Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables amendment to inclusionary housing mix at Beach/Edinger project after questions about bedroom counts
Summary
City staff asked the council to amend the bedroom mix required by an inclusionary housing agreement after project unit plans reclassified several two-bedroom lofts. Councilmembers expressed concern about how the error occurred and tabled the item to the Sept. 2 meeting to allow more review.
The Huntington Beach City Council on the motion of the mayor and after extended questioning tabled an amendment to an affordable-housing agreement for a Beach-Edinger Corridor development until the Sept. 2 meeting. Staff said construction-phase floor plans revealed that several units originally counted as three‑bedrooms were actually two‑bedrooms with lofts, a difference that affects the formula used under the citys inclusionary housing ordinance to set affordable-unit bedroom mix.
Nut graf: The amendment would correct the affordable-bedroom distribution to match the market-rate unit mix on which the inclusionary requirement is based; councilmembers sought more time to review why the mistake was missed during entitlement and why the amendment benefits the developer in a way that could reduce long-term city obligations.
Staff presented a side‑by‑side comparison showing the original affordable-unit mix (12 studios, 32 one‑bedrooms, 19 two‑bedrooms, 7 three‑bedrooms) and the proposed correction (12 studios, 32 one‑bedrooms, 23 two‑bedrooms, 3 three‑bedrooms). Housing staff said the original count was taken from entitlement plans; subsequent construction documentation reclassified lofts and reduced the number of three‑bedrooms.
Several councilmembers pressed staff and the developer on why the discrepancy was not detected earlier in the entitlement or building-permit review and whether the amended mix shifts revenue or long‑term obligations. Staff said approving the adjustment would keep the project in alignment with the citys inclusionary ordinance and noted a modest property‑tax benefit from the corrected counts; councilmembers asked for more information about timing, review responsibility, and potential precedential effects before taking action.
Ending: Council voted to table the item to Sept. 2 to allow staff to provide additional details on review history and the implications of the amended bedroom mix.
