July 14, 2026, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item IV. MATTERS WHICH COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ASKED TO BE PLACED
ON
A
FUTURE
AGENDA
(NON-DISCUSSION
ITEM)
The Council is apparently being asked to consider having staff prepare, for consideration at a future
meeting,
resolutions
taking
a
position
on
four
statewide
propositions
expected
to
appear
on
the
November
3,
2026,
ballot.
I
consider
such
things
a
waste
of
public
resources.
Not
only
is
the
world
unlikely
to
note
or
long
remember
the
positions
taken
by
the
Council,
but
the
resolutions,
if
prepared,
will
represent
only
the
preferences
of
a
majority
of
the
seven
people
on
the
Council,
and
not
the
views
of
the
city’s
residents
(which
the
Council
has
no
way
of
knowing).
Item 1. Approval of Minutes The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes of the June 23, 2026, Regular City Council Meeting, with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The draft
minutes
have
been
posted
as
a
9-page
without
page
numbers.
The
page
numbers
below
refer
to
the
position
in
the
PDF.
Lifeguard
All-Hands
meeting,
the
Newport
Beach
Junior
Guards
Summer
Kickoff,
and
the
Oasis OASIS Senior Center Wine and Cheese event. ” Page 4 , Item IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Comment : Starting with this page, the minutes have been shortened by listing the Consent
Calendar
items,
with
the
exception
of
Item
1,
by
title
only,
omitting
the
description
of
what
action(s)
were
recommended
and
taken
under
those
titles.
This
creates
a
problem
in
that
for
what
is
likely
the
first
time
in
the
City’s
history,
the
minutes
will
not
provide
a
record
of
those
actions.
For
example,
Item
5 (Community
Programs
Grants,
Community
Event
Assistance
and
Strategic
Sponsorship
Recommendations
for
Fiscal
Year
2026
-
27)
appears
in
a
section
titled
“Resolutions
for
Adoption.”
One
might
reasonably
assume
one
or
more
resolutions
were
approved
under
that
title.
But
the
minutes
give
no
hint
as
to
which
one(s)
might
have
been
approved.
Similarly,
Item
15 (Irrigation
Controllers
Replacement
Phase
4 Award
of
Contract
No.
10128-1)
gives
no
hint
of
who
the
contract
was
awarded
to,
or
in
one
amount.
And
Item
20 (Appointments
to
Police
Headquarters
Advisory
Committee)
gives
no
hint
of
who
was
appointed.
This
new
approach
seems
fundamentally
inconsistent
with
responsibility
placed
on
the
City
Clerk
by
City
Charter
Subsection 603(a) “ for the recording and maintaining of a full and true record of all of the proceedings of the City Council in books that shall bear appropriate titles and be devoted to
such
purpose
.”
A
record
that
fails
to
reflect
such
essential
details
of
the
Council’s
core
actions
would
not
seem
to
be
a
“full”
record.
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 9
Steering
Committee
collectively
met
over
100
times
and
voted
25–1
to
support
the
draft
.”
pre-November
1,
1996
boundaries
receiving
curbside
refuse
service,
Municipal
Code
Section
604.14 6.04.140 may require that the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables be covered
entirely
by
ad
valorem
tax
revenue,
suggesting
a
supplemental
recycling
charge
for
such
properties
could
be
legally
questionable
.”
Item 2. Ordinance No. 2026-07: Updating Titles 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and
Public
Property)
and
20 (Planning
and
Zoning)
of
the
Newport
Beach
Municipal
Code
Related
to
Personal
Wireless
Service
Facilities
49 pages of new code (plus 33 pages of administrative standards and 47 pages of “master license
agreement”)
is
quite
a
lot
to
review.
Like
most
first
drafts
the
City
produces,
I
feel
this
is
a
product
that
needs
more
discussion
and
revision
before
adoption.
While I appreciate the chance of influencing it is small, in the following I will try to separate the biggest
problems
I
see
with
it
from
the
many
lesser
ones.
Principal Comments
1. The staff report from when this was introduced on June 9 said the structure of the ordinance
was
modeled
after
that
of
Santa
Monica.
While
Santa
Monica
segregated
applications
in
the
public
right-of-way
from
those
on
other
property,
and
this
follows
suit
with
PROW
applications
handled
in
proposed
new
Chapter
13.22 and
other
applications
in
a
revised
Chapter
20.49,
the
biggest
concern
I
have
is
with
the
proposed
novel
introduction
in
proposed
Subsection
20.49.030.B.6
of
an
exemption
from
regulation
of
applications
for
telecom
sites
on
city-owned
land
and
City-held
trust
property.
