HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Setting the Fair Market Value Rent for Moorings Located Upon Tidelands in Newport Harbor - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
January 26, 2016
Item No. 20
From: Mulvey, Jennifer
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 5:06 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Mooring Rates/State Lands Commission
Attachments: 01-19-16MooringSLCinfo.pdf, 12-05-11SLC Bench markUpdate.pdf;
01-19-16SLCdockSurveys.pdf
From: Brian H Ouzounian [mailto:brian.oci@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Kiff, Dave
Cc: Miller, Chris
Subject: Mooring Rates/State Lands Commission
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Mr. Kiff:
As I had wanted to meet with each of you individually to no avail, please
find the information attached that relate to new information I have
obtained from the State Lands Commission on my own time and dime.
Hopefully we can have a productive discussion at the next CC meeting.
Based upon this new information, z recommend that you move on the
resolution to accept transferability of moorings and suspend the fee
resolution pending further analysis into this information by staff along
with "suspending" the 2016 billing for moorings.
Please contact me if you so desire.
Best Regards,
Brian Ouzounian
310-466-7960 (cell)
January 9, 2016
Dear Mayor Dixon, City Council Members and Mr. Kiff:
This memo is intended to provide you with information that I personally obtained from the State
Lands Commission (SLC) after the close of the city council meeting on June 16, 2015, This
information supports my previous testimony at the Harbor Commission and City Council
Meeting on June 16. My purpose in contacting the SLC was to find mooring rates that the SLC
had in its possession along the California coast similar to that of private dock rates that they
disclosed previously, a survey if possible.
I must say the weaving journey throughout the SLC bureaucracy was an arduous and time
consuming exercise but produced quite startling information. In the end, it came from Sheri
Pemberton, Chief, External Affairs Division and her assistant, Nina Cloutman. I have attached a
copy of her email and attachments for your review.
Please note that my testimony to you all, both in writing (attached) and orally at both Harbor
Commission meetings and the city council meetings has been a rental rate based upon the
shadowing of the moored boat over State lands, similar to the docks in our harbor and an annual
rate of $.50/SF. So as it turns out, the annual rate received for the benchmarks for Southern
California is $.331/SF, supporting my previous recommendation.
This standard of care index, therefore, must be considered in our working out the right rate to
charge the public since we as a city are required by law to operate the harbor for the benefit of
ALL citizens of the state. This is about keeping a public harbor facility open and available to the
public at large. It is not based upon Newport Beach Real Estate values nor fund raising for city
projects as some have suggested, since nearly all Californians cannot afford Newport Beach real
estate or anything else that is priced based on our local real estate values.
On this issue, my understanding is that the SLC's mandate is virtually the same as Newport's
under the Tidelands Grant. It requires a balance of two competing forces, one that drives the fee
up, and the other that drives the fee down.
*Down: Newport must charge a fee that makes mooring facilities on the bay available to ALL
Californians, without regard for the price of real estate surrounding the harbor.
*Up: Newport cannot charge a fee that is so low that a mooring permit could be construed as a
"gift" of public property.
So how is the balance struck? The only rational way is to consider mooring rates along the State
coastline. Any fee that is "above average" is contrary to the goal of making moorings available to
all Californians. Any fee that is "below average" can be construed as a "gift" of public property.
Therefore, the standard of care on this subject comes from the benchmarks from the SLC, which
routinely surveys moorings around the state, provided to you below directly from the SLC (see
their charts).
It is quite obvious that the SLC would look at our existing rate and say that we are way beyond
the upward limit of fair rates and a huge adjustment must be made downward to comply with
keeping our public harbor open and available to the public at large. Also if I may say, the City
could potentially have a liability for overcharging mooring holders for so many past years but
that is not the subject nor the objective of the delivery of this information.
Thank you for your time and efforts on this subject as it is a difficult one to resolve. 1, hope I have
assisted in the resolution constructively. Please contact me if you have any questions or
comments.
Best Regards,
Brian Ouzounian
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
BENCHMARKS
NORTE $I$KiYOU MODOC
HUMBOLDT SHASTA LASSEN
TRINITY
TEHAMA
PLUMA5
MENDOCINO
GLENN BUTTE
SIERRA
SAN FRANCISCO} COLUSA YUBA
'—" LAKE .,SJFTR N VA6R "
BAY AREA���.. kcA'
TOM LES Br�Y rA>[ni3
S ��M16
- FR CIS
BLACK POINT
SANDY BEACH SANM
TAHOE
SACRAMENTO RIVER
DELTA AREA
MONO
,-At AVE AS
TUOLUMNE
+r STrT'tknCiFUS MARIPOSA
.= MERCED INYO
MADERA
SAN
BONITO FRESNO
TULARE
KINGS
MONTEREY
SANLUIS KERN
OBISPO
SOUTHERN SANTA BARBARA
CALIFORNIA;
HUNTINGTON
SOLANA BEACH
SAN BERNARDINO
t' 7. RIVERSIDE
*hr8l>r
�4k�� see
State (..ands Commission Benchmarks
05/12/2015
G:/i_MD/Benchmarks
Category i
$ 0.146
January 2012
2017
colorado River
Area
$ 0.166
August 011
2016
San Francisco Bay
12
July zo12
2017
Lake Tahoe Berths
$ 0.79
1 uly 2012
2017
Lake Tahoe Buoys*
$ 377
March 2015
2020
Sacramento River
$ 0.214
March 2015
2020
Delta Area
$ 0.165
r 2011
December
2016 _ ..._ ._,__
Southern californla ,_...__..__0.178,--_
iii
$ 0.331
$
_._
October 2010
_.._... ...
2015
T lamo�es B s
October 2010
2015
Tamales Bay Mooring Poles *
$ 250
Category2
$ 2.16
May 2013
2018
Sandy Beach**
$ 0.35
May 2015
2020
Blade Point**
$ 5.40
December 2011
2016
Huntington Harbour
December 2011
2016
Solana Beach
$ 12.38
*per each_
These benchmarks do not
reflect any contributory
value that may be applied when applicable.
* *
dotes Benchmarks are generally updated every five years.
05/12/2015
G:/i_MD/Benchmarks
BENCHMARK METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
Benchmarks
Benchmarks are used to establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic
areas with large concentrations of similar facilities, mostly private recreational
improvements. These benchmarks are generally updated every five years. The
use of benchmarks not only improves consistency throughout that geographic
region, it also improves staff efficiency in setting and adjusting rent for large
numbers of leases. There are two general types of benchmarks:
• Category 1, which are applied to private docks, piers, and buoys; and
• Category 2, which are applied to cantilevered decks, sundecks, or other
non -water dependent encroachments.
Category 1 Benchmark Methodology
• Category 1 benchmarks are based on the principle of substitution. For example,
if a waterfront homeowner did not have a dock, then where would the owner dock
his or her boat? The answer to this is most likely at a nearby marina.
• Staff uses the following general process to establish and update a Category 1
benchmark:
• Survey nearby marinas (and buoy fields) as to docking & mooring sizes
and rates;
• Slip rates usually expressed as a rental rate per linear foot;
• Extrapolate results from survey (rent per linear foot) into a rent per square
foot;
• Calculate the rent due to the State using a 5% annual rate of return for
use of tide and submerged land.
Category 2 Benchmark Methodology
• Category 2 benchmarks are based on nearby upland land values because the
improvements (cantilevered decks, sundecks, or certain other non -water
dependent encroachments) are ostensibly used as an extension of the private
backyard of the upland residence — a purpose unrelated to the docking and
mooring of boats.
• Staff uses the following general process to establish and update a Category 2
benchmark:
• Research is conducted into recent nearby upland land values. The data is
analyzed and a per -square foot value is determined as being
representative of the area.
• The determined value may be discounted to- reflect the fact that the tide
and submerged land being leased may not have the same utility as the
upland properties from which the data was drawn, due to topography or
other physical characteristics, the nature of the use of the tide and
submerged land, or certain legal constraints.
The rental rate, also expressed on a per -square foot basis, is then
calculated using 9% of the appraised value of the leased land per the
California Code of Regulations.'
' Title 2, Administration, Division 3, State Property Operations, Article 2 Section 2003(a)(1).
"151OZ/1Z/L
https://us-mg4.maii.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=sbc&.ran(i= aypp&'.':.
Subject: CSE: State Lands Commission Inquiry
From: Pemberton, Sheri@SLC (Sheri. Pemberton@sic.ca.gov)
To: brian.oci@sbcgiobal.net;
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:12 PM
Hi Brian —
In response to your inquiry, most of the benchmark rental rates are on a dollar per square foot basis ($/SF) as
indicated on the page. There are two with asterisks that are on a "per buoy" basis as indicated by the asterisk. With
the $/SF rates, they are applied to the use and impact area to obtain a rent value. That is an annual rent value. The
answer to your specific question is no; we do not have a survey of California coastal port mooring fees. Your email
states that you desire more information about offshore mooring fees from coastal ports. I would encourage you to
contact the various Southern California ports and the Santa Catalina Island Company, which has large two-point
mooring fields, to obtain this information.
