By Justin HAGER

The limited availability of housing in California has reached epidemic proportions, with a survey conducted by the state Department of Housing and Community Development estimating that California will require 180,000 new homes to be constructed each year from now until the end of 2025 in order to meet demand. Currently estimates place the annual supply at approximately 80,000 homes per year, or less than half of what is needed. Unfortunately, for young professionals, newlywed couples looking to start a family, and senior citizens looking to relocate to California’s mild climate, home ownership is largely out of reach. For communities of color, where parents and grandparents were prohibited from home ownership by policies like red lining, the stakes are even higher. California’s Institute for Local Government estimates that equalizing home ownership rates would decrease the wealth gap between Black and White residents by as much as 16% and between Latino and White communities by as much as 41%. Most Californians agree that something needs to be done but exactly what is a matter of fierce of debate both in Sacramento and more locally.

On May 6, the CV Weekly published a story about SB-9 and SB-10, two bills moving through the legislature that would allow single-family lots to be rezoned for up to four, or 10 units, respectively. At the time, the bills were headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by local politician State Senator Anthony Portantino. When the bills were heard in Appropriations on May 20, Senator Portantino voted to pass both bills through to the Senate Floor. Over the next 10 days, he also voted to pass SB-9 from the Senate to the Assembly but voted against passing SB-10.

One month later, both bills are still alive and moving through the legislature. SB-9 has already passed both the Assembly Local Government and Housing and Community Development committees and has only to clear the Appropriations committee before a final vote is taken on the Assembly Floor. SB-10 passed the latter last week and is now headed to Local Government. Assemblymember Laura Friedman has not yet had an opportunity to cast a vote on either bill, but a separate bill authored by Friedman seems to indicate her support.

AB-1401 (Friedman) promotes both residential and commercial development by eliminating parking requirements for new developments and remodeling projects located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop.

“For decades we have prioritized space to park cars over space to house people,” said Friedman in a statement released in April. “There are plenty of communities in our state that have access to high-quality transit, or where cars are underutilized, that need housing far more than they need parking.”

The bill would have limited direct impact on Crescenta Valley due to the way that “high-quality transit corridor” and “major transit stop” are defined but would have a significant impact on development in Sunland-Tujunga and Glendale. AB-1401 passed the Assembly at the beginning of June and is currently awaiting a hearing in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

Members of local civic groups, like the CV Community Association and CV Town Council, have expressed concern that both the proposed legislation and proposed development projects, including the one being considered by the Glendale Design Review Board (DRB) next week, will dramatically change the character of the community. A new four- and five-story mixed-use development on the 3400 block of Foothill Boulevard on the site currently occupied by the Dollar King is being considered by the Glendale Design Review Board (DRB) on Thursday, July 8 at 5 p.m. The project would include 17,200 square feet of commercial space, 78 multi-family residential units, and 208 parking spaces. The project is only in its preliminary review stage, meaning that it has yet to undergo an environmental determination or density bonus review, but residents of the area are encouraged to participate in the public comment portion of the meeting meeting or submit a written public comment because preliminary DRB direction and commentary can often set the stage for the future limitations and expectations as projects move forward. Written comments regarding the project may be directed to case planner Roger Kiesel at rkiesel@glendale.ca.gov.