Welcome to the official web site for the Novato Homeowners Association (NHA). NHA was formed to provide Novato homeowners with information about legislation, zoning and other changes to local laws as they affect property ownership in Novato. Our goals are to protect the value of our homes and maintain Novato's suburban/rural character. When you register with NHA, the community news will be sent directly to you via email. There is no cost to join and no dues. If you need more information use the "Contact Us" link to send an email. Thanks for visiting! We hope you will join us in our effort to remain educated, informed and locally active as Novato Homeowners.
Novato Homeowners Association is carefully monitoring the future development of the Square shopping center moving forward after the recent announcement. We believe the owner has the right to build on his property, but it has to be in character with the existing neighborhood. We are disappointed the owner allowed the Square to deteriorate to it current condition and certainly that raises concern on how this new project will be built and maintained. We will post on a regular basis our comments and findings on this project so stay tuned.
To Provide Novato Homeowners with information regarding current events and to advocate for policies that will benefit the approximately 2/3 of Novato residents that are Homeowners.
The Draft Plan Bay Area is like a sausage factory, you don't want to see what is in it or how it is made.
It all starts with an analysis, by a group of people that may have an agenda or special interest influence, looking at the potential future jobs of the entire USA and deciding how much the total Bay Area 9 counties will get of these jobs over the next 30 years. The odds of being accurate over 30 years with a single projected number are likely similar to winning the lottery, but the odds for winning the lottery are likely even better.
This guessing about a very large delta over 30 years is then allocated down to the jurisdiction level (counties, cites and unincorporated areas). The chances of this projection being correct are astronomical to put it mildly, probably the same as being struck by an asteroid. Impossible is reasonable to assume.
This is Plan Bay Area. It is then adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD immortalizes this farfetched number into the amount of housing that needs to be built. Since there is no statutory way to correct HCD's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), land must be rezoned by the local jurisdictions to comply. Checkmate. The developers, builders and institutional investors win and all in the name of the New Urbanism.
This is the definition of flawed top down planning and does not take into consideration local general plans, fiscal conditions, funding for services, water, sewer, schools or any other local issues.
The RHNA numbers provided by ABAG that are the basis for the Draft Plan Bay Area are flawed. This is the result of projections for population, jobs and RHNA used in these reports being inaccurate and significantly overestimated RHNA allocations for the jurisdictions. The basis for this conclusion is built on various analysis of the overall projections for California, the Bay Area as well as a sample jurisdiction. Thus, the Draft Bay Area Plan report needs to be discarded and a new report should be completed using correct RHNA allocations to jurisdictions built on accurate projections and take into consideration critical local conditions and issues.
Make your voice heard on July 18, 2013 before ABAG votes on this plan, contact you county supervisor and/or city council.
This letter is submitted as public comment on the Public Comment on Draft Bay Area Plan and Draft Bay Area Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2012062029).
State housing law prescribes the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible to insure Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) are reasonable and reflect past performance and local conditions. Government Code Section 65584.05H specifies “the council of governments shall have final authority to determine the distribution of the region’s existing and projected housing need.” ABAG has projected the region’s population and job growth for 2010 to 2040 in the Draft Bay Area Plan for the region and then allocated out this population growth, modified by other factors including jobs, to determine the RHNA for each Bay Area jurisdiction. We believe the methodology used by ABAG to calculate population growth and jobs is flawed. We also believe the allocation process to the jurisdictions is also flawed. The result of both of these flawed processes is excessive RHNA projections that are used to mandate housing that is not required and these projections can have adverse effects on the jurisdictions. The issues with the projections, as well as details of the adverse effects on jurisdictions, will be detailed later in this document.
Also at issue is the ABAG “top down” planning model over an extended period of time that attempts to predict and mandate a granular level of planning to the jurisdictions. The issues that make this a failed planning methodology will also be addressed in detail in this document or attachments. This planning model also fails to consider critical local issues and conditions such as the fiscal impact on jurisdictions, as well as the impact on schools, public services and infrastructure such as water and sewer.
The RHNA numbers provided by ABAG that are the basis for the Draft Plan Bay Area are flawed. This is the result of projections for population, jobs and RHNA used in these reports being inaccurate and significantly overestimated RHNA allocations for the jurisdictions. The basis for this conclusion is built on an analysis of the overall projections for California, the Bay Area as well as a sample jurisdiction. Thus, the Draft Bay Area Plan report needs to be discarded and a new report should be completed using correct RHNA allocations to jurisdictions built on accurate projections and take into consideration critical local conditions and issues.
May 30th marked the first and last debate where County Supervisors, Steve Kinsey of Marin and Marc Luce of Napa, touted as Plan Bay Area experts, failed to defend Plan Bay Area's ability to reduce Green House Gases and increase the supply of Affordable Housing throughout the Bay Area.
While Luce was primarily worried that No Plan equaled another law suit against Napa that would result in the state mandating areas to be developed, Kinsey took personally the fact that constituents that filled the room did not agree with his view that Plan Bay Area had the answers Marin needed to keep needy families from living anywhere near open space or agricultural land and instead designated growth to occur along the freeway where it wouldn't interfere with nature.