Thank you,
-Sheri
Sheri Pemberton
Chief, External Affairs/Legislative Liaison
California State Lands Commission
(9t6) 574-1800
Sheri.peinbertoii@slc.ca.gov
From: Brian II Ouzounian[mailto:brian.oci@sbcglobaI.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:57 PM
To: Pemberton, Sheri@SLC
Subject. Re: State Lands Commission Inquiry
dt: pesa.s aels� iau�red'Lu, �un�tl/oau/uao� ootl�h ;}suct,�ru-sn//:sdutl 7/2 i/2W 5 12:'--"
A o °r�Nc -�'�
44
AMUMA-
RN u
W^ w- qmo�h�� %WaP
cog
91,
BRIAN.R. ®UZ®UNIAN
1222 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92661
310-466-7960
Email: brian.ociPsbc_global.net
June 15, 2 1
,
... _
11
Re: Mooring Permits: Item II.1.a on CC Agenda 06/16/15
Dear Newport Beach City Council Members:
I am a mooring permittee and how pleased I am that you are reviewing, taking comments,
and considering changing the mooring fees in Newport Harbor. Such consideration is very
welcomed and overdue.
After being deeply involved with the Dock Tax Issue, the election of Team Newport, and
attending all the past Harbor Commission meetings on mooring fees, I am compelled to
send this memo, specifically with regards to my position on the fee structure. During the
dock tax issue debates, many mooring permittees requested equal treatment and that time
has come!
I am in favor of a significant reduction however, I am in opposition to the Newport
Mooring Association's fee recommendation, of which I am a member, as it a) it does not go
far enough in reduction, b) it does not comply with the requests of permittees during the
dock tax debate and, c) it is out of touch with the precedent recently`- established with
regards to the dock tax.
Permit -Fees:
As we are all aware, there is no. formula (standard of care) set by any autharity as to the
how the fees are to be structured, which includes the State and the City. Therefore we have
a wide open opportunity to set our own reasonable and fair rate structure in' Newport
Harbor.
As I have testified and offered up numerously in the recent Harbor. Commission meetings,
here is my request and recommendation.
a. Charge $.50 per square foot of the shadow of the vessel in the mooring since each
mooring must have a boat registered to the mooring even though it may not be in
the mooring full time.
b. Add a charge of $2.00 per foot of bow and stern line to each mooring can from the
boat.
c. Example for a 50 foot mooring: Boat is 25'x 8' =192 sf x .$50/sf = $100.00
50' mooring - 25' boat = 25 ft of line x 2.00 = 50.00
Total Permit Fee= 150.00
The $.50 per square foot rental rate came from the recent city council action
regarding the private piers and relates to the shadowing of the bay bottom. It has
been established as a harbor precedent, albeit for private piers, the basis is the
same. The line charge seems fair and justifiable. As different size boats come in and
out of a mooring, the adjustments to the permit fee can therefore be easily
calculated by the Harbor Master. Note that the area in this formula is a rectangle
measured by the length of the boat times the beam, not taking into account the
curvature shape of the hull, this for simplicity.
In comparison to docks, there is obviously and much testimony has been provided
with regards to the moorings being difficult to access, take much more effort to
enjoy, clean, maintain and protect from sea lions. The vessels and the mooring cans
are also more likely to be damaged byharbor vessels and also the Harbor Patrol
placed visitors, whereby damages go unreported. Further discounting may be
warranted as you review the fee due to this but considering consistency with the
Tidelands perception, the `shadowing' is the most reasonable driver in this formula.
Additionally, if a mooring is and.intends.to be vacant for a long term, establish a
minimum of $100/year fee, considering that empty moorings provide visitors and
transient boaters to moor their boats as they visit the Harbor, which a plus for
public access and harbor friendliness. ' = ``i
As for the mooring rental fees by the. City for visitors and transient vessels, which
generates about $88,000/year, it is recommended that you include an.annual credit
factored into the annual rate for all permit holders. The credit amount should be
half -of the previous year's revenue, which if you consider 2014 would be 1h of
$88,000=$44,000 distributed in equal amounts to each permittee as a credit on their
annual bill, repeated yearly. If a credit balance occurs on the annual bill, it would be
carried. forward from year to year. The,credit would provide minimal relief for the
required maintenance that the permittees are required to perform every two years.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and hopeful concurrence with the above.
Best Regards,
Sniadt .d�r�acu�2ai
2
State of California
To: Brian Bugsch, Chief F@&
Land Management Division
From, Larry Bellucel
Public Land Management Specialist
Appraisal Section, LMD
Subject, Benchmark Update
General Lease — Recreational Use
Southern Cartforrila
State Lands Commission
Date: December 5, 2011
As requested, I have updated the benchmark for General Lease — Recreational Use for
Southern California. The benchmark vis last updated by staff of the California State
Lands Commission (CSLC) in February 2005. The current update follows the same
methodology as the prior benchmark. Reference is made to the 2006 study for
additional background material that may be needed for the reader to more fully
understand what the benchmark is used for and how A is set.
The recommended benchmark is summarized in the following table with the 2005
benchmarks.
It should be noted that this research does not constitute an appraisal as defined by
either the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) or the
Appraisal I netitute. Rather, this research represents a correlation of a range of market
rents Into a single annual lease rate to be used as the benchmark for Southern
California. The res"reh Is Intended to be used by CSLC staff in negotiations with
applicants and lessees. I
General Lease — Recreational Use leases are typically issued by the California State
Lands Commission (CSLC) for private docks and piers and other mooring related
facilities. These privately -owned facilities offer many of the same amenities as a
commercial marina, such as a place for boat storage or the loading and unloading of
equipment and passengers,
Because such privately -owned facilities are a substitute for a commercial marine slip,
the method of valuation used In estimating a fair return and a fair rental value In this
analysis is based on what an individual would pay for a comparable substitute site in a
commercial marina. The real estate principle that this method of valuation Is based
upon is known as the'Principle of Substitution".
The principle of substitution states that "when several similar or commensurate
commodities, goods, or services are available, the one with the lowest price will attract
the greatest demand and widest distribution.
Since a State Lands lease site for a privately -owned pier or dock is a fairly good
substitute for a marina slip, the lessee of the State land should pay an equivalent
amount for the leased site as the State would receive for leasing the land to a
commercial marina.
The scope of the research included the folirfiMng:
*
identifying marinas in Southern California.
* Surveying the marinas as to the number of berths/slips, occupancy rate, mooring
sizes and rates,
* Compiling the survey results into averages for slip size and rate,
® Using the Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities publication
(July 2005) from the State Department of Boating and Waterways to determine
the amount of submerged land area necessary to accomm odaie a given berthing
size.
* Calculating the annual rental rate(s) using the above information and State
valuation guidelines.
A total of 103 marinas in Southern Cardomis were Identified. Of these, staff collected
data from 53, Others either declined to respond or were excluded because these
facilities were for the exclusive Erse of members of the military and had subsidized rates.
In addition, the short time frame In wfich the Information was collected precluded staff
from surveying more marinas.
1 The Dictionary of Real Estate, Fourth Edition, page 281, Appraisal Institute, 2002.
The responding marinas reported a total of 16,076 berths or slips, or an average of 303
berths/slips per marina. The average occupancy was reported at 87.5%, a significant
decrease from the 97A% reported in 2005.
Rent for berths and slips is commonly expressed in terms of dollars per linear fact. The
survey Indicated average rental rates ranging from $9.25/LF to $42.00/LF. The lower
rents Were generally found in marinas In Oxnard and Ventura, Ventura County,
Wilmington, Long Beach and Ban Diego, San Diego County; and San .Pedro in Los
Angeles County. The highest rents were found In marinas In Newport Beach In Orange
County. The average surveyed rent is $18.09 per linear foot. This represents a 54%
increase over the $11.72/LF used in the 2005 Benchmark Update.
The State Department of Boating and WaterwaysWas contacted to determine If there
had been any changes to their 2005 publication entitled "Layout and Design Guidelines
for Small Craft and Berthing Facilitlee. This publication provides tables showing
submerged kind area needed to accommodate various sized berths. The tables also
differentate between powerboats and sailboats as well as single and double -berth
layouts. And while the publication has been updated, the tables have not changed.
The survey found that the average size of a berth or slip in Southern Califbmia was 36.3
feet. A 35 -foot average length was used in the 2005 Benchmark Update. For purposes
of this update, the average berth size was rounded dowry from the surveyed 36.3 linear
feet to 36 feet. Based on an raven mix of power and sailboats, and single and double -
berth layouts, it Is estimated that a submerged area of 1,180 square feet is needed to
accommodate a 36 -foot berth.
Taking all of the aforementioned Inputs into account, the current benchmark rental rate
and land value are calculated as follows:
36' averages berth size x $18.09/LF avg. berth rate = $651.24/berth/month
$651.24/berth x 12 months = $7,814.88/berth/year
$7,814.88 x 6°Qiag{of gross Income = py !�$390.74
$390.74 1,180 it
sq. . = $0.331 sq, ft
BENCHMARK RENTAL RATE $0,331/eq. ft
$0.331/sq. ft. x 43,560 sq. ft, = $14,418/acre
$14,418 + 0.09 State mandated rate of return w $160,200/acre
BENCHMARK LAND VALUE = $100,200/acre
The indicated benchmark rental rate is $0.334 per square foot. By contrast, the 2008
benchmark was $0.224 per square foot, The new benchmark therefore represents an
overall Increase of less than 14 cents (,$0.407) over the 6 -year period between the two
benchmarks. However, the two: benchmarks are not directly comparable. The current
benchmark is based on a 36' average berth length and submerged land area of 1,180
square feet while the prior benchmark was based on a 35' average berth length and a
submerged land area of 1,100 square feet, The net result is a 480/16increase in the rent
per square foot between 2005 and the current update.
RINASURVEY2011�.A
uthern California
No. Name
Address
Citi
County
Total
Berths
Occupancy
Rate
Occupied
Berths
Average Total Berth Average
Length LF Rate
1 Bahia Cabrillo Yacht Landing
4200 S. Harbor Blvd,
a Oxnard ' '
Ventura
84
66°%
55
37.5
3,150
$15,75
2 Channel Islands Harbor Marina
3850 Harbor Boulevard
Oxnard
Ventura
415
60%
249
38
15,770
$15.66
3 Peninsula Yacht Anchorage
3700 Peninsula Road
Oxnard.