For
a
city
that
values
local
control,
this
creates
a
gaping
hole
in
regulation
and
is
more
than
a
bit
strange
to
see.
An
application
to
construct
a
freestanding
tower
in
the
middle
of
a
park
or
next
to
a
playground
or
in
the
Central
Library
entryway,
would
fall
under
neither
Chapter
13.22 (since
it
is
not
in
the
PROW)
nor
under
Chapter
20.49 (since
this
new
provision
exempts
it).
If
this
were
adopted
as
written,
it
would
be
subject
only
to
a
rental
agreement negotiated by the City Manager pursuant to Council Policy L-23. And I can hear it now: “Our hands were tied. We don’t like it, but Federal law required us to approve
whatever
was
applied
for”
(because
we
have
no
local
standards
it
would
violate).
Shouldn’t
we
want
to
retain
control
over
installations
in
City
parks,
on
City
buildings
and
in
public
plazas?
Santa
Monica
did
not
do
this.
Why
would
we?
2. The second major concern I have is with the introduction in the revised Chapter 20.49 of a
new
non-appealable
“Administrative
Clearance”
for
approving
certain
applications.
First,
it
would
seem
the
ordinance
fails
to
integrate
it
into
the
overall
structure
of
Title
20,
where one would expect to find it included in Table 5-1 of Chapter 20.50. More importantly, the definition in proposed Section 20.49.020 mischaracterize it as “a ministerial,
non-discretionary
approval”
for
Class
1 (stealth)
and
6409(a)
(minor
changes)
facilities.
But
the
decision
of
what
is,
or
is
not,
“stealth”
is
not
an
entirely
objective
one.
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 9 Proposed Section 20.49.070.B.1.c retains the existing requirement that the enclosure chosen
be
“architecturally
compatible
with
the
existing
structure
or
building.”
Like
some
of
the
decisions
required
to
approve
a
“Zoning
Clearance,”
that
is
a
judgement
regarding
which
reasonable
people
can
differ.
Non-objective
judgement
is
needed
to
decide
compliance
with
many
of
the
more
general
Design
Standards
of
Section
20.49.070.A.
Likewise,
to
be
eligible
for
“6409(a)”
processing,
the
proposed
changes
cannot
disrupt
the
original
concealment
plan
or
most
conditions
of
the
original
approval.
That
too
is
subjective.
Zoning
Clearances
are
appealable,
why
would
“AC”’s
not
be?
3. A significant feature of the proposed new Chapter 13.22 seems to be the availability of “Master
License
Agreements.”
It
is
concerning
to
me
that
the
code
does
not
appear
to
establish
any
requirements
for
their
content
nor
define
how
or
by
whom
they
become
approved
(proposed
Section
13.22.050.C
indicates
a
template
will
be
approved
by
the
City
Council,
but
I
cannot
find
the
procedure
by
which
the
actual
agreements
get
signed).
4. Similarly, proposed Section 20.49.030.C requires applications for 6409(a) facilities on private
property
to
be
approved
by
an
“AC,”
but
no
process
or
criteria
for
doing
that
is
defined
(in
contrast
to
the
process
proposed
to
be
needed
when
the
Public
Works
Director
faces
a
similar
decision
in
Section
13.22.090.
5. It is also concerning that per Section 13.22.230, decisions by the Public Works Director, which
will
apparently
be
posted
on
the
City
website,
can
be
appealed
by
the
telecom
applicant,
but
by
no
one
else.
6. Staff may consider this minor, but I do not: the opening clause proposed Subsection
20.49.030.B
(Exempt
Facilities)
is
missing
the
word
“not”
(in
“shall
not
apply”),
without
which
the
subsection’s
intent
is
unintelligible.
Minor Comments
1. I continue to wonder why the City does not allow the installation of small wireless equipment
on
traffic
standards,
which
would
often
seem
the
least
intrusive
location
since
they
are
already
festooned
with
other
equipment.
Should
the
Council
reconsider
this
restriction?
2. I also wonder why the Section 20.49.020 definition of “Class 1 (Stealth/Screened)” facilities
seems
to
restrict
them
to
nonresidential
buildings,
even
though
Section
20.49.040.B.2
would
seem
to
allow
wireless
facilities
on
properties
zoned
for
residential
buildings
of
more
than
five
units.
