Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council backs modified Midblock development with 729 units; debate centers on affordable unit mix and fee deferrals
Summary
Council reviewed and approved package actions to transfer and develop the Civic Center mid-block at 321 West Ocean Boulevard, a revised plan that increases unit count to 729 and proposes 73 moderate-income inclusionary units (10% provision) plus fee deferrals; public speakers and residents urged more deeply affordable units and questioned financial and legal risks.
The City Council considered a long-awaited plan to develop the Civic Center midblock site at 321 West Ocean Boulevard and heard a full presentation from Community Development staff on design modifications, affordability, and fiscal implications.
Staff said market changes and construction costs required adjustments to the 2020-approved project: the updated plan increases total dwelling units from about 580 to 729, shifts unit mix toward more family-sized three-bedroom units (50 three-bedroom units cited), reduces subterranean parking to an above-grade configuration and eliminates most ground-floor retail (reducing commercial space to 2,651 sq ft), and maintains a 10% inclusionary requirement at the moderate-income level via an alternative-compliance proposal that would deliver 73 moderate-income units rather than the originally specified very-low and low-income units.
The developer is also requesting deferred collection of up to $1,799,917 in development impact fees until phase 2 completion. Community Development staff said the modification keeps the project viable and preserves the original master-development contractual obligations tied to the Civic Center public-private partnership.
Public comment was sharply critical of the proposed shift to moderate-income housing from low and very-low units. Several residents and advocates argued that the city's greatest need remains deeply affordable units and that using a private development on city-owned land to deliver predominantly moderate-income units is inconsistent with stated homeless and housing goals. One speaker calculated that "moderate" units would not be affordable to many middle-class workers (citing county-area median incomes), and others warned that fee deferrals shift near-term funding away from public infrastructure.
Staff and council members responded by describing the contractual constraints from the original public-private deal, the city's need to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets across income levels, and financial limits on subsidizing larger numbers of lower-income units in a private project. Christopher Koontz noted legal and contractual risks if the city unilaterally altered historic agreement terms, and staff described ongoing tools (density bonus, subsidies, and the housing trust fund) used across the city to produce deeper affordability.
After deliberation, council accepted staff's recommendation to move the project forward, including the alternative compliance for moderate-income units and the fee-deferral structure; the council vote (motion carried) advanced the contractual and procedural authorizations needed to complete the transaction and allow development to proceed.
The council asked staff for continued follow-up on fiscal implications, monitoring of affordability commitments, and how the midblock project integrates with planned financing (including potential EIFD increment and property-tax revenues) and implementation milestones.