Ventura
362
51%
185
35
12,670
$13.37
4 Vintage Marina
2950 S. Harbor Blvd.
,
Oxnard
Ventura
385
70%,
270
44.5
17,133
$15.59
5 Ventura Harbor Village Marina
1583 Spinnaker Drive
Ventura
Ventura
167
70°%
117
38
6,346
$11.74
6 Ventura tale Marina
1363 Spinnaker Drive
Ventura
Ventura
580
66%
383
38
22,040
$14.36
7 Venture West Marina
1198 Navigator Drive
Ventura
Ventura
550
80%
440
35
19,250
$12.83
8 Bay Club Marina
14015 West Tahiti Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
230
96%
221
35
8,050
$15.43
9 The Boat Yard Marina
13555 Fiji Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
108
100°%
108
32.6
3,521
$16.25
10 Marina City Club
4333 Admiralty Way
Marina dei Rey
Los Angeles
320
82%
262
35.5
11,360
$14.55
11; Pier 44
13575 Mindanao Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
391
72°%
282
26:5
10,362
$12.63
12 Tshifi Marina
13900 Tahiti Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
214
93%
199
30.3
6,484
$15.17
13 Port Royal Marina
555 N. Harter Drive
Redondo Beach
Los Angeles
338
90°%
304
28
9,464
$12.06
14 Cerritos Bahia Marina
6289 E. Pacific Coast Highway
Long Beach
Los Angeles
265
80°%
212
29
7,685
$9.50
15 California Yacht Marina
Berth 202 #36
Wilmington
Los Angeles
262
93°%
244
40.3
10,559
$10.84
16 Holiday Harbor Marine
Berth 201
Wilmington
Los Angeles
200
80°%
160
32.5
6,500
$9.88
17 Newmark's Yacht Centre
Berth 204
Wilmington
Los Angeles
250
750/6
188
35
8,750
$9.25
18 Yacht Haven Marina
Berth 202 #35
Wilmington
Los Angeles
165
88°%
145
42
6,930
$10.00
19 Cabrillo Way Marina
2800 Miner Street
San Pedro
Los Angeles
340
99%
337
47.9
16,286
$17.27
20 Holiday Harbor Marina
241 Watchorn Walk, Berth 34
San Pedro
Los Angeles
287
95%
273
36.2
10,389
$13.57
21 San Pedro Marina
950 Sampson Way
San Pedro
Los Angeles
85
97%
82
45
3,825
$10.00
22 A Sunroad Resort Marina
955 Harbor Island Dr.
San Diego
San Diego
582
800/0
466
41.9
24,386
$20.11
23 Bay Club Marina
2131 Shelter Island Dr.
San Diego
San Diego
134
100°%
134
36.6
4,904
$17.28
24 Cabrillo Isle Marina
1450 Harbor Island Dc
San Diego b:
San Diego
411
60°%
247
39.5
16,235
$21.51
25 Chula Vista Marina & RV Resort
550 Marina Parkway
Chula Vista.
San Diego
531
70°%
372
35.5
18,851
$13.67
26 Glodette Bay Marina
1715 Strand Way
Coronado
San Diego
100
100%
100
37.8
3,780
$17.74
27 Harbor Island West Marina
2040 Harbor island Drive
San Diego
San Diego
577
80%
462
36.7
21,176
$16.70
28 Marina Cortez
1880 Harbor Island Drive
San Diego
San Diego
477
60%
382
38.1
18,174
$16.85
29 Marriott Marina
333 West Harbor Drive
San Diego
San Diego
405
100°%
405
44.3
17,942
$21.44
30 Shelter Cove Marina
2240 Shelter Island Drive
San Diego
San Diego
149
62°%
122
38
5,662
$18.43
31 Shelter Island Marina
2071 Shelter Island Drive
San Diego
San Diego
188
94%
177
46.2
8,686
$21.10
32 Sun Harbor Marina
5104 N. Harbor Drive
San Diego
San Diego
94
96°%
90
44.9
4,221
$17.03
33 Campland on the Bay
2211 Pacific Beach Drive
San Diego
San Diego
120
90°%
108
25
3,000
$11.63
34 Driscoll Marina
1500 Quivira Way
San Diego
San Diego
170
95°%
162
37.3
6,341
$11.44
35 Marina Village Marina
1936 Quivira Way
San Diego
San Diego
'497
89%
442
30.4
15,109
$12,40
36 Sea World Marina
1660 South Shores Road
San Diego
San Diego
208
90°%
187
26
5,408
$10.50
37 Seaforth Marina
1677 Quivirs Road
San Diego
San Diego
232
96%
223
33.9
7,865
$11.91
38 Oceanside Harbor
1540 Harbor Drive North
Oceanside
San Diego
783
100%
783
32.1
25,134
$11.86
39 Dana West Marina
24500 Dana Point Harbor Drive
Dana Point
Orange
980
93°%
911
28.5
27,930
$16.10
40 Newport Dunes Resort Marina
101 North Bayside Drive
Newport Beach
Orange
450
92%
414
33
14,650
$29.00
41 Davenport Marina
4052 Davenport Drive
Huntington Beach
Orange
65
95%
62
29
1,885
$12.50
42 Harbor Marina
3335 West Coast Highway , ,
Newport Beach
Orange
52
96%
50
40
2,080
$37.50
43 Swales Anchorage
2888 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach
Orange
56
100°%
56
34
1,904
$17,50
44 Lido Marina Village
3400 Ya Oporto #14
Newport Beach
Orange,
75
92%
69
52
3,900
$42.00
45 Bayshore Marina
101 Shipyard Way, St G
Newport Beach
Orange
134
98°%
131
40
5,360
$35.00
46 Villa Cove Marina
101 Shipyard Way, St. G
Newport Beach
Orange
42
98%
41
35
1,470
$31.50
47 Balboa Marina
101 Shipyard Way, St. G
Newport Beach
Orange
132
98°%
129
35
4,620
$34.00
48 Bayside Marina
101 Shipyard Way, St G
Newport Beach
Orange
102
98°%
100
40
4,080
$37.53
49 Lido Yacht Anchorage
101 Shipyard Way, St. G
Newport Beach
Orange
251
100°%
251
40
10,040
$40.00
50 DeAnza Bayside Marina
300 East Coast Highway
Newport Beach
Orange
219
80%
175
30
6,570
$24.00
51 Balboa Yacht Basin
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach
Orange
172
100°%
172
37
6,364
$24.03
52 Dana Point Marina Company
34555 Casitas Place
Dana Point '
Orange
1,365
98%
1,338
-30
40,950
$16.77
MARINA SURVEY 2011
Southern California
Total
Occupancy
Occupied
Average Total Bertt- Average
No. Name Address Ci CountyBerths
325
Rate
94°�
Berths
306
Len th LF Rate
36.5 11,863 $14.00
53 Peters Landing Marian 16400 PCH 5t 108 Huntington each Orange
16,076
87.5°h
13,780
36 567,260 $18.09
Totals
a-'
,2 ooT sf4e- L a 45 N m yo+ ss iot7
MARINA SURVEY
Southern California
Total
Total Occupancy Occupied Average Berthing Average
No. Name Address C' county Berfhs Rate Berths Length LF Rate
1 Anacapa tsland Marina
3001 Peninsula Road
Oxnard
Ventura .
438
92%
403
32
14,016
$11.56
2 Bahia Cabrillo Yacht Landing
4200 S: Harbor Blvd.
Oxnard
Ventura
84
90%
76
35
2,940
$7.75
3 Channat islands Harbor Marina
3850 Harbor Boulevard c
Oxnard.
Ventura
500
96%
480
32
16,000
$7.65
4 Peninsula Yacht Anchorage
3700 Peninsula Road
Oxnard
Ventura
362
90%
326
35
12,670
$7.75
5 Vintage Marina
2850 S.; Harbor Blvd.
Oxnard
Ventura
395
99%
391
32
12,640
$9.38
6 Ventura Harbor Village Marina
1.583 Spinnaker Drive .
Ventura
Ventura
167
92%
154
50
8,350
$8,55
7 Venturadsie Marina
1363 Spinnaker Drive
Ventura
Ventura
560
90%
504
40
22,400
$11.50
• 8 Ventura West Marina
1198 Navigator Drive
Ventura
Ventura
550
96%
528
38
20,900
$9.95
9 Say Club Marina
14015 West Tahiti Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
251
100°/6
251
35
8,785
$10.86
10 The Boatyard Marina
13555 Fiji, Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
108
98%
108
35
3,780
$13.00
11 Marina City Club
4333 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
354
98%
347
33
11,682
$10.90
12 Marina Harbor Anchorage
4422 Via Marina. Ste. 715
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
449
95%
427
45
20,205
$16.00
13 Pler44
13575 Mindanao Way
Marina dei Rey
Las Angeles
364
96%
349
24
8,736
$10.50
14 SMYC Marina
13589 Mindanao Way
Marina del Rey
Los Angeles
200
100%
200
30
6,000
$10.33
15 Tahiti Marina
15900 Tahiti Way
Marina del Ray
Los Angeles
214
98%
210
35.54
7,606
$17.43
16 Villa Del Mar Marina
13999 Marquesas Way
Marina del Rey
Las Angeles
209 100%
209
45
9,405
$15.67
17 King Harbor Marina
208 Yacht Club Way
Redondo.Beach
Los Angeles
827
90%
744
33
27,291
$9.85
18 Port Royal Marina
555 N. Harbor Drive
Redorido Beach
Las Angeles
337
92°A
310
.30
10,110
$11.60
19 Portofino
255 Portofino Way
Redondo Beach
Los Angeles
234
98%
229
35
8,190
$11.43
20 Redondo Beach Marina
181 N. Harbor Drive
Redondo Beach
Los Angeles
68
99%
67
35
2,030
$10.50
21 Alamitos Bay Marina
205 Marine Drive
Long Beach
Los Angeles
1,970
100%
1,970
30
59,100
$9.30
22 Cerritos Bahia Marina
6289 1 . ftc tic Coast Highway
Long Beach
Las Angeles
254
100%
254
28
7,112
$8.61
23 Long Beach Shoreline Marina
450 E. Shoreline Drive
Lang Beach
Los Angeles
11830
100%
1,830
35
64,050
$8.80
24 Rainbow Marina .
200 B Street
Long Beach
Los Angeles
97
100%
977
36
3,492
$9.25
25 California Yacht Marina
Berth 262#W
Wilmington:
Las Angeles
266
85%
228
35
9,310
$9.50
26 Cerritos Yacht Anchorage
Berth 205.0
Wilmington
Los Angeles
90
100%
90
25
2,250
$7.75
27 Holiday Harbor Marina
Berth 201.