Why
would
we
allow
facilities
on
them,
but
not
encourage
them
to
be
stealth?
3. It is similarly unclear whether the determination of whether wireless facilities are allowed or
prohibited
on
a
property
should
be
based
on
its
zoning
or
on
its
actual
land
use
at
the
time
of
the
proposal.
4. The June 9 staff report referred to “Community Input” received at a meeting with “concerned
residents”
resulting
in
some
modifications
to
what
had
been
considered
b
the
Planning
Commission.
I
do
not
believe
this
was
an
open
or
advertised
meeting,
and
am
concerned
staff
wrote
this
without
actively
seeking
any
other
community
input.
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 9
5. The preamble to the ordinance includes what has become boilerplate in Newport Beach ordinances
since
about
2020,
to
the
effect
that
“
WHEREAS,
Section
200
of
the
City
Charter,
of
the
City
of
Newport
Beach
("City"),
vests
the
City
Council
with
the
authority
to
make
and
enforce
all
laws,
rules
and
regulations
with
respect
to
municipal
affairs
subject
only
to
the
restrictions
and
limitations
contained
in
the
Charter
and
the
State
Constitution,
and
the
power
to
exercise,
or
act
pursuant
to
any
and
all
rights,
powers,
and
privileges,
or
procedures
granted
or
prescribed
by
any
law
of
the
State
of
California
("State") .” Although frequently repeated, this is incorrect. Charter Section 200 actually vests those powers in “the City,” not the “City Council.” It is Section 405 which vests in the Council “ All powers of the City … except as otherwise provided in this Charter .” And the
exceptions
are
fairly
large.
For
example,
various
powers
are
vested
in
the
appointed
officers,
and
the
Council
is
prohibited
from
interfering
with
the
City
Manager’s
administration
of
the
City
staff.
6. The ordinance frequently refers to “Section 6409(a),” yet gives the lay reader no hint of what
the
term
entails.
Couldn’t
some
explanation
have
been
included
in
the
definition?
7. The definitions in proposed Chapter 13.22 include references to requirements on “towers other
than
towers
in
the
public
rights-of-way.”
Isn’t
it
confusing
to
include
that
in
code
meant
to
apply
only
to
towers
in
the
public
rights-of-way?
8. In proposed Section 13.22.070, is there a limit on how much time staff can take to notify an
applicant
their
submission
is
incomplete?
9. Proposed Section 13.22.160 seems to be saying that if the City needs to use a previously-permitted
location,
the
occupant
is
automatically
authorized
to
install
a
new
pole
of
their
own
within
500
feet
of
the
old
location.
Shouldn’t
there
be
a
priority
on
using
existing
poles
before
a
new
one
is
authorized?
10. There are obvious typographical errors at the end of proposed Section 13.22.200.B and the
start
of
13.22.200.C.
11. After missing a “not” in the opening clause, the list following Section 20.49.030.B has inconsistent
grammar
(singular
vs.
plural).
12. The list should also be checked for consistency with Section 3.2.4 of the proposed Public Works
standards,
which
exempt
a
“
Personal
wireless
service
facility
or
6409(a)
facility
used
solely
for
wireless-based
reading
of
water,
gas,
or
electric
meters
”
(not
just
electric).
13. The opening sentence of proposed Section 20.49.050 says “Unless exempted pursuant to
Section
20.49.030(B)”
twice.
14. I have many more comments, but am up against the new 4:00 p.m. deadline for submitting
them!
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 9 Item 4. Ordinance No. 2026-09: Amending the Newport Beach Municipal
Code
to
Regulate
and
Manage
Certain
Activities
within
Newport
Harbor
This ordinance was introduced as Item 3 on the June 23 consent calendar, and is now scheduled for adoption on the present consent calendar, which means the proposed code changes
will
be
made
with
no
public
discussion
by
the
Council,
and
possibly
no
review
by
its
members.
This increasing practice of adopting ordinances without Council discussion of what they intend to
accomplish
and
whether
the
proposed
code
language
achieves
the
stated
purpose
is
a
problem.
It
frequently
leads
to
the
adoption
of
poorly-written
provisions
whose
intent
is
unclear
or
whose
language
literally
says
something
different
from
the
intent
suggested
in
the
staff
report.
That,
in
turn,
results
in
laws
that
will
be
selectively
enforced,
not
enforced
as
written,
or
enforced
differently
than
written,
and
that
would
likely
not
stand
up
if
challenged
in
court.
They
do
not
result
in
just
or
predictable
outcomes.
