BUILDING GOALS NOT KEEPING PACE WITH HOUSING DEMAND.

Byline: GREGORY J. WILCOX

Developers need to build 22,185 housing units in the San Fernando Valley between 2000 and 2010, notes a new think tank report released in the middle of last week. It appears that the goal will be met, but not demand.

From the first quarter of 2001 through the second quarter of this year, builders pulled permits for 13,698 units, said Daniel Blake, director of the San Fernando Valley Economic Research Center at CSUN and a fellow at the Mulholland Institute.

So well before the midpoint of the decade, builders are more than halfway to the goal, which averages out to about 2,280 units a year.

``It's not really meeting demand,'' said Blake, who's also an economics professor at the Northridge campus.

That's because the population of the Valley, which stretches from Glendale to Calabasas and the Santa Monica Mountains to Sylmar, grows by between 23,000 and 24,000 people each year.

Housing that's affordable is critical if the Valley is to remain a bastion of the middle class. The institute's report, titled ``Prosperity Tomorrow'' and prepared for the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley, points out its collective communities have less poverty and a higher proportion of middle-income people than the rest of Los Angeles. It's also true for minorities at the highest income level, $100,000 or more annually.

In contrast, the part of Los Angeles south of the Santa Monica Mountains is ``divided between Westside rich and Eastside poor,'' the report said.

But the Valley's economy faces some pressure from the imbalance between the amount of housing that will be built and the number of people moving here. For example, in 1990 the average household size was 2.75 people. It grew to three people by 2000.

And Blake said the pace of new building and population growth works out to an average of six people per household.

``Overcrowding is a growing problem as the size of the average household increases and many families are forced to double up,'' said the report.

There is not much room to expand out anymore, either.

Analysts, real estate executives and some developers said one solution is to build smarter.

And the Mulholland Institute is the latest to recommend turning to urban villages of housing clustered near transportation hubs and commercial, industrial and retail uses.

This is ``mixed use'' in policy speak.

It might help offset local government shortcomings in dealing with traffic congestion.

``We're not keeping pace with the traffic infrastructure and people want some certainty about how fast they can get downtown or where their jobs are,'' Blake said.

Jim Link, executive vice president of the Van Nuys-based Southland Regional Association of Realtors, said this is a good concept.

But it needs to be a collaborative effort.

Clustering these kinds of projects along major cross-Valley routes could reduce some congestion. Link said this would probably increase the housing supply and make the units more affordable.

One mixed-use development is already under way near the subway station in North Hollywood.

And city officials should be prepared to extend a carrot to developers, too. For example, community plans might have to be changed to designate areas for this kind of development and incentives created to make it worthwhile.

``One of the first things that needs to be done is the community needs to be educated on the fact that mixed use doesn't mean totally urbanized neighborhoods,'' Link said.

Gregory J. Wilcox, [phone]

greg.wilcox(at)dailynews.com