Wilmington
Los Angeles
200
95%
190
30
6,000
$8.50
26 Island Yacht Anchorage #1 & #2
801 Henry Ford Avenue, Berth 205-D
Wilmington
Los Angeles
100
99%
99
39
3,900
$9.00
29 Leeward Bay .
611 Henry Ford Avenue, #1
Wilmington
Los Angeles
180
100%
180
32
5,760
$7.50
30 Lighthouse Yacht Landing
Berth 205-13
Wilmington
Los Angeles
75
79%
59
35
2,625
$9.25
31 Paclfrc Yacht Lending
Berth 203 (Pod of Los Angeles)
Wilmington
Los Angeles
180
100%
180
30
5,400
$8.50
32 Yacht Centre
Berth 204 .
woman"
Los Angeles
240
95%
228
35
8,400
$6.00
33 Yacht Haven Marina
Berth 202#36
WIlmington
Los Angeles
168
98%
165
38
6,384
$9.00
34 AI Larson Marina
1046 S. Seaside
Terminal Island
los Angeles
128
99%
127
30
3,640
$7.00
35 Cabrillo Marina
224 Whalers Walk
San Pedro
Los Angeles
890,
97010
863
35
31,150
$13.00
36 Cabrillo Way Marina
2800 Miner Skeet
San Pedro
Los Angeles
530
95%
504
30
15,900
$7.50
37 Holiday Harbor- Cabrillo Marina
241 Watchorn Walk. Berth 34
San Pedro
Los Angeles
284
98%
278
36.2
' 10,281
$10.57
36 San Pedro Marina
950 Sampson Way
San Pedro
Los Angeles
95
100%
95
45
4,275
$9.50
39 Balboa Marina
101 Shipyard Way, Ste. G
Newport Beach
Orange
132
100%
132
35
4,620
$20.87
40 Balboa Yacht Basin
829 Harbor Island Dr.
Newport Beach
Orange
172
100%
172
35
6,020
$20.00
41 Bayshore Marina
101 Shipyard Way, Ste. G
Newport Beach
Orange
134
100%
134
40
5,360
$22.60
42 Bayside Marina
101 Shipyard Way, Ste. G , ,
Newport Beach
Orange
101
100%
101
40
4,040
$29.37
43 DeAnza Bayside Marina
300 Fast Coast Highway
Newport Beach
Orange
220
100%
220
35
7,700
$17.00
44 Harbor Marina
3335 West Coast Highway
Newport Beach
Orange
52
100%
52
40
2,080
$25.00
45 Lido Marina Village
3400 Via -Oporto #104
Newport Beach
Orange
75
100"A
75
50
3,750
$35.00
46 Lido Yacht Anchorage
101 Shipyard Way, Ste, G
Newport Beach
Orange
251
100%
251
40
10,040
$22.00
47 Newport Dunes Resod Marina
101 North Bayside Dr.
Newport Beach
Orange
450
100%
450
26
12,600
$16.75
48 Swaies Anchorage
2888 Bayshore Dr.
Newport Beach
Orange
56
100%
56
35
1,960
$18.00
49 Villa Cove Marina
101 Shipyard Way, Ste. G
Newport Beach
Orange
42
100%
42
35
1,470
$21.36
50 Davenport Marina
4052 Davenport Drive
Huntington Beach
Orange
65
100%
65
30
1,950
$9.25
51 Peter's Landing Marina
16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 108
Huntington Beach
Orange
325
100%
325
35
11,375
$11.50
52 Sunset Aquatic Marina
2901-A Edinger
Huntington Beach
Orange
450
950/0
428
35
15,760
$17-00
MARINA SURVEY
Southern California
Total
Total Occupancy Occupied Average Berthing Average
No. Name Address City County Berths Rate Berths Leath LF Rate
53 Dana Point Marina Company
34555 Coultas Place
54 Dana West Marina
24500 Dana Point Harbor DL
55 A Sunmad Resort Marina
955 Harbor Island Dr.
56 -Bay Club Marina
2131 Shelter island Dr.
57 Cabrillo Isle Marina
1,450 Harbor island Dr.
58 California Yacht Marina
640 Marina Parkway
59 Chula Vista Marina & RV Resort
550 Marina Parkway
60 Glorletta Bay Marina
1715 Strand Way
61 Gold Coast Anchorage
2353 Shelter island Drive
62 Half Moon Anchorage
2131 Shelter island Drive
63 Harbor island West Marina
2040 Harbor island Drive
64.1Foews Crown isle Marina
4000 Coronado Bay Road
65'Marina Cortez
1680 Harbor island Drive'
66 Marriott Marina
333 West Harbor Drive
67 Shelter Cove Marina
2240 Shaker Island Drive
68 Shelter island Marina
2071 Shelter island Drive
69 Marina Kona Kai
1551 Shaker Island Drive
70 Sun Harbor Marina
5104 N. Harbor Drive
71 Campland on the Bay
2211 PadGc Beach Drive
72 Dana inn & Marina
1710 West Mission Bay Dr.
73 Dana Landing
2630 Ingraham
74 Driscoll Mission Bay
1500 Quivlra Way
75 lsiandis Marina
1441 Quivira Way
76 Marina Village Marina
1936 QriMm Way
77 Sea Worid Marina ''
1660 Seoul Shores Road
78 Seafath Marina -
1677 Qutvih Road
79 Oceanside Harbor
1540 Harbor Drive Nath
Totals
Dana Point
Orange
11365'
100%
1,365
3286
44,8$4
$1212
Dana Pairit'
Orange
980
100%
980
30.34
29,733
$11.96
San Diego
San Diego
BOB
93%
565
40
24,320
$18.00
SanVago
San Diego
160
100%
160
35
5,600
$11.50
San Diego
San Diego
450
99%
446
35
15,750
$16.09
Chula vista
San Diego
355
90%
320
34
12,070
$10.00
Chula Vista
San Diego
561
98%
550
35
19,635
$9.90
Coronado
San Diego
100
98%
98
24
2,400
$10.25
San Diego
San Diego
35
90%
32
50
1,750
$12.50
San Diego
San Diego
165
100%
165
36
.5,940
$10.50
San Diego
San Diego
620
100%
620
38
23ABO
$1226
Coronado
San Diego
81
100%
81
30
2,430
$13.50
San Diego
San Diego
525
100%
525
35
18,375
$12.00
San Diego
San Diego
446
91%
405
45
20,070
$15.49
San Diego
San Diego
161
100%
161
35
5,635
$14.25
San Diego
San Diego
189
9894
165
46
8,505
$11.98
San Diego
San Diego
523
99%
518
40
20,920
$14.50
San Diego
San Diego
100
100%
100
44
4,400
$13.50
San Diego
San Diego
234
100%
234
26
6,084
$9.00
San Diego
San Dego
140
100%
140
30
4,200
$7.90
San Diego
San Diego
80
100%
8Q
38
3.040
$7.97
San Diego
San Diego•
213
100%
213
40
8,520
$9.85
San Diego
San Diego
187
i00%
187
40
7,480
$1200
San Diego,
San Dego
634
95%
602
30
19,020
$9.90
San Diego
.X San Diego
198
100%
198
24
4,752
$8.25
San Diego,
} San Diego
232
100%
232
35
8,120
$8.75
Oceanside
San Diego
950
100%
950
32
30,400
$9.60
27,055
97`Yo
26,350
34.35
929,242
$11.72
C
ti
SANtII B,1lRRARA NAR80R
Sante Barbara Marina'
VSKTURA.HARBOR:
Ventura. hest Marina Phase 16,7
Venture West Marine Phase 27
Ventura lets xarfna
Ventura llerbor.VII149.9
;ubt0tais
CBAMHEL 1W.M.S HARBOR
Channel islands Marinal0
Vintage MwIna6 •
Anocapp:l'sti Mirine6+T
Peninsull Yecht Anabarape
Channel islands Lendinv
Ventura Co. Small Soil Marinas
Venture Cs.Caemll Fishing Marinas
Sakti Cabrilt* Marinab
Pacific Corinthian Marina
Subtotals
MARINA DEL REY
Tahiti ?tsrina10,7
lstetxisr Merinat •
Neptune Marina
Deauville Marinal0
Vlile dot lisp Marine
Sar Harbor Merirmt
Dolphin herlmle '
Tradwinds Karim
Holiday Harbor Marina
Mariners bay -
Cats Line
ay_Cations Yacht Anchorage
SANTA BARBARA TO SAM DIEGO
JANUAtW. 1992-\.
