Sherman R. Frederick
Novato Advance
Novato’s City Council district boundaries will change in 2022. It will affect a couple hundred people, but few citizens seem to care. Or, at least, few complained or got involved in the process.
That’s one of the take-a-ways from this year’s redistricting exercise sparked by the latest census, which requires cities to examine their election boundaries to make sure they account for population shifts.
At the Council meeting last week (March 8), new election maps were approved on a first reading. The final adoption is set for March 22.
To complicate the census-driven process this year, Novato recently converted from all Council positions being elected at-large to council members representing five districts.
In the new map, a couple hundred people will be put into new districts. That means some people who couldn’t vote in 2019 might still be unable to vote in 2022. And some people who could vote in 2019 may get to vote again in 2022.
That unusual dynamic will even out in subsequent elections.
But for now, some residents living in District 2 will be moved into District 3. In other areas, some residents will be moved from District 5 to District 4, or from District 1 to District 2. Neighborhoods near the StoneTree Golf Club would also move from District 3 to District 5.
Novato resident Tracey Ruiz, one of the few to get involved, noted that this year there was little public participation compared to 2019.
This process will be repeated in 2030.
BAHIA PROJECT
Another item taken on in the March 8th City Council meeting, which lasted just 15 minutes shy of 6 hours, was the approval of subdividing a 6.9 acre parcel in the Bahia neighborhood into 5 developable lots. The parcel overlooks the Petaluma River and San Pablo Bay.
Some existing residents opposed the idea saying it would obstruct views.
“Please note the huge impact to the view corridors that the petitioner is downplaying,” Michael Hall told the Council as he played a video with potential homes placed on the lots.
Riley Hurd, representing the owner of the parcel, called the theme of the opposition pure NIMBY-ism – Not In My Back Yard.
This is, he said, an example of the “Ubiquitous Marin County hearing of ‘we’re already here, we’ve got ours, don’t put any there’ which I might get if it were an open space parcel, but it’s a privately owned piece of land designated by the city – not the applicant or anyone else – for housing. It’s hard to reconcile that with the comments being made.”
The item was ultimately approved on a 3-2 vote with Mayor Eric Lucan and Councilmember Pat Eklund voting against.
Mayor Lucan thanked everyone who participated, calling it a lengthy, but “good discussion.”
Leave a Reply