In the present case, I have seen written comments from Adam Leverenz questioning the way two
of
the
proposed
code
sections
are
written.
I
agree
they
are
problematic.
Adam’s concerns relate to the proposed revisions to existing NBMC Sec. 17.25.020.H.3 (Vessel Condition—Public Nuisance) found on Page 9 of 11 of the proposed ordinance. The existing code
declares
the
following
to
be
a
nuisance:
“
m.
Installation
of
a
marine
sanitation
device
that
is
not
connected
directly
to
an
internal
holding
tank
at
all
times
while
in
Newport
Bay
.”
That
is
proposed
to
be
revised,
and
two
new
subsections
(“n.”
and
“o.”)
are
proposed
to
be
added.
The present staff report does not disclose what the intent of the revision and additions is. Page 2 of the June 23 staff report provides this description of the proposed changes, but does not disclose what problem is being addressed or how the described changes will solve it: “ NBMC Section
17.25.020(H)(3)
defines
what
constitutes
a
public
nuisance
as
it
relates
to
the
condition
of
a
vessel
in
Newport
Harbor.
The
proposed
revisions
will
make
it
a
public
nuisance
for
any
vessel
docked,
moored
or
anchored
in
Newport
Harbor
to
have
a
portable
or
permanently
installed
marine
sanitation
device
that
is
not
operable
or
connected
to
an
internal
holding
tank.
Additionally,
improvised
waste
containment
methods
such
as
buckets
or
bags
will
be
prohibited.
”
To discover what the changes are attempting to accomplish, one has to go back to Attachment A to a staff report provided to the Harbor Commission as Item 6.3 at their February 11, 2026, meeting. It says: “ This proposal seeks to amend Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to
require
that
any
vessel
on
which
a
person
stays
aboard
overnight
be
equipped
with
either
a
legitimate
portable
marine
sanitation
device
(MSD)
—
compliant
with
U.S.
Coast
Guard
and
California
State
Parks
Division
of
Boating
and
Waterways
standards
—
or
a
permanently
installed
and
operable
marine
sanitation
system.
The
use
of
non-compliant,
improvised
waste
containment
methods,
such
as
buckets
,
will
not
be
considered
acceptable
.
…
Ensuring
that
all
overnighting
vessels
are
equipped
with
appropriate
sanitation
systems
reinforces
the
City’s
long-standing
commitment
to
a
clean,
safe,
and
sustainable
harbor
environment
for
all
users
.”
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 9 As Adam points out: (1) the applicability is intended to be limited to vessels on which people are actually
staying
overnight,
(2)
for
those,
a
“portable
marine
sanitation
device”
1 is
intended
to
be
an
alternative
to
a
permanently
installed
system,
and
(3)
those
proposing
this
had
specific
examples
of
“improvised
waste
containment
methods”
in
mind.
None of this is evident from the proposed code. Instead, the proposed revisions to subsection “m.” add a new prohibition on use of self-contained
portable
waste
disposal
units
unless
it
can
be
connected
to
a
holding
tank,
which
most
cannot.
How
that
is
intended
to
help
the
harbor
is
unclear.
The proposed new subsection “n.”, intended to address overnight stays, now imposes a new requirement
to
have
such
a
compliant
device
not
just
on
vessels
being
used
for
overnight
stays,
but
on
any
vessel
capable
of
accommodating
an
overnight
stay,
or
even
just
anchoring
in
the
harbor.
That
would
appear
to
impose
the
requirement
on
a
large
fraction
of
the
boats
in
the
harbor,
whether
an
overnight
stay
on
them
is
contemplated
or
not.
The proposed new subsection “o.” prohibits “The use of improvised waste containment methods for
human
or
animal
excreta,”
without
providing
any
guidance
as
to
what
methods
might
be
regarded
as
“improvised.”
I
believe
other
sections
of
Title
17 allow
washing
bird
and
sea
lion
waste
off
boats,
but
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
something
like
a
pet
dog
aboard
for
a
while
would
be
difficult
to
potty
train.
What
methods
of
containing
its
waste
would
not
need
to
be
“improvised”?
Why would the Council wish to adopt such poorly-crafted laws? Item 5. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Arts Orange
County
to
Manage
Phase
XI
of
the
Sculpture
Exhibition
in
Civic
Center
Park
Section 1 of the contract indicates it will run through July 31, 2030. Yet the Capital Improvement Program the Council adopted as part of Item 19 on June 9 anticipates in FY2028-2029 the award of a construction contract for a new Police Headquarters, quite
possibly
in
the
same
Civic
Center
Park
where
the
Sculpture
Exhibition
that
is
the
subject
of
this
contract
is
expected
to
take
place.
