 |
| Are we merely pawns of government? |
It's been a year of pondering and debating over affordable housing in Novato.
See the full article in the Patch with local response We Need Answers
See the full article in the Patch with local response We Need Answers
I need some answers about some of these affordable housing ground rules from the state.
I want clarification about building 30 units per acre of housing plus a bonus of 35 percent equaling 40 units to more than 100 units with few or no constraints. In addition, does the state require that 50 percent of the units be for market rate? Does that mean that 200 or more units will be developed on sites around Novato?
The state, high-density groups, plus supervisors, builders, and developers favor few or no constraints for traffic, design, or concern for impacts on schools, safety and infrastructure in Novato. “Build, Baby, Build” is their motto as long as there are federal and state tax dollars for their political and economical agendas.
Forget about the social impacts on the quality of life in Novato when the threshold of high density is paid by the next generations.
Forget about drought, earthquakes, water quality, community gardens, trees, deer, flowers, wildlife, wetlands, watersheds, shade, valleys, forests, red roses and blue skies, too.
Forget about knowing your neighbors, your community and religious institutions.
Forget about the social, economical and environmental costs to the rural and suburban residents.
One solution for the future is plan for 20 units per acre or less on some locations.
The city staff is apparently afraid or reluctant to do this without the Novato City Council saying the buck stops here (I am from Missouri, home state of Harry S. “Buck Stops Here” Truman, where conservation was ingrained into our souls in school). A solution of 20 units or less needs a feasibility study to show the state that the sites are buildable. Building 30-40-100 units per acre plus adding 50 percent market-rate units to the low-income units do not require any feasibility studies from cities and costs less for the city planners. For whom do they work?
In addition, the county now wants the Atherton mobile Home park on the east side of 101 for multiple low-income housing. 300 or more units on that site plus additional 50 percent market rate units will wreak havoc on Novato’s vision of a small-town atmosphere.
Furthermore, the county has added back to their quota list the St. Vincent’s parcels near Marinwood, which would add another 1,200 units plus the 50 percent market rate units, plus cars in the future for the county’s quotas. [editor's note: this article is dated and does not show in the current housing element]
Examples of high density in our rural, suburban county are the Millworks/Whole Foods complex on De Long Avenue in downtown Novato and the large buildings in downtown San Rafael.
Moreover, massive high-density buildings and millions of dollars for a passenger train system deny respect for humans and our need for open spaces, fresh air, clean water, parks, uncrowded schools, safety and cultivated land. Will robots and politicians replace conservation?
Novato must be the poster child for common sense and 20 units or less per acre. Feasibility studies will show we can do this and have a community that thrives now and in the future.
No more passing the buck.
Support our city and advocate for lowest densities of 20 units an acre or less.
I want clarification about building 30 units per acre of housing plus a bonus of 35 percent equaling 40 units to more than 100 units with few or no constraints. In addition, does the state require that 50 percent of the units be for market rate? Does that mean that 200 or more units will be developed on sites around Novato?
The state, high-density groups, plus supervisors, builders, and developers favor few or no constraints for traffic, design, or concern for impacts on schools, safety and infrastructure in Novato. “Build, Baby, Build” is their motto as long as there are federal and state tax dollars for their political and economical agendas.
Forget about the social impacts on the quality of life in Novato when the threshold of high density is paid by the next generations.
Forget about drought, earthquakes, water quality, community gardens, trees, deer, flowers, wildlife, wetlands, watersheds, shade, valleys, forests, red roses and blue skies, too.
Forget about knowing your neighbors, your community and religious institutions.
Forget about the social, economical and environmental costs to the rural and suburban residents.
One solution for the future is plan for 20 units per acre or less on some locations.
The city staff is apparently afraid or reluctant to do this without the Novato City Council saying the buck stops here (I am from Missouri, home state of Harry S. “Buck Stops Here” Truman, where conservation was ingrained into our souls in school). A solution of 20 units or less needs a feasibility study to show the state that the sites are buildable. Building 30-40-100 units per acre plus adding 50 percent market-rate units to the low-income units do not require any feasibility studies from cities and costs less for the city planners. For whom do they work?