Al! stips, End.Tles1 Effective
Double Slips,
Na Slips Avg. Site Hates/LP Mate 110, SURE Rates/LF Nean�
1,008 321 $ 5.61-S. 7.22 7-90 984 15.61-9 7.22 '$6.30.
single stip03
Ra. Sthm Rate -RAE Kear
391
341
$ 8.51-S 9.49
&-91
0
- - -
- -
387
t 8.51-5 9.49
49.04 j
164 '
371
S 8.95-5 9.15
6-91
0
- - -
» - -
140
S 8.95-S 9.15
$9.05
675
321
$ 8.20-S 9.10
&.91
0
- - -
- -
650
S 6,20-S 9.10
$8.50
481 ,
i.7.304 8.03
, 6-87
,-J$$
S 7.30-$ 8.03
$7,51
�0
--
1.418
155.
$7.51
1,177
'
$e.7
515
301
$ 6.76-S 8.21.
7-90
0
-
- - -
455
t 6.76-5 7.63
$6.99
356 "
381
s 5.37-5 8.64
10-90
170
3 7.88-S 0.32
$5.05
176
S 5.17-S 8.64
$8.16
480.
321
S 9.25-510.95
6-91
0
- - -
- - -
459
S 9.25-S1O.51
$9.67
369
- 301
5 7.OD
790
0
-•-
- - -
35a
$ 7.00
$7.00
38
251
S5.50
390
0 '
' - •,
- -
52
$ 5.50
55.50
120
221
S 6.42
10-91
120
$ 6.42
36.42
0
- - -
- - -
•� 67
341
$ 5.81 :
1-90
67
$ 5.81
$5.81'
0
• - -
- - -
90
401
S 8.06-5 9.29
3-91
0
- - - . -
- - -
03
# 8.0&-5 9.29
59.08
__15-2
351
S 7,50
7.91
n
$ 7.50
ST
-m
- .$7.50
57.50
2,295
369
$7.10
1,715
$7.92
232
364
$13.57-$20.53
7.91
Of
- • -
- -
181
x13.57-316.67
$14.49
247
35b
$10.00-516:52
4-91
0
- -
-
230
$10.00-513.12
$11.11
199
301
x10.33-$14.17
5-89
0
- - -
184
S10.33411.38
110.54
466
321
310.50-$15.75'
5-90
0 .
- - -
- - -
395
510.50-514.75
$11.08
•205
321
$1b.80-515.00
4-91
'0
- - -
- - -
186
$10,80414.00
' $12.55
257
°'. 321
510.50.515.75 -
5-90
0
• - -
- - -
237
SiO.50.615.00
•$11.94
47g
321
,$ 9.60-515.75
!#10.00-$14.50
4-91
0
-
-
408
S 9.60-$13.50
$10.83'
157
301
1 -in
0 _
- - -
- - •
•145
510.00413.50
510.78
19b
241
3 8.50411.00'
10-89
.0
- - _
_ - -
183
1'8.50-511.00
$9.28
404
A
310.30415.00
11-90
0
- - -
- - -
369
510.30-614.75
$11.53
160
271
S 7.75.5 9.75
4-89
0
- - -
- - -
148
S 7.75-5 8.15
$7.94
0
a
r
Ali slips, "
Tiesi .' Effective
gaubtt Stipa
5tn2ta stipis
No. Ulm Avo,
SSlza
Rates/LF
e e fig.
Stipf
RntealLF Keen
ilioes _. StiRatealLF
Kean
MARINA DEL REY (Continued)
Marina del Rey Hote17017
377
31*
;l10. 6=$t1i.15,
4.91
0,
^ - -
319 510.36413.86
111.07
Pier•44, 77 dct Rey?
414
260
$10.00412.66
4-91
203
5 8.33412.60 $8.50
164 S10.00-111.86 '
$10.38
SMYC Msr1tw7
192
300
510.67=x13.97
3-91
0
- _ - ^ ..
164 S10.67411.39
SIMS
Aegis -Cat
115
310
510.00•$16.00
11-89
0
- - - - - -
105 S10.00-112.00
$11.46-
11.46.Haring
MarineHarbor #1 L 0240
614
310
s10:10417.50
1-91
0
- - - - -
$52 $10.10-515.50
$10.93
Marine City Ctub6,7,10
_R3_
349.
;11.00-;17.00
5-91
Subtotals
5,048
210
U.5D
4,266
511.16
%IMO MOOR
King Harbor Marina?
868
270
5 8.60-115.45
5-90
0
_ - ...
794 S 8.60-#15.43
$10.65
Port Royal Marine
336
290
$ 9.21-S10.00
6-90
0
- - ...
325 S 9.75410.00
S9.49
Portofino
232
320
$10.50-$14.50
4-91
0
... -
207 x10.50.313.00
$11.53
Redondo Seach_Marina7*96
31'
$10.15-$16.40
7-90
510.15-#15.53
Sif•02 p
Subtotals
1,498
0
1,384
110.53
LOS AWLE6^LONE BEACH HARBOR
Cabrillo Marinas
1,180
300
1.7.90
7-89 '
0
- - . _
11,132 $ 7.90
$T.90
Fteitz Brothers Marini
450
301
S 6.25
12.89
0
- -
375 $ 6.25
56.25
Holiday Harbor -set! Pedro
200
25'
S &so-$ 6.80
8-91 ",l
0
- - - - • -
180 $640
$6.80
Sart Pedro Marine
Lew"a say Marina
96
150
0
409
270
$10.50
S 8.00.5 B.Sp
-89
8-91
0
,0
• - - - - -
_ - - - - -
78 $10.50
139 S 6.09-# 8.50
510.50
$5.16
Holiday Harbor-ltilmington
183
290
$ 8.25-5 8.50
191
4
S3.25 $5.25
158 S 8.25-S 6.50
30:11
Caltfamis Yacht Kerins
264
360
$ 8.60-#11.00
10-89
0
- -
244 5 8.60.511.00
19.53
Yacht Haven t
165
420
$ 7.50
1-89
95
s 7.5.0 17.50.
60' $ 7.50
*r.50
Pacific Yacht Landing
178
310
S 8.00-s 8.25 •
1.89
13
$ 8.00-S 8.25 $8.13
161 ' S 8.00-$ 8.25
38.13
Tacht Ctntre
256
410
S 0.00-11 9.00
11.90
0
- - - -
243 $ 8.00-S 9.00
#8.66
Colonial Yacht Anchorage
135
211
$ 8.00
11-90
0
- - - - -
125 $ 8.00
' $4.00
Cerritos Yacht Anchorage
'95
350.
S7.35
1-91
0
^ - -
93 $7.35
=7.35
Island Yacht Anchcraye-16
103
370
$ 8.82
1=89
0
- - - ..
93• $ 8.82
Se.82
Island Yacht'Anchorags-26
140
38*
$8.32
1-84
0
- - - - - -
128 # Ben
38.82
Terminal Island Marine
250
320
5.7.00-S T.25
1-89
30.
S 7.00 $7.00
210 S 7.0.0-5 7.25
$7.15 '
Lighthouse Yacht Landing
75
310
s 8.00
.10.87
0
- - - - - -
67 S 8.00
58.00
At'Lerson Marina
128'.
320
S 8.00 -
9-90
0
- - - - ^ -
}28 $ 8.00
$8.00
Cabrillo Yacht Rosin
110
301
S 6.50
1-88
D
^ - - - - -
110- S 6.511
$6.50
Shetter Point Marina
7Si
,28�, ' - S 7,00
1-85
10
S 7.00 $7.00
62 $ 7:00
57.00
o' tam Marinas
1,693
_ 360
s 9:10-S 9.73.
7-91
1693
S 9.104 9.7,3 $9.19
0 - - -
-
shoretine Harbor Marira>3
131
3T!•
! 9.10
7-91
_
$ 9.10 19.10
1_10 • - -
' "
Subtotals
6,055
1976
.$9.05
3,786
$7.88
ALAMITOS DAY
Long Beach Marines
Cerritos Bahia Marina6
Subtotals
ANAHEIM BAY
Smoot Aquatic Marinn6
Peter.!a Lsnd{tffib�a
Huntington Harbor'say Clab
subtotal:
NEi1PORT BAY
Lich Yacht Anchore966 ,
Harbor club Merinab
9ayshore Marina6 .
Saates Anchorage
Balboa 'Marina
Balboa Yacht iss0-6
Bayside mar Ifta ,a
De Anna Bayaido Karina6
K -Port D(m*s:11ar1ne6�11
SubtoLMtt
DANA POINT HARBOR
Dana Point Harina7
Dane *test Marina6,7
Subtotal.
O!CEAN$t05• HARBOR
Oceanside Martha$
MTSSIO4 BAY
sea florid Marina at Perez Govt
Dena Lending
Islandia Marina
Saatorth Marina
Marina Vitlege6
Mission Nay Aar1na6
Bahia Hotel Marina
Dam Inn Marina
Caagtand Karinii '
Subtotals
Alt 5tips, End T1e91 Effective Double SLipaZ Singte SLipe3 l
No. Stipa &U. Sita Rates/LF date Ao: sties • RateslLP -meank Ro SURE atee mearA
2,001
3i 0.
S a3tl3. 9-73
7-91
39'
S 9.10 S9.t0
1,962
S 8.36-$ 9.73
$8.83
-- 1
28%
$ 8.15•S 9.55.