Shouldn’t
the
possibility
of
that
conflict
be
acknowledged
in
this
contact
and
in
Council
discussion
of
it?
In this 11th iteration of the contract, there seems also to be scant attention to its continuing no-bid,
sole-source
nature.
The
predictable
result
is
that
staff
and
the
contractor
settle
into
a
comfortable
pattern
lacking
innovation,
despite
anemic
public
participation
in
the
poll
through
1 The term “marine sanitation device” does not appear to be defined in Title 17. It seems to be used at times
as
a
euphemism
for
what
landlubbers
would
call
a
toilet,
although
technically the term refers not to
the
toilet,
but
to
the
device
to
which
the
toilet
is
connected
to
process
and
store
the
waste
collected.
A
holding
tank
is
one
type
of
MSD
(a
“Type
III”).
The
other
two
types
treat
the
waste
for
discharge.
Connecting
an
MSD
to
a
holding
tank
would
appear
to
be
a
misnomer,
since
the
holding
tank,
not
the
toilet,
is
the
MSD.
A
“portable
MSD”
would
seem
to
be
by
definition
a
self-contained
unit
not
intended
to
be
permanently
attached
to
a
boat,
and
quite
likely
with
no
mechanism
for
connecting
to
a
holding
tank.
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 9 which the entries to be exhibited are selected (fewer than 250 residents voting out of a population
of
83,000).
As to that selection process, the vendor continues to recommend, as they always do, that three outside
jurors,
along
with
the
seven
City
Arts
Commissioners,
whittle
the
entries
received
(usually
about
80)
down
to
just
30 or
so
for
the
public
to
vote
on,
despite
that
process
having
been
shown
to
do
nothing
other
than
prevent
the
public
from
seeing
entries
they
might
prefer
to
those
presented
to
them.
One
might
guess
there
are
better
ways,
but
there
is
no
incentive
to
change.
Item 11. Planning Commission Agenda for the July 9, 2026, Meeting As the report will show, the Commission continues to approve market rate housing projects in the
area
of
the
city
that
has
historically
been
regarded
as
the
one
most
suitable
for
affordable
housing
projects.
This approval is particularly troubling because staff appears to have determined, for reasons that
were
not
explained,
that
the
existing
affordability
requirement,
which
is
the
subject
of
Item
13 on
this
Council
agenda,
does
not
apply
to
this
property,
apparently
because
it
was
designated
as
a
“Housing
Opportunity”
site.
In any event, the applicant applied for 139 of the 8,174-unit total of “housing opportunity overlays”
the
Council
added
to
the
General
Plan
without
a
Greenlight
vote
on
the
pretext
that
the
state
required
the
Council
to
approve
them
to
make
possible
reaching
its
affordable
housing
target.
Since
no
affordable
units
were
offered
or
required,
it
seems
reasonable
for
the
public
to
believe
they
were
the
victims
of
a
“bait
and
switch,"
for,
as
here,
few
(and
in
this
case
none)
of
the
8,174
units
are
being
used
to
build
affordable
housing.
As this first tranche of units gets used up for purposes other than what was promised, it seems likely
staff
and
Council
will
say
the
state
is
forcing
them
to
raise
(again
without
a
Greenlight
vote)
the
8,174-unit
General
Plan
limit
to
allow
the
previously-promised
affordable
units
to
materialize.
And
that
could
repeat
indefinitely
as
the
city
fills
with
market
rate
units
not
required
by
the
state,
and
regarding
which
residents
are
not
allowed
to
vote
on
the
repeated
General
Plan
increases
allowing
them.
Item 12. Resolution No. 2026-52: 2350 Bristol Street Driveway Access Appeal
(PA2025-0112)
It seems important to appreciate this is not an appeal from denial of an application to modify the existing use permit to allow unrestricted use of the rear driveway. Nor is it, as the “On the Agenda” portion of the City Manager’s July 10 weekly newsletter claims, an appeal of “the Planning Commission’s decision to allow an existing emergency access driveway to also be used
for
employee
and
delivery
vehicle
access”
It is, instead, the appeal of the denial of a request to determine that the existing use permit already
allows
(and
has
always
allowed
)
unrestricted
use
of
the
rear
driveway.
