Crisis? What Crisis?

California leaders, from the governor on down to municipal city councilmembers, appear to be in “panic mode” as they scramble to do something about the so-called housing shortage. I am pretty sure that we are not on the brink of a market crisis as they claim. California’s high rents did not happen overnight but have evolved from the basic principle of supply and demand, meaning there are far more people who want to live here than there is room to put them. This is the sole reason that rents and home values are higher here than the rest of the country. California is a desirable place to live.

We need to give this situation some serious thought as forced legislation leading to reckless overbuilding will have far-reaching consequences for years to come. Just like adding new highways to ease congestion most often results in induced demand and increased traffic, flooding the market with housing units will not lower rents or take care of those in need. It may cause a short-term availability blip but soon more people will come and then where will we be? We will have lost our open space, our scenic views and our small town feel. Ask Glendale how its huge growth boom downtown is working for its residents. Are the rents lower? Is the city better off? We can hardly see the mountains anymore, the traffic is snarled and the city has had to place a moratorium on new projects while it reevaluates its Downtown Specific Plan.

At the state level, a recently proposed and, thankfully defeated, Senate Bill 187 championed by State Senator Scott Wiener is a prime example of the slight hysteria and rush- to-action on the housing situation. Sold as a way to increase the availability of affordable housing, the bill would have pushed for dense housing near transit lines. The state would have been the controlling entity with the municipal jurisdictions having little say in what can be built and where. If this bill had passed, Foothill Boulevard could have been overwhelmed by multi-family dwellings five stories high, just because there is a bus line that runs down it. This type of development is not what most people envision for our community. Foothill Boulevard from Sunland-Tujunga to La Cañada Flintridge has zoning that restricts building heights to under 33-35 feet. This bill would have allowed developers to ignore that zoning all in the name of solving the housing shortage. The unfortunate part in all this is that it is expected that another, more liberal bill will be introduced before too long. Watch for it.

Another area of concern is the series of bills and ordinances that define ADUs, Accessory Dwelling Units, that allow homeowners to build a house up to 1,200 square feet in their backyards or add on to existing garages as a secondary residence. These “granny flats” will certainly create more density in neighborhoods as homeowners one-by-one choose to build-out to their property lines. The original intent of these structures was to accommodate extended family members but the state rules now allow short-term (overnight) rentals with no provision for additional parking. Unless specifically defined by the municipality, the broad ADU regulations as defined by the state will supersede local authority.  

Those of us who follow land use in the Crescenta Valley know that development proposals that threaten open space and the face of our community are coming at a fast pace.  Still we await decisions on Rockhaven, Verdugo Hills Golf Course and the California High Speed Rail. We can make a difference by writing letters, attending public hearings and being engaged in the planning process. 

If you are concerned about local land issues, please consider joining the Crescenta Valley Community Association and get involved. Our next meeting is Thursday, Jan. 24 at the La Crescenta Library, 2809 Foothill Blvd.

Susan Bolan

susanbolan710@gmail.com