1141
♦•Q
- - -
5
$ 8.15•$ 9.08
68.49
2,272
$14.07
0
- - - - - -
39
$9.10
2,221
0•
$8.79
276
300
x 9.16-510.43
1x-91
. 10
S0.16 $9.16
24a
S 9.16.510.43
$9.95
268
370
S10.64-512.64
2.91
0
- • - - -
248
510.64.512.64
$11.29
,16-6
300
3 9.30-112.50
7-91
_Q
-
�
i S 9,.50-S12.50
*11.7.0
710
$7.25
_ 1
270
10
19.16
650
$ 7.50
$10.76
285. 340 510.29.314.29 6.91
66 331 #13.40-x17.80 6-91
134 310 $12.00.$16:90 2-90
58 320 $12.03 -*16.00 1-91
132 320 $12.50 -*14.25 12-89
172 360 $12.54 7-91
93 350 510.65-S15.40 7-90
258 121S , $11.211.414.67 7.90
m 13A ,.511.70-$14.95 a-91
1,428
1,462 290 S 9.45-S 9.90 0-91
_F 310 S 9.13-x13.42 6-91
2,435.
0
- • - - ,
225
$12.79-$14.ZP
$13.25
0
- - - - -
62
$13.40-$17.80
$15.55
0,
- - - - .
130
$12.00.516.50
513.73
310
$ 8.25-5-8.75
7-91
$12.03-x16.00
$14.07
0
- - - - - -
112
512.50-314.25
$13.54
0•
- -
161
i12.54
$12.54
0
- - - -
58
514.40415.40
$15.04
10
7it14.50-#74.67 514.57
,208
511.28.413.50
$13.25
$ 7.79
$7.79
47
300
S 7.25
10
:' $14.57
1.773•
$7.25
$13.33
0 - - - ' 1,361 - $ 9.45-$ 9.90 19.77
•-• _ S913-311.37 34.75
0
873 • 310 S '6.60 . 849 0
198
250
$ 7.15
1-90
198
$ 7.15
$7.15
164
.300
S 6.00-$ 6.50
1-89
B4
S 6.00-S 6.50
56.27
205
310
$ 8.25-5-8.75
7-91
198.
3 8.25-5 8.75
$8.34
250 +'
320
5 7.25
6-90
230
S 7.25`
$7.25
640
300
S 8.13-# 9.45
11-91
0
- -
- -
.225'
360
S 7.79-S 9.74
1-90
36
$ 7.79
$7.79
47
300
S 7.25
2-99
44
$ 7.25
$7.25
146
30,
S 7.25
1-89
140 •
$ 7.25
$7.25
_ 1
270
$ 7.50
11-91
Q
$ 7.50
2.030
-
- - ---
1050
$7.41
2,243 39.7b
7.68-S 8.60 $8.21
,z
0 ---•--
52 $ 6.00-5 6.50
$6.15
0 _ _
- • -
628 S 8.13.5 9.45
$3.60
153 S 8.34-5 9.15
$8.61
0 -•_
...
• _ l
w DIEGO SAT
Half Moon Anchorage
Bay Club Hotel Marine
Shatter•lstand,tm Marinal0
Kona Marina
Korea Kai Club Marina6
Shatter Cove Marina
Stat Harbor Kerins
Marriott Marina6
ChulasYista`Marina6
Coronado Cays Msr1na6
Gtoriette Bay Marina
Cabrillo'lsle Marina6,7
Marine eortst6
Harbor let" Nest Asrina6,7
sunroad Mar1na6
Catifornia' Yacht Marina6
Subtotal:
ALL Stipa; Erx1•Tieal Effective Boubte Stipa? sin`gte Stipa's
No, 51iFs dY„g, Size Rates/LF_to goofis ios Rates/IF Kearr4 go.' Mips Rates/LF i,{„e4l)7
170 33+ 17.44 8.95
154 34t $ 8.45-x 9.45'
187 36+ # 9.00510.00
260 w 341 S 8.25
264 $00 * 8.75
184 371 S 8.75
130 451 S 7.75-1 a 35
417 4331 510..01_S11.81
5S2 359 S 6.67-5 7.67
56- 40t $ 5.10
109 351 x•8.30 -S 9.75
450 39+ $ 9.42-$11.21
580 _ 341 s 9.00.510.15
604 37+ t 6.42-510.15
600 42+ S 4.24-513.14
'557 3a+ S 6.50^5 7.5q
5+074• '
32=OZ4 •
8440
1ZT
$ T.90-$ 8.05
1-91
162
S 8.45
11.90
152
$ 9.00
1.91
50
s 8.25
1-91
96
S 8175
5-91
166
18.75
7-91
126
S 7.75.5 8.25
5-91
6
$11.81
6-89
111
$ 7.11
1-83
51
$5.10'
6-91
20
S 8.304 9.75
5-91
0
- - -
11-91..
0
- - -
7.91-
ST:41
418
5-91
56.78
5-90
0
- - -
.
1007
$8.74
78
LIM
S8.74
67.932
5.8.60
$5.60
$5.45
, 8 '
$ 9.20
$8.45
49.90
0
- - •.
• ,
$8.25
197
S 8.25
$3.25
58.75
166
S 8.75
$8475
58.75
6
S 8.75,
58.00
$7.97
•0
- - -
$11.81
396
x10.01-510.71
$9.58
ST:41
418
S 6.67-S 7.31
56.78
$5.10.
0
- - -
-
$8.74
78
S 8.30-S 9.75
S8.74
.. -
1406
$ 9,42-510.14
59.68
- - -
554
S 9.00-5 9.90
59.15;
- - -
545
s 9.44-S 9.65
$9.50
- - -
329
510.54-511,22
$10.60 .
347
s 6.50-5 7.15
Sb_65
1$�85�.113
59.03
X3[,6344
1 includes regular single slips, doubt• stips, end ties, and premium main channel slips; excludes bulkheod/seaaatt ttes.'
2 Doubts slips are xider'and have ewe, boats in such as, indicated on exhibit As in the Addends Section -
3 single *tips include only those 'having flotation on each aide as indicated on Exhibit A.
4 Based on the nu*er*of atips at each rata, or evertive stip size. .
5 Rates trictude $0.10 adjustment for possessory interest tax.
6 Rates include adjustment for uti}Iity fee, dock, box feet club dues or other required fat.
7 Anchorage has a fixed 'rant for each stip and overhangs are included or permitted. Cateutaticns to convert to a tinsal foot rate are based upon the
• maxim a.bost size permitted. -
8 Total stip ccounj excludes those leased to yacht clubs or brokerages.
+ 9 Certain'stips rented to commercial users at varying rates; ween rate excludes such slips.
10 premium mein chamel'ireaular) slips sxot►ded farm singtes/doubte stip oount, rate, and mean calculation.
N
formerly Marina Dunes Yacht Anchoragat
f
nL
Received After Agenda Printed
January 26, 2016
Item No. 20
From: Torres, Michael
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 12:00 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fwd: January 26, 2016 Council Meeting: Agenda Item No. 20
Attachments: City of Newport Beach 1-25-16.pdf, ATT00001.htm
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Pemberton, Sheri@SLC" <Sheri.Pemberton @slc.ca.gov>
Date: January 25, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM PST
To: "DDixon@NewportBeachCa.gov" <DDixon@NewportBeachCa.gov>,
"TPetros@NewportBeachCa.gov" <TPetros@NewportBeachCa.gov>, "dduffield@newportbeachca.gov"
<dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>, "KMuldoon@NewportBeachCa.gov"
<KMuldoon@NewportBeachCa.gov>, "EdSelich@roadrunner.com" <EdSelich@roadrunner.com>,
"SPeotter@NewportBeachCa.gov" <SPeotter@NewportBeachCa.gov>, "keithcurryl@vahoo.com"
<keithcurrvl@vahoo.com>
Cc: "mtorres@newportbeachca.gov" <mtorres@newportbeachca.gov>, "dkiff@newportbeachca.gov"
<dkiff@newportbeachca.gov>, "Andrew Vogel (And rew.Vogel@doi.ca.gov)"
<Andrew.Vogel@doi.ca.gov>, "Lucchesi, Jennifer@SLC' <Jennifer. Lucchesi @sic.ca.gov>, "Scheiber,
Sharron@SLC' <Sharron.Scheiber@slc.ca.gov>, "iamesbnetzer@aol.com" <iamesbnetzer@aol.com>,
"Connor, Colin@SLC" <Colin.Connor@slc.ca.gov>
Subject: January 26, 2016 Council Meeting: Agenda Item No. 20
Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers,
Attached is a letter from the California State Lands Commission staff concerning Agenda Item No. 20 on
the January 26, 2016 meeting agenda.
Please contact me at (916) 574-1992 or (916) 574-1800. If you have questions or would like to discuss.
Thank you,
-Sheri
Sheri Pemberton
Chief, External Affairs & Legislative Liaison
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue — Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916)574-1800
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
January 25, 2016
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S.MAIL
Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
(916) 574-1800 Fax (916) 574-1810
California Relay Service TDD Phone 1-800-735-2929
from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2922
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1800
Contact Fax: (916) 574-1810
File Ref: G 09-02
RE: Agenda Item No. 20; January.26, 2016 City of Newport Beach Council
Meeting
Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers:
This correspondence pertains to Agenda Item No. 20 on the Newport Beach
City Council (City) January 26, 2016 meeting agenda, which addresses fair market
rent for moorings located upon tidelands in Newport Harbor. Notwithstanding the City's
staff report and as set forth below, the California State Lands Commission
(Commission) staff has substantive concerns regarding the draft appraisal report
prepared by Netzer & Associates that is the basis for setting fair market rent at $35.00.
per linear foot for offshore moorings on tidelands and at $17.50 per linear foot for
onshore moorings. Commission staff therefore requests that the City defer action on
Agenda Item No. 20.
