In his March 16 column, “Residocracy opposes Zoning Ordinance Update,” the group’s founder, Armen Melkonians, claims that figures show that the City isn’t living up to the commitments it made under the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) approved in July 2010.
Mr. Melkonians claims that two and a half years after the approval of the LUCE, “a total of 4,618 new residential dwelling units were already being processed or under construction.” At best, this is misleading. At worst, it is a deliberate falsehood.
The term “being processed” implies that the figure includes not only homes that have been approved or are under construction, but also new homes that have been proposed, though not yet considered by the City. Many of the proposals for new homes that Mr. Melkonians included in his count have actually been withdrawn from consideration, like the 231 homes in the Roberts Center on Colorado Avenue near Stewart Street.
Why did Mr. Melkonians use an unpublished analysis from December 2012 when there are more recent figures are available from the City’s LUCE Monitoring Report?
This report shows that 1,067 homes were approved before the LUCE was adopted. While 861 homes have been approved since the LUCE was adopted, only 80 have been built.
State law requires Santa Monica to look at the environmental impacts of future developments approved as a result of the LUCE. According to the City’s LUCE Monitoring Report, the City considered the future environmental impacts of those 1,067 homes in the pipeline as part of what would occur anyway, not as one of the 4,955 homes expected to be built as result of adoption of the LUCE.
According to the LUCE Monitoring Report, 861 homes have been approved in the 55 months since July 2010. That’s a rate of 15.7 new homes per month, which is short of the 20.6 homes per month forecast under the LUCE.
We aren’t in danger of building too many new homes, as Mr. Melkonians says. We are actually falling short of the vision adopted in the LUCE because it is building too little housing. We’ve already seen how the housing shortage has resulted in skyrocketing rents. Residocracy’s approach to double down on our housing shortage just as the Expo light-rail line opens would only make it worse.
Juan Matute is a Santa Monica resident.
Good response to a really misleading letter. Facts are so inconvenient for people who prefer fear-mongering as a basis for platforms.
For example, it’s not true that Santa Monica has less parkland than surrounding communities on a per capita basis. The entire beach is considered open public space. Anyone who thinks we have less open space than surrounding communities doesn’t get out to surrounding communities much.
Good response to a really misleading letter. Facts are so inconvenient for people who prefer fear-mongering as a basis for platforms.
For example, it’s not true that Santa Monica has less parkland than surrounding communities on a per capita basis. The entire beach is considered open public space. Anyone who thinks we have less open space than surrounding communities doesn’t get out to surrounding communities much.
Juan Matute talks a whole lot about standards and numbers in this article. Here are the standards that I would like to discuss: THE QUIMBY STANDARD. You can Google “Quimby Act” to learn about this. In my opinion parks are important too and that focusing on building more and more commercial development to get housing without considering the Quimby Standard is bad, bad, bad policy for Santa Monica. The Quimby Standard in California is 3 or more acres of parkland/open space for every 1,000 residents. Santa Monica has 1.4 acres of parks/open space for every 1,000 residents. Santa Monica does not come anywhere close to meeting the Quimby Standard. Surrounding communities put us to shame in that regard. So my suggestion to Mr. Matute is to take some time out from bashing Residocracy and learn about the Quimby Act and the Quimby Standard, and find a way to turn some land in Santa Monica into park or open space so that Santa Monica can move in the direction of meeting the Quimby Standard. Why should Santa Monica have less open space and park space than other communities in California? Why should Santa Monica suffer through another decade of not having enough playing fields or picnic space for the families in Santa Monica who don’t have back yards? It is bad, bad, bad for the residents of Santa Monica that we aren’t even half-way to the goal of meeting the Quimby Standard in the City of Santa Monica.
Juan Matute talks a whole lot about standards and numbers in this article. Here are the standards that I would like to discuss: THE QUIMBY STANDARD. You can Google “Quimby Act” to learn about this. In my opinion parks are important too and that focusing on building more and more commercial development to get housing without considering the Quimby Standard is bad, bad, bad policy for Santa Monica. The Quimby Standard in California is 3 or more acres of parkland/open space for every 1,000 residents. Santa Monica has 1.4 acres of parks/open space for every 1,000 residents. Santa Monica does not come anywhere close to meeting the Quimby Standard. Surrounding communities put us to shame in that regard. So my suggestion to Mr. Matute is to take some time out from bashing Residocracy and learn about the Quimby Act and the Quimby Standard, and find a way to turn some land in Santa Monica into park or open space so that Santa Monica can move in the direction of meeting the Quimby Standard. Why should Santa Monica have less open space and park space than other communities in California? Why should Santa Monica suffer through another decade of not having enough playing fields or picnic space for the families in Santa Monica who don’t have back yards? It is bad, bad, bad for the residents of Santa Monica that we aren’t even half-way to the goal of meeting the Quimby Standard in the City of Santa Monica.
Uhmmm…Grace Phillips, do you have ‘convenient’ statistics to make a point, or do you simply muddy water w implications?
Uhmmm…Grace Phillips, do you have ‘convenient’ statistics to make a point, or do you simply muddy water w implications?
Ummm… hate to throw another inconvenient fact at you, but how about Tongva Park?
Ummm… hate to throw another inconvenient fact at you, but how about Tongva Park?
The Quimby Act wasn’t intended to increase parkland in already developed communities. It was intended to provide park land in new subdivisions. This is a ridiculous argument. We’re a built out community. If you want more parks, I suggest you ask around to see if someone is willing to give up their land in Santa Monica for a new park. And if Santa Monica doesn’t have enough open space for you, I hear Lancaster has lots.
The Quimby Act wasn’t intended to increase parkland in already developed communities. It was intended to provide park land in new subdivisions. This is a ridiculous argument. We’re a built out community. If you want more parks, I suggest you ask around to see if someone is willing to give up their land in Santa Monica for a new park. And if Santa Monica doesn’t have enough open space for you, I hear Lancaster has lots.