HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Declaring a Portion of City-Owned Property at the Balboa Yacht Basin (BYB) Located at 829 Harbor Island Drive as Surplus Land - CorrespondenceReceived after Agenda Printed
November 14, 2023
Item No. 9
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Errors in Council Item 9 (declaration of surplus property)?
Date: November 14, 2023 10:59:24 AM
From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:58:47 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Wooding, Lauren <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office
<CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Errors in Council Item 9 (declaration of surplus property)?
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
;ontent is safe.
Lauren,
In reading more carefully the proposed resolution declaring a portion of the Balboa
Yacht Basin to be surplus property (Item 9 on the 11/14/2023 City Council agenda), I
notice what appear to be a number of errors, and hope they can be corrected before
the Council acts on the item.
1. Exhibit A contains a number of lines, and it is not at all obvious which, if any, of
them correspond to APN 050-210-02, the thing described in the resolution as the
"Property." APN 050-210-02 turns out to be the entire 7 acres of the BYB. Shouldn't
the boundaries of the "Property" be depicted on Exhibit A?
� F..��Iefo�l4sG
KOF� ow..u[ coynr y. ,Oun �Y.f
42
�
y rSLANR
�
�
s
is
L+
N
,
t
ci)
LD
LM
ac�c��scoac��a�•
43
Idr rsrpE My J ��
Nr
OAfY£
214
rn
o
F 1
02 a3 07 +Dg
x-21
2. Since portions of the "Property" are clearly devoted to an ongoing public use, I do
not believe they would qualify as surplus land. Only the "Premises" might. So, on
page 9-5, 1 believe the second paragraph was intended to read:
"WHEREAS, the ProperPremises would fall within the definition of "surplus
land" pursuant to California Government Code Section 54221 such that the City
must comply with the Surplus Land Act in order to pursue new opportunities for
its redevelopment, and"
3. Likewise, on page 9-6, the last two sentences of the CEQA declaration in Section
5 appear to contain errors. Since I don't think the City plans to declare any part of the
Property "exempt," I can only guess they were intended to read:
"Declaring the Propefty exemp Premises surplus will not result in a physical
change to the environment. Once the City follows the procedures set forth in the
Surplus Land Act, if the City ultimately enters into a lease and/or other
arrangement to redevelop the Pr-eper=fy Premises, that future agreement and/or
project will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA. "
4. At least equally important, but slightly harder to correct, to become "surplus
land," California Government Code Section 54221(b)(1) requires the Council's
action to be "supported by written findings" as to why "the land is surplus and
is not necessary for the agency's use."
In the resolution as currently written, I am unable to locate any declaration that
the City neither needs nor has plans to use the Premises for a public use.
If it declares it has no such need or plans, and if the City's intent is to treat the
Premises as investment and revenue property, that would seem, under Section
54221(c)(2)(A) to be a legitimate non -agency "surplus property" use. But it
would seem that needs to be stated.
Instead, all I find is a declaration that the buildings on the Premises "are
approaching the end of their useful life and require substantial capital to
renovate." That hardly explains to the public what the City plans to do with the
Premises or why that land would be regarded as surplus.
Since the written findings described above are a required element of the
Section 54221(b)(1) definition, I do not see how, without them, the
"Premises" could "fall within the definition of "surplus land."
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
Received After Agenda Printed
November 14, 2023
Agenda Item Nos. 3 & 9
From: Jesus Hernandez
To: Dent - City Council; City Clerk"s Office; rarant(ftewportbeach.ca.aov; Stapleton. Joe; Avery, Brad;
Ikleinman(alnewportbeachca.gov; tomjohnsonCalme.com; nsantana(c voiceofoc.org; infoCalspon-newportbeach.org;
Reid. Boaaiano(@slc.ca.aov; Kate. Huckelbridge0coastal.ca.aov; corrice.j.farrar((Dusace.armv.mil;
Jennifer. Lucchesi( slc.ca.gov
Subject: Comments on agenda item #3 and #9 on 11/14/23 agenda
Date: November 13, 2023 2:11:00 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attac
cgtent is safe.
Dear Newport Beach City Council,
I respectfully object to agenda item #3 (Ordinance 2023-16-allowing
extensions/encroachments of private piers/docks beyond U.S. Pierhead lines. It is not right to
allow private pier owners to extend past the established U.S. Pierheadlines throughout
Newport Harbor. Encroachments beyond the U.S. Pierhead lines into public waters should not
be tolerated for obvious reason including the fact that it is against the law as established by
US. Code section 33 subsection 424 regarding U.S. Pierhead lines in Newport Bay and the fact
that any encroachment must be approved by the federal government.
I respectfully disagree (opposed to) with agenda item #9 (deem Balboa Yacht Basin as
surplus property). This is an important municipal and public property that should not be
deemed surplus. The city has always managed this property and related buildings for the
benefit of harbor users. These buildings are important contributors to the tidelands fund and
should remain in the public domain. It is improper to deem this land "surplus". Has the city
consulted with State Lands Commission on this item?
It is unbelievable that this agenda item showed up out of nowhere. The last city council
discussion on this matter was to simply study highest and best use, not deem the property as
"surplus" so that it may be developed for uses other than harbor uses. There needs to be
robust public discussion before considering this matter. How did city staff jump from "study
highest and best use" to "deem the property surplus so that it can be privatized' behind closed
doors?
Thank you for your careful consideration