As the trustee of state tidelands and, submerged lands located within the City of
Newport Beach, including Newport Bay, the City is entrusted with considerable
discretion and a commensurate fiduciary responsibility in determining how statewide
public trust needs may best be met. This discretion operates within the parameters of
the California Constitution, the common law Public Trust Doctrine, the terms of the
statutory trust grant, and the duties set forth in Public Resources Code section 6009.1.
Importantly, the City is entrusted to manage these state owned lands and resources in
trust for the benefit of all Californians without subjugation of statewide interests to the
inclination of local interests and affairs. Importantly, the City's specific legislative trust
grant requires that the City receive fair market rent for the use and occupation of state
tidelands. While the Commission is not typically involved in day-to-day management
operations for legislatively granted public trust lands, it has oversight authority to review
the management of public trust lands and assets by local government trustees to
ensure consistency with the City's statutory trust grant and the relevant provisions of
the law, including that fair market rent is received for the use of sovereign tide and
submerged lands.
Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers
January 25, 2016
Page 2
Commission staff appreciates that the City accepted its suggestion to obtain an
appraisal for its rental determination for moorings located on tidelands in the Newport
Harbor. Unfortunately, based on our review the appraisal lacks important supporting
discussion and analysis in a number of areas, which may affect the determination of fair
market rent. Initial comments on the appraisal are enclosed and intended to help
ensure that the City reaches a justifiable fair market rent determination. Staff comments
and questions are limited to the valuation -related issues. A more detailed review would
result in additional comments, questions and edits.
Commission staff respectfully requests that the City defer.action on this item to ensure
that the City has obtained a sound appraisal that will inform and support a fair market rent
determination for on and offshore moorings located on state-owned public tidelands.
Additionally, staff reserves the opportunity to comment further on the City's mooring transfer
policies as staff is still reviewing those policies and their consistency with applicable law.
Sincerely,
SHERI PEMBERTON
Chief, External Affairs Division
Enclosure (1) Appraisal review comments and questions
cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager, City of Newport Beach
Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney
Jennifer Lucchesi, Executive Officer, State Lands Commission
Andrew Vogel, Deputy Attorney General
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
January 21, 2016
Property: Fair Market Rent, Offshore & Onshore Moorings,
Newport Beach, California
Appraiser: James B. Netzer, MAI
Date. of Value: January 6, 2016
The following comments and questions pertain to the more important valuation -related
issues noted during the review of the draft appraisal provided. The comments.and
questions presented below do not represent a formal appraisal review of the draft
appraisal and are intended to provide input to the City of Newport Beach.
• Page 3, Scope of Investigation: No information is provided as to the scope of the
appraiser's investigations and analyses.
• Page 4, Specific Assumption: The specific assumption states that it is beyond
the scope of the appraisal to assess the highest and best use of each submerged
tideland property. Why is it beyond the scope and why isn't is disclosed on Page
3 under Scope of Investigation?
• Page 10, Market Rent Survey: When were the rental rates for the two
comparables set?
• Page 12, CPI Analysis: The appraiser assumes that the 1976 and 1995 rents set
by the City reflect Fair Market Rent. This assumption should be -included as an
extraordinary assumption in the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions section of
the report. Further, the appraiser should include some discussion as to how the
1976 and 1995 rates were set in order to substantiate that assumption.
• Page 12, CPI Analysis: The appraiser should include discussion as to why the
figure based on the trending of the 1995 figure is judged to be more reliable.
• Page 13, Ratio Analysis: The appraiser states that the ratios derived from three
marinas not used in the analysis have different user profiles and are not reflective
of the ratio applicable to this analysis. The appraiser should. provide additional
discussion as to how the user profiles differ from the subject and what is
considered an applicable ratio.
• Page 13 Ratio Analysis: How was the 14% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index
established? Specifically, what is the basis for 14% and how were the seven
marinas determined?
• Page 15, last paragraph: The appraiser relies on the Newport Mooring
Association's representation relating to dinghy storage rates. Is there data to
support this representation?
• Page 16, Reconciliation: Three of the four indications of value are based on
analyses of different mooring sizes. The indication of value for the Comparable
Rentals Approach is based on moorings under 30 feet and up to 54 feet. The
Ratio'Analysis is based on 30-31 feet. The Tidelands Approach is based on 40
Comments & Questions Page 2
Fair,Market Rent; Offshore and Onshore Mooring Rates
feet. The CPi An method is not based on a specific mooring size. The
appraiser should discuss this and take it into account in the Reconciliation.
• Page 16, Reconciliation: Why is there no dinghy adjustment for the Tidelands
method?
• Page 17, 3`d paragraph: The appraiser states that the Ratio Analysis is not
judged to be a reliable measure of Fair Market Rent. He states that ratios'can
vary dramatically, but his analysis was based on one ratio. The appraiser should
provide more discussion on why this approach is not reliable.
• . Page 17, 0 paragraph: The appraiser states that there are merits to the
Tidelands analysis, but does not discuss them. The appraiser should provide
more discussion on the merits.
• Page 17, 5t" paragraph: The appraiser gives most weight to the Comparable
Rental and CPI approaches, with the CPI Analysis setting the low end of Fair
Market Rent and the average of the Comparable Rental Approach setting the
high end. As the appraiser states on page 12, "'The application of the CPI method
over a long period reflects general price trends, but does not take into
consideration changes in market conditions for a specific good or service within a
market area." Because the CPI may not accurately reflect trends in real estate
market rents and because it is not known how the 1995 rent was set, this
indication may not be a reliable indicator of market rent.
• The draft appraisal report provided did not contain the Addenda,
As stated above, these comments and questions reflect only the more important
valuation -related issues. There are additional comments, questions, and edits that
would be noted in a more detailed review.
ITEM 20
NETZER & ASSOCIATES / -
Real Estate Appraisal & Consulting DATE g
January 26, 2016
File No. 2015-024
Chris Miller
Harbor Manager
City of Newport Beach, Harbor Department
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Appraisal Services
Fair Market Rent — Off -shore & On -shore Moorings
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Miller:
I am in receipt of the letter form Sheri Pemberton, Chief, External Affairs & Legislative Liaison
with the California State Lands Commission, which is dated January 25, 2016 and applies to the
above referenced matter. In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the "Comments &
Questions" enclosure that is dated January 21, 2016, and have the following responses:
• Page 3, Scope of Investigation: There is no specific appraisal standard as
to the length or the extent of the description of the "Scope" of the appraisal and a
Statement of the "Scope" is included on Page 3. I believe that reading the report
assists the reader in understanding the Scope of the assignment.
Page 4, Specific Assumption: The Purpose and Function of the appraisal
is very specific — estimate the Fair Market Rent of the respective moorings. The
underling assumption is that the on -shore and off -shore moorings represent the
Highest and Best Use of the associated tidelands; therefore, there is no analysis of
an alternate Highest & Best Use.
Page 10, Market Rent Survey: On the basis of my interview with the
Dockmaster at the Balboa Yacht Club (BYC), the exact date the rental rate was
established was not available, but was reported to be the 2010-2011 time frame.
As set forth in the narrative of my report (Page 11)), The operator noted that the
rental rates are dictated by the Unified Port of San Diego and the last increase
was in 2007.
• Page 12, CPI Analysis: I do not know the specific steps taken to establish
the "market" rental rates in 1976 and 1995. I discussed the rates with Chris
Miller. With respect to the 1976 rates it was noted that there is a "general
agreement" that the 1976 figure of $6.00 per linear foot was the "market".
The 1995 rate was established by Resolution 95-77, which states:
170 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite 206 ♦ Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ♦ Phone (949) 631-6799 ♦ FAX (949) 6314631
Chris Miller
January 26, 2016
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has considered the fees
recommended by the Harbors and Beaches Committee and finds them to be fair,
equitable and reasonably consistent with charges for mooring permits of a similar
nature in other locations.
In addition, the Grand Jury Report in 2006/2007 notes that the rates established in
1995 is "equivalent to the Fair Market Value for the use of said Tidelands. "
On the basis of the above, I am of the opinion that the assumption that the 1975
($6.00/LF) and the 1996 ($20.00/LF) mooring rates reflect "fair market rent" is
well supported and reasonable.
• Page 12, CPI Analysis: I believe this is discussed in the report. The
"market rent" established in 1995 trended by the CPI to the current date is more
reliable as the rent was established at a period closer to the date of value and
trended over a shorter time period.
• Page 13, Ratio Analysis: The user profiles of the harbors excluded from
the Ratio Analysis (Pillar Point, Monterrey & Morro Bay) are more commercial
in nature. As such, the payment of the slip fee as compared to the mooring fee
(ratio) is more of a business decision, compared to Newport that has a high
percentage of pleasure craft and the slip/mooring decision is more a function of
discretionary income.
As set forth in the report (Pages 13 & 14) I concluded that a ratio of 25 -percent is
appropriate. This was based on the analysis of the slip/mooring fees reported by
the operator of the marina and moorings in America's Cup Harbor (San Diego),
which is primarily a pleasure craft harbor similar to Newport Harbor.
• Page 13, Ratio Analysis: The 14% figure is included "as a point of
reference" only and not used in the analysis. The seven marinas included in the
"Newport Harbor Marina Index" were established by a prior City council with
input from the City staff and the harbor users. Combined, they are considered to
reflect the "Average" slip fees in Newport Harbor.