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 9 This question regarding the interpretation of the 1986 permit is the only matter presently applied for,
and
the
only
question
to
be
resolved
on
appeal.
A request to issue a new or modified permit allowing unrestricted use would be processed through
a
different
kind
of
application.
Item 13. Ordinance No. 2026-10: Approving Amendment to Newport Place
Planned
Community
Development
Plan
(PC-11)
Related
to
the
Minimum
Percentage
of
Inclusionary
For-Sale
Housing
within
the
Residential
Overlay
and
Resolution
No.
2026-53:
Overriding
Airport
Land
Use
Commission’s
Determination
of
Inconsistency
(PA2025-0196)
In light of City staff’s recent interpretation of the “Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts,” this immense
effort
on
the
part
of
City
staff
appears
to
be
for
the
sole
benefit
of
the
property
owner
at
1401
Quail
Street,
a
sophisticated
developer,
Intracorp,
who
previously,
as
explained
on
page
4 of
the
staff
report,
obtained
approval
of
an
application
for
a
67-unit
development
with
15%
affordable
housing.
Curiously, the agenda materials do not appear to include the September 3, 2025, letter from the developer precipitating this, which had been included as Attachment 2 in the March 19 staff report to the Planning Commission. Contrary to what the present staff report says, nothing I can see
in
that
letter
says
“the
approved
project
is
no
longer
financially
viable
to
implement.”
It
does
,
for
reasons
it
does
not
explain,
request
the
City
reduce
the
inclusionary
requirement
for
for
sale
units
from
15%
to
7.5%.
2 The staff report also curiously fails to mention that on September 24, 2024, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2024-16 which established development standards for the 6th Cycle Housing Opportunity Overlay properties. Those standards include no affordability requirement at all, and staff
apparently
interprets
this
silence
as
an
“inconsistency”
with
the
requirement
in
the
planned
community text, which per NBMC Section 20.28.060 is to be resolved, in their minds, in favor of the lack of a requirement in the HO overlay. In other words, having an HO designation eliminates
any
affordability
requirement
regardless
of
the
underlying
zoning.
Staff
applied
this
interpretation
to
the
1301
Dove
St.
application
being
reported
as
part
of
Item
11 on
the
present
agenda,
and
appears
to
have
previously
applied
it
to
the
1300
Dove
St
application,
heard
by
the
Planning
Commission
on
June
4,
which
is
seeking
designation
as
an
HO
site.
3 Strangely, 1401 Quail was designated as HO Site No. 64 in the Housing Element, but the Intracorp
application
may
have
been
filed
before
it
was
rezoned
to
reflect
that,
and
hence
is
being
processed
under
the
pre-HO
rules.
By
staff’s
reasoning,
if
Intracorp
wanted
to
avoid
the
inclusionary
requirement
that
is
the
subject
of
the
present
agenda
item,
they
could
simply
re-flie
the
identical
application
(without
any
affordable
units)
to
be
approved
as
an
HO
project.
3 The
1300
Dove
St.
application
proposes
5%
very-low
income
housing,
but
this
does
not
appear
to
be
in
response
to
any
inclusionary
requirement.
Rather
it
seems
to
be
offered
to
make
the
developer
eligible
for
a
development
standard
concession.
2 Strangely, the subject line of the letter says it is a request to reduce the percentage “from 15 percent to 8 percent,”
but
the
body
states
“7.5%”
three
times.
July 14, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 9 In other words, the affordability requirements the Council is being asked to modify are, at least in
staff’s
view,
a
mirage
nullified
by
the
adoption
of
Housing
Opportunity
zoning
overlays.
As a result, if staff’s view of this prevails, its approval, or not, of the present agenda item, over the
objections
of
the
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
and
Caltrans,
does
nothing
to
improve
the
City’s
ability
to
meet
its
affordable
housing
targets.
It
modifies
in
staff’s
view
is
an
orphaned
and
currently
dead
code
requirement.
It is, however, questionable that staff’s view is correct. Under NBMC Section 20.28.060, the underlying affordable housing requirement would be voided only if it is inconsistent with some new
and
different
standard
imposed
by
the
overlay
(as
might
happen,
for
example,
if
the
overlay
allowed
greater
building
heights
or
more
units
than
the
underlying
zoning).
But
it
is
hard
to
see
how
the
overlay’s
complete
silence
on
whether
affordable
housing
is
required,
or
not,
can
be
seen
as
creating
a
new
and
conflicting
standard
of
“no
affordable
housing
is
required.”