In addition, the county now wants the Atherton mobile Home park on the east side of 101 for multiple low-income housing. 300 or more units on that site plus additional 50 percent market rate units will wreak havoc on Novato’s vision of a small-town atmosphere.
Furthermore, the county has added back to their quota list the St. Vincent’s parcels near Marinwood, which would add another 1,200 units plus the 50 percent market rate units, plus cars in the future for the county’s quotas. [editor's note: this article is dated and does not show in the current housing element]
Examples of high density in our rural, suburban county are the Millworks/Whole Foods complex on De Long Avenue in downtown Novato and the large buildings in downtown San Rafael.
Moreover, massive high-density buildings and millions of dollars for a passenger train system deny respect for humans and our need for open spaces, fresh air, clean water, parks, uncrowded schools, safety and cultivated land. Will robots and politicians replace conservation?
Novato must be the poster child for common sense and 20 units or less per acre. Feasibility studies will show we can do this and have a community that thrives now and in the future.
No more passing the buck.
Support our city and advocate for lowest densities of 20 units an acre or less.
Please see parts of: California Government Code Section 65583.2
(d) For purposes of this section, metropolitan counties, nonmetropolitan counties, and nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas are as determined by the United States Census Bureau. Nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas include the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada,
Tehama, and Tuolumne and such other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.
(e) A jurisdiction is considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction's population is greater than 100,000, in which case it is considered metropolitan. Counties, not including the City and County of San Francisco, will be considered suburban unless they are in a MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case they are considered metropolitan.
(d) For purposes of this section, metropolitan counties, nonmetropolitan counties, and nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas are as determined by the United States Census Bureau. Nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas include the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada,
Tehama, and Tuolumne and such other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.
(e) A jurisdiction is considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction's population is greater than 100,000, in which case it is considered metropolitan. Counties, not including the City and County of San Francisco, will be considered suburban unless they are in a MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case they are considered metropolitan.
Editor's Note: The Housing quota assumes all of Marin is an "urban" county despite the obvious densities that suggest rural/suburban. The county of Marin considers all of unincorporated Marin as a "single jurisdiction" with a population over 50,000, This mandates 30 units per acre designation for affordable housing which is the same as the Sunset district of San Francisco.
Despite the fact that Marinwood/Lucas Valley has a population of only 6000 we have 71% of all affordable housing for unincorporated Marin located within our 5.78 square miles . We have our own fire department, ordinances, parcel taxes, share the Dixie School district with Terra Linda.
Only by combining Marin City, Tam Almonte, West Marin, Strawberry, Santa Venetia, parts of Novato and Marinwood/Lucas Valley can we be called a "city". Without that designation Marin County would have us at no more than 20 units per acre like Petaluma.
But there is another wrinkle. By state law, a government cannot concentrate all of its affordable housing in a single district. Therefore, it is unlawful to concentrate so much housing in our neighborhood. Reconizing this problem, I believe some lawmakers are trying to change this law.
Some "neighborhood leaders", politicians and political insiders don't want you to know this.
Does this seem fair to you?
Hi Steve. Did the supes combine us into the single jurisdiction with Marin City, Tam Almonte, West Marin, Strawberry, Santa Venetia and parts of Novato through an ordinance?
ReplyDeleteWe don't know all the legal ramifications of these decisions. It seems quite odd to us that they are able to combine so many far flung small towns each with their own limited self governance,ordinance, services and special parcel taxes, combine them into a single jurisdiction and call us a "city" in order to force housing on us. We think this is grossly unjust. They are keeping affordable housing out of places with political influence like Kentfield and forcing on us. We will have to pay the 71% of tax burden for affordable housing for all of unincorporated Marin. Yes, this housing element is a NIMBY plan from the rest of Marin to us.
ReplyDeleteWe need a team of professional advocates to press fairness before the Supervisors and possibly the courts. If we don't, each homeowner will suffer. All that Marin will have succeeded in doing is creating another warehouse for the disadvantaged and making a few developers rich. This is not to say some affordable housing is not welcome, but we cannot carry the burden for the County by ourselves.