when i read this: "especially since Novato’s general plan calls for Rowland Way to be extended south to Highway 37" it reminded me of another very recent instance where the city council decided to circumvent the people of novato's general plan. as recently as this spring the council trampled all over the general plan which states clearly that the lot across from the police station was to be used for a parking garage. instead they voted 5-0 to build their city offices there. negating the potential for a public road connecting rowland to 37 is both contrary to the citizen's general plan and common sense. the same is unfortunately true in deciding to build these city offices downtown. what good is our general plan if the council can decide to pay off deveopers by ignoring its mandate and trumping it by building a ridiculous monument to themselves and a few city employees?

Trish, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. Why in the world would this potential thoroughfare be eliminated? How can this possibily benefit the people of Novato, the merchants at Vintage Oaks, and Novato Community Hospital? We need more disclosure, more transparancy and more answers.

The City memo shows it is for ".07" acre (which is tiny), while the real amount in the rest of the document is .7 acre-which is 10x as large. It appears (somewhat conflicted) that the city will receive either $510k or $400k for the parcel, and the developer is required to pay fees...the trade off of course is the City gives up all rights to Hanna (the road will go from public to private) and the General plan is tossed out with regard to extending 37 to Rowland. Given the fact that the developer could NOT build this project without this piece of property, and we are materially changing our General Plan (and we are going to get higher RHNA numbers from this), pretty tough decision given the potential future impact-who came up with the price tag?

You voted for them now eat what they say to you . Ha Ha we told you and you did not listen

Bob, The city has to get $$ from somewhere to fund the millions the downtown city offices will be over budget by! Another example of the city council looking out for themselves instead of the 50,000 people and hundreds of businesses here in Novato. Interesting that Susan Stompe has come out against this right of way being sold. I wonder if she has said anything about "it being against the general plan". That would be ironic considering she and others have no issue with walking over the general plan for their city offices.

Worry
Yes indeed...I also found it interesting that the payment from the developer does not have to come until after the first certificate of occupancy is issued....so basically, "just go ahead and own it, and pay us when you start getting some money in..."...the McPhail property will be getting a lot less valuable I would think, given the fact it is future accessibility is greatly reduced through this process. Glad I don't own it, because if I did, I would have already called my lawyer.

Our Council and Michael Frank operate as if they have no one to answer to, certainly not the community, time and time again. Can this be reported to someone? Isn't there some way we can have the City Hall activities reviewed? They are and will be responsible for the demise of Novato. There has to be something we can do as a community.

If there was "Treason" for city officers this would be it! Michael Frank is a weasel and a jerk and an idiot. He needs to be fired. The city council, Eklund excepted, needs to be hounded about this. We need 100 people to attend every council meeting, and hold their feet to the fire. And this is NOT about political views...this is about transparency and governance. The entire city should be up in arms about this ... who wants to Occupy Council Chambers?

Can this decision be rescinded? Let's all show up and make a ruckus! Demand better government.

Tina,

Check with Caltrans. I seem to remember when the Council was looking at this area for a possible SMART station, that Caltrans said that it was impossible to connect it with highway 37 because the intersection was already rated dangerous. Sorry, I'm fuzzy on the details, but it may have been because of earthquake issues. SMART might be aware of it too. In any case, the location was a terrible idea for a station given nobody lived around it, so they discarded it pretty quickly as one of the options, but I remember reading about the intersection issues that came up then. Thus this "road" probably isn't worth much if it cannot connect with a major artery. And Edwin, there really is no reason to refer to our public officials with name calling. Your arguments will hold more weight if you refrain.

T. Allen, I think you're asking this question of me. Yes, I'm aware that Caltrans is not interested at this time to make any connection to 37. For the exact reasons, I too am not sure. However, to give up this floating easement and make it a private road and thus eliminate any future possibility to ever connect it to 37 is short sighted. At the least there could have been notifications sent, a discussion, and a hearing.

Thanks, Trish, for bringing up the issue at that timely moment - just before the final city council action. Too bad only you and I were there to push for retention of the floating easement. The explanation given by the City Attorney was that the floating easement was a trade off for building the bicycle/pedestrian path along the SMART tracks. Of course, there was no mention of that at the Planning Commission or City Council hearings on the Master Plan, so it appears that the explanation given by the City Attorney was a drummed up explanation to cover up the Council give-away.

WOW! I didn't catch that Susan! This is why it's sooo important to be transparent from the get go, otherwise you can't clean up after yourself fast enough! Thanks for being there to witness that. I know Gail Meyers was also frustrated by this issue. There are many others who are equally upset and feel the City has not been practicing good government.

Here is the crybabies once again. they get up in arms after the fact. Why don't you people do something on election day and then you can relax all year as you picked who you want and not who the Chamber wanted . You will never learn !!!!

Thank you Trish for writing about this. Why wouldn't the council keep the land but provide an easement to the developers?

Tina, I believe it's because the Developer doesn't want just an easement. They want the land to build commercial/retail. In the Land Agreement attachment, it looks like Staff is presenting a couple of options to Council. One I think is leaving Parcel C as an easement pass thru without buildings and another as a sale to Developer for building. City should provide a Summary of the Document for residents who can't read legal drafts. Maybe you can make more sense of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the State of California Caltrans can obtain private property (including private roads/easements) by emminent domaine if it is determined that there is a public safety issue. After the construction of Hanna Ranch, if the lack of an additional roadway for ingress and egress affects public safety (due to traffic congestion, accidents, emergency, evacuation, etc.) Caltrans has a legal right to fix the problem by emminent domain. This is happening all over California due to the fact that Caltrans now has the money for these projects. It may take years before it gets done, but it can happen. There is no such thing as a "private road/easement" if public safety becomes an issue. It's just sad that this is what it will take to get the easement back when it could have been saved in the first place.

Trish,
Thank you for a very informative article. Thank you Susan Stompe for your hard work too. Thank you both for your hard work.

This isn't about Caltrans. This was about the city retaining the right to build a surface street - an extension of Rowland - that would lead to the on and off ramps at the 37/101 interchange. There's is already a Hanna Ranch exit off 37, and I believe there's also an on-ramp. The truth is that Frank is a weasel, lying to the council and public, offering limited choices, and often misleading the public. The developer KNEW there was an easement there, and should have planned his project accordingly. As it is the city council, with the exception of Eklund, betrayed the city with the egregious "give away." At the very least the city should have just kept the easement for future use.

As for the bike path, the Bicycle Coalition now rules Novato? Any surface street would have been striped with a bike lane. the intelligent thing would have been to both require the developer to construct the path and retain the easement.

One other note about "politeness": the residents of Novato remain unflinchingly respectful of council and staff, and keep getting the shaft. It's time for some brutal honesty that Frank lacks the intelligence to manage this town. His decisions are consistently sub-par, uncreative, and do nothing to make Novato a nicer or better place to live. His bottom line is short term dollar signs. The man is stupid when it comes to possibilities. And four on the council go along like sheep. Disagree? Tell me something wonderful he's done. Let's hear it.

He has got you and your neighbors to vote for city council members who will vote his way. Look at Lucan and last Tuesdays vote . Look at the way you voted last November . Now is not the time to cry as it will do you no good . Get over it and live with it . You want change start running for office today and don't change you mind on issues in the middle of the race and you can win .