nostalgia played a big part in the current decison. She also didn't believe that the current plan is the best financially for the City. I have a lot of respect for the council members. Even though I don't agree with a lot of what some of them vote for, they do truly believe in and care for Novato. In the case of the City Offices, this discussion has been going on for almost 30 years. Past council members who tried to build something back then are still trying to fulfill their plans and, except for councilperson Athas, our current council has been in office through or on the heels of some of these tried and failed city office plans and they don't want to give up. Measure D is what you've heard of. It was created because of a past plan to spend too much money to build something inappropriate in Old Town. Unfortunately Measure D was written very narrowly. It applies to purchase or lease of property and other things that don't apply in the case of the current plan. In spirit, I think there is a strong case that Measure D applies, but by the letter of the measure, it doesn't apply. Check out this analysis: http://www.cityofnovato.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=6720
We need to continue to gather signatures on the petition and most importantly people need to please attend and speak up at the council meetings and need to write and call the city council members. novatocouncil@cityofnovato.org
Thank you. I am so disappointed that Measure D does not apply. I had hoped there was something in writing to put this to a vote. I agree there are also former council members bent on making this concept happen regardless of the cost.
Great discussion. As to distance that is certainly a relative issue, isn't it?...if I live in Southern Novato/Hamilton, the IJ building is certainly more convenient, if I am near downtown, then the proposed site is more convenient, so, all relative. With respect to Measure D-(I had looked for this before and could not find)-the hook is that redevelopment is borrowing the money, and they are not part of Measure D-which seems pretty weak, when you figure the original source of the funds was General Funds, which were then loaned to redevelopment, and then the bonds were floated...what I found very interesting was what I read on page 2...that there was essentially no restriction as to how the funds could be spent..which is of course in very sharp contrast to the statements made by the City Manager...It always seemed a bit "odd" that general fund monies loaned to redevelopment would need to be used solely for capital improvements...just because redevelopment had to float bonds...think about that.
See you all Tuesday night.
It looks like this issue is not scheduled to be addressed until 8:30pm. Is it possible to get to the meeting after it starts and still participate? Also, is the Design Review Meeting on Monday necessary to attend?
Message to council: Do the right thing here and listen to the thousands of people that have signed the petition, that have contacted you via email on the phone and face to face. Many of your own city employees do not see the wisdom in spending this money to build offices "for them". You may honestly believe that this project is "visionary". It is not. It is the epitome of shortsightedness and, considering the city's budget deficit, it is the definition of financial mismanagement. Please listen to everyone that is telling you to reassess your downtown office plan.
Diet Stroeh once helped me with the city when there was a conflict over paving my Mom's street. It was extremely complicated and I couldn't get anywhere with the city on my own. Rather than hire an attorney I went to Diet. I know he was one of the locals that have repeatedly brought up the idea of purchasing an existing building. It took us six years to resolve the problem with the city but Diet was instrumental in getting their cooperation. I keep thinking that the complaints against existing buildings have been based on their construction. I was thinking of writing to the people representing the sellers of the IJ building to see how it was constructed and on what surface. We really need a local engineer to respond to the city manager's office in this regard. I don't know about the construction of the Redwood building but I agree it is large enough to more than handle the job.
I continue to read through the information that led to the idea of building from scratch. I am not an engineer nor am I in the construction industry but it doesn't make sense to me given how old many of the buildings are on Grant to say that the life of these existing buildings is too short. Please chime in if anyone understands this concept. I am worried it is just more smoke and mirrors. Is there anyone you know that is an engineer and could comment on building life based on structure and placement?
I am grateful for all your efforts. I think we need to have facts that can show the benefit of purchasing an existing structure from multiple perspectives. For example: First, the location would be better used for parking and mixed retail development. Second, it is just too much money to spend on one project that only houses employees, when we are running at a deficit for at least the next five years. Third, we could buy an additional property for much less that has more space that could be utilized for additional services or to generate revenue. Please keep adding more reasons to the list. I believe if we go to the council with accurate facts, particularly in an election year, they will pay attention. This is such a unique time to invest in property as well as invite investors to look at the city lot being suggested for this project to be used instead for a mixed use development that will include parking for Grant Avenue from Redwood to Railroad Avenue. I think if we could get this on the ballot that the majority of Novato voters would agree.
Yes, you can come to the meeting late and still participate. There is public comment time toward the begining of the meeting for comments on anything peopole want to talk about and then there is public comment time for each specific agenda item. You can fill out your yellow card and hand it to the clerk at anytime. I am planning to go to the Design Reveiw meeting though they do not make any decisions about policy and they will be looking at the specific design out of context of anything else. The council meeting on Tuesday is definitely the critical meeting to attend and I hope everybody reading this will attend and speak up. But I also think it is important for the design commission to hear concerns about this building. For instance, we need to make sure it includes parking. I also think that as designers, they shouldn't put their head in the sand and consider this building in isolation, without considering the vacant Community House and the other new devleopment going in on the surrounding blocks.
Ultimately, this is ANOTHER of Frank's "I'm in charge" moments, and he gets a charge out of misleading council and having them fall for it. Lastly, can someone please explain to me the positions swirling about the Community House. I don't understand why the Old Church was worth $6 million in expenditures, but some vilify the same style, probably dating from same era, Community House. I seek enlightenment.
As for the Community House, the only reason I have heard as to why we aren't either renovating or rebuilding is that there is anticipation of a big argument between those that want to refurbish and those that want to rebuild. The thought is that this argument will stall moving out of 75 Rowland. I don't buy it. I think it is purely a desire to build. The same person that told me this also said that they want to get another bond sale prepared to raise the funds to do something with the Community House. I say, we have the funds. Let's have the discussion now and get it done. If it is properly communicated, I don't think there will necessarily be an argument. People want something done with that building. As I said before, rebuilding the Community House to include offices achieves 4 objectives. City Offices downtown, in a City owned building, Community House reopened, parking lot still available for expansion to support current development in Old Town. I heard that Carole actually favored this idea but it didn't get any traction.
Jeanne MacLeamy is an architect. She more than anyone would know that as long as the building is sound it can easily be retrofitted to meet the needs of what amount to office staff. This is why I keep looking for smoke and mirrors. It just seems to be so straight forward it doesn't make sense not to buy in order to use the additional funds to provide downtown parking and other services.
If you knew an adult who acted this way you'd warn them about getting on over their heads with debt. BUT the City Council does NOT care, they won't be around later when the bill comes due, either will Susan Stompe and cronies who seem to be spearheading this fiasco.