• Page 15, last paragraph: As set forth in the appraisal (Page 15) the city
charges $25 for dinghy storage, the American Legion charges $35 or $45 and
Bayside Village charges $80.00 (dry storage); therefore, I concluded that $50.00
was bracketed by the market data and was reasonable for adjustment purposes.
• Page 16, Reconciliation: As set forth in the analysis, the moorings in San
Diego accommodate a "range" in boat lengths but rent for the same absolute price
regardless of vessel length; therefore, the table presents the price per linear foot
for the maximum vessel length. In the analysis I used the range reflected, but
focused on the 30 -foot length as a measure of central tendency. This length was
Chris Miller
January 26, 2016
Page 3
used in the Ratio analysis as I had information on both 30 -foot slips and 30 -foot
moorings.
There are no guidelines for the square feet of Tidelands required to support a
"typical" mooring field; therefore, I relied on the moorings (40 -feet) in a specific
row in the J Field as delineated in the report presented by the NMA. If a 30 -foot
mooring is assumed, and the row would accommodate the same number of
moorings (16) the annual rent would increase to $29.47/LF from $26.53/LF. This
difference would not change my conclusions.
• Paragraph 16, Reconciliation: The Tidelands Analysis assumes the
tidelands are rented to a specific user and no longer available for public use. The
user could decide to leave the area "unimproved" and the rental rate does not
reflect a specific use; therefore, I did not make an adjustment for dinghy storage.
In retrospect, the analysis probably does warrant an adjustment for dinghy storage
as the rental rate is for tidelands associated with an upland parcel that has access.
• Paragraph 17, 3rd paragraph: The analysis is based on a single ratio
because only one of the data points uncovered was judged to be applicable to the
subject. See two comments above regarding Page 13.
• Page 17, 4d' paragraph: The primary merit is that it is based on the
premise that there is a rental market for tidelands that can be encumbered for use
by a private party; however, in estimating the Fair Market Rent for individual
moorings the merits are outweighed by the number of assumptions (rent, typical
mooring Sq.Ft., etc...) that need to be made.
• Paragraph 17, 5t' paragraph: See comments above regarding Page 12 and
the CPI Analysis.
Overall the questions appear to be concerned with the amount of explanation included in the
report, rather than the analysis and the conclusions presented. I put more focus on researching
the applicable market data and presenting supportable analysis and conclusions based on the
market data uncovered; therefore, the amount of boilerplate and narrative included may be
somewhat abbreviated. On the basis of the comments and the above, I believe my analysis and
conclusions are well supported and reliable and I see no reason to re -think the analysis or amend
my report.
Respectfully submitted,
James B.Wet~zer, MAI
Califomia 6qleral Appraiser No. AG003143
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED
1
ITEM NO:4-!L2:0
JR., Governor
_ . [D TE :JENNIEER.L000MESI, Executive Officer
(916) 574-1800 Fax (916) 574-1810
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 ter,, f I } ,, * California Reloy Service TDD Phone 1-800-735-2929
s from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2922
Contact Phone: (916) 574-1800
Contact Fax: (916) 574-1810
Cdfir��f�r�a >9.�J'
January 25, 2016
File Ref: G 09-02
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S.MAIL
Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Agenda Item No. 20; January 26, 2016 City of Newport Beach Council
Meeting
Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers:
This correspondence pertains to Agenda Item No. 20 on the Newport Beach
City Council (City) January 26, 2016 meeting agenda, which addresses fair market
rent for moorings located upon tidelands in Newport Harbor. Notwithstanding the City's
staff report and as set forth below, the California State Lands Commission
(Commission) staff has substantive concerns regarding the draft appraisal report
prepared by Netzer & Associates that is the basis for setting fair market rent at $35.00
per linear foot for offshore moorings on tidelands and at $17.50 per linear foot for
onshore moorings. Commission staff therefore requests that the City defer action on
Agenda Item No. 20.
As the trustee of state tidelands and submerged lands located within the City of
Newport Beach, including Newport Bay, the City is entrusted with considerable
discretion and a commensurate fiduciary responsibility in determining how statewide
public trust needs may best be met. This discretion operates within the parameters of
the California Constitution, the common law Public Trust Doctrine, the terms of the
statutory trust grant, and the duties set forth in Public Resources Code section 6009.1.
Importantly, the City is entrusted to manage these state owned lands and resources in
trust for the benefit of all Californians without subjugation of statewide interests to the
inclination of local interests and affairs. Importantly, the City's specific legislative trust
grant requires that the City receive fair market rent for the use and occupation of state
tidelands. While the Commission is not typically involved in day-to-day management
operations for legislatively granted public trust lands, it has oversight authority to review
the management of public trust lands and assets by local government trustees to
ensure consistency with the City's statutory trust grant and the relevant provisions of
the law, including that fair market rent is received for the use of sovereign tide and
submerged lands.
Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers
January 25, 2016
Page 2
Commission staff appreciates that the City accepted its suggestion to obtain an
appraisal for its rental determination for moorings located on tidelands in the Newport
Harbor. Unfortunately, based on our review the appraisal lacks important supporting
discussion and analysis in a number of areas, which may affect the determination of fair
market rent. Initial comments on the appraisal are enclosed and intended to help
ensure that the City reaches a justifiable fair market rent determination. Staff comments
and questions are limited to the valuation -related issues. A more detailed review would
result in additional comments, questions and edits.
Commission staff respectfully requests that the City defer action on this item to ensure
that the City has obtained a sound appraisal that will inform and support a fair market rent
determination for on and offshore moorings located on state-owned public tidelands.
Additionally, staff reserves the opportunity to comment further on the City's mooring transfer
policies as staff is still reviewing those policies and their consistency with applicable law.
Sincerely,
SHERI PEMBERTON
Chief, External Affairs Division
Enclosure (1) Appraisal review comments and questions
cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager, City of Newport Beach
Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney
Jennifer Lucchesi, Executive Officer, State Lands Commission
Andrew Vogel, Deputy Attorney General
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
January 21, 2016
Property: Fair Market Rent, Offshore & Onshore Moorings,
Newport Beach, California
Appraiser: James B. Netzer, MAI
Date of Value: January 6, 2016
The following comments and questions pertain to the more important valuation -related
issues noted during the review of the draft appraisal provided. The comments and
questions presented below do not represent a formal appraisal review of the draft
appraisal and are intended to provide input to the City of Newport Beach.
• Page 3, Scope of Investigation: No information is provided as to the scope of the
appraiser's investigations and analyses.
• Page 4, Specific Assumption: The specific assumption states that it is beyond
the scope of the appraisal to assess the highest and best use of each submerged
tideland property. Why is it beyond the scope and why isn't is disclosed on Page
3 under Scope of Investigation?
• Page 10, Market Rent Survey: When were the rental rates for the two
comparables set?
• Page 12, CPI Analysis: The appraiser assumes that the 1976 and 1995 rents set
by the City reflect Fair Market Rent. This assumption should be included as an
extraordinary assumption in the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions section of
the report. Further, the appraiser should include some discussion as to how the
1976 and 1995 rates were set in order to substantiate that assumption.
• Page 12, CPI Analysis: The appraiser should include discussion as to why the
figure based on the trending of the 1995 figure is judged to be more reliable.
• Page 13, Ratio Analysis: The appraiser states that the ratios derived from three
marinas not used in the analysis have different user profiles and are not reflective
of the ratio applicable to this analysis. The appraiser should provide additional
discussion as to how the user profiles differ from the subject and what is
considered an applicable ratio.
• Page 13 Ratio Analysis: How was the 14% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index
established? Specifically, what is the basis for 14% and how were the seven
marinas determined?
• Page 15, last paragraph: The appraiser relies on the Newport Mooring
Association's representation relating to dinghy storage rates. Is there data to
support this representation?
• Page 16, Reconciliation: Three of the four indications of value are based on
analyses of different mooring sizes. The indication of value for the Comparable
Rentals Approach is based on moorings under 30 feet and up to 54 feet. The
Ratio Analysis is based on 30-31 feet. The Tidelands Approach is based on 40
Comments & Questions Page 2
Fair Market Rent, Offshore and Onshore Mooring Rates
feet. The CPI Analysis method is not based on a specific mooring size. The
appraiser should discuss this and take it into account in the Reconciliation.
• Page 16, Reconciliation: Why is there no dinghy adjustment for the Tidelands
method?
• Page 17, 3`d paragraph: The appraiser states that the Ratio Analysis is not
judged to be a reliable measure of Fair Market Rent. He states that ratios can
vary dramatically, but his analysis was based on one ratio. The appraiser should
provide more discussion on why this approach is not reliable.
• Page 17, 4th paragraph: The appraiser states that there are merits to the
Tidelands analysis, but does not discuss them. The appraiser should provide
more discussion on the merits.
• Page 17, 5th paragraph: The appraiser gives most weight to the Comparable
Rental and CPI approaches, with the CPI Analysis setting the low end of Fair
Market Rent and the average of the Comparable Rental Approach setting the
high end. As the appraiser states on page 12, "'The application of the CPI method
over a long period reflects general price trends, but does not take into
consideration changes in market conditions for a specific good or service within a
market area." Because the CPI may not accurately reflect trends in real estate
market rents and because it is not known how the 1995 rent was set, this
indication may not be a reliable indicator of market rent.
The draft appraisal report provided did not contain the Addenda.
As stated above, these comments and questions reflect only the more important
valuation -related issues. There are additional comments, questions, and edits that
would be noted in